To peep, or not to peep?
I definitely remember saying this:
… an oxford with a three-inch wooden heel and a cutout for your presumably impeccably-varnished big toe. I’ve never quite understood the idea of an open-toed oxford: it’s just enough frivolity to upset the whole Very Serious style of the shoe. I admit, this could be my own personal history talking: I remember a seventh-grade teacher who was fond of oxfords, and I can’t for the life of me imagine her wanting something with a peep toe.
Prudence Ponder, whose very name calls up the image of a seventh-grade teacher, probably wouldn’t have liked them either:
[L]et’s not get into how unimaginably stupid a shoe can look when it should not have a peep toe.
I looked, and yep:
A great argument for sneakers, if you ask me.
fillyjonk »
23 February 2009 · 9:04 am
Oh my word.
I have a pair SIMILAR to those, but with a shorter heel. AND NO STUPID CUTOUT IN THE FRONT.
Seriously, those are like someone earning a Nobel Prize in Chemistry and showing up to the ceremony in a string bikini. Ugh.
Tatyana »
23 February 2009 · 9:37 am
Need I voice, once again, my disdain for peepholes? I think not.
sya »
23 February 2009 · 9:42 pm
That shoe looks like a dying fish gasping its last breath. Unfortunately, I don’t think the footwear itself could stand up in a rain puddle.
Charles Pergiel »
23 February 2009 · 11:32 pm
Shoes, schmooz, I don’t really get the whole shoe thing at all. But. I remember an episode of CSI where a prison official warns women visitors that open toed shoes are not allowed. Drives the inmates wild. I’m like, whaaat? Could it be some primative connection to barefoot and pregnant? If anyone figures it out, please let me know.
CGHill »
24 February 2009 · 7:03 am
Think of it as “unnecessarily-exposed flesh,” and keep in mind what the, um, clients are used to seeing.