Dammit Pete, I graduated with a BFineArts. Step it up.
Actually, the most reliable research I can find regarding heels is that prolonged wearing of heels leads to joint degeneration and possible problems with conception (due to a shifting of pelvic alignment). Which completely contradicts the evo-psych paper's conclusion about them conferring an evolutionary advantage through sexual selection pressure.
But if I posted that, I wouldn't have been able to make a joke about Scott's dick.
Dammit Pete, I graduated with a BFineArts. Step it up.
Actually, the most reliable research I can find regarding heels is that prolonged wearing of heels leads to joint degeneration and possible problems with conception (due to a shifting of pelvic alignment). Which completely contradicts the evo-psych paper's conclusion about them conferring an evolutionary advantage through sexual selection pressure.
But if I posted that, I wouldn't have been able to make a joke about Scott's dick.
We all make choices.
At least you had your ethical priorities in order.
Also, girls in vibrams tend to walk on their toes, providing some of the same leg definition without the issues of heels.
Uh, how would that be the case? Heels cause issues precisely because you're forced to walk on your toes. It's the same configuration as walking in vibrams.
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?
Also, girls in vibrams tend to walk on their toes, providing some of the same leg definition without the issues of heels.
Uh, how would that be the case? Heels cause issues precisely because you're forced to walk on your toes. It's the same configuration as walking in vibrams.
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?
Heels also:
1. Force you to stand on your toes when not walking.
2. Direct force directly into your heel both when walking and when standing.
3. Prevent flexing of the foot downward when stepping (walking barefoot, the heel moves downward against resisting muscle and reduces shock to the heel: in high heels, the heel strikes as though the ground were immediately there).
4. In many cases, direct force into the toes themselves in the course of holding the foot back against the weight of the body.
So yes, I can provide mechanical evidence of differences. I don't have evidence of measurably different outcomes long-term, but justification of immediate differences in weight and force distribution is easily defended.
Yeah Pete, Rym is totally on the right track there. Walking on the balls of your feet by choice and having to stand in heels all day are totally different. You might notice that almost all of the heels I have are WIDE heels no more than 2 inches in height and usually less. That's because it concentrates less force into my heel and lets me move my foot up and down more.
My anecdata would be that high heels increase rigidity of leg joints, while vibrams decrease it, allowing for more distributed shock absorption. I disagree with Rym's statement, however. When I walk in Vibrams, my leg joints go through a range of motion.
Be comfortable in your own time. If you are near me, I will not find you sexy.
I submit also as anecdotal evidence my ridiculously defined calves and legs, and the fact that I walk effectively barefoot all the time, almost entirely on my toes. ;^)
I submit also as anecdotal evidence my ridiculously defined calves and legs, and the fact that I walk effectively barefoot all the time, almost entirely on my toes. ;^)
Yeah Pete, Rym is totally on the right track there. Walking on the balls of your feet by choice and having to stand in heels all day are totally different. You might notice that almost all of the heels I have are WIDE heels no more than 2 inches in height and usually less. That's because it concentrates less force into my heel and lets me move my foot up and down more.
My anecdata would be that high heels increase rigidity of leg joints, while vibrams decrease it, allowing for more distributed shock absorption. I disagree with Rym's statement, however. When I walk in Vibrams, my leg joints go through a range of motion.
These both make sense. Since the heel is free to move farther, it moves the stress around the leg.
I submit to the court the fact that I used to own a pair of white faux-snakeskin 6-inch heels. I shan't, however, wear them to PAX AUS.
Very nice. Did you used to be in a 80's hair band?
When he was 2?
It's Australia. 80's hair bands are always relevant.
I typed in "Sexy women wearing vibrams" into Google image search, and was disappointed with all the results. This is the only picture that even comes close to anything that would change my mind about the sexiness of foot gloves.
... but only if I hold my hand over the bottom part of the picture so I can't see the ugliness.
Feet can be beautiful in their own right. Feet in shoes of any kind can look elegant, or practical, or functional, etc. Different footwear goes with different styles of clothing to complete a look. Bare feet go with bare legs, and are the natural end or starting point when looking at a figure.
Vibrams go with NO current clothing, no outfits, no style. They are a style of their own, and fashion has not caught up with them yet. Once someone makes an outfit that Vibrams "complete", I might find them sexy. For now bare feet look better in every case Vibrams are worn, as Vibrams just disrupt the natural shape of the feet and make them look stupidly clumsy and oversized.
Foot gloves look terrible. The Vibrams that are actually shaped like running shoes look much better. Maybe it's just that we've been trained aesthetically to expect the shoe-shape on people's feet, what with seeing most other people in shoes most of the time.
I submit to the court the fact that I used to own a pair of white faux-snakeskin 6-inch heels. I shan't, however, wear them to PAX AUS.
Very nice. Did you used to be in a 80's hair band?
Worse - Theatre. I can dance in heels, too. Even stilettos.
I submit to the court the fact that I used to own a pair of white faux-snakeskin 6-inch heels. I shan't, however, wear them to PAX AUS.
Very nice. Did you used to be in a 80's hair band?
When he was 2?
I'll have you know that I was an absolutely rockin' two year old. My favorite tapes were the Wiggles, Status Quo, and Led Zepplin. Not a joke.
Churba facts: He was in a 80's hair band when he was 2. He's younger than me. He's from Australia.
Add one to the list - Born May 12th, 1987. Which makes me - to save y'all some math - 25, at least until May. There's also at least one other person on the forum born on the same date, but of a different year.
Foot gloves look terrible. The Vibrams that are actually shaped like running shoes look much better. Maybe it's just that we've been trained aesthetically to expect the shoe-shape on people's feet, what with seeing most other people in shoes most of the time.
It's not that we expect something shoe-shaped, but if it is foot-shaped we actually expect it to look like a foot. Vibrant make feet misshapen and massive, and our brains aren't expecting non-human hobbit-sized paddles. This is made worse because so many Vibrams reveal as much if the top of the foot as possible.
Comments
But if I posted that, I wouldn't have been able to make a joke about Scott's dick.
We all make choices.
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?
1. Force you to stand on your toes when not walking.
2. Direct force directly into your heel both when walking and when standing.
3. Prevent flexing of the foot downward when stepping (walking barefoot, the heel moves downward against resisting muscle and reduces shock to the heel: in high heels, the heel strikes as though the ground were immediately there).
4. In many cases, direct force into the toes themselves in the course of holding the foot back against the weight of the body.
So yes, I can provide mechanical evidence of differences. I don't have evidence of measurably different outcomes long-term, but justification of immediate differences in weight and force distribution is easily defended.
He was in a 80's hair band when he was 2.
He's younger than me.
He's from Australia.
... but only if I hold my hand over the bottom part of the picture so I can't see the ugliness.
Feet can be beautiful in their own right. Feet in shoes of any kind can look elegant, or practical, or functional, etc. Different footwear goes with different styles of clothing to complete a look. Bare feet go with bare legs, and are the natural end or starting point when looking at a figure.
Vibrams go with NO current clothing, no outfits, no style. They are a style of their own, and fashion has not caught up with them yet. Once someone makes an outfit that Vibrams "complete", I might find them sexy. For now bare feet look better in every case Vibrams are worn, as Vibrams just disrupt the natural shape of the feet and make them look stupidly clumsy and oversized.