More Home Viewers
Another family came to view the house today.
As usual, the estate agent asked them to remove their shoes. I am really glad he does this.
I like the way he makes the request he says:
That is a really polite way of asking. If they are not alright with it (for whatever reason) they can say so. but more likely they will be alright with it. So far nobody has refused.
As usual, the estate agent asked them to remove their shoes. I am really glad he does this.
I like the way he makes the request he says:
'Are you alright with shoes-off?'
That is a really polite way of asking. If they are not alright with it (for whatever reason) they can say so. but more likely they will be alright with it. So far nobody has refused.
Some Serious Theology- Are you a Tramplian or an Offalist?
re-post
You may be sick of the Calvinist/ Arminian debate, so let me introduce you to some new theological terms; Tramplian and Offalist.
Tramplians like to trample the carpets or flooring of their homes with their shoes on. They find it rather objectionable to be asked to remove their shoes when visiting somebody else's home.
The central principle in Tramplian theology is the freedom of the will. They believe that they should be the ones to decide whether they take their shoes off at a dinner party. Their attitude is "I decided what outfit to wear. I decided what shoes to wear. I should be able to keep them on if I like". They do not believe that a hostess should impose shoelessness on them.
Tramplians have a strong belief in the goodness of hosts. They consider that a hostess should be above all concerned for her guests wishes and convenience above keeping her home clean. They believe that if a hostess likes them enougth to invite them into her home, she will accept them with their shoes on.
Tramplians believe in the power of their own ability to keep their shoes clean. They consider themselves to be grown-up and to be careful about what they tread on. They do acknowledge that their shoes can be tainted by the corruption of dirty streets, however they hold that this can easily be dealt with by wiping their feet on their hostess' doormat. Their shoes can be restored to cleanliness by the exercise of their will.
Offalists in contrast, always remove their shoes at the door. Offalists believe in the Total Depravity of the soles of their shoes. The corruption of city streets has completely ruined the condition of their shoes, they argue, and the only hope is a change of nature for their feet, namely into slippers or clean socks. The Offalist pays heed to warnings about the health risks of pesticide, lead paint and animal excrement.
The Offalist upholds the sovereignty of the host. The hostess has been very generous in inviting her guests, however, she is sovereign over her own home and has the authority to set the rules. She will not allow anything corrupt to defile her home. Those who would enter her home must not come in their own shoes, but must meet her condition of a change into slippers or stocking feet.
The Offalist holds that the root problem of the Tramplian's theology is human pride. The Tramplian is proud of her ability to make decisions about her outfit. She is proud of her Manolos, her Prada heels or her Jimmy Choo boots. She is too proud to combine her outfit with stocking feet. She resents the idea that her hostess would not accept her in her own shoes.
The Offalist argues that if the Tramplian would only forsake her pride, she would actually find that she was far more comfortable in slippers, socks or bare feet. Her determination to remain in her stilettos will in the end hurt her feet and drag her to destruction. She may well remain outside the dinner party in the outer darkness.
You may be sick of the Calvinist/ Arminian debate, so let me introduce you to some new theological terms; Tramplian and Offalist.
Tramplians like to trample the carpets or flooring of their homes with their shoes on. They find it rather objectionable to be asked to remove their shoes when visiting somebody else's home.
The central principle in Tramplian theology is the freedom of the will. They believe that they should be the ones to decide whether they take their shoes off at a dinner party. Their attitude is "I decided what outfit to wear. I decided what shoes to wear. I should be able to keep them on if I like". They do not believe that a hostess should impose shoelessness on them.
Tramplians have a strong belief in the goodness of hosts. They consider that a hostess should be above all concerned for her guests wishes and convenience above keeping her home clean. They believe that if a hostess likes them enougth to invite them into her home, she will accept them with their shoes on.
Tramplians believe in the power of their own ability to keep their shoes clean. They consider themselves to be grown-up and to be careful about what they tread on. They do acknowledge that their shoes can be tainted by the corruption of dirty streets, however they hold that this can easily be dealt with by wiping their feet on their hostess' doormat. Their shoes can be restored to cleanliness by the exercise of their will.
Offalists in contrast, always remove their shoes at the door. Offalists believe in the Total Depravity of the soles of their shoes. The corruption of city streets has completely ruined the condition of their shoes, they argue, and the only hope is a change of nature for their feet, namely into slippers or clean socks. The Offalist pays heed to warnings about the health risks of pesticide, lead paint and animal excrement.
The Offalist upholds the sovereignty of the host. The hostess has been very generous in inviting her guests, however, she is sovereign over her own home and has the authority to set the rules. She will not allow anything corrupt to defile her home. Those who would enter her home must not come in their own shoes, but must meet her condition of a change into slippers or stocking feet.
The Offalist holds that the root problem of the Tramplian's theology is human pride. The Tramplian is proud of her ability to make decisions about her outfit. She is proud of her Manolos, her Prada heels or her Jimmy Choo boots. She is too proud to combine her outfit with stocking feet. She resents the idea that her hostess would not accept her in her own shoes.
The Offalist argues that if the Tramplian would only forsake her pride, she would actually find that she was far more comfortable in slippers, socks or bare feet. Her determination to remain in her stilettos will in the end hurt her feet and drag her to destruction. She may well remain outside the dinner party in the outer darkness.
Redwood High School Cross Country Team
Kari Sandell with 50 pairs of shoes she collected with the help of the Redwood High School cross country team
37 Reasons for Having a Shoes-Off Policy in Your Home
re-post
37 Reasons for having a shoes-off policy in your home:
1. Carpets are not easy to clean.
2. Carpets absorb dust and become breeding grounds for dust mites, causing the development of asthma and allergies.
3. If you do not have a carpet, the dust will not be absorbed and you are likely to breathe it in.
4. Shoes can leave marks on wood, PVC and marble floors.
5. Shoes can scratch wood flooring, especially if they have high heels.
6. Boots and high heeled shoes can cause wear and tear to carpets.
7. That goes for rugs as well.
8. Shoes pick up small particles of grit that cause wear and tear to carpets.
9. Shoes pick up traces of petrol fumes and industrial pollution.
10. Shoes can pick up pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals.
11. Shoes pick up traces of animal excrement.
12. Ever noticed how much chewing gum there is stuck to the streets?
13. In a square mile, there are more insects than people on the planet. How many do you think you have squashed on your shoes?
14. If you have a crawling baby, do you want him or her to be exposed to the dirt from people's shoes?
15. In rain or snow, you are less likely to get the floor wet.
16. If you live near a beach, you will bring less sand into the house.
17. If you have a crawling baby, you will do less damage if you accidently step on him or her.
18. If you get mad and kick the cat or dog, you will do less damage (apologies to animal lovers).
19. If your children play rough, they will do less damage.
20. It creates a less formal atmosphere.
21. It creates a greater sense of relaxation.
22. Your guests will become more like you by removing their shoes and will feel part of the family.
23. An oriental, Scandinavian or East European visitor will feel more at home.
24. It teaches children the importance of respecting and looking after things.
25. Psychologically, removing your shoes helps you to enter a frame of mind where you keep your everyday troubles outside your home.
26. It is more comfortable.
27. It is healthier for you feet to take your shoes off during the day.
28. Small children with growing feet should wear shoes only to the minimum.
29. If you wear high-heeled shoes, your feet badly need a break.
30. You can put your feet up on the sofa without taking your shoes off first (Dont tell me you put your feet on the sofa with shoes on?).
31. You can put your feet up on the coffee table without taking your shoes off first.
32. If you ever visit Japan, it will seem less weird.
33. If you are ever arrested and they confiscate your shoes, along with your belt and jewellery, it will seem less weird.
