Sometimes there *are* laws

Sure, thats why he shows a join date of 2004 and has over 10,700 posts. Yup he is definitly a banned troll.

Good detective work there Sherlock.:2thumbsup:

 

Fucking rude.

 

LOL

Is he wrong?

 

Then you should know your foot is body temperature, your skin is generally in the mid 80 degree range, the inside of your body is 98.

Also, foot/hands. Constant contact with things. If you also slide around like a penguin, than your stomach can also be included.

 

Not only 10,700 posts, but 10,700 brilliant posts, and that's just what managed to escape the great chat thread post count purge of the new year.

 

Actually man... If your foot sitting in the air with an average warm temp, it would be a different temperature then your internal temp for sure...

And as soon as you put it down onto a surface, its temperature will drop even lower... and as you continue to stand on a surface, the temp of the sole of your foot will lower, while the temp of the surface will raise...

However... even if you were right (which you aren't) it takes more then just warmth for bacteria to grow... it needs a warm, MOIST environment to do so...

As is present in a shoe when you are wearing it, but is NOT present when you are in barefeet.

 

I'm repping you for that...

lol, not the truth of it.. just the amusement factor... lol

edited to add;

I'll have to rep you later... it wont let me right now... lol

 

The foot is generally moist though. Same with hands. Even when skin is "dry" it's still moist, and hands and feet have the largest concentration of sweat glands outside of the armpits. Human skin is always cooler than the inside of the body, but it's still ranging in the mid 80's(F) normally. Yes standing on say a cold tile floor will feel cold at first from the transfer of heat, but the skin as with the rest of the body is a living organ that as it is spends a good deal of its energy on producing heat to stay warm.

Also remember, if you have well fitting shoes your foot should in fact not be sweaty.

Also I'm just going to say the anecdotal thing we all know. It doesn't matter if some people here keep their feet sparkly clean. This is a hip forum, even people who aren't barefooters probably essentially go the summer never wearing shoes, and if not that, we all know people who do go barefoot. Most of these feet are not feet I'd want on my couch, let alone in a business I owned. We've all worn shoes, we've all gone barefoot. Shoes are just better at not tracking dirt all over the place.(pics I've seen on this very forum back up my point, guys you don't use never washing your feet until they look like they have gangrene as a badge of going barefoot, you use being able to step on glass and not notice it.)

 

Man, seriously, if you can't come up with intelligent responses that are based in reality, why bother?

A barefoot is not usually moist, unless you just stepped in something wet.

As for you arguments about shoes...

Stick your nose in your shoe for a moment.... In case you are an alien and it smells clean and sweet (not sweat), then go take someone elses shoe off their foot and stick your nose in it.

edited to add;

p.s. That smell, is the smell of bacteria living a happy life.

 

So you are okay if I come in and put my feet in their normal footwear on your couch?

 

PB,reading for comprehension is kind of key if you want to be nasty or sarcastic. For instance, I believe I said that Madcap PROBABLY was banned under a different name. So, your conclusion, regarding his length of membership, would not meet the intent of the word PROBABLY. And, obviously, under the name Madcap he is, as you so intellegently point out, not a banned troll. For, if he was, he would not be commenting on any thread, would he? His comments about bacteria may indicate he is either being purposely obtuse or stupid. I do not think it's the latter. However, not sure I can say the same about you.

 

Well given a join date of 2004 and over 10,000 posts, it is very highly unlikely that he was banned and then rejoined, possible, but very unlikely.
Thats called using deductive reasoning.

 

I don’t really like to post in this section because people tend to take very extreme positions on both sides of the issue.

I don’t see wearing shoes or not wearing shoes in a particular place as a major issue in my life. But I want the choice to be mine. And if we give in on each and every one of the small issues of personal choice, we will wake up ten years from now and realize that we have no personal freedoms left. That would be a major big deal. If we allow every so-called good idea for health and safety and comfort to get written into law, then everything in life will eventually be mandatory or prohibited. That isn’t freedom.

