Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Barefootedness

On the 4th of July each year, the people of the United States of America celebrate Independence Day, the anniversary of the signing of The Declaration of Independence on the same date in 1776. Although an official constitution was not ratified until 11 years later, we Americans generally think of July 4th as the anniversary of our country's founding.

Patriotic toes!
Courtesy: Elizabeth McCullough

Freedom is something we hold dear and do not take lightly in the U.S. Our country was founded on the basic principle of having the rights to say and do as you please (so long as it is within the law). Ask any American and they'll tell you that, for all of our country's flaws, this is still the best place to live in the world. I do believe that...to an extent. Why? Going barefoot in this country is a freedom that many of us do NOT have -- not really.

Americans have a deep relationship with -- even addiction to -- shoes. As much as women complain about how much heels hurt their feet, many would never think of giving them up. For many groups, the shoes they wear are a status symbol among their peers. Like addicts with a drug, most Americans feel like they need shoes. Footwear has become a part of our identities and influences how we feel about ourselves. They've become a prophylactic antibiotic that we've become convinced we will suffer without. The problem is that this country's addiction to shoes has led us to believe in inappropriate distortions and perversions of key biomechanical functions of our bodies.

Even though the Declaration of Independence says each one of us is endowed by our creator with the "unalienable" rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," our shoe-centric society has declared that those rights are at the discretion of others when it comes to our feet. Even though feet are not considered "private" areas of the body and going barefoot would bring no real harm or liability to anyone else, we somehow do not have the liberty to live in the way we feel is best for our own bodies.

There's Just No Justice

Though it's perfectly legal to drive, shop or dine barefoot almost everywhere in this country, the prevailing assumption is that it is illegal. It's all not true! Because these myths are so prevalent, they've percolated down into the collective of social norms so that many people now are convinced that it's wrong to go without shoes. It's widely thought that going barefoot -- that is, making the choice to not wear foreign objects on our bodies -- is unsafe, unhealthy, unhygienic and inappropriate. Because of that, we who prefer to live barefoot are often discriminated against by friends, family, business managers and more.

The scales of "justice" for bare feet.

That "and more" includes discrimination by the courts. Bob Neinast, a barefooter in Ohio, has actually brought suit against public facilities in his state for disallowing his bare feet and has subsequently LOST each one of the cases. The courts ruled that going barefoot is dangerous enough that the facilities have a right to bar their patrons from going without shoes. These rulings have been made without any legal or scientific evidence to back them up. These are obviously judges who carry the same biases against feet as so many others in our country.

It doesn't make sense. Where's the real "justice," here? The Declaration of Independence says I should have these freedoms and the 10th Amendment of The Constitution ultimately leaves all this up to the states "or to the people." No state has made illegal the practice of going barefoot, so I should be in the clear because the right belongs to the people - of which I am one - right?

One could argue that business proprietors also have a right to pursue their own happiness -- a happiness that may come partially from having all their patrons keep their shoes on so that they don't get hurt and the owner doesn't get sued. I wonder, though: Who ultimately gets to decide that a business proprietor's rights supersede my individual right to not wear shoes? What if the establishment is a public institution whose purpose is to serve the people (e.g. a public library, courthouse, city hall, capitol building, etc.)? All of Bob Neinast's lawsuits have rightfully argued that these tax-funded institutions should not be biting the hand that feeds them and have no reason to deny people entry simply because they are without shoes. Likewise, you'd think that most businesses wouldn't take issue with a paying barefoot customer so long as they're not putting others at risk. Does the danger of allowing customers go barefoot really rank worse than losing their money and helping your bottom line?

The Realities of Risk

I've heard all the ill-conceived reasons to deny people the ability to go barefoot into an establishment. There's a widespread belief that walking barefoot inside a store or restaurant is an enormous risk to the feet and has the potential for significant injury. In all actuality, the risks in going barefoot are very low - much lower than other activities, actually, that are allowed by various establishments. There is rarely any broken glass or super infectious disease just laying about, especially the kinds that can cause serious injury.

When you take a close look at what patrons of most establishments are allowed to do, it's surprising that bare feet are what get banned for "safety" reasons. There are no other social norms, legal precedents, or identifiable risk concerns that require the constant restriction or "protection" of ongoing biological systems like those for the feet:

• Hand Function: Restaurants do not require that diners wear protective gloves when using a fork or steak knife. Diners are expected to be careful and try not to cut themselves. Establishments (except for specific areas of some hospitals) do not require that patrons wear surgical gloves on property to avoid the risks associated with communicable diseases. Individuals take on the risks of being infected when in public places. Library patrons aren't expected to wear gloves to protect against paper cuts when flipping through books. It's expected that they take on those risks.
• Respiratory Function: Establishments (except for specific areas of some hospitals) do not require that patrons wear protective masks to avoid the risks associated with communicable diseases. A social norm exists that individuals take on the risks of being infected when in public places. Gas stations don't require that customers who fill up their cars wear gas masks to protect against noxious gasoline fumes. Everyone involved understands that the risk of inhaling such things is part of the process.
• Neck Function: Amusement parks do not require people to wear neck braces on roller coasters or bumper cars. (In fact, I can tell you from my experience working a roller coaster years ago that riders with neck braces would not be allowed) Policies are posted that you take on the risk of injury by riding such things. Car manufacturers do not require that drivers and passengers in their vehicles wear neck protection as part of the safety features in case of a collision. A social norm exists that people take on the risk of being injured if a collision occurs.
• Hearing: Concert and auto racing venues do not force attendees to wear ear plugs for their own safety even though these events can get to volumes that are dangerous for the hearing. Concert goers and racing fans understand that by participating, they take their hearing into their own...ears.
• Eyesight: Outdoor venues do not require on sunny days that their guests wear sunglasses for their eyes' protection. People understand that they take responsibility for their own eye health.

Are the risks from going barefoot so much worse than those from the activities above? Is the potential for impaired hand function, lung infection, neck pain, hearing loss and cataracts so much less objectionable than a cut to the foot?

Biology's Best

One natural - but very controversial - biological function has had to be protected by law to prevent discrimination against those who practice it. Even with legal protection, breastfeeding is still looked upon poorly by many in our society. In fact, many mothers hesitate to use their right to breastfeed in public even with the protections afforded by law in almost every state. As I blogged about in June 2010 ("Exposing Another Healthy Taboo"), going barefoot and breastfeeding both have many health benefits and are legal in public, but both also have a prudish stigma attached to them. One is frequently protected by law, but the other is not. Do the health benefits of breastfeeding far outweigh the benefits from going barefoot?

The hands and feet are both unique sections of the body that serve important and specific biomechanical functions. Just as a core element of our hands is to feel, grasp, move and use objects, our feet serve a critical function in our ability to stand, feel, balance, walk and climb objects (like stairs, for example). Both hands and feet have a large number of bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, joints and nerve endings that are used to carry out these jobs. Blocking our feet from feeling the ground, a process called exteroception, stifles an important and significant biomechanical system that aids the body in balance and danger avoidance. Reducing foot flexibility by requiring footwear increases the likelihood for tightened soft tissues and foot stiffness.

