Another post on the same topic...

[conuly]

Despite the fact that this is untrue, many people believe that various health departments in the US ban bare feet in restaurants. You're not required to wash your hands, but the part of your body that doesn't come near the food or your mouth, that's supposed to be covered for "health reasons". That's not true.

I remember reading once that, in the Brady Bunch, the kids were never barefoot. If they got out of bed to go across the room for a book, they put on shoes or slippers. I don't know if that's true, but it seems unnatural for me, at least as bad as Lucy and Ricky's bed.

However, the silliest thing I ever noticed was this. Way back when, Lizziey dared me to 'liberate' some of 'dul's porn. Which I shouldn't've done since she wussed out of HER dare, but it was late, you get drunkish when you're that tired. And I noticed something scary. In all the "naked" pictures except one, they were wearing shoes. This didn't seem to be some sort of shoe fetish porn, but they all had shoes on. They theoretically stripped, and then PUT THE SHOES BACK ON.

I don't understand it. Didn't understand it then, either. What's so objectionable about the naked foot as compared to the naked hand, or nose, or... well, anything else? While I realize that pr0n != realism, these pictures really confused me. Why put the shoes back on?

There's something wrong in this society. Clearly. People have more hangups about the feet than they do about the privates! Gah!

Or maybe that was an weird bit of porn. Maybe.

Comments

[neurotica0.livejournal.com]

Speaking of the health code thing, I have an acquaintance at school who rarely wears shoes. He was told he could not come into the cafeteria without shoes. I told him that was wrong. He says that they can reserve the right to refuse service to him. I still think he should be allowed in without shoes. From a legal perspective, who is right? (I'm assuming you know; you may not.)

[conuly]

He was told he could not come into the cafeteria without shoes. I told him that was wrong. He says that they can reserve the right to refuse service to him. I still think he should be allowed in without shoes. From a legal perspective, who is right? (I'm assuming you know; you may not.)

Hm. I'm not a lawyer, so this is my very uneducated opinion!

No state has a health code that forbids entering any place of business without shoes.

However, any individual place of business has the right to make their own rules. So he can be banned from a cafeteria because of his shoelessness. Unfortunately.

He definitely should be allowed in without shoes, but that doesn't mean they have to allow it.

[neurotica0.livejournal.com]

He definitely should be allowed in without shoes, but that doesn't mean they have to allow it.

Good point.