34. Your feet smell less if you do not wear them all day.
35. When you lovingly chastise your children, you will have a slipper to hand.
36. It was a Biblical custom (come on, did they wash their feet with shoes on?)
37. Do you really think the Saints in Glory are going to trample the sparkling, clean New Jerusalem with shoes on?
37 Reasons for having a shoes-off policy in your home:
1. Carpets are not easy to clean.
2. Carpets absorb dust and become breeding grounds for dust mites, causing the development of asthma and allergies.
3. If you do not have a carpet, the dust will not be absorbed and you are likely to breathe it in.
4. Shoes can leave marks on wood, PVC and marble floors.
5. Shoes can scratch wood flooring, especially if they have high heels.
6. Boots and high heeled shoes can cause wear and tear to carpets.
7. That goes for rugs as well.
8. Shoes pick up small particles of grit that cause wear and tear to carpets.
9. Shoes pick up traces of petrol fumes and industrial pollution.
10. Shoes can pick up pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals.
11. Shoes pick up traces of animal excrement.
12. Ever noticed how much chewing gum there is stuck to the streets?
13. In a square mile, there are more insects than people on the planet. How many do you think you have squashed on your shoes?
14. If you have a crawling baby, do you want him or her to be exposed to the dirt from people's shoes?
15. In rain or snow, you are less likely to get the floor wet.
16. If you live near a beach, you will bring less sand into the house.
17. If you have a crawling baby, you will do less damage if you accidently step on him or her.
18. If you get mad and kick the cat or dog, you will do less damage (apologies to animal lovers).
19. If your children play rough, they will do less damage.
20. It creates a less formal atmosphere.
21. It creates a greater sense of relaxation.
22. Your guests will become more like you by removing their shoes and will feel part of the family.
23. An oriental, Scandinavian or East European visitor will feel more at home.
24. It teaches children the importance of respecting and looking after things.
25. Psychologically, removing your shoes helps you to enter a frame of mind where you keep your everyday troubles outside your home.
26. It is more comfortable.
27. It is healthier for you feet to take your shoes off during the day.
28. Small children with growing feet should wear shoes only to the minimum.
29. If you wear high-heeled shoes, your feet badly need a break.
30. You can put your feet up on the sofa without taking your shoes off first (Dont tell me you put your feet on the sofa with shoes on?).
31. You can put your feet up on the coffee table without taking your shoes off first.
32. If you ever visit Japan, it will seem less weird.
33. If you are ever arrested and they confiscate your shoes, along with your belt and jewellery, it will seem less weird.
34. Your feet smell less if you do not wear them all day.
35. When you lovingly chastise your children, you will have a slipper to hand.
36. It was a Biblical custom (come on, did they wash their feet with shoes on?)
37. Do you really think the Saints in Glory are going to trample the sparkling, clean New Jerusalem with shoes on?
Culture
re-post
Some people in Britain and the USA have an interesting perspective on this subject. They feel happy taking off their shoes at the home of an Asian person whose culture demands removal of shoes, but consider it deeply rude for a British or American person to insist on visitors to her home removing their shoes.
There are two problems with this attitude. Firstly, there is a touch of cultural arrogance about it. It implies that the Asian custom of removing shoes is purely of spiritual or cultural significance with no practical value. Maybe Asian people are primarily concerned about keeping their homes clean! Behind the pretended respect for a foreign culture, there is the unspoken assumption that Western practice is superior.
Secondly, this attitude seems to take a rather static view of culture, seeing it as a set of chains that bind people to particular rules of behaviour. In fact, culture is dynamic and fluid, it changes over time.
It seems to me to be quite obvious that if a person of Asian descent can be considered British while keeping her home shoe-free, it is perfectly acceptable for a White British person to keep her home shoe-free.
It may be the norm in Britain and most of the USA for shoes to stay on in homes now, but this may change. In fact, I believe it probably will. Many White Americans and even British people are adopting the custom of shoes-off in homes.
We are living in a global village with increased immigration, travel and communication between different cultures. There is tremendous potential for different cultural practices to migrate across geographical boundaries.
Some people in Britain and the USA have an interesting perspective on this subject. They feel happy taking off their shoes at the home of an Asian person whose culture demands removal of shoes, but consider it deeply rude for a British or American person to insist on visitors to her home removing their shoes.
There are two problems with this attitude. Firstly, there is a touch of cultural arrogance about it. It implies that the Asian custom of removing shoes is purely of spiritual or cultural significance with no practical value. Maybe Asian people are primarily concerned about keeping their homes clean! Behind the pretended respect for a foreign culture, there is the unspoken assumption that Western practice is superior.
Secondly, this attitude seems to take a rather static view of culture, seeing it as a set of chains that bind people to particular rules of behaviour. In fact, culture is dynamic and fluid, it changes over time.
It seems to me to be quite obvious that if a person of Asian descent can be considered British while keeping her home shoe-free, it is perfectly acceptable for a White British person to keep her home shoe-free.
It may be the norm in Britain and most of the USA for shoes to stay on in homes now, but this may change. In fact, I believe it probably will. Many White Americans and even British people are adopting the custom of shoes-off in homes.
We are living in a global village with increased immigration, travel and communication between different cultures. There is tremendous potential for different cultural practices to migrate across geographical boundaries.
Discovering Reverance
re-post
The comfort aspect of shoe removal is both a strength and a weakness of the case for shoes off at the door.
It is certainly the case that most people will feel more comfortable for having removed their shoes. A 'no-shoes' home is a place of comfort.
The problem is that the western association of removing shoes with comfort and informality may make people more reluctant to accept the idea of removing shoes on more formal occasions even in the home. People may think that it is somehow inappropriate or impolite to go shoeless at a dinner party.
The problem is that in western culture, we have no concept of removing shoes as an act of reverance. The closest thing in the west would be Roman Catholics going barefoot at shrines like St. Patrick's Mount. To us in the west, it is more respectful to keep shoes on than to take them off.
In contrast, in most oriental cultures there is an assocaition of shoes-off with reverance. Muslims do not remove their shoes in Mosques to be more comfortable (though I believe they usually have lovely carpets); they remove them because the Mosque is sacred. Japanese pupils remove their outdoor footwear on arriving at school, not just in order to keep it cleaner, but because the school is a place of authority that is worthy of their esteem.
I dare say that British people will come to appreciate this association of shoes-off with reverance more and more. School pupils in this country are often taken to visit non-Christian places of worship where their shoes must be removed. Thailand has become a very popular tourist destination for British people and there they experience going barefoot in Buddhist temples. More and more they will learn to show respect and reverance to the homes of their friends by taking off their shoes.
The comfort aspect of shoe removal is both a strength and a weakness of the case for shoes off at the door.
It is certainly the case that most people will feel more comfortable for having removed their shoes. A 'no-shoes' home is a place of comfort.
The problem is that the western association of removing shoes with comfort and informality may make people more reluctant to accept the idea of removing shoes on more formal occasions even in the home. People may think that it is somehow inappropriate or impolite to go shoeless at a dinner party.
The problem is that in western culture, we have no concept of removing shoes as an act of reverance. The closest thing in the west would be Roman Catholics going barefoot at shrines like St. Patrick's Mount. To us in the west, it is more respectful to keep shoes on than to take them off.
In contrast, in most oriental cultures there is an assocaition of shoes-off with reverance. Muslims do not remove their shoes in Mosques to be more comfortable (though I believe they usually have lovely carpets); they remove them because the Mosque is sacred. Japanese pupils remove their outdoor footwear on arriving at school, not just in order to keep it cleaner, but because the school is a place of authority that is worthy of their esteem.
