Cynthia wrote:As for taking off my shoes at other people's homes -- I don't mind, but if I'm in socks, they need to have rugs. No rugs, I need to be barefoot, because socks are slippery on hard floors, and I've racked up a couple of falls when hitting the "ice" of a linoleum floor in stockings. (And seen others do the same.)

Ah, there's the line of reasoning I've been looking for: "You know, I'd love to take off my shoes, but with your hardwood floors, I could easily trip and hurt myself. I'll take off my shoes, sure, but before I do, could I take a look at your homeowner's insurance policy just to make sure my medical expenses will be covered...and do you mind if I fax it to my attorney?"

David Hammond wrote:Stilleto heels crack tiles? Never heard of that.

I'd never seen it before, and I've only recently just moved in - so, it's a surprise to me as well. I'm betting it involves some kind of insulating underlayment under the tiles. (Certain tiles almost seem to flex if you put all of the weight on the toes of one foot, while resting on them.)

Though really, do you often have guests wearing stilletos in your home? Seems like it would be a very rare situation...I'm still amazed, though, that they could do such damage.

More than you'd think, given the company I keep. And often if we're not staying long, they don't want to remove them as they're often strappy affairs that are a slight hassle to properly affix. (Which I suppose I can relate to, I hate having to put-on or remove Chuck Taylors due to a similar sort of hassle.)

Mike G wrote:So I don't know what to do when you come to my house. Some of you will expect to fling off your shoes and possibly even strip down to undershirt and boxers once the oven starts to warm the place up, others will react like Saint Agnes of Rome, who was dragged naked through the streets and consequently managed the neat trick of spontaneously growing a full-body coat of hair to protect her chastity. Perhaps I need to send out a questionnaire to all prospective guests, and plan two versions on consecutive days of every party, one shoed, one shoeless.

Actually, there's a simpler solution. As the host, simply let your guests know your preference. Those guests who respect you will respect your preference in your home. Those guests who don't respect you, and would willfully flout your preference (or only resentfully agree), you probably don't want as guests. And for sure not a second time.

Similarly, as a guest, respect your host's preference. Even though in our own home we prefer shoelessness, if a host preferred we keep our shoes on in his home, that's what we would do, because that's what he wants.

One can reduce this position to an absurdity ("what if my host wanted me to take all my clothes off--should I do that?!??!?"), but we're not talking about absurdities. We're just talking about shoes. And surely enough people have been heard from in both camps on this thread to establish that shoed and unshoed are both socially normative modes of dress for the interior of a home.

Hi,

Stiletto's can break bones in a foot, too. It's really all about physics and weight distribution. In stiletto's there is concentrated weight in a tiny area. Whereas conventional shoes there's more heal surface area and less weight per square inch.

Our old kitchen floor underlayment was plywood with knot holes in it. If a woman happened to stand where a knot hole was, then it created a cupped shaped divot in the floor. Nice flooring, though a lousy installation method.

Regards,

gleam wrote:We're both shoeless people in our own house, but we don't enforce it for anyone who visits. We're just more comfortable in bare feet, socks, or slippers, it has nothing to do with protecting anything. My shoes come off when I visit my parents' house, too.

I suppose some people might see that we're shoe-free and feel obligated to take theirs off, but they certainly aren't and we would never ask 'em to.

I share gleam's position. I also like to take my shoes off when I'm at other people's houses because I've amassed a fine collection of socks by the Dutch company Oilily, which I like to show off.

I've sometimes fantasized about what it would be like to be invited for dinner by the original inhabitants of some of the masterpieces of modern domestic architecture. (I'm a dork like that. ) Take Mies van der Rohe's Farnsworth House for example. For the folks averse to removing their shoes, have you ever placed your stockinged feet on Roman travertine marble? It's a wonderful sensation. Cool and subtly textured. Solid while providing the feeling that one's body mass is being lifted. Mies used travertine from Tivoli for both the exterior and interior of the Farnsworth House.





(I wasn't allowed to take any pictures inside.)

In my imaginings, I would dine with Edith either on the covered terrace on a late summer evening or inside the glass house on a chilly late autumn night so that the heating coils located under the marble could be turned on and all my stockinged steps made toasty.

Architecture geek crush.

Seriously, a lovely and evocative post. On touring the Glessner House, Pabst Mansion, Hemingway House, Pleasant Home, Robie House, etc., I've always dreamed about waiting until the docents left for the night, taking my shoes off, putting on a Gramophone record, and strolling the corridors in no hurry, imagining that I was a fin-de-siecle house-sitter (or even better, house-owner) and that the family would be returning from Lake Geneva or Gary in the morning. Very "Somewhere in Time."