We have to fight some of these small battles.

Most of the health and safety reasons given here for requiring shoes are bogus and absurd. Our ancestors were not mentally retarded. If it was not feasible to safely go anywhere outside of your home without shoes, laws against it would have been passed a hundred years ago. My grandparents’ generation did not suffer terrible things because nobody made them wear shoes 100% of the time. They used their own judgment and common sense, and it turned out okay. They brought up my parents to do the same.

Forgetting about laws for a moment, I think that social customs may be a bigger problem in the future. Where I live, most people consider leaving home without shoes to be a disgusting, socially offensive practice that should never be tolerated. They would mistreat you for doing so, whether it was legal or not. I don’t know how to fix that problem.

 

…and I don’t post here very often anymore either. It’s interesting to check in from time-to-time to see if there’s anything new, but if you go through the archives, most every aspect of barefoot living has been addressed, re-addressed, and beat to death. I guess that’s why you see people drift in-and-out of this forum. Few stay involved for more than a few months at most.

I’d have to agree. If you think about it, the choice not to wear shoes should not be a big deal although some choose to make it so. Personally I started going barefoot in public a few years ago when I had a work-from-home position. I was timid at first, but once I started I found I really enjoyed the feeling of having my feet unconfined; it really felt like the natural, “right” thing to do. The more I went barefoot, the more I enjoyed it, and it snowballed. I guess going out without shoes is a bit of an eccentric practice, but that doesn’t make it wrong, just different.

While I can’t say I’ve done a deep literature search on the topic, my impression is that centuries ago footwear was worn for only two reasons: status and essential protection; otherwise people went barefoot. If you look at Egyptian hieroglyphs, it’s the kings, queens, priests, etc. who have some type of footwear, not the common person. In other words, only the wealthy or powerful could afford to wear shoes routinely. For some tasks such as working/walking on coarse rock, etc., a minimal sandal was adopted to protect one’s feet against puncture wounds. At the time there wasn’t a stigma associated with being barefoot, rather shoes were the exception and often only worn as necessary.

Over time footwear became more stylish and affordable, but if you look at paintings from the Middle Ages, it’s not uncommon to see working class people without shoes. I doubt they were denied admittance to establishments because of their lack of footwear. Rather, it was either a lifestyle choice or an economic restriction. There was little judgment on not wearing shoes.

As Western Society developed, footwear became more common, but in the Civil War era and into the 20th Century many commoners still went barefoot for all but social occasions. My unsubstantiated impression is there were three events that promoted the anti-barefoot sentiment sometimes displayed today: the Great Depression, the Hippie Era of the late 60’s/early 70’s, and the onset of frivolous lawsuits in the 70’s and 80’s.

For those who went through the Great Depression, there were many luxuries and necessities that were sacrificed simply because people couldn’t afford them. I’m sure we’ve all heard of kids from this period who HAD to go barefoot because buying shoes for children was seen as a waste of money needed for greater necessities. Many who endured this period vowed never to be without shoes (or food or nice clothes, etc.) ever again. As a result, being barefoot developed the stigma of being one who was destitute. I believe much of the “barefoot stigma” developed during this period, although I’m not sure the extreme intolerance practiced by some had yet come to pass.

During the late 60’s and early 70’s, going barefoot was practiced by the “hippie” generation. Other practices included long hair/facial hair on men, women burning their bras, tie-dye shirts and jeans, etc. For the hippies, these were symbols of a free, non-traditional, non-conforming lifestyle. It was also a symbol of rebellion against the “Establishment,” many of whom were veterans of the Great Depression and the subsequent recovery. This created a tension in society – an “us versus them” mentality. I would venture that “No Bare Feet” signs had never been posted at any time in history until this period. Similarly, the Establishment was outspoken against long hair and facial hair on men. Jeans were considered too casual for the work environment. Prior to this time bare feet in public might have seemed odd, but this was likely a turning point as far as actually putting restrictions on the practice.

