Shoes and Straps: They help a lot
April 13, 2009 by Foy
Filed under Articles, The Male Mind
Visited 12369 times, 5 so far today
There’s a term in Psychology known as closure. It’s when we as humans take in incomplete images, and without conscious effort, our minds “fill in the blanks”. For instance, in the above image we see a dalmatian. In fact, the image is just a bunch of black blotches, but in the way they are arranged, they appear to form an image…at least in our heads. But what does this have to do with modesty and proms, the theme of the site and the theme of the month?
Guy’s minds use the concept of closure quite a bit. When women wear revealing clothing, or even when they wear modest clothes, our minds play the “Fill in the Gap” game without our conscious thought. Our minds try to fill in the gaps in the flesh that clothes hide. It’s yet another sad fact about how we work.
This “closure” is known about by the media. Many times in film, nude scenes are portrayed merely by head shots. For some reason, when we see no straps on the shoulders we automatically assume that the person is naked, even though nothing is visible that suggests that. This picture is an example:
There’s nothing to suggest that she is nude, but for some reason our mind conceives that she is, even though we can’t see her body.
Knowing this fact, however strange, creepy, or scary it sounds, can be very helpful when picking an outfit at the prom. If a guy sees entire bare shoulders, without straps, it’s easier to imagine what is below than if there is something to obstruct the vision at shoulder level.
The key is not to give what I call “ends” – a bare end of your body, however small.
The same goes with footware. Wearing a full bodied shoe prevents the male mind from moving upwards from bare feet. Movies occasionally use bare feet around scattered clothes to create the illusion of nudity, as suggested by this photo:
The key to remember is to “close up your ends” – try not to show too much of a bare shoulder, and not too much of a completely bare foot (feet).
F.L.
Loading ...
In my experience, most girls will keep their shoes on for a while, until their feet start to hurt, and then they’ll take them off. I have actually been hunting for a pair of flat shoes that I can wear when my higher shoes start to hurt my feet. I didn’t realize that bare feet was a problem for guys’ minds, but rather was looking for protection for my feet! (At prom last year, there were rope lights on the floor and they got stepped on and broken, which was dangerous.)
Don’t necessarily wear brand-new shoes!
I go barefoot all the time in casual setting with my friends and family….never saw a problem with it. And although I can see how that picture IS suggestive as you can’t see any clothing and simply assume ???. I don’t really understand that bare feet could be a stumbling block for guys if the girls skirt/pants are long enough and modest to begin with!! Obviously really strappy/sexy/flashy high sandals can draw undue attention to your feet & legs, as can other shoes. And I don’t mean to be argumentative or anything lol.. I am just wondering…. bare feet? Seriously?
arielles last blog post..Switching my Blog to Private
You’re right – many, many times bare feet can be perfect acceptable. You just have to be careful as to what you are “wearing” them with. Average pair of jeans or long shorts, fine. For some reason, though, occasional uses with short skirts and some dresses can lead to problems. What are your thoughts on this M?
I don’t think I’ve ever been one to have problems I’ve had. I mean, I remember reading when I was a kid that Vanna White really didn’t like her toes, and it made no sense to me. I had a guy in college tell me that his girlfriend had the best ankles and I didn’t know what to think.
I definitely believe that each guy has things that can effect them, and the time and place is definitely a factor. I mean, they didn’t put Cinderella in glass slippers because they were good on her feet, but at the same time, when you’re walking through a lake or something it makes no sense not to be in bare feet.
I think that you can equate them like you did in this post, but I think that seeing leg is more a chance for a problem then seeing a bare foot.
I’ll give you that bare feet are a problem *for some men* when they are being photographed as shown above….but in person? Seriously? This is just getting WAY too picky in my opinion. Men, you know we have feet. You know we have legs. Is it really that tempting to see them without shoes and/or socks? I’m all for modesty and trying not to tempt men, but this is ridiculous. I agree with much of what is stated on this site, and I respect all of you for making such a strong effort to point women in the right direction, but articles like this one go beyond unreasonable and lean more toward the ‘oppressive’.
