# Why do women pay attenton to what men wear on their feet?



## Luckyguy (Jul 20, 2006)

Gents,

It is not that men don't, but why do women pay more attention to men's shoes more than anything else in their outfit? 

I understand this may be a 64 million-dollar question. Hey, it's Friday, so what the heck.:icon_smile_big:

~Alex


----------



## Clovis (Jan 11, 2005)

*Female perceptions of mens shoes*

I believe most women consider shoe width to be more important than shoe length. Is that any help?


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Symbol of status. Symbol of personal style (=> hence personality). Something along these lines.

BTW: do women really look so much on our shoes? Maybe my shoes are worse than I always thought... ;-)


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

They might look at shoes, but in my opinion they have terrible taste. Many of the girls that have seen my JL Chapels in Dark Brown Museum Calf have told me that they are "gay," as are apparently all monk straps.


----------



## nikwik (Oct 29, 2005)

Perhaps shoes are the only thing they can relate to. They often like blingbling (which we don´t wear) and have no knowledge about the difference between a fused and a canvassed suit but shoes... Just look at Imelda Marcos...


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Women only really care about one thing -- the competitive success of their offspring. To them, you are just the DNA donor, and the economic means of providing certain necessaries during said offspring's tender years. All of the rest (i.e., the love, the affection, the blah blah blah) merely flows from this basic psycho-evolutionary-economic need. 

So, that's why financial success is important generally. But why shoes? One reason might be that shoes are disproportionally expensive, like a watch, or dental work (which are also touchy issues with the fairer sex). Therefore, they indicate a level of success that is high enough to cover not only the basics, but luxuries as well. 

I think it's also because good quality shoes cannot be easily faked, so they help women distinguish between the truly successful men and con men. 

Plus, if they are cheap, shoes wear out quickly. So, the wearing of high quality shoes indicates that your outlook is long-term. Foresight is roughly equivalent to financial success. 

Shoes are also highly functional, which (more than a watch) takes them out of the "jewelry" category. Women don't like jewelry on men because it sends the signal that you are going to be spending your discretionary money on yourself rather than on them, or that you are going to be habitually looking for the attention of other women, which increases the potential of your having children with other women, which reduces the resources available to her children.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> They might look at shoes, but in my opinion they have terrible taste. Many of the girls that have seen my JL Chapels in Dark Brown Museum Calf have told me that they are "gay," as are apparently all monk straps.


Now is that the old old, old or new meaning of the word "gay"? Old old meant happy, joyous, etc.; old meant homosexual and, at least the last time I checked (about 15 minutes ago, but it could have changed by now), the new meaning is cool, good, nice looking. That said, I think women are looking for some reciprocity when they check out your shoes.


----------



## Soph (Sep 25, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Women only really care about one thing -- the competitive success of their offspring. To them, you are just the DNA donor, and the economic means of providing certain necessaries during said offspring's tender years. All of the rest (i.e., the love, the affection, the blah blah blah) merely flows from this basic psycho-evolutionary-economic need.
> .


As we age, I agree that there is a social shift away from sexual selection to a more combination. In high school/college, I worked out alot and women seemed to only care about a handesome face and a built body moreso. Now they add on the money and it becomes incresingly more important. I agree it's still very darwian which is composed of 2 points the latter rarely discussed due for social/relgious issues:

1. Survival of the fittest (wealthy) he who lives longer has a greater reproductive success
2. Sexual Selection --Darwian often neglected but much more important in today's age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

It may be and probably is a combination of these two factors. The arts are also supposed to be derived from sexual selection behaviors.

Geoffrey Miller, drawing on some of Darwin's largely neglected ideas about human behavior, has hypothesized that many human behaviors not clearly tied to survival benefits, such as humor, music, visual art, verbal creativity, and some forms of altruism, are courtship adaptations that have been favored through sexual selection


----------



## well-kept (May 6, 2006)

While I can't disagree with any of Phinn's observations, above, I think it might be aesthetic attraction. There are a few pairs of shoes I have that almost always draw an admiring comment from women. They're not more expensive than my other shoes. They're just of a certain type and color. I've walked in Manhattan and watched as women look at these shoes, then look up at my eyes. I observe this because I always look at a woman's eyes first, second and third.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I think there certainly are economic concerns, but don't for a second think they aren't evaluating the *size* of your feet 

-spence


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Women only really care about one thing -- the competitive success of their offspring. To them, you are just the DNA donor, and the economic means of providing certain necessaries during said offspring's tender years. All of the rest (i.e., the love, the affection, the blah blah blah) merely flows from this basic psycho-evolutionary-economic need.
> 
> So, that's why financial success is important generally. But why shoes? One reason might be that shoes are disproportionally expensive, like a watch, or dental work (which are also touchy issues with the fairer sex). Therefore, they indicate a level of success that is high enough to cover not only the basics, but luxuries as well.
> 
> ...