For each establishment that requires shoes on our feet, it forces the equivalent of gloves on our hands, masks on our faces, braces on our necks, plugs in our ears and shades on our eyes. By denying us - heck anyone - the ability to choose what is best for our own bodies, we are being denied something that was "endowed" to us by our creator - or nature, if you so choose. It's one thing for a person to choose for themselves to wear shoes - that, too, is a liberty afforded in this country - but it's another when a person is denied entry to a business, church or publicly-owned facility only because they prefer to go shoeless.

The Pursuit of Protection

I assert that going barefoot should be legally protected from an establishment's ability to set codes of conduct or attire. We have a natural biomechanical right to go barefoot and take on the risks associated with it. It's an issue of health and personal liberty. Just as laws have been established to protect the biological functions of breastfeeding women and their babies, laws should be put in place to protect the biomechanical functions of bare feet. It's the right thing to do. Realize that dress codes dictating what kind of pants can't be worn or prohibiting certain kinds of hats is not in the same vain as this issue. This is a matter directly related to protecting key systems of the human body.

My fear is that we could see a very appreciable and negative backslide for the barefooting movement if these issues aren't proactively tackled now. Many of my readers may disagree with me, but I believe that the increase in barefoot activity that we're seeing could lead to the tables turning against us. In some ways they already have because of the precedents set in the court decisions mentioned earlier. We don't want court precedents discriminating against barefoot activity to continue, that is for certain.

Going forward, I will begin pursuing the legal and legislative intricacies related to all this. Through my own efforts and the collective backing of The Primalfoot Alliance, we barefooters will hopefully soon be able to see significant positive change in support of the barefoot lifestyle. I don't know where this road will ultimately lead. I hope it doesn't end in disappointment at every curve. With the arguments I've laid out above, I hope to present a solid case to attorneys and legislators that protecting bare feet is the right thing to do. It's a pursuit of happiness that should be protected.

What do you think? Should barefoot activity be protected by law? Am I off base by comparing bare feet to other biomechanical systems of the body or even breastfeeding? What do you think needs to be done in the U.S. to press the issue of greater barefoot acceptance and less discrimination? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

Things That Make You Go Hmm...: The Barefoot Edition

One of the most frustrating things for me as a barefooter is that so many of the claims criticizing barefoot activity are made without the critics giving any thought to what they are actually saying. I know that the following observations are a bit snarky and pointed, but they're worth thinking about:

Lots of people have told me that they successfully went barefoot "all the time" as a kid, playing on rocks and gravel, in dirt, and around all kinds of dangerous things. Then they insinuate that the flat, smooth surfaces of the adult world (e.g. concrete, asphalt, tile, linolium and carpet) are too dangerous for going barefoot.

Hmm...

There's a prevalent thought that going barefoot is terribly unsanitary and can spread disease, yet most diseases are spread through direct contact from our hands to our faces, or from face to face. Still, no one insists that we all wear surgical masks and gloves during the height of flu season and no one polices public restrooms to make sure that we've all properly washed our hands when leaving.

Hmm...

Lots of people think it's "gross" or "disgusting" to go barefoot, but then put shoes on that their feet have sweated in day after day and which act as incubators for problems such as athlete's foot and toe fungus.

Hmm...

Going barefoot in a store is supposedly very unsafe and a high risk for injury, yet high heels -- which put 20,000 women a year into hospital ERs and often have no traction at all on their soles -- are acceptable footwear.

Hmm...

Many people claim that they "hate feet" and can't stand the sight of them, yet they're fine when others wear open-toed shoes. It's only when the small amount of shoe material is removed that the sight of the feet is offensive. The exception: bare feet are rarely hated at the pool.

Hmm...

Countless women have told me that they don't go barefoot because they have "sensitive" feet, yet are willing to wear shoes which cause regular pain and blistering in and on their "sensitive" feet.

Hmm...

Podiatrists and other experts say that there's no evidence to support claims that running barefoot leads to less injury. There is also no evidence to support claims that running with standard cushioned shoes causes less injury, yet they are fine recommending those.

Hmm...

Many people think that going barefoot puts feet at a high risk of injury, yet many people regularly close car doors, use sharp steak knives and scissors, light matches and more without wearing protective gloves.

Hmm...

Naysayers claim that there's loads of broken glass, sharp rocks, nails, and even hypodermic needles strewn about all over the place, yet they can never point out where any of it is when asked.

Hmm...

Though many podiatrists say that our bare feet aren't capable of properly supporting us, countless athletes successfully compete barefoot in gymnastics, martial arts, dance, running and more.

Hmm...

Some people believe it's inappropriate for someone to shop a store barefoot, yet customers are regularly allowed with offensive shirts and tattoos, bad body odor, loud children and more.

Hmm...

A common thought is that bare feet may make business floors excessively dirty. A person who regularly goes barefoot cleans their feet at least once a day. People who wear regularly wear shoes rarely, if ever, clean the soles of their footwear.

Hmm...

You know who -- or what -- is allowed barefoot into a store? Service animals. It may be "no shoes, no service" for people, but guide dogs are allowed on the very same unsafe floors AND they cannot be made by management to wear protective booties, per a blog post I wrote a while back.

Hmm...

Speaking of bare feet being inappropriate, it used to be that women should only wear skirts, children should only speak when spoken to and flip flops were only for the pool or shower room. My, how things change.

Hmm...

Do these things also make you go "Hmm..."? Does it give you a different perspective on bare feet? What would you add to the list? Am I off base with some of them? Please leave your comments in the section below.



Image: graur codrin / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Barefoot Season 2011: No Backup But The Doctor's Note

Now that Spring has sprung and warmer weather has moved in, I've decided to revise my Barefoot Code of Conduct for the 2011 "barefooting season." The idea is to keep it relevant and keep current my own personal preferences and standards related to going barefoot. There are two big changes for this year:

The first change is the elimination of regular "backup" footwear. Up to now, I've kept a pair of flip flops under the driver's seat of our car and minivan. The original purpose was to have a pair of backups available if I needed them for some reason. This included my willingness to comply with signs that required footwear and having the option of returning to my vehicle for them if asked by a business' employee/manager/security to put on shoes. I still had every intention of walking into most places totally barefoot.

The problem that I discovered, however, is that I relied on these flip flops too much. Instead of going into most places without any shoes, I kept slipping on the flip flops and then taking them off inside. This even included stores with no signs prohibiting bare feet! I was getting "soft." Instead of dictating how I was going to live my life, I found myself acquiescing to the assumed preferences of others and avoiding assumed confrontation. I don't like that.

There have been a few occasions in the past when I didn't have any backup footwear with me...and I LOVED it. This rarely occurred, but when it did I felt a sense of relief and a weight lifted off my shoulders. I was pleased with the reality that I had to go barefoot and that I didn't have to make a choice I didn't want to make. The certainty of inevitability can be quite soothing, sometimes.

