A Backwards Look at Liability

I've been told on several occasions to be careful how I promote barefoot activity. The concerned persons say I might end up liable if people end up hurting themselves. This is a completely backwards and thoroughly confusing concept to me.

How is it that our society's collective thinking has gotten so twisted that we now believe that I could be liable if people use their feet as nature intended and that shoe companies are free from liability for weakness, stiffness, skin conditions and other ailments that are caused or exacerbated by their products? Do you see how topsy turvy that thinking is?

I wonder how many billions of dollars have been spent in the U.S. in the last half century to pay for the various treatments of ailments caused - or at least exacerbated - by shoes including...

• Arthritis
• Plantar fasciitis
• Fallen arches
• Bunions
• Hammertoes
• Morton's Neuroma
• Corns
• Callouses
• Dry/cracked skin
• Toenail fungus
• Athlete's foot
• Hangnails
• Ingrown toenails
• Stress fractures
• Fractures
• Sprains
• And more!

I assert that a great number of these ailments would have never occurred if people had gone barefoot more. Would injuries have happened to barefoot persons? Sure, but I'd bet it'd be far fewer than many would like to believe and that the overall costs of treating such problems would have been less.

If I would be liable for someone who goes barefoot getting injured, why aren't the shoe manufacturers liable for all the ailments listed above that their products may have caused for their customers?

It would be interesting to see how a class-action lawsuit against shoe companies would play out. Would it be thrown out by a judge? Would the plaintiffs successfully plead their case that shoe companies sold their products knowing full well that they could cause these ailments in customers without warning them of such dangers? Would the defense actually try to convince the court that shoes don't cause any of these ailments or that shoe wearers should have known the risks involved?

This feels a lot like the lawsuits that were successfully brought against the cigarette industry years ago. These huge companies spent loads of money in reparations after they'd been found guilty of duping and damaging the American public to make a buck. Warning labels were required on EVERY pack of cigarettes thereafter. The shoes available for sale and use today are just as bad for the feet as cigarettes are for the lungs, but many people don't know it.

Daniel Howell, PhD, author of The Barefoot Book and a professor of biology, believes that sellers of high heeled shoes should put warning labels on them. I agree. How many women would stop wearing heels if they knew that 20,000 women go to the hospital each year due to heel-related injuries? How many women would stop wearing heels if they knew they were far more likely to develop bunions, hammertoes, Morton's Neuroma, corns and other ailments because of them? Are the high heel manufacturers telling their customers this vital information? NO, but they should be.

If someone wants to sell us footwear or cigarettes, we should go into the purchase knowing what risks are ahead of us. Most importantly, if we want to opt out of using such products, we have every right do so and should not be forced by anyone to use products that will likely cause us some harm.

Worth noting is that no one had to convince anyone else that breathing without smoke in your lungs is a good, natural thing. That said, why does society put the burden of proof on barefooters that going barefoot is good, natural and acceptable behavior? As I've stated on this blog before, barefoot is the baseline. It is the natural condition for our feet, just as breathing non-smoky air is for our lungs. Sure, there are risks involved, but we understand that as part of our human nature. That said, I can't tell you how many barefooters have been told to put on shoes for their "safety."

Imagine if a restaurant manager changed the way you dine for your "safety.":

"Good evening, sir. I see you ordered the steak. Because of that I'm going to have to ask you to wear these protective gloves while you use your steak knife to cut the food. We don't want you cutting yourself. Alisha here will also be making sure that you've chewed each bite thoroughly and that you're not speaking before you swallow each bite. We don't want you choking, after all. Just looking out for your safety!"

When we use a steak knife with bare hands, we know we must be careful lest we get cut. When we eat steak we know we must be careful not to choke. Likewise, when we go barefoot we understand we must be careful not to step on something dangerous or stub our toes. We don't need someone coddling us and protecting us from things we already know and understand! What we DO need is more public education on the harm that shoes are actually doing to our feet.

What do you think? Should shoe manufacturers be held liable for selling the public on products that exacerbate foot ailments? Should shoes come with warning labels? Please let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

A Barefooter Went to Camp

I recently spent six days as a counselor at a summer church camp for middle school kids. I haven't been to this or any other camp for four years - a span that predates my time as a full-time barefooter - so I wanted to see how things would go with maintaining a fairly barefoot lifestyle. I say this because the camp does have a rule that shoes are required at all times. I came to discover that this rule had several fortunate exceptions.

