# kicked out for no shoes



## twopinknoblue (Feb 22, 2007)

We just got asked to leave a restaurant because our 13 month old did not have shoes on







: .

We were at a family brunch, in a reserved area of the restaurant, and DD was finished eating. We let her out of the highchair to walk around and socialize with our relatives. About 30 minutes into her being out of the chair walking a waitress comes in and says the baby either needs to have shoes on or leave the restaurant. I asked why, and she proclaimed that it was unsanitary and that adults and children alike are required to wear shoes. Obviously it's their policy, granted it's one I don't understand, but all the same it's their policy. We didn't have shoes for DD because she never wears them, so we were forced to leave. Frankly, I was a bit embarrassed by the whole situation (I shouldn't have been, but I was, these were in-laws that we see rarely if ever).

Anything like this ever happen to anyone else??


----------



## JBaxter (May 1, 2005)

No but I can see their point. I worked as a waitress in college and lots of times glasses got broken and cleaned up quickly but the floor didnt get "really" swept till closing time. Its a liability for them to have anyone bare foot on the floor 13 months or 13yrs.


----------



## JustJamie (Apr 24, 2006)

I have to side with the restaurant on this one...but then again, that's one of my own hang ups, public floors are NASTY.


----------



## ecoteat (Mar 3, 2006)

I've been wondering about this lately and try to keep a pair of shoes in the diaper bag for this reason. The other day we were in Rite-Aid and dd was barefoot as usual and wanted down (or else she would flop and scream in my arms). As she was roaming around, I wondered if anyone would say anything to us. I guess they'd have a right to--it's just as much a safety issue with toddlers than with adults.


----------



## s_kristina (Aug 9, 2004)

I really don't want to know what could have been on that floor other then bits of glass. If my kids are old enough to be walking on the floor/ground when out of the house then they have shoes of some sort on. At home and in our front yard the kids are mostly barefoot, but out in public I'm too grossed out by the idea of what they could be stepping in. Our front yard might become a shoes required place and a call might go to animal control if a neighbor doesn't start keeping a better eye on her dog!


----------



## ggs (Aug 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JustJamie* 
I have to side with the restaurant on this one...but then again, that's one of my own hang ups, public floors are NASTY.









:


----------



## Jenlaana (Oct 28, 2005)

I wouldn't be comfortable with my child (or anyone) walking barefoot in a restaurant either. If they're not walking around (aka in a high chair the whole time) I'd be fine with it, but definitely not underfoot. But then I dont let my DD walk around a restaurant without me holding her hand anyways because that small they're underfoot, and I would hate to have something spilled/dropped/stepped on them, ya know? when I was a waitress it was all I could do to get from the kitchen to the table with some of the food without dropping it, let alone with a little toddler on my feets.


----------



## djoy (Aug 11, 2005)

At first this sounded ridiculous to me, but now that I read the other replies- its true, public floors are DISGUSTING!


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

I can understand asking you not to let her walk around with no shoes on, and personally I agree with that for all the reasons stated, but telling you to actually leave the restaurant was going too far. What if you had a newborn sleeping in a carrier with no shoes on? Would she have asked you to leave then? I think she was being rude to insist that you put shoes on her or leave.


----------



## nichole (Feb 9, 2004)

ds never wears shoes. i'm going to go get some and put them by his bag right now!

we almost weren't allowed to board a plane b/c ds1 (then 9mo) wasn't wearing shoes.

i do keep some socks in the diaper bag though. some play areas have a rule about wearing socks.

it is summer. i don't think to put shoes on the babe.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

If they are put down to walk at the restauant, they should have shoes on.


----------



## momuveight2B (Mar 17, 2006)

I think she could have sat on your lap rather than have to leave. I had one son who could not wear shoes as a toddler, he had a very fat, wide foot and just didn't tolerate shoes. We went everywhere with either slipper socks, slippers or robeez on. We had to have something because of the weather and of course he wanted down to walk too.


