Feet as Euphemism for Genitals

Would it be weird if you saw this coming at you...
...knowing he'll use his towel to wash your feet?
...while still wearing that towel?
...and, what if that towel was tightly girdled around his pelvis?

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• John 13:4–5
  • What's happening?
• John 12:3 - Mary washes Jesus "feet" using her "hair" soaked in Pharmakon
  • What's happening?
• Ruth 3:7 - Ruth uncovering “feet” on the threshing floor
  • What's Happening?
• Phylarchus/Apollon - “Feet” application producing genital erection
  • What's Happening?

Introduction

We will see that "Feet Washing" is in the category referring to rites that give erections from pharmakon.

2 theories

• feet can be a euphemism for genitals directly
• feet washing can be a euphemism for giving genital erection by applying pharmakon to the feet (or lower regions / genitals).

and the washing with muron of nard (Jesus/Mary scene) could be what you do in the rite, to apply....
and the washing with water (Jesus/Apostles scene) could be what you do after the rite to remove / clean that application....

there's a constellation of practice being referred to here, it seems...
at the least, the oddity

John 13:4–5

pretty weird, if you saw this coming at you
except it was girdled (tight) around his pelvis...
(you can imagine it for yourself, we wont go there)

The John 13 foot-washing scene is lexically and choreographically intimate by design.
The Greek emphasizes "a girdle" (pelvic binding of a cloth/towel) at the waist/pelvis (adjacent to the genitals), bodily exposure (disrobing, and putting on the girdle cloth), and tactile wiping.

Whether or not “feet” function euphemistically, the scene operates in an odd register where bodily boundaries are collapsed in overly intimate (unnecessary) ways, producing discomfort. Apologists claim it's an example of humble role reversal. Why not both.

What does he wash with?

• βάλλει ὕδωρ εἰς τὸν νιπτῆρα
• he puts water into the basin
• hudour (ὕδωρ) - water, of any kind

In Apostle feet washing:

• διέζωσεν ἑαυτόν (“he girded himself”) - to bind around the waist / loins / pelvis.

This is the hinge.

διέζωσεν (ζώννυμι / διαζώννυμι) does not mean “picked up” or “held", it means wrapped around, but it's a tighter wrapping than how you'd use a towel at the pool.

John is unusually explicit:

• τίθησιν τὰ ἱμάτια
  • removes outer garments (plural, formal wear)
• λαβὼν λέντιον διέζωσεν ἑαυτόν
  • takes a towel and binds it around his waist
• ἤρξατο νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας… καὶ ἐκμάσσειν τῷ λεντίῳ ᾧ ἦν διεζωσμένος
  • washes and wipes with the towel with which he was girded

Imagine:

• If you went to a spa, and an attendant washed your feet using a towel it'd be ok, right?
• But if they put that towel around their own waist/pelvis/loins first, then that would be REALLY WEIRD and you might (really) want to leave!

Even weirder would be if they put that towel around their pelvis in a tight girdled fashion, and then tried to use it to wash you... yuk.

What's happening?

• rite pre-cleanup: potentially doing hygiene before some rite... purification, as you'd wash hands before dinner, dont want to get sick, or have smells throw off that eidolon. also why circumcision was advocated, for proper "purified" rite-hygiene.
• rite during: an allusion to a rite, throwing you off the trail by mentioning water.
• rite post-cleanup: potentially doing hygiene for the eunuchs, removing those drugs used in the rites, from the genital area (since water was named).

John 12:3 - Mary washes Jesus "feet" using her "hair" soaked in Pharmakon

pretty weird, why get the hair dirty, why not use a cloth?

• litran (λίτραν) - is a weight, not a volume. In the Roman/Greek context it is ~327 grams (varies by period).
• muron (μύρον) — perfumed oil, ointment
  • perfumed oil, aromatic compound, scented unguent
  • typically oil + dissolved aromatics/resins
• nardos pistike (νάρδος πιστική) — genuine/pure nard
  • psychoactive substance, sensory and mood modulating.
• aleipsen (ἤλειψεν) — aleiphoed means oiled, smeared, applied
• podes (πόδες) — feet
  • a potential ancient euphemism for genitals (as shown in Francesca Stavrakopoulou's Anatomy of God)
  • lower end of the body
  • ambiguity combined with weirdness & pharmakon points to potential euphemism
• ekmassou (ἐκμάσσω) — wipe off, wipe dry
• thrix (θρίξ / θριξίν) — hair
  • it does not have to mean hair of the head, it's ambiguous here, it's just "hair".
  • where on her body, does Mary have "hair"? Greek normally defaults to head-hair for θρίξ, but the noun itself is anatomically non-specific unless constrained by context.
  • ambiguity combined with weirdness & pharmakon points to potential euphemism
• osme (ὀσμή) — scent, smell

