Jaclyn Glenn

User rated ★★★★★(beautiful feet)

kraus
Member since 03/2014
♛2

2019-04-11 20:52:33

Agreed 💘😩

User rated ★★★★★(beautiful feet)

forgodssakeletmemakeanaccount
Member since 02/2015

2018-07-31 10:26:29

"used to" I find you sufficiently politically correct. No gulag for you (for now).

User rated ★★★★★(beautiful feet)

forgodssakeletmemakeanaccount
Member since 02/2015

2018-06-09 16:34:52

That's from a really old google hangout from 2013, someone paid her to show her feet as she talked. She still finds the fetish disgusting, I'd wait a few years when her popularity diminishes and she'll find ways to "accidentally" incorporate her feet in her videos.

User rated ★★★★★(beautiful feet)

legend00115
Member since 08/2010
♛54

2018-06-12 20:48:19

She really is a true cutie but she's not worth waiting for her popularity to diminish...

User rated ★★★★★(beautiful feet)

legend00115
Member since 08/2010
♛54

2018-06-03 22:02:36

That's really too bad -- CENSORED. She is definitely --NOT ALL THAT!!!!

I think she's a cutie from her head to her Beautiful toes...even though she's not V Justice/E Stone/Claire Holt/Christian Serratos/Taylor Swift/Celine Farach/Jessica Perez/Georgia Karabinis/Lia Taylor/Kristen Bell/E Watson/Ria Rodriguez/Rachel Bilson LEVEL, along with thousands more...she just deserves to be mentioned but she's not hot enough to trash the site...I guess some of the comments on her page may be a touch over the top...oh well...

Marantz
Member since 02/2014
♛11

2018-02-18 15:50:15

100% agree

User rated ★★★★★(beautiful feet)

forgodssakeletmemakeanaccount
Member since 02/2015

2017-09-18 09:34:04

A relevant reply

User rated ★★★★★(beautiful feet)

Mike_W
Member since 01/2012

2015-07-12 13:39:40

Well spoken. That kind of objectifying attitude helps no one. But that said, I honestly think her position of foot fetishes is a pose. I think she says it because she thinks she's supposed to say it. A lot of women think they have to act like foot fetishes are gross and horrible because otherwise they'd be seen as abnormal.

The unhygienic thing is of course false. Feet are certainly no dirtier than hands, and during sex hands go everywhere.

BackInBlack60
Member since 09/2010
♛62

2015-07-12 16:00:32

There are, as usual, two sides to this argument... Pixxxie's and Grik's. As usual, Pixxxie's is well thought-out and accurate; as usual, Grik's is a shot from the hip in the dark, and totally wrong.

Grik says, "It's a foot fetish site! Wrong place to expect decorum and PC. It's a boys' club, and boys will be boys." This ignores the fact that men can choose to be gentlemen, anytime and anyplace they *choose* to be. But...

Men are pigs, and most women know this, so we don't need to keep proving it again and again. Or as one of our users here , has stated on his feet links site (/>
"People with fetishes are seen as strange, be used as proof of that perception. In fact, we should enforce a higher standard of behavior or morality on ourselves."

WORD! When women or 'normal' people come here and see what some of the worst among us have written on these walls, we *all* get lumped into that category of "creepy, weird foot fetish perverts." It hurts everyone involved, but they don't care. The Guild members who *approve* that crap to go public are just as culpable.

DeadlyPixxxie
Member since 06/2010
♛28

2015-07-12 17:11:52

SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK, ANGUS!

Iluvfeet
Member since 11/2009
♛3

2015-07-12 17:32:13

I'm totally onboard with on this! There are users, including Guild members that make comments that are weird, gross, and bizarre that would turn off the common women. We need to clean it up.

Elway
Member since 02/2014
♛7

2015-07-12 18:09:38

There are no qualifications to becoming an approver. All approved comments that are inappropriate need to be called out so that approvers (like me) learn what is and what isn't acceptable.
That's also why the needs to give Guild Knights the ability to delete approved comments.

Iluvfeet
Member since 11/2009
♛3

2015-07-12 18:35:00

- "give Guild Knights the ability to delete approved comments." That's a noteworthy suggestion, which has been made to , and his response was a resounding no. Also, some of the Guild members responsible for the creepy comments are probably close to becoming GKs. Yes, I know, scary thought!

BackInBlack60
Member since 09/2010
♛62

2015-07-13 16:15:44

>"There are no qualifications to becoming an approver. That's also why the needs to give Guild Knights the ability to delete approved comments."

Great ideas both, but as said, we ran a poll on both (and won), they were both discussed with Eli in Fireside Chat, and as usual, "Dr. No" summarily rejected both. You have to know his personality: He wants to be *inclusive* of everyone, but conversely wants no one but him (even his #2, who is his *friend*) to have any real control or power to do anything*, trusts no one (probably with good reason based on the type of "people" that frequent this place), thinks he knows best in every situation, is slow to change and nearly impossible to persuade when good ideas are presented. I've personally stopped even trying, out of frustration of beating my head against an immovable wall.

*The one exception to this is his insistence that 'any logged user' can anonymously remove *content* (pictures, the bread & butter of the site) at any time for any reason. We've suggested this reporting be 'backstopped' by requiring a Magenta, TU or GK to verify reports before any pic is removed. "Nope, too much power in the hands of too few." So, instead, we wake up with entire galleries (two that I know of) entirely removed overnight by *one* user with dozens of accounts, and who knows how many wrongly reported pictures site-wide.

