Agastopia
(pronounced agg-uh-stow-pee-ah)
Deriving visual enjoyment from the appearance of
a specific body part or parts (some suggesting the attraction must be fetishistic to cross the threshold from admiration to syndrome).
2011: A coining of etymologists Peter Novobatzky & Ammon Shea who included it in their 1999 book Depraved
English (sub-titled: "The most disgusting and hilarious word book ever", a title debatably hyperbolic but that adequately captured the intention). While not exhaustive, there was an entry for maschalephidrosis (runaway armpit perspiration), the construct being the Ancient Greek μασχάλη (maskhálē) (armpit) + hidrosis, from the New Latin hidrōsis, from the Ancient Greek ἱδρώς (hidrṓs) (sweat) + -sis (the suffix in medicine used to form nouns of condition) so there were certainly highlights. The construct of agastopia was the Ancient Greek ἀγα- (aga(s)-) (very) + -topia (a back-formation extracted from utopia (and other words) ultimately deriving from the Ancient Greek
τόπος (tópos) (place). Utopia was from the New Latin Ūtopia, the name of a fictional island
possessing a seemingly perfect socio-politico-legal system in the 1516 book Utopia by Sir Thomas More (1478–1535). The construct was the Ancient Greek οὐ (ou) (not) + τόπος (tópos) (place, region) + -ία (-ía) (the New Latin suffix, from the Latin
-ia and the Ancient Greek -ία (-ía) & -εια (-eia) which formed abstract nouns of feminine gender. More’s irony in calling a world in which
everything and everyone works in perfect harmony being best translated as “not
a real place” is often lost in modern use and the word probably has genuinely undergone a meaning-shift. Agastopic is a noun & adjective, agastopia is a noun and agastopically is an adverb; the noun plural is agastopias.

Agastopic: Studies of the soles of Lindsay Lohan's feet in three aspects.
Although in non-clinical use there had not previously been a generic
descriptor of part-focused voyeuristic fetishism, there’s no suggestion
Novobatzky & Shea thought their coining a "serious" contribution to the taxonomy of mental
health but some commentators have adopted it, fleshing out the definitional range. It’s been suggested the condition manifests
as (1) a love or admiration of one’s own body part, compelling either a
fondness of performing a particular task with it or a preference to cover and
shield it with a protective layer or (2) the more familiar admiration of
another’s body part(s). Some sources,
without citation, note it’s “…believed to be a rare condition” and (presumably tongue in cheek), one for
which there’s “… no cure.” Despite these helpful nudges, when the fifth edition of the APA's (American Psychiatric Association) Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was published in 2013 (DSM-5), there was no specific mention of agastopia and this was maintained when the revised version (DSM-5-TR) was released in 2022. Still, for clinicians who find it convenient quasi-medical jargon, presumably a patient found to be "fond of certain body part" without "fetishising" it (or them) would be found to be "agastopish"; fetishes also intrinsically spectrum conditions, the comparative would be "more agastopic" and the superlative "most agastopic".

In an agastopic moment: The artist moved to despair at the grandeur of antique fragments (circa 1778), drawing in red chalk with brown wash by Henry Fuseli (Johann Heinrich Füssli (1741–1825)).
The notion
agastopia is “believed to be a rare condition” might be based on some obscure statistics but certainly is a reflection on (1) the profession no longer regarding (most) such things as diagnosable
conditions unless certain criteria are fulfilled and (2) the general consensus
most instances of agastopia (being untroubling) are never reported to a clinician. In other words, "believed to be a rare condition" probably is better expressed a "known to be a rarely reported condition". Impressionistically, the likely real-world experience is that the prevalence of agastopia in a subset of the population doesn't justify funding the research and agastopia should not wholly be conflated with the various fetishistic interests now listed in the DSM as "particularisms" although overlap obviously must exist. Nor is agastopia something exclusively either a male preserve or sexually focused, some women known to enjoy (in both senses) an agostopic relationship with their hair or fingernails. In the days when two of the most
significant vectors for the distribution of pornography were magazines (that although with glossy covers should not be confused with "the glossies") and various digital media (tapes and optical discs), both forms provided content
devoted to or thematically inclinded towards one body part or another, something carried over to the
internet when websites became the default mode.
Among the pornography aggregation sites, it’s not unusual for body parts or attributes (and not just the old "usual suspects") to be listed as categories for consumers with a particular
agastopic or fetishistic focus.

