Freud, Feet, Fetishism: Pussy Foot or Penis Foot?

Experts agree. “The feature that makes the Pussy Foot even better than an actual foot is the pussy located on the sole of the foot. You can passionately fuck the foot in a way you’ve never been able to before. It is the perfect combination of foot and vagina” (JT's Stockroom).

Sure, make no mistake, everything's "better" with a pussy on it. But let's theorize! Is this pussy foot a species of fetishism when it offers "the perfect combination of foot and vagina"? Why is this combination "perfect"? Why must a vagina go on a foot and not a forearm? Perhaps the answer comes in the familiar adage: a cigar is not always a cigar, a foot is not always a foot. Yes, we need Freud!

Freud writes in his classic essay on fetishism:

To put it plainly: the fetish is a substitute for the woman's (mother's) phallus which the little boy once believed in and does not wish to forgo — we know why. What had happened, therefore, was that the boy had refused to take cognizance of the fact perceived by him that a woman has no penis. No, that cannot be true, for if a woman can be castrated then his own penis is in danger, and against that there rebels part of his narcissism which Nature has providentially attached to this particular organ. (205). Aversion from the real female genitals, which is never lacking in any fetish ist, also remains as an indelible stigma of the repression that has taken place. One can now see what the fetish achieves and how it is enabled to persist. It remains a token of triumph over the threat of castration and a safeguard against it; it also saves the fetishist from being a homosexual by endowing women with the attribute which makes them acceptable as sexual objects. In later life the fetishist sees other advantages in his substitute for the genital. The significance of fetishes is not known to the world at large and therefore not prohibited; they are easily obtainable and sexual gratification by their means is thus very convenient. The fetishist has no trouble in getting what other men have to woo and exert themselves to obtain. (206). Thus the foot or shoe owes its attraction as a fetish, or part of it, to the circumstance that the inquisitive boy used to peer up the woman's legs towards her genitals. (207)

In what seems to be a reversal of the Freudian position, the pussy-foot literalizes castration by actually depicting the pussy on the foot! The foot is no longer cherished as the pre-traumatic image, the last thing seen before glimpsing the traumatic site of castration. Rather, this sex-toy supplies no substitutions whatsoever: you get the foot and the very thing that makes you want to love the foot in the first place, the pussy. This is brilliant. It can be concluded, then, that this sex toy provides for a new kind of fetishism, one that is perhaps cynical, one that "knows" precisely the theoretical stakes of fetishism and that won't, contra Freud, "disavow" the absurdity or reality of fetishism, whereby the fetishist steals away to have a moment with his own idiosyncratic desire (see 208). Here, rather, the logic is: "I'd rather fuck a foot than a pussy; nay, I'd rather fuck a foot that IS a pussy!"

In some sense, however, Freud is right by getting it wrong: the sheer existence of this sex toy proves it. Why, after all, would anyone want to fuck a foot? Why was such as sex toy even imagined in the first place????