Santander wrote:Architecture geek crush.

Seriously, a lovely and evocative post. On touring the Glessner House, Pabst Mansion, Hemingway House, Pleasant Home, Robie House, etc., I've always dreamed about waiting until the docents left for the night, taking my shoes off, putting on a Gramophone record, and strolling the corridors in no hurry, imagining that I was a fin-de-siecle house-sitter (or even better, house-owner) and that the family would be returning from Lake Geneva or Gary in the morning. Very "Somewhere in Time."

I already have my tickets to visit Johnson's Glass House in New Canaan next May. I have an official day tour, but I'm working all of the connections I have to be able to go back to the Glass House at night. I'd be happy even if the docent just stood outside and gave me a minute by myself. I want to re-create this perfectly imaginable moment (cited in this New York Times article from June of this year):

PAMELA GORES, widow of Landis Gores, an architectural associate of Mr. Johnson who made all the drawings for the Glass House. The first night he spent there, he'd been staying with us. He said, ''I have to go over and spend the night.'' He went over and called and said: ''You've got to come over immediately. I turned on the lights and all I see is me, me, me, me, me!'' ...

A few points on the OP:

1. I live in a vintage condo in an old Chicago 3-story walkup that was rehabbed just a couple years ago. There is very little sound-proofing material between the floors so it is neighborly to keep contact with the floor somewhat muffled. Also, my place is 100% wood floors save the bathrooms. For me, to walk on my wood floors in my bare feet or socks causes significantly more noise than walking in almost any of my shoes and of course walking in slippers.

2. It is significantly more dangerous to have people walking barefoot or in stockings or socks on wood floors especially when I have a planned get together which means most often that the wooden floors were recently washed and therefore more slippery than normal. It is a legal and health hazard to have guests without footware - I slip all the time when in bare feet or socks at least a few days to a week after washing the floors.

3. I have some friends whom have chronic feet-stentch issues. I love them but do not want to make them or any other gusts feel uncomfortable by mandating they walk around in socks or barefoot and stinking up my party. How can any host do this to their guests? or themselves? is beyond my comprehension??? .

4. I think it's just a basic lack of common decency to ask guests to remove their footware - I really do.

Bster

Bster wrote:A few points on the OP:

2. It is significantly more dangerous to have people walking barefoot or in stockings or socks on wood floors especially when I have a planned get together which means most often that the wooden floors were recently washed and therefore more slippery than normal. It is a legal and health hazard to have guests without footware - I slip all the time when in bare feet or socks at least a few days to a week after washing the floors.

4. I think it's just a basic lack of common decency to ask guests to remove their footware - I really do.

Bster

I love point 2 -- it will become my postion henceforth.

Point 4 is potentially inflammatory, and I would not want to accuse shoeless-homes of being indecent. It's just a difference in perspective. I suppose some shoeless homeowners consider it indecent for guests to wear shoes.

I have to head out for a few hours, and I understand that this topic raises some personal issues and some heat, but please let's try to keep the discussion on the even keel that we've maintained thus far.

we're not talking about absurdities. We're just talking about shoes.

I think it's just a basic lack of common decency to ask guests to remove their footware - I really do.

Which was my point earlier-- people who feel one way don't even really realize that people feel so strongly the other way. They think it's a small thing, and obvious to all-- when in fact we're as deeply divided as two feet.

4. I think it's just a basic lack of common decency to ask guests to remove their footware - I really do.

Well, this is my opinion and I welcome others that may disagree to make their counterpoint(s) or even others of a similar ilk to share their thoughts too.

Bster

Bster wrote:

4. I think it's just a basic lack of common decency to ask guests to remove their footware - I really do.

Well, this is my opinion and I welcome others that may disagree to make their counterpoint(s) or even others of a similar ilk to share their thoughts too.

Bster

Yes, let's continue to share perspectives in a civil and non-accusatory way.

And this, from a guy who rather famously and consistently walks into other people's homes and businesses wearing a hat.

Hat, if you ever invite me over, please take the spitoon out of storage. I grew up in Florida and have some cultural charms/baggage.

house does not equal nightclub or a musuem. take em off if you're walking into mine.

