# No Socks in an Exceptionally Casual Work Environment?



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Hello, I am an assistant director in a public library. Our dress policy calls for no shorts and no shoes without backs, but sneakers, crocs, etc. have all been worn by my employees--both for comfort and medical reasons since this type of employment sometimes attracts elderly individuals through Title V.

I'm a younger man, 26, and have worked here since I was 17. Until I was promoted a couple years ago, I never wore anything but collared shirts, jeans, and sneakers. Now I typically wear ocbd's, polos, khakis, boat shoes, and loafers. When I have a meeting with my board, I throw on a blazer or sport coat--sometimes a tie. It is, in short, a very casual environment in a small town.

*My question is:*

Since it is such a casual work environment, is it unreasonable to wear boat shoes or loafers without socks on days without meetings? I typically wear socks with my blucher moccasins during Fall and Winter, but I just think socks look bad with boat shoes.

I also understand that the very idea of wearing boat shoes to work is, for many of you, a sin itself. But I certainly would be looked at strangely should I wear brogues or even a tie without good reason. I should also say the typical dress for my (female) boss is a sweater, capris, and birkenstocks.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Go for it. My office environment is such that I can wear unpressed shirts and khakis without fear of backlash.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Unless your library is a beach in a resort community, *wear socks!* :teacha:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?143188-Vox-Mocks-Sox


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Nope.


----------



## TradThrifter (Oct 22, 2012)

Only on Fridays. And only if there are no meetings.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apologies to my friend Jovan - but we should be shooting for something higher than the lowest common denominator, shouldn't we?

No need to wear a 3 piece suit - but I dont get why a decent pair of trousers, button down and proper shoes (and socks) is too much to ask in ANY workplace.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

How is no socks lowest common denominator?


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Jovan said:


> How is no socks lowest common denominator?


This is sort of my point. The lowest common denominator where I work is sandals on men with socks. Not to sound pretentious, but penny loafers are already breaching fancy here.

But if the consensus is that boat shoes are not a good option, I'm open to suggestions. The penny loafers can obviously be worn with socks. I will just need to invest in more pairs.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Lowest common denominator is obviously bare feet but would socks sans shoes come next--I have a pair with rubber grips left over from a brief hospital stay--or would shoes sans socks come next?


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Guess where I am. Hint: I didn't pick the carpet.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

^^^ That right there, I would _not_ want to see in any office environment - I do not want to familiarize myself with the ankles and leg hair of my colleagues. Mine is not a "very casual" work environment, but even so, if the OP's is the type of office where blazers and ties are even sometimes appropriate, then it is the type of environment where socks should always be worn, IMO.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I dunno. Going without socks is a very hot weather look, AFAIC, and if you're working indoors with AC, what's the point? Yeah, I go either barefoot or with sandals most of the time in the summer but I'm retired. It would take a particular set of circumstances for me to go sockless anywhere I wouldn't wear shorts. There's a restaurant near the beach that has outdoor dining. That might be the circumstances . . .


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Oldsarge said:


> I dunno. Going without socks is a very hot weather look, AFAIC, and if you're working indoors with AC, what's the point? Yeah, I go either barefoot or with sandals most of the time in the summer but I'm retired. *It would take a particular set of circumstances for me to go sockless anywhere I wouldn't wear shorts. *There's a restaurant near the beach that has outdoor dining. That might be the circumstances . . .


I think this is spot on. If it's the type of office where shorts are okay then going sockless is probably okay, too. Though given the fact that the OP has worked there some time and has been promoted, should he really be encouraged to adopt the MOST casual option conceivably permissible, or would it serve him better to aim a little higher?


----------



## DJH_of_Doom (Apr 3, 2013)

I am only ever sockless in bed, in the bath/shower/pool and at the beach.

My office can be slack, but there are no circumstances where sockless is acceptable.

One of my current pet peeves is people who wear a fashion suit with cropped trousers, casual shoes and no socks.


----------



## M Go Crimson (Aug 20, 2011)

Where's Trip when you need him?




Trip English said:


> Pale ankles are the exclusive domain of the patrician upper class. Display them proudly.


----------



## LordSmoke (Dec 25, 2012)

universitystripe said:


> ...is it unreasonable to wear boat shoes or loafers without socks on days without meetings? ...


$0.02 -> Yes, it is unreasonable to ever wear leather shoes without socks.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

LordSmoke said:


> $0.02 -> Yes, it is unreasonable to ever wear leather shoes without socks.


...at work? Because I'm not giving up boat shoes sans socks on the weekends, especially with shorts. Of course, I know a lot of you hate shorts, too--but that's a generational difference, I think.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

RogerP said:


> ^^^ That right there, I would _not_ want to see in any office environment


:thumbs-up: :thumbs-up: :thumbs-up:

I don't even wanna see *my* hairy ankles!


----------



## fishertw (Jan 27, 2006)

I think you should dress for the most conservative of your library patrons. THEY, not your board are ultimately your employers.
If the most conservative wear socks, then you should too.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

L-feld said:


> Guess where I am. Hint: I didn't pick the carpet.


And this is why you are not supposed to show your bare leg. Yuck!


----------



## mhdena (Jan 4, 2008)

In a library I could see chinos or jeans with boat shoes, moccasins, penny loafers and no socks. That isn't a very formal environment IMO. 

What gets me is Salesmen in Nordstrom in the Men's Dept wearing suits and and driving mocs and or loafers with no socks!!

Whats the saying from MNF, "COME ON MAN!"

I've seen this twice at 2 Nordstroms this summer. The suit dept Santa Anita, and shoe dept South Coast. They both appeared to be in their 20's, an Asian and a White guy, not that it matters but at least if it was a Brown or Black guy the ankles wouldn't be as pale,haha


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

mhdena said:


> In a library I could see chinos or jeans with boat shoes, moccasins, penny loafers and no socks. That isn't a very formal environment IMO.