Yes, absolutely. Matches my personal experience to 100%.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Luckyguy said:


> Gents,
> 
> It is not that men don't, but why do women pay more attention to men's shoes more than anything else in their outfit?
> 
> I understand this may be a 64 million-dollar question. Hey, it's Friday, so what the heck.:icon_smile_big: ~Alex


Shoes can tell one heck-of-a-lot about the person wearing them. But women _and_ men check them out -- some more subtly than others -- don't kid yourself.

To a degree, when meeting ... everyone sizes up the person standing opposite. If meeting in public ... that assessment is limited to appearance (looks, grooming, clothing, shoes, accessories) and personality.

EDIT: I especially tend to do this when meeting a potential client. In a sense we're interviewing each other ... and ... as an architect, I want to know if this potential client will appreciate the quality of work I give them ... as well as use and maintain it properly.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

You know what men with big shoes have.

. . .


Wait for it

. . .


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Big feet.



Well, what were you thinking?


----------



## Windsurf (Nov 27, 2006)

well-kept said:


> There are a few pairs of shoes I have that almost always draw an admiring comment from women. They're not more expensive than my other shoes. They're just of a certain type and color. I've walked in Manhattan and watched as women look at these shoes, then look up at my eyes. I observe this because I always look at a woman's eyes first, second and third.


OK, what is the type and color shoe? We all want that secret! :idea:

My belief is women know they want to buy expensive shoes for themselves. This seems to be a universal constant. If the woman buys shoes that are more expensive than their husbands shoes they will end up in a fight, but if the man buys expensive shoes for himself then the woman can't be criticized.


----------



## LARon (Jun 19, 2006)

I find this to be a fascinating thread, but would like one detail clarified: from what source have we concluded that women (whether all or some meaningful percentage) check out men's shoes? Is there some statistical data on this or is it all presumptive/anecdotal? (I haven't heard this before.)


----------



## well-kept (May 6, 2006)

LARon said:


> I find this to be a fascinating thread, but would like one detail clarified: from what source have we concluded that women (whether all or some meaningful percentage) check out men's shoes? Is there some statistical data on this or is it all presumptive/anecdotal? (I haven't heard this before.)


Universally acknowledged to be true, but just ask a woman.


----------



## upr_crust (Aug 23, 2006)

*I fully agree with Phinn's observations, but add . . .*

. . . my own observation.

I think that Phinn's observations on why women look at men's shoes are, in the main, accurate, and in line with my own opinions.

I would like to add that I also look at a man's shoes, and triangulate from their style, cost, and condition (in comparison to the style, cost, and condition of the rest of the man's ensemble) to get an impression of the man's social and economic status, as well as his tastes and personal habits. A man in a suit can look well even if the suit itself is not expensive, but if his shoes are cheap, ill-suited to the style of the rest of his ensemble, or are not well-maintained, that can tell a lot about his personality, as well as giving hints as to his profession (or lack thereof).

As for certain styles of shoes being "gay" - that is an intriguing concept. I think that all of the readers of these fora realize that clothing is visual communication - what is being communicated can be almost anything - social status, economic status, personal aesthetic, romantic availability (or desirability - there is nothing more obvious than a single straight guy dressed for a date with a woman), or, at least in the readings of some women, the unavailability of the man being observed (or his availability for another man). Of course, what is the mysterious element of this communication is the interpretation of the view, in the context of time - what is "gay" today may be merely fashionable five years hence (or totally out of fashion 15 years hence).


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> They might look at shoes, but in my opinion they have terrible taste. Many of the girls that have seen my JL Chapels in Dark Brown Museum Calf have told me that they are "gay," as are apparently all monk straps.


Now, does that mean if I wear my John Lobb double monk straps, that I'm twice as gay, or do the two straps cancel each other out, so I'm straight?


----------



## Luckyguy (Jul 20, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Women only really care about one thing -- the competitive success of their offspring. To them, you are just the DNA donor, and the economic means of providing certain necessaries during said offspring's tender years. All of the rest (i.e., the love, the affection, the blah blah blah) merely flows from this basic psycho-evolutionary-economic need.
> 
> So, that's why financial success is important generally. But why shoes? One reason might be that shoes are disproportionally expensive, like a watch, or dental work (which are also touchy issues with the fairer sex). Therefore, they indicate a level of success that is high enough to cover not only the basics, but luxuries as well.
> 
> ...


Mr. Phinn,
I don't believe you wrote this with tongue in cheek. But you are cracking me up, seriously. Then again, it's hard for one to argue any of your points since there were so eloquently stated. Aside from the comment that men are just DNA donors, I find all your reasoning entirely agreeable.
Thank you,
Alex


----------



## Tomasso (Aug 17, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> They might look at shoes, but in my opinion they have terrible taste.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

rip said:


> Now is that the old old, old or new meaning of the word "gay"? Old old meant happy, joyous, etc.; old meant homosexual and, at least the last time I checked (about 15 minutes ago, but it could have changed by now), the new meaning is cool, good, nice looking. That said, I think women are looking for some reciprocity when they check out your shoes.


Old .


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

AMVanquish said:


> Now, does that mean if I wear my John Lobb double monk straps, that I'm twice as gay, or do the two straps cancel each other out, so I'm straight?


