Posted by Snowman on March 19, 2001 at 14:53:18:
In Reply to: Re: Why are we this way? posted by black licorice on March 18, 2001 at 18:10:41:
Fascinating theory. I'm not sure I buy into it 100%, but there is a ring of truth to what you are saying, particularly the "barometer" concept. I ahve a few questions though: Q: If a woman you found attractive was always without shoes everytime you ever saw her, would it cease to be symbolic of vulnerability, or tenderness, or anything else for that matter? Q: I have also witnessed many women that have lost one or both shoes and seemed extremely icy, and acted completely invulnerable. Almost an equal number are completely nonchalant about it. There is no doubt in my mind that a woman without shoes is more approachable and open in most circumstances. In the rare circumstance of having only one shoe, it is even more so. How does that fit in? Q: I do think there is something profound in what you've said though. To me, seeing a woman's feet, particularly in the context of casually observed shoeplay, is akin to a sort of shared private intimacy, but I think it may be just me projecting this feeling onto the situation. The women I see, unless they notice me watching, couldn't really be aware of the symbolism, or perceived intimacy I might feel. Does that matter? Q: I have been around some championship shoeplayers, and I suspect they flip their loafers even when they are alone, and can't be observed by anyone. Q: Also, having been to many strip clubs over the years, I have found that not all, but many women who comfortably dance while naked are very shy about taking off their shoes. And that a certain amount of person relationship is often required to get her shoes off, regardless of ready cash. Do you have any theory on that? Thanks for the post. It really got me thinking. If you have the time or inclination, I would really like to know what you think about any of these questions. I hope to here more from you.
How does that fit into your theory?
Snowman