Highly qualified content provider Busty Buffy (b 1996), whose feet seem never to command the attention they deserve.
So, thus compartmentalized, agastopia is a thing existing at a commercially critical mass. ‘Twas perhaps ever thus but what has in recent
decades changed is the attitude of the mental health community. Before the release of DSM-III-R (1987),
fetishism tended to be described as a persistent preferential sexual arousal in
association with non-living objects or an over-inclusive focus on (typically
non-sexualized) body parts (most famously, feet) and body secretions. With the DSM-III-R, the concept of partialism
(an exclusive focus on part of the body) was separated from the historic
category of fetishism and appended to the “Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified”
category. Although one of the dustier
corners of psychiatry, the field had always fascinated some and in the years
since the DSM-III-R was published, a literature did emerge, most critics
maintaining partialism and fetishism are related, can be co-associated, and are
non-exclusive domains of sexual behavior.
There was a technical basis for this position because introduced in the
DSM-IV (1994) was a (since further elaborated) codification of the secondary
clinical significance criterion for designating a psychiatric disorder, one of the
implications of which was it appeared to suggest a diagnostic distinction
between partialism and fetishism was no longer clinically meaningful or
necessary. The recommendation was the prime diagnostic criterion for fetishism be modified to reflect the reintegration
of partialism and that a fetishistic focus on non-sexual body parts be a
specifier of fetishism.
Fetish was
from the the French fétiche, from the Portuguese feitico, from facere (to make) which
begat factitious (created; artificial). A fetish in this context was defined as
"a thing irrationally revered; an object in which power or force was
concentrated". In English, use of "fetish" to indicate an object of desire in the sense of “someone who is aroused
due to a body part, or an object belonging to a person who is the object of
desire” dates from 1897 (although the condition is mentioned in thirteenth
century medical documents) and it was in the late nineteenth century the lexicon of modern
psychiatry began to be assembled. However,
in the literary record, surviving from the seventh century AD are dozens of
brooding, obsessive love letters from the second century AD of uncertain
authorship and addressed to both male and female youths. That there are those in whom an object or
body part has the power to captivate and enthral presumably has from the start been part of
the human condition.

Poster for Der Blaue Engel (The Blue Angel, (1930). Marlene Dietrich (1901-1992) understood (and exploited) herself as a “fetishized object” but her construct was as knowingly artificial as was Blue Angel of most of Weimar Berlin. One obvious
linguistic virtue of “agastopia” is it can be used as an alternative to “fetishism”,
the latter a word with the power to mislead or distort meaning because of the
associations vested by popular use although some estimable writers have found “fetish”
indispensable while maintaining clarity.
In The Dark Valley: A Panorama of
the 1930s (2000), a study of the politics on that troubled decade in Europe
and the US, English historian Piers Brendon (b 1940) used “fetish” in the way
most familiar when writing of a certain aspect of Berlin during the last days
of the Weimar Republic (1918-1933): “Sleazy clubs offered anything from cocaine to fetishism
and perversions abounded: one coven of coprophagists gorged a prostitute on
chocolate, gave her a laxative and settled down to a feast. There were so many homosexual bars, transvestite
dance halls and nude cabarets that an enterprising publisher issued a ‘Guide to
Vicious Berlin’. Outside the palace at
the bottom of Unter den Linden [literally “under the linden
trees", a boulevard in the central Mitte district running between the Brandenburg
Gate and the Berlin Palace, the name gained from the linden (non citrus lime) trees
lining the thoroughfare] were two stone lions, one of which was said to roar
whenever a virgin walked by.”
If some of what was in the Christopher Isherwood’s (1904–1986) Goodbye to Berlin (1939) was an
indication, the lion would not often have had to stir but literature can be
highly selective, lives of most of the burghers in Weimar-era Berlin likely as stolid
and respectable as stereotypes of Germans suggest. While Isherwood and Marlene Dietrich painted captivating pictures of a decadent city, generally life was
more prosaic.
Brendon however
also applied “fetish” to attitudes expressed toward objects, institutions and concepts decidedly
non-sexualized including “the Maginot Line” (a French border
fortification that proved illusory), “rural conservation”, “the League of Nations”
(1920-1945) and “liberalism”. Of the last, perhaps gleefully, he documented
L’Osservatore Romano’s (the daily
newspaper of Vatican City) lauding of Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce
(leader) & Prime-Minister of Italy 1922-1943) as a man of the same mind as Pius
XI (1857–1939; pope 1922-1939) and a “man whom Providence has sent Us (sic)... [who did not believe in the] “villainous
fetishes of liberalism.” The
Holy See’s mouthpiece concluded by saying it was “…thanks to the Duce” that “Italy has been
given back to God and God to Italy.”
The extent of God’s gratitude can of course only be guessed but as the
fate of Italian fascism (with the fall of Mussolini in 1943 it “burst like a
bubble” in the unguarded phrase of German Generaloberst (Colonel
General) Alfred Jodl (1890–1946, chief of the OKW operations staff 1939-1945))
suggested, the movement never became in Italy quite the fetish the Duce had
hoped.
Of Foot Particularism: The DSM-5 Criteria
Criterion
1: Over a six month period, the individual has experienced sexual urges focused
on a non-genital body part, or inanimate object, or other stimulus, and has
acted out urges, fantasies, or behaviors.
Criterion
2: The fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause distress, or impairment in
functioning.
Criterion
3: The fetishistic object is not an article of clothing employed in cross
dressing, or a sexual stimulation device, such as a vibrator.
Specifiers
for the diagnosis include the type of stimulus which is the focus of attention
(1) the non-genital or erogenous areas of the body (such as feet) and this
condition is known also as Partialism (a preoccupation with a part of the body
rather than the whole person), (2) Non-living object(s) (such as shoes), (3)
specific activities (such as smoking during sex).