----------



## hubris (Mar 8, 2003)

I'm sorry that happened. The restaurant has the right to have this policy, but I agree that it seems a little extreme to ask somebody to leave because a toddler isn't wearing shoes.







:

The health issues may not be as dire as people think. We're conditioned to think of walking barefoot as a disgusting thing to do, but some barefoot organizations provide information backing their stance that there is nothing unhealthy about bare feet:
http://www.barefooters.org/
http://www.unshod.org/

Whether or not to walk on a dirty floor should be a personal decision, IMO, and not something to dictate to parents. I don't think it's fair of us to say "children should wear shoes" as a blanket statement. That said, the restaurant owners may have that policy in place to protect themselves from litigation in case a patron steps on a piece of broken glass or something.


----------



## hippiemum21580 (Jul 14, 2007)

I agree with the above, they didn't really have a right to actually kick you out of the restaurant, policy or not. I've only had to deal with this once. To me, the dirty factor does not really phase me unless I am going to be stepping in pee in a public restroom or something. And for peopel whpo think its unsanitary to walk barefoot, well whats on teh bottom of my feet is also on teh bottom of your shoes. Unless I have some sort of fungus growing on them and walk across your dinner table...... And actually, barefooted people usually have less incidence of infections and such as our feet can BREATHE. I go barefoot EVERYWHERE. BUt for places like that it is more about them protecting themselves due to liability if you step on glass or whatnot. But I am a barefooter as are my kids and I woudl never sue someone if I stepped on something like that cuz its to be expected. You have a right to be barefoot, theer is no true law about it as some people might try to say there is but I am not sure how individual policies work.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JBaxter* 
No but I can see their point. I worked as a waitress in college and lots of times glasses got broken and cleaned up quickly but the floor didnt get "really" swept till closing time. Its a liability for them to have anyone bare foot on the floor 13 months or 13yrs.

This is not thye situation the OP described.

The waitress did not politely come over and tell the mommy that she was worried that the child might get hurt, and that maybe it would be better for the child top sit in some one lap. She told the mommy to put shoes on the kid then kicked them out of the restraunt b/c they didn't have any. When asked for a reason she said that a 13 mo's feet were "unsanitary."







:

I sometimes let DS walk around in restraunts either barefoot or in socks if the floor looks clean, and no one ever says anything.

I hope no tip was left.


----------



## veganf (Dec 12, 2005)

My 12 mo doesn't wear shoes, but no way would I let him walk around a restaurant without them. Gross. I personally would entertain him in some other way or carry him.


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

THey were well within their rights to kick the OP out. They are a private institution with rules that are well within the bounds of normal and acceptable.

That's not to say it wasn't ridiculous







It would have made much more sense just to ask you to keep the child seated. She's just a baby, for heaven's sake









But, to correct a pp, yes, they do have that right.


----------



## kissum (Apr 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momuveight2B* 
I think she could have sat on your lap rather than have to leave. I had one son who could not wear shoes as a toddler, he had a very fat, wide foot and just didn't tolerate shoes. We went everywhere with either slipper socks, slippers or robeez on. We had to have something because of the weather and of course he wanted down to walk too.

ITA. I think they could've asked for her to not walk on the floor, rather than leave. Sorry that happened to you!


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
THey were well within their rights to kick the OP out. They are a private institution with rules that are well within the bounds of normal and acceptable.

In states that don't have specific laws restraunts are also _within their rights_ to throw out women who breast feed b/c they have policies that require patrons not to expose the midsection.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *famousmockngbrd* 
I can understand asking you not to let her walk around with no shoes on, and personally I agree with that for all the reasons stated, but telling you to actually leave the restaurant was going too far. What if you had a newborn sleeping in a carrier with no shoes on? Would she have asked you to leave then? I think she was being rude to insist that you put shoes on her or leave.

A newborn isn't going to be walking.

