They're cute. Cute ones are. Ugly ones aren't. I'll get to going out with a chick and at some point she'll say, "You have a foot fetish," to which I'll reply, "No, I don't think so-really." Next, she'll say, "Yeah, you do-you always say my feet are cute and sexy and you like rubbin' 'em, and I catch you looking at them when we're on the couch." In an effort to defend my self-perceived normalness I reply, "Yeah, I like you're feet, but they're cute; they're hot. I don't like unhot feet, so I don't have a foot fetish-do I? I mean, I like your fingers, too, but I don't like them swollen looking ones some girls have. Nothing against puffy fingered girls, lots of puffy fingered gals are sweet I'm sure. Would I not dig a gal cause she has puffy fingers? No. But I also wouldn't be all over her fingers saying how hot they are, lying essentially. So would you say cause I think you're fingers are gorgeous that I have a hand fetish? I just dig your feet."
All the while I know I have a foot fetish.
Another reason I'd say I don't have a foot fetish is because I think dude's feet are nasty. I think any dude who wears sandals should be sentenced to cleaning crocodile pens. (Unless you're my doctor) I do not want to see your feet dudes. So, if I had a foot fetish, wouldn't I like all types of feet, which would include dude feet? Or are fetishes solely heterosexual? Complicated stuff this foot fetish stuff, isn't it?
A main reason to believe I have a foot fetish (and this is where you folks who think my writing can sometimes be overtly sexual or perverted, should skip): When foot bearing season arrives, and gals start to tinkle their pretty little tootsies in public, I feel like I'm seeing a part of them I shouldn't be allowed to see. Growing up and living in Vermont means barefoot season is short-so when you finally, after 10 months of sock wearing season, do see a gal's bare pair of peds, it's like you're seeing, well, things you shouldn't see.