The camp directors, with whom I have been friends on Facebook for many years, were all aware of my barefoot lifestyle as we staff all gathered on Monday evening of last week. I had told Carol, the camp's liaison to the sponsoring church, ahead of time that I planned to be barefoot all the way up to the point that campers arrived midday on Tuesday. She said, "Okay."

My intent during the camp was to respect the rules of the campground by setting a good example for the kids while they were on campus. I would wear minimalist footwear when out and about, but go barefoot in our lodge room -- it's a pretty swank campground, so there's no tents or anything.

It turns out that I had other opportunities to go barefoot and that former emphases from years ago on wearing shoes had been relaxed quite a bit. It used to be that flip flops were officially discouraged because they still exposed campers' feet to rocks, sticks and other undesirables. Close-toed, secure shoes were what was recommended. Not anymore. The informational materials only said that shoes or sandals were required at all times.

The interior of the tabernacle building

Even so, there were many occasions that other campers and I would slip off our flip flops or other footwear and go barefoot or just in socks. This was a frequent occurrence at the "tabernacle," an open-sided building in which we held most of our "indoor" all-camp activities. The floor of the structure is a smooth concrete slab, so it was very barefoot friendly. Many of us also slipped off our shoes at the nightly campfires, even going up front to perform skits sans footwear. I taught two hour-long classes - both indoors - each full day of the camp. I'd slip off my shoes upon arriving at each of them and teach barefoot. As the week went on, other campers took my lead and kicked off their shoes during class, too! When at the pool, most people went barefoot as well, naturally.

Shoes were used most when traveling between locations and at mealtimes in the dining hall. Because of the high amount of heat and the fact that many roads around the campground are gravel, going barefoot from place to place wasn't the easiest thing to do, even for me. There was one time, however, that I walked barefoot from the lake up to our mini lodge because my Vibram Fivefingers had gotten all wet and I was none-too-interested in walking all the way back in them. Fortunately, most of the ground between those locations was paved. In the dining hall are signs that say "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. Sorry, this even goes for camp." So we did all keep our shoes on when the campers were there, but for the three meals we staff ate before the kids arrived, I was barefoot the whole time and the kitchen staff - employees of the church-owned campground - never hassled me for it.

In general, I was very pleased with how "barefoot" I could be during the week. While I did need to wear some kind of footwear much of the time, I kept it minimal and had many periods when I could kick it off and go fully primal with my feet. I said earlier that the directors know of my barefoot lifestyle, and I did make the camp nurse aware of my chiropractor's note that I should be allowed to go barefoot. All were receptive and understanding of my choices. I think if I'd pressed the issue more I would have been allowed to go without shoes whenever I pleased, but I did want to wear something when going across the hot pavement and gravel roads.

I can't say with any certainty that my barefoot lifestyle has softened the camp leadership into being more accepting of it, but I'd like to think that. I'd also say that our youth are quite willing to go barefoot more often than adults. Middle school-aged kids haven't been fully programmed yet that shoes are necessary all the time. Even so, it was my job as staff to set a good example. That example, this time, was to only go barefoot at our destinations - an example many campers were willing to follow. It's a start.

What are your experiences with going barefoot at a campground? Have you been blocked by camp policy or the wishes of others from going without shoes there? Have you vastly expanded your preferences for going barefoot because you were camping? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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.

Show Your Feet Their Independence on Your Day Without Shoes This Saturday

As Founder and Chief Primalfoot Officer of The Primalfoot Alliance, I've planned a couple of  organized activities in my hometown for Your Day Without Shoes this Saturday, June 11. Supporters and advocates of barefoot activity from around the midwest are welcome to come together to eat, play, enjoy the outdoors and show their barefoot independence in...Independence, Missouri.

The shoeless activities will start at 11:30 a.m. with a picnic (bring your own food) and barefoot time at Waterfall Park behind the Bass Pro Outdoor World on the southwest corner of I-70 and I-470 in Independence. The park is a unique space, set up next to a large man-made lake and with paved trails leading throughout a natural setting. There is also lots of space for kicking a ball around or throwing a frisbee. For kiddos, there's a large playground area set up with a climbing rock and customary jungle gym. The playground surface itself is very barefoot friendly, composed of a rubbery wood-chip-like surface.

