Now admittedly, this is not unexpected. From the beginning, I knew that all the excuses of "they might give you an unfair advantage" really centered around their appearance. However, it still annoys the **** out of me. My shoes detract from a military appearance? No, these fat, lazy, out of shape soldiers that you allow to remain in this organization detract from a military appearance. You don't see too many of them wearing these shoes. No, the people that wear these tend to actually do stuff, life running. In fact, they are usually the same guys that score the highest on their PT tests, the guys that do marathons and triathalons, and they appear to be rapidly becoming popular in the special operations community (not that those guys would know anything, right?). This is something the military should be encouraging, not stopping.
Besides, I've had chronic knee and feet problems since joining the Army. Now admittedly I did finally see a civilian doctor and get some physical therapy, which helped a lot, but even so, I've seen a definite improvement since switching to these shoes. I'm running faster and farther without issue. This morning I had to do a run in my old running shoes and it sucked. This is just one more reason for me to avoid any form of organized PT and keep doing my own thing. And I know I can buy some minimalist shoes that the Army is ok with, but it still frustrates the hell out of me.
I thought armies had their own shoes that were admitted to every soldier without exception.
Boots, yes; running shoes, no.
. . . Okay, that's probably a little too far, but the army still made the right decision.
You mean those hideous "shoes" with the toes? Yeah, those things should be banned everywhere, because they're ugly as ****. Seriously, I don't care who you are; those things make you look like trash. Everybody around you is judging you very harshly for wearing them, and everybody around you should be judging you very harshly for wearing them. You are a morally inferior person, and you should be kept from reproducing, against your will if necessary.
. . . Okay, that's probably a little too far, but the army still made the right decision.
I don't care how ugly they are, they are absolutely the best running shoes that I've ever had and most importantly to me, I don't get hurt when I run in them.
I do hope you're kidding around Crimson
I am, but only a little bit. I get that they're comfortable and actually pretty good for you and stuff, and that's great, but they just look so ridiculous that I cannot take them or anybody wearing them seriously, and I think that anybody wearing them (including military personnel) who expects other people to take them seriously is being extraordinarily unreasonable. Come on, I'm sure that it's possible to make shoes exactly as good that don't look nearly as absurd.
Sometimes things just have to look stupid to work. As the quote goes; if it's stupid but it works, it's not stupid
Or to put it another way, I think when someone has a gun in their hands you'd be well advised to take them seriously whether they're wearing combat boots, foot-glove things, barefoot, or "Hello Kitty" slippers, regardless of how aesthetically pleasing you deem them to be.
One more thing on my list of clothing to try, right after utilikilts. (Or maybe both at the same time...)
The best they could do is probably make a version without the colors, just pure black.
That would help, yes.
Sometimes things just have to look stupid to work. As the quote goes; if it's stupid but it works, it's not stupid
As the quote goes; if it's worth doing, then it's worth doing in a way that doesn't look stupid.
If you let someone's choice of shoewear influence your judgement that much, to the exclusion of all else, I think you might be more of a foot fetishist then the resident squirrel.
It's actually quite the opposite. I hate feet. They completely turn me off, especially toes. Feet are gross. That's why we have shoes, real shoes.
Or to put it another way, I think when someone has a gun in their hands you'd be well advised to take them seriously whether they're wearing combat boots, foot-glove things, barefoot, or "Hello Kitty" slippers, regardless of how aesthetically pleasing you deem them to be.
If somebody is pointing a gun at me, I may take them seriously regardless, but I will still take them relatively less seriously if they're wearing weird toe-shoes as opposed to boots or whatever else. Sorry, I can't help it because I have good sense.
As the quote goes; if it's worth doing, then it's worth doing in a way that doesn't look stupid.
It's like complaining that planes don't look like buses. They need that look to work. If you make them look like normal shoes, they lose what makes them comfortable.
They need that look to work.
I don't think so. I just think that they haven't tried hard enough. They haven't needed to yet because they haven't exhausted the hipster market that frequently buys terrible things exactly because they're terrible.
And I thought that I'd never see anything more stupid than crocs. =/
They always make me think of pool-shoes for little children.
I really could care less about what people wear, but yeah, crocs look pretty stupid.
They always make me think of pool-shoes for little children.
I thought that was what crocs were actually.
I really could care less about what people wear...
I think that you mean that you couldn't care less?
Sorry, pet peeve. =P
I really could care less about what people wear...
I think that you mean that you couldn't care less?
Sorry, pet peeve. =P
I always mentally append... to I could care less.. but I would have to work really really hard at it. It avoids me being peevish and kind of tickles my funny bone.
What's the life expectancy of those shoes?
The black KSOs I am wearing now I've had for about two years. I toss them in the washing machine and they come out looking almost brand new. I used to wear the converse chucks. I would destroy those in about a month and a half just walking. I walk a lot.
Birthday shoes? Hey! You could all pitch in together to get me a pair for my birthday!
No. No shoes for you!
I would go with the black/silver but I naturally tend towards the more conservative color schemes.
I figured I'm already wearing shoes with toes... conservatism was shot in the face the moment I decided to buy them.
Are they about as protective as suede loafers?
Nice. Okay next question, how hard are the soles? (Ie will they be fine vs heavy sharp gravel driveways?)
Are they about as protective as suede loafers?
The soles are very flexible. The are very durable though. I've walked and ran in them and they are still in good shape. There are people that run far more than I do that have said they have run 1500+ miles in them.
As to the gravel...they are very thin so you will feel the gravel. These are not boots. You aren't going to run recklessly through all terrains. You will, however, learn how to step lightly. I love walking on gravel. It feels like a foot massage.
Right now I'm using my suede loafers as driving shoes as they are incredibly easy to remove (which makes them attractive to drive in them to work, and then put my boots on at work), and provide really good feedback, these look like it will be even easier to manipulate my clutch with. (which is a good thing, as I can smooth out my shifts more consistently. I'm not nearly as bad for pulling my foot up on the clutch as I was but I still goof it every so often. Particularly in traffic, when I have alot of distractions and input from other sources)
Also, if it helps me learn to be lighter on my feet in general that's a good thing. to get speed out of my boots, I can end up with a fairly heavy step to compensate for the weight of the boots. I think that's part of my lingering heavyfootedness on my clutch.
www.rei.com/product/805275/vibram-fivefi... what do you think of these? Is there any way to get these without eating 100 USD? :-p
Also, I've noticed that the only normal shoes I can wear are a 10 1/2. (I think it's a width issue) I'm looking at the guideline for the size chart, and my feet measure 10s. How much do they expand width wise? Would I be better off, ordering based off of 10s, or basing them off my usual 10 1/2s?
In other shoe related ponderings, I also need to get some better steel toed boots. Apparently Brahmas (at least the ones hellmart carries) have dropped pretty hard in terms of quality, the leather is already starting to tear, and the shoelace guides (that prevent your laces from eventually cutting up the leather) are already popping out. Sucks, because I used to swear by my Brahma boots. (funny how the ones I wore aren't sold anymore. Cheapo Bastards) I need them to be waterproof, but I also need them to breathe better than the cookboxes known as the boots I'm presently wearing. Is such a thing possible? Or am I just going to have to suffer through having warm feet in the summer months?
I think in the boots case I might just have to pony up the cash for Caterpillar boots or Redwings.
If you're not planning on doing heavy running in them, check out the Fila Skeletoes. You can pick them up for about $50 and I think the two small toes sharing a pocket probably makes them a little easier to put on. Actually, you can use them even if you do want to do a lot of running, but you might just find yourself wanting to upgrade later. I was going to upgrade (I was debating between bikilas and KSOs) but now that the Army banned them I first have to get a good pair of close-toed minimalist shoes and put off my five-fingers until later.
If you are looking for a good pair of minimalist shoes that are similar to the VFFs, you can always go with the Altra Adams, the Sauccony Hattori, and Merrell Barefoot line. Or, if you just want to annoy the Army... you can go with the Soft star shoes... you too can be an elf in the Army.