I dare say that British people will come to appreciate this association of shoes-off with reverance more and more. School pupils in this country are often taken to visit non-Christian places of worship where their shoes must be removed. Thailand has become a very popular tourist destination for British people and there they experience going barefoot in Buddhist temples. More and more they will learn to show respect and reverance to the homes of their friends by taking off their shoes.
Medical Conditions
If you read internet discussions about the subject of the shoes-off rule, you will find countless people who claim to have a medical condition that means they must wear shoes all the time. If these discussions were representative of the population; nearly half the people in the UK and the USA have such a medical condition. I do not believe a word of it.
Yes, there are some people who do have a genuine medical reason for not removing their shoes. We must make exceptions for them.
Some people say having a shoes-off policy causes embarassment for such people because they must reveal their condition. However, this is quite unnecessary. A person with a medical condition can simply say:
She does not need to reveal the nature of her condition. She does not need to give any embarassing details. There is really no problem here.
Yes, there are some people who do have a genuine medical reason for not removing their shoes. We must make exceptions for them.
Some people say having a shoes-off policy causes embarassment for such people because they must reveal their condition. However, this is quite unnecessary. A person with a medical condition can simply say:
I am sorry, I can't take my shoes off. Doctor's orders.
She does not need to reveal the nature of her condition. She does not need to give any embarassing details. There is really no problem here.
Shoes-Off at Parties?
re-post
There are some people who are strict about no-shoes in their homes who make an exception for parties. They feel that parties are an occasion when people expect to dress up and this must include shoes. I disagree with their view. I think it is perfectly reasonable to require shoes to be removed for a party.
In Canada and Scandinavia, it is common for people to attend formal parties with a special set of party shoes that are not worn outdoors. This is not really feasible in the UK. I doubt that many British folks have shoes that are never worn oudoors, unless they keep a pair of sneakers to go to the gym. And if those formal party shoes have high-heels, they are unacceptable anyway.
Some people say that part of a party is clearing up afterwards, so you should not make a fuss about mess from people's shoes. This seems a little silly to my mind. People will make more than enough mess at a party without them bringing in dirt on their shoes. There will be plenty of spilled wine and crumbs ground into the carpet without chewing gum and dog dirt from peoples' shoes as well. Also the main party season in the West is Christmas and New Year, when there will be plenty of rain and snow (maybe not snow in England, but plenty of rain). The party season is a wet season.
Some argue that people will feel silly and uncomfortable at a party without their shoes. It is true that people might find it a little odd. But they will probably feel more comfortable for having removed their shoes. If it is made clear in the invitation that shoes willl need to be removed, then it will not come as a shock. Furthermore, if there is alcohol at the party, then most people will be feeling more relaxed.
The main argument levelled against shoes-off at parties is that people dress up for parties. A lot of people, particularly women, will chose their outfits very carefully and they the choice of shoes is part of that selction. For them, a party is an occasion to show off their good taste. They would not want to combine their cocktail dresses with barefeet.
In response I would say that parties are hardly the only occasions for dressing up. Ladies can show off their fancy shoes in restaurants or at the races. Not all parties are such formal occasions. If a party is a smart-casual event, it is actually quite rude to dress up more smartly than other guests.
The host sets the theme of a party. If it is meant to be a fancy dress party, then you should make the effort to find a costume or stay home. If it is an informal party, leave the suit or cocktail dress at home. If it is a no-shoes party, leave the kitten heels at the door.
I keep making this point, but I will make it again: it is best that guests know in advance that shoe-removal is required. If you are printing fancy invitations, make it known there (with some clip-art maybe?). If people know that they will have to take their shoes off, it will not come as a shock and they can plan their outfit with this in mind. They can bring some nice slippers that complement their outfit if they want and they can avoid long trousers that only look right when worn with high heels.
There is the question of whether it is really possible to hold a formal party while people are shoeless. It may be difficult in the West to maintain an air of formality when everybody is without their shoes, but is that really such a bad thing? Is it not better to be relaxed at a party? Certainly, the host and guests can make an effort to keep the party formal. Men can look reasonably smart by combining respectable slippers with their suits and women can look pretty elegant in stocking feet. So all is not lost. If shoes-off in homes becomes more common, shoe-lessnes will probably become less associated with being casual and informal.
There are some people who will certainly be far more happy and comfortable to party without their shoes on. As I argued in a previous post, it is not simply a matter of giving these people the choice. At a shoes-on party, those who take it upon themselves to remove their shoes are likely to get their feet squashed and to have to walk on a soggy carpet. Shoes-off for all guests makes it easier for those who want to take their shoes off.
There are some people who are strict about no-shoes in their homes who make an exception for parties. They feel that parties are an occasion when people expect to dress up and this must include shoes. I disagree with their view. I think it is perfectly reasonable to require shoes to be removed for a party.
In Canada and Scandinavia, it is common for people to attend formal parties with a special set of party shoes that are not worn outdoors. This is not really feasible in the UK. I doubt that many British folks have shoes that are never worn oudoors, unless they keep a pair of sneakers to go to the gym. And if those formal party shoes have high-heels, they are unacceptable anyway.
Some people say that part of a party is clearing up afterwards, so you should not make a fuss about mess from people's shoes. This seems a little silly to my mind. People will make more than enough mess at a party without them bringing in dirt on their shoes. There will be plenty of spilled wine and crumbs ground into the carpet without chewing gum and dog dirt from peoples' shoes as well. Also the main party season in the West is Christmas and New Year, when there will be plenty of rain and snow (maybe not snow in England, but plenty of rain). The party season is a wet season.
Some argue that people will feel silly and uncomfortable at a party without their shoes. It is true that people might find it a little odd. But they will probably feel more comfortable for having removed their shoes. If it is made clear in the invitation that shoes willl need to be removed, then it will not come as a shock. Furthermore, if there is alcohol at the party, then most people will be feeling more relaxed.
The main argument levelled against shoes-off at parties is that people dress up for parties. A lot of people, particularly women, will chose their outfits very carefully and they the choice of shoes is part of that selction. For them, a party is an occasion to show off their good taste. They would not want to combine their cocktail dresses with barefeet.
In response I would say that parties are hardly the only occasions for dressing up. Ladies can show off their fancy shoes in restaurants or at the races. Not all parties are such formal occasions. If a party is a smart-casual event, it is actually quite rude to dress up more smartly than other guests.
The host sets the theme of a party. If it is meant to be a fancy dress party, then you should make the effort to find a costume or stay home. If it is an informal party, leave the suit or cocktail dress at home. If it is a no-shoes party, leave the kitten heels at the door.
I keep making this point, but I will make it again: it is best that guests know in advance that shoe-removal is required. If you are printing fancy invitations, make it known there (with some clip-art maybe?). If people know that they will have to take their shoes off, it will not come as a shock and they can plan their outfit with this in mind. They can bring some nice slippers that complement their outfit if they want and they can avoid long trousers that only look right when worn with high heels.
There is the question of whether it is really possible to hold a formal party while people are shoeless. It may be difficult in the West to maintain an air of formality when everybody is without their shoes, but is that really such a bad thing? Is it not better to be relaxed at a party? Certainly, the host and guests can make an effort to keep the party formal. Men can look reasonably smart by combining respectable slippers with their suits and women can look pretty elegant in stocking feet. So all is not lost. If shoes-off in homes becomes more common, shoe-lessnes will probably become less associated with being casual and informal.
There are some people who will certainly be far more happy and comfortable to party without their shoes on. As I argued in a previous post, it is not simply a matter of giving these people the choice. At a shoes-on party, those who take it upon themselves to remove their shoes are likely to get their feet squashed and to have to walk on a soggy carpet. Shoes-off for all guests makes it easier for those who want to take their shoes off.