Independence Center Mall

After that, we'll make our way to the nearby Independence Center on 39th Street, just east of M-291 highway, a uniquely cavernous shopping mall with stores ranging from Macy's to Radio Shack. While there, we can window shop, make any "necessary" purchases, grab an orange julius from the food court and/or have the kids play in the large play area of the mall.

Participants are then encouraged to continue the day on their own while barefoot. Whether it's shopping or dining elsewhere, taking in a movie or countless other activities, I encourage everyone to bare their soles and continue experiencing the world without shoes for the rest of the day.

I should point out one thing: Some of our plans, whether for this organized event or on our own throughout the rest of the day, may get sidetracked due to discrimination from management or security at the places we go. That's part of the reason for Your Day Without Shoes. We want to begin educating others and advocating for our feet. We want to begin changing the tide away from misinformed policies that keep people from living in a way that they find healthy and comfortable -- and that is perfectly legal.

Make sure to visit YourDayWithoutShoes.com to read up on how to make it the best day possible. Print off a bunch of the informational fliers on the Resources page. When people push to make you wear shoes, push back with respectful information that can help others understand that we're not just a bunch of troublesome hippies.

It's Your Day Without Shoes, and the more support we get, the better.

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.

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.

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.

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

158 Hours Barefoot, Part II: Barefoot About The Town

After having gone barefoot for a full two days last week while my wife, Glenda, was in the hospital for testing (read: Part I: Unshod in the E.R.), I was looking forward to a four-day barefoot weekend of helping her out and celebrating Labor Day festivities. I would end up going totally barefoot everywhere for almost a whole week.

Friday, Day 3

On Friday, I stayed home from work to help her run some errands and lighten the load that two daughters under three years old bring with them. I shared with Glenda that I wanted to keep going barefoot all weekend, so we'd have to be careful about some of the places we went. She was supportive and understanding.

You see, of all the grocery stores in our city of 121,000 residents, I know of only ONE that has no signage prohibiting bare feet or requiring shoes. One. It has also been my own personal policy for a while that I will not go barefoot into a business that has a clearly posted policy against it. So that meant that we needed to shop at that one grocery store if I was going to keep my barefoot streak going. Glenda was graciously open to this idea, even if it wasn't the closest grocer or the one at which she usually shops.

Have I mentioned how awesome my wife is?

First, however, we were hungry. We stopped at a Subway sandwich shop before getting groceries. Again, this choice was made based on their reputation for being generally barefoot friendly. We ate there with no problems and no comments from employees or customers -- though I'm not sure any of them even realized I was barefoot.

Not me, but notice how you must
look closely to realize this person
is barefoot. Photo by Flickr user
colorblindPICASO

It should be noted that on this day I tried to keep my bare feet as incognito as possible. It's widely known throughout barefooting circles that wearing pants or jeans makes it a lot easier to bare your soles in public. People just tend to notice your lack of footwear a lot less this way (see photo at left). Something about shorts accentuates the fact that there's no break in skin between your ankle and the floor, thereby showing off your lack of shoes for all to clearly see.

One of the neat things about going barefoot in a grocery store is the varying floor temperatures. Even if you were blind, going without shoes would signal to you how close you're getting to the refrigerated goods. The floor gets progressively cooler the more proximal you are to these products. In fact, the lower floor temperatures extend out a lot farther from the refrigerated goods section than you might think! I felt the lower temps several aisles away.

Now, I know what you might be thinking: "Oh, I could never do that! I hate it when my feet are cold!" You have to understand that we barefooters welcome all kinds of varying sensations under our soles. It makes us feel alive! And what's more, it keeps the world that much more interesting and multi-dimensional! Before I started going without shoes on a regular basis, I probably would have said my feet were too sensitive to go barefoot. As I then became reacquainted with the sensations from my feet, they evolved from being uncomfortable and unmanageable to something that's actually quite desirable! That's not to say that cold floors don't feel cold anymore. It simply means that the varying temperatures are no big deal. This also applies to various textures and objects on the ground.