I'm not familiar with too many boots other than what the Army allows so I don't know how hot the ones you mention are, but pretty much any leather boot (don't get black if you're worried about heat though) holds up well to water. My temperate weather boots with a suede lower and gortex upper hold up to water pretty good and I've been wearing them year-round (well except in Iraq or Afghanistan, but that's beyond what I consider normal temperatures). And I believe they make some steel toed versions (it would be nice if they ever issued me some since they are technically required for my job but I refuse to buy them out of pocket).
Do you have a link for the boots you wear? also are they oil resistant soles and non slip?
Yeah, deserts and subtropic climate zones are abit above and beyond the call of most boots in terms of temperature reistance.
If you are looking for a good pair of minimalist shoes that are similar to the VFFs, you can always go with the Altra Adams, the Sauccony Hattori, and Merrell Barefoot line. Or, if you just want to annoy the Army... you can go with the Soft star shoes... you too can be an elf in the Army.
I really want the Altra Adams but I can't seem to find them. I can always buy them later but I need a pair of shoes now for these annoying post runs and PT tests. I looked at soft star shoes too but I'm not spending that much money just to piss off the Army (they do look like decent shoes, but not quite what I'm looking for). I decided to go with the ZEMgear shoes. They are actually designed for beach running but I read a number of reviews from people that said they were the closest they've had to the feel of the VFFs (some say they are even better as far as ground feel). They do have some issues with durability if you are using them on concrete and other hard, rough surfaces, but I'm only using them during those times when I can't use my skeletoes (damn them for making me put off my VFF purchase) so I don't think it will be too bad.
And ZEMgear is releasing a running shoe made for roads next month. I emailed them asking when because I have a PT test (hopefully) next month. They got back to me very quickly and said if they get them in time they will see what they can do to get them to me but they can't guarantee it so I just purchased one of their current models just in case. They're pretty cheap ($34) so I won't feel like I wasted my money, but I figure anything that looks like a sock (and I got the hi top version) will piss off the Army.
Do you have a link for the boots you wear? also are they oil resistant soles and non slip?
Yeah, deserts and subtropic climate zones are abit above and beyond the call of most boots in terms of temperature reistance.
The standard issue boots are the bellevilles. Like I said, I don't have the steel toe ones, my experience is only with their regular boots.
www.bellevilleshoe.com/stylesall.php?cat...
I only have one pair of Danner boots but they are the best boots I own and the company has a solid reputation.
www.danner.com/boots/?activity=50&featur...
And here's a site with boots from various manufacturers
www.militaryuniformsupply.com/search/sea...
Naturally, don't get the black ones if you're worried about heat. The hot weather boots are vented better, but they have very little water resistance (only the suede that makes up the lower portion, anything ankle-depth or deeper and you hit the fabric, which it soaks right through). The temperate ones usually have gortex or a similar water-resistant fabric for the upper.
Also, you'll want to find a brick and mortar store so you can try them on or at least make sure the site you order from has a good return policy. I've found that boot sizes vary widely. I don't think any of my boots are the same size, even different models from the same company.
I really want the Altra Adams but I can't seem to find them. I can always buy them later but I need a pair of shoes now for these annoying post runs and PT tests.
The Altra Adams come out in late Summer. I don't think you'll be able to get them by the time you take you PT test. They do look pretty cool though. I read a review of the Adams, and they seem to be pretty good.
I looked at soft star shoes too but I'm not spending that much money just to piss off the Army (they do look like decent shoes, but not quite what I'm looking for).
From what I have heard, these are actually the best minimalist shoes around. They look funny as all heck, but they are supposed to give you great ground feel. THey do have a new model that looks a bit more like a human shoe and not something an elf would wear.
birthdayshoes.com/soft-star-runamoc-dash...
I decided to go with the ZEMgear shoes. They are actually designed for beach running but I read a number of reviews from people that said they were the closest they've had to the feel of the VFFs (some say they are even better as far as ground feel). They do have some issues with durability if you are using them on concrete and other hard, rough surfaces, but I'm only using them during those times when I can't use my skeletoes (damn them for making me put off my VFF purchase) so I don't think it will be too bad. And ZEMgear is releasing a running shoe made for roads next month. I emailed them asking when because I have a PT test (hopefully) next month. They got back to me very quickly and said if they get them in time they will see what they can do to get them to me but they can't guarantee it so I just purchased one of their current models just in case. They're pretty cheap ($34) so I won't feel like I wasted my money, but I figure anything that looks like a sock (and I got the hi top version) will piss off the Army.
Zemgear has some pretty cool stuff. Their current lines aren't designed for road use. I would imagine that they would wear out pretty quick depending on the road conditions. I also heard about their new road shoe. THat should be pretty interesting. Hopefully they can get it out to you quickly. If you get them, let me know what you think about them. At $34 I might just get myself a pair.
When I get back, I'm getting these:
Deciding between the yellow/black, or the black/silver (not in this picture).
and these:
The black/grey ones.
edit: here are the black/silver ones...
How does somebody look at these images without feeling like they're going to throw up?
How does somebody look at these images without feeling like they're going to throw up?
By not having a weak stomach.
By not having a weak stomach.
I'm sorry that not all of us are Dwarves.
How does somebody look at these images without feeling like they're going to throw up?
By not being a fashion pansy.
Next time I take a trip to a shoestore (doesn't happen often though) I'm gonna see if they have a cheap introduction pair of these shoes (but I doubt it, somehow) to see what all the fuss is about.
By not having a weak stomach.
I'm sorry that not all of us are Dwarves.
If looking at those makes you sick, I suggest staying away from any beverage more potent than water.
If you think feet are nasty you must poop with your eyes closed.
I don't get it.
It has nothing to do with fashion. I'm terrible at fashion, to the disappointment of my girlfriends that always want me to go shopping with them... Maybe it really is just my foot anti-fetish. After all, I also want to slap people who wear flip-flops to anywhere but the beach or the pool. Nobody wants to see your gross feet!
I do! Well, the girly ones.
I never wear sandals myself, as I don't like going outside without socks and I have some self-respect
It has nothing to do with fashion. I'm terrible at fashion, to the disappointment of my girlfriends that always want me to go shopping with them... Maybe it really is just my foot anti-fetish. After all, I also want to slap people who wear flip-flops to anywhere but the beach or the pool. Nobody wants to see your gross feet!
Not everyone has hobbit feet man.
Next time I take a trip to a shoestore (doesn't happen often though) I'm gonna see if they have a cheap introduction pair of these shoes (but I doubt it, somehow) to see what all the fuss is about.
The cheapest I've seen is the skeletoes for about $50 (you might be able to find them on sale or find a store that has them a little cheaper, but I'm also not sure what prices are over there).
Okay, that turned out to be more than one query.
Query: How tough are the soles of these things? Will they do a decent job or protecting the foot from things like thorns, sharp sticks, shards of flint, or broken glass? Or are they more like glorified socks? The pictures make them seem like they'd be adequate protection, but this talk of "ground feel" leaves me wondering. If you can feel the grass under your feet, how much protection can hey provide? Am I missunderstanding the whole "ground feel" line of conversation?
Okay, that turned out to be more than one query.
I run over broken glass and rocks all the time (I frequently run the same few routes and it doesn't seem to get cleaned up). The soles are flexible enough for ground feel but protecting your feet from sharp objects is pretty much the reason they have those (otherwise you could just run barefoot instead).
The tops on the other hand are pretty much just there to hold the soles onto your feet, so if you are running through thick brush and thorns and such for whatever reason (I don't know why you would but I have heard of other people in the Army doing this, although it usually only comes up as an argument against wearing VFFs) then they would not offer much protection in that case. But then again, I would chalk that up to the individuals being dumb enough to do that in the first place.
I'm just saying that if you think feet are nasty you must not really think about what's happening on the inside of your body all day long. Now that is nasty.
Yeah, but I don't have to look at that, do I?
Not everyone has hobbit feet man.
Yes, they do, including all of you who think that you don't.
and shoes in general?
do you have problem with socks too?
and shoes in general?
No, why would I? They cover up feet. That's why they're awesome.
do you have problem with socks too?
and shoes in general?
No, why would I? They cover up feet. That's why they're awesome.