Yes, I feel that I may have to keep the boat shoes in the rotation, albeit with some nice socks. On some days I end up moving heavy items for children's programming and other days I end up in front of a lectern speaking. It just depends.


----------



## kravi (Feb 26, 2013)

So I have two answers:

1. Yes, you could absolutely go sockless at work and nobody would likely raise an eyebrow or think poorly of you (from your description).
2. You asked here at AAAC, however, which means you are possibly asking about what a gentleman would do. A gentleman would not go sockless at work unless he was a lifeguard.

My $0.02

--Me


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

kravi said:


> So I have two answers:
> 
> 1. Yes, you could absolutely go sockless at work and nobody would likely raise an eyebrow or think poorly of you (from your description).
> 2. You asked here at AAAC, however, which means you are possibly asking about what a gentleman would do. A gentleman would not go sockless at work unless he was a lifeguard.
> ...


A gentleman wouldn't do a lot of things, many of them fun. That ship has sailed for me, because I wear my watch on a metal bracelet.

All I can think of in this thread is Justin Timberlake in _Friends With Benefits_, keeping his OTC argyles on in bed with Mila Kunis.

If you can wear shorts, then you don't have to wear socks. I don't wear socks with shoes I'd like to keep nice -- socklessness is the bottom of the food chain in my wardrobe. I also don't go sockless once it's cool outside, though I went most of January 2012 without socks, "Houses In Motion" style. Note, of course, that I skew rather prep/trad/Ivy.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

If it's summer and you're not wearing a tie, socks need not apply.

I'm sticking to my cankles on this one. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I can see where everyone is coming from. The whole thing boils down to different office environments and cultures dictate different ideals of what is deemed appropriate. I can show up barefoot to our upscale office clad only in Incredible Hulk underoos and my boss could not care less. To him and my peers, it is all about the productivity, not the attire. I, and many of my compadres, consider closed-toe Birkenstock Bostons semi-formal office wear. That being said, we do entertain scheduled clients and guests. (emphasis on scheduled) For those events, we are expected to dress accordingly...i.e. socks, pants, shirt tucked in (with no garish logos), etc.etc.


----------



## LordSmoke (Dec 25, 2012)

universitystripe said:


> ...at work? Because I'm not giving up boat shoes sans socks on the weekends, especially with shorts. Of course, I know a lot of you hate shorts, too--but that's a generational difference, I think.


I may be in the minority, but even the thought of sockless leather shoe wear brings to mind the stench and sliminess of wet, sweat-soaked leather. Perhaps I should try it, but cheap, canvas (Ked-like) deck shoes or sandals are my choice for sockless wear with shorts, in wet environments, or any other time socklessness is considered.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Wear socks, IMO. 

Showing off your feet signals "vacation". 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

It's best to wear socks, it absorbs sweat.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I would wear the socks. You are an assistant director supervising others.

Why is the "no sock" thing so important to you anyway? At work, I try to stay conventional. You have the rest of your life to be "hip" if that's really important.

I'm at work today in shorts and sandals, but it's Saturday and no one else is here.

Here's a thought. Why don't you ask your boss? If the thought of asking your boss first does not seem comfortable, that probably answers your question.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

Wear socks when wearing trousers at work.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

fishertw said:


> I think you should dress for the most conservative of your library patrons. THEY, not your board are ultimately your employers.
> If the most conservative wear socks, then you should too.


YES! Absolutely right.


----------



## TsAr (Mar 21, 2013)

I can never imagine myself wearing shoes without socks no matter how casual the environment may be:crazy:....the only time I am not wearing socks is when I am in my slippers...


----------



## Bookkeeper (Jul 7, 2010)

Man, it's been a long time since I commented on here. But my situation is so relevant that I have to.

I am circulation coordinator (essentially 3rd in command after director and asst director) at a smallish public library (6 FT staff ~6 FTE part-time staff). My boss (female) also typically wears a sweater, etc, some sort of sandal. I wear a tie every day to work, along with similarly formal clothes to match. I've never worn boat shoes on the clock, and I've never gone sockless. I look odd compared to anyone else who works with me. My attire is a running...not joke, but commentary.

I'm also in the middle of being considered for a directorship at a larger, extremely affluent public library, one who's city is in the midst of applying for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. I am a 26 year old being interviewed for a 40 year old man's position. While all of my wonderful qualities played a part in getting where I am, I would not be this far along the interview process for such a prestigious position without cultivating an air of impeccable professionalism.

All that said, you are not me. Perhaps it's a certain level of arrogance, but I want to stand out from the people I currently work with, and I want to be seen as utterly well put together when I'm at work. I'm "2nd tier" in dealing with patrons who have problems or questions. When they see me, they see a man with answers, and they don't fight or question what I say. But there are benefits to looking more casual. What I wear would be completely incongruous on someone in children's programming. Perhaps you want to be more approachable than I am. My outfit says "let's get some work done", not "let's talk about your day."

Returning to the question at hand, it's not about what you can get away with; it's about the persona that you want to project. It sounds like you could easily get away with boat shoes, no socks. Anywhere that allows sandals with no socks (on either gender) is going to be hard-pressed to enforce you wearing socks with _any_ close-toed shoe. So think about what you want to look like, and go for it.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Hear, hear!


----------



## ndlutz (Apr 23, 2013)

The shoes with no socks in that picture are not a good look for you in my opinion. I would wear socks to work.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Most summer days, I do not wear socks. My office is full of do-gooder hippies and while there is a dress code, it is lax and beyond easy to comply. Frankly, Bookkeeper, I understand what you're saying, but your advice does not apply to all circumstances. If I were to wear a coat and tie to work, I would lose a lot of credibility with my clients. 

