Say there’s a gorgeous-looking girl. Perfect flowing hair. She’s in a sexy red dress. Unbelievably hot. And barefoot.
Now say there’s a gorgeous-looking girl. Perfect flowing hair. She’s in a sexy red dress. Unbelievably hot. And wearing stilletto’s.
Which one to you is:
a) More attractive
b) More suggestive (that she would entertain the notion of dressing your monkey in a flesh-colored suit)?
For me answers are:
A) 1 (provided they are a nice shape - not too worried about size)
B) 1
But why would this be? I don’t find feet as stand-alone’s (no pun int.) particularly attractive. I admit it’s wayyyyyyyyy better to have a woman with pretty looking feet as opposed to really hideous feet, but that’s a given for anything.
For me there is something inherently more, "Well… why don’t you come to bed with meeeee… " if a girl is barefoot than if she’s wearing shoes. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I’d whip out Mister Friendly Ejector everytime I see a babe with her shoes off. But say we’re in a sort of private place… and it was obvious we’re clicking well. There is something far more suggestive about her being barefoot.
Now here are two things:
Why would this not be true for a man? I mean, I’ve heard of a barefoot woman being attractive or used in a sexual situation to express sultry-ness, but never a man.
It’s not just the element of disrobing in general that is sexual. There’s something about that part of the body being bare that is suggestive. Obviously if you were bare-breasted (at least in Western/Islamic societies - don’t know about others) it would be something more than enough to warrant suggestiveness. But why should this be true for a (relatively) unsexual part of the body like feet? Please try not to make all answers sound like they came out of a Freud dictionary.
Maybe it’s just me (and my imaginary monkey) making funny things up this Easter.
I’m with you on a barefoot woman over a high-heeled woman. I think it has to do with the perception of attainability.
Pornstars and strippers generally seem to keep on their spikes during the deed, and I really doubt that I’m the kind of guy they’d go for off the set. Barefoot, to me, makes them appear more, I don’t know, regular. I still may not have a snowballs chance with them, but their being barefoot makes them at least approachable.
That’s not to say stilettos aren’t sexy. The certainly are. They do miraculous things to women’s calves and ankles. Platform stilettos are ugly as hell, though. I’d rather a beautiful barefoot woman, though.
Either barefoot, or in a sexy pair of strapped sandals.
Stillettos don’t do much for me (the reason we’ll get to in a second), and from what I can gather talking to my wife, they’re uncomfortable for the woman as well. They’re sexy only in that the accentuate the calf and cause the butt to stick out.
Now, as to sandals…pretty, tanned feet, with a good pedicure and well-applied nail polish look so incredibly sexy to me. First, if a woman has a good pedicure and well-cared for feet, the rest of her can’t help but be in fine shape (generally speaking). Sandals also allow you to see the arch of a woman’s foot, which to me is right up there with other anatomical parts as far as being an erection-inducer. I’m particularly drawn to the way the arch of a woman’s foot will be a little lighter in color than the top of her tanned foot - sort of like a bikini line and we all now how incredibly sexy gett a little glimpse of that can be.
Me neither. I never understood the attraction for them. However strapped stilletto’s are another story. I think they are incredibly sexy, unlike the whole-foot-covered types.
No I’m the opposite. I much prefer fair-skinned or lighter colored feet. And I hate toe-nail polish. The only type I can really stand is that pearl colored stuff - otherwise she’s gotta go all bare (no polish). But yeah pretty and a pedicure can be divine (if included in the overall attractive package).
I adore this too - but I actually love it where the fair skin meets the rosey-pink hue of her soles. That’s just mesmerising.
By the way I love your sig, P.
Oh God I am a foot fetishist… well, where do I sign?
Bare feet are a turn off. Most women have incredibly ugly feet when they are bare. Bare legs in shoes- another turn off. If you want my attention, take the time to get completely dressed. Put some hose on, then I’ll check out your legs. Otherwise, don’t bother.
If the woman is standing in the middle of a field, I would rather that she have shoes on so that she didn’t get an owie from stepping on a rock. And, of course, there’s the threat of dog poop.
Barefoot, definitely, as long as her feet are in reasonably good shape.
Maybe for the reason Casey mentioned.
Maybe because a barefoot woman looks more human, while some shoes just make her look like some sort of hoofed mammal.
Maybe because it’s sexy when a good-looking woman bares something that you don’t get to see every day when she’s fully dressed (feet, legs, shoulders, belly…).
Maybe because if the feet are bare (and look and smell okay), I can imagine touching or kissing them (and I’m no foot fetishist; I just like all parts of a woman’s body).
Maybe because of the “You’ll poke somebody’s eye out with that” fear of a woman in heels.
Maybe because barefoot is just that much closer to completely naked.
Maybe because barefoot is more casual, informal, which to me is sexier and more attractive.
Hose? Bah. I hate hose. They only act to deceive the eye and hide some high quality skin real estate.
I do like barefoot, and not just because most women’s shoes are ugly as sin. Why oh why do women think big and chunky is cool?
Barefoot implies casual, earthy, carefree, not afraid of a sharp rock or a little dog poo. I like that.
[QUOTE=BoringDad]
Why oh why do women think big and chunky is cool?
[QUOTE]
Because they’re comfortable. If strappy/stilettos were a joy to wear men would wear them too. I go barefoot as much as possible, but when I do wear shoes they’re almost always big ones.
Plus I just look silly in teeny strappy shoes. In my mind you have to be petite to wear such things.
Same here, probably for these two last reason. more natural, if you wish. And I’ve absolutely no feet fetish.
Count me in the “toenail polish haters” too…
I guess it seems to me that there is a middle ground between the giant square toed 2" thick heeled monsters and silly tiny Cinderella slippers. Wouldn’t a shoe with 1/2" sole be just as comfortable?
Geez, BobLibDem, my feet aren’t ugly! They are beautiful! And BTW, it isn’t every appropriate to wear hose with open-toed shoes.
AS a woman, I have to say that I feel sexier when I am barefoot. It says I am relaxed and comfortable with both myself and you, and that I am willing to let you see me (or at least part of me) without costume or artifice. Self-confidence is sexy.
Stiletto versus barefeet…barefeet, no contest. More due to the ugliness of the stiletto than anything else.
barefeet versus other shoes: depends on the inherent attractiveness. First of all, due to the “openness” factor, it tends to amplify the basic attractiveness, no matter what the actual look of the feet are. Second, Superhots would probably tend to have superhot feet.
Indoors? Bare feet, definitely. In Victorian times they even used to cover up the feet of chairs and pianos.
I’ll agree with the comments about stillettos - to me it just seems that the woman is trying to make herself taller. Since I’m 6 foot 3 or so, she’s going to be shorter than me anyway.
Someone mentioned confidence. Yep, definitely that too.