WikiFeet is
a wiki which curates users’ submissions of women's feet with a predictable emphasis on
celebrities. The Lindsay Lohan page contains 3639 images with the WikiFeet community rating her feet at 4.7 stars (out of 5) and that means she's in the category: "beautiful feet". The site includes sections for “feet of
the day” and “feet of the week”
although the criteria for "making the cut" for these honors are not disclosed. An illustrative sample from WikiFeet's rating table includes:
Billie Eilish, 97 images, rated 4.1 (nice feet)
Anna Kournikova, 362 images, rated 5.0 (beautiful feet)
Selena Gomez, 1963 images, rated 4.7, (beautiful feet)
Nicki Minaj,
1135 images, rated 3.4 (OK feet)
Mila Kunis,
1131 images, rated 4.6, (beautiful feet)
Janelle Monáe, 486 images, rated 5.0 (beautiful feet)
Nancy Pelosi, 14 images, rated 2.9 (OK feet)
Rihanna,
5663 images, rated 5.0 (beautiful feet)
Emily Ratajkowski, 2571 images, rated 5.0 (beautiful feet)
Paris Hilton, 997 images, rated 3.2 (OK feet)
Emma Watson,
1047 images, rated 5.0 (beautiful feet)
Megan Fox,
1866 images, rated 4.1 (nice feet)
Emma Raducanu 80 images, rated 4.6 (beautiful feet)
Charli XCX,
960 images, rated 5.0 (beautiful feet)

Crooked
Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013, left) and Donald
Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025, right).
Crooked Hillary Clinton’s feet must convey something of her crooked crookedness because Wikifeet's connoisseurs rate them only at 2.5 stars (OK feet) but politics in
the US being so polarized, there may be an element of strategic voting involved
and the sample size is anyway small, crooked Hillary's page having only 24
images. Following in the footsteps of
the original, there exists a companion WikiFeet page for men’s feet although,
predictably, it’s a mere shadow of the feminine version and that must be
emblematic of many things in sociology, sexual politics and fetishism. On the male site there is a solitary entry on
Donald Trump’s page and while it’s not the only known photograph of his bare
feet, it is the one with the best angle; with only a single image on which to
base an assessment, the rating of 1.3 stars (bad feet) may reflect political bias
rather than objective judgment. That may
also have influenced voting on the 32 images on Kamala Harris’s (b 1964; VPOTUS 2021-2025) page though the fact she rated a solid 4.0 (nice feet)
clearly wasn’t enough to help her win the 2024 presidential election, feet clearly just
not an issue.

