Request to Ban Incestuous Content

[shoedude123]

I'm not trying to offend anyone. This should be discussed.

If the fixation was on the shoes alone then it wouldn't be incestuous, but the fixation isn't on the shoes alone. If it was on the shoes alone, then we'd just go and buy a brand new pair from the shop (some do). But no, most of us like them worn - there is undeniably some sexual desire for the person who the shoes belong to.

Are they having actual intercourse with a family member? No. But they certainly are having a form of sexual relationship with them. It is therefore incestuous. Undeniably.

I have seen many posts on this forum of people pointing out that it is 'not right' to be fucking a family member's shoes. Personally, the thought of fucking a family member's shoes is disgusting. Why? Because it is incestuous. Many people on the forum share this opinion.

It is in the same way wrong as fucking the shoes of someone under the age of 18 is wrong.

[Mukyuu]

I disagree with it being incestuous content, and I feel also that this is not a good place to be going in general.

To the OP, let me ask you, hypothetically, if you do not like this particular content because you associate it with something illegal, do you also not like other kinds of content involving things that would/can be more clearly considered illegal, like "use" of people's property without their permission, taking candid pictures of people in private property without their permission, and so on?

[shoedude123]

I disagree with it being incestuous content, and I feel also that this is not a good place to be going in general.

To the OP, let me ask you, hypothetically, if you do not like this particular content because you associate it with something illegal, do you also not like other kinds of content involving things that would/can be more clearly considered illegal, like "use" of people's property without their permission, taking candid pictures of people in private property without their permission, and so on?

I'm less concerned about the legality of this than the operators of the website should be. I find it difficult to understand how anyone can 'disagree' with it being incestuous content. It really isn't something open to interpretation, it is self-evident.

To answer your question (which is open to interpretation): being a bit sneaky and 'borrowing' people's property without permission isn't good, but it's a damn sight better than violently mugging someone and stealing their property. One is a bit naughty, the other is straight wrong; incest belongs in the latter category as does underage stuff.

I'm not taking this too seriously. I don't care too much. I would rather just not hear about mothers and daughters. Also, it's probably a good thing to point out that although they may 'just be shoes', legal lines can still be crossed and fantasising about family members is unhealthy. A shoe fetish is 'a but weird' but it's harmless if practiced properly. family focused stuff it just bad-weird.

[kumshoe]

this is a fantasy site, come stories might be invented. no harm to anyone and no offense taken, new shoes could be the same exciting, but much better with some worn on them. i just dont see anything wrong here beside the fetish theme wich we have.

[hand_shoe]

direct sex is incest
thought and fantasy is not
thought and fantasy is not illegal
controlling thought should be illegal
controlling thought and fantasy is not permitted in a free country

go "control" yourself

[click123]

I disagree with it being incestuous content, and I feel also that this is not a good place to be going in general.

To the OP, let me ask you, hypothetically, if you do not like this particular content because you associate it with something illegal, do you also not like other kinds of content involving things that would/can be more clearly considered illegal, like "use" of people's property without their permission, taking candid pictures of people in private property without their permission, and so on?

I'm less concerned about the legality of this than the operators of the website should be. I find it difficult to understand how anyone can 'disagree' with it being incestuous content. It really isn't something open to interpretation, it is self-evident.

To answer your question (which is open to interpretation): being a bit sneaky and 'borrowing' people's property without permission isn't good, but it's a damn sight better than violently mugging someone and stealing their property. One is a bit naughty, the other is straight wrong; incest belongs in the latter category as does underage stuff.

I'm not taking this too seriously. I don't care too much. I would rather just not hear about mothers and daughters. Also, it's probably a good thing to point out that although they may 'just be shoes', legal lines can still be crossed and fantasising about family members is unhealthy. A shoe fetish is 'a but weird' but it's harmless if practiced properly. family focused stuff it just bad-weird.

By your point of view, cumming on anyone else` shoes without them knowing is rape, because hey, they didn't sign up for it and you know they wouldn't agree if they knew. And you're not borrowing, you're stealing it but you're putting it back so you don't get in trouble.

But lets talk about this being incest. First, this is the definition of incest, as defined by Google. "sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other." Now I'm pretty sure you can agree that's not incest unless the relative itself is a shoe. First of all there's no contact between the two individuals. They are not engaging in any sexual activity. They're not kissing, they're not touching their private parts, they're not having sex, etc. Sure, we get aroused by shoes, and most prefer them worn because on top of having a shoe fetish we also have a foot fetish.

I mean imagine you go take a piss, then you go to wash your hands, leave, then your mother goes to wash her hands, and she touches the same lever as you. Is that Incest? I mean incest is not defined by cumming. But hey you touched your dick then you touched the lever, then she touched it.. so it must be incest according to your logic. Damn, can you imagine what an incestuous population we are? Thank technology most airports have sensor valves, or imagine the amount of rape. But yeah... you're an idiot.

You are okay with taking others property without their permission and cumming on it, but not be okay with taking a relatives property without their permission and cumming on it. What?

And as someone else mentioned, there's a lot of made up stories, if you read the posts carefully you'll notice when people lie. Even so, some are true.

[hand_shoe]

if you truly find problems with it
then, please ask the moderators to remove your login
and leave us alone to our fantasy world
is masturbating to a picture considered rape ?
seriously ?

[68newman]

.

[68newman]

There is a complex psychology behind fetishes that isn't just to do with sex. I've been talking with my therapist about other issues, but of course the fetish has come up since it's a big part of my psyche. I told her I used my mom's shoes as a teen, as well as other stories of growing up in the household I did. I was ashamed to tell her this because, like you, I thought it was something sexual. She assured me it's not, it's actually about power. Doing something with my mom's property behind her back, to make up for other incidents where I felt powerless.

Part of our fetish is "getting away with something".

[Flatshoecum]

Saying using a relatives shoe for my pleasure is like saying my mother was having incestuous relations with me because she continued to wear heels around me after she had caught me with her shoe when I was 12. Thre is absolutely nothing incestuous about using a relatives shoes for our pleasure