So do the five toed shoes.
I run over broken glass and rocks all the time (I frequently run the same few routes and it doesn't seem to get cleaned up). The soles are flexible enough for ground feel but protecting your feet from sharp objects is pretty much the reason they have those (otherwise you could just run barefoot instead).
The tops on the other hand are pretty much just there to hold the soles onto your feet, so if you are running through thick brush and thorns and such for whatever reason (I don't know why you would but I have heard of other people in the Army doing this, although it usually only comes up as an argument against wearing VFFs) then they would not offer much protection in that case. But then again, I would chalk that up to the individuals being dumb enough to do that in the first place.
I don't run. Too many knee surgeries, and running makes my knees hurt so bad I can't walk for days without getting loopy from the pain meds, which I hate. I do a lot of hiking in the woods (the tree line is less than 50 yards from my back door), though, and some of the paths I use are little more than deer trails. Sometimes I just ignore the paths/trails altogether and bushwack for a few hours. If, as has been said, the between-the-toes thing isn't a problem, these sound like they'd make my hikes a different experience altogether, which is good. I like new experiences.
I'm thinking these just might go on my list of things I'll try to find room in the budget for some day.
So do the five toed shoes.
Sure, in the same way that I could step outside with a massive strap-on over my pants and then claim that I'm not being obscene because I'm all covered up.
Not everyone has hobbit feet man.
But I like hairy feet.
I so wouldn't cut it as a gay man.
*twitch* ew body hair.
He said hairy feet. Not every walking rug has hairy feet. I should know, the only hair on my feet is about four strands on my big toes.
Why did I share that? No one really wanted to know. STOP TYPING WHAT YOU THINK DUM.....
I so wouldn't cut it as a gay man.
Meh. Preferences != requirements and taste != universal. As should be obvious by mine and Crimson's divide on the issue of feet.
I so wouldn't cut it as a gay man.
Meh. Preferences != requirements and taste != universal. As should be obvious by mine and Crimson's divide on the issue of feet.
Now you have me wondering if, a hairy foot fetish is actually different to a bear fetish, and how often they actually correllate together. That would be an intersting study to read. (then again when aren't sexual preference studies interesting?)
On a tangentally related note, due to these shoes popularity, I'm wondering if there is a toeshoes fetish. (not foot fetish... a fetish truly based around these shoes)
Bear isn't a fetish. <_<
bear is as much a fetish as liking shaved girls. :-p If mine gets to be called a fetish, so does bearism (is that the wors to use there? sorry if my typing has gone to **** suddenly, I'm not wearing my contacts at the moment, and I'm sweaty enough from my workout that I'm having trouble hitting the right keys that I really can't see anyway)
bear is as much a fetish as liking shaved girls. :-p If mine gets to be called a fetish, so does bearism
I'm pretty sure that neither of those are fetishes. It's not that I think that fetishes are bad or anything (in fact, I may have one or two). I just don't think that those things are fetishes, like definition-wise. If they were, then wouldn't sexual attraction of any kind be a fetish?
bear is as much a fetish as liking shaved girls. :-p If mine gets to be called a fetish, so does bearism
I'm pretty sure that neither of those are fetishes. It's not that I think that fetishes are bad or anything (in fact, I may have one or two). I just don't think that those things are fetishes, like definition-wise. If they were, then wouldn't sexual attraction of any kind be a fetish?
some would say that it is I think. It's pretty rare for someone to deviate too far out of their normal preferences after all.
And in the more accurate definition I think everyone has at least one fetish to one degree or another.
Edit: I think you're understating the difference between a fetish and a preference.
Who said he was referring to legs and underarms?
Me. Because (1) it's a better analogue to a preference for "bears", and (2) I don't want to think about that.
Also, I love the way this thread OTTed
I know I also like freckled feet, but that's certainly a preference rather than fetish.
Also, I love the way this thread OTTed
There. Almost back on track. Kinda. Maybe.
But I adore the fourth panel here: thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/827
Query: How tough are the soles of these things? Will they do a decent job or protecting the foot from things like thorns, sharp sticks, shards of flint, or broken glass? Or are they more like glorified socks? The pictures make them seem like they'd be adequate protection, but this talk of "ground feel" leaves me wondering. If you can feel the grass under your feet, how much protection can hey provide? Am I missunderstanding the whole "ground feel" line of conversation?
Okay, that turned out to be more than one query.
"Ground feel" refers to how much feedback you are getting about what you are stepping on. When you are wearing the KSOs you get a pretty good amount. I believe the sole is only about 3mm thick. If you step on a twig, you'll know you stepped on a twig. The soles are extremely flexible and durable. I've stepped on broken glass and been perfectly fine. the soles of the shoes don't get cut up from the glass. I've also stepped on a nail... it didn't go through. Not because they are made of some super-miraculous-material, but because I felt the nail before I put enough weight on my foot for it to go through. Had I been wearing standard sneakers, I probably wouldn't have felt it until it was stuck in my shoe.
I don't run. Too many knee surgeries, and running makes my knees hurt so bad I can't walk for days without getting loopy from the pain meds, which I hate.
Wearing these shoes, you might find that you are able to start running gain without the pain or medications. When you wear these, you are forced to change your running form. I'm willing to bet that you are a heel striker. When you walk or run, your heel is the first thing that touches the ground. That is a result of having all that extra cushioning in the heel of your shoes. It makes that possible. These shoes don't have cushioning. It really does feel as if you were walking around barefoot. Next time you get a chance, walk around barefoot on a hard surface. You'll see that you will start landing on your forefoot or mid-foot. You will also notice that your stride will become shorter. Your knees actually bend when you land, and your leg functions like a spring, taking away a lot of the impact cause by landing on your heel.
I do a lot of hiking in the woods (the tree line is less than 50 yards from my back door), though, and some of the paths I use are little more than deer trails. Sometimes I just ignore the paths/trails altogether and bushwack for a few hours. If, as has been said, the between-the-toes thing isn't a problem, these sound like they'd make my hikes a different experience altogether, which is good. I like new experiences.
I'm thinking these just might go on my list of things I'll try to find room in the budget for some day.
If you like hiking, you may want to look at the KSO TREKS, or the TREKSPORT. The KSO TREKS are made out of kangaroo leather. apparently you can cut kangaroo leather really thin, and it will still be really sturdy stuff. The TREKSPORTS are made out of coconut fibers, which are also supposed to be pretty good material. THe soles of both are the same. It is a bit thicker than the KSO sole and has cleats.
Those should be good enough for your hiking needs. If they aren't then I would suggest looking for a hiking shoe that has a rock plate. Tat is pretty much a piece of metal they put in the sole of the shoe to protect you when you are traveling in Mordor.
Dayum HS, that's like 300 dollars in shoes there?
Plus taxes.
so do you have around say 4.5k burning a hole in your pocket? You can call it a charity donation for the Superchargers for Firebirds Charity
Unless of course I get another 'Bird and we use the supercharged one for Racing.
I could get both?
I just need to find someone around here that sells vibrams so I can try some on.
While I am thinking about it, how good are they for cycling? I need a grippy, solid, but pliable shoe for that.
There's a lot of stores I could easily get to, heh. Too bad my right foot would die if it didn't have ankle support. I'd actually get a pair to wear around the house and for other stuff, too, if they weren't so expensive.
What is wrong with your ankle? And what do you do around your house you need ankle support there?
) thanks to hereditary stuff and they don't work right. There's this ligament or somesuch in my ankle that's no good. The fascia is also iffy. So, I wear boots that are very stiff so as to support the ankle and orthodics to support the arch. If I don't, the pain comes back. It's never been as bad as it was when it first started to let go, though. That was truly awful. Felt like I was walking with a softball glued to my arch. Don't want that no mo'.Excellent... one more convert and I get a Microwave...
Just make sure you're wearing the special hat when you get the mircowave.
So how do you do martial arts? I'm afraid of whatyour sparring partners look like after a kick to the head.
Tee hee! I wear an ankle brace. It's ok for short periods (a couple of hours) but not if I'm out of 'em all day. I wear it on days my ankle/foot hurts and on days it doesn't. Cuz if it doesn't and I don't it will. Part genetics (my mom's feet are so bad she had to have them operated on twice to correct them) and part age. I can't walk around like I usedtacould.