Elway
Member since 02/2014
♛7

2015-07-13 16:36:57

I know I know. Hopefully if you say it often enough, might change his mind. Sort like the whole gay marriage debate. If not, get ISIS to plan a cyber attack on this site and replace it with pictures of woman wearing burkas.

BackInBlack60
Member since 09/2010
♛62

2015-07-13 16:53:50

LMAO! Actually, we had one of those characters at the college where I (among other things) ran a computer lab. So this hard-core Moslem dude tells us how he never eats pork, fasts during Ramadan, and claims he never even *looks* at women. Then one day he left his jump drive in a PC in the lab... and it had "Girls Gone Wild" and other pr0n on it. I guess lying hypocrites come in all flavours! ;)

User rated ★★★★(nice feet)

forgodssakeletmemakeanaccount
Member since 02/2015

2015-07-14 13:12:41

Accusing someone of "objectification" is the act of shaming sexual desire, acting as if thinking and voicing the opinion that a certain person is physically attractive in our eyes is automatically reducing them from a complete human being with personality and feelings, that couldn't be further from the truth.

The fact that some people here say strange things does not necessarily mean they reduce the person they talk about into an object of pleasure. It's their own weird way of saying "I like her". Sure there are shallow people ( men AND women) who only care about looks but that does NOT render the act of admiring and getting sexually aroused by someones body is reducing them to "objects" of sexual pleasure. That's the biggest BS there is.

BackInBlack60
Member since 09/2010
♛62

2015-07-16 17:28:06

It's not BS in the cases where users ( springs immediately to mind, among others) have actually *posted* things like, "She exists ONLY to fulfil our visual desires" and similar comments. That is 'objectification.' has also made comments about the rest of the woman only being there to keep the feet alive for his use, etc. So, clearly, there *is* some of that attitude present here among some individuals.

But you are correct it is wrong to 'broadbrush' all admiration of aesthetic aspects of a person to that term, because we don't all do that.

User rated ★★★★(nice feet)

forgodssakeletmemakeanaccount
Member since 02/2015

2015-07-16 22:58:57

I went on the defensive about the word because many misuse it to describe the mere appreciation if you will of someones physical attractiveness or the sexual arousal that usually follows as reducing the person to a mere object. Exactly though, I agree the two cases you quoted are pretty clear cases of objectification.

User rated ★★★★★(beautiful feet)

Mike_W
Member since 01/2012

2015-07-25 03:58:30

forgodssakeletmemakeanaccount Sorry, I don't buy any of that. You can't sit there and redefine objectification and then try to tell me it's OK. "She exists for your sexual pleasure" is objectification, end of discussion.

User rated ★★★★(nice feet)

forgodssakeletmemakeanaccount
Member since 02/2015

2015-07-27 14:19:49

Don't know if you saw my reply to BiB but we already established that. But "objectification" is most of the time falsely used to shame sexual desire and the expression of it.

User rated ★★★★★(beautiful feet)

Mike_W
Member since 01/2012

2015-08-16 15:32:50

That premise isn't particularly supportable without examples. Can you provide evidence the therm is "most of the time" used in that fashion?

BackInBlack60
Member since 09/2010
♛62

2015-08-16 15:45:56

How about we just objectify women and their feet, enjoy doing so, have some fun, and quit arguing about it? If they don't like it, they can click away from here and write their elected representatives or the Admin via 'Contact Us' button.

User rated ★★★★(nice feet)

forgodssakeletmemakeanaccount
Member since 02/2015

2015-08-29 09:35:39

Because simply every time someone makes a remark of someone elses (mainly a man making a remark about a woman) looks there comes a fanatic to tell us that's objectification. No, that's totally wrong. So if someone was to say she looks great or she has sexy feet/boobs/behinds etc that could be interpreted and is interpreted many times as objectification, which for the reasons I've explained in previous comments here is not.

There are valid examples of objectification like "she exists for your visual pleasure anyway" but most of the time it's just the crazy ramblings of some fanatics who can't stand men or women expressing their admiration for someone elses looks.

Grik
Member since 05/2012
♛36

2015-10-16 18:13:49

The stuff above is hilarious, when read now. Back then when the new walls came up, it was all about class and integrity. Wonder what happened? Class, integirty, and a foot fetish website are mutually exclusive concepts. Time has told. Not to mention the trannies being given a free reign.

 
Member since 04/2014

2015-12-15 10:06:13

"*The one exception to this is his insistence that 'any logged user' can anonymously remove *content* (pictures, the bread & butter of the site) at any time for any reason. We've suggested this reporting be 'backstopped' by requiring a Magenta, TU or GK to verify reports before any pic is removed. "Nope, too much power in the hands of too few." So, instead, we wake up with entire galleries (two that I know of) entirely removed overnight by *one* user with dozens of accounts, and who knows how many wrongly reported pictures site-wide."

Oh no. Two galleries wiped? I bet that took all two seconds to revert it given that this is built on a wiki engine. Given the alternative, I would rather see every image I've ever replaced with a higher resolution version (most of my uploads are to replace crappy low res images) wiped and all my work be for nothing than see a oligarchy. Meritocracies and democracies work far better, and given the community votes with it's feet rather well (look at what happened to Lord Lucan!) I'd suggest we embrace that democracy.

Montresor
Member since 03/2014
♛11

2016-12-25 01:14:36

and... loving it