Refuseniks
If asked to remove their shoes, most people are polite enough to comply. However, it is always possible that there may be some refuseniks.
If somebody refuses to remove her shoes, the host has several options:
1. Not let them in.
2. Let them in, but express one's unhappiness. Not invite them in again.
3. Let them in, express one's unhappiness, but invite them again hoping that next time they will comply.
4. Let them in and say nothing. Not invite them again.
5. Let them in and say nothing. Invite them again in hope that next time they will be more polite.
There is not right or wrong response. Whether you let them in and whether you invite them again entirely depends upon your wishes.
You have every right to refuse to admit somebody to your home. If a person is visiting to sell you a product or service, or to promote their religious organisation (usually Jehovah's Witnesses are polite enough to offer shoes-off) then you might well refuse to let them in. On the other hand, if your boss is visiting, it might be a bad idea to refuse to let her in!
If the visitor is not a close friend, but a person you have invited to dinner in order to make close acquaintance with, you have every right to never let them darken your door again. On the other hand, you may not want to loose a close friend over the issue. However, you might feel more comfortable expressing your unhappiness to a close friend than to a occasional visitor.
There is simply no right or wrong response to refuseniks.
If somebody refuses to remove her shoes, the host has several options:
1. Not let them in.
2. Let them in, but express one's unhappiness. Not invite them in again.
3. Let them in, express one's unhappiness, but invite them again hoping that next time they will comply.
4. Let them in and say nothing. Not invite them again.
5. Let them in and say nothing. Invite them again in hope that next time they will be more polite.
There is not right or wrong response. Whether you let them in and whether you invite them again entirely depends upon your wishes.
You have every right to refuse to admit somebody to your home. If a person is visiting to sell you a product or service, or to promote their religious organisation (usually Jehovah's Witnesses are polite enough to offer shoes-off) then you might well refuse to let them in. On the other hand, if your boss is visiting, it might be a bad idea to refuse to let her in!
If the visitor is not a close friend, but a person you have invited to dinner in order to make close acquaintance with, you have every right to never let them darken your door again. On the other hand, you may not want to loose a close friend over the issue. However, you might feel more comfortable expressing your unhappiness to a close friend than to a occasional visitor.
There is simply no right or wrong response to refuseniks.
Times: Antisocial noise at record level as neighbours count cost to health
Times: Antisocial noise at record level as neighbours count cost to health
Apparently neighbours are making more and more noise.
This article mentions wooden floors asa common source of noise. If you kive in an apartment and you have a wooden floor, take your shoes off and ask visitors to do the same. If you walk around a wood-floored apartment in shoes, you will make life a misery for the people below.
Apparently neighbours are making more and more noise.
This article mentions wooden floors asa common source of noise. If you kive in an apartment and you have a wooden floor, take your shoes off and ask visitors to do the same. If you walk around a wood-floored apartment in shoes, you will make life a misery for the people below.
Dear person from the Netherlands
It is very nice that you keep visiting. You are very welcome here.
It would be nice of you to comment. I do appreciate feedback.
I also welcome comments from other visitors. It is nice to have so many different nationalities visiting.
It would be nice of you to comment. I do appreciate feedback.
I also welcome comments from other visitors. It is nice to have so many different nationalities visiting.
Encourage but not insist?
Some people say that it is fine to encourage people to remove their shoes, but one should not insist that they do so.
There is a fine line between insisting on people removing their shoes and encouraging people to take them off. There are a number of things one could say that are subtle encouragements:
These imply strongly that the host wants the guest to remove her shoes. I do not see that insisting or asking is worse than encouraging. If you encourage people to take their shoes off, then you have started from the assumption that people will be willing to take them off. By encouraging, you apply a degree of moral pressure to comply.
I think a lot of people would not want the uncertainty of just being encouraged. I was dating a girl a few years ago when I was not 100% sold out to the shoes-off rule. She asked me if she should remove her shoes. I told her that we removed our shoes but she did not have to. She was actually uncomfortable at this answer and asked me whether I wanted her to take them off or not.
Sometimes it is simpler just to be straight with people and ask them to remove their shoes. No need to beat around the bush.
There is a fine line between insisting on people removing their shoes and encouraging people to take them off. There are a number of things one could say that are subtle encouragements:
We take our shoes off here.
You might like to take your shoes off.
These imply strongly that the host wants the guest to remove her shoes. I do not see that insisting or asking is worse than encouraging. If you encourage people to take their shoes off, then you have started from the assumption that people will be willing to take them off. By encouraging, you apply a degree of moral pressure to comply.
I think a lot of people would not want the uncertainty of just being encouraged. I was dating a girl a few years ago when I was not 100% sold out to the shoes-off rule. She asked me if she should remove her shoes. I told her that we removed our shoes but she did not have to. She was actually uncomfortable at this answer and asked me whether I wanted her to take them off or not.
Sometimes it is simpler just to be straight with people and ask them to remove their shoes. No need to beat around the bush.
Visiting my Sister
I visited my sister who lives in Poole, near Bournemouth this weekend.
It appears that she and her boyfriend are removing their shoes at the door. That was good to see.
I do not know whether they have a strict rule (they hardly needed to ask me to take mine off). I find it hard to imagine Heather insisting on people taking their shoes off, but I expect most of her friends would take their shoes off without being asked. They all have their own houses and apartments and would understand Heather's need to keep her house clean.
Carpet certainly is an issue for her. She would like to replace her carpet and she feels beige would look best. That means a lot of worry about keeping it clean. I think Heather's house is likely to stay shoe-free most of the time.
It appears that she and her boyfriend are removing their shoes at the door. That was good to see.
I do not know whether they have a strict rule (they hardly needed to ask me to take mine off). I find it hard to imagine Heather insisting on people taking their shoes off, but I expect most of her friends would take their shoes off without being asked. They all have their own houses and apartments and would understand Heather's need to keep her house clean.
Carpet certainly is an issue for her. She would like to replace her carpet and she feels beige would look best. That means a lot of worry about keeping it clean. I think Heather's house is likely to stay shoe-free most of the time.
Party Themes
I you are hosting a party, the best way to get shoes-off from all the guests is to make it part of the theme. There are a number of possible themes that can incorporate shoe-lessness:
1950s Sock Hop
Pyjama party
Silly Slipper party- get guests to bring the silliest slippers they can find.
Hawaian Night
Japanese Evening
Ancient Greek themed pary
Ancient Egyptian themed party
Flintstones party
If anybody can think of any others, please suggest them in the comments.
1950s Sock Hop
Pyjama party
Silly Slipper party- get guests to bring the silliest slippers they can find.
Hawaian Night
Japanese Evening
Ancient Greek themed pary
Ancient Egyptian themed party
Flintstones party
If anybody can think of any others, please suggest them in the comments.
Inviting somebody to dinner at your house?
Don't forget to say:
By the way, you will need to take your shoes off. You might want to bring some slippers with you.
Barefeet
re-post
In the UK and the USA a lot of people feel a sense of disgust and abjection towards feet. Of course, in many Asian countries, the foot is considered to be unclean. However, this is in connection with the fact that the foot touches the ground. Thus, shoes are considered to be far more unclean than the naked foot. In an Asian home, barefeet are acceptable, but shoes are not. This is actually the very opposite of the western abjection of the foot.
It is very common in internet discussions about shoes-off in homes for the subject of barefeet to be raised. It is argued that barefeet are disgusting, more so than the dirt on peoples' shoes. Of course, if you do feel that feet are disgusting, you can still ask visitors to remove their shoes if you lend then flip flops or socks to wear. Angie mentioned this in a previous post.