Well, the Chapels are double monks, so if they're gay, I'm thinking it's probably 1/2 of a gay per strap.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

You are welcome, Luckyguy. I suppose it was a little bit tongue-in-cheek; I talk that way most of the time. In any event, I can assure you that these theories are 100% sound, having been reviewed by leading scientists at top universities, and tested over the course of many years of intense research studies conducted in the field. The shoe thing only scratches the surface. 

The DNA-donor thing is something of an overstatement, I agree, but not by much.


----------



## Richie_G (Jun 19, 2006)

Never met a lady that knew one shoe from another. How much are the John Lobb double monkstrap? They look so nice on the internet.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

They check out your shoes to see if you're well-heeled or not.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> why do women pay more attention to men's shoes more than anything else in their outfit?


Because so many of us get it wrong...

Because some may equate shoe quality with the ability to be a "provider"...


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Richie_G said:


> Never met a lady that knew one shoe from another. How much are the John Lobb double monkstrap? They look so nice on the internet.


I actually got mine from a consignment store for $350. There was hardly and wear, so I guess I got a good deal. They were exactly my size.


----------



## Richie_G (Jun 19, 2006)

AMVanquish said:


> I actually got mine from a consignment store for $350. There was hardly and wear, so I guess I got a good deal. They were exactly my size.


 That sounds like a very good deal. I'm thinking their $1500 or more new.


----------



## thinman (Jan 21, 2005)

Richie_G said:


> That sounds like a very good deal. I'm thinking their $1500 or more new.


I think the JL double monks currently retail for $1440.


----------



## Henrik RS (Jan 10, 2006)

In my experience, women care more about brands than style and quality. I always receive compliments when wearing Gucci loafers (in the summer), but only a few have ever commented on my finer (and also more expensive) dress shoes.


----------



## Soph (Sep 25, 2005)

thinman said:


> I think the JL double monks currently retail for $1440.


That's gay.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I guess they have nothing else to pay attention to.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

In regard to Lobb double monkstraps ...


AMVanquish said:


> I actually got mine from a consignment store for $350. There was hardly and wear, so I guess I got a good deal. They were exactly my size.


You are one lucky man!


----------



## indylion (Feb 28, 2005)

*are you sure?*



Clovis said:


> I believe most women consider shoe width to be more important than shoe length. Is that any help?


I never heard a woman say " Oh wow! He wears EEEE size shoes!!!"

But I have heard women say " Oh my God! He wears a size 14 shoe!!!" Of course, they were Stacy Adams.


----------



## Windsurf (Nov 27, 2006)

I think most men, not all but most, are clueless about how much women read into our clothes, shoes, watches, etc. Most men couldn't tell from a distance what another man is wearing or how much it cost, but women spend a lot of time and energy worrying about fashion and status, look at how many fashion magazines women buy, and I am sure that most women can size up a man's status, wealth and sexual preference within 60 seconds of seeing him.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Windsurf said:


> ...and I am sure that most women can size up a man's status, wealth and sexual preference within 60 seconds of seeing him.


Upon meeting my now wife (at a bar no less), she jokingly evaluated my shoes and watch literally before we got into real conversation.

-spence


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

Henrik RS said:


> In my experience, women care more about brands than style and quality. I always receive compliments when wearing Gucci loafers (in the summer), but only a few have ever commented on my finer (and also more expensive) dress shoes.


+1.

A considerable number of women would notice a man wearing the "bling" shoes, Ferragamos, the Gucci horsebit loafer, Pradas, etc... and a lightbulb turns on. Wear a JL or EG with their subtle elegance and they'll probably wouldn't know the difference between those and a Johnston & Murphy.

Perhaps if Manolo Blahnik starts making mens shoes more men might get luckier.


----------



## LaoHu (Sep 16, 2006)

*Much, much faster...*



Windsurf said:


> I am sure that most women can size up a man's status, wealth and sexual preference within 60 seconds of seeing him.


 Most likely within 5 seconds.


----------



## luk-cha (Apr 29, 2006)

acidicboy said:


> +1.
> 
> A considerable number of women would notice a man wearing the "bling" shoes, Ferragamos, the Gucci horsebit loafer, Pradas, etc... and a lightbulb turns on. Wear a JL or EG with their subtle elegance and they'll probably wouldn't know the difference between those and a Johnston & Murphy.
> 
> Perhaps if Manolo Blahnik starts making mens shoes more men might get luckier.


FYI he soes make mens shoe - horrid things, next time you are in town go to his store in the landmark in central and you can see for yourself!


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

LARon said:


> I find this to be a fascinating thread, but would like one detail clarified: from what source have we concluded that women (whether all or some meaningful percentage) check out men's shoes? Is there some statistical data on this or is it all presumptive/anecdotal? (I haven't heard this before.)


Totally anecdotal, but I have noticed that some women do notice my shoes, and that the majority of them comment most favorably on one of the most expensive pairs I own, a C&J for Ralph Lauren monk straps.


----------



## tasteful one (Oct 6, 2006)

*Anyone whose judgement is based on shoes (or any article of apparel)...*

....is an ignoramus. Period. Those without the insight and awarenes to actually know how to recognize a person of quality by assessing the truly important things (which cannot be seen) must therefore use something, so why not shoes?