Additional clue:

• muron of nard is expensive (an excess), and the cult is poor, so there's a reason they're using it
• muron of nard is pharmakon, and psychoactive, and historically used in rites
  • It's psycho-sensory and potentially psychotropic, with mild mood-modulating properties in use
  • Muron (μύρον) is a delivery form, a vector, not an active agent. (dont confuse with mhyrr)
  • Nard (νάρδος) (Nardostachys jatamansi)** does have measurable neuroactive properties
    • sedative / calming effects
    • anxiolytic qualities
    • sleep facilitation
    • mood softening
    • sensory saturation via scent
    • Modern phytochemical studies identify:
      • sesquiterpenes (e.g., jatamansone)
      • GABA-modulating tendencies

The Mary scene in John 12:3 is not merely intimate; it is deliberately excessive, and that excess is linguistic, material, and gestural. The Greek piles sensation upon sensation: costly μύρον, applied with the hands; hair used as the wiping instrument; scent filling the entire space. None of these elements are necessary for polite hospitality, and taken together they exceed what is socially neutral. The text wants the reader to feel the act, not merely register it.

The verb choice is crucial. Mary aleiphos ἀλείφω—a verb of physical application of oil, rubbing, and spreading. In medical and cosmetic Greek, ἀλείφω belongs to body-care and pharmacological practice, not to symbolic office-bestowal. The substance used is explicitly muron (μύρον) of nard (νάρδος), not oil generically: but a dense, psychoactive, aromatic compound associated with luxury, bodies, and altered sensory states. The narrative then insists on osme (ὀσμή), smell, as the lingering effect, extending the act beyond touch into the surrounding environment.

Hair in Greek social codes is a personal, intimate extension of the body, normally controlled, bound, or veiled. Using hair as a wiping instrument places Mary’s head and Jesus’s “feet” in sustained physical proximity. The verb ekmassou (ἐκμάσσω) underscores tactile contact—pressing, wiping, removing residue. This is not a momentary gesture; it is a longer process, which defiles Mary's hair (would you "clean" something with your hair?).

The scene clearly operates in a register where lower-body zones, scent, hair, and pharmacological substance are intentionally entangled. In ritual languages—especially those shaped by initiation, healing, or pharmakon—such entanglement is precisely where euphemism thrives. Euphemism does not require explicit substitution; it requires plausible deniability paired with sensory overload. John’s language provides exactly that.

Aleipho with Muron (ἀλείφειν with μύρον) — Mary is not as conferring title, but is performing an intimate, embodied act of treatment. In such a setting, reading podes (πόδες/foot) as euphemism - more than its surface meaning - is philologically responsible, even if absolute proof is impossible.

What makes the scene “weird” is not modern prudishness; it is the Greek itself. The act collapses social distance, bodily zones, and sensory boundaries. That collapse is exactly where euphemistic language emerges in ancient ritual narratives. The text does not force a genital reading, but it invites one by saturating the moment with intimacy far beyond what "hair" or “feet” alone would normally require.

What's happening?

• applying muron of nard (pharmakon) onto feet (or genitals) for dermal absorbtion
• influencing the mental state, psycho-sensory, mild psychotropic, with mild mood-modulation

Ruth 3:7 - Ruth uncovering “feet” on the threshing floor

a sexy scene, no doubt

(Note: the Greek does not say “his feet” directly, but “the things toward the feet.”)

The threshing-floor scene in Ruth 3:7 is structured around intentional ambiguity, not domestic realism. The setting itself is liminal: night, grain heaps, post-feasting sleep, secrecy. The Greek carefully avoids anatomical specificity. Ruth does not “touch” Boaz, nor does she name a body part beyond the directional phrase τὰ πρὸς τοὺς πόδας—“the things toward the feet.” This phrasing is conspicuously evasive. If literal feet were meant, Greek had no shortage of direct constructions. Instead, the text preserves a buffer zone, linguistically shielding whatever is exposed.

The action is also socially and narratively disproportionate if taken literally. Uncovering a sleeping man’s feet in the cold on a threshing floor accomplishes nothing practical. It does, however, create bodily vulnerability, provoke awakening, and establish a private, charged situation that immediately leads to marriage negotiation and legal redemption. The sequence only coheres if the gesture is understood as sexually suggestive without being explicit—precisely the function of euphemism in ancient narrative. As with other ritualized scenes, meaning is carried by posture, timing, and exposure rather than named anatomy.