We had an executive assistant for the latter half of 2012 who wore DB suits and bowties almost everyday. Such is the culture in my office, that he was frequently asked why he was so dressed up, to which he responded "dress for the position you want, not the one you have" or something like that. His boss wore untucked polos and Birkenstock clogs every day. By many accounts, he didn't fit into our culture. I liked the kid, but he also had absolutely no room for advancement in the office - 25 making $40,000/year as an EA, no grad degree (which is a requirement for almost every other job here) - and so he was seen by a lot of other employees as thinking he was too good for the job he had and also fairly pretentious.

tl/dr: while you should never be dressed so as to just barely pass muster, going sockless can still be an option depending on corporate culture. Don't be afraid to try it.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

First, thank you to everyone who has taken the time to respond. I am a religious forum hunter, and while I have seen several posts saying boat shoes at work is acceptable as business casual, no one approached the sock issue. Even though the usual response to boat shoes with socks is a resounding "NO!"

That being said, after your responses I feel that I should transition towards wearing loafers with socks. My boss did once express the thought that I should relax from wearing ties on typical days, so I won't be dressing any better than a button down and khakis or wool trousers. I'm not looking for employment elsewhere, as I'm happy where I am. 

Feel free to keep discussing, but consider me converted.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Phew!!!
.....another young Jedi, saved from the dark side.


----------



## mrfixit (Dec 30, 2012)

i went sockless with loafers at work for the first time about 2 weeks ago (with chinos and a button down). it drew a lot of attention. it wasn't necessarily bad, but i wouldn't do it again.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

I go sockless all summer long at my firm. I'm an architect in a professional office where the partners wear t-shirts and jeans, the male employees wear sneakers and some female employees wear flip flops and athletic shorts. I could wear espadrilles and still be the most appropriately dressed person there. In my case, and I'm sure it's the same for many others, I'm so far ahead of the "dress code" that I'm dressing for myself at this point, and I have no issues tweaking the "professional uniform" that, as sad as it may be, is more and more irrelevant in the modern business environment.

On another note, why does everyone cry fowl when a man wears leather shoes with no socks but women do it all the time and no once complains about their hygiene?


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

hardline_42 said:


> On another note, why does everyone cry fowl when a man wears leather shoes with no socks but women do it all the time and no once complains about their hygiene?


You're right--it is a double standard. Of course, women (or at least the type of women who wear closed-toe leather shoes) usually have impeccable hygiene.

Personally, I just give my loafers a day of rest and throw cedar shoe trees in them. I do wash my feet daily. I have never had a problem.

I should say that my Sperrys do fine with no care whatsoever. But I don't really sweat much at all, and boat shoes fit loose.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Jovan said:


> How is no socks lowest common denominator?


Simple. When someone says, well shoes with no socks are fine since MOST people are wearing shorts and sandals - THAT is the very definition of lowest common denominator.

For example. Most people in my company are children <30 and wear jeans, sneakers and t shirts to work. The executives do only marginally better. So if I were to lower my standards to just slightly above this sloven group - I would be lowering to just above the "lowest common denominator" in the office.

Instead, I wear trousers, button downs and sport coats most days. Because a) that is how a professional SHOULD dress, and b) I respect my profession, company, coworkers and clients enough to try a bit more than the slobs I work with. I dress for the job I want not the job I have. Anything less is sloppy, lazy and unprofessional.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

... I'm sloppy, lazy and unprofessional. Well thank you.  

When I wear pressed wool trousers and a sport coat (what should be part of "business casual" but in reality isn't) I always get asked why I'm so dressed up. I don't want to stick out like a sore thumb next to everyone in my office and I don't wish to outdress my supervisor, who I'm an assistant to. It's not a matter of lowest common denominator or dressing for the job you want, but a simple matter of, "I don't want to draw undue attention."


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

If you're dressing in the top 5-10% of employees by wearing an unwrinkled yet uncreased and unstarched OCBD tucked into chinos, I think there is absolutely no danger in wearing unlined loafers with no socks.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

^ Exactly. Wearing that, I'm easily the best dressed in my office already.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Tilton said:


> If you're dressing in the top 5-10% of employees by wearing an unwrinkled yet uncreased and unstarched OCBD tucked into chinos, I think there is absolutely no danger in wearing unlined loafers with no socks.


Agree...if it fits in to your office culture, no socks is fine.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Jovan said:


> ... I'm sloppy, lazy and unprofessional. Well thank you.
> 
> When I wear pressed wool trousers and a sport coat (what should be part of "business casual" but in reality isn't) I always get asked why I'm so dressed up. I don't want to stick out like a sore thumb next to everyone in my office and I don't wish to outdress my supervisor, who I'm an assistant to. It's not a matter of lowest common denominator or dressing for the job you want, but a simple matter of, "I don't want to draw undue attention."


There is a big distance from "out dressing your supervisor" and keeping the beach and the office separate.

Subjecting your coworkers to your hairy legs is the definition of undue attention.


----------



## TsAr (Mar 21, 2013)

Jovan said:


> ... I'm sloppy, lazy and unprofessional. Well thank you.
> 
> When I wear pressed wool trousers and a sport coat (what should be part of "business casual" but in reality isn't) I always get asked why I'm so dressed up. I don't want to stick out like a sore thumb next to everyone in my office and I don't wish to outdress my supervisor, who I'm an assistant to. It's not a matter of lowest common denominator or dressing for the job you want, but a simple matter of, "I don't want to draw undue attention."


Hahaha...so often happens with me, but I tend to enjoy it....My colleagues even ask me if I am appearing for a job interview...


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

mrkleen said:


> There is a big distance from "out dressing your supervisor" and keeping the beach and the office separate.
> 
> Subjecting your coworkers to your hairy legs is the definition of undue attention.