Kristins last blog post..You (Yes You!) Are a Hypocrite!
I just want to make this clear: I’m not saying that I always have a problem with bare feet. A select few times, I’ve had a problem or two, but those were unique moments. But I do know that there are guys out there who have problems in that area. I’m not trying to enforce a rule or anything, I just want to let you women know that there are guys who do have a problem in that area. What you want to do about it is all up to you.
Foy,
I didn’t mean to offend. The thing is, I’m old enough to know when to take things in stride…what I’m worried about is when younger girls read things like this and think that they’re tempting men like crazy because they run around barefoot. When it comes down to it, are bare feet a big enough deal to cause young women to feel as though they’re being racy by kicking their shoes off? Just a thought.
Kristins last blog post..You (Yes You!) Are a Hypocrite!
I didn’t mean to offend either. I agree with everything you say…and I see your question, and raise you one myself: Where do you draw the line? I personally agree that there is nothing wrong with taking off your shoes on a normal day, nor is there anything wrong with wearing shorts on a warm day. They’re both modest on most occasions. But where do we draw the line? If shorts are fine, are not mini-shorts fine?
I’m reminded of the “If a Lady’s Head is Uncovered, is she Modest?” post, and the quote by John Calvin in it. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but it’s good food for thought.
I get what you’re saying…but for some reason I have a hard time imagining that a girl going barefoot is going to tempt them to eventually wear short shorts. If we were talking about areas anywhere close to those that we all know should not be shown I would be concerned, but let me ask you this: is it just as tempting to see a woman’s bare, un-gloved hands and forearms or is it only considered a temptation when we focus on the lower extremities? Really, when we start getting into the, “what happens when we let them show THAT?!” scenario we also get into, “time to put on a burkha” territory. Where do we draw the line on that end? I mean, it really can go both ways when you get down to it; the envelope can be pushed in either direction. I’m not saying we should all run around in bikinis, but I would think that most reasonable people wouldn’t think twice about a woman with bare feet until she is photographed in a stance such as the one you’ve featured above.
Kristins last blog post..You (Yes You!) Are a Hypocrite!
I agree with the entire second half of your post (everything including and following the glove statement). But I have to ask this rhetorical question just to get our minds thinking (please keep in mind that these statements are not all my opinion, I’m just playing devil’s advocate for the sake of discussion):
What are those area’s that we know shouldn’t be shown? Is it a cultural and situational answer? If we went into the middle east, the entire face/hair of a woman would be an area that we all know shouldn’t be seen. The exact opposite is in effect when we go into the tropic lands, where many women don’t wear shirts. Are either of these practices wrong? Are they right? 0_o
I love the devil’s advocate question Foy. No one is right or wrong here. I think the question that would be more appropriate to ask would be, “Do the males in those cultures react the same way to those practices as we do?”. Do the visualize nudity when the women are more clothed then it takes for us to start to visualize it?” It’s an interesting observation and study. I look forward to exploring it with you guys.
.-= Nick@Men’s Shoes Size 15´s last undefined ..Response cached until Thu 4 @ 6:54 GMT (Refreshes in 23.90 Hours) =-.
this post could cross the line between legalistic and freedom…I think pictures and “real life” a two different worlds…I have a problem with the above image, yes…but with feet…come on…but in real life if the 2nlady would have just a panty on and the 1st a modest,straight top(or dress) and a pair of jeans…makes the whole picture different…you can image whatever you want or your mind is set to know…
To your last question:
I don’t know with tropic lands, but maybe in tribes, they don’t know this kind of shame like we “western” do, but maybe their world view changes as soon as the have a relatshionship with Jesus…but if not…maybe we are wrong focused or narrow minded…
And the problems with the middle east we all know of well the women haven no rights, no freedom of choice or whatever. I think, they are bound and kept under a (wrong) law.