Any woman who admits to judging someone by shoes/cars/watches is admitting her own stupidity.


----------



## LARon (Jun 19, 2006)

Henrik RS said:


> In my experience, women care more about brands than style and quality. I always receive compliments when wearing Gucci loafers (in the summer), but only a few have ever commented on my finer (and also more expensive) dress shoes.


 And even if/when they did, it was just a fluke; they have little orientation toward quality. Its all about fitting in, wearing what's "hot" right now.

I'm with Henrik on this one.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I will sometimes show off new shoes to my wife. Often as not, she says she cannot tell them from the old ones. About the only shoes women seem to notice, in my experience, are "flashy" shoes like spectators or white bucks. Some like them and comment favorably. My wife has a deep-dyed antipathy to anything dandyish and positively loathes them.

Given how slovenly many very affluent men dress, I doubt if many women nowadays can make an instantaneous (and correct) assessment of a man's wealth and position unless, perhaps, she sees him emerging from a luxury car or sporting a preposterously high-dollar wristwatch.


----------



## Richie_G (Jun 19, 2006)

*That's gay?*



Sophistication said:


> That's gay.


 Have you been watching the movie, The 40 Year Old Virgin:icon_smile_big: How did your new dress coat turn out? I remember looking at it on the internet. It's a nice one! I bought a pair of Edward Green shoes in size 9 from the same seller. I guess women wouldn't be impressed with my shoe size:icon_smile_big:


----------



## stylestudent (Feb 24, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> My wife has a deep-dyed antipathy to anything dandyish and positively loathes them.


Agreed. Got tired of the shrieks when I wore white bucks. Also receive consistent criticism of brown suede Alden tassel loafers. But nothing will pry them off my feet.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

JLibourel said:


> Given how slovenly many very affluent men dress, I doubt if many women nowadays can make an instantaneous (and correct) assessment of a man's wealth and position unless, perhaps, she sees him emerging from a luxury car or sporting a preposterously high-dollar wristwatch.





tasteful one said:


> Anyone whose judgement is based on shoes (or any article of apparel)is an ignoramus. Period. Those without the insight and awarenes to actually know how to recognize a person of quality by assessing the truly important things (which cannot be seen) must therefore use something, so why not shoes?


It takes time to assess the "truly important things" -- character being an example. Moreover, I don't think this is about correctly recognizing wealth and social standing either. However, noticing whether one's shoes are well or poorly kept ... have been chosen with care of lack thereof ... can indeed tell you something beyond the superficial.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

JLibourel said:


> Given how slovenly many very affluent men dress, I doubt if many women nowadays can make an instantaneous (and correct) assessment of a man's wealth and position unless, perhaps, she sees him emerging from a luxury car or sporting a preposterously high-dollar wristwatch.


I would venture that often as not the car at least--and maybe the watch, too--are more signs of a willingness to go into debt than wealth.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Sorry I'm late! There have been some statistics that show that both men and women look at another man's shoes very early in the subliminal evaluation!

Shined shoes in good condition show attention to detail (thus their importance in job interviews) and wealth.

"Well heeled" is a reference to the evaluation of your economic value as indicated by the condition of your shoes!  If you have enought money to keep your shoes in good condition you must be rich!!


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> In my experience, women care more about brands than style and quality.


Sadly, there is a great bit of truth in this. I think women equate certain brands with quality when often the opposite is true.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

Outside of the US, I find that women pay attention to the kinds of shoes a man wears as well as the type of wristwatch. I think that they assume these to be good indicators of wealth and probably are in places that still have a traditional retail structure. 

Women in the US have been conditioned by our retail structure to consider clothing items as perishable and many will equate cheap, bling shoes as indicators of wealth. I think the child who called the double monks "gay" belongs to this demographic. That said, there is still a sizable group of women who can recognize a well shaped, well made shoe for what it is.


----------



## william76 (Aug 11, 2006)

Andy said:


> Shined shoes in good condition show attention to detail (thus their importance in job interviews) and wealth.


Bingo. This has been my experience. I've caught girls checking my shoes out more when they've been freshly polished than at any other time.

As for color...my girlfriend reacts to dark brown and black. I show her pictures of shoes all the time and the color is what gets her. Just like another poster noted though...she doesn't like monkstraps. I think the buckle looks too much like jewelry to them.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

Shoe quality can reveal a gent's level of affluence, sense of style, and attention to detail, as well as more nebulous personality factors. For these reasons, shoes get first glance when I see a lady for the first time (well, ALMOST first!). My mother says the same thing about the quality of an individual's teeth! Bill


----------



## Armchair (Nov 12, 2006)

tasteful one said:


> ....is an ignoramus. Period. Those without the insight and awarenes to actually know how to recognize a person of quality by assessing the truly important things (which cannot be seen) must therefore use something, so why not shoes?
> 
> Any woman who admits to judging someone by shoes/cars/watches is admitting her own stupidity.