So how do you do martial arts? I'm afraid of whatyour sparring partners look like after a kick to the head.
Tee hee! I wear an ankle brace. It's ok for short periods (a couple of hours) but not if I'm out of 'em all day. I wear it on days my ankle/foot hurts and on days it doesn't. Cuz if it doesn't and I don't it will. Part genetics (my mom's feet are so bad she had to have them operated on twice to correct them) and part age. I can't walk around like I usedtacould.
That sounds painful. Why haven't you had your feet operated on?
If you'd like, I can cut off your feet are replace them with Robo-feet!
Do robo-feet still have toes? Because if not, that sounds pretty sweet...
Do fingers bug you too? :-p
No, fingers don't bug me. Why would they? That would be silly.
If you'd like, I can cut off your feet are replace them with Robo-feet!
Do robo-feet still have toes? Because if not, that sounds pretty sweet...
Yes... Robo-feet have toes. They have Robo-toes. However, I'm willing to just cut off your feet if that would make you feel better.
I do find it funny that you hate feet so much, yet you spend an awful lot of time browsing and posting in a thread about shoes that look like feet.
It's mostly toes.
No, fingers don't bug me. Why would they? That would be silly.
It's no different for toes really
Ironically, I've always had feet problems. My ankles rolled in and my arch would collapse. But ever since the AF decided to make running the primary focus of our PT test I've been running a whole lot more. Since I've been running I've found that I've moved from motion control (flat arches) to stability (regular feet) shoes. So all of the running has actually been fixing me.
I've read a bit about the VFFs and it makes sense from a laymans point of view. Humans evolved (please don't derail over this) over time to run long distances. Then more modern man creates shoes with thick soles and stiff arches. Heck early shoes had wooden boards in them. So people start wearing shoes from early in life that trains them to move in an unnatural way. Using these shoes your forced to revert to moving in a way that we're actually built to. It wouldn't surprise me if many years down the road, people look back at our hard shoes and wonder what the heck we were thinking.
I'm hoping that wearing these will remove the last of my knee pain.
As for the army banning them... You should show up in a pair of mocasins. Full motion with a single compartment. I'll bet that would get to them.
Yes... Robo-feet have toes. They have Robo-toes.
LAME!
However, I'm willing to just cut off your feet if that would make you feel better.
... Let me think about it.
I do find it funny that you hate feet so much, yet you spend an awful lot of time browsing and posting in a thread about shoes that look like feet.
Do you know what I mostly do around these forums? Critique other people's homebrews. I'm used to spending an aweful lot of time in threads about things that are terrible.
It's no different for toes really
That's silly. They're totally different. Fingers are actually useful. And not gross.
Cut off your toes, see how good you can still walk
I don't mean that they don't do anything at all, silly. A small minority of them do help with balance and stuff. I just mean that they don't have to be what they are to do what they do. They could be something less gross. For example, they don't have to be 5 separate gross little things. They'd work just fine as just one not-as-gross thing. After all, they work just fine when I'm wearing socks or shoes, don't they? Same thing with toenails. We totally don't need those.
I don't mean that they don't do anything at all, silly. A small minority of them do help with balance and stuff. I just mean that they don't have to be what they are to do what they do. They could be something less gross. For example, they don't have to be 5 separate gross little things. They'd work just fine as just one not-as-gross thing. After all, they work just fine when I'm wearing socks or shoes, don't they? Same thing with toenails. We totally don't need those.
You mean you'd rather have hooves? Or something inbetween, like this?
But whatever that crazy thing is, my answer is going to be an emphatic NO.
IIRC, Assyrian kings, when they had captured rebellious nobles or royalty of rival nations, would cut off the thumbs and big toes of those they chose to keep alive. The prevented them from being able to pick up a weapon, and made running quite dodgey, thus making them nearly completely helpless.
Hooves sound... okay-ish, I guess.
But whatever that crazy thing is, my answer is going to be an emphatic NO.
There's more where that came from.
The big toe is rather important in balance, esp in terms of running.
A big toe identical to the one that we have is not the only biological way to accomplish such a function.
There's more where that came from.
That's horrifying.
I have to wonder, though, am I really the only person who doesn't think that humans look perfect? I mean, come on, there has to be something about the human body that each of you thinks is at least very aesthetically unappealing. I know that one of my friends hates the way that ears look, for example. I don't feel like creating another topic, so I'll just ask it here. What about the human body do you think is ugly?
I have to wonder, though, am I really the only person who doesn't think that humans look perfect? I mean, come on, there has to be something about the human body that each of you thinks is at least very aesthetically unappealing. I know that one of my friends hates the way that ears look, for example. I don't feel like creating another topic, so I'll just ask it here. What about the human body do you think is ugly?
Most ugly things are safely under skin.
There is an outward part though that is traditionally perceived as unappealing and I can't say I'm surprised.
I've really been thinking about picking up a pair of VFF's. Can you guys recomend a good model? Mostly for track/path running. I prefer conservative colors, so all/mostly black or grey would be awesome.
Ironically, I've always had feet problems. My ankles rolled in and my arch would collapse. But ever since the AF decided to make running the primary focus of our PT test I've been running a whole lot more. Since I've been running I've found that I've moved from motion control (flat arches) to stability (regular feet) shoes. So all of the running has actually been fixing me.
Hmmm... track and path running... Normally I would tell you to get two different models. For the track I'd suggest either the Bikila, Bikila LS, or the KSOs. For Path running I'd suggest the KSO TREK (if it wasn't for you wanting to get conservative colors I'd also suggest the TREKSPORTS).
How rough would you say the paths you want to run are? If the paths aren't too bad, you could probably get away with using the KSOs. Those are usable in pretty much any terrain. The Bikilas have a slightly thicker sole (by about 2mm). They are the street running model although I run in the KSOs without a problem. I also have the Bikilas and they are great for street and track.
I wouldn't recomend the TREK line for track running as you will wear out the cleats. The sole of the TREK line is designed for trails. There are people that use them as their office shoes (especially the KSO TREKS because they are made out of kangaroo leather), but I haven't heard of anyone using them on the track or street. Not sure how the soles would hold up.
I do find it funny that you hate feet so much, yet you spend an awful lot of time browsing and posting in a thread about shoes that look like feet.
Do you know what I mostly do around these forums? Critique other people's homebrews. I'm used to spending an aweful lot of time in threads about things that are terrible.
It's one thing to look at terrible things; it's quite different to look at things you find as disgusting as you find feet. I think you secretly love feet. You're just not ready to come out about it.
I've really been thinking about picking up a pair of VFF's. Can you guys recomend a good model? Mostly for track/path running. I prefer conservative colors, so all/mostly black or grey would be awesome.
Ironically, I've always had feet problems. My ankles rolled in and my arch would collapse. But ever since the AF decided to make running the primary focus of our PT test I've been running a whole lot more. Since I've been running I've found that I've moved from motion control (flat arches) to stability (regular feet) shoes. So all of the running has actually been fixing me.
Hmmm... track and path running... Normally I would tell you to get two different models. For the track I'd suggest either the Bikila, Bikila LS, or the KSOs. For Path running I'd suggest the KSO TREK (if it wasn't for you wanting to get conservative colors I'd also suggest the TREKSPORTS).
How rough would you say the paths you want to run are? If the paths aren't too bad, you could probably get away with using the KSOs. Those are usable in pretty much any terrain. The Bikilas have a slightly thicker sole (by about 2mm). They are the street running model although I run in the KSOs without a problem. I also have the Bikilas and they are great for street and track.
I wouldn't recomend the TREK line for track running as you will wear out the cleats. The sole of the TREK line is designed for trails. There are people that use them as their office shoes (especially the KSO TREKS because they are made out of kangaroo leather), but I haven't heard of anyone using them on the track or street. Not sure how the soles would hold up.