They're no hairier than my arms. What's the difference? And when wearing pants, no one will see my leg hair. Perhaps you're speaking from the hipster look below:


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

mhdena said:


> In a library I could see chinos or jeans with boat shoes, moccasins, penny loafers and no socks. That isn't a very formal environment IMO.
> 
> What gets me is Salesmen in Nordstrom in the Men's Dept wearing suits and and driving mocs and or loafers with no socks!!
> 
> ...


I was in the shoe department of a Nordstroms a couple of months ago, and I mistook the salesman for the janitor.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

fishertw said:


> I think you should dress for the most conservative of your library patrons. THEY, not your board are ultimately your employers.
> If the most conservative wear socks, then you should too.


Agreed. Why is it that everyone is always looking to the worst dressed as an example of what they can get away with, rather than the best dressed? What mystifies me even more is that you say you would be looked at strangely if you dressed better.

Bookeeper's above post is excellent!!


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

blue suede shoes said:


> What mystifies me even more is that you say you would be looked at strangely if you dressed better.


When your boss tells you to knock off wearing the ties, you tend to comply. I don't understand how you all feel the world should dress in nothing less than a tie and sport coat in 2013. It does make people uncomfortable.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

universitystripe said:


> When your boss tells you to knock off wearing the ties, you tend to comply. I don't understand how you all feel the world should dress in nothing less than a tie and sport coat in 2013. It does make people uncomfortable.


You'll find a lot of that here, unfortunately - mixed in with good info about quality of various clothing and shoe brands. Wearing some of the anachronistic outfits suggested on this site would get you ridiculed at many highly-successful companies in this region. What's worse is the scorn heaped upon teens and young adults who are wearing sport coats, ties, and other "dressed-up" clothing more frequently today; it seems that these outfits are too short, too tight, too this, too that for many here; many of these younger people are merely trying to dress nicer (perhaps influenced by retailers like J Crew, etc.), yet are subjected to a bunch of snark from those who can't seem to recognize that their "rules" aren't appropriate for everyone.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

TsAr said:


> I can never imagine myself wearing shoes without socks no matter how casual the environment may be:crazy:....the only time I am not wearing socks is when I am in my slippers...


To me, not wearing socks means laziness.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

universitystripe said:


> When your boss tells you to knock off wearing the ties, you tend to comply. I don't understand how you all feel the world should dress in nothing less than a tie and sport coat in 2013. It does make people uncomfortable.


Yes, not only that, but if everyone else in your office is fully complying with the dress code by wearing kahkis, sneakers, and polos to work and you wear a suit, every single employee and patron will think you're a self-important twit who's completely out of touch with the office environment/culture. And, in many ways, they're probably right.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Howard said:


> To me, not wearing socks means laziness.


Clearly. Readers, beware of the lazy folk who are ruining our fair nation by going out in public without taking their appearance into consideration. They are the same people who take without giving back to society. Here are several examples.










It started back in the 60s at the core of America's educational world, the Ivy League. Though these students went on to form Fortune 500 companies, they were the laziest over achievers in the country.










Before too long, marketing caught on and soon Americans were encouraged to emulate these lazy individuals.










Today, wearing shoes without socks is a clear indicator of society's unwashed.










Even our own Oxford Cloth Button Down has fallen victim.

If you should see these types of lay-abouts out on the streets, do not feed them or offer them change. They will not buy socks with it.

Sincerely, America's Majority...


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

universitystripe said:


> Clearly. Readers, beware of the lazy folk who are ruining our fair nation by going out in public without taking their appearance into consideration.


The post is pure idiocy.

No one is talking about wearing socks ON A BOAT, or in college. Talking about GROWN MEN in a professional office. But, nice try proving your point.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

mrkleen said:


> The post is pure idiocy.
> 
> No one is talking about wearing socks ON A BOAT, or in college. Talking about GROWN MEN in a professional office. But, nice try proving your point.


If you were following the thread, you would see we had entered into a general discussion of wearing leather shoes without socks. I agreed some posts back that it was best to have socked feet in the office.


----------



## TheBarbaron (Oct 8, 2010)

@Universitystripe:
While I agree with you in principle, it is unfortunate that two of your examples are people wearing boat shoes _on boats_, which is somewhere socks would be an active hindrance.

@Everyone beside Jovan: 
I'm not encouraging young bankers, lawyers, physicians, or entrepreneurs to slide around sans hosiery as a rule; in a business (see _business dress_, rather than _business casual _or _casual_ dress) environment, to do so would be unbecoming. But loafers, mocs, or yes, even the ubiquitous topsider, without socks are a preppy, trad, casual to business casual tradition. With shorts, with chinos, with jeans, I am often sockless in the summer. Respect to Lfeld (whose picture perhaps didn't help the argument; sorry), but when I'm unrocking the socks, you won't see my hairy ankles or calves - because I am wearing pants, pants that break on my shoes, like 98% of us do. A flash of skin at the top of the tongue is nothing to be ashamed of in July, and certainly anyone who is wearing loafers and chinos is making a stronger professional statement than someone wearing jeans and flipping Birkenstocks. 
I'm not casting aspersion on anyone who wears athletic or other "non-business" footwear for health reasons; I merely submit that the OP's idea is hardly unique, unusual, unorthodox, or impractical, and unless his workplace becomes incredibly cold or much more well dressed, summer can certainly be sock-free.