If I know ahead of time that I will genuinely need footwear -- such as in times of extreme temperatures or when participating in more risky activities, I'll take shoes with me. The overall point is that having those "just in case shoes" on hand has come to an end.

The other big change is that I have acquired a note from my chiropractor. It says "Patient needs to be allowed to be barefoot regardless of location/establishment." (see photo below) I had a conversation with him about my barefoot lifestyle, and he understands the benefits of going barefoot. Because of that, he was more than willing to write up the note. I have heard success stories from other barefooters about how having a doctor's note helped their cause immensely. I haven't been questioned or had a need to use it yet -- and quite frankly I don't know if it carries any real legal weight (I've been researching this) -- but I welcome it as a "tool in the tool chest" when barefooting in public.

My doctor's note (altered for privacy purposes).

I should point out that I decided to ditch the backup footwear before I ever considered getting a doctor's note. The decision to talk to my chiropractor actually came on a whim when I overheard another patient talking with him about one.

This could be interesting. For example, I have a paid membership to Costco, a wholesale warehouse that requires footwear of their members. I have already been asked once (pre-note) to put on my flip flops while in there -- I complied because I had my flip flops in the cart. I like my Costco membership, but I also prefer to go barefoot. Without any backup footwear, I hope that the doctor's note is able to satisfy them enough to allow me to shop unshod. If not, I could consider Sam's Club, but they also have a shoe rule and may not allow me even with a note.

I still want to be able to function in society and purchase the things I need at the price I'd like, and anybody should expect the same whether they prefer to wear shoes or not. I founded The Primalfoot Alliance to advocate on behalf of barefooters because policies still exist that discriminate against us. I like having a doctor's note to show that I have medical backing behind my decision. That said, I also like the idea of being able to shop without hassle at Costco and many other places and not need a doctor's note or any other reason.

Rest assured that I will not back down from my dedication to The Primalfoot Alliance or other barefooters even though I have a doctor's note. The cause is still important and I will still be approached by many managers and security officers. I may "get off" with the note -- we'll see -- but I'll also take the opportunity to educate.

I will be posting again with information about how the doctor's note has worked out. I think it will help in many cases. If you have a chiropractor or doctor who you know is barefoot friendly, consider having a conversation about your desire to go barefoot into places but that you're often discriminated against. It may be that, if you ask, he/she would be willing to back you up with a note of your own.

I ask you, dear reader: What are your thoughts? Do you think the doctor's note will help? If Costco holds fast and rejects the note, should I stand on conviction and kick them to the curb? Have I taken this too far? Please leave your comments and suggestions in the section below.

Most Facebook Users Would Go Barefoot in Public: Poll

About half of Facebook users would "almost always" go barefoot in public if it were socially acceptable and the weather was nice, according to a recent online poll answered by 533 respondents on the social media site. Another quarter of responders replied that they would go barefoot "some of the time" under the same circumstances. The poll begins to give a better view of people's perceptions of going barefoot and it's societal acceptance. (The results hold a 95% confidence level with 4% margin of error.)

Methodology: Asking the Right Question

A barefoot shopper. (Photo by
colorblindPICASO on Flickr)

I've been very interested for a while in getting some kind of good data about people's impressions of barefoot living. As founder and president of The Primalfoot Alliance, I very strongly believe in advocating for those who want to go barefoot - even in public places where so many barefooters are discriminated against. The first thing I wanted to find out when researching all this is how many people actually would go barefoot if given the chance. Knowing that could influence how much effort The Primalfoot Alliance should put into our...um, efforts.

But what should be the first question? Well, I have my feelers out all over the internet when it comes to hearing people's thoughts on bare feet. I'm friends with numerous people who live with and without shoes, I watch a Twitter search related to all things "barefoot," and I get daily emails of Google search results related to the topic. A consistent message that I hear from a lot of people out there is their desire to go barefoot if it were only "socially acceptable" or if they "could." Furthermore, many people have told me that they would go barefoot more often if they lived in a better climate - specifically, warmer conditions. There are other factors that people take into account as reasons they don't go barefoot, but those two seem to be the foundational reasons why going barefoot isn't an option for them. I figure that for every person that says it, there may be many others who at least are thinking it.

So I asked the question, "Would you go totally barefoot in public if it was socially acceptable and the weather was nice?" I included the caveat for nice weather to make it more reasonable to imply that the basic conditions for personal comfort are favorable enough that they'd feel comfortable going barefoot in the first place. Notice that I made no mention of sharp objects, diseases or any other issues that naysayers bring up against going without shoes. I wanted for respondents to answer while keeping those concerns in mind. Finally, a key word in this question is 'totally.' I thought it was important to clearly state that there would be nothing on their feet. This eliminates the possibilities of socks, flip flops, minimalist footwear or anything else being considered.

The answers were written to be simple and few in number. I wanted to get a good cross section of responses in which anyone and everyone could find a comfortable answer. Respondents could choose "No, thank you," "Sure, some of the time," or "Absolutely, almost always."

The Results: Surprising Even to Me

It turns out that one out of every two people on Facebook would frequently go barefoot in public if their perception of social acceptance was achieved. Furthermore, about three out of four people would go without shoes publicly at least some of the time. Only about a quarter of the respondents indicated that they still would not go barefoot.

But there's more to these results: One thing I wanted to know was how skewed the results might be based on the ratio of responses from my friends versus those who I'm not friends with on the service. Basically, did those who know me and my barefoot lifestyle mess up the numbers. Interestingly enough, the responses were almost identical all the way across the board. The biggest deviation in responses from friends versus non-friends was about 2%. Not bad.

Let's look at some charts. First, here's a pie graph of the overall answers to the question with all 533 Facebook users who responded represented.:

Next up, here's a visual breakdown of each the responses by those who I'm friends with on Facebook (red) versus those I'm not (green).:

A full 83% (444 people) of the 533 total responses came from people with whom I am NOT friends on Facebook. The remaining 17% (89) are.

So how accurate are these results? I wondered that myself. Using a sample size calculator from Creative Research Systems, I determined that for Facebook's more than 500 million active users (using 500 million as the population size), the results hold a 95% confidence level with 4.25% margin of error.

