Just curious

[Footlover28]

I've got a serious question because I am not sure what opinion to have about that issue.

What do you say about posted pictures of dead clebrities.
Well, I posted some of Grant Williams in my Different Celebs Thread, an actor passed away in 1985.

May it be necessary that they have gone a LONG time ago (like Mr. Williams)?

Please give me some feedback.
Thanks.

[alanmt]

i think it's creepy and just plain bad taste to post foot pics of dead people.

[tenchichan]

I think it's fine. I mean, I'm sure there are straight guys out there who still think Marilyn Monroe is hot. It's okay to be attracted to someone who is dead, just like it is okay to be attracted to a younger version of an older person.

Now if you're showing pictures of an actual dead body that's a completely different story, but I feel like it's completely fair game for older pics of famous people who may have passed away later on in life.

[Brody]

Post away. I loved the Grant Williams photos and there are plenty of actors long gone who are still the objects of my fantasies.

[ftlaudft]

Whether a person died yesterday or a hundred years ago, dead is dead and a body part is no more and no less than that - a body part. It should never be wrong to admire any body part, whether the owner of it is still here or floating about in the hereafter. Now, if you break into a mausoleum and try to copulate with a corpse, that's a no no and you need to upgrade your medication.

[BootsMcGraw]

...What do you say about posted pictures of dead c[e]lebrities[?]...
The only two rules about photo posting (at least, up until today) were:

* Males only, please. If there happens to be a woman in the photo, so be it. But males, only, preferred.

* All people appearing the photograph, including anyone in the background, must be over eighteen years of age. If any person in a photo even appears to be under eighteen, the management of the FootBuddies message boards reserves the right to delete said photo with no apologies or explanations.

Reading some of the responses in this thread, I now feel obligated to add the classic "squicks" to the list:

NO DEAD BODIES
NO SEX WITH ANIMALS
NO BODILY ELIMINATORY FUNCTIONS
NO VIOLENCE
NO HATEFUL ACTIONS

I don't think this will really affect anyone; since I have never in four years of moderating have ever needed to can a photo for those reasons.

[Footlover28]

...my question is harmless.

I never wanted to offend somebody with my picture posts.

So I will not continue posting pics of people who already died.

Thanks for all your answers.

[ftlaudft]

We still may need some clarification. Let's make a hypothetical example of a famous actor, Joe Peckerschmecker, who has lovely feet. Yesterday at the ski lodge someone took a picture of him lounging in front of the fireplace, and his bare feet were truly lovely to look upon. A few hours later he went out skiing and crashed into a tree, died instantly, and made a horrible mess to clean up. Shoes and socks flew off in the tragedy and someone took a photo of his barefoot corpse.

It seems to me that the first photo showing Joe barefoot in front of the fireplace should be allowed. It's a photo showing a body part of a person who was alive at the time the photo was taken. The second photo, showing the foot of a corpse, should not be allowed, since it's the body part of a dead person.

If we show no images of people who died a few minutes ago or a few centuries ago, we'll miss out on the beauty of Nefertiti, Marie Antoinette and all the historical greats who left us portraits. In a hundred years, most of us will be playing harps in the clouds and sniffing angel toes, so won't future generations get to see our pictures either?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Footlover raises an interesting question. By the way, our hypothetical actor claims to be 32, although friends report he is really 70, so age is not a factor.

[Footlover28]

That's an important point!

It just came to my mind that it could be creepy and weird to post such pics.
And I am not clear if there's a difference between Grant Williams (died 25 years ago) or e. g. Heath Ledger (died 2 years ago) and Patrick Swayze (died last year).

I know that there are many people admiring their work but is it at the same time ok to still admire their sexiness and especially their feet? I don't know exactly.

[Franz]

There are quite a number of extant estates of deceased performers that happily collect royalties and fees annually from admirers and fans of the performers, e.g., Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, etc. Indeed, many of these incorporated estates of dead performers themselves sell glamor pics of their 'benefactors' to interested fans--to make money of course. I appreciate the delicacy of your squeamishness on this matter, but there's no real reason for you to embargo pics of passed performers, barefooted or otherwise.