It is very likely that the sense of disgust about barefeet will decline. Sandals and flip flops have become incredibly popular in the UK and the USA. People are becoming more used to exposed feet. And ladies (and maybe some men) are spending good money on keeping them looking nice.
The argument that feet are more unhygienic than shoes is quite wrong. Unless a person has been going barefoot outdoors, they will not have been picking up the awful things that the soles of shoes pick up (though sandal-shod feet do get a bit dusty). You may think your feet are disgusting, however, you undoubtedly have more germs on your hands than on your feet. Feet are usually remarkably cleaner than the average pair of hands.
One should remember that the oils on barefeet are acidic and can cause some wear on carpets, though not as much as shoes. Thus, it is best to restrict going barefoot on carpets to spring and summer.
In the UK and the USA a lot of people feel a sense of disgust and abjection towards feet. Of course, in many Asian countries, the foot is considered to be unclean. However, this is in connection with the fact that the foot touches the ground. Thus, shoes are considered to be far more unclean than the naked foot. In an Asian home, barefeet are acceptable, but shoes are not. This is actually the very opposite of the western abjection of the foot.
It is very common in internet discussions about shoes-off in homes for the subject of barefeet to be raised. It is argued that barefeet are disgusting, more so than the dirt on peoples' shoes. Of course, if you do feel that feet are disgusting, you can still ask visitors to remove their shoes if you lend then flip flops or socks to wear. Angie mentioned this in a previous post.
It is very likely that the sense of disgust about barefeet will decline. Sandals and flip flops have become incredibly popular in the UK and the USA. People are becoming more used to exposed feet. And ladies (and maybe some men) are spending good money on keeping them looking nice.
The argument that feet are more unhygienic than shoes is quite wrong. Unless a person has been going barefoot outdoors, they will not have been picking up the awful things that the soles of shoes pick up (though sandal-shod feet do get a bit dusty). You may think your feet are disgusting, however, you undoubtedly have more germs on your hands than on your feet. Feet are usually remarkably cleaner than the average pair of hands.
One should remember that the oils on barefeet are acidic and can cause some wear on carpets, though not as much as shoes. Thus, it is best to restrict going barefoot on carpets to spring and summer.
Hospitality part 2
re-post
Guests are aware when they visit a home that the hosts have boundaries that cannot be crossed.
Guests know or should know that they cannot go wandering about upstairs, looking in their hosts' bedrooms. They ought to be careful in conversation that they do not mention subjects that may cause offence to the host. If the host has strong views on a subject, it is best not to argue with him or her. Guests know that they cannot bring their pet dog to somebody else's home unless the host has expressly said this is acceptable. Even if the host is an animal lover, permission to bring a pet dog must be sought.
It is now recognised by most people that when you visit the home of a non-smoker, they should not smoke inside. If they need to smoke, they should put their coat on and go outside. There are still some people, probably mostly from the upper strata of British society who think it is rude to forbid smoking in one's home. However, this view is very much in a minority.
It is important to recognise these boundaries when one visits a home and if hosts prefer, even if they do not insist on it, removal of shoes, this should be complied with by guests. To ignore this boundary is, as stated in the previous post, taking hospitality for granted.
Some people would object to comparisons with smoking pointing out the health risks of smoking, compared with the minor ill effects to health of wearing shoes past the door. However, it is not so much the health risks that should deter smoking in a non-smoking home. Nobody is going to get lung cancer because a few guests smoked at a dinner party. They are unlikely to even develope a cough because of it. No, the reason one should not smoke in a non-smoking home is simply because the smells and mess are not convenient for such hosts. It is simply impolite. Likewise it is not convenient to impose the dirt and dust of your shoes in the home of a person who would object to it.
Some would argue that it is polite for guests to remove their shoes if this is what the hosts do, but it is impolite for the host to request shoes-off. They feel that it is better to leave the responsiblity of politness to guests. To my mind, this is not quite logical. If guests have the responsibility to comply with the preference of their hosts, then it is surely quite reasonable for guests to make their preference known.
Part of the reason why a verbal request for shoes-off may be necesary is because etiquette is so uncertain and in such a state fo flux on this point. While it may be a good idea to remove one's shoes when one is welcomed by a shoe-less host, as this may be a shoes-off home, such a gesture might be taken as impolite by some. There are some who go shoe-less in their home who would be surprised by guests going shoe-less. It is probably necessary for those who desire shoe-removal to make their wish known.
Guests are aware when they visit a home that the hosts have boundaries that cannot be crossed.
Guests know or should know that they cannot go wandering about upstairs, looking in their hosts' bedrooms. They ought to be careful in conversation that they do not mention subjects that may cause offence to the host. If the host has strong views on a subject, it is best not to argue with him or her. Guests know that they cannot bring their pet dog to somebody else's home unless the host has expressly said this is acceptable. Even if the host is an animal lover, permission to bring a pet dog must be sought.
It is now recognised by most people that when you visit the home of a non-smoker, they should not smoke inside. If they need to smoke, they should put their coat on and go outside. There are still some people, probably mostly from the upper strata of British society who think it is rude to forbid smoking in one's home. However, this view is very much in a minority.
It is important to recognise these boundaries when one visits a home and if hosts prefer, even if they do not insist on it, removal of shoes, this should be complied with by guests. To ignore this boundary is, as stated in the previous post, taking hospitality for granted.
Some people would object to comparisons with smoking pointing out the health risks of smoking, compared with the minor ill effects to health of wearing shoes past the door. However, it is not so much the health risks that should deter smoking in a non-smoking home. Nobody is going to get lung cancer because a few guests smoked at a dinner party. They are unlikely to even develope a cough because of it. No, the reason one should not smoke in a non-smoking home is simply because the smells and mess are not convenient for such hosts. It is simply impolite. Likewise it is not convenient to impose the dirt and dust of your shoes in the home of a person who would object to it.
Some would argue that it is polite for guests to remove their shoes if this is what the hosts do, but it is impolite for the host to request shoes-off. They feel that it is better to leave the responsiblity of politness to guests. To my mind, this is not quite logical. If guests have the responsibility to comply with the preference of their hosts, then it is surely quite reasonable for guests to make their preference known.
Part of the reason why a verbal request for shoes-off may be necesary is because etiquette is so uncertain and in such a state fo flux on this point. While it may be a good idea to remove one's shoes when one is welcomed by a shoe-less host, as this may be a shoes-off home, such a gesture might be taken as impolite by some. There are some who go shoe-less in their home who would be surprised by guests going shoe-less. It is probably necessary for those who desire shoe-removal to make their wish known.
Lose Weight - in Ballet Shoes and Pointe Shoes
If you are a teenage ballet dancer who wants to know how to lose weight safely, follow the link and get your copy of "The Inner Dance of Success - Dancers Weight Loss", a CD for brain training.
Many teenagers have a "weight problem". At the National Ballet School of Canada we were weighed once a week. Our weight was posted publicly in the lunch room, from week to week. On Fridays when my class got weighed, we skipped breakfast but drank a lot of coffee - so as to stimulate urination, water loss, and loss of weight. So we went into ballet class at 9:00 with no food. Oh well. It was humiliating, since we were growing children and constantly gaining weight.
The funny thing is, I had no weight problem before I went to the school. I was so thin as a child that my mother had all kinds of tricks and punishments to make me eat.
Unfortunately at the time, little was known about metabolism, and good diet. Nothing wrong was done. Modern ballet schools are extremely concerned with proper diets.
The absolutely most incredibly talented dancer in our school at the time also had a weight problem. She was chosen for a solo by a visiting Russian teacher. She lost tons of weight and danced brilliantly. People were riveted when she stepped onto the stage in the school show. Time and space stopped when she danced.