EDIT: Rechecking this thread, geographical disparity seems important. Other than LordSmoke throwing off my theorem, most posters who are from the West Coast or south of the Mason-Dixon are either for a sockless look, or somewhat ambivalent. All of the vehement rejections of the premise come from places like New Jersey, New York, Ontario, the UK, Sweden, Michigan. As Flusser notes, in the south there is a long tradition of being appropriately dressed - for work, for church, for life - without socks; perhaps our northern brethren just don't have the background to appreciate it. ;-p


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

TheBarbaron said:


> ...Rechecking this thread, geographical disparity seems important. Other than LordSmoke throwing off my theorem, most posters who are from the West Coast or south of the Mason-Dixon are either for a sockless look, or somewhat ambivalent. All of the vehement rejections of the premise come from places like New Jersey, New York, Ontario, the UK, Sweden, Michigan. As Flusser notes, in the south there is a long tradition of being appropriately dressed - for work, for church, for life - without socks; perhaps our northern brethren just don't have the background to appreciate it. ;-p


I think age might have something to do with it as well. Though I don't know the ages of all the posters in each camp, I think the sockless supporters have a larger percentage of twenty and thirty-somethings in their ranks. As much as we'd like to pretend that it doesn't, dressing above your peers can have as much a negative impact on your career as dressing well below. At 32, with a young family and growing financial responsibilities, I have to temper my desire to dress well and balance it with the sartorial demands of my job. For me, that means wearing slimmer, lower rise khakis and trimmer OCBDs with 3.25" ties (and, yes, no socks when it's hot) because it's a "look" that people in general understand, thanks to J. Crew and the like. Wearing Bill's M1s hiked up to my nipples and BB Traditional Fits might be more "authentic," but wearing it at my age will confuse people, and people don't like to be confused (especially prospective clients).

Each person has to make their own sartorial decisions when it comes to their livelihood, and it's irresponsible for anyone to throw out hard and fast rules at individuals without knowing the nuances of their particular situation. If you feel like you can get away with going sockless at work, try it and see what happens. At worst, someone will ask you to put socks on. At best, you'll be one guy who feels good about the way he dresses at work. However, you most certainly won't single-handedly elevate the dress code of the entire population, socks or not. Wear what you like as often as you can.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Still doing it. Everyone has their flaws, whether it be tri-tone pimp shoes or mutton chops paired with a zoot suit.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> There is a big distance from "out dressing your supervisor" and keeping the beach and the office separate.
> 
> Subjecting your coworkers to your hairy legs is the definition of undue attention.


Yet no one here seems to complain about hairy arms. Funny, that.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Jovan said:


> Yet no one here seems to complain about hairy arms. Funny, that.


I know the metro thing is a little last decade, but I wonder how many on AAAC wax.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Swimmers need not be metrosexual. I kind of hate that word though, personally.

Might be opening a can of worms by saying that I wear short sleeves to the office. No doubt there are some who think that is also inappropriate.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Following L-felds example:



Going sockless doesn't mean 6" of calf. It's a tiny bit of instep skin.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Swimmers need not be metrosexual


Cyclists, also. I know there are a good amount on this forum.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Wouldn't you risk damaging your good shoes by going sockless? Seems to me the sweat would be harmful to the fine leathers and shell on most shoes.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

It's not a particular issue if you use foot powder and wear shoes that are made to be worn sockless.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

dks202 said:


> Wouldn't you risk damaging your good shoes by going sockless? Seems to me the sweat would be harmful to the fine leathers and shell on most shoes.


I've never found it to be a problem. Cedar shoe trees go in as soon as I get home. And they're usually kicked off as soon as I get to my desk :cool2:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

blue suede shoes said:


> Why is it that everyone is always looking to the worst dressed as an example of what they can get away with, rather than the best dressed?


Because they already know what their own personal style limit is at the other end of the spectrum i.e. usually suit and tie....but don't dress better than the boss, so if the boss is a polo and chinos man....QED...or in the case of my boss...a polo and chinos woman...


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Jovan said:


> Swimmers need not be metrosexual. I kind of hate that word though, personally.
> 
> Might be opening a can of worms by saying that I wear short sleeves to the office. No doubt there are some who think that is also inappropriate.


Swimmers are a special case.

And fwiw, I wear polo shirts to my office, usually under a jacket. Sometimes, however, the jacket comes off and folks get a taste of my hairy semitic forearms. I don't think anyone cares.



dks202 said:


> Wouldn't you risk damaging your good shoes by going sockless? Seems to me the sweat would be harmful to the fine leathers and shell on most shoes.


I tend to keep shell for fall/winter, during which time I wear socks. I generally go sockless only with unlined, porous leather, which breathes fairly well.

Another boon for sockless wear are the pedag insoles with a terrycloth coating and a charcoal core. They are machine washable and do a very good job of absorbing moisture.

Also, as hardline noted, shoe trees work wonders.



hardline_42 said:


> Going sockless doesn't mean 6" of calf. It's a tiny bit of instep skin.


Exactly. I should point out that my apparently horrifying first photo was taken while I was sitting down with my legs crossed. I'm not wearing capris to the office.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Most white collar employees today work in environments where the polo shirt is not only acceptable, but is required. I don't see showing your arms as unacceptable unless you work in an environment where a tie is the norm. 

And as for hygiene and leather shoes--women do it all the time, and I seriously doubt they make a distinction between lined and unlined leather. In fact, Cole Haan's leather pumps are in fact fully lined. And I have never heard of a cedar tree for a woman's high heeled shoes! Most men simply don't take the time to scrub between their toes...


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Arms and legs aren't the same -stating the obvious, I Know. What I mean is that short sleeve shirts are an acceptable part of many office 'business casual' standards. So hairy arms are okay. Shorts are rarely accepted within business casual norms - hairy legs on display are not okay. Hairy ankles and more on display with sockless shoes and trousers is too far along the path to shorts - not appropriate in an office, IMO.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

universitystripe said:


> You're right--it is a double standard. Of course, women (or at least the type of women who wear closed-toe leather shoes) usually have impeccable hygiene.


There are other things that women get away with in the workplace that men cannot, most notably showing leg from the knee down and sleeveless shirts. Women also have to deal with the nuisance/discomfort of leg, armpit and, increasingly, arm hair removal, so the two double standards cancel each other out IMO (I know some men shave/was/laser, but they do so by choice).



blue suede shoes said:


> Agreed. Why is it that everyone is always looking to the worst dressed as an example of what they can get away with, rather than the best dressed? What mystifies me even more is that you say you would be looked at strangely if you dressed better.
> 
> Bookeeper's above post is excellent!!