Nobody said anything about my bare feet in the grocery store, but I did get some looks. I noticed several customers glance down and see my lack of footwear. At one point -- in the section of frozen food cases -- a couple of employees walked by and I'm sure they saw me barefoot. Even so, they said nothing.

That evening, having now gone a full three days without shoes, we decided to head up to our city's Labor Day weekend festival on the town square. The festival draws hundreds of thousands of people. The square ends up being PACKED to the gills with craft tents, merchants, food vendors, a carnival and multiple performance stages. While we didn't do much more than eat some of the good food, I attended barefoot for my second year in a row. It was fun and I loved letting my feet be free, feeling the warm ground beneath me and not having to deal with sweaty feet from being stuffed in shoes.

Saturday, Day 4

The next morning, I passed my previous 86-hour record for consecutive barefooting. It was a neat accomplishment, but I still had so much more to go! Three days, actually, because I didn't need to put shoes back on until I went to work Tuesday morning. The barefooting adventures continued.

On Saturday we went to my niece's birthday party at my brothers' house and later took another trip up to the festival. Total barefoot time, 4 days (96 hours) and counting.

Sunday, Day 5

On Sunday morning I continued my regular practice of attending church services barefoot. Later that day we went to a picnic at one of our church members' homes. Their property is a beautiful place set on several acres that include a large pond and an orchard of apples and plums.

I was able to take part in one of my favorite barefoot activities: playing in the grass! Someone brought a high-quality Nerf football to the picnic, so several of us participated in throwing it around in an open field next to the orchard. I cannot understate how much I LOVE running around barefoot in grass. Heck, that's partially why this blog is called "Barefoot and Grounded" and my Twitter page's background is of a green lawn. The grass sweeping across my soles, the varying textures of the ground and the minute temperature changes in light and shadow all combine for a viscerally enjoyable experience. Such a great time. 120 hours complete with bare feet.

Monday, Day 6

Monday was the last full day of my barefoot streak. Glenda's sister invited her over to show her some sewing tips, so my wife went there and took the kids with her. I decided to invite my dad up to the festival for a turkey leg. Yes, that meant that I headed up to the square THREE times that weekend, but it was all good. The ground was very warm -- a fun contrast from the cold grocery store floor three days prior -- and the turkey legs were awesome! I actually parked at his place, which isn't far from the festival, and we walked up and back. I spent some time chatting with him in his apartment before leaving for home. I can't help but wonder what his fellow building residents thought as they saw me walk in and out without shoes.

It should be noted that the only time I ever saw or was concerned about broken glass or any other danger that weekend was on the walk up to the square with Dad. Almost simultaneously, he and I saw a broken beer bottle off to the side of the path on which we were walking. He pointed it out, I saw it, and I stepped around it without incident. We walked home a slightly different way just because of where we ended up after eating and walking around.

Tuesday, 6 1/2 Days: Back to Shoes

On Tuesday morning I dreaded putting shoes back on, even though I had to in order to go to work. I had spent more than 158 consecutive hours barefoot. I went almost an entire week without shoes and it was WONDERFUL! I came away with no infections, no cuts and only a small "hot spot" on my sole from walking on the hot pavement on my outing with Dad. No big deal. It was worth it. Going barefoot is totally worth it.

Thanks for reading! Any thoughts on my barefoot weekend? What's the longest you've gone completely without shoes? Where have you gone barefoot where others thought you shouldn't? Where would you like to go barefoot but haven't built up the courage yet? Please leave your comments in the section below.

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.

Exposing Another Healthy Taboo

Today I want to talk about a very natural activity that some people do in public but that many others find objectionable. For whatever reason, something so natural has become taboo. What once was practiced regularly without issue now leaves those who do it feeling very self-conscious. Many don't even try -- even though they'd like to -- because they don't want to embarrass themselves or make anyone around them uncomfortable. There's no laws against it, but that doesn't matter. The stigma is there and it has permeated throughout society.

While the above statement describes barefooting to a 'T,' it also applies to something else: Breastfeeding.

Bear with me, here.

Not only am I the father of three wonderful children, but I also work in a children's hospital. Through these experiences I've learned a great deal about what's best for children. Experts throughout the world agree that breastfeeding is best. Studies have shown numerous health benefits for babies who are breastfed versus taking formula. What's more, the longer a baby breastfeeds, the more health benefits they'll see down the road. It's really a no-brainer. If a mother is able to breastfeed, she should for so many reasons. Our kids were all breastfed exclusively for at least the first six months of their lives.