But after he left for Russia she gained weight again. Then a few months later she was supposed to go into the National Ballet Company. She didn't. We heard that she ended up in the hospital with a "tropical disease". Huh? Looking back, I don't believe it. I think she starved herself. Too much.
About a year later I met her on the street. I was going through a "I'll never dance again" period. She was working at a phone company and actually helped me get a job there. (I lasted three months).
After I severed all ties with the ballet school, I mysteriously lost weight. My mother called me "the skull", I was so thin.
A famous ballet story that deals with weight is "Dancing On My Grave" by Gelsey Kirkland.
What does this all mean? Firstly, it means we knew nothing about being thin and being healthy. No one's fault at the time.
But we do now! So how do you fit into that size zero tutu?
I remember an amazing moment after I'd just finished my Cecchetti teacher's exam. My examiner was Margaret Saul, much feared at the time. (and somewhere in her eighties). My exam was the last of the day - and after my exam partner and I left the studio, Ms. Saul came out. She smiled at me and said "You have plump arms - like Karsavina. They make the just the right line". (Cecchetti's pupil and partner to Nijinsky).
I don't think I heard that correctly for about two weeks. Karsavina? Tamara?
So, it's just a matter of perspective.
So - back to 'lose weight' - fat does not make you fat. Carbs make you fat. Except for Ezekial or some other brand FLOURLESS bread, forget the bread.
Proteins, vitamins, and minerals are found in meats, cheeses, dairy products, vegetables, legumes, nuts, salads and fruits. Not enough for you?
Unfortunately our culture is tuned to the diet industry and the processed foods industry.
You have to eat fresh foods.
The best approach is to train your brain to WANT the correct foods. Now there is a special program so you, the dancer - can lose weight.
Many teenagers have a "weight problem". At the National Ballet School of Canada we were weighed once a week. Our weight was posted publicly in the lunch room, from week to week. On Fridays when my class got weighed, we skipped breakfast but drank a lot of coffee - so as to stimulate urination, water loss, and loss of weight. So we went into ballet class at 9:00 with no food. Oh well. It was humiliating, since we were growing children and constantly gaining weight.
The funny thing is, I had no weight problem before I went to the school. I was so thin as a child that my mother had all kinds of tricks and punishments to make me eat.
Unfortunately at the time, little was known about metabolism, and good diet. Nothing wrong was done. Modern ballet schools are extremely concerned with proper diets.
The absolutely most incredibly talented dancer in our school at the time also had a weight problem. She was chosen for a solo by a visiting Russian teacher. She lost tons of weight and danced brilliantly. People were riveted when she stepped onto the stage in the school show. Time and space stopped when she danced.
But after he left for Russia she gained weight again. Then a few months later she was supposed to go into the National Ballet Company. She didn't. We heard that she ended up in the hospital with a "tropical disease". Huh? Looking back, I don't believe it. I think she starved herself. Too much.
About a year later I met her on the street. I was going through a "I'll never dance again" period. She was working at a phone company and actually helped me get a job there. (I lasted three months).
After I severed all ties with the ballet school, I mysteriously lost weight. My mother called me "the skull", I was so thin.
A famous ballet story that deals with weight is "Dancing On My Grave" by Gelsey Kirkland.
What does this all mean? Firstly, it means we knew nothing about being thin and being healthy. No one's fault at the time.
But we do now! So how do you fit into that size zero tutu?
I remember an amazing moment after I'd just finished my Cecchetti teacher's exam. My examiner was Margaret Saul, much feared at the time. (and somewhere in her eighties). My exam was the last of the day - and after my exam partner and I left the studio, Ms. Saul came out. She smiled at me and said "You have plump arms - like Karsavina. They make the just the right line". (Cecchetti's pupil and partner to Nijinsky).
I don't think I heard that correctly for about two weeks. Karsavina? Tamara?
So, it's just a matter of perspective.
So - back to 'lose weight' - fat does not make you fat. Carbs make you fat. Except for Ezekial or some other brand FLOURLESS bread, forget the bread.
Proteins, vitamins, and minerals are found in meats, cheeses, dairy products, vegetables, legumes, nuts, salads and fruits. Not enough for you?
Unfortunately our culture is tuned to the diet industry and the processed foods industry.
You have to eat fresh foods.
The best approach is to train your brain to WANT the correct foods. Now there is a special program so you, the dancer - can lose weight.
Some shoes are so beautiful they are works of art
And they are best displayed in a neat line by the door!
National Express Advert
There is an internet advert showing on Yahoo mail for National Express at the moment. It features the feet of some girls having a night in, shod in socks and slippers. These then metamorphosise into high-heel shod feet for a girls night out.
Britain may not be the best country for shoe-removal in homes but at least people associate girls' nights in with going shoeless.
Britain may not be the best country for shoe-removal in homes but at least people associate girls' nights in with going shoeless.
Hospitality
re-post
There are some who think that asking guests to remove their shoes is contrary to the principle of hospitality. Again, this is a culturally relative matter. Albania and Turkey are countries in which hospitality is greatly valued and yet is expected in those countries that guests remove their shoes.
The shoes-on people argue that a hostess should primarily be concerned with her guests comfort and not with the state of her carpet or floor. However, most guests will feel more comfortable after removing their shoes. They may, admittedly, be uncomfortable because they are embarassed about their feet or they feel their shoes are part of their outfit. Those problems can be dealt with by letting guests know in advance that shoes-off is expected and so they can either bring slippers or plan their outfits with bare or stocking feet in mind. Any embarassment should be minimal if guests are not taken by surprise.
In my opinion, those who insist that guests should be allowed to keep their shoes on take hospitality for granted.
When I get my own house or apartment, I may well invite you. I will give you the best seat. I will cook for you. I will serve you the best food I can. I will give you whatever you want to drink, whether it be alcoholic or not. I will give you my undivided attention. I will entertain you with conversation. If you live nearby, I will drive you home in my car. If not, I will let you stay the night. I will wash up the dishes and cutelry you have used and clean up any mess you make. Given that I am willing to do all this for you, do you really think it is so unreasonable that I ask you to take your shoes off?
There are some who think that asking guests to remove their shoes is contrary to the principle of hospitality. Again, this is a culturally relative matter. Albania and Turkey are countries in which hospitality is greatly valued and yet is expected in those countries that guests remove their shoes.
The shoes-on people argue that a hostess should primarily be concerned with her guests comfort and not with the state of her carpet or floor. However, most guests will feel more comfortable after removing their shoes. They may, admittedly, be uncomfortable because they are embarassed about their feet or they feel their shoes are part of their outfit. Those problems can be dealt with by letting guests know in advance that shoes-off is expected and so they can either bring slippers or plan their outfits with bare or stocking feet in mind. Any embarassment should be minimal if guests are not taken by surprise.
In my opinion, those who insist that guests should be allowed to keep their shoes on take hospitality for granted.
When I get my own house or apartment, I may well invite you. I will give you the best seat. I will cook for you. I will serve you the best food I can. I will give you whatever you want to drink, whether it be alcoholic or not. I will give you my undivided attention. I will entertain you with conversation. If you live nearby, I will drive you home in my car. If not, I will let you stay the night. I will wash up the dishes and cutelry you have used and clean up any mess you make. Given that I am willing to do all this for you, do you really think it is so unreasonable that I ask you to take your shoes off?
Shoe Covers
re-post
Sometimes in internet discussions of this subject, people suggest that those with shoes-off homes should provide shoe covers, so those visiting can keep their shoes on.
Firstly, I am not sure if you can wear shoe covers with high heeled shoes or flip flops. Does anybody know if you can? I would be interested to know.