The path is really just your average asphault jogging trail that the government loves to use. Not an actual offroad track. The track is your average base/high school type track. We don't have the luxury of a rubberized one here. I'd probably also use them for street running. I've tended to avoid streets because of my knees, but I figure once I learn to run naturally I should be ok.
The path is really just your average asphault jogging trail that the government loves to use. Not an actual offroad track. The track is your average base/high school type track. We don't have the luxury of a rubberized one here. I'd probably also use them for street running. I've tended to avoid streets because of my knees, but I figure once I learn to run naturally I should be ok.
The Bikila, Bikila LS, or the KSOs should be fine. The KSOs come in all black, so that may be a bit more appealing to you.
The path is really just your average asphault jogging trail that the government loves to use. Not an actual offroad track. The track is your average base/high school type track. We don't have the luxury of a rubberized one here. I'd probably also use them for street running. I've tended to avoid streets because of my knees, but I figure once I learn to run naturally I should be ok.
The Bikila, Bikila LS, or the KSOs should be fine. The KSOs come in all black, so that may be a bit more appealing to you.
A side question, do you find a difference between the velcro and the pullstring styles? It seems like the pullstring would give a more snug fit since it has multiple points of tension.
A side question, do you find a difference between the velcro and the pullstring styles? It seems like the pullstring would give a more snug fit since it has multiple points of tension.
You probably could get a more snug fit with the pull-string. The reason for it though, is for people that have high arches. It allows them to have a more lose fit... which reminds me... you could also look at the Speeds. They share the Bikila line soles, but use laces.
You probably could get a more snug fit with the pull-string. The reason for it though, is for people that have high arches. It allows them to have a more lose fit... which reminds me... you could also look at the Speeds. They share the Bikila line soles, but use laces.
Nah, not looking for a true lace up. more like Bilka LS. I'll probably give either the Bilka LS or the KSO a try. Thanks for answering my questions.
You probably could get a more snug fit with the pull-string. The reason for it though, is for people that have high arches. It allows them to have a more lose fit... which reminds me... you could also look at the Speeds. They share the Bikila line soles, but use laces.
Nah, not looking for a true lace up. more like Bilka LS. I'll probably give either the Bilka LS or the KSO a try. Thanks for answering my questions.
No Problem
Try them both on. THey have different feel. The KSOs are my all around favorite because of the very thin sole. You can curl your toes in these. They give you the most barefoot feel. The Bikila are great also. The have a little more mole, and you can't curl your toes in them, but you still have great ground feel. You still feel as if you were walking around barefoot.
I'm still waiting for the Evoskins from Inov8 to come out.
I can use my toes as fingers.
I'll bet that would freak Crimson_Concerto out. I pick things up and sometimes do basic stuff with my toes. But it's so infrequent that I'm not that good at it.
I also frequently pick little things off of the floor and throw them to myself. Just cuz. I bet CC would like to see some of that. ;)I can use my toes as fingers.
I'll bet that would freak Crimson_Concerto out. I pick things up and sometimes do basic stuff with my toes. But it's so infrequent that I'm not that good at it.
Secretly Crimson_Concerto loves feet.
I have to wonder, though, am I really the only person who doesn't think that humans look perfect? I mean, come on, there has to be something about the human body that each of you thinks is at least very aesthetically unappealing. I know that one of my friends hates the way that ears look, for example. I don't feel like creating another topic, so I'll just ask it here. What about the human body do you think is ugly?
Body hair.
I have to wonder, though, am I really the only person who doesn't think that humans look perfect? I mean, come on, there has to be something about the human body that each of you thinks is at least very aesthetically unappealing. I know that one of my friends hates the way that ears look, for example. I don't feel like creating another topic, so I'll just ask it here. What about the human body do you think is ugly?
I'm curious as to what you are comparing humans with to judge perfection. Are you talking about what a perfect human would look like? We all have feet1. What would be perfect feet if not what we have now?
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 - with the exception of those born with deformities or who lost their feet one way or another.
Hooves sound... okay-ish, I guess.
It's a Georgia thing isn't it?
As for the army banning them... You should show up in a pair of mocasins. Full motion with a single compartment. I'll bet that would get to them.
I ordered a pair of Zemgears (they arrived but I had to exchange them due to wrong sizing). They basically look like black socks with a sole at the bottom (I hear they work great for getting through airport security without taking your shoes off). That should be sufficient.
I can use my toes as fingers.
I'll bet that would freak Crimson_Concerto out. I pick things up and sometimes do basic stuff with my toes. But it's so infrequent that I'm not that good at it.
Secretly Crimson_Concerto loves feet.
You all disgust me.
I'm curious as to what you are comparing humans with to judge perfection. Are you talking about what a perfect human would look like?
It's not like I'm grading on a curve here. There doesn't have to be somebody in the class with a 100 for me to hand out a 99.
It's a Georgia thing isn't it?
Hahaha, you are clever.
You all disgust me.
And yet, you keep coming back for more. You know you like it...
I'm curious as to what you are comparing humans with to judge perfection. Are you talking about what a perfect human would look like?
It's not like I'm grading on a curve here. There doesn't have to be somebody in the class with a 100 for me to hand out a 99.
You till need a point of reference. how would you know what a 99 looks like if you don't know what 100 looks like?
It's a Georgia thing isn't it?
Hahaha, you are clever.
I see you aren't trying to refute it
And yet, you keep coming back for more.
I'm trying to knock some sense into you people.
You till need a point of reference. how would you know what a 99 looks like if you don't know what 100 looks like?
You don't have to know what perfection is to recognize that something isn't perfect. Just look at politics, economics, education, healthcare, and a lot of other stuff that will caused this thread to get locked if we start discussing them. I don't know what perfection for any of those things would be, but I know that I haven't seen it.
Besides, I'm not actually looking for perfection. I would just prefer something that isn't ugly and gross, so really I'd be satisfied with more of a C grade and would be very happy with a B.
I see you aren't trying to refute it
I don't think that I need to. Anybody who knows me knows that I'd never be involved with such a thing. That sheep is clearly female. ;)
I'm trying to knock some sense into you people.
Liar. You like it. You know you do.
You don't have to know what perfection is to recognize that something isn't perfect. Just look at politics, economics, education, healthcare, and a lot of other stuff that will caused this thread to get locked if we start discussing them. I don't know what perfection for any of those things would be, but I know that I haven't seen it.
Not exactly. Yes, it's true, we can recognize that these things you mentioned are not perfect; however, we can't determine how far from perfect these things are. You still need a point of reference to determine that.
Besides, I'm not actually looking for perfection. I would just prefer something that isn't ugly and gross, so really I'd be satisfied with more of a C grade and would be very happy with a B.
Your C is too subjective.
I don't think that I need to. Anybody who knows me knows that I'd never be involved with such a thing. That sheep is clearly female. ;)
This better?
Yes, it's true, we can recognize that these things you mentioned are not perfect; however, we can't determine how far from perfect these things are. You still need a point of reference to determine that.
Fair enough.
Your C is too subjective.
Maybe, but my opinion clearly matters more to me than your opinion does, so...
This better?
Now that's gross
See, that picture you posted there?
Now that's gross
You're gross.
That's gotta count for something, right? Well I have a lot more facial hair then that guy
Depends... I would need to see pics...
"Looking good" is extremely on my scale of important stuff and I'm very un-photogenic anyway. Plus I should probably get a shave, I'm living up to my name way too much ^^I'll just take if from you that I'm more gross then steroid-dude.
I'll just take if from you that I'm more gross then steroid-dude.
Typical response from guys that are jealous of other guys' bodies.
The bodybuilder look is one of the ugliest things a man can have. Well... human. It doesn't work for women either.
I don't like people who are ripped like that. It looks unnatural. I prefer my people to look like... people. I also prefer them to spend more time on important stuff and less time on looking good.
I also prefer them to spend more time on important stuff and less time on looking good.
You know that some people just look like that, right? People don't realize how much the human body can naturally vary in shape and size, but there are a lot of people for which looking like that actually doesn't take very much effort at all if any, and it certainly doesn't require steroids.
The bodybuilder look is one of the ugliest things a man can have.