While it's a bit of a stretch to compare the two, you could also make an argument that going barefoot has numerous benefits, too. The more you do it, the stronger and more flexible your feet will be. Avoiding shoes also helps prevent the growth of fungal infections on the foot and keeps away smelly feet due to sweating. Your toes also feel better to live free and without restriction from shoes. Going barefoot really is so good.

Unfortunately, however, breastfeeding and going barefoot in public are both thought of by many people as this weird, inappropriate thing. While a woman may want to breastfeed her baby in public, she may resort to pumping ahead of time and feeding her child with a bottle in order to avoid people's mean or uncomfortable glances. While someone may want to go barefoot while they're shopping, they may just resort to wearing flip flops to avoid confrontation or simply strange looks.

Let's be clear about a few things concerning breastfeeding and going barefoot:

Both are natural.
We were born for these things to take place. As this topic heading states, both breastfeeding and going barefoot are perfectly natural things that our bodies have been designed to do. Denying ourselves the privileges and rights to do both would be a travesty.

Both are perfectly legal in public.
One thing that I find interesting are the laws related to these. In all but three states of the U.S., laws protect a woman's right to breastfeed her baby in public -- even if it makes others uncomfortable. No state in the union addresses going barefoot in public, for or against the issue. It would, then, be reasonable to assume that that right is reserved for the people.

Both have numerous health benefits.
Even though this has been proven for breastfeeding by numerous scientific studies, here's a staggering statistic: Only 43% of babies are still being breastfed at six months of age (Doctors recommend that babies be exclusively breastfed for at least the first six months of life). What's more, studies have also shown that breastfeeding can help protect nursing mothers from developing breast cancer later. Although the complications of returning to work are likely a big part of the decision to stop feeding in that way, I have to wonder if women just give up partially because they're too embarrassed to publicly breastfeed. If that's the case, how sad. Going barefoot, though hardly scientifically researched, improves sensory awareness, flexibility and strength in the feet and usually has a positive overall impact on a person's health and psyche. Getting out of shoes with a raised heel has been shown to improve people's posture. I have already shot down on this blog the concerns about safety risks while barefoot. They just aren't legitimate in most situations -- including shopping and dining in public.

Both are often taboo in society.
No matter how natural, legal or even healthy going barefoot or breastfeeding babies are, this is the sticking point for both of these lifestyle choices. They have become areas of contention. For whatever reason, societal norms on both of these issues have drifted away from centuries of natural precedent to twisted ideals of what's "appropriate." No matter what benefits breastfeeding can have for babies and mothers or what going barefoot can do for our health, we have begun to reject these practices because it shows skin or we have misguided concerns about safety risks. I think it's unbelievably sad that societal pressures have led to this.

Don't think breastfeeding in public is taboo? I was fascinated by a story on ABC's TV news magazine "What Would You Do?" A scenario was acted out where a store manager (an actor) was discriminating against a breastfeeding mother (an actress with doll). How would the store patrons react? From the video below, you can see that many came out in support of the mother. Some, however, sided with the manager. Take a look:



We, as a society, need to stand up for and be okay with what's right. We need to stop allowing discrimination against activities which are perfectly natural and healthy. There's nothing inappropriate about a mother breastfeeding her baby in public, even if some skin or -- God forbid -- a nipple is briefly exposed. Likewise, we were born barefoot and feet are exposed all the time when people wear sandals. Who cares if someone just doesn't want material between their soles and the ground? In both breastfeeding and going barefoot, let people make the decision that is most natural and right for them without the pressure of prudish, paranoid or uncomfortable onlookers.

I started The Primalfoot Alliance as a way to begin the process of reversing the steady flow of discrimination against those who want to free their feet in public. Maybe, at least, we can tackle one of these issues while others address the other. Both need attention.

What are your thoughts on this? Am I off base in comparing breastfeeding and going barefoot? What will it take to change society's perceptions of breastfeeding or going barefoot in public? If you are a mother, have you breastfed in public? How were you perceived and how did you feel? If you're a barefooter who has been discriminated against in public, how did that feel? Please share your comments below. Thanks!