Conclusions

With everything I've written and presented so far, what does all this actually mean? I have drawn a few conclusions of my own, but yours may vary. (Don't berate me because your conclusions don't agree with mine.):

• Because this poll was based only on Facebook users, it's hard to know exactly how it translates to the general populace. Although there are 500 million users on Facebook worldwide, only slightly more than 116 million of them are from the U.S. It's difficult to know how breakdowns of nationality, age, gender, political and other characteristics vary between Facebook's user population who responded and the general population. Without anything better to go on at this time, however, I believe it's reasonable to draw some conclusions about the general population from a good sample of 500 million users. After all, that's more than the entire population of the United States.
• If one questions whether going barefoot in public is "socially acceptable," I have to conclude that it probably IS. If you assume that those who are willing to do it are fine with others doing it, too - a reasonable assumption - that means that most of the public really are okay with others' public barefootedness. The number may even be higher if you consider that those who don't want to go barefoot themselves may still be fine with others doing it, though there's no data to support that assumption (i.e. That's another question to ask).
• There is widespread mistaken assumption that most of us are opposed to people going barefoot in public. It goes back to the notion of perception versus reality. People may not think it's socially acceptable, so they don't go barefoot in public. The problem is that a LOT of people think that and therefore the perception continues. I'd bet that this perception translates to business managers and security who think they're keeping the other patrons from being offended. It's pretty likely that a vast majority of the other patrons actually don't care. In all actuality, they would probably rather be barefoot, too.
• I find these results to be VERY surprising. I expected that there could be 20-30% of people who would go barefoot most of the time, but not half of all responders. The fact that three out of four people would go barefoot in public at least some of the time tells me that people do have a respect for their feet. The results back up two big sentiments that I hear on a regular basis: "I LOVE going barefoot," and "I used to go barefoot all the time as a kid." Even though they say these things, they DON'T go barefoot in public. Maybe the reason for this is because of perceived social norms. That said...
• We need to educate people that going barefoot in public is okay and that others are supportive. If people who prefer to go barefoot understand that they have the support of many others behind them, the visibility of bare feet in public could skyrocket in the next few years. As more people choose to go without shoes in public, there will be more pressure on businesses to allow them as patrons.
• We need to educate businesses that many people would prefer to go barefoot while out and about and that they are not a threat to the bottom line. I really do believe that many managers and security base much of their discrimination off baseless thinking that other patrons will be offended by seeing people go barefoot. I've experienced it myself when an art gallery manager -- after I shot down all his other reasons for denying me -- told me he didn't want other patrons to be offended...in an art gallery that had a number of potentially offensive/disturbing pieces on display.
• More research and polling needs to be done about these topics. There's so much more I'd like to know about people's stances on bare feet. For instance, what are people's primary reasons for opposing the idea of going barefoot in public? What do people see as the primary use for shoes? Are men or women more accepted when they go barefoot? The clearer the data we can get on all this, the better.

What do you think of these results? Do these responses surprise you? Do you think I made a mistake and these results aren't reliable? What can we take away from this poll? Please leave your responses in the comments section below.

Discrimination Against Barefooters: It Really IS That Bad

I love hearing from my readers, so I leave the comments open for people to share pretty much whatever they'd like -- short of spam or abusive language. Most of the time, whether I agree with comments or not, I simply read them, take them to heart and move along.

One comment from reader "RevTieDye" really stood out to me today, though. It's in response to my article, "Who Holds The Burden of Proof About Bare Feet?" I'm posting the comment as its own entry to educate and stir discussion. There have been several people who've asked me, "Is discrimination against your bare feet really that bad?" This real-life example, while a bit more extreme than most, helps answer that question. I have my own stories that I've already told, and Dr. Daniel Howell shared a similar story of discrimination that happened on his book tour last year as well.

RevTieDye wrote...

"

A day after reading this post I was in a grocery store that I've been frequenting barefoot for almost a year now. At least 20 visits without shoes. But this time an employee informs me that I can't be in there barefoot.

Me: Can you show me where it says I can't be barefoot.
Employee: No, but it's a health code.
Me: I'm sorry, but that's a myth. There is no such law. [exit SL]

2 minutes later the "Manager's apprentice" (that's actually what it said on his name badge) with two more large male employees flanking him arrives to tell me I had to leave. Like I'm brandishing a weapon or threatening another customer, or something.

I've seen a dozen ways to handle this politely, by people far more clueless than him. He didn't ask, he didn't politely inform, he didn't suggest that I wear shoes next time. He cut straight to

Apprentice: Sir, you have to leave--I can't allow you to be barefoot in here.
Me: Can you show me where it says I have to wear shoes.
Apprentice: Sir, I've asked you to leave, and you haven't. Now you're trespassing.
Me: I just want to see it in writing, because there are a lot of myths about bare feet. Can you show me that your company supports your opinion?

Note: So far, I have kept it at a conversational polite level the whole time, but now he starts raising his voice.

Apprentice: Sir you are trespassing. My next step is to call the police.
Me: Are you seriously saying that you would call the police and say "This is Jeremiah at W***o, come quick, we’ve got a barefoot guy down here?"

But at this point I knew I needed to back down and leave before I got my dander up and started contributing to the scene he was already making. So I left while I could still pretend to be calm.

I do believe you're right. We shouldn't have to bear the burden of proof. But I like to go barefoot because it's relaxing and makes me feel connected to the world. Dealing with the adrenaline levels of being confronted by an over-zealous apprentice manager and his intimidating wing-men is the opposite of what I'm after. I may have to hang up my protester hat, and just put on those vile flip-flops I keep under the seat of my truck.
"

Michael here again. Please understand that this is only ONE example of a countless number very similar to it. Barefooters are discriminated against like this on a regular basis -- and it's been happening for decades now. We're not just blowing it out of proportion or getting unnecessarily upset.

It's situations like this that made me start The Primalfoot Alliance, an organization that advocates for people's natural right to go barefoot if they so choose. If you haven't heard of it, here's the Web site.

Now, a few things stand out to me about RevTieDye's story:

First, it's not uncommon to go barefoot into a business multiple times without problems and then suddenly get stopped by the shoe police. It doesn't matter that you've safely shopped there unshod before -- even if other employees have clearly seen you doing it -- even if you mention that to them. From then on you're supposed to wear shoes. Period. (And don't expect that they'll put a sign up prohibiting barefooters from then on. They have every right to have a policy and not let their patrons know about it until it's been violated.)

Second, the myth of the health code prohibiting bare feet is huge. What's more? Shoot that down and they'll likely change their tune and suddenly have a different reason why bare feet are not okay -- a reason they never mentioned before. If it's not against health code then it must be illegal? No? Then it's...

Third, it's not uncommon for a manager to bring backup. I've experienced it. I know others have, too. For some reason, having a foreboding security guard or burly male employee by their side is used as a tactic to incite intimidation in barefooters or protect the manager from the barefooter. That's right, intimidate patrons who are only different because they lack shoes. That, or have backup available in case this barefoot person flies off the handle and goes berserk on you. It's good to have protection because, you know, anybody that shops without footwear must not be straight in the head, right?

Fourth, as is the case in so many confrontations like this, management resorted to the bottom-line reason of "because we said so" for discriminating against the barefoot customer. This manager even went so far as to not even explain him/herself. The, "because we said so," was implied.

Whether you're a barefooter or not, what do you think of this situation? Do you feel like this gave you a better picture of the discrimination that barefooters often face? Is it more important to back down to the shoe police than get your "adrenaline levels" up when confronted? Please leave your comments in the section below.

Who Holds the Burden of Proof About Bare Feet?