Bster wrote:A few points on the OP:

4. I think it's just a basic lack of common decency to ask guests to remove their footware - I really do.

um i think the opposite, that its a lack of common decency to think its a lack of common decency if someone asks you to do so in their living space

The only no shoes homes I frequent have one or more inhabitants from an east Asian culture. I believe removal of shoes is quite common in many Asian cultures, for reasons I would assume are related to cleanliness. I have no issue with respecting one's tradition in this regard, even if some of the imperatives that may have led to the tradition in the first place (dirty, dusty roads; sleeping and sitting on the floor or close to it; use of fine rugs or mats; etc.) largely do not apply in our modern U.S. context. I think we can and should respect cultural differences of these types even if someone else's culturally-given choice doesn't reflect our preferences or doesn't reflect the surrounding culture at large.

I guess I'll preemptively state that I don't believe all culturally-based or tradition-based choices should be imposed on one's guests, but I personally don't think the no shoes thing is a major imposition and certainly not one that would likely conflict with a visitor's moral code (although you could interpret what some folks above have said to suggest that they might find it immoral in some sense for someone to have the poor taste or lack of decency to ask guests to take off their shoes, I doubt many feel that the act of taking off their shoes is immoral or sinful). In addition, there obviously is a movement afoot (hah!) in our culture where people do this for non-cultural reasons, making it more mainstream and therefore less of a cultural curiosity.

On the other side, here is an article from the anti-side regarding no shoes homes. While it mostly focuses on the fashion side of things, there are some other anti-removal rationales included.

Hey Matt,

I too have been in homes that either have, or appeared to have, cultural/religioius/ethnic/national origin-based removal of the shoes traditions. I think it's also common decency to observe someone's traditions. The mix of different traditions and cultures is what makes Chicago unique.

However, and I want to try and make my point as delicately as ever, what do you think about this:

Why would it be more understandable/acceptable to abide by a "shoe removal", or any other custom for that matter, borne out of or based upon one of the traditions/customs listed above (cultural/religioius/ethnic/national origin) as opposed to a "shoe removal" custom that exists solely or primarily out of the custom-instituters' preference of how to run their home? Why is the former "more understandable" or "more legitimate"? I think it is not. But, I would offer that most in society would tend think that some traditional/customed-based origin would tend to create more acceptance and understanding than just an ordinary preference-based tradition or custom. IMHO this distinction is wholly irrelevant but I believe that for most that this distinction is significant in terms of a guest's wilingness to particpate in or deal with a particular custom/tradition or in their understanding of why such practice exists in a particular home.

Just some food for thought.

Bster

I almost always take off my shoes when walking into someone else's home, whether or not requested by the host.

It is definitely a cultural thing in my case. I was just brought up this way (living in a Filipino household) and I never really give it a second thought.

I also expect any guests to remove their shoes at my place, although I never explicitly ask for anyone to do it. All I need to do is either walk in first, take off my own shoes and set it aside IN PLAIN VIEW or just walk around in socks. Usually everyone else eventually follows suit and it works every time. I like to be subtle.

I know of a not-so-subtle family that keeps a stash of cheap (read: disposable) slippers specifically for guests. They would bring out slippers still sealed in plastic so that you know they've never been used before and hand them to you without any explanation. When in Rome... I happen to think it's a nice gesture if you're uncomfortable with the custom but your POV may vary.

Bster wrote:Why would it be more understandable/acceptable to abide by a "shoe removal", or any other custom for that matter, borne out of or based upon one of the traditions/customs listed above (cultural/religioius/ethnic/national origin) as opposed to a "shoe removal" custom that exists solely or primarily out of the custom-instituters' preference of how to run their home? Why is the former "more understandable" or "more legitimate"? I think it is not. But, I would offer that most in society would tend think that some traditional/customed-based origin would tend to create more acceptance and understanding than just an ordinary preference-based tradition or custom. IMHO this distinction is wholly irrelevant but I believe that for most that this distinction is significant in terms of a guest's wilingness to particpate in or deal with a particular custom/tradition or in their understanding of why such practice exists in a particular home.

Let me preface my response by saying on most issues related to one's house rules (including the no shoes point), I don't actually draw the distinction raised above (and I'm not sure whether you even intended to suggest I do). I probably fit mostly in the category of I'm happy to abide by one's house rules so long as doing so doesn't conflict with a deeply held belief of mine (and by that I really mean religious or moral code).