I don’t know if it’s true but I heard, that men in India are not used to see ankles and as soon they see ankles they are tempted:)
I think we should be wise, reach people for Christ(Mathew 28) redeem the time with people who don’t know him(…), love them, care for them, in and through Christ we are (set) free().
you know, the mind of a man works very differently than that of a woman. A man can imagine some really horrendous things about a woman even if she is covered head to toe in a black shroud. And sometimes, even complete nudity may not arouse a man’s interest. Modesty is more a matter of how you carry yourself, the look in your eyes than what you wear, IMO
.-= anne´s last undefined ..If you register your site for free at =-.
Men, you knows we have feet.knows we have legs. Is it really that tempting to see them without shoes and/or socks? I’m all for modesty and trying not to tempt men, but this is ridiculous.
.-= end of the World´s last blog ..The predictions and prophecies of 2012 =-.
Oh wow. feet. really? This is far to much. If a man can not control his mind from bare feet, or showing your arms, then perhaps that man needs to rethink how he views women. I do not think it is the woman’s responisibility to think about every single way that a man may look at her wrongly!
Finally I do not understand why a male is putting so much time and effort into a females clothing reviews. Are you not tempting yourself by looking at the photos and judging their modesty. Isn’t that just a way to make you feel better about looking at, what is in your mind, provocative photos.
It’s true that there are men that have a hair trigger– and I believe that they need to be careful to what they are exposing themselves to. Those men are prone to temptation. I think that one can go “too far” in asking women to completely cover up.
As for the Quick Reviews, the idea was to help women see how they dress through a man’s eyes. And you’ve got a valid point to some degree. I’d argue that the photos on this site are tame compared to what’s out there, but it doesn’t really matter, as this feature will be phased out in our coming redesign.
I enjoy wearing slippers and with prom dresses, you can find flats or ballet slippers that would be more comfortable than strappy shoes.
.-= AJ @ Mens Moccasin Slippers´s last blog ..Do Follow Blog, Comment Luv, Keyword Luv, Top Commenters =-.
The mind does play funny tricks based on our history and experiences. When we are so overwhelmed with sex and nudity, it’s not surprising that we would think the models are naked.
.-= AJ @ Womens Moccasin Slippers´s last blog ..Do Follow Blog, Comment Luv, Keyword Luv, Top Commenters =-.
I have always said that I would rather see a woman wearing a sexy dress that leaves something to the imagination than a picture of the same woman wearing no clothes at all…much sexier!
Thanks for the great topic and food for thought.
i totally agree with you. with clothes and how she carry the dress thats more sexier.
.-= Bob Ong Quotes´s last blog ..Bob Ong Quotes – Bobong Pinoy Quotes about Love, Education and Life in General =-.
This is so true! Every time my husband and I see an image of a woman just like pictured above, his reaction almost immediately is, “Is she naked?”. While my automatic response always goes, “She’s wearing a tube top, of course.”
.-= Rachel @ a la Modest´s last blog ..Bohemian Basilica =-.
Or, I could just wear a snow suit all year round so men (or women!) could never, ever fantasize about what’s underneath! In my honest opinion, it doesn’t matter what you wear, someone is going to find something about you that makes them wonder what’s under your clothing.
I think many people are missing the really disturbing part about this article, about how it’s allowing men to dictate the way a woman dresses. A woman should not have to worry about what men might think about how she’s dressed, but about how she feels in it, and whether she feels appropriate in her OWN mind. Hello! If you’ve got a beautiful body (no matter what size) you should be able to show it off, with a bare foot or bare shoulders. It’s Up To You, Not Those Guys Sitting A Few Tables Away Catcalling.
A snowsuit would definitely make you "hot". :) This site is not about telling people how to dress, but helping women (and men) understand the power of clothing and their body and what they should be aware of if they’re trying to be modest. Hopefully a byproduct is exactly what you suggest– that a women could be comfortable in their own skin/clothing and not have to worry about making sure a guy doesn’t see down her shirt or her underwear (to be blunt).