Barefooters are constantly explaining to others why it's okay for us to be unshod -- as if wearing shoes is the natural condition and bare feet are an oddity. Let's be clear: Going barefoot is our natural condition.

Just as having bare hands is the baseline for how we function as human beings, so it should be for feet. We should only wear shoes when truly necessary and when identifiable, legitimate reasons exist. It shouldn't be the obligation of barefooters to prove why we don't need shoes.

Imagine if someone were to say that we should wear gloves on our hands all day long every day. You'd get countless people asking why, claiming it's not necessary and going on without gloves anyway. There are simply not enough legitimate reasons to do such a thing.

It's really the responsibility of those who require shoes to tell us why we and they need them -- and to come up with legitimate reasons. This typically comes in the form of vague excuses of concern over spreading diseases -- which hands do a lot more of, potentially stepping on a sharp object -- which are very few and far between, social appropriateness -- which apparently simply requires any thickness of any material between the soles and the ground, questions of legality -- which, going barefoot isn't illegal, or other not-well-thought-out reasoning.

It's time to start turning the tables on those who discriminate against us. It's time that the burden of proof fall on them to legitimately justify why shoes are so necessary. We need to make them show us the broken glass and not accept their excuses until they do. We need them to take samples of the ground for viral testing to prove that it's unsafe for the public's collective health. We need to make them explain how going barefoot is not acceptable but vulgar t-shirts, patrons with foul odor and people who talk too loudly on their cell phones are. If they claim that going barefoot violates health codes or other laws, they need to show us the proof. If they cannot -- or will not -- do these things, they have no leg to stand on and we must refuse to put on footwear.

Are you a barefooter who finds yourself explaining why your natural state is okay? Do social norms requiring footwear supersede the burden of proof? Are you willing to stand up and turn the tables on discrimination? What do you think would happen if you did? Please leave your comments below.

Photo: Western Rite Critic

If the Tables Were Turned: Hypothetical Reactions to the New 'Fad' of Shoes

I got to thinking: What if bare feet were the norm and a "fad" got started up in which a small, vocal group of people started wearing shoes all the time. What would experts and the public say about that? Here's what I think:

A business owner: "We don't allow shod customers in our store. There's too much potential for people to get injured, and we would be liable if that happens. What if a woman in those "high-heeled" things rolls her ankle while shopping here? What if someone wearing shoes with a slick sole slips on a wet spot on the floor? I also have to think that those shoes would hurt the exposed toes of someone whose feet got stepped on. Have you seen how big and heavy some of those things are?! I've got to look out for my customers' safety. (Question) What's that? Broken glass? You know, I've worked in this business 12 years and I can't say that a barefoot customer has ever seriously cut themselves. Usually we clean up anything that's dangerous so it's not a big deal. I think we've had one or two customers that got a little piece stuck in their sole like a big splinter, but they just took it right out and went on their way. No bleeding or anything. If they did we'd give them a band-aid. Anyway, the other problem we have with shoes is that nobody ever cleans the outside of them! At least barefoot customers wash their feet every day. Who knows if or when a shod customer has ever cleaned the soles of them? Who knows what they stepped in that's collected on their shoes ever since they bought them? Gross, and my employees have better things to do than constantly clean the floors of all the dirty stuff that shoes drag in."

A running expert: "Adding a shoe to the foot and landing on the heel totally changes the dynamics of running. There's no evidence to suggest that a heel strike is more preferable to a forefoot or midfoot strike when running. It could even be a problem for the joints of the ankles, knees, hips and back, as all of those forces would travel up the skeletal system. I also see a problem with cutting off the sensations from the soles impacting the ground. There are thousands of nerve endings in the feet and these shoe people want to just cut those off? Sounds ridiculous to me. What next? Should we just run with horse blinders on? And paying more than $100 every few months to replace shoes when they wear down seems sketchy. I know a lot of runners that aren't going to make that kind of investment. It just sounds like a scheme from the shoe companies trying to make lots of money."

A podiatrist: "While I think there might be benefits for short periods of time in wearing shoes -- for protection from certain dangers, for example -- there's no research that shows they are better for your feet than simply going barefoot. There's a lot of evidence to the contrary, actually. Some of the shoes that people are wearing pinch the toes together or cram them into the front of the shoe. We're seeing an uptick in our practice of bunions, hammer toes, corns and other afflictions...and they're all from people wearing shoes. We're also seeing a lot of ankle and knee problems because shoes artificially raise the heel of the foot in completely unnatural ways. Lots of our patients -- most of them actually -- also complain of foot soreness, pain and even weakness because the shoes they're wearing are completely inflexible and essentially cast their feet while they have the shoes on. Wearing shoes also provides the perfect environment for growing fungus and other bacteria that need a warm, moist environment to thrive. Finally, wearing shoes on an uneven surface could lead to the shoe catching on the ground and the ankle to roll, causing soft tissue damage or a fracture. I definitely don't recommend that my patients wear shoes unless they have a medical need to or if they need them for protection from some activity they'll be participating in or bad weather. Even then, though, I don't see why a simple, thin sole wouldn't be enough for most things."

Your everyday citizen: "Shoes are so disgusting! Look, people were born barefoot for a reason. We've got all of those joints and bones in our feet and shoddies want to just stick those in a box? Plus, their feet in shoes are always sweaty and it usually causes their feet to stink. Cramming all of my toes together to the point of pain because it "looks good?" Whatever. And who needs protection all the time? It's not like there's broken glass just laying around everywhere. Paranoid weirdos. Just look where you're walking and you'll be fine. And if you step on something that cuts your foot, it's not like our feet are all that fragile or that they can't heal. Oh, here's my biggest thing: Who wants to spend hundreds of dollars constantly buying new shoes?! My feet don't cost anything and they never wear out. I'll spend my money on something else, thanks."

So what do you think? Is this how many people would react if the tables were turned and bare feet were the norm? Do you think I'm way off base with something I wrote? Please let me know your comments in the section below.

The Top 10 Impacts on Bare Feet in 2010

Since you can't turn on the TV, visit a Web site or read a magazine at this time of year without seeing some recap of the year that was, I thought I'd follow suit, look back and share the top 10 ways that bare feet or going barefooted made an impact in 2010. In this second year of creating this list, some are news items while others are trends or products. You may not have heard of some of the things on my list. Quite honestly, you may not agree with what I've selected or the order in which I've put them. What's important here is that the list is comprised of 10 ways that bare feet became more pervasive and made a name for themselves this year, not necessarily how the public saw them as a whole -- and not necessarily good. The list, in ascending order:


Honorable Mention: The Primalfoot Alliance Begins
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that The Primalfoot Alliance began this year. My brainchild -- but the work of a number of people -- began the process of "Taking Our Feet Back" and advocating for those who choose to go barefoot...even in public. There's a lot more on the horizon for this group. Keep an eye out in 2011.


