I agree. Socks *or * sandals. Pick one, people. These things do not go together.
Also… first the pedicure, THEN the sandals. Seriously folks, I do *not * need to be subjected to your jacked up feet.
Ok, I admit it, I have learned that it is entirely normal to care about what one wears, and how it will be perceived by others. Not that I really understand it, nor that I have ever really given a damn about how someone else dressed.
But really, if you have a real, and genuine emotional response to someone else’s choices of what to wear, well, uh, fuck you. I understand that you need to feel superior to someone for some reason. However, your choice of reasons pretty much displays the pathetic level of your self image, and simultaneously gives strong evidence for the accuracy of your self assessment.
Go do something superior.
Tris
:rolleyes:
Yup, clearly people who don’t care at all about their personal appearance have reached some kind of enlightenment. The rest of us cretins should *aspire * to this sort of blissful disregard for aesthetics, leaving behind our shallow, callous desires to not be pointed and laughed at.
Howsabout if we agree that your right to *be * an eyesore trumps other’s rights to not be subjected to your sartorial faux pas, but not their right to *tell * you that you’re an eyesore. Does that work for everyone?
I realize this is a fashion thread, so practical considerations are pointless, but still I feel I should speak up.
If you are a hiker - or rather a light-pack backpacker - every ounce matters. Sandals are lighter than shoes, rugged, waterproof, and prevent athletes foot. However, the summer I wore them alone I found I got massive cracks in my heel calluses. Wearing socks got rid of that problem. So for me, when hiking or doing a massive amount of walking the ideal combination is Tevas + socks.
Then you should be grateful for the socks, should you not?
Tevas look pretty dorky to me. In fact pretty much all sandals are dorky because they reveal feet. I may make an exception for exotic-type footware from India maybe but that’s it. I’m happier to see socks in sandals than some of the feet which might be on view. Then again, I pretty much don’t look below people’s knees - really, when you have the rest of a person or, well, anything else to look at, why cast your gaze at what’s below? You could, after all, end up looking at feet
And I alternate between gray socks and black socks. So there. 
Ah, sandals. Since where I’m from, those kinds of sandals are already an abomination, wearing socks only adds slightly to the effect.
I’d worry about beating the shit out of my ankles in rough country, or twisting an ankle, or having a snake bite me on the ankle. I don’t even settle for shoes when I’m in the country; I wear boots.
Having grown up in the Seattle area I considered socks under Birks and Tevas to be perfectly normal acceptible. When I went off to college I came down to breakfast one morning wearing white athletic socks under my Tevas. My friend from NYC looked at me and said, “Ummm… you’re wearing socks under your sandals.” I had no idea why she was commenting on it. Now that I’m back in Seattle I will continue to wear socks under my Tevas whenevers it’s sunny enough that I want to wear sandals but not quite warm enough to keep my bare toes from freezing.
Those are butt ugly, not to mention hideously overpriced. I wouldn’t worry about what color my socks were - if I paid 90 bucks for that shit, I would be worried that I had a brain tumor.
But lowbrass they’re… they’re… TEVAS !!11!
:rolleyes:
Why the fuck not? Who the fuck died and made you queen of the fashion world? I
Socks with sandals is very comfortable and quite practical. Don’t like the combo? Then don’t fucking wear it.
I’m with Baldwin. Mind your own damn business.
People who really care about what other people wear on their feet don’t have a lot to think about. People who feel superior to other people based on what those other people put on their feet are too damn shallow to be allowed out in public. People who mock older people based on some sort of youthful immature sartorial conformist standard will probably someday be old themselves; if they ever bother to reflect on anything, they should be appalled that they once cared deeply about anything so meaningless.
Uh that would be King not Queen and no one…I’m merely making satirically charged comments. I don’t give a shite either way.
You understand the difference between “caring deeply” and thinking “damn, that’s fugly”, right? I mean, if it makes you happy, wear socks with your sandals, wear stripes with plaid, wear (as I once saw) a pleather miniskirt with fishnets, mom loafers, and a holiday-themed snowman sweater. You’re not exactly ruining my day. You still look like a damn fool, though.
But if you’re hiking, I won’t see you. Being up in a mountain or in the woods doesn’t really count.
I just see absolutely no point in wearing socks with sandals. Sandals don’t seem to be designed with socks in mind. If your sandals require socks for comfort, find a pair of more comfortable sandals, I promise they’re out there.
I’ve really only ever seen older guys wear this look, and once on a driving trip to Florida we saw some kids at a rest stop in Alabama doing it. But it’s so fucking ugly…ugh. DianaG got it right though - you won’t ruin my day, but I will make fun of you probably.
shrug Your money. My Mom bought my Hurricanes ten years ago and spent I believe around $50. I’ve got one pair of flip-flops three years old that are still going strong but awfully grungy looking, so I kept those for the garden and have new ones when I give a shit how I look. YOU might consider it a waste of money, but they are well worth it to me.
If you’re going cross-country, I’d agree with you. If you’re sticking to trails, you’re overdoing the protection at the cost of a lot of weight. Ankles need some freedom of movement to work efficiently, and trail hiking itself (without boots) provides the ankles with enough conditioning to prevent most injury. As for snakes, rattlesnakes don’t go for the ankle, they go for the heat source - i.e. they just bite higher up if the ankle’s not available.
This a real hijack though, and it’s far from a “settled” argument even among truly obsessive backpackers. It comes up a lot on backpacking discussion boards.
How are sandals waterproof? “Waterproof” footwear should, logically, prevent water from touching your feet. Sandals, obviously, cannot do this.
I assumed that s/he is referring to the fact that their performance (and the wearer’s) is unaffected when they are submerged. In other words, they are designed to be worn in wet conditions. That cannot be said for most shoes.