Have any of you been in a nudist environment?
I have. I’ve socialized with a whole lot of completely naked young women, while being naked myself, and it didn’t cause me to become aroused at all (I’m a healthy, heterosexual male). This is because the women weren’t behaving in a sexual way (nor were the men). If they were wearing sexy, revealing clothes and behaving provocatively, it might have been different.
Nudity is completely natural, we were all born naked. When everyone is naked, you get rid of the ‘tease’ factor. No one is trying to imagine anything, because nothing is left to the imagination. And it doesn’t lead to ‘fornication’ any more than when people are clothed.
(Though I don’t see how becoming aroused is a ‘problem’ anyway, unless you have absolutely no self control. Its a natural human response, and not at all amoral in itself)
The question is of modesty and shame. Even children, as they grow, want to cover themselves, so while I’m sure one can overcome a sense of shame, I also believe that shame is good and offers protection. So while I can understand your argument, I do not believe that it actually solves anything.
Hi MinTheGap, I appreciate you response.
I (and many others) believe that Children are taught modesty and shame, they are obviously not born with it, but they develop a sense of shame as they grow up in a society where modesty and shame are the norm, and public nudity isn’t the norm.
Many tribal cultures found partial or even full nudity totally acceptable, and this caused them no problems. They certainly didn’t have perverts, voyeurs or sexually frustrated, socially dysfunctional adolescents.
So, I’m interested in your argument that ‘shame is good and offers protection’. What is the basis for you saying this? What does shame protect you from? In my experience, shame does not offer any protection at all.
Are you ashamed of your body, period? Or are you just ashamed of showing it to others?
Of course, I wont be walking down a public street in the nude, but this isn’t due to shame, its due to the fact that I’d be in trouble with the law. And the laws are there because people think nudity is in some way dangerous, but I know from my own experience that it isn’t.
Of course there are many instances of voyeurism and rape in our society today, but I do not believe that this would worsen if nudity was acceptable. It would probably improve, if anything. When people feel a deep sense of shame, it can cause them to do terrible things, to try and fight against that feeling.
If you can love yourself (including your body) you are more free to love others.
One of the things that I remembered from watching the movie "Beyond the Gates of Splendor" was that before the Waodani were partially covered or not covered at all. However, they were hardly the picture perfect citizens you suggest. They killed each other over the slightest arguments. The five innocent missionaries were killed for making friends with a woman that was promised to another. In fact, it was the Gospel that changed those people, and as a part of becoming civilized was that they became clothed. I think it’s hard to make the argument you are attempting to make by taking people that have learned to clothed, that want to be unclothed and practice it, and then saying that clothing is unnatural. You make unbased claims about tribal cultures, which carry no weight.
Thanks for keeping this discussion going. Its great to debate with someone who has such a different viewpoint to my own. There should be more of this. Its all too easy to speak only to people who agree with you :)
Beyond the gates of Splendour is only one story, and I’m sure the Waorani people would have been quite angry at being intruded on by a bunch of alien people who were trying to undermine their long held set of spiritual beliefs, not that this really justifies the killing of the missionaries, but you have to try to see it from their point of view.
Their are many historical documents of tribal people leading peaceful, spiritual lives. Look it up. This’ll get you started: http://essiepedersen.blogspot.com/2010/12/kalahari-bushmen.html
Do you really think wearing clothes is what makes people civilized and stops them from killing each other? All the wars going on in the world today are fought by clothed people. Nothing civilized about war.