Haven't you ever read: "No shirt, no shoes, no service." - It's a restaurants right to ask you to dress appropriately if you are there. It's your right not to patronize them if you disagree with their policies.


----------



## nascarbebe (Nov 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kissum* 
ITA. I think they could've asked for her to not walk on the floor, rather than leave. Sorry that happened to you!


ditto

It sucks when you're trying your best as a mother and someone comes and tells you that you're doing something wrong.


----------



## Oonah (Jul 28, 2004)

I don't worry about germs...but broken glass is another story. We've been asked to put shoes on our tots in grocery stores for the broken glass reason. We just carried them and that was that but the policy makes sense to me.


----------



## bobandjess99 (Aug 1, 2005)

I can understand.....from a legal point of view, the health dept regulations usually REQUIRE shoes... so they would jave been risking their butts had the health inspector come in....there are no "but it's a baby" loopholes in sanitation laws.

Also, to all the people saying "they could have just asked her not to walk on the floor..." That's silly. If it were an adult, would you be saying that? What if I just carried my 10 yr old son in, should he be allowed to sit at the table in the restaurant, since he's not technically "walking" on the floor? What about my 90 yr old, 80 pound gramma? I could prolly carry her in too.....


----------



## Momily (Feb 15, 2007)

I agree -- it's something the health inspector could close them down for. I'm sorry you had to leave, but I also understand that the restaurant can't take the risk of violating code.

As far as the person who posted that their child "couldn't" wear shoes, and then listed Robeez as one of the things they wore -- aren't Robeez shoes? I'm curious about other people's thoughts on this.


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

First of all, I love that a debate has sprung up over this issue.
 








Quote:


Originally Posted by *LynnS6* 
A newborn isn't going to be walking.

Haven't you ever read: "No shirt, no shoes, no service." - It's a restaurants right to ask you to dress appropriately if you are there. It's your right not to patronize them if you disagree with their policies.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *bobandjess99*
Also, to all the people saying "they could have just asked her not to walk on the floor..." That's silly. If it were an adult, would you be saying that? What if I just carried my 10 yr old son in, should he be allowed to sit at the table in the restaurant, since he's not technically "walking" on the floor? What about my 90 yr old, 80 pound gramma? I could prolly carry her in too.....

Usually exceptions are made for the very young, and the very old. Do you think a restaurant would kick me out for bringing in a baby wearing a onesie? Probably not, but they might if I came in wearing a swimsuit. *giggles at the thought* Same if I came in wearing just my socks, but I think your 90 year old grandmother, if she was in a wheelchair and wearing just socks on her feet, should be allowed to be in the restaurant. It would be weird if you carried her in, but if that's your chosen mode of transportation, then who am I to argue.

But, the 10 year old is out of luck.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *famousmockngbrd* 
I can understand asking you not to let her walk around with no shoes on, and personally I agree with that for all the reasons stated, but telling you to actually leave the restaurant was going too far. What if you had a newborn sleeping in a carrier with no shoes on? Would she have asked you to leave then? I think she was being rude to insist that you put shoes on her or leave.









:


----------



## utopia760 (Feb 7, 2007)

I am actully shocked. My childrenn have almost never worn shoes ina any store or restarant they are 2 1/2 and 1 1/2 i never even thought they could get in trouble for it. i just figured their babies i guess the mainstream put shoes on babies and thats who your dealing with. i dont know im just supprised as i have gone 2 1/2 years with no problem

my question is at what exact age do they say a kid needs shoes on obviousley not a newborn but what about a 3 month old? or is it as soon as they walk. what if they are not walking, im sorry this angers me


----------



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

If the restaurant had carpeting it would be pretty weird for there to be glass on the floor. Rarely does a carpet not get vaccumed in a restaurant (nightly)
I have seen babies crawl all over restaurant floors and that is gross...but little one walking without shoes should be jsut fine...unless dirty feet falls under "not fine."
Unless something just happend...then the server could say, "you know we just had small incident and everything didn't get vacuumed up yet...so it isn' safe for her."

but to kick you out...that's crazy. within their rights?...Sure but still crazy.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momily* 
I agree -- it's something the health inspector could close them down for. I'm sorry you had to leave, but I also understand that the restaurant can't take the risk of violating code.