Shine envy:
Field Marshal el-Sisi (left) and President Trump (right), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, May 2017. Military men usually have shiny shoes, the more senior ranks allocated a batman to do the polishing and some branding of consumer shoe polishes reflect (get it?) the tradition, "Parade Gloss", "Military Tan" and "Rollcall Black" all having been sold "in the tin".
There was
nothing in the recent testimony of Stormy Daniels (stage name of Stephanie Gregory, b 1979)
to suggest Donald
Trump has a particular thing for feet but he certainly notices
shoes. When meeting Field Marshal Fattah
el-Sisi (b 1954; president of Egypt since 2014) in Riyadh, Mr Trump couldn’t
help but be impressed how much shinier were the field marshal’s shoes, his
seemingly close to identical pumps dull by comparison. As they left the room, Mr Trump remarked to
him: “Love
your shoes. Boy, those shoes. Man …”
but knew he’d lost face and doubtless the White House shoe-shine operative loudly was told: "You're fired!" The Democratic Party seems never to have drawn attention to Joe Biden's (b 1942; VPOTUS 2009-2017 and POTUS 2021-2025) shoes, presumably because they feared Fox News might have demanded proof he could still tie his own laces.
Noting the
definitional model in the DSM-IV-TR (2000), despite the history in psychiatry’s
world of paraphilias and a notable presence in popular culture, there were
those who claimed the very notion of a foot fetish was false because of that
critical phrase “non-living” which would seem to disqualify a foot (unless of
course it was no longer attached to a living being) but such an interest would be seriously weird (the "lucky" rabbit foot from another tradition) and
a more disturbing condition; although in this context there are deconstructionists
who would make a distinction between a depiction of a live foot and the foot
itself, clinicians probably regard them as interchangeable tools of the
fetishist although the techniques of consumption would vary). It's a nuanced aspect of "body parts as this and that" because some are in many religious traditions venerated as holy relics or icons. The critics noted many fetishes are extensions
of the human body, such as articles of clothing or footwear but that did not
extend to feet and that diagnostically, a sexual fascination with feet did
correctly belong in the category of “Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified,” and
thus be regarded as partialism: Foot partialism. While there are those who greatly admire elegant creations such as a stiletto heeled slingback, the interest in these as pieces of design is separate from those who focus on "associative connections": Thigh-length, laced leather boots with a five inch (125 mm) heel are likely to be "enjoyed" not at stand-alone objects but because of the thighs, calves, ankles and feet of those stereotypically assumed most often to pull them on (and, of course, take them off).

OnlyFans, a place for agastopics.A genuine phenomenon, OnlyFans is
a niche player in the gig economy but the niche is big and if not quite the oldest in the world, it's been around a while. Something of an early-adopter of techniques embracing the implications of AI (artificial
intelligence), while "feet" is just one of many genres serviced, OnlyFans is able to engage in "category proliferation" at little more than marginal cost because the site works on a "bolt-on" principle. The business model works because the platform's content exclusively is user-generated with revenue streams provided by PPV (pay-per-view) customers and monthly subscriptions with creators collecting the bulk of the payments, OnlyFans essentially "clipping the ticket" on the way through their gateway. OnlyFans was one of the "plague winners" in the disruptions wrought by the lockdowns imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic but the earnings profile of the content creators is a highly exaggerated curve, a relative handful finding it most lucrative while for most it's at best a hobby or side-hustle; for OnlyFans that's OK, they still clip the ticket. Although best known for creators posting sexually explicit content, in 2021 (in response to political pressure) it was announced things would be "sanitized" with NSFW (not suitable for work) material purged site-wide. Such was the outcry from the creators and customers that plan survived not even a week, cynical analysts concluding the original announcement had been made to provoke the revolt, OnlyFans knowing nothing quietens tiresome politicians as quickly as mass public discontent. The OF content creators are an imaginative lot and some are said to make "feet" NSFW so those wanting a purely anatomical experience are recommended to search with caution.

