21
   

WOMEN AND SHOES

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 08:36 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
A man needs one black belt and one brown belt, ...

Better yet, one reversible belt. Wink

My wife has more shoes than I could ever care to count.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 04:15 pm
I guess I'm not a manly man because I have a sh*tload of shoes.

I like them.

I'm usually wearing jeans and so shoes give me an opportunity to distinguish my look.

I also have a sh*tload of watches for the same reason.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 04:19 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

I think men and women are equally affected by visuals, but it's the interest in nuance and detail which is different.


I don't think it's "interest".
ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 04:21 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:

I know ehbeth likes her shoes set, so this thread is at least partially a parody, but many womens shoes do far more harm to a persons body that I'm willing to accept.


I think this actually started on Saturday in a conversation with a friend who has multiple multiple pairs of Merrell hiking sandals. Nothing to do with heels or fashionable/stylish shoes.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 04:23 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
You're like hamburgboy - shoes for every reason and season Very Happy

Hamburgboy also has more outdoor vests with pockets than just about anyone - other than our friend with the Merrell sandals.

Everyone's got their 'thing'.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 04:40 pm
my latest footwear indulgence

http://cdna.lystit.com/photos/2013/01/08/nine-west-gold-glitter-katelyn-product-1-5963074-877038267_large_card.jpeg


I didn't want to wear ballroom dance shoes on stage ... but I was supposed to wear something gold and sparkly on my feet Very Happy
mismi
 
  1  
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 05:20 pm
@ehBeth,
Nice and sparkly.

I don't think there is anything unmanly about liking shoes or vests for that matter.

Just like I don't think it means you are a flighty female to admire shoes - or to collect them as the case may be. I can't call myself a collector...much too practical for that - but I do look and sigh a lot. My closet is no big enough for so many shoes. Wink

0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 07:17 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

I think men and women are equally affected by visuals, but it's the interest in nuance and detail which is different.

I don't think it's "interest".

That's a very nuanced detail for you to have noticed Wink
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Tue 13 Aug, 2013 10:14 pm
@Ragman,
Then men have more shoes than I do. And if I have heels, they are minute.
0 Replies
 
cherrie
 
  1  
Wed 14 Aug, 2013 05:37 am
I own about ten pairs of shoes, including runners, high heels, flats and sandals. Also two pairs of steel-capped boots. I don't particularly enjoy shopping, so only buy shoes when they need replacing.
0 Replies
 
laughoutlood
 
  1  
Wed 14 Aug, 2013 11:24 pm
@Setanta,
All that's needed is a couple of pumps and bingo a fetish.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKJytEEA0Q1Mkdu3e2hP_ETXGYBNZ34zIrrwnQYXK3GIgpT9OQgw
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Fri 16 Aug, 2013 11:00 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

It's more than shoes. The whole "observation of appearance" thing is freaky.


Based on what I've read, scientifically speaking, women's looks (facially) are higher on the evolutionary scale than men. Meaning eons ago, women had male facial features, and men looked quite brutish. So, women today can have female features, and men look like what we call masculine. Oddly, I am seeing some males today that sort of have female features. What this means to me is that women are just ahead of men on the evolutionary scale, and their ideosyncrasies are just the price we have to pay, as a species, to keep evolving.

But, the schtick with many shoes might reflect, in some cases, the awareness that more than one male is a foot fetishist. That is why they are wo-men (they wo'ed the man).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 16 Aug, 2013 11:20 am
@Ticomaya,
It's shame there are not reversible shoes.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Fri 16 Aug, 2013 11:33 am
At one time shoes were neither left nor right. Which seems practical, because you rotate them the way you do your tires.
Wikipedia-
Until around 1800, shoes were made without differentiation for the left or right foot. Such shoes are now referred to as "straights".[18] Only gradually did the modern foot-specific shoe become standard.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Where can I find these shoes. - Question by Kamalkayani
How many pair of shoes should you have? - Question by Brooke2000
Throwing Shoes at President Bush - Discussion by Diest TKO
shoes sole disintegrate - Question by mamerala
Shoe Sizes - Question by llloyd
Do you have crystal shoes? - Discussion by Vivian1913
3 inches taller taller shoes!! - Question by MakaylaKylie99
 
  1. Forums
  2. » WOMEN AND SHOES
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2022 at 06:36:38