But when asked why the waitress did not say that there were health department regulations she said it wasn't sanitary. Also the OP mentioned that they were in a private room, so who would see.

Beside are there actually any health department out there that require shoes in restraunts? I kind of doubt it considering how many Japanese and Korean restraunts have sections with traditional flooring and mats where you must take off your shoes if you want to be seated there.


----------



## rabrog (Dec 20, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
When asked for a reason she said that a 13 mo's feet were "unsanitary."







:


Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
Also the OP mentioned that they were in a private room, so who would see.

Beside are there actually any health department out there that require shoes in restraunts?

Reread the OP. The waitress did not say the child's feet were unsanitary. She simply said the situation was unsanitary (which is true). If the waitress can walk in and out of the room, so could a health inspector. And yes, many health departments require that ALL patrons wear shoes.

I bet if the child had not gotten down to walk, not a peep would have been said. I'd just get some Robeez second hand to keep in the bag for going out to restaraunts. Just put them on when the babe wants to get down and socialize.

Jenn


----------



## nosleepmommy (Jun 18, 2007)

I've worked in restaurants too - SCARY nasty floors! The policy is more liability/for your safety. I found that "Robeez" or similar style shoes for little people make a nice alternative to bear feet in public.


----------



## dis (May 21, 2005)

Quote:

If the restaurant had carpeting it would be pretty weird for there to be glass on the floor. Rarely does a carpet not get vaccumed in a restaurant (nightly)
Yeah having worked in a restaurant, it might be vacuumed every night, but it was probably by a 30 year old vacuum cleaner the owner got for free somewhere that picks up maybe 10% of the dirt and grunge on the floor. I wouldn't let my kid walk barefoot on a restaurant floor. Who knows what's on it.


----------



## hubris (Mar 8, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
But when asked why the waitress did not say that there were health department regulations she said it wasn't sanitary. Also the OP mentioned that they were in a private room, so who would see.

Beside are there actually any health department out there that require shoes in restraunts? I kind of doubt it considering how many Japanese and Korean restraunts have sections with traditional flooring and mats where you must take off your shoes if you want to be seated there.

Even if the waitress had said this, supposedly the "health code" excuse is bogus. There is information about health code requirements on the barefooting links that I posted upthread. http://www.barefooters.org/health-dept/

It's still the right of the establishment to discriminate at present, but that doesn't mean patrons can't fight for their own rights - like somebody mentioned, we wouldn't think twice about getting up in arms against an establishment that kicked out a breastfeeding mama.


----------



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dis* 
Yeah having worked in a restaurant, it might be vacuumed every night, but it was probably by a 30 year old vacuum cleaner the owner got for free somewhere that picks up maybe 10% of the dirt and grunge on the floor. I wouldn't let my kid walk barefoot on a restaurant floor. Who knows what's on it.


I am referring solely to glass...yes there is grossness but that to me is the parent's choice. No one is going to sue over dirty feet.

Ps I have worked in restaurants for 20 years.


----------



## dis (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hipumpkins* 
I am referring solely to glass...yes there is grossness but that to me is the parent's choice. No one is going to sue over dirty feet.

Ps I have worked in restaurants for 20 years.

And the restaurant where I worked, the vacuum did a lousy job picking up glass, too. We always tried to clean up breakage, but there's a good chance there was some broken glass in that carpet.

I would never let any of my kids walk around a restaurant without shoes. Actually, I wouldn't let them walk around any store without shoes. Not all employees are particularly motivated, so broken glass/plaster/pins/etc/etc could really be anywhere.