10. Tiger Woods Likes Them Naked -- His Feet When Practicing, That Is
On the heels of Tiger's respectable #2 finish in my rankings last year for his widely-publicized post-vehicular-crash shoeless nap, he made it known this year that he often practices his golf swings sans footwear. Of his coach Sean Foley, Tiger wrote in a PGA blog, "Sometimes he has me hit shots barefoot, just to work my balance." Cool! So cool, in fact, that there was much speculation ahead of this year's Ryder Cup in early autumn that Tiger would even compete barefoot. Alas, that wasn't meant to be, but kudos to him and his coach for seeing the light shining down on the benefits of barefoot activity.


9. Serena Williams Misses U.S. Open After Cutting Feet in Restaurant

Some barefooters took notice when news broke in July that tennis star Serena Williams cut her foot on a piece of broken glass in a restaurant. As you're likely aware, the threat of broken glass is a common reason for restauranteurs to deny barefoot patrons. This could have ended up as fodder for barefoot-unfriendly folks to continue such discrimination. So was Serena going barefoot at a restaurant? What happened?

Ms. Williams told USA Today that details of the entire event are a bit of a mystery, but that she does know that both of her feet got cut by broken glass while she was wearing sandals and exiting the establishment. She's all better now and back to playing, but the scare left her with a lacerated tendon and a number of stitches.

Wow. It goes to show you that sandals won't even protect against some things, even while they are considered adequate "protection" compared to bare feet by so many naysayers. I think it also is a testament to how footwear "dumbs down" the feet and cuts off some of our senses. I wonder if this would have happened if she were barefoot. Would she have been more aware of her surroundings and, therefore, avoided the glass?


8. Groups Set New Records Sans Shoes
If there's something worth doing, somebody will think it's worth doing more than anyone has ever done it. That applied to bare feet this year as records were made and broken for both walking and running without shoes. Unfortunately, no one in the Western world managed to pull it off...for long.

The Guinness World Record for
Largest Barefoot Walk was
set in China in 2010.

In June, The Barefoot Runners Society made a "run" at the Guinness World Record for Largest Barefoot Race. They set it in early May when 140 of their closest friends ran around an indoor facility in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Their accomplishment was eclipsed in December, however, when 306 runners in Mumbai, India, took part in a barefoot half marathon organized by the Barefoot Runners of India Foundation.

Those who preferred a slower form of shoeless locomotion set their own records this year, too. First, it was 1,141 barefoot people in Chengdu, China, who walked one kilometer to set the Guinness record for Largest Barefoot Walk in September. The event was organized by Infinitus (China) Company Ltd. as part of their World Walking Day. Not long after their stroll, however, another group of more than 1,900 attempted to break that record in Andhra Pradesh, India, in November. It, however, has not been certified by the folks at Guinness as of this writing.


7. Sesame Street Tells Kids: "Set Your Piggies Free"
Kids love to take off their shoes...and so does Ziggy Marley! The good folks at the Sesame Workshop released a music video on their flagship PBS program "Sesame Street" this year. In short, it reminds kids that shoes don't need to be worn all the time. Aside from a nitpick I have about their implying that bare feet and pavement aren't friendly with each other, it's a cute song. Here's hoping that it helps bolster an army of children who don't fear bare feet on themselves or others as they grow older (and become managers at stores and restaurants). Hey, a barefooter can hope, can't he? Take a look:



6. "The Barefoot Book" Released by a "Barefoot Professor"

If ever barefooters around the world wanted an instruction manual on the benefits of going barefoot to share with friends, anatomy professor and barefooter Daniel Howell, PhD, released it this year.The Barefoot Book came out in the summer and started making waves in national media by the fall. Within months, Howell began giving interviews with the likes of The Washington Post, MSNBC, NBC, WGN Radio and numerous other outlets. While many of the interviews largely ignored the substantial contents of the book, Howell put a legitimate face on barefoot living and backed it up in writing. I'm excited to see how things progress as Howell continues the interviews in 2011 and The Barefoot Book becomes more widely known.

5. Taylor Swift Performs Barefoot at the VMAs (and Other Celebs Kick Off Their Shoes)

One of the hottest names in music this year was Taylor Swift, and she made waves online when she performed barefoot at the MTV Video Music Awards in September. Her song, seemingly sung to Kanye West, lended itself well to a shoeless performance since going barefoot is often considered a symbol of humility. Afterward, Twitter lit up with all kinds of comments about her lack of shoes. While some were supportive and thought it was cool, many panned her for being so gross, blah, blah, blah. You can read more and see the performance at my blog post about the whole thing.

When Miss Swift wasn't baring her soles, other celebrities made headlines here and there in 2010 for going barefoot, too. They included Michael Franti, Pamela Anderson, Thomas Jane, Diana Vickers and Isabel Lucas, to name a few.


4. Rex Ryan's Foot Fetish Fallout
I was done putting this list together when this bombshell fell out of the sky and I had to bump all the earlier stuff down a notch. Apparently the New York Jets' head coach and his wife like to play "footsie" with each other...and record it...and post it to the Internet. Once the media got wind of it, the Internets lit up with the term "foot fetish," and Ryan had some a'splainin' to do -- or not. "I know you need to ask and all that stuff, but it's a personal matter and I'm really not going to discuss it, OK?" he said in his response to reporters' questions. So sports media folks didn't get any answers and pretty much dropped it. Over and done with, right? Not quite. The media loves a good story and NFL head coaches' foot fetishes make for titillating material, so what's the best way to keep this thing alive as long as possible? Ask sex therapists what they think! Talk about it on The View! And that's just what they did:

Now I'm very clear that I don't consider myself a foot fetishist, but this falls into the "to each his own" category for me. I know that there are many in the barefooting community that DO have foot fetishes, but there are also those who are staunchly opposed to them. I like what the therapist in the aforementioned link said, "It's only defined as a problem when the person or couple define it as a problem." Fair enough. Let's move on.


3. "One Day" Throws the Barefoot Baby Out with the Bath Water
Who doesn't love a great cause to get behind? Nobody! Okay, so there are people throughout the world who don't have any shoes and need access to them sometimes -- emphasis on "sometimes." I can admit that. It's good to have a pair available.

Along comes TOMS Shoes to organize "One Day Without Shoes," encouraging people to nobly go barefoot for a day in April to understand what it's like to live sans footwear. And while you're at it, you can buy a pair of their for-profit footwear and they'll donate a pair to needy children. Huh. Well, fair enough. TOMS claims they knew of more than 250,000 folks who bared their soles for the day for the cause. The theme for this year's "One Day" of bare feet? "It's Hard Without Shoes." Wait, what?

It turns out that to effectively promote your cause of selling shoes to the charitable masses, you have to demonize bare feet -- even though it's the best way to live and most people really can get away with it most of the time. And demonize they did. Folks tweeted and blogged all over the 'Net about how much their feet hurt (which makes sense because their feet aren't used to it) and how they were getting kicked out of some places because of it. Welcome to the barefooters' world, friends. Well, I guess with respect to the last point, it IS hard without shoes...to shop or dine in this country, but I digress. I'll avoid getting into the nitty gritty details of how many things are misguided about TOMS campaign, but will say that it doesn't help the cause of promoting barefoot activity when a company that makes its money from selling shoes can rally so much support for a campaign that primarily is meant to sell their shoes.

