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.
The history of shoe culture is really interesting. One consistent theme has been that the more uncomfortable the shoe, the "better" it looks, as it implies a low or non-existant level of physical labor. The best shoes were impossible to walk in, and showed that the wearer could afford to be carried at all times. This goes back a long way to some of the earliest existing remnants of shoes. (I did a design research timeline for school.)
I'm curious if foot fetishists like vibrams..
I don't know, but I know people with foot phobias HATE them. I've observed many people with extremely visceral reactions to my wearing of toe-shoes. Considering that Americans rarely go shoe-less (wearing shoes even in their homes?! bizarre.) it does not surprise me that so many of them have extreme opinions regarding foot & shoe shape/exposure.
FiveFingers are so, so ugly, but some people don't care about the way their footwear looks. I went with the sneaker-style barefoot shoes and reaped the same benefits Rym mentioned, though. I'm not sure I see the purpose of wearing the ugly shoe when the practical-yet-fashionable shoe does the same thing.
That said, I totally understand wanting barefoot shoes when you're hanging out (i.e., at PAX), and personal preference is totally cool. The best shoes are the ones you're wearing, etc.
I can totally get if something like a FiveFingers is better than other shoes from a functional standpoint, but I cannot, for the life of me, force my primal urges to register when viewing a female wearing those shoes. FiveFingers are, for a lack of a better term, a supreme boner killer.
I have wide feet (6.5 D women's -- around the width of a men's 11), a high arch, and long toes. VFFs are one of the only shoes that actually fit, because they accomodate my toe sprawl (I wouldn't mind a little more length in the toes). The other "practical-yet-fashionable" shoes don't. Frankly, if they did, they'd probably look "worse". The fact that VFFs aesthetics inspire such opposition is deeply telling. There are plenty of ugly AND poorly designed things on the market.
Am I the only guy who is physically judging females based on things like their bust size and hip to waist ratio? What shoes someone is wearing is so not on the list of things that make or break physical appearance for me. Now I like a girl who wears a set of toe shoes as that indicates to me that they're more concerned with their comfort than what I may think of them. ~_^
Allow me to clarify. I don't think I've ever actually looked at a female's feet when physically judging her, so honestly, what shoes someone wears weighs very very little into whether I would find them physically attractive. It's only in something like the photo that Luke posted, where there is an otherwise attractive female marred by a glaring distraction. You could probably take 10 different photos of that woman and I might not notice the shoes.
I don't think there's a problem with the idea of these Vibrams, but every design seems to draw attention to the feet, and then the styling of the feet never fit the styling of the rest of the outfit. Funnily enough, I have similar problems with climbing shoes.
However, climbing shoes have evolved over time to fit into the climbing gear aesthetic. Vibrams haven't. At some point we'll get used to looking at the clothes and styling of the top half of a person, then look at the bottom half, and we'll know they're probably wearing Vibrams or similar foot gloves. Until then, the foot gloves will be jarring to our expectations.
And even when they do fit in, I still think they'll fall in the uncanny valley of human-looking-but-not-human-looking-enough.
I'm actually getting a couple of new pair tomorrow.
My one complaint with Vibram is that the original model was ultra minimalist. Open top on the foot, no strap, extremely tight and sleek fit. It was basically a thin glove over my foot.
That model was discontinued, and there don't appear to be any new ones that are quite down to that level of minimalism.
ITT: Majority of men polled find Vibrams incompatible with boners. Jimmy McMillan finds greater support within female demographic more open to romantic toe-shoe interests. Vibram spokesperson warns that shoes are solely intended for use as footwear, and that they will not be held liable for injuries resulting from improper usage.
Vibrams should be the new standard work shoe. Sexual harassment SOLVED!
I know you're being sarcastic, but I am curious what an office where people wear Vibrams would be like. Not just in terms of sexual harassment, but socializing in general. How could it be different from conventional officewear offices?
Comments
That said, I totally understand wanting barefoot shoes when you're hanging out (i.e., at PAX), and personal preference is totally cool. The best shoes are the ones you're wearing, etc.
The fact that VFFs aesthetics inspire such opposition is deeply telling. There are plenty of ugly AND poorly designed things on the market.
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/could-couldnt-care-less.aspx
However, climbing shoes have evolved over time to fit into the climbing gear aesthetic. Vibrams haven't. At some point we'll get used to looking at the clothes and styling of the top half of a person, then look at the bottom half, and we'll know they're probably wearing Vibrams or similar foot gloves. Until then, the foot gloves will be jarring to our expectations.
And even when they do fit in, I still think they'll fall in the uncanny valley of human-looking-but-not-human-looking-enough.
My one complaint with Vibram is that the original model was ultra minimalist. Open top on the foot, no strap, extremely tight and sleek fit. It was basically a thin glove over my foot.
That model was discontinued, and there don't appear to be any new ones that are quite down to that level of minimalism.