Secondly, I think there are circumstances in which shoe covers might be an idea. For workmen who have to protect their feet or for those who are elderly or have some medical condition.
The reason I do not like the idea is that it goes against the whole aesthetic of 'shoes off at the door.' The idea is that the guest enters the comfort of the host's house and is able to relax and unburden herself of shoes.
Strange as it may seem, I do not feel entirely comfortable in a living room in which people are wearing shoes. Even if I am not wearing mine, the presence of shod persons makes me feel like I am in an office or hotel.
I think if a person would rather wear shoe covers which make them look ridiculose rather than take their shoes off in a comfortable home, I think they must be far more obsessive than I am.
Sometimes in internet discussions of this subject, people suggest that those with shoes-off homes should provide shoe covers, so those visiting can keep their shoes on.
Firstly, I am not sure if you can wear shoe covers with high heeled shoes or flip flops. Does anybody know if you can? I would be interested to know.
Secondly, I think there are circumstances in which shoe covers might be an idea. For workmen who have to protect their feet or for those who are elderly or have some medical condition.
The reason I do not like the idea is that it goes against the whole aesthetic of 'shoes off at the door.' The idea is that the guest enters the comfort of the host's house and is able to relax and unburden herself of shoes.
Strange as it may seem, I do not feel entirely comfortable in a living room in which people are wearing shoes. Even if I am not wearing mine, the presence of shod persons makes me feel like I am in an office or hotel.
I think if a person would rather wear shoe covers which make them look ridiculose rather than take their shoes off in a comfortable home, I think they must be far more obsessive than I am.
Fancy a Picnic?
re-post
It is good weather for picnics right now.
You should always remove your shoes before putting your feet on a picnic blanket. Not only do people sit on picnic blankets, but they put food on them. Resting shoes on a picnic blanket is like putting your shoes on the dinner table or even a dinner plate.
Many people who wear shoes at home will remove their shoes before sitting on a picnic blanket, but it is amazing that some people will keep their dirty shoes on.
It is good weather for picnics right now.
You should always remove your shoes before putting your feet on a picnic blanket. Not only do people sit on picnic blankets, but they put food on them. Resting shoes on a picnic blanket is like putting your shoes on the dinner table or even a dinner plate.
Many people who wear shoes at home will remove their shoes before sitting on a picnic blanket, but it is amazing that some people will keep their dirty shoes on.
Neat Freaks?
re-post
It is commonly thought that people who insist on shoes-off in their homes are neat freaks who are obsessed with keeping their homes clean and tidy.
I dare say that there are some people who prefer shoes-off who are genuine neat freaks. And those who are Obsessive-Compulsive about cleanliness may well be among the shoes-off community.
Of course this is culturally relative. In Japan it is thought that money is dirty and unhygeinic because it is handled by untold numbers of people. Japanese people also regard any objects placed in bathrooms, such as books or ornaments to be 'dirty'. A person in a western society who held such attitudes would almost certainly be regarded as Obsessive-Compulsive.
I have known a number of people who really were excessive in their desire to keep their homes clean. Interestingly, these people did not require visitors to remove their shoes. I suspect that they probably spent so much time in cleaning their homes that they were happy to waste time cleaning up afer their visitors.
Many people who keep their homes shoe-free are not domestic goddesses who like nothing better than spending whole days doing spring cleaning. Rather, they are busy working people who have far better things to do. They do not want to clean up for the sake of it, but they know that living in a clean environment is healthier and far more pleasent. Knowing that time is precious they would rather keep the mess to the minimum and spend as little time as possible cleaning up after their visitors. Prevention is better than cure.
Nobody needs a house that is spotless, but it is pointless to allow dirt and dust to accumulate when it could easily be kept out by leaving shoes at the door. A floor is meant to be walked upon, but that does not mean that one should not reduce wear and tear and save time and money.
It is commonly thought that people who insist on shoes-off in their homes are neat freaks who are obsessed with keeping their homes clean and tidy.
I dare say that there are some people who prefer shoes-off who are genuine neat freaks. And those who are Obsessive-Compulsive about cleanliness may well be among the shoes-off community.
Of course this is culturally relative. In Japan it is thought that money is dirty and unhygeinic because it is handled by untold numbers of people. Japanese people also regard any objects placed in bathrooms, such as books or ornaments to be 'dirty'. A person in a western society who held such attitudes would almost certainly be regarded as Obsessive-Compulsive.
I have known a number of people who really were excessive in their desire to keep their homes clean. Interestingly, these people did not require visitors to remove their shoes. I suspect that they probably spent so much time in cleaning their homes that they were happy to waste time cleaning up afer their visitors.
Many people who keep their homes shoe-free are not domestic goddesses who like nothing better than spending whole days doing spring cleaning. Rather, they are busy working people who have far better things to do. They do not want to clean up for the sake of it, but they know that living in a clean environment is healthier and far more pleasent. Knowing that time is precious they would rather keep the mess to the minimum and spend as little time as possible cleaning up after their visitors. Prevention is better than cure.
Nobody needs a house that is spotless, but it is pointless to allow dirt and dust to accumulate when it could easily be kept out by leaving shoes at the door. A floor is meant to be walked upon, but that does not mean that one should not reduce wear and tear and save time and money.
Exclusion Zone
I was listening to a radio programme in my bedroom today. My mother came in to have a listen. I asked her to remove her shoes. I do not think I had asked her before to remove her shoes in my room, but she obliged.
I will have to get used to asserting myself on this issue. If my parents move to Sussex soon, I will be the sole caretaker of the house (and my sole responsibility to keep it clean before it sells). If the house sells, I will want to have my own place.
I will have to get used to asserting myself on this issue. If my parents move to Sussex soon, I will be the sole caretaker of the house (and my sole responsibility to keep it clean before it sells). If the house sells, I will want to have my own place.
New Realities
Some people say that having a shoes-off rule is inappropriate because many people are emabarassed about their feet and having one's feet exposed is somehow too intimate for a dinner party or other social occasion.
Are these people living in the twenty-first century or the Victorian era?
Yesterday, I had a drive out into the countrside, visiting Pershore and Ledbury in Worcestershire. About three out of five people were wearing sandals or flip flops. Nearly all women that I saw were wearing open-toed shoes. I was wearing flip flops myself.
Today I went to church and again, nearly all the women were wearing sandals or flip flops and at least half the men were wearing sandals or flip flops.
The fact is that the vast majority of people are not embarassed about having their barefeet visible. People wear sandals, they do Yoga, they go to swimming pools, they go barefoot on beaches and they have to remove their shoes at airport security checks. Removing shoes when visiting homes is simply no big deal for most people.
Are these people living in the twenty-first century or the Victorian era?
Yesterday, I had a drive out into the countrside, visiting Pershore and Ledbury in Worcestershire. About three out of five people were wearing sandals or flip flops. Nearly all women that I saw were wearing open-toed shoes. I was wearing flip flops myself.
Today I went to church and again, nearly all the women were wearing sandals or flip flops and at least half the men were wearing sandals or flip flops.
The fact is that the vast majority of people are not embarassed about having their barefeet visible. People wear sandals, they do Yoga, they go to swimming pools, they go barefoot on beaches and they have to remove their shoes at airport security checks. Removing shoes when visiting homes is simply no big deal for most people.
Housewarming Party
If you are moving into a new house or apartment and you want to make a clean start and have a no-shoes rule, you have an ideal opportunity to kick it off with an housewarming party.
The best thing to do is to indicate clearly on invitations that you will be requiring shoes-off. That way people will have no surpises. They can bring slippers, wear clean socks with no holes or a floaty skirt that looks great with barefeet (Trinny and Susanah actually recommend that hostesses of dinner parties should wear a long skirt with barefeet).