Nice idea but it is naive to think that people don't judge others on their appearance. I do it, you do it, women do it, men do it, everyone does it.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

er ... there is no quick way to answer this ... I do look at men's shoes and if they are well polished and clean :thumbs-up: ... if not ... I wonder about the rest ... if you catch my drift ... :icon_smile_big: 

But I can always ask the girls on the other forum ... I'm sure you guys will find out soon enough :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> They might look at shoes, but in my opinion they have terrible taste. Many of the girls that have seen my JL Chapels in Dark Brown Museum Calf have told me that they are "gay," as are apparently all monk straps.


Ah, this would be a young womans response as mature woman would not use the word "gay" to describe shoes, unless a man was wearing spike heels.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Someone on this forum once described fine shoes as "stealth wealth", which I think says it all. The "that's so gay" comment often tells more about the person speaking the phrase, and his or her ignorant or immature 'unresolved issues', than about the intended target.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Chris Rimby said:


> As for color...my girlfriend reacts to dark brown and black. I show her pictures of shoes all the time and the color is what gets her. Just like another poster noted though...she doesn't like monkstraps. I think the buckle looks too much like jewelry to them.


Monkstraps may grow on her. When I was younger I couldn't stand them ... now they are among my favorites.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

If I had a dime for every time a woman complimented me on my AE Broadstreets (I have both the brown and black styles) I could retire well off.

I think that overall women are looking more to see if a mans shoes are well cared for. Attention to details which seems very important to women. I was talking to an attractive co-worker about shoes and she admitted a mans shoes is what she first pays attention to. When I asked what she looks for she said they have to shined. Scuffed shoes are a no-go she said.

Another thing I learned recently. Female co-workers not only notice your shoes but they seem to keep track of them as well or so it would seem. I recently worked in a different area then usual. I happened to be wearing an older (but shined) pair of shoes I normally don't wear to work. A different female co-worker sees me and her first comment is "New pair of shoes Mark"? Go figure.

Still, despite all the data that points to women checking out mens shoes, it still doesn't explain some of the beautiful, well dressed women I see hanging on the arms of guys who look like they slept in a dumpster and have the dirty, beat up white athletic shoes to complete the look.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

The quality of a gent's shoes reflect his level of affluence, attention to detail, and sense of style. I think of these things when I see a lady for the first time, as well. OK, maybe not the FIRST thing I think of, but you get my drift. My mom says that the quality of a person's teeth tell you the same thing. Regards to all, Bill


----------



## LondonFogey (May 18, 2006)

Some observations:

1. I have noticed that a lot of women DO notice shoes (this includes my mother!) I know at least three women who have said to me this is one of the main things they notice about mens' appearance. 

2. Reasons for this - who knows, but women themselves seem more keen on their own shoes than any other item of clothing, perhaps it's because they are one of the only items of clothing you can see yourself wearing from all angles without a mirror, with the exception of gloves, which have gone out of fashion. 

3. In the Channel Four serial 'Goldplated' about goldigging women in Cheshire (an English county favoured by the nouveau riches) one such woman said shoes were one of the main things to establish wealth in a man - although she seemed only to know of designer labels and probably wouldn't know a John Lobb if it kicked her in the shins...

4. Women who aren't goldigger types but who are attracted to other things in men - most notably artistic/musical achievement, or liberal political views, seem to actively dislike 'smart' shoes and prefer trainers or scruffy shoes on men.


----------



## Smiley (Dec 1, 2006)

Contrary to Alex's belief, I know no woman who chooses to bestow attention upon your shoes before noticing more significant ensemble details. She will never check you out and think "nice shoes." Women are more concerned with the decoration of your wedding finger, how your clothes flatter your waistline, and the manner in which your pants fit your backside. Those females who are particularly fashion conscious may observe your trousers' hemline and whether your shirts are ironed.

Indeed, my current romantic interest had to train me to appreciate his footwear: I learned whether the shoes are bespoke, to appreciate a luxurious cigar color, and to understand many a last detail. One might garner from my obliviousness that I must be extraordinarily frumpy. This is not the case, as I am quite concerned with my own fashion choices and am astounded when he fails to note the glorious quality of a particular trouser or a certain blouse's becoming cut.

Given the other responses to this query, I will assume that there are females who garner information based on a man's choice of footwear. I would tend to categorize said females as materialistic and perhaps hypercritical. If you refrain from sporting Birkenstocks, combining socks and sandals, or pairing sneakers with your suit on a regular basis, most women will be quite satisfied.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Women who aren't goldigger types but who are attracted to other things in men - most notably artistic/musical achievement, or liberal political views, seem to actively dislike 'smart' shoes and prefer trainers or scruffy shoes on men.


I don't know any women who prefer the look of trainers or scruffy shoes on men.


----------



## Mr. Magoo (Dec 23, 2003)

I agree with Smiley. As far as all clothing goes, I get compliments on flashier pieces of clothing because that's what women tend to own or appreciate -- the red corduroy trousers, the bright green sweater, the pink tie, etc. There's almost no consideration of the bespoke suits, for example, unless brightly pinstriped.