On the plus side, at least one young lady decided it wasn't so hard without shoes that day. She's kept a barefoot lifestyle going since that day. At least there's some hope.


2. Lieberman Study Data Takes "Barefoot" Running to the Next Level
What could get supporters of barefoot running even more hyped about the sport following the success of Christopher McDougall's book Born to Run? (#1 on my list last year) Proof! And that's just what they got in the results of the Harvard study, "Biomechanics of Foot Strikes & Applications to Running Barefoot or in Minimal Footwear" published in Nature in January. In a nutshell -- help, I'm in a nutshell! -- Daniel Lieberman, PhD, et al showed evidence that running with a forefoot strike ala barefoot running creates less force on the body.

Yours truly running barefoot in
the Hospital Hill 5K in Kansas City,
June 2010.

What happened next eclipsed anything we'd seen from Born to Run. Media outlets everywhere picked up on the results and fitness folks all over were talking about it. Podiatrists came out of the woodwork stressing caution. The term "barefoot shoes" started to permeate everyday culture. Enough Vibram Fivefingers got out there that most people had at least seen or heard of them -- possibly through a friend who had a pair.

One event that made waves among the barefoot community was the first ever New York City Barefoot Run, a pilgrimage of sorts. About 265 barefoot runners from all around the U.S. and world, including many of the most well-known, converged on The Big Apple for the event. Though I didn't go, I heard that a great time was had by all. We can expect to see it a second year, and many more similar events spring up all over the place in the years to come.

The barefoot running movement and research on the sport will continue for a long time after 2010. In early December, not one year after the study started making waves, another leading researcher announced that she was leaving her school to conduct research alongside Lieberman. Irene Davis, PhD, a barefoot runner herself, left the University of Delaware to help launch a running center at Harvard Medical School. I think it's safe to say that we've only scratched the surface on what we know about running without shoes. What's more, we should see more studies coming out in the next few years to empirically back up what many of us already know about the benefits of running barefoot.


1. The "Barefoot Bandit" Gets Nabbed

He fought the law, and
the law finally won.

(Cue the "Real Men of Genius" music) Here's to you, Mr. "Barefoot Bandit" Colton Harris-Moore. You jumped all the way from #5 on last year's Top 10 list to the prime spot in 2010. And boy, did you do it in style -- and completely barefoot. (He ain't got no shoes on!) You nabbed our hearts while the police nabbed you in The Bahamas. Nobody else could have evaded authorities for more than a year while robbing places and snatching airplanes on the joy ride of a lifetime. (The BALLOON BOY has nothing on YOU!) While we barefooters just try to avoid getting a talking to from security at the local mall, you tried to see what kind of Cessna was available to steal undetected from the closest airport. (I'll TAKE the one in RED!) Now, we don't condone the illegal things you did... (You can STILL fly as a JAILBIRD!) .. but we have to admit that we admire that you often did it without shoes. That's...pretty...cool. (Mr. "Barefoot Bandit" Colton Harris-Moore!)

All right. Enough antics. Man, can you believe that kid? He started his spree in 2008 and wasn't caught until July of 2010. What's more, he got all the way across the country in that time!

He made such an impact in the news this year that Time Magazine even named him #4 of their "Top 10 Fleeting Celebrities" of the year. That's why he definitely deserves the top spot here. It remains to be seen what impact his barefoot adventures had on society's perceptions of bare feet, but one writer tried to quickly cut off negative views at the knees by writing a post called, "Not all 'barefooters' are bandits." It actually is worth a read, highlighting a few barefooters of notoriety.

We'll see what happens to Harris-Moore. Maybe he can share with his fellow inmates all the benefits of going barefoot...in the shower...with soap on a rope. :-\


So what do you think of this list? Was there something that you think was a huge omission? What struck you as the top impacts on bare feet -- good or bad -- this year? Please leave your comments in the section below.

Bare Feet Cause Higher Floor-Cleaning Costs?

I recently ran across a curious paragraph in an article reporting on the decision of a library board to uphold their policy prohibiting bare feet. While they predictably chose to continue discrimination against bare feet, one of their reasons for doing so left me scratching my head. The paragraph:

"Board member Jameson Campaigne pointed out he researched the subject, finding that bare feet could increase floor cleaning costs."

REALLY? I've heard the excuse that bare feet make a floor dirtier than shoes -- partially because of our own natural oils that are allegedly transferred from our skin -- but I've never seen that excuse extrapolated out to the costs of cleaning the floors. And where did he research this?

I don't deny that bare feet could deposit dirt or even bodily oils onto the floor, but I hardly believe that there's nearly enough prevalence of barefoot patrons to make this a real problem above and beyond what shoes already do to the floors. In fact, I'd imagine that bare feet generally do less damage to floors because feet are cleaned more regularly and are not as harsh on surfaces like shoes are to carpet.

Honestly, haven't we all seen how faded and worn carpet gets in high-traffic areas of businesses? I know I can see the "tracks" where people regularly walk along the carpeted corridors of my workplace.

Are bare feet a real threat to floors? If so, are there enough potential barefoot patrons to be concerned that they would raise cleaning costs? Sound off and let me know what you think about this being a partial reason for the library board denying patrons without shoes. Please leave your comments in the section below.

Image: Suat Eman / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Reflections on a 'Barefoot Book' Tour: An Interview with Author Daniel Howell

The biggest hubbub in the world of barefoot living lately has been the release of The Barefoot Book by L. Daniel Howell, PhD, Associate Professor of Biology at Liberty University in Virginia. Dr. Howell recently completed a book tour across the Eastern U.S.A. that covered 20 states in 21 days. I was interested in hearing how the book tour went, and he was kind enough to answer a few questions via email:

L. Daniel Howell, PhD

Thanks so much for being willing to answer these questions. First, as you chose locations for your book tour, how did management at those places first react to the idea of your book and barefoot lifestyle?
I did not actually talk to the “management” until I arrived at the venue as the arrangements were actually made by my publicist at Hunter House Publishers. I would have loved to have heard, however, the conversations between my publicist and the shoe stores I visited on the tour (Luke’s Locker in Dallas and Houston). Surprisingly, those shoe stores were the most successful events with respect to turnout and book sales.

You mentioned on your blog that the library in Columbus almost refused you because of your lack of shoes. Could you comment on those circumstances and what eventually happened?
Less than one hour before my presentation, my publicist received word that I was expected to wear shoes at the Upper Arlington Library in Ohio (which has a shoe rule). I had no shoes with me and so wore none to the library, but nothing was said to me when I arrived and I gave my presentation without incident.