One thing that always bothers me is the equating of "most casual" and "worst dressed". I'm frequently the most casually dressed in a room (dark jeans, button-up, blazer is business wear for me). However I tend to be dressed better than 99% of those I encounter because my clothes fit, look well put-together and, most importantly, demonstrate that I'm presenting myself exactly how I wish to be perceived as opposed to being totally clueless.



Howard said:


> To me, not wearing socks means laziness.


I don't think it's that simple. Whether or not to wear socks depends more, IMO, on whether the shoes/trousers/outfit as a whole is "meant" to be worn without socks. If it's summer and I go somewhere (even for work) in tan/stone jeans and a short sleeved shirt and driving mocs (which I do all the time) I'm not going to wear socks because the outfit calls for being sock-less. On the other hand, I'm not going to wear khakis and penny loafers without socks since then it looks like the socks are missing (don't really wear the latter regardless, but that's beside the point).


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

The other thing I don't understand is, even if we make distinction between hairy arms and legs, why is horrifying to have a passing glimpse of a bare ankle in the office but not outside of it?

I should state that I'd never wear a suit with sockless shoes, however.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

Well, you're potentially opening up another can of worms with a whole discussion of "you can do this outside the office but not inside". Some examples would (should) be:

-Open-mouth kiss your significant other
-Walk around a bit drunk
-Yell "holy ******* ****!!!!" when your team scores the winning basket during March Madness


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Jovan said:


> The other thing I don't understand is, even if we make distinction between hairy arms and legs, *why is horrifying to have a passing glimpse of a bare ankle in the office but not outside of it?
> *
> I should state that I'd never wear a suit with sockless shoes, however.


Jovan - stop for a moment and make a mental list all the things that are appropriate and acceptable outside of an office environment, but neither appropriate nor acceptable within.

Bare ankles with leather shoes and trousers in an office doesn't rise to the level of "horrifying" for me (though our friend above who likes to go shoeless at his desk....  oy....) but does fall clearly outside the line of appropriate dress in a professional environment.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

TimelesStyle said:


> One thing that always bothers me is the equating of "most casual" and "worst dressed". I'm frequently the most casually dressed in a room (dark jeans, button-up, blazer is business wear for me). However I tend to be dressed better than 99% of those I encounter because my clothes fit, look well put-together and, most importantly, demonstrate that I'm presenting myself exactly how I wish to be perceived as opposed to being totally clueless.


This is an interesting point. There are many on this forum (myself included) who's knee-jerk reaction to your business outfit would be "No jeans allowed for business!" Yet, for your particular scenario, it is a conscious and, I assume, appropriate choice. I think the same degree of thought can be put into a sockless look for the office and achieve the same effect.



RogerP said:


> Bare ankles with leather shoes and trousers in an office doesn't rise to the level of "horrifying" for me (though our friend above who likes to go shoeless at his desk.... oy....) but does fall clearly outside the line of appropriate dress in a professional environment.


It depends on who draws the line and what kind of professional environment. We may fancy ourselves preservers of all that is sartorially holy, but the fact is that the woman in the office next to me in the Grateful Dead t-shirt, nylon hiking shorts and rubber flip-flops is more in-line with the dress code of the office than I am. Our rules of business dress are ,at best, only observed in the most conservative of institutions and, at worst, penalized in other fields. All this talk of "crossing the line" and "appropriate dress" in a professional environment simply doesn't apply universally in the modern business world.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

RogerP said:


> Arms and legs aren't the same -stating the obvious, I Know. What I mean is that short sleeve shirts are an acceptable part of many office 'business casual' standards. So hairy arms are okay. Shorts are rarely accepted within business casual norms - hairy legs on display are not okay. Hairy ankles and more on display with sockless shoes and trousers is too far along the path to shorts - not appropriate in an office, IMO.


+1. Are people for real, suggesting that showing an arm from the elbow down - is the same as someone's hairy legs and feet?

Hardlines takes it to the next possible place in a previous post, that as soon as he gets to his office with his sockless look - his shoes come off. So, now someone that pops into his office has to look and potentially smell his bare feet?

How this is professional in any way, shape or form is beyond me.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

hardline_42 said:


> This is an interesting point. There are many on this forum (myself included) who's knee-jerk reaction to your business outfit would be "No jeans allowed for business!" Yet, for your particular scenario, it is a conscious and, I assume, appropriate choice. I think the same degree of thought can be put into a sockless look for the office and achieve the same effect.
> 
> It depends on who draws the line and what kind of professional environment. We may fancy ourselves preservers of all that is sartorially holy, but the fact is that the woman in the office next to me in the Grateful Dead t-shirt, nylon hiking shorts and rubber flip-flops is more in-line with the dress code of the office than I am. Our rules of business dress are ,at best, only observed in the most conservative of institutions and, at worst, penalized in other fields. All this talk of "crossing the line" and "appropriate dress" in a professional environment simply doesn't apply universally in the modern business world.


I don't fancy myself any preserver of the sartorially holy - speak for yourself if that is your own belief. I have expressed my opinion - did you somehow miss the words "for me" in the portion of my post that you quoted? My opinions are my own. They are based upon having at least some awareness of style while working within a professional environment for over 20 years. Of course they reflect my own preferences - but I am certainly not insisting that anyone else hold the same preferences or agree with my opinions. If you think bare feet in an office is remotely appropriate, then our opinions on what is or isn't appropriate in an office environment are wildly divergent. I'm totally okay with that.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

hardline_42 said:


> This is an interesting point. There are many on this forum (myself included) who's knee-jerk reaction to your business outfit would be "No jeans allowed for business!" Yet, for your particular scenario, it is a conscious and, I assume, appropriate choice. I think the same degree of thought can be put into a sockless look for the office and achieve the same effect.