The final straw was probably the onset of frivolous lawsuits beginning in the 70’s and 80’s. This was the period when “wronged” individuals started settling their differences in court. One of the classics was the 80 year-old woman who successfully sued McDonald’s because she burned herself when she spilled coffee. If you notice, McDonald’s coffee cups now have a statement to the effect of “Caution, Contents Hot.” If kids were hurt playing it was an excuse for the parents to sue for injury, pain, and suffering. As a result, many businesses and individuals started protecting themselves against any potential exposure to such frivolous litigation. I believe going barefoot in public is technically an assumed risk, but some would rather cover their ass and ban the practice than have someone potentially step on a piece of glass or a nail, etc.

Yeah, this is probably more of a regional/demographic issue. Some parts of the country embrace diverse practices. For example, San Francisco is one of the most accepting communities for alternative lifestyles. In fact, I’d say any unconventional lifestyle practice is embraced/encouraged in that area. By contrast, there are other parts of the country where anything out of the ordinary is cause for ridicule, scorn, and banishment. When I lived in Indiana during college, a few of us would joke that the locals would say, “That’s different,…, let’s burn it!” This mentality would label bare feet in public as “wrong” not because of any identifiable issue, but simply because it wasn’t the norm. As far as bare feet, some of the beach areas and regions in the deep South are very tolerant. I used to regularly visit Louisiana, and with the hot weather, high humidity, and laid-back approach to life, I could go barefoot almost anywhere. Not only wouldn’t people comment, they wouldn’t even notice!

Anyhow, that’s my 2¢ on the topic,…

 

Karen & Straight Toes - I think both of you have hit your nails on their respective heads!

I would like to add one personal view. My parents were children during the Great Depression. Each of their families struggled to survive. Shoes were at times a luxury - even hand me downs that did not. In their minds barefeet = poverty. There was no way their children were going to run around barefoot and be perceived as having parents that could not provide for them. This ties directly into the points both of you made so articulately.

One more note on social norms neither of you made. It is much more acceptable for a female to be barefoot than a male. There's nothing the matter with a woman carrying her shoes around but can you imagine the looks a guy doing that would receive?

 

I certainly don't have to imagine it - I get "The Look"® for being barefoot and wearing foot jewelry and nail polish on several toe nails, too, all the time.

Maybe some dimwits will outlaw that, too, at some point.

Wiggling bare toes,

~*Ganesha*~

 

I felt I needed to add a few more comments,...

As far as women, while I would agree it's more socially acceptable for them to be in public without shoes, it's not out of the question for men. As I stated earlier, I started going out barefoot when I had a work-from-home position. I went anywhere and everywhere without shoes. I have data to support that well over 99.5% of the time I had no issues whatsoever. I do think some of that success is attributable to outward appearance/personal hygiene. A male or female who looks/smells like hell isn't likely to be well received whether he/she is wearing shoes or not.

Women have two advantages over men in being barefoot in public. First, many women's shoes are uncomfortable - both men and women are painfully (no pun intended) aware of that. As a result, a woman removing her shoes is perceived as doing so to alleviate the pain. The second advantage is fetish related. A lot of guys enjoy seeing a woman's bare feet. That doesn't mean they're obsessed and do embarrassing things in response, rather the view is a nice, sexy distraction. I'd also submit many women have a similar attraction but are more subtle about expressing it. We've probably all heard women compliment each other on their sexy shoes, nice pedicure, cute feet, etc. It's more accepted among women.

Let's not discount that many guys have ugly feet. I'm not talking about bunions or other disfiguring ailments. Many guys simply don't practice good personal hygiene when it comes to their feet. Let's face it, a lot of guys have nail fungus, yellow nails, untrimmed nails, white feet (not having seen the light of day in ages), tan lines at the top of their socks, etc. NOBODY wants to see those things. A little care and attention would get men a lot further as far as outward perception of their feet.