In terms of drawing distinctions between house rules (or other preferences) based in culture/religion/ethnicity/etc. and those based in preference, I guess the primary distinction I would draw is that choices based in the former are in some degree immutable (you can't change where you came from or elements that make up your own personal background and tradition) and seem to be less a matter of conscious choice, while the others are based more in a matter of personal preference. I am largely unwilling to criticize someone for something that is more immutable (obviously, this relativism only goes so far and wouldn't extend to certain acts or customs) and more willing to criticize someone for making a choice that I believe is irrational, stupid, inconvenient, etc. based on his or her own personal preferences. So perhaps even though I don't make a distinction between the two potential reasons for one's house rules in practice, I would lend some sort of moral superiority to the former.

In both Alaska (for I suppose pretty obvious reasons most of the year) and in Hawaii (less obvious--but maybe it's the high percentage of Asians) removing shoes is so common and expected that it's mentioned in guidebooks. I get the impression that it's also common in Sweden, where some people just bring a second pair of "indoor shoes."

For families with young children, it's also a pretty simple step to take to reduce the risk of lead poisoning. When you look at it that way, it's hard to complain.

I see the Seattle Public Health Department even has a poster you can hang up to remind people.

That being said, I'm of the "When in Rome" school. If someone wants me to take my shoes off, I will. I don't care what my own guests do.

Ann Fisher wrote: I get the impression that it's also common in Sweden, where some people just bring a second pair of "indoor shoes."

Yes, that is the custom in Sweden. I adopted the custom when my daughter had a Swedish babysitter. She and her friends took their shoes off without fail at the door to my apartment. I began to notice that there was a lot less sweeping to do as a result, and suddenly, it seemed kind of gross to wear street shoes in the bathroom where you stand in clean bare feet just out of the shower. I understand that in Japan it is common practice to have a pair of shoes at the ready just for the bath. A nice idea, I think.

Josephine wrote:I understand that in Japan it is common practice to have a pair of shoes at the ready just for the bath. A nice idea, I think.

Schools in Japan also have a locker room type area where you store outdoor shoes. You need to switch to indoor slippers before you can walk in and vice versa.

It's pretty amusing how they enforce this custom even in public settings.

Matt, I did not make any assumptions from your post regarding your distinctions on this issue - your post just sparked my thoughts.

I am rather interested from the pro-shoes-off LTHers of how they deal with the concerns raised in my upthread post:

1. Safety & Liability issues (no shoes higher potential for slip & fall, injury; guests with health concerns warranting need to wear shoes: foot injury, elderly for support, etc.)
2. Personal Hygeine (smelly feet)
3. Noise creation on floor below (for those not living in a single-family home).

Are these concerns just irrelevant or are they secondary to my LTH friends insisting on no-shoes-at-home (regardless of the origin of that house rule)? For me personally, and perhaps I'm being too lawyerly here , the safety, liability, hygienic(sp?) and unneighborly aspects of a "no shoes" rule outweighs any positive aspects of imposing this rule on my guests - but maybe that's just me.

Incidentally, when faced with visiting a "no shoes" home, I always comply and take my shoes off but if I can I try not to return to that home if possible.

Bster

I'm in neither camp, though I most often go shoeless in my own home, much to my very formal mother's horror.

However, I remember when taking the class for the Chicago Food Service exam, we had an older former inspector who apparently used to insist that restaurant employees shower and change COMPLETELY, including shoes, socks, and underwear. His contention regarding shoes is that they track in germs from the sidewalks, which might somehow travel from the floor to other surfaces. I know many shoe-free households feel this way.

I'm not much of a germophobe, so I don't know that I agree with this extreme.

just a little aside. earlier this month, a doctor friend who i was on vacation with in telluride, colorado(which requires 2 plane rides and a long car ride to reach) was complaining vehemently about taking off his shoes at the airport. i seem to remember when only people who set off the walk-thru alarm had to take off their shoes (that's always me in my clogs). this year, everyone on all 4 plane rides (there and back) had to remove their shoes and shuffle along the dirty tiled floor. just one more stupid indignity to make us feel safer. my friend, john, predicts an epidemic of foot fungus in about 10-15 years because of this practice. you heard it here first! i never gave much thought to this before (i'm shoeless always in my own home), but on my return 2 flights , i took off my shoes only at the very last second as my stuff entered the x-ray machine, and put them back on quickly. (btw, studies do show that a MAJORITY of dirt in any household is tracked in on shoes) justjoan

