# Where can you get no show loafer socks?



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

I've looked around at a few stores and didn't see any, where I can I get them? We're not talking about those little white athletic socks, are we?

Brian


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I do believe, that is of what "they" spoke! Say what(?)...almost enough to cause a man to go sockless, you say!


----------



## Tucker (Apr 17, 2006)

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=570912&postcount=55


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> I do believe, that is of what "they" spoke! Say what(?)...almost enough to cause a man to go sockless, you say!


'Tis true! However, dress code at work does not allow men to go sockless even though women can...just another example of "The (Wo)man" keeping us down 

Brian


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Mine came from Banana Republic, but it looks like they are no longer available. However, the J&M ones referenced above appear to be of better quality than the ones from BR, and they are $3 less. I might have to order some.


----------



## JamesR (May 23, 2006)

I have a couple of pairs of loafer socks from BR as well, but the problem I had with them was that they always slipped off my heel as I walked. Does anybody else have this problem?


----------



## GMC (Nov 8, 2006)

vwguy said:


> 'Tis true! However, dress code at work does not allow men to go sockless even though women can...just another example of "The (Wo)man" keeping us down
> 
> Brian


Carry the socks in your briefcase, allowing you to technically make the argument that you are not sockless. Or you could even print up a card like those ones you see in elevators telling you that the inspection ticket is on file in the office: This man's socks are kept in a safe place and available for inspection should you need to see them. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

GMC said:


> Carry the socks in your briefcase, allowing you to technically make the argument that you are not sockless. Or you could even print up a card like those ones you see in elevators telling you that the inspection ticket is on file in the office: This man's socks are kept in a safe place and available for inspection should you need to see them. :icon_smile_wink:


+1...


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

GMC said:


> Carry the socks in your briefcase, allowing you to technically make the argument that you are not sockless. Or you could even print up a card like those ones you see in elevators telling you that the inspection ticket is on file in the office: This man's socks are kept in a safe place and available for inspection should you need to see them. :icon_smile_wink:


Now that is funny! The dress code actually states men need to wear socks or "abbreviated foot coverings" so technically I could cut up some old socks, wear a sock band around my arch and be in compliance 

Brian


----------



## BeauJest (May 19, 2007)

Wanna mess with their heads? Wear a pair of baseball stirrup socks one day...heh, heh.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

vwguy,

Does your company policy require men to wear pants?

You would be surprised how many policies deal with ties, shoes, socks, but never mention pants. Now that, would make a statement.


----------



## fauxpaspa (Jun 15, 2007)

vwguy said:


> I've looked around at a few stores and didn't see any, where I can I get them? We're not talking about those little white athletic socks, are we?
> 
> Brian


i had the same question and went around to the fancy local clothiers who all said, "go to the department store"! and they were right. calvin klein sells a 3-pack in black for about usd $18.

but to tell the truth, they are the same as the socks women call "footies". so you can just as easily go to any decent women's shoe shop and find them, in black AND other colors (white, sheer, etc).

and forget the white athletic socks. they will show, especially if you are wearing loafers.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Tom Buchanan said:


> vwguy,
> 
> Does your company policy require men to wear pants?
> 
> You would be surprised how many policies deal with ties, shoes, socks, but never mention pants. Now that, would make a statement.


Believe me, our policy is *very* specific, anything you can think is covered in the handbook.

I searched at Macy's or whatever it's called these days and didn't find anything, oh well. You'd think they be more concerned abut the girl wearing dirty flip flops & pants inches too long that have been worn off than a semi-well dressed guy who isn't wearing socks, but you'd be wrong!

Brian


----------



## knickerbacker (Jun 27, 2005)

I can't find a compelling reason to wear lil bootie socks in loafers or anything else. If you need the benefits of socks, wear them (ones that are not white and do go above the ankle, if not the calf). If you don't and want to go sock-less then don't and just be sure to keep CEDAR shoe trees (which should be oiled every couple of months) in them whenever not in use and you wont have a problem with odor. I keep shoe trees in my tennis shoes: my old tretorns, which I wear sockless, are not malodorous at all as along as I do this daily. 
Little footies are weird. It's bizzare in a way that seems like a toupee or falsies.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

knickerbacker said:


> Little footies are weird. It's bizzare in a way that seems like a toupee or falsies.


LOL...at once, humorous, insightful and thought provoking. Well played!


----------



## fauxpaspa (Jun 15, 2007)

knickerbacker said:


> It's bizzare in a way that seems like a toupee or falsies.


a "footie" is just a sock that falls below the shoeline - ie, a short sock. since socks come in many different lengths, why should a shorter sock be "bizzare" when presumably longer socks are not?

or is this just the typical male paranoia about wearing anything that might be viewed as feminine?


----------



## fauxpaspa (Jun 15, 2007)

knickerbacker said:


> I can't find a compelling reason to wear lil bootie socks in loafers or anything else. If you need the benefits of socks, wear them (ones that are not white and do go above the ankle, if not the calf). If you don't and want to go sock-less then don't and just be sure to keep CEDAR shoe trees (which should be oiled every couple of months) in them whenever not in use and you wont have a problem with odor. I keep shoe trees in my tennis shoes: my old tretorns, which I wear sockless, are not malodorous at all as along as I do this daily.
> Little footies are weird..


many people don't like the look of loafers, sneakers, and lace-ups with socks, especially non-white socks. i personally think it looks dorky. they want to go sockless but don't like the feeling of sweating feet inside shoes that are not lined or meant to be worn sans socks.

solution?

simple: wear short socks under the shoe.

problem solved.

and since no-one will see your socks, who cares what they look like???

you look cool. your feet feel cool. everything's cool.

see how that works?


----------



## fauxpaspa (Jun 15, 2007)

if you think about it, the sock serves two main purposes: one, to put a lining between your foot and shoe; and two, to cover any part of your lower leg that might be exposed.

this makes sense when you're wearing pants, but when you're wearing shorts, you _want_ to uncover your legs. that's the whole point of wearing shorts. so why would you wear socks that cover your legs back up?!

it doesn't make sense.

however, just because you want to uncover your legs doesn't mean that you also want to forgo the sock's primary function, namely, lining your shoe. the two functions are _entirely separate_.

so it makes perfect sense to have a sock that performs its primary function w/o at the same time defeating the whole purpose of wearing shorts.

this is the same dilemma that women face when wearing shorts, skirts, dresses, etc. one solution they've come up with is the footie.

and it works.

so why shouldn't guys borrow from gals when they have a better solution?


----------



## knickerbacker (Jun 27, 2005)

FPP,
I don't understand; would it be at all possible for you to elaborate a bit? 
Thanks in advance!
K


----------



## fauxpaspa (Jun 15, 2007)

knickerbacker said:


> FPP,
> I don't understand; would it be at all possible for you to elaborate a bit?
> Thanks in advance!
> K


"_all the intelligence in the world is useless to him who has none_"

chamfort


----------



## knickerbacker (Jun 27, 2005)

fauxpaspa said:


> "_all the intelligence in the world is useless to him who has none_"
> 
> chamfort


Come on, even a clock as broken as I am is still correct twice daily.


----------



## fauxpaspa (Jun 15, 2007)

knickerbacker said:


> Come on, even a clock as broken as I am is still correct twice daily.


ok, you're right: i'm a brute; i admit it. i already knocked you down with my first msg. i didn't need to jump on your chest with the 2nd, or pummel you with the 3rd.

happy now?


----------



## knickerbacker (Jun 27, 2005)

fauxpaspa said:


> ok, you're right: i'm a brute; i admit it. i already knocked you down with my first msg. i didn't need to jump on your chest with the 2nd, or pummel you with the 3rd.
> 
> happy now?


Delighted, especially by your fourth message.


----------