Finally, the threshing floor itself intensifies the reading. In ancient agrarian and ritual imagination, threshing floors are places of transformation, separation, and potency—grain is broken, winnowed, and prepared for life-sustaining use. The nocturnal mixing of bodies, food, drink, and exposure in such a space places the scene firmly in a rite-like register, not a domestic one. Within that register, “feet” function less as a literal body part and more as a polite proxy for sexual exposure, allowing the text to communicate intimacy while remaining publicly decorous. Proof is impossible, but the density of narrative signals makes Ruth 3:7 one of the strongest euphemism candidates in the biblical corpus.

The immediate follow-up removes any illusion that the threshing-floor gesture was socially neutral. At midnight, Boaz awakens to find a woman lying near his “feet,” and Ruth’s first spoken request is not hospitality but marital protection, expressed through the idiom of spreading one’s “wing” over her. This is covenantal and sexual language, not domestic courtesy. The earlier exposure now reads as a premarital sexual hookup, consistent with euphemistic storytelling rather than literal foot-contact.

The narrative then resolves without delay into marriage and sexual union in chapter 4, using the unambiguous phrase εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς αὐτήν (“he went in to her”). This retrospective clarity matters. Ancient texts often stage intimacy indirectly before naming it directly; the later explicit union confirms that the earlier ambiguity was intentional, not accidental. The threshing-floor scene functions as a threshold act—private, bodily, suggestive—while public legality and explicit language come later.

Taken together, the sequence tightens the euphemistic reading. “Uncovering what is toward the feet,” midnight proximity, the request for marital covering, and the subsequent sexual marriage form a single narrative arc. The text preserves decorum at the moment of contact and clarity at the moment of outcome—exactly the pattern expected when euphemism is doing its work.

What's Happening?

• premarital sex, a female propositioning a "redeemer" figure
• marriage, then marital sex, followed by offspring

Phylarchus/Apollon - “Feet” application producing genital erection

application of pond water with pharmakon properties, to get a desired effect

The question: Are "feet" literal, or euphemistic, here?

The action described is explicit: a substance is christed to the feet (τοὺς πόδας χρίσειεν), and the direct physiological effect is an involuntary, sustained erection of the privy parts (αἰδοῖον) — a term that unambiguously denotes the genitals. The causal chain is stated plainly, without metaphor or moralizing.

What's an aidoion?

Crucially, the verb used is christed (χρίσειεν from χρίω): to apply, smear, treat with a substance. This is technical, bodily, and pharmacological language. Greek readers are expected to understand that application at the feet can act upon the genitals, whether through absorbed agents, vascular pathways, reflex zones, or shared bodily logic. The text does not explain how - only that it happens. That tells you the association was already intelligible.

What this demonstrates for the broader argument is not that “feet = genitals” in a simplistic one-to-one code, but that Greek bodily semantics allow feet to function as a proximate, euphemistic, or operational stand-in for genital effect. Here, “feet” are the named site of application, while the genitals are the named site of consequence. In narrative or ritual texts where the consequence is left unnamed—as in John or Ruth—the ambiguity can be maintained without confusion. This passage proves that such ambiguity is not modern projection: ancient Greek authors already assumed a meaningful feet–genitals linkage, especially in contexts involving christing (χρίω), pharmaka (φάρμακα), and bodily excitation.

In short, this Apollonian paradoxography passage provides a missing control sample. Where biblical texts preserve decorum by stopping at “feet,” this Greek scientific-marvel text completes the circuit openly. The mechanism is the same; only the level of explicitness differs.

Their own use of "Feet" here could be euphemism for the genitals or testicles. But, seems unlikely, since aidoion (privy parts / pudenda) is named. But, perhaps "feet" is the foot of the aidoion (the testicles)...

So a likely conclusion is that this passage does not employ euphemism; rather, it demonstrates an explicit physiological linkage between feet and genitals, thereby explaining "feet" used for euphemistic ambiguity in texts where the genital outcome is left unnamed.

We can thus associate a euphemism of "feet" to mean "genitals", because of a practice of christing the feet to gain erection.

This gives new meaning to "Mary's feet washing using her hair soaked in muron of nard" and to the "Jesus's feet washing of apostles", scenes. Where "feet" isn't only the genitalia, but, application of pharmakon to the feet (or genitals) is meant to provoke erections.

What's Happening?

• feet washing - to give an erection using pharmakon (from a natural spring) applied to the lower regions (feet is explicit here, but could be a further euphemism).