The funny thing about this is that most people when they think of the "bodybuilder look" are thinking of a look that most bodybuilders do not have. And they're also thinking of somebody that's oiled up, which is not how the body naturally looks. If you see bodybuilders in a more normal environment and not oiled up like that, you'd be surprised how normal they look. They do stuff for shows exactly to overly exaggerate their features.
And I've never seen someone that muscled without working on it... unless he's got a lot more fat then the image is letting on.
(The steroids was a joke btw, I know you can look like that without them)
And I've never seen someone that muscled without working on it... unless he's got a lot more fat then the image is letting on.
Try looking at the reflection of his belly in the car door. He's actually a pretty heavy guy, and I'm personally not as into guys with too low an amount of body fat myself.
(The steroids was a joke btw, I know you can look like that without them)
I'm just saying it's a really common "joke" is all.
And some people really do think that you need steroids to look like that.
I'm just saying it's a really common "joke" is all.
And some people really do think that you need steroids to look like that.
There is probably a good reason why it is common.
Ok I've been looking at a gay man long enough for one night, I shall go to bed now
And some people really do think that you need steroids to look like that.
Some people believe the dumbest things, so I'm not surprised.
There is probably a good reason why it is common.
Depends on whether you consider ignorance to be a good reason.
There is probably a good reason why it is common.
Depends on whether you consider ignorance to be a good reason.
So there are no body builders or people that use steroids? Really?
I think that a lot of people don't know what steroids actually do. They will not, for example, ever change the size of your frame. If you have a small and thin frame, then no amount of exercise or even steroids will get you to look like the picture that I posted. Ever. By contrast, if you do have a very large frame and it's easier for you to build muscle like that, then you're never going to look like a twink no matter how much you throw up.
I'm not saying that. That would be ridiculous. I'm just saying that people are way to quick to say that a man's on steroid just because he has big muscles. It's exactly as ridiculous as assuming that a woman is anorexic or bulimic just because she's thin.
Fair enough...
Guess what. Some people have the body that you want without having to resort to those thing. No need to accuse them of using unhealthy practices to get there to make yourself feel better. They might just know how to eat right and stay fit better than you do or they might just have it better genetically.
First, you assume that people want to look like that guy. I don't. Second, this guy obviously doesn't have the nutrition part down. Yeah, he is pretty big. He also has a beer-gut. Not the paragon of physical fitness.
I think that a lot of people don't know what steroids actually do. They will not, for example, ever change the size of your frame. If you have a small and thin frame, then no amount of exercise or even steroids will get you to look like the picture that I posted. Ever. By contrast, if you do have a very large frame and it's easier for you to build muscle like that, then you're never going to look like a twink no matter how much you throw up.
While steroid use won't increase your frame, it does give your muscles that blown up look. People also get that fat face look... you know... they are well muscled and fit, but their face looks fat. The guy in that picture you posted has a fat face.
In any case, your claim that people assume others use steroids because they are jealous is just as ridiculous. It's an ignorant assumption.
What do you think of this guy?
First, you assume that people want to look like that guy.
Not exactly. What I assume is that most men in our culture have the idea that strength is a masculine and therefore desirable quality for men to have. A man that is clearly stronger than other men therefore often invites some amount of envy from those other men, envy related to that strength. It's really not that outlandish an idea considering the way that our society treats masculinity. I don't even think that it's a conscious reaction for a lot of people.
Second, this guy obviously doesn't have the nutrition part down. Yeah, he is pretty big. He also has a beer-gut. Not the paragon of physical fitness.
Who cares? We're not talking about nutrition here. He's hot. And he's clearly strong. That's obviously all that matters. The rest is irrelevant.
People also get that fat face look... you know... they are well muscled and fit, but their face looks fat. The guy in that picture you posted has a fat face.
Yes, but he also has a heavier body in general, as I'm sure you've noticed as you've pointed out his belly. He's just got a lot of muscle beneath that fat. Contrary to popular belief, it is perfectly possible for a person to be high in both fat and muscle. Heavier faces are not exclusive to people using steroids.
In any case, your claim that people assume others use steroids because they are jealous is just as ridiculous. It's an ignorant assumption.
It's hyperbolic, sure, but it's really not that out there. Maybe jealousy was the wrong word. Spite might be better. Or resentment. Something along those lines...
Also, you're a terrible person for posting that picture.
(this guy's a meme around here)
I don't know where you are, but your memes are sexy,
That guy actually lives in Las Vegas. It's probably his Lithuanian accent mixed with English words that makes him so funny :D
Too bad it's largely untranslatable.
PS. For the record: I'm Polish.
You know what? I don't care.
Maybe you should lay off the haterade.
Hating? I don't hate the guy, nor am I jealous of him.
I don't know if you've ever seen the various pics of me floating around out there in this forum's aether but imo I'm in better shape than he is. I don't look like I'm just two steps away from dying of a heartattack due to cheeseburgers beer and steroids :-p
Sure he might be stronger than me in a burst, but I bet I can run farther, cycle longer, and swim a hell of alot better than he can, and I'm willing to bet I'm faster too. Pure strength ain't jack if you need endurance, and flexiblity. :-p
Not exactly. What I assume is that most men in our culture have the idea that strength is a masculine and therefore desirable quality for men to have. A man that is clearly stronger than other men therefore often invites some amount of envy from those other men, envy related to that strength. It's really not that outlandish an idea considering the way that our society treats masculinity. I don't even think that it's a conscious reaction for a lot of people.
You're making the assumption that he is "clearly" stronger. Is he big? Yes (and fat). Is he strong? Probably. How strong is the question. Can he lift a lot of weight? Maybe. Can he do this? or This? I bet he can't.
Who cares? We're not talking about nutrition here. He's hot. And he's clearly strong. That's obviously all that matters. The rest is irrelevant.
You're the one that brought up nutrition. If you think it doesn't matter, don't bring it up.
Yes, but he also has a heavier body in general, as I'm sure you've noticed as you've pointed out his belly. He's just got a lot of muscle beneath that fat. Contrary to popular belief, it is perfectly possible for a person to be high in both fat and muscle. Heavier faces are not exclusive to people using steroids.
No, fat faces are not exclusive to steroid users, but steroid users do get fat faces. Also, you're assuming that he has a lot of muscle under all that belly fat.
It's hyperbolic, sure, but it's really not that out there. Maybe jealousy was the wrong word. Spite might be better. Or resentment. Something along those lines...
Jealousy, spite, resentment... you are still making an assumption. I don't want to look like that guy. Cptn_Micha pointed out he doesn't want to look like him either. Hell, I really don't know anyone who would want to look like that guy. His cardio is probably as good as any other fat guy's cardio... you know... garbage He could probably power-lift a good amount of weight a few times, but I'm willing to bet his muscle endurance is about as good as his cardio.
Also, you're a terrible person for posting that picture.
Could you imagine those toes brushing up against your face, then making their way to your lips, and finally going into your mouth and touching your tongue with one of those crusty toe-nails... the big one...;)
Hating? I don't hate the guy, nor am I jealous of him.
I don't know if you've ever seen the various pics of me floating around out there in this forum's aether but imo I'm in better shape than he is. I don't look like I'm just two steps away from dying of a heartattack due to cheeseburgers beer and steroids :-p
Sure he might be stronger than me in a burst, but I bet I can run farther, cycle longer, and swim a hell of alot better than he can, and I'm willing to bet I'm faster too. Pure strength ain't jack if you need endurance, and flexiblity. :-p
You realize that this is only helping my point, right?
You're making the assumption that he is "clearly" stronger.
...you're assuming that he has a lot of muscle under all that belly fat.
Not sure if serious.
You're the one that brought up nutrition.
No, I'm not, at least not in reference to that specific guy.
Jealousy, spite, resentment... you are still making an assumption.
You don't need to be talking about other people assuming jack when you're the one who started this by assuming that people are on steroids.
Yes you can have muscles, and be horribly out of shape.
You made the assumption that anyone making commentary must feel some degree of hate, envy or resentment to that guy. (HAH me. Sir Vanity himself ;) seriously, I love my body. I'm the best shape or maybe second best shape I have ever been in. I don't feel threatened at all by a guy that looks like he's devoured the entire buffet line and downed a keg of beer to wash it down with.)