As far as shoes go, I don't think I receive many compliments or even looks, and I have everything from Edward Green to Vass U-last (most likely to get looks) to several Mantellasi. I think women say things like "I always look at a man's shoes" even when they do not, except to ensure that the man isn't a total bafoon (e.g., suits with sneakers). Apart from that, they wouldn't know Dexter from John Lobb.

It's kind of like saying "I notice a woman's eyes", when really men notice bust, behind, general body shape or face first. If those parameters are okay, we move to the eyes. But then, who has terrible eyes?


----------



## Windsurf (Nov 27, 2006)

The issue isn't what type of woman/girl evaluates a man's shoes, or what she takes from this evaluation or even if she knows quality. The issue is she does it, most all do it, and so if you want to be with a particular woman you need to understand what she looks for and then wear it so you qualify in her eyes. That may sound wrong, but men do the same thing to woman except our criteria is the woman's physical appearance. It's unfair that we judge a woman by her body type since at least with shoes we can change them while she can't make herself taller etc but that is life. Now if we only could tell what kind of shoe impresses which type of woman we would have much more success!!! Actually, I have contimplated editing a book of pictures of women's shoes with the clues to what message the woman is sending by her shoe selection. I am sure it would be hughly popular on the dating circuit.

As for the gay comment. Women seem to want men to dress "well", but there is a point we cannot cross. If you co-ordinate colors too well or wear shoes that are a little out of the norm or seem to be working at looking good to much then you cross into the "gay look" catagory and are disqualified. Woman don't want men who seem more interested in clothes than they are. We are allowed to look good but not too good. JMO


----------



## Mr. Magoo (Dec 23, 2003)

Windsurf said:


> That may sound wrong, but men do the same thing to woman except our criteria is the woman's physical appearance. It's unfair that we judge a woman by her body type since at least with shoes we can change them while she can't make herself taller etc but that is life.
> 
> Now if we only could tell what kind of shoe impresses which type of woman we would have much more success!!! Actually, I have contimplated editing a book of pictures of women's shoes with the clues to what message the woman is sending by her shoe selection. I am sure it would be hughly popular on the dating circuit.


Err, it any more fair than women judging men for their own physical characteristics (e.g., height) or socio-economic characteristics (e.g., money)?

Also, women are usually communicating things with clothing to other women, not to men. As Martin Amis once said "I used to think women dress to impress other women; now I know they dress to depress other women."


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Windsurf said:


> The issue isn't what type of woman/girl evaluates a man's shoes, or what she takes from this evaluation or even if she knows quality. The issue is she does it, most all do it, and so if you want to be with a particular woman you need to understand what she looks for and then wear it so you qualify in her eyes. That may sound wrong, but men do the same thing to woman except our criteria is the woman's physical appearance. It's unfair that we judge a woman by her body type since at least with shoes we can change them while she can't make herself taller etc but that is life. Now if we only could tell what kind of shoe impresses which type of woman we would have much more success!!!


I would disagree. As someone who doesn't look particularly attractive, I feel qualified to state that self-confidence is usually the main attractor at first contact. It is, however, right that one has to fit somehow in the style framework embraced by the particular woman.


----------



## Brian13 (Aug 9, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> They might look at shoes, but in my opinion they have terrible taste. Many of the girls that have seen my JL Chapels in Dark Brown Museum Calf have told me that they are "gay," as are apparently all monk straps.


i agree with you 100%.
they seem to think that prada , dior shoes , what have you are all stylish.
they dont know a good one from a bad one. just the label.

although my wife knows though


----------



## Brian13 (Aug 9, 2006)

Mr. Magoo said:


> I agree with Smiley. As far as all clothing goes, I get compliments on flashier pieces of clothing because that's what women tend to own or appreciate -- the red corduroy trousers, the bright green sweater, the pink tie, etc. There's almost no consideration of the bespoke suits, for example, unless brightly pinstriped.
> 
> As far as shoes go, I don't think I receive many compliments or even looks, and I have everything from Edward Green to Vass U-last (most likely to get looks) to several Mantellasi. I think women say things like "I always look at a man's shoes" even when they do not, except to ensure that the man isn't a total bafoon (e.g., suits with sneakers). Apart from that, they wouldn't know Dexter from John Lobb.
> 
> It's kind of like saying "I notice a woman's eyes", when really men notice bust, behind, general body shape or face first. If those parameters are okay, we move to the eyes. But then, who has terrible eyes?


 i also agree with everything said here as well.

but for the bottom paragraph. totally true.
other parameters seem to be more forgiveable on a date if those physical aspects are all there.
just human nature.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

LondonFogey said:


> 4. Women who aren't goldigger types but who are attracted to other things in men - most notably artistic/musical achievement, or liberal political views, seem to actively dislike 'smart' shoes and prefer trainers or scruffy shoes on men.


I'm not a golddigger by an stretch of the imagination, but trainers for the gym and scruffy shoes in the bin!


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

Are you guys still at this? Incredible … sigh … alright, woman’s POV … the watch & car etc are all nice eye candy, but that’s not what it really takes. 