Libraries and book stores are very low-risk places for bare feet to be. What reasoning did the various locations give you for requiring shoes of their patrons if they have such a policy?
The only place I visited with any mention of a shoe rule was the library in Ohio, however, they welcomed me barefoot when I arrived. After my presentation, my host mentioned the library’s shoe rule, but gave no reason for it. She confessed that libraries were relatively safe places for bare feet. I’m told that Barnes & Noble has a shoe rule (I don’t know this for sure), but no Barnes & Noble I visited on the tour – either as an author or as a customer – ever gave me any hassles for being barefoot. At each venue (except the library in Ohio), the management fully expected me to be barefoot! Indeed, the head librarian at the Emmet O’Neal Library outside Birmingham attended my event barefoot and commented that she often kicks her shoes off at the library. After my presentation she declared she would even start coming to work barefoot (leaving her shoes at home). I followed up with her on that and she indeed goes to work barefoot now.

If these establishments allowed you to be barefoot against their own rules, did they allow anyone else to come barefoot to your book signing or presentation?
A member of the SBL (Society for Barefoot Living) attended my talk (barefoot) at the Upper Arlington Library in Ohio without any problems. All other venues welcomed me barefoot as well as all customers/attendees.

Were you pleased with the volume of turnout for your book signings and presentations? What feedback did you get from those audiences about your book and barefoot lifestyle?
Overall I was pleased with the interest in my book (and barefooting). Interestingly, the bookstores were the worst venues with respect to turnout and the shoe stores were the best. I had 30-70 people attend the shoe store events and 25-40 attend most library events. At one bookstore no one at all showed up! That is the nature of book tours, however, so that was to be expected. Without doubt, the greatest interest in barefooting and barefoot running were in Texas and Arkansas. Those were the only states where media interest was high as well. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive.

Any theories as to why those two states were more receptive to barefoot activities? The warmer climate in the south? A more relaxed social culture?
I really don’t know why Texas and Arkansas were so receptive. Of course, Arkansans have a reputation for going barefoot, but I do think the social attitudes are more relaxed in those states. I would’ve liked to visit the west coast for that reason; maybe I’ll do a west coast tour next summer.

What was the single most common thing you heard from people while on the tour?
People were most interested in how to safely start spending more time barefoot, especially running. Interestingly, people were not very concerned about the myths (health codes, etc.). I think most people want to increase barefoot time, but aren’t ready to push the social envelope yet (i.e., they’re not really planning on going out to dinner barefoot). Nonetheless, I’m confident that the more people go barefoot, even just at home or on a trail, the more socially acceptable barefooting will become.

Did you meet a lot of other barefooters? What was their feedback regarding your tour and the book?
I met a number of barefooters, most of them SBL members. In general, SBL members were the only ones to attend my presentations/signings barefoot. The only others to attend barefoot were those who ran barefoot with me following my presentation at Luke’s Locker in Dallas (we ran two miles, about 25 people ran, maybe half of them barefoot and most others in fivefingers) and the store employees at Left Bank Books in St. Louis. At least two employees of that bookstore were barefoot the entire time I was there; one became a self-proclaimed barefooter after reading my book. Also, the head librarian at Emmet O’Neal Library. The feedback I’ve received from barefooters has been very positive. In fact, I’ve not received any negative feedback from a barefooter, which I take as the greatest compliment of my work.

Were any of the locations willing to relax their permanent anti-barefoot policies after your presentation?
Except for the Upper Arlington Library, all the other venues appeared to be barefoot-friendly. I left a book with the librarian at Upper Arlington and asked her to read it and reconsider their shoe rule, but I have no idea what will come of that.

You mentioned on your blog that you had no shoes on the trip. So you stayed barefoot the entire tour? What reactions did you get from places you went outside the realms of the book signing locations (hotels, restaurants, other stores, etc.)?
I took no shoes at all on the tour; I was barefoot the entire time. I had only a few negative reactions to my bare feet while on the book tour. Three barefooters joined me at Jimmy Buffet’s restaurant outside Chicago following my presentation. The management first told us we would need to leave, but after some discussion they decided to let us stay. The only other reaction I got was in a grocery store in St. Louis. The management there was absolutely vitriolic; they would *not* discuss the legality or health benefits of barefooting and called security on me. (The store had a sign stating bare feet were prohibited by state law). I was told never to return to the establishment (Schnucks). During the 21 days I was on the road I visited many restaurants, stores, malls and markets without any problems at all. I had a particularly wonderful experience at one restaurant in Arkansas, as discussed on my blog.

About the Schnucks in St. Louis: Was their sole reason for refusing your bare feet the sign saying it was against state law or did you get any other impressions of their reasoning?
I think the “state law” sign at Schnucks merely reinforced the already-existing negative attitude towards going barefoot. The manager seriously reacted as if I were stark naked in her store. There would be no discussion of the law or anything else: ‘Get out and don’t come back’ was the only message she had for me. (Literally, that’s what she said.)

Tell us a bit about the TV interviews you did. Any interesting stories about those experiences?
I was honored to give three television interviews on the tour (one in Dallas and two in Little Rock); I also spoke with newspaper reporters in Dallas. THV anchor/reporter Stefanie Bryant was fascinated by the topic and so I gave her a book. I had to wake at 4am to be at the studio in time for the live morning show with Alyson Courtney. The TV interviews definitely boosted attendance at the book presentation & signing. Although the presentation was at lunch time on a Friday, the room was overflowing.


Howell on KTHV in Little Rock, Arkansas:



Now that you're back home and have had time to think about the tour, what do you take away from it? How do you feel about the prospects for your book and the barefoot community getting a "toe-hold" on changing people's negative perceptions of feet?
I am extremely optimistic about the future of barefooting in America. The success of (Christopher McDougall's book) Born To Run and the phenomenon of barefoot running have definitely opened the American mind to going shoeless. Everywhere I traveled people had already heard about the benefits of barefoot running. Already introduced to the idea that shoes are harmful when running, it’s not a big leap to conclude shoes are also harmful when walking and standing. Going barefoot is healthier and ‘greener’ than wearing shoes and Americans are all about healthy and green right now. I truly believe we will start to see more people going barefoot in the next few years and this will have a snowball effect (except perhaps in Missouri). ;-)

What's next for The Barefoot Book and for you? Any plans on writing another book about bare feet or foot health?
Although the tour is over, I will continue to do events for at least the coming year. Hunter House is committed to publicizing the book heavily for 12 months, and we will focus on what works and what we learned from the tour (for example, more shoe stores and running events). I am already scheduling speaking engagements at universities and medical schools. I have plans to meet with a large Korean news agency in September; that should be instrumental in promoting the book (and barefooting) to the Asian market. As for another book… we shall see. :-)


Blogger's Note: I am currently in the process of reading The Barefoot Book and can tell already that it will be a fantastic resource for advocating for bare feet. When I'm finished I will publish a full review here.


Did you get to see Dr. Howell on his book tour? Have you read The Barefoot Book? If so, what were your impressions. Overall, what's your perspective on the future of barefoot acceptance? Please leave your comments below.