How so?
And you're still doing it without even realizing it, which is why I've said that it's not a conscious thing. Despite not being directly provoked about the matter, you're still attempting to establish your masculinity and dominance by illustrating your shape as superior. First thing you did was try to knock him down a peg, and then came the immediate and unprovoked denial of him as a threat.
And don't even try to say that my haterade comment suggested a need for such a thing, 'cause sippin' that haterade ain't got nuthin' to do with jealousy. Haters just gonna hate.
It's a simple statement of what I see as a fact, the guy has drank too much beer. Also, yeah your haterade comment was when taken in context with your previous statement. Context is everything in a thread. Your assertion was that every man alive must envy the bear man you posted if they do not find them 'up to par' for whatever reason, that bein a hater has to stem from some feeling of inadequacy, which unfortunately for beer gut back there is just not the case. I give credit where it's due. And he doesn't have any comin.
I was simply pointing out that you can infact make negative commentary about someone and not feel threatened, or have their sense of masculinity threatened in any way shape or form.
I find his form, well just bad. He looks to me like he's about to die of a heartattack or would if he had to run a few miles cross country.
Now if you want an example of someone that I feel legimately looks better than me, and is something I should strive to be, than this would be more like it. www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfARjG6wARY
or the guys in this commercial www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhoBsJIT7Cc
-that- would be a threat to one's sense of masculinity. Not Beer Boy.
You must realize you're not winning this. Every further act of defensiveness only further proves my point. ;)
You clearly don't realize who are you arguing with. I have no sense of shame or dignity to appeal to to stop a debate.
You are the one not winning this, you've backed yourself into a corner on this one, and are having to project stuff, that just isn't there in order to make it look like you haven't ;)
All I know is I'm not the one here trying to insult people that I don't know anything about unprovoked. I'm not even sayin' anything bad about those guys that you find attractive. They're not bad, they're just not my type.
Note, when you're presenting someone as the paragon of masculinity, and that everyone else must be jealous, at least make sure the guy is capable of doing more than just lifting heavy objects
. It takes more than muscle to equal that whole Paragon thing. Also, you did imply an insult with your first statement that went along the lines of "everyone that doesn't find this guy appealing, is just jealous and threatened". I mean really, you're implying that I'd be threatened, going to a bar to pick up women when beer boy walks into the room? Is that in insult or what?
Note, when you're presenting someone as the paragon of masculinity, and that everyone else must be jealous...
I presented neither of those things. I just said that he appeared very masculine and therefore attractive to me and that a lot of guys immediate reaction to that is a jealousy to which they will never admit, which is true of a lot of guys. If you don't think that you're one of them, then you should have nothing to worry about.
It takes more than muscle to equal that whole Paragon thing.
Visually? Not really, it doesn't take too much more than that. You can talk all you want about endurance and health, but we can't see those things, so our brains won't work on that level even if we want them to. As much as we'd like to think differently, the human mind is stupid and shallow like that.
Also, you did imply an insult with your first statement that went along the lines of "everyone that doesn't find this guy appealing, is just jealous and threatened".
The human mind also often hears what it wants to hear. ;)
It's either or, in this case there is no both :-p
At this point, on this part of the tangent, we're arguing over what I am feeling or not feeling. Of which of the two of us I think I know which one of us is more qualified to give the assessment of my feelings :-p
I dunno, you can pick up on stamina etc through visual cues by seeing which muscles are actually developed and which ones aren't, or worse covered in flab. Seeing someone with well developed calve muscles, for example is a pretty good indicator that they are a runner usually, and someone with developed forearms, and shoulders (but not necessarily biceps) is a good indicator of someone that works hard, with their hands all day, just for some examples. Also, people with alot of endurance tend to be smaller guys than that bear is. Lean and cut, generally over bulk, and it's pretty easy to spot, compared to the average joe, or someone that just does alot of heavy weight training with no cardio.
You don't see too many guys that look like they have stuffed a refrigerator in them, that are capable of a triathlon.
The first part of that, does not compute with your last part of that post.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Of which of the two of us I think I know which one of us is more qualified to give the assessment of my feelings :-p
The one that isn't as biased? ;)
I dunno, you can pick up on stamina etc through visual cues by seeing which muscles are actually developed and which ones aren't, or worse covered in flab. Seeing someone with well developed calve muscles, for example is a pretty good indicator that they are a runner usually, and someone with developed forearms, and shoulders (but not necessarily biceps) is a good indicator of someone that works hard, with their hands all day, just for some examples. Also, people with alot of endurance tend to be smaller guys than that bear is. Lean and cut, generally over bulk, and it's pretty easy to spot, compared to the average joe, or someone that just does alot of heavy weight training with no cardio.
Again, this is a level of depth at which our minds usually do not work. We love to think that our minds are so perceptive and so deep, but more often then not, they're really not.
And to be clear, I'm talking about both yours and mine.
You don't see too many guys that look like they have stuffed a refrigerator in them, that are capable of a triathlon.
Who cares?
Really, you're being needlessly judgemental of that guy. You really have zero idea who he is. You have no context with which to justify your ridiculous insults. It's actually very sad that you don't see that this is only proving my point.
It's got nothing to do with depth. It does however have everything to do with recognizing desired traits. It really is kind of simple. Let's do a visual test. Lets take your Bear man, and compare him to say... justjared.buzznet.com/photo-gallery/1599...
Now which one to you, looks like he's more capable of covering a long distance in a fairly short amount of time?
It -is- something purely on aesthetics you can recognize. Consciously or not. Your brain can infact make those decisions in short order. There's no indepth thought required.
Lets take your Bear man, and compare him to say... justjared.buzznet.com/photo-gallery/1599...
Now which one to you, looks like he's more capable of covering a long distance in a fairly short amount of time?
It doesn't matter because running isn't masculine. Fighting is masculine.
Running is necessary to run down your prey for hunting, in a totally primal sense.
Hmm... I wonder if people would have felt such a need to shoot down what I find attractive if I'd just stuck with the ram.
Ehh, I'm not in the mood or condition for such conversations really.
What, about the ram?
If you're going to pretend that you're in denial that our society considers fighting to be more masculine than running to try to prove your point, then I think that we're done here.
Hmm... I wonder if people would have felt such a need to shoot down what I find attractive if I'd just stuck with the ram.
meh, brute force won't win a fight either though :-p that's where that whole, speed, strength and endurance combo comes in again. Pesky ain't it?
LOL there was a ram joke? where?
Hooves sound... okay-ish, I guess.
It's a Georgia thing isn't it?
Well, if you're into woolly, horny dudes, then go for it. I'll stick with girls in flip-flops
Well, if you're into woolly, horny dudes, then go for it. I'll stick with girls in flip-flops
Deal!Now you're trolling
Not sure if serious.
Yes, I'm serious. He is a big guy, but he has a lot of fat over his muscles. He may be strong... but not as strong as you might assume. I'm nowhere near as big as he is, but I can do 3 sets of 8 reps of squats with 550 lbs (on a squat machine).
No, I'm not, at least not in reference to that specific guy.
You are still the one that brought it up.
You don't need to be talking about other people assuming jack when you're the one who started this by assuming that people are on steroids.
Actually, you are wrong (as usual). It was Plu who started with assuming the guy is using steroids. Read post 172
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Reading... not your strong point is it?
I never heard of these shoes until just now. I like them, they look really comfortable, and I wouldn't be ashamed of wearing them anywhere, especially since in my defense I could say, "how'd you like me to wiggle my toes while my foot is shoved up your ***?" I always thought that the military had uniforms to wear while actually doing missions, banning them on a mission I can understand, but anywhere else isn't going to acomplish anything.
You know what the funny thing is? Technically because they contain all the toes in a single compartment, you can wear these:
I never heard of these shoes until just now. I like them, they look really comfortable, and I wouldn't be ashamed of wearing them anywhere, especially since in my defense I could say, "how'd you like me to wiggle my toes while my foot is shoved up your ***?" I always thought that the military had uniforms to wear while actually doing missions, banning them on a mission I can understand, but anywhere else isn't going to acomplish anything.
