I've seen countless posts about people complaining about certain business establishments or services that have certain (mostly unsound) rules and reasoning against barefooting, and that those said rules are legitimate reasons for boycotting those businesses. But shouldn't the reason for boycott be because of the quality of their products and services? (customer support is only one aspect of the service, so that's not a truly valid argument.) and what's the point of not recommending that business to friends (who may be shod) only because we can't go barefoot there? That's like saying "I can't have that, so my friends can't either". Honestly though, ( and I may get flak for this) is it really that bad to have flip flops/minimalist shoes on for like an hour? Sure, I could go to a second rate business, but the quality may not be at par, Or can't give me better savings. Why pay twice as much for a similar service just so you can be barefoot in their building?and I know there are great businesses out there that do let you go barefoot, but I'm just saying. It just irks me that even though businesses are banning being barefoot, certain barefooters are just adding fuel to the fire by making unsound statements themselves. Besides, it's not like were gonna die if we can't be barefoot in there. I just had to put out this opinion, since I haven't seen any other similar posts. Let me know what you guys think.
A lot of people ARE "my way or the highway." It's STILL a society, and everybody gets to have something sometime. If ONE'S priority is barefoot access, then go someplace else. I do it all the time. Not EVERYBODY thinks the same way or wants to accept the same things. In short, you gotta figure out what YOU want, and IF you are able to get it YOUR way. Good luck!
There was a discussion on Society for Barefoot Living... @https://ssl.************/groups/3057185310/?view=permalink&id=10150748428220311 (Yes, it requires an account to view...) But I'll copy-paste a few of the last since they're somewhat on this subject: ... ... ...
Yes, you have a point, everyone has their rights to voice their opinions, but I believe there are more important things than protesting to be able to go barefoot in certain establishments(Though that may just be the cynical side in me talking). Being too radical against those establishments, protesting and such just makes me think that they base their lives on being barefoot, and not just being barefoot to enjoy it. (Though there's also the fact that you can't enjoy being barefoot as much if you're confronted by a manager and such) But what if that place is, say, "the best theme park in the world" or something. I think it'd be worth it to at least be flip-flopped to enjoy your day there, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING FUN IN A THEME PARK and not to be barefoot in a theme park. Or some place like Sea World, where you go because marine animals and shows are freaking amazing, not so you can be barefoot in front of a dolphin or whale. (these are just examples. I'm not sure where they stand about barefooting) and I understand that there are many aspects to this topic, and you're right, people have the choice of just taking their business someplace else, but I meant to emphasize that some barefooters were just fueling the fire without taking that certain establishment's products and services into consideration, not to mention (some, not all) shedding a radical, unprofessional light to barefooters who just want to live life. I know this isn't how the vast majority of barefooters feel, but that little percentage of those who do still irk me. I can't name names, but you can't deny they're out there. Still just a personal opinion again, and I know it's not my job to change people's negative attitudes. I might've made it SOUND like I'm frustrated at EVERYONE who takes their business elsewhere, but my main post was directed towards those who make a big deal about businesses banning barefooters. I don't mind people like you who don't bring violence into the equation.
I agree. Depends on one's priorities: to have fun in the best damn theme park in the world OR to be able to go barefoot in the best damn theme part in the world. Yes, it DOES make that part of the fringe (most people do NOT go barefoot in public) a tad "fringier," and only individual circumstance will change its tenor. I love to go barefoot. May I go barefoot everywhere in the whole damn world? Nope. Even if the "reasons" are fucking dumb. Society: it's PEOPLE!
My friend and I went to kennywood park with rollercoasters.. Happened to be barefoot most the day. not a single ride attendant said anything.. One said"be careful" but I took it no differently that telling other occupants to slow down boarding and exiting the ride..
I don't have to insist I be barefoot or I won't shop someplace. But I will usually quietly do just that. Because one usually can. I do put on flips for dinner in some places (or bars). On the other hand, in service of saving some money? No. I go to a local mom and pop grocery because I want them to be around even if I could save a few bucks at a Pathmark. I also buy at the local hardware store in town even if it costs more because I don't like going out to the highway to shop at Home Depot (where I'm not convinced everything is cheaper anyhow) and because I'm sure the experience sucks out your soul just like letting someone take your picture. So, no it's less about barefeet than I just don't want to participate in some shopping experiences to save a buck or two.
no one is trying to force people into boycotting. everyone makes his/her own choices. everyone has the right to decide if and where and under what conitions he/she likes to spend money. this is true in both directions. more, the war on bare feet and chest was started by store owners, not us. letting them know that their NSNSNS signs are damaging their business looks to some as a great big peaceful way to stand up and change things, not a divine precept. those , like me, thinking that those who serve you and take your money are not supposed to bully you over trivial issues are damn right , and so are those thinking that service is better than no shoes. priorities are individual and HF is no place where people takes or issues orders. :gnorsi:
I guess I am among the lucky barefoot shoppers in the world, since the infamous NSNSNS signs are totally unknown in Germany and also mall rent-a-cops never hassled me or other barefooters. People over here - including shop employees - recognize walking barefoot as a healthy thing, and therefore react to me with curiosity rather than anti-barefoot enmity. About the question of boycotting certain establishments, there are two chains in Germany where I would never shop (barefoot or shod) for their policy of treating their employees, ranging from paying way less than standard wages to actively fighting employee organization and laying off employees who try doing so (in case anyone knowing German chain stores, these two are KiK, a discount clothing store chain and Schlecker, a drug store chain). Wiggling bare toes, happily shopping unshod, ~*Ganesha*~
I won't wear footwear for even five minutes not because being barefoot is so important to me, but because FREEDOM OF CHOICE is extremely important to me. I think it is WRONG to ban people based on their appearance, regardless whether it's an obvious choice (footwear, hairstyle, piercings, tattoo's, etc), something they can't change (race, color) or something in between (religious symbols for example, based on a deep belief but also something we can chose not to display). I will not patronize any store that has a dress code, even if it doesn't affect me -if tomorrow I find out the grocery store I've been visiting barefoot for years bans guys without a shirt, they've just lost a customer, even though the next store is much further away. This is more important to me than convenience or a bit of savings, unless I really have no other option I will not spend my money there. Fortunately such dress codes are very rare here in the Netherlands, but some years ago I've written letters to some stores that tried to ban a certain brand name clothing style because *some* gang members liked to wear those clothes, and also to a park that required shirts for men because people had complained it affected the 'family atmosphere' (like a bare chest is bad, that's why you never see kids in pools or on the beach ). Now it's just my personal choice to do so. I write letters of protest, give advise to people who have been kicked from stores and post/complain about it, but I do not ask friends to boycot these places or to protest in any other way if they are not the one to bring it up. If my friends & family members want to visit that park, fine with me, that's their free choice just like it will be mine not to come along (the stores quickly retracted their policy, btw, because many Dutch people protested against such a dress code, not just the rare activist hippie like me).
Me being barefoot does not hurt them. Them requesting that I wear shoes in a situation that does not warrant it has the potential to damage my feet. They want me to because "everyone else does" or whatever, and it's "proper". I don't care how much or little damage it does, or how many people might do it, I'm not going to hurt myself and be uncomfortable because they think I should. So, if that business has that little respect for their potential customers, yes, I would outright boycott them, I think that's just fine. I mean, I do wear shoes to most businesses. But no, there's nothing wrong with that logic. "hurt yourself or leave my store"="okay, I won't be back, and will advise others to do the same" You sort of sound like a whiny business owner / soccer mom type. I will make my choice, and if you choose to fuck with me for my choice, I will not only take my choice elsewhere, but do all I can to shame and punish you for your shameful behavior.