----------



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

How much glass is breaking on the carpet? an accident here or there ok but how often does glass fall and break on the carpet? I'm no talking about hardwood floors. How much stuff was bering droppped? That just sounds odd...maybe I've always worked in places where not much stuff gets dropped. I don't know.


----------



## ramama (Apr 13, 2007)

My 3 1/2 yr old and 1 1/2 year old very rarely wear shoes in the summer. I just don't find it neccessary. I let them walk barefoot in the grocery store, convenience stores, gas stations (although not in the parking lot, I'm not that crazy). And let me say, their immune systems are rock-solid. They are NEVER sick. I find it interesting that the meal was nearly over before the waitress "noticed" that the child was shoeless. If it truly was a policy, they should have been checking at the door before taking money. It is not realistic for customers to know policies that aren't posted. As far as the "no shoes, no service" my argument is that my children are not recieving service. They have no money.

Incidentally, my feet are washed much more frequently than the soles of my shoes. And as another poster stated, barefeet are not a health issue. The restaraunt was lying and I hope OP didn't have to pay for the meal.

As for the restaraunt having the right to kick OP out, simply because it was their policy, I don't think that would legally hold any water whatsoever. A policy that is not clearly stated is not a policy at all. The restaraunt accepted their business (and therefore the child's state of dress) by seating them and serving them. They had absolutely no right to ask OP to leave.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

IMO, the restaurant has every right to insist that people wear shoes in their establishment. Infants and the wheelchair bound are exempt since they won't do any walking. I think a barefoot 18mo who's in arms, a chair, or a stroller is fine, but walking around the restaurant is crossing a line. I think the management should have given you the choice of restraining your barefoot child OR leaving, not just insisted that you leave.

I would never presume to go barefoot or let my walking kids go barefoot in an establishment that insists on shoes. It's not about safety or exposure to germs- it's about respecting their rules. My kids go barefoot outside all the time- but not at the supermarket or library.


----------



## ramama (Apr 13, 2007)

To clarify, I agree that the restaraunt has the right to require people to wear shoes. But customers should be notified at the door, not well into their meal. Since the restaraunt failed to enforce their rule when the customers entered, I feel that they forfeited their right to enforce said rule.


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

EEWWW public floors are disgusting is right. Never would I let my child walk around in a restaraunt or public place without shoes. Me either.


----------



## Owachi (Jan 15, 2007)

I can see if the restaurant didn't want her walking around for safety, but they should have said not to have her walking around, not that you had to leave........my 16 month old wouldn't wear shoes and we bought her Robeez last week and now she won't take them off......I bought used at ebay because they were so expensive to see if she's like them, then I bought two new pairs now that she does.


----------



## fiorio (Aug 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ramama* 
To clarify, I agree that the restaraunt has the right to require people to wear shoes. But customers should be notified at the door, not well into their meal. Since the restaraunt failed to enforce their rule when the customers entered, I feel that they forfeited their right to enforce said rule.


Maybe they assumed that the baby wasn't walking yet. I may be mistaken but I thought OP said her baby is 13 months old. I wouldn't assume that a baby that age was walking, so the bare feet wouldn't be an issue. It didn't violate their rule until the child started walking around.

Even if a restaurant is vacuumed or swept every night or whenever something breaks there could still be glass on the floor. Even when I take my time cleaning up at home I will still miss little bits of glass sometimes. And especially if a restaurant is busy they may just do a quick sweep to get most of the glass.

I think if a child will be walking in a restaurant they need to have shoes on. But I agree with others that OP should have been given the option of holding her child instead of leaving.


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

I think she should have gave you the option of holding her or letting her sit since then it wouldnt be a problem.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hubris* 
Even if the waitress had said this, supposedly the "health code" excuse is bogus. There is information about health code requirements on the barefooting links that I posted upthread. http://www.barefooters.org/health-dept/

Thanks for cofirming what I already suspected. That if a health inspector happened to walk in he wouldn't care that a customer wasn't wearing shoes. Therefore this was not an excuse for them to be thrown out of the restraunt and it was only the restraunts staff that made this policy.