This goes back to people being accepting or not-accepting of alternate lifestyle practices. There are far too many who think if it's different it must be wrong. The practices you describe wouldn't be anything I'd do necessarily, but I'd support your right to do so. As long as one's personal appearance isn't offensive by society's standards (e.g., waving one's genitals on the street corner) or disruptive in the workplace (e.g., wearing graphic fetish-clothing in a professional office), why should it be judged or not permitted?

 

Yes, but some of it is worth repeating now and then because not many people are going to read through a lot of old threads with no recent activity. I can think of no good way to fight all the disinformation floating around on this topic other than repeating the facts.

This old law (in the OP) that has been discovered in Massachusetts is news to me. I do find it encouraging that only one local law has be uncovered after all these years, with so many people researching the subject. There can't be many such laws or ordinances left to be found, and this one is not terribly restrictive. Most restaurants already have that policy.

Yeah, that's me. :daisy: In a lot of different ways.

But in modern times even the cost of fighting and winning a lawsuit can be substantial for a business, both in cash and damage to public image. The net practical (de facto) end result of our legal system handling these cases so poorly was to indirectly outlaw bare feet in most businesses. There was then little point in walking barefoot on the sidewalks if you couldn't go inside anywhere. Public parks became just about the only destinations you had left in a lot of areas.

It seems to correlate highly with how common it is for new people to move in. Wherever the population stagnates, thinking stagnates too. Most of the Deep South is more tolerant than the rest of the American South (other than big cities) because Mississippi River commerce has always brought in a lot of transient people with different backgrounds and lifestyles.

In other words, they fear/dislike people thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. This is a serious problem on so many different levels.

I think this is still a big part of the image issue, especially in the South. My parents used to tell me that Northerners looked down on working-class Southerners for going barefoot in the summer. I don't know how true it was, but the point is that they believed it.

That's definitely true. I've carried mine plenty of times over the years in various places, without any negative comments. If the girl doing this is cute, well dressed, and in a nice establishment, that's almost an absolute guarantee that she will get nothing but smiles and winks. At the nicer clubs in this town, it's very common for girls to leave their dressy shoes under the table when they go out onto the dance floor. A guy would get thrown out for that in about two seconds.

...which is why a growing percentage of the upscale restaurants, bars, dance clubs, and country clubs around here have changed their dress codes to say that men can't wear sandals of any kind. You might think any guy who could afford to go to the better places would know what the basic expectations are, but some don't. The businesses are taking the easy way out, instead of listing the required components of good taste and hygiene (a crude thing to have posted in a fine establishment).

My boyfriend hates this trend because he likes to wear sandals, and isn't one of those guys who are part of the problem; he always looks clean and neat when it is expected. We have noticed that the sandal bans are often enforced inconsistently, based on the hygiene issues that they don't want to explain in detail. I guess we can live with that. Ironically, it seems that the places that are the toughest on guys are often the most lenient with women.

I guess the biggest problem here is that all rules for the public have to be written with total idiots in mind; and if you aren't an idiot, you're likely to find the rules to be too extreme, and highly insulting to your intelligence. If you know how to solve this problem, you should run for President. Seriously.

 

Which goes to my first assertion: if asked why you're barefoot: be civil; you don't have to explain if you don't care to, but be polite in your response. Beyond that, see the wise words above.

 

Ugghhh! I've never, ever seen such a sign! Not that I doubt you, but where I live flip-flops are everywhere during the summer on both men and women. Then again, Colorado has a fairly casual approach to fashion that agrees with my values and tastes. Then again, I've been accused of having the social skills of an engineer, LOL. (no offense taken) I might feel awkward wearing flip-flops in a really fancy restaurant, but I doubt I'd be refused service. I've seen beat up jeans in places that cost ~$125-150/person for a meal. Flip-flops on a guy in an upscale bar? Definitely not an issue here, anywhere, nor are shorts a concern. Dance clubs? Definitely not an issue here. Country clubs? Also not an issue although I don't normally hang with that set. Sounds like your part of the country might need a nice visit from the ACLU, LOL. Not that such a visit would happen; the ACLU has much more important things to challenge than the right for men to wear sandals in public.