REWIND: Your Rights are Going to the Dogs (and Other Service Animals)

A fellow poster* on the forums at the Living Barefoot site brought up an issue that continues to poke holes in the notion that going barefooted in public places is unsafe and unhealthy. It also casts serious doubt on the logic used to create such policies.

If going barefooted at the local grocery store or Wal-Mart is unsafe and unhealthy for those doing it and the customers around them, we must address the subject of service animals. They almost always go bare pawed/hooved/footed and yet no one complains about the health and safety ramifications of this practice.

Before I go any further, I must adamantly state that I believe it is appropriate and right to allow service animals to accompany the disabled wherever they need to go. This blog entry is solely for the purpose of exposing ignorant managerial policy of many businesses that require human customers to wear footwear.

Ann Edie and her guide miniature horse, Panda, check out at a Staples.
(Photo courtesy: Angelinoview.com)

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows for service animals to accompany disabled people nearly wherever they go. On its Web site, the ADA puts it this way:

"Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), privately owned businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants, hotels, retail stores, taxicabs, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities, are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. The ADA requires these businesses to allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals onto business premises in whatever areas customers are generally allowed."

So the ADA allows for the animals without considering any sort of health or safety ramifications? Well, not exactly. Farther down the page there is a caveat:

"(A business) may exclude any animal, including a service animal, from (its) facility when that animal's behavior poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. For example, any service animal that displays vicious behavior towards other guests or customers may be excluded."

I added the bold for emphasis.

While the ADA's site addresses the issue of "maintenance" or a "cleaning fee" in the event that a service animal makes a mess (in one way or another), no mention is made regarding the business' responsibility to keep the establishment safe or healthy for the service animal. If we are to assume -- because we barefooters are told this -- that a business' floor is unsafe for our feet due to the possibility of stepping on broken glass, sharp objects, germs or any various kinds of spilled items, then we must assume that the same holds true for the exposed paws of service animals.

Interestingly enough, the ADA's FAQ page linked above never addresses a question about whether a business can require service animal to wear booties or footwear. (Doggie shoe photo courtesy: Neopaws.com) So I called by phone the ADA's "Disability Rights Section." After holding for only a brief couple of minutes, a specialist quickly answered, "No," when I asked if businesses may request or require that service animals put on such footwear. A disclaimer: The ADA's phone system recording made it very clear that information given over such a call is not binding legal advice or opinion, however I have to think that these employees know what they're talking about.

So where does that leave us? It leaves me with the realization that I have fewer rights than many dogs. It tells me that the federal government of the United States of America believes that the floors of businesses should be generally safe enough for a service animal's bare paw/hoof/foot insomuch that said businesses may not request footwear to "protect" them.

It makes me think that businesses need to give up several outdated excuses and let me and others go barefooted if we so choose. Service animals already do it, so it seems silly that we humans can't.

Owners and managers certainly have an obligation to protect their own interests. Yes, glass breaks sometimes. But, we should remember that when a jar of spaghetti sauce shatters at the grocery store, somebody quickly cleans it up as well as they can. What's left is typically negligible and is no more a risk to my bare feet than a product display tipping over.

You could argue that service animals shouldn't go barepawed/hooved/footed into a business -- and that's your prerogative and a whole other discussion -- but the law is what it is and most people never second-guess the cleanliness or safety of a business' floor when a service animal comes in. Why, then, should they second-guess my ability to stay safe while barefooted in a restaurant, grocery store, retailer or other establishment? Most only have a fleeting thought about what a service animal may be tracking onto the floor of the business, yet many are quick to assume that my bare feet are slathering the floor with disgusting sweat, bacteria and disease.

Honestly, folks, so long as we keep our "paws" generally clean and off of the merchandise, it's perfectly reasonable for us barefooters to be allowed to go unshod in a business.

* - Thanks to "Rascal" for the idea for this blog entry!

NOTE: All this week I am "rewinding" this blog to repost some of my earlier entries that many readers may have missed. Much of this information holds true even today and I hope you enjoyed it. This post was originally published on Oct. 21, 2009. The content above was NOT edited from its original entry, so please ignore any typos or less than perfect grammar as I got my writing feet underneath me. What do you think of this post? Please leave your comments below.