----------



## angelcat (Feb 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momily* 

As far as the person who posted that their child "couldn't" wear shoes, and then listed Robeez as one of the things they wore -- aren't Robeez shoes? I'm curious about other people's thoughts on this.

Robeez are slippers. I don't care who calls them shoes, they just aren't!


----------



## mommato5 (Feb 19, 2007)

Yep!! We had stopped to use the restroom at a gas station after about 10 hours of driving in tennessee. I was told i couldn't bring him into the gas station. He was 15 months old!! I got so angry. We went elsewhere!


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hubris* 

It's still the right of the establishment to discriminate at present, but that doesn't mean patrons can't fight for their own rights - like somebody mentioned, we wouldn't think twice about getting up in arms against an establishment that kicked out a breastfeeding mama.

True. But breastfeeding has nothing to do with bare feet. I would defend someone kicked out for breastfeeding. I would roll my eyes at someone kicked out for refusing to put shoes on.


----------



## hibana (Jun 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nichole* 
we almost weren't allowed to board a plane b/c ds1 (then 9mo) wasn't wearing shoes.

Weird, I've gone through several international airports without shoes in the past 6 or 7 years.

Having worked in a restaurant, I have to say I agree with their policy of no bare feet on the floor.


----------



## hubris (Mar 8, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
True. But breastfeeding has nothing to do with bare feet. I would defend someone kicked out for breastfeeding. I would roll my eyes at someone kicked out for refusing to put shoes on.

Really? No compassion at all?

No, breastfeeding and bare feet don't have much to do with each other, except that both have to do with a person having autonomy over their own body. While restaurants do currently have the right to make rules about shoes, I'm not clear on why they're allowed to discriminate against unshod customers, since there don't seem to be clear health risks. It's discrimination based on a socialized ick factor and possibly fear of litigiousness.

Now, what customers want to do with that is up to them - put shoes on, not patronize an establishment with these rules, try to gently educate the owners of the establishment, protest loudly outside, sign petitions, write to the governor...lots of options.

I guess I don't understand the debate here. Regardless of what each of us personally thinks of dirty floors and our own feet, regardless of what we would do with our own children, shouldn't it be the right of each person to make that decision for him or herself? I'm a shoe-wearer when I'm in public buildings. But honestly, I don't care if the people at the table next to me aren't wearing shoes. Their behavior does not affect me. It's completely their business what goes on with their feet. The OP's daughter's feet were her business, and hers only. And one sad thing is that this restaurant may have lost one or more customers because one waitress made a stand over a toddler's bare feet.


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hubris* 
Really? No compassion at all?


Really







:

Breastfeeding babies have the right to eat. Wanting to make a social/political/environmental statement with your bare feet doesn't even come close. No babies are going to go hungry or have to eat in a toilet because someone didn't want to slip a pair of keds on for five minutes.


----------



## ~Scapegoat~ (Jul 30, 2004)

I think my shoes are way grosser then my bare feet. I wash them (feet) constantly but my shoes go years without being washed. I am just one of those people that dont think barefoot is gross, at all.

I understand the glass issue, to an extent.


----------



## Momily (Feb 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hubris* 
Even if the waitress had said this, supposedly the "health code" excuse is bogus. There is information about health code requirements on the barefooting links that I posted upthread. http://www.barefooters.org/health-dept/

It's still the right of the establishment to discriminate at present, but that doesn't mean patrons can't fight for their own rights - like somebody mentioned, we wouldn't think twice about getting up in arms against an establishment that kicked out a breastfeeding mama.

I went to the site and checked out 3 jurisdictions that I feel like I have some connection to --

1) DC they stated they hadn't bothered to check (I could have told you we'd get left out!