1. Intelligence is key; the ability to teach me a thing or two is view as wonderful. 

2. Sense of humor and the ability to laugh at oneself is very appealing.

3. When you meet the girl’s parents, agree with her father on politics and her mother on religion.

4. The ability to treat all those around him with respect tells me that he will accord me with the same respect whether it is now, 10 or 20 years or more.

5. The way he drives his car is more telling than what kind of car he drives, as some are clearly on the brink of a nervous breakdown.

There’s just too many to list … btw, wear your Monks, don’t allow anyone to tell you they’re gay. They’re incredibly sexy on a man; I buy Monks for my husband all the time.

A single woman who doesn’t live in a household full of men (as in brothers) wouldn’t understand men’s brands. Further, if you suspect that a woman is dating you based on your material possessions, you need to reassess your relationship with her.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Spence said:


> Upon meeting my now wife (at a bar no less), she jokingly evaluated my shoes and watch literally before we got into real conversation.
> 
> -spence


What did she say, and was she correct? 

I'm sure some women at work notice the quantity of shoes I have. None have commented about any pair, but I know that some are thinking "he owns more shoes than me!"

A few months ago I did walk into a room (wearing a suit and tie) and had three people (2 female, one male) notice/compliment my shoes within a minute. They were chocolate suede captoe Aldens. These people probably don't know much about the Duke of Windsor, but they were familiar with Fred Astaire who also enjoyed brown suede.


----------



## Windsurf (Nov 27, 2006)

:icon_cheers: Hedonist. I think you are describing European women more than American Women. I wish American woman were a little more like the European variety. Unfortunately, the US has moved into a much more shallow and materialistic phase if that could be possible. American women are not looking for intelligence. They don't want a man who has a sense of humor they want a man who can make them laugh. (A big difference I am afraid. I feel like I have to be ready to do a stand up routine at the laugh factory to qualify.) And they don't want me to be able to teach them something. They want to know that they are smarter than me and can be silently in control of the relationship and decisions. :icon_pale: 

crazyquik. I don't own a pair of the Alden Suedes, but I like their look. However, outside of the fashion industry I doubt any Americans would ever compliment you on those shoes. Are you sure they were giving you a compliment? Maybe I am just being sour but if they did compliment you they must be a very sophisticated and smart crowd. You travel in better circles than I do.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Mr. Magoo (Dec 23, 2003)

Windsurf said:


> Hedonist. I think you are describing European women more than American Women. I wish American woman were a little more like the European variety. Unfortunately, the US has moved into a much more shallow and materialistic phase if that could be possible.


I highly doubt that. I think Hedonist is correct about American women too. But she is describing what women want from partners, not what women find attractive within the first 60 seconds of meeting a man.

I think the thread is about first impressions and "intelligence" or "treating others with respect" is not something you'll know immediately, for the most part, but something you learn after a while. And what's more, you have to satisfy the cruel first impression test to get there, and those are typcially a lot more exacting than what Hedonist talks about -- be it money, looks, or nice build.


----------



## thinman (Jan 21, 2005)

Hedonist said:


> Are you guys still at this? Incredible &#8230; sigh &#8230; alright, woman's POV &#8230; the watch & car etc are all nice eye candy, but that's not what it really takes.
> 
> 1. Intelligence is key; the ability to teach me a thing or two is view as wonderful.
> 
> ...


Amen! This is the sort of woman I'd like to find, not one who judges me based on my shoes. But in order to demonstrate these qualities, wouldn't you agree, Hedonist, that a guy has to make the first cut and the first cut is based on visual impact?

As Smiley wrote, I think the first visual cues women check out are the physique--the face (eyes), shoulders, and tush. Shoes and clothes are just decoration. In fact, before this weekend, I would have denied that women even notice shoes. I was in a Brooks Brothers store on Friday when a woman asked my advice about coordinating a shirt and sweater for her son (she correctly surmised that we are approximately the same age). During the conversation, I said "Realize that I'm a fairly conservative dresser", to which she replied "Really??", with a conspicuous glance at my Edwardian Dovers with extra antiquing. Apparently, she had checked me out before approaching me for advice.

Regarding monkstraps, I was initially reluctant to wear them, since they seemed somewhat effete to me. After buying a pair, I've grown to love their style and comfort, so I now own 5 pairs. And they must be gay, since they're always coming out of the closet! I'm wearing a pair today, in fact.


----------



## Brian13 (Aug 9, 2006)

Hedonist said:


> Are you guys still at this? Incredible &#8230; sigh &#8230; alright, woman's POV &#8230; the watch & car etc are all nice eye candy, but that's not what it really takes.
> 
> 1. Intelligence is key; the ability to teach me a thing or two is view as wonderful.
> 
> ...


i agree as well. except for number 3
i disagree with my father in law, but he respects my different points of view because i still treat him with respect and love.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

Dudes,
there are all kinds of women everywhere. As my brother says it succinctly 'There's one kind you sleep with and the other you bring home to your mother.' LOL!


----------



## Brian13 (Aug 9, 2006)

i only like the kind you bring home to my mother.