Well, I don't actually know that it's appropriate 100% of the time, but I do know that nobody will ever mistake it as anything but 100% deliberate. I've made my decision about how I wish to present myself (we're talking day to day matters here, not the occasional super important meeting) and I have no intention of altering that because someone I'm meeting with is in a workplace which subscribes to a different set of (perfectly valid) conventions. That being said, I'd never show up looking _sloppy_ (ripped jeans, trainers, untucked shirt) because that's disrespectful and paints me as either entirely arrogant or hopelessly clueless.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> Hardlines takes it to the next possible place in a previous post, that as soon as he gets to his office with his sockless look - his shoes come off. So, now someone that pops into his office has to look and potentially smell his bare feet?
> 
> How this is professional in any way, shape or form is beyond me.


They don't actually, because they're hidden behind a desk and my feet don't smell. I agree, it's not professional in any way, shape or form but it makes it easier to slip my pants back on when I have to go use the copying machine.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

hardline_42 said:


> They don't actually, because they're hidden behind a desk and my feet don't smell. I agree, it's not professional in any way, shape or form but it makes it easier to slip my pants back on when I have to go use the copying machine.


Did you learn nothing from Robert De Niro in _Casino_ ?!?!


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

TimelesStyle said:


> Did you learn nothing from Robert De Niro in _Casino_ ?!?!


Yup. Unless your pants have very wide legs, you won't get your pants on over your shoes.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

Touche!

Back to your OP, though, have you considered how much more difficult it is to photocopy your butt if put your pants on before heading to the copier? Were I a management consultant (which I'm not) that would be among the first things I tell my clients (which is why I'm not).



hardline_42 said:


> Yup. Unless your pants have very wide legs, you won't get your pants on over your shoes.


----------



## kravi (Feb 26, 2013)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> A gentleman wouldn't do a lot of things, many of them fun. That ship has sailed for me, because I wear my watch on a metal bracelet.
> 
> All I can think of in this thread is Justin Timberlake in _Friends With Benefits_, keeping his OTC argyles on in bed with Mila Kunis.
> 
> If you can wear shorts, then you don't have to wear socks. I don't wear socks with shoes I'd like to keep nice -- socklessness is the bottom of the food chain in my wardrobe. I also don't go sockless once it's cool outside, though I went most of January 2012 without socks, "Houses In Motion" style. Note, of course, that I skew rather prep/trad/Ivy.


Sorry about the late response. I don't disagree with you.

My point was really "not wearing socks is just fine in the US in an environment as described". And that is it.

But most people know that, and the only reason someone would ask this question on *this* forum is because they want to dress *better* (horrible word, I know) than their peers, in which case I don't think going sockless is appropriate. That was all.

Personally, I never wear shoes without socks (though if I'm running, they are those mini socks that stay below the ankle) because otherwise my feet and shoes smell like a week dead goat. But that is not a fashion statement, that is simply me avoiding smelling like a week dead goat.

--Me


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

TimelesStyle said:


> Touche!
> 
> Back to your OP, though, have you considered how much more difficult it is to photocopy your butt if put your pants on before heading to the copier? Were I a management consultant (which I'm not) that would be among the first things I tell my clients (which is why I'm not).


Haha! It's true but then I have nowhere to conceal all the office supplies I commandeer on my way there.

BTW, I'm glad you're taking my posts in the spirit in which I made them :biggrin2:


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

hardline_42 said:


> Haha! It's true but then I have nowhere to conceal all the office supplies I commandeer on my way there.


Quite the contrary, just make sure the pens are capped and none of the pencils are sharpened yet...


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

TimelesStyle said:


> Quite the contrary, just make sure the pens are capped and none of the pencils are sharpened yet...


:icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:

Well, this thread has certainly taken a turn!


----------



## LordSmoke (Dec 25, 2012)

TheBarbaron said:


> ...
> EDIT: Rechecking this thread, geographical disparity seems important. Other than LordSmoke throwing off my theorem, ...


As one might expect, there is both a geographic and cultural component. When I was in school, the "preppy" look, including sockless leather shoes, was the domain of the kids who spent their summers at the country club and got new Trans-Ams for their birthday. Those who spent their summers and school nights working on the loading dock would not have the opportunity (nor desire) to adopt such a look.

While not embracing the practice, I do have some experience. I am almost exclusively a scooter/motorcycle rider and have to deal with wet, sweaty elkskin gloves regular. It is just nasty. I can only imagine what moving that to the feet would produce.

PS: IIRC, women sweat less than men (same number of pores, but less productive) and are less likely to engage in sweat-producing activities. Oh, and one's number of active pores is determined by the environment in which the baby is raised. Which, ironically, if sweat is an issue, socklessness would be most appropriate for those born into more northern climes. Of course, modern air-conditioning may have negated such differences.

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

universitystripe said:


> Clearly. Readers, beware of the lazy folk who are ruining our fair nation by going out in public without taking their appearance into consideration. They are the same people who take without giving back to society. Here are several examples.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What if their feet sweat a lot?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

dks202 said:


> Wouldn't you risk damaging your good shoes by going sockless? Seems to me the sweat would be harmful to the fine leathers and shell on most shoes.


If they're good shoes then you'd probably take a chance of ruining them.


----------



## Mike75 (Jul 18, 2013)

Shorts and flip flops are acceptable summer wear in my office. So the sockless look doesn't so much as raise an eyebrow.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

The only time I'd go sockless if I worn them around the house, anywhere else I'd need socks.


----------



## gringodaddy (Feb 10, 2013)

mrkleen said:


> There is a big distance from "out dressing your supervisor" and keeping the beach and the office separate.
> 
> Subjecting your coworkers to your hairy legs is the definition of undue attention.


Going sockless exposes no-one in my office to my leg hair unless they are under my desk.


----------



## rpm (Jul 3, 2014)

*A Parisian perspective*

Bit late on the game, but just my two cents on this point...

First off, full disclosure: I am not normally a sock fan. Unless it is cold (or I am going some place that requires a full lounge suit, stroller/black tie or morning dress/white tie, and if you think sockless is acceptable with any of these we need to have a talk) I genuinely enjoy taking my socks off at the end of the work day and putting on driving mocassins or boat shoes if I go out after.

Now, there are some jobs for which sockless is definitely okay. Lifeguards, for example. There are others for which sockless wouldn't be acceptable. I would put any situation in which a tie is required into this category. Sockless with a tie just doesn't seem to convey a consistent mood.

But in a non-sportive work setting in which a tie is not required? That's where it gets tricky. If you work in fashion or spectacle, I'd say absolutely, forget the socks*!

But what about in an office environment? The thing with this is, when you are playing on a level field with peers, a bizarre set of politics comes into the game. You can defy the rules, but it's your own career that's at stake. To me, sockless conveys "relaxed," not really "attached," especially since bare feet can be and often are easily slipped in and out* of slide-on shoes. That's not a message you want to send in an office, even a very casual one. I work as a software engineer for an IT company and dress better than most of my colleagues, whose feet are usually clad in cross-trainers or canvas shoes and often white athletic socks (which should be illegal outside the gym). My feet would certainly not look "worse" than theirs were I to socklessly don my Victomte Arthurs, but I would still look like I were trying to relax; they, not so much.

Perhaps it is helpful to recall the *names* of shoes to get an idea of their appropriateness. I am not a fundamentalist who thinks boat shoes cannot be worn away from the docks, but it is true from a practical point of view the construction of a shoe may not make it adequate for certain situations:

Boat shoes: to be worn in high-water conditions, to resist weather while not getting too hot
Driving mocassins: to be worn in relatively dry situations in which breathing is essential and not much walking is done
Loafers: worn while loafing

Yes, my colleagues' footwear may be better suited to the gym, but the fact that theirs happens to cross one particular line of appropriateness doesn't make it okay for ME to flirt with other lines while at work, and it may be even worse if I am the only one flirting with that particular line, as I will stand out all the more. So, I always wear socks to work.

Having said that, if you work in a small boutique or familial environment (i.e., not many more than 10 employees) which is not physically demanding, the sockless look, if executed in the context of generally chic, casual and upscale fashion and in appropriate weather, shouldn't be bothersome, particularly if this business is the sort which caters to personal relations. As has been mentioned here, if weather conditions permit (and they will permit a greater part of the year in warner latitudes), similar socklessness can be quite acceptable at Church.

* You shouldn't slide your feet in and out of your shoes, though, and definitely not at work, and CERTAINLY not with your socks off. However, since anyone who goes sockless regularly will at some point be asked to remove his shoes around other people, a bit of careful regular grooming for the feet is definitely in order, for the sake of everyone else's eyes.

** My personal feeling is that no shoe that cannot be slipped on should be worn without socks with the sole exception of canvas sneakers (I know the dress-shoe-no-sock is very hot among the most daring in urban areas, but I am not a fan of metrosexuality), and vice-versa, the exception of course being formal slip-ons with distinguishable heels.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Wow, Talk about a topic that won't die!

At the risk of being redundant, I'll add my $0.02. I've relaized after reading this thread that there are some various nuances involved.
*
Stubbly disclaimer: These are my personal opinions.*

Socks in the workplace are always appropriate, except in those odd situations, such as running a surf shop, or some seaside Preppified boutique, I'm sure there are many more you can come up with.

Socks should be worn with all shoes except, boat shoes (leather and canvas), espadrilles, flip flops, sandals, 
Birkenstocks..

Socks should never be worn with any type of boat shoe ever. It looks odd and is incongruous to their nautical use, even when worn by landlubbers.

Pennys, Kilties, Tassel loafers IMO are optional for socks dependent on the venue.

As you know, I can set my own dress rules at work. I would never, ever, ever go to work without socks, except in the OR where I wear the most disgusting bloody, fluid stained New Balance, with booties. I still wash my legs and feet before exiting the OR, and have a separate clean pair, for going out to visit patient's families, cafeteria etc. when in scrubs It would be unsanitary to drag that muck around outside the OR area.

The colorary to the above is that I wear proper shoes to work as I'm always in a SC (Sports Coat for the Earl) and trousers at work. I even wear my Spectators and Saddles. These would look bizarre without socks. The exception is when a suit is required for administrative meetings, lectures, interviews, etc., then I'm in a Bal.

For casual wear except for the above mentioned examples in warm weather, OTC sock are De Rigure.

On the rare occasioons of wearing shorts, I can not recall ever wearing socks, as I would be wearing one of the above mentioned casual shoes. As for Birkenstocks, they are a non issue, as I would have both feet amputated before being seen in them. Flip flops and sandles I only wear when there is sand between my toes. I change out of my Topsiders/Espadrilles at the entrance to the beach or pool.

Sneakers? What are they? Aside from the OR, I only take them out for participating in some sporting activity, then with ankle socks. Same for Golf shoes.

BTW: I have it on good authority, that even after getting soaked, my feet have no odor when going sockless. Maybe that's why I'm so opinionated on the subject, that and I am fairly hairless except on my scalp.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I am presently ensconced in beautiful Maine, where socklessness is quite prevalent. It hasn't changed my views on the subject one whit. Just say no to socklessness.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^LOL. Indeed! Who among us has not looked at our ankles, the sickly white hue of the skin on our feet, the cracked heels and soles and the toenails...Oh Gawd no, not the toenails! If you are not inclined to wear socks for yourselves, do it for the continued mental well being of your coworkers!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I believe the only you'd go sock-less in a work environment if you were working on the beach as a lifeguard.


----------