Foot Finder
When OnlyFans attained critical mass it encouraged the growth of an ecosystem of sites acting as "third party intermediaries" servicing those who for whatever reason preferred their transactions to be handled with a guarantee of anonymity (if curated with
care, one’s own feet on an OnlyFans page should be similarly anonymous). Content
providers are known as “sole traders” while in the jargon the third party operators run “parasitic sites” which may sound harsh but the use does mirror the analogous use in biology. Amusingly, although the internet doomed many other platforms with business models dependent on revenue from advertisers (notably the print media, in the West, many magazines and all but a handful of newspapers driven extinct or taking "an unconscionable time a-dying"), FootFinder (above, left) clearly sees value still in physical, three-dimensional mobile advertising and a large fibreglass foot (above, right) atop a Kei car (diminutive, small displacment Japanese vehicles sold mostly in the JDM (Japanese Domestic Market) certainly must attract attention. As long ago as the 1950s, there were those predicting there would one day be a world-wide system (at least one encompassing the Western world) of real-time interconnectivity (ie the concept of the internet) but most seemed to envisage it as people having portals (with acid-green screens) through which to look-up stuff in databases or receive text-based content such as news reports or educational instruction. In short, a world of "few uploaders and many downloaders". It's doubtful many imagined "mass-upload" models such as YouTube and definitely not OnlyFans; while many would have assumed users would become interactive, Foot Finder would not have occurred to many as a template. How, 50 years from now we'll all (or at least some of use) be indulging our agastopia(s) may be just as unpredictable.

The feet of Ana de Armas, OnlyFans "Feet of the Year, 2023",
plantar flexing.
It need not
be an expensive hobby, provided one focuses on one's favorite feet. English singer Lily Allen (b 1985) has an
OnlyFans page (Lily Allen FTSE500) for her (US size 6) feet and subscriptions
are offered at US$10 per month, her hook on an Instragram post titled “La dolce
feeta” including a snap of her toes next to Rome’s Trevi in which Anita
Ekberg's (1931-2005) feet splashed, all those years ago. While to those not part of the fetish it can
be hard to tell one foot from another, the cognoscenti have eyes as well-trained as
a sommelier's palate; in 2023 OnlyFans "Feet of the Year" title was awarded to Cuban-born
Spanish actress Ana de Armas (b 1988). It was
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) who admitted that, lawfulness aside, as animals, the
only truly aberrant sexual behavior in humans could be said to be its absence
(something the modern asexual movement re-defines rather than
disproves). It seemed to be in that
spirit the DSM-5 was revised to treat agastopia and many other “harmless”
behaviors as “normal” and thus within the purview of the manual only to the
extent of being described, clinical intervention no longer required. Whether all psychiatrists agree with the new
permissiveness isn’t known but early reports suggest there’s nothing in the
DSM-5-TR (2022) to suggest agastopics will soon again be labeled as deviants.
The washing of feet
Not everything foot-centric is agastopic. In the New
Testament there are three texts describing Christ washing feet, the best known
of which is John 13:1-17 (Jesus Washing the Disciples' Feet). The ritual is explained usually as Jesus
demonstrating his humility and mission to serve mankind but it's clear he wished
also to set a good example to the not infrequently fractious dozen:
"So after he had washed
their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto
them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say
well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye
also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye
should do as I have done to you." John 13:12-15 (King James Version; KJV, 1611)

Pope Francis kisses the foot of a female inmate of Rebibbia prison, Rome, 28 March 2024: Symbolic or a "performative photo-opportunity" depending on one's view.
One of the set-piece motifs of Christianity, the foot-washing ritual takes place on Holy Thursday (the Thursday before Easter) and seeks to imitate Christ’s washing of the Disciples’ feet the night before he was crucified at Golgotha. It was on that evening he said to his Disciples: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.” (John 13:21). The sight of a pope washing feet is familiar but when Francis (1936-2025; pope 2013-2025)
performed the ritual at Rome’s Rebibbia prison on Holy Thursday 2024, it was
apparently the first time in the institution’s two-thousand year odd existence a pontiff
has washed the feet
only of women.
Historians concede records from earlier centuries obviously are incomplete but so remarkable was the event deemed, most seemed to conclude a precedent
had been set.
In the past Francis had
washed the feet of women, Muslims, refugees and other minorities but never
women exclusively.
He certainly cast
a wider net than his more conservative predecessor, Benedict XVI (1927–2022;
pope 2005-2013, pope
emeritus 2013-2022) who sponged the feet only of men and,
in the final years of his
pontificate, only those of ordained
priests.
It’s believed feet proffered to popes, scrupluously are pre-sanitized.