----------



## Windsurf (Nov 27, 2006)

Good I'll take all the other kind! Send 'em over.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Windsurf said:


> crazyquik. I don't own a pair of the Alden Suedes, but I like their look. However, outside of the fashion industry I doubt any Americans would ever compliment you on those shoes. Are you sure they were giving you a compliment? Maybe I am just being sour but if they did compliment you they must be a very sophisticated and smart crowd. You travel in better circles than I do.:icon_smile_wink:


They were ballroom dancer types so:

1) they pay attention to shoes to a degree
and
2) brown suede probably reminded them of Fred Astaire


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Hedonist said:


> Are you guys still at this? Incredible &#8230; sigh &#8230; alright, woman's POV &#8230; the watch & car etc are all nice eye candy, but that's not what it really takes.
> 
> 1. Intelligence is key; the ability to teach me a thing or two is view as wonderful.
> 
> ...


I like #3.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Ballroom dancers...*



crazyquik said:


> They were ballroom dancer types so:
> 
> 1) *they pay attention to shoes to a degree*
> and
> 2) brown suede probably reminded them of Fred Astaire


Because the gentlemen keep stepping on her shoes... hihi:icon_smile_big:

...from paris


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*...indeed*



Windsurf said:


> Good I'll take all the other kind! Send 'em over.


You are a frighteningly intelligent gentleman... hihi:icon_smile_big:

...from paris


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I guess women want to see class and not some cheap brand crappy shoes from a unknown department store.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Howard said:


> I guess women want to see class and not some cheap brand crappy shoes from a unknown department store.


C'mon. Everybody loves Alfani :icon_jokercolor:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StevenRocks said:


> C'mon. Everybody loves Alfani :icon_jokercolor:


How much would a pair of Alfani shoes cost?


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Howard said:


> How much would a pair of Alfani shoes cost?


They're at Macy's and they're almost always on sale for 49.99. They look like knockoff Kenneth Coles.


----------



## LARon (Jun 19, 2006)

StevenRocks said:


> they're almost always on sale for 49.99. They look like knockoff Kenneth Coles.


Egads! Does this double-negative make them a positive?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StevenRocks said:


> They're at Macy's and they're almost always on sale for 49.99. They look like knockoff Kenneth Coles.


I'd buy them.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

LARon said:


> Egads! Does this double-negative make them a positive?


Nope. They're horrid, and I was joking.



Howard said:


> I'd buy them.


No way, man. They're like strapping plastic boxes onto your feet.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StevenRocks said:


> Nope. They're horrid, and I was joking.
> 
> No way, man. They're like strapping plastic boxes onto your feet.


How would you know,many people's feet are different Steve.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Howard said:


> How would you know,many people's feet are different Steve.


I'm not saying they won't work for everybody or that Alfani's incapable of producing a great shoe, but by and large, the shoes are of low quality and the styles aren't that great. I'm not above changing my opinion if I saw a decent shoe from Alfani.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Luckyguy said:


> Gents,
> 
> It is not that men don't, but why do women pay more attention to men's shoes more than anything else in their outfit?
> 
> ...


In my case, most women look at my feet to ensure that I have a stable firing platform.

M8


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Why? Would you think they'd be looking at something else besides your feet?


----------



## Armchair (Nov 12, 2006)

StevenRocks said:


> I'm not saying they won't work for everybody or that Alfani's incapable of producing a great shoe, but by and large, the shoes are of low quality and the styles aren't that great. I'm not above changing my opinion if I saw a decent shoe from Alfani.


I have a pair of Alfani's for work. The laces began to fall apart after 6 months, the lining is worn out at the heal and they leak water like a seive. I appreciate that $90 isn't much on the shoe scale but they should at least get the basics right.


----------



## Puffdaddy (Dec 21, 2006)

Henrik RS said:


> In my experience, women care more about brands than style and quality. I always receive compliments when wearing Gucci loafers (in the summer), but only a few have ever commented on my finer (and also more expensive) dress shoes.


I agree with you 100%!


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Henrik RS said:


> In my experience, women care more about brands than style and quality. I always receive compliments when wearing Gucci loafers (in the summer), but only a few have ever commented on my finer (and also more expensive) dress shoes.


In my experience, women (in general) care more about the appearance of style and the illusion of quality. And part of the fault is that all too often they seem to mistake brand name for quality. I think few women understand the finer points of construction ... be it a shoe or a building.

However, find a woman who has a more tailored look and she might surprise you. This is advice for those men who might want a girlfriend or wife who can talk about the finer points of a pair of Edward Greens ... or about the pad stitches on the lapel of a Savile Row suit.

I have a rather elegant friend who is very tailored in her appearance ... wearing mostly tweeds and flannels this time of year. I have always been amazed at what she can discuss when it comes to men's clothing. After knowing her for a number of years, she shared with me that she put herself though college (Radcliffe) working as a seamstress. She has on occasion presented me with a gift of clothing she has made ... and it's as fine as anything I've purchased. Now with her I have to be careful talking clothing ... she leaves me in the dust!

EDIT: For those women who do care more for the appearance of style and the illusion of quality ... the ability to obtain it (money) seems also to be important.


----------