You know what the funny thing is? Technically because they contain all the toes in a single compartment, you can wear these:
:pic:
Those would work, too.
Yes, I'm serious.
Mmkay, doll.
You are still the one that brought it up.
...In the most minor of ways that still had nothing to do with him or anybody else in particular if you were making even the most minimal effort to take it in context.
It was Plu who started with assuming the guy is using steroids.
More than one person did that. You were one of them. Saying that somebody else did it first helps your case zero when, in context, I was clearly talking about our discussion specifically. You still also made the exact same assumption. (After Plus and I resolved our non-serious discussion, by the way)
Reading... not your strong point is it?
Context... not your strong point, is it?
I don't need to be such a jerk about your not picking up on context, because I get that happens over text on the internet, but you're also being needlessly serious and rude about this conversation, so I don't see any good reason to cut you any slack.
Seriously, no need to be so bitter and petty just because I don't like your shoes. I don't like a lot of people's shoes.
It was Plu who started with assuming the guy is using steroids.
More than one person did that. You were one of them. Saying that somebody else did it first helps your case zero when, in context, I was clearly talking about our discussion specifically. You still also made the exact same assumption. (After Plus and I resolved our non-serious discussion, by the way)
Actually, if you take a look at what I have said so far, you will notice that I have never said the guy in the picture was using steroids. All I have done is pointed out some of the signs of steroid use. The fat guy in your picture has some of those signs. He could or could not be a steroid user. However, I've yet to say that guy is using steroids.
Context... not your strong point, is it?
I don't need to be such a jerk about your not picking up on context, because I get that happens over text on the internet, but you're also being needlessly serious and rude about this conversation, so I don't see any good reason to cut you any slack.
Seriously, no need to be so bitter and petty just because I don't like your shoes. I don't like a lot of people's shoes.
Your give yourself way too much credit. You opinion about my shoes (or anything else) is meaningless.
I never heard of these shoes until just now. I like them, they look really comfortable, and I wouldn't be ashamed of wearing them anywhere, especially since in my defense I could say, "how'd you like me to wiggle my toes while my foot is shoved up your ***?" I always thought that the military had uniforms to wear while actually doing missions, banning them on a mission I can understand, but anywhere else isn't going to acomplish anything.
Yeah, obviously mission is one thing. Generally, you're going to be wearing boots then and your combat gear. My issue is that they are banning these during physical fitness training, like when you're running on a road in shorts and a t-shirt. They supposedly detract from a military image (because everyone pays attention to us at the crack of dawn when we're running on base) but shoes like H_S posted are ok, not to mention all the fatties that we've allowed to stay in instead of kicking them out because we needed people for the wars.
Actually, if you take a look at what I have said so far, you will notice that I have never said the guy in the picture was using steroids.
You don't need to. Thanks to the magic of context, it's not that hard to catch the relevant implications. Considering that you've been trying to make the case that he's on steroids and all (for whatever reason that I'm still not actually very clear on), the two possibilities are that you think that he's on steroids or that you're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Please enlighten me to any additional possibility, but recognize that's what it looks like to somebody who doesn't already know your arcane motives.
You opinion about my shoes (or anything else) is meaningless.
See, this is what I mean about being needlessly rude. What's the need for you to be attacking me like that? I don't see any reason to be so angry at me if not about the shoes. Chill out, dude. I'm sorry I insulted your shoes. I should have recognized that you're really into them (they are your avatar, after all), and my commentary should have been more sensitive.
See, this is what I mean about being needlessly rude. What's the need for you to be attacking me like that? I don't see any reason to be so angry at me if not about the shoes. Chill out, dude. I'm sorry I insulted your shoes. I should have recognized that you're really into them (they are your avatar, after all), and my commentary should have been more sensitive.
Listen princess, when you can stop crying about others calling the fat guy in the picture you posted as a steroids user, maybe I'll consider your feelings. As I said, you think too highly of yourself. Your opinion is meaningless. It is about as useful to me as your opinion about women. Trust me, you aren't the only person who doesn't like the shoes. Much like in your case, I don't pay attention to them.
You don't need to. Thanks to the magic of context, it's not that hard to catch the relevant implications. Considering that you've been trying to make the case that he's on steroids and all (for whatever reason that I'm still not actually very clear on), the two possibilities are that you think that he's on steroids or that you're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Please enlighten me to any additional possibility, but recognize that's what it looks like to somebody who doesn't already know your arcane motives.
He may or may not be using steroids, but a case can be made why people looking at this picture might think he is using steroids. All I've done is point out those reasons.
Hm, but checking back, you were still being fun up to page 17. I wonder what it is that you're so mad about then if not that I don't like your shoes.
You mentioned your dislike of the shoes since before page 17. If I had been insulted by your opinion on them, wouldn't I have stopped being fun before page 17?
He may or may not be using steroids, but a case can be made why people looking at this picture might think he is using steroids.
Who cares? I don't even know whether he's on steroids or not. He may very well be. It's really not relevant. The problem is just that people like to put other people down who look idealized in certain way. With women, people ignorantly assume that all thin and attractive women are anorexic or bulimic. With men, people ignorantly assume that all large and muscular men are on steroids. It's all just BS that people use to get over their own insecurities, most often unconsciously.
Hm, but checking back, you were still being fun up to page 17. I wonder what it is that you're so mad about then if not that I don't like your shoes.
You mentioned your dislike of the shoes since before page 17. If I had been insulted by your opinion on them, wouldn't I have stopped being fun before page 17?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. That's why I said "I wonder what it is that you're so mad about then if not that I don't like your shoes." I wasn't being sarcastic.
Who cares? I don't even know whether he's on steroids or not. He may very well be. It's really not relevant.
Apparently you care. You seem to jump on anyone who may insinuate that the fat guy is using steroids.
The problem is just that people like to put other people down who look idealized in certain way. With women, people ignorantly assume that all thin and attractive women are anorexic or bulimic. With men, people ignorantly assume that all large and muscular men are on steroids. It's all just BS that people use to get over their own insecurities.
That is pretty funny. You seem to be assuming that all people do this. So... how did the phone call with Mr. Pot go?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. That's why I said "I wonder what it is that you're so mad about then if not that I don't like your shoes."
Maybe you should stop being so sensitive. You haven't gotten me mad. What gave you that Idea?
Apparently you care. You seem to jump on anyone who may insinuate that the fat guy is using steroids.
I dislike general ignorance, yes.
You seem to be assuming that all people do this.
Nope, just a lot of people. And it is true. If you're not one of them, then I'm not talking about you.
You haven't gotten me mad. What gave you that Idea?
The generally insulting tone of some of your most recent posts.
Examples include...
Actually, you are wrong (as usual).
Reading... not your strong point is it?
You opinion about my shoes (or anything else) is meaningless.
Listen princess, when you can stop crying...
Your opinion is meaningless.
I dislike general ignorance, yes.
Nope, just a lot of people. And it is true. If you're not one of them, then I'm not talking about you.
True depending on the population you are referring to. Maybe where you are from, but around here...
The generally insulting tone of some of your most recent posts.
Actually, you are wrong (as usual).
But it's true, you usually are wrong.
Reading... not your strong point is it?
Well, if you had read what I had written, you would have realized that you were wrong in your assumption. I'm sorry if pointing out your lack of reading hurt your feelings.
You opinion about my shoes (or anything else) is meaningless.
How am I wrong here? It's true. Honestly... I wear shoes that look like freaking feet. Do you think that I care about you or anyone else's opinion about them?
Listen princess, when you can stop crying...
Well that one was just funny. I figured since you called me doll, you wouldn't mind me calling you princes.
Uh... huh...Well I think that I've had my fill of bait for this thread.
Here's something that I hope both of us can enjoy:
I was trying to find a picture of a bear wearing those toe-shoes, but it seems to be harder than I thought. I'll keep looking, though.
birthdayshoes.com/heisman-winner-ex-nfl-...
www.vibram5fingersmall.com/specials.html
Edit: The picture of the shoes, that is, not of the bear.
vibramfivefingers.com/index.htm