: ),

2) Ohio stated that those kinds of regulations are made by local health departments, not on a state wide level (in other words not a "No")

3) Maryland which stated that it's not illegal but that it's frequently a violation of insurance policies, which I hadn't really considered but which certainly made sense.

I don't consider this strong evidence that wearing shoes isn't banned in restaurants.


----------



## Momily (Feb 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angelcat* 
Robeez are slippers. I don't care who calls them shoes, they just aren't!

OK, I guess what I'm saying is if someone came into a store wearing ballet slippers, or house slippers I'd assume that they were in the limits of the law, so I'd assume the same of Robeez.


----------



## Viriditas (Aug 30, 2004)

This thread is really interesting to me! For those of you who think it is totally disgusting to let your toddler go barefoot:

When you have a crawling baby, do you ever let him/her crawl around in public, or only on your own, super-sanitized floors? Ds crawled for about 10 months before he learned to walk, and I would have thought it cruel not to let him roam around anywhere that I thought was "unsanitary." I guess lots of people were judging me when we got stranded in an airport for 3 hours and my then-14-month-old was crawling around everywhere.

What about toddlers who are just learning to walk and fall down a lot? Do you swoop down on your child with sanitizing gel every time they fall and put their hands on the floor or the ground? Ds has been walking for 5 months and he still falls down a lot, not to mention sits down on the ground, spontaneously puts his mouth on railings, and does a number of other things that make me cringe. I try to tell myself that it's no big deal and it's good for him. Clearly that's true, as he's only been sick twice in his 22-month life (both mild colds).

It just seems kind of strange to me that so many people (especially here!) would be so scared of germs.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

If the policy is that everyone must wear shoes, then everyone has to wear shoes. I don't understand why the age of the person walking around without shoes on should matter.

And before anyone gets all up-in-arms about it, I am sure no one cares if an infant who can't even walk is wearing shoes or not.


----------



## angelcat (Feb 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momily* 
OK, I guess what I'm saying is if someone came into a store wearing ballet slippers, or house slippers I'd assume that they were in the limits of the law, so I'd assume the same of Robeez.


Yeah, I think they'd be fine to wear in a restaurant. I've let my 2 yr old walk out the rec centre in her jammies & slippers after swimming, too.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bobandjess99* 
I can understand.....from a legal point of view, the health dept regulations usually REQUIRE shoes... so they would jave been risking their butts had the health inspector come in....there are no "but it's a baby" loopholes in sanitation laws.

Also, to all the people saying "they could have just asked her not to walk on the floor..." That's silly. If it were an adult, would you be saying that? What if I just carried my 10 yr old son in, should he be allowed to sit at the table in the restaurant, since he's not technically "walking" on the floor? What about my 90 yr old, 80 pound gramma? I could prolly carry her in too.....

This is untrue. The health department doesn't govern what patrons wear in the store or restaurant. This has been debated at length before.


----------



## Celticqueen (Feb 17, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viriditas* 
This thread is really interesting to me! For those of you who think it is totally disgusting to let your toddler go barefoot:

When you have a crawling baby, do you ever let him/her crawl around in public, or only on your own, super-sanitized floors? Ds crawled for about 10 months before he learned to walk, and I would have thought it cruel not to let him roam around anywhere that I thought was "unsanitary." I guess lots of people were judging me when we got stranded in an airport for 3 hours and my then-14-month-old was crawling around everywhere.

What about toddlers who are just learning to walk and fall down a lot? Do you swoop down on your child with sanitizing gel every time they fall and put their hands on the floor or the ground? Ds has been walking for 5 months and he still falls down a lot, not to mention sits down on the ground, spontaneously puts his mouth on railings, and does a number of other things that make me cringe. I try to tell myself that it's no big deal and it's good for him. Clearly that's true, as he's only been sick twice in his 22-month life (both mild colds).

It just seems kind of strange to me that so many people (especially here!) would be so scared of germs.

Finