Such a tease

Christian Louboutin heels worn by Sarah Michelle GellarI have never quite made up my mind about toe cleavage: like its upstairs cousin, it hints at further delights, but I always wonder if maybe she’s wearing the wrong size, or wrong style, shoe. This particular shoe is a design by Christian Louboutin, who usually doesn’t push the envelope too much, but geez, Chris, if you’d cut this vamp any lower you’d have a sandal, fercryingoutloud. I suppose it would be fairer to see this shoe in context — Shoebunny, from whom I pilfered this thumbnail (!), has more pictures — and I figure that maybe the overall intent is to make legs look longer, not that Sarah Michelle Gellar, who’s wearing the shoes in the picture, needs any help in that regard. Ultimately, I suppose, this is more ammunition for the folks who think toe cleavage is some sort of freak show, and I suspect you’ll never get Miriam into a pair of these.





15 comments

  1. sya »

    8 September 2007 · 2:03 pm

    I don’t care what context it’s in, it’s gross. Makes me think of amputations.

  2. Terry »

    8 September 2007 · 2:13 pm

    How in the world would you even keep those on?

  3. McGehee »

    8 September 2007 · 5:54 pm

    Bolts, I’m thinking.

  4. Tatyana »

    8 September 2007 · 6:05 pm

    The feets, they don’t look happy. (in my best manolo voice) Look at the blister on the pinky…

  5. Andrea Harris »

    8 September 2007 · 10:31 pm

    Those look absolutely hideous. They make her toes look deformed.

  6. SnoopyTheGoon »

    9 September 2007 · 9:23 am

    But how does she walk in those? Brrr….

  7. fillyjonk »

    9 September 2007 · 2:50 pm

    Yeah, those shoes just look really uncomfortable to me. I know, I know, looking good is not the same as feeling good (and it seems when you’re female, the more pain you inflict on yourself, the “better” you look). But my first question was the same as Terry’s – how on earth do you keep those on?

    Or do you have adoring hunks-o-men who just pick you up and CARRY you wherever you need to go? (In my case, the adoring hunks-o-men would have to be the size of Andre the Giant, unfortunately.)

    And if “toe cleavage” is titillating, then I must be a full-on exhibitionist when I wear my open-front Birkenstock Milanos.

  8. Scott »

    9 September 2007 · 3:14 pm

    A vote *for* toe cleavage, because I’ve never heard of it before. Might change my mind when the novelty wears off.

  9. Andrea Harris »

    9 September 2007 · 4:24 pm

    So are my sandals the same as going topless?

  10. Mister Snitch! »

    9 September 2007 · 5:49 pm

    A woman who knew what she was doing told me about Toe Cleavage. But that picture is beyond cleavage, that is Toe Exposure. Which is not sexy (unless it’s a sandal exposing the Entire Toe). That quarter-inch makes all the difference. [Insert Bionic Penis joke here.]

  11. CGHill »

    9 September 2007 · 8:35 pm

    Because I care: SMG in less-polarizing shoes.

  12. Tatyana »

    9 September 2007 · 9:13 pm

    Actually, those are worse. See how there is a gap between the back of the shoe and back if the ankle? And at the same time her toes are extended over the outline of the front? Impossible to walk in these, your feet will slide down all teh time.

  13. CGHill »

    9 September 2007 · 9:45 pm

    Probably why she bought them one size too small.

  14. Tatyana »

    10 September 2007 · 6:36 am

    If that was the case, there would be no gap at the back.

  15. CGHill »

    10 September 2007 · 7:04 am

    I yield to your expertise in these matters, but it looks to me like she’s almost hanging out the front.

RSS feed for comments on this post