Because we have 2 small children, one of whom is in the rolling all over stage, we do ask that people remove their shoes. We didn't used to, but I did notice a lot of dirt, bits of grass, small rocks being bought in with shoes and I don't want my 5 month old rolling around in that or putting it in her mouth. What is even worse is that de-icing crystal gunk. It is sharp and I assume a bit toxic. This too somehow made it inside last winter.
We also unfortunately have light carpet at our cabin, it came with the place, and are more stringent about the no-shoes policy there, but its a bit easier as people are normally wearing flip flops or sandals.
This topic is a huge point of contention with my dad, as he hates to remove his shoes. The carpet at my parents place is disgusting, which partially led to my policy. I always have to lay out a huge blanket for my kids to play on there. My parents are neat and clean, but the dirt/grime is set it.
LO

Bster wrote:1. Safety & Liability issues (no shoes higher potential for slip & fall, injury; guests with health concerns warranting need to wear shoes: foot injury, elderly for support, etc.)
2. Personal Hygeine (smelly feet)
3. Noise creation on floor below (for those not living in a single-family home).

I'm not, as noted, one of the no-shoes-in-the-house people.

However, I will address these anyway:

1. I've never felt less stable in my bare feet or socks than I do in shoes. I've never slipped in my house, bare feet or not. I've never seen anyone slip in my house, bare feet or not. And I'm clumsy.

2. I've got a nose that detects the sulfur in an overcooked egg four hours after the fact and a room away. I've not yet found the odor of a guest's feet worse than the odor of a guest's perfume or cologne, but only some of our guests take their shoes off (it's up to them).

3. I live in a multi unit building, but with no one below me. However, when I have had people living below me, I never received complaints. I don't notice my (shoeless) upstairs neighbors walking around, despite thin hardwood floors. I do notice when people are walking around in shoes. I don't really understand how being in shoes could possibly be quieter than being barefoot, for that matter.

Regardless of any of this, I don't see how this thread is in any way, shape or form related to any of the missions of this site. It seems to serve only as an outlet for some people to bitch about other people. It's pointless, the discussion is going nowhere, and I wouldn't mind seeing it go away.

gleam wrote:3. I live in a multi unit building, but with no one below me. However, when I have had people living below me, I never received complaints. I don't notice my (shoeless) upstairs neighbors walking around, despite thin hardwood floors. I do notice when people are walking around in shoes. I don't really understand how being in shoes could possibly be quieter than being barefoot, for that matter.

Ed, I'm with you. I lived for many years below people in an old building and we used to have huge arguments to get them to stop tromping on their hardwood floors in their shoes.

gleam wrote:Regardless of any of this, I don't see how this thread is in any way, shape or form related to any of the missions of this site. It seems to serve only as an outlet for some people to bitch about other people. It's pointless, the discussion is going nowhere, and I wouldn't mind seeing it go away.

Again, I'm with you, Ed.

gleam wrote:Regardless of any of this, I don't see how this thread is in any way, shape or form related to any of the missions of this site.

It's proof positive that the OP will never eat in one of the private rooms at Hae Woon Dae.

Mhays wrote:However, I remember when taking the class for the Chicago Food Service exam, we had an older former inspector who apparently used to insist that restaurant employees shower and change COMPLETELY, including shoes, socks, and underwear.

This is my precise policy toward all my guests.

I could go either way on this. I grew up in a keep-your-shoes-on home (and a chilly one at that). But the carpet-cleaning guy says carpets stay much cleaner much longer if people leave their shoes at the door, and that's the way my Sweet Baboo was brought up, so that's what we do here. I'm not necessarily always willing to impose it on guests, though. I guess it depends in part on how dirty or muddy their shoes look. if someone walks into the house wearing shoes I don't particularly mind, but then, they're just an occasional visitor. We're in and out of the doors 20 times a day and could track in a lot of dirt and dust if we didn't leave our shoes at the door.

I do think if you're going to expect guests to remove their shoes at the door you should keep the house comfortably warm for the stocking-footed while they're present.

On (or off?) this topic, whether people keep their shoes on or take them off when they enter my home is much less a peeve to me than whether (if they're sockless) their feet are clean or dirty. I personally think it's very rude to enter a home with visibly dirty feet in flip-flops (that being the way they most often get visibly dirty these days). Whether or not you leave the usually equally dirty flip-flops at the door or not hardly matters at that point. So many times I've wanted to chuck the foul flip-flops in the nearest garbage can and the foul-footed teen or preteen (adults usually are better about washing their feet) in the nearest shower.