About 20 years ago I happened to meet a well-known actor in his late 50s whose feet had astounded me in my youthful days of boyhood. Not being particularly shy, I told the movie star that I had been in love with his feet when I was a boy. He didn't show any 'icks' over it. He grinned and said he was glad I'd enjoyed seeing his feet 'back when'. Encouraged, I ventured to ask him if he would mind taking his shoes and socks off for me so I could see his gorgeous feet again. (I knew that this great man had been a Boy of Summer all his life of course.) He said "Not at all"--and he took his shoes and socks off and let me see his beautiful size 11 bare feet. Yep, his feet were still gorgeous to me, and of course I told him so. He appreciated the compliment and offered his socks to me to keep as a momento. I happily took 'em. He's long gone now, but I still have those socks of his tucked away to remember him by.

[ropedfeet]

This is a very interesting thread topic. I had not seen it before tonight when something I read in FtLaud's last " Off Topic" post prompted me to look for it.

I think one thing that may be relevant to all this is that celebrities make it their life's mission to be seen and looked at, AND admired. That is what most of them are about, lets face it.
So going with that idea I would think most if not almost all of them would be very pleased to have people still looking at them and admiring them even after they are no longer " with us".

Anyway I thought that might be a point nobody had thought about regarding this topic.





I am not a celebrity, but I have posted many pictures of myself and/or my feet on this site, on sites like this one ,and other pictures on other types of sites as well. If those pictures please someone thats great. And if somewhere down the line after I am "not here" ( hopefully a long time from now) some guy finds an image of me on the "internets" that he likes to look at, or has a fantasy about it and he saves it and uses it to have some "fun" with, I think it would be just fine. It's like a little bit of yourself still "alive and out there" in the world. I think it would be kinda neat.

[Footlover28]

so I changed my mind.
Because it's a simple truth that it's allowed to admire celebrities for their work (for example by watcing the movies, listening to their music or whatever) although they are no longer with us.
And one important reason of admiring them is definitely because of their good lookings. Who would dare to doubt that?
So there is no existing reason to make a difference between the whole package or a special body part.

[alanmt]

still creepy...

[tenchichan]

I think it's also a little ridiculous because any actor whose feet we post pics of could die at any time. It certainly wasn't tasteless to look at Patrick Swayze's feet two years ago, but now that he's dead it's supposed to be taboo to have ever had an attraction?

Dead people were people at one point. Ya'll need to get over your squick and your issues with death and just enjoy what these people left behind. When people die we don't box everything about them and every feeling we have and bury it in the ground with their body.

[TheKing16]

I do feel uncomfortable when I see pics of Heath Ledger's feet posted. I could never get off on them because it just felt wrong.

[Franz]

TheKing15 and alanmt: Okay, you've registered your personal reactions to pictures of people who have passed being posted. All you guys need to do is simply refrain from viewing such pics. However, you do not have the SOLE right to expect or demand that the rest of us vacate our own reactions to such pics as apparently some sort of monument to your alleged sensitivities. If such pics "creep you out", then don't look at them, man. No-one is forcing you to view them. But don't attempt to make your personal reaction in effect "the rule of permissible law". Live and let live, in other words.

[alanmt]

well then tell me what is the point of having the message board? that's right, it's to give our opinions on said subjet matter...and i'm giving mine...so don't attempt to make YOUR personal reaction to my view any less valid.
oh, and by the way...still creepy.

[Brody]

Of course, a lot of people would find the whole idea of this board and of a male foot fetish "creepy". An ironic concept given some of the comments on this thread, eh? If you don't like the idea of a particular topic, don't look at it and don't get off on it.

[BootsMcGraw]

OK, we've revived this dead horse, and once again beat it to death.

Summary: Some men think it's good to revel in pics of men, whether they're here, or shuffled off this mortal coil. Others strictly want to see only the living. Both camps strongly support their views, and will probably not see eye-to-eye on this subject.

Topic closed. Thank you all for your contributions.