Having an housewarming party is such an excellent way to send the message that your new house will be a shoe-free zone. Even those of your friends who do not come will see on the invitation that you want shoes-off.
Requiring shoes-off at a housewarming party sends the message that you are really serious about the rule and that it is not just an exception for a wet winter evening. After all, some people with shoeless homes actually make an exception and allow shoes-on in parties. However, having shoes-off at an housewarming makes it clear that you want the house to stay as it was when you bought it.
I might need to think about this myself soon. My parents are moving to Sussex this year and I am determined not to go with them. Provided I get a job, I hope to get my own apartment (I would ask Christian readers to pray for me about this). And you can be sure what the first house rule will be.
The best thing to do is to indicate clearly on invitations that you will be requiring shoes-off. That way people will have no surpises. They can bring slippers, wear clean socks with no holes or a floaty skirt that looks great with barefeet (Trinny and Susanah actually recommend that hostesses of dinner parties should wear a long skirt with barefeet).
Having an housewarming party is such an excellent way to send the message that your new house will be a shoe-free zone. Even those of your friends who do not come will see on the invitation that you want shoes-off.
Requiring shoes-off at a housewarming party sends the message that you are really serious about the rule and that it is not just an exception for a wet winter evening. After all, some people with shoeless homes actually make an exception and allow shoes-on in parties. However, having shoes-off at an housewarming makes it clear that you want the house to stay as it was when you bought it.
I might need to think about this myself soon. My parents are moving to Sussex this year and I am determined not to go with them. Provided I get a job, I hope to get my own apartment (I would ask Christian readers to pray for me about this). And you can be sure what the first house rule will be.
Shoes still Need to Come Off in Summer
Lately, it has not seemed much like summer here in the UK, but the warm weather is thankfully back.
re-post
Some people may be of the opinion that shoes-off in homes is a good idea in the damp of winter, but is quite unnecessary in summer, except when it rains (which it certainly does here in the UK).
However, on the contrary I maintain that shoes ought to be removed even in summer.
It is true that the weather is drier in summer,so there is less chance of bringing damp or mud into the house. However, in summer, shoes will still pick up small particles of grit. These particles gradually wear out carpets.
If you have laminate or wood floors, there is still the risk of making scratches (watch out with those high-heeled sandals, ladies) or leaving marks (why do you think you are expected to wear deck shoes or go barefoot on a yacht?).
Dust is still a problem in summer. Dust is not good for your health or your children's health and the less of it in your house, the better. There is likely to be even more dust in summer, as the ground dries up and cracks.
Dog dirt is still a problem in summer. In winter, many people will walk their dogs to the minimum that is necessary. In summer, people will be spending longer outisde with their dogs, increasing the risk of fouling up. Dog dirt is extremely unhealthy stuff. Not good for crawling babies. You may try to avoid stepping in it, but your shoes will still pick up small traces and then grind them into the carpet if you do not take them off.
There is also pollen, which is only a problem in summer. Your shoes will pick up lots of the stuff. If you suffer from Hayfever or you live with Hayfever sufferers, I recommend having a shoes-off policy in summer.
Of course, on a hot summers day, nobody ought to mind taking their shoes off!
re-post
Some people may be of the opinion that shoes-off in homes is a good idea in the damp of winter, but is quite unnecessary in summer, except when it rains (which it certainly does here in the UK).
However, on the contrary I maintain that shoes ought to be removed even in summer.
It is true that the weather is drier in summer,so there is less chance of bringing damp or mud into the house. However, in summer, shoes will still pick up small particles of grit. These particles gradually wear out carpets.
If you have laminate or wood floors, there is still the risk of making scratches (watch out with those high-heeled sandals, ladies) or leaving marks (why do you think you are expected to wear deck shoes or go barefoot on a yacht?).
Dust is still a problem in summer. Dust is not good for your health or your children's health and the less of it in your house, the better. There is likely to be even more dust in summer, as the ground dries up and cracks.
Dog dirt is still a problem in summer. In winter, many people will walk their dogs to the minimum that is necessary. In summer, people will be spending longer outisde with their dogs, increasing the risk of fouling up. Dog dirt is extremely unhealthy stuff. Not good for crawling babies. You may try to avoid stepping in it, but your shoes will still pick up small traces and then grind them into the carpet if you do not take them off.
There is also pollen, which is only a problem in summer. Your shoes will pick up lots of the stuff. If you suffer from Hayfever or you live with Hayfever sufferers, I recommend having a shoes-off policy in summer.
Of course, on a hot summers day, nobody ought to mind taking their shoes off!
I am not getting any revenues for this, but I'll post it anyway
My mother used to teach courses in infant massage at a Cannons Health and Fitness Club. This is a nationwide chain of gyms.
Cannons sensibly have a policy of requiring shoes to be removed before entering their creche facilities.
Cannons sensibly have a policy of requiring shoes to be removed before entering their creche facilities.
Children
re-post
I am always a little surprised when I see children wearing shoes at home, whether on television or in person. It surprises me because when I was a child, my parents expected me to remove my shoes at the door. When I visited my friends' homes, their parents often expected me to take my shoes off. So it always seems a little strange when I see children keeping their shoes on at home.
The practise of removing shoes was expected until I reached the age of about 12. My parents became less stringent about it as I got older. Occasionally this house rule would be revived in later years. It was restored when I was 21 when my parents and I moved to a house with cream carpets, though they were not consistent in keeping to it.
There are some homes, in the UK, where the hosts will expect the children of guests to remove their shoes, but would not expect it of adult guests. Some guests will insist that their children remove their shoes without removing their own. I can understand why some people may be more concerned about children's shoes; children do tend to be less careful about what they step in and are more likely to run around in long and wet grass. However, adults should never forget that their own shoes pick up an awful lot of less noticeable dirt. There is also the fact that children learn to follow rules better when adults act consistently. There is a certain amount of 'do as I say, not do as I do' in the requirement of shoes-off for children only.
Many childcare experts are of the opinion that children should wear shoes to the minimum necessary and therefore recommend shoes-off indoors for health reasons.
I am always a little surprised when I see children wearing shoes at home, whether on television or in person. It surprises me because when I was a child, my parents expected me to remove my shoes at the door. When I visited my friends' homes, their parents often expected me to take my shoes off. So it always seems a little strange when I see children keeping their shoes on at home.
The practise of removing shoes was expected until I reached the age of about 12. My parents became less stringent about it as I got older. Occasionally this house rule would be revived in later years. It was restored when I was 21 when my parents and I moved to a house with cream carpets, though they were not consistent in keeping to it.
There are some homes, in the UK, where the hosts will expect the children of guests to remove their shoes, but would not expect it of adult guests. Some guests will insist that their children remove their shoes without removing their own. I can understand why some people may be more concerned about children's shoes; children do tend to be less careful about what they step in and are more likely to run around in long and wet grass. However, adults should never forget that their own shoes pick up an awful lot of less noticeable dirt. There is also the fact that children learn to follow rules better when adults act consistently. There is a certain amount of 'do as I say, not do as I do' in the requirement of shoes-off for children only.
Many childcare experts are of the opinion that children should wear shoes to the minimum necessary and therefore recommend shoes-off indoors for health reasons.
Green as a thistle.com: You shoes, you lose
Green as a thistle.com: You shoes, you lose
Although I recycle stuff, I tend not to worry much about the environment. Nevertheless, if worrying about the environment gets people to take their shoes off at the door, I am all for environmentalism.
Although I recycle stuff, I tend not to worry much about the environment. Nevertheless, if worrying about the environment gets people to take their shoes off at the door, I am all for environmentalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