I have nothing against modesty. People can cover up as much as they like. But as I said earlier, I’ve had first hand experience of a nudist environment, and I can tell you that it was peaceful, welcoming, civilized and not at all sexual.
god bless
From what I’ve heard of these natives, they were anything but peaceful before the missionaries showed up– most not having living fathers and the testimony of the tribe was that they feared that they’d soon not have any left. Is that a direct result of nudity? No, but it is as strong a correlation as the one that you provided. Remember, correlation is not causation. I would guess that the group of nudists that gather determine the tenor of the gathering. I would also submit that if you had people that were leering, that were staring, or were overly sexualized, that you’d sort them out and ban them. I would say that how you describe the nudists is about the same as how I could describe my church or any other gathering with membership requirements. Except my examples would be clothed. So this line of reasoning has nothing to say about the state of nudity specifically, only of the nature of groups that practice a particular group activity.
Cool, so we now agree that nudity doesn’t directly cause amoral behavior.
As for there being a correlation between the two, consider this:
If the Waorani people were living in a cold climate rather than a hot climate, they would certainly have been wearing some form of body covering, for warmth. Would this have automatically made them more civilized? The reason they weren’t wearing clothes was because its very hot and humid in Ecuador, and clothes would be very uncomfortable. I myself would much rather not wear clothes in such a climate. This wouldn’t stop me from being a peaceful, moral person. If the Waorani people were violent and amoral, it really had nothing at all to do with their nakedness.
And remember, in my last post, I outlined the fact that there have been many peaceful, naked tribes throughout the world (when I say peaceful, I don’t mean they would never have had any disputes at all, but no more than we have in our society)
So where is the correlation between nudity and violence?
Wasn’t that your argument in the first place? I think you have my argument backwards. I’m not saying that clothing civilizes someone, I’m saying that civilized people are clothed. That’s a very different argument. I’m not sure that you understand how a debate works. You see, your first argument was that nudity and peace went together. To defeat that argument, all I need do is provide one example that shows that that is not necessarily the case. I provided said example, and there’s no burden on me to prove that it leads to violence. That’s not my main point. My main argument is the idea that it is right (there are many tribes out there that cover only their reproductive organs and not their tops) even in warm or equatorial climates, and that it’s unnatural to not have some form of covering.
Ok, time to clarify things. You are losing the thread of what’s happening here.
I never argued that nudity equals peace. I just said that a nudist environment can be peaceful and civilized.
A couple of posts back you stated that the Waorani tribe was anything but peaceful, and while this wasn’t directly caused by nudity, there was a strong correlation, and I asked you to explain this, which you haven’t.
So you say your main argument is that it’s unnatural for people to be nude, but you have in no way supported this argument, only talked around it.
Read back through our exchange very carefully and you might see things a little more clearly…..
BTW, the nudist environment I was in was not a club which requires membership, but a festival, where clothing is optional, and I spent most my time amongst fellow nudists.
In several of my posts I have asked questions which you have not been able to answer. I will reiterate these:
1) What does shame protect you from?
2) Are you ashamed of your body, period? Or are you just ashamed of showing it to others?
3) So where is the correlation between nudity and violence?
I’m not trying to prove you wrong and make you look foolish, I just want to argue my points with some clarity, and I’d like you to argue your points with some clarity also.
Here is a summary of what I’ve said:
- A nudist environment can be peaceful, civilized, moral and no more sexual than a clothed environment, often less sexual. This includes native tribes where nudity is the norm
- Of course it’s possible for naked people to do bad things (as it is with clothed people), but nakedness in itself is not the cause of people doing bad things.
- Bodily shame is taught to children, it dose not arise naturally.
- Modesty is not a bad thing, but people should be free to choose.
I get the feeling you agree with me on some of the above points, but you haven’t explicitly stated this as yet.
I look forward to your response.
You’re right, at least in the part that I’ve been distracted. I guess that’s what happens when you try to reply to something while doing other things and not taking into account what has come before. I’m formulating a "reset" response, if you will, and will have something for you soon– perhaps as a new post.
I agree about the first photo of the woman. The other one is gone, but I’d ditto previous posts. No matter what you wear, someone somewhere can be tempted by it. Barefeet is one of those things, imo.
#Feb2011NCARating
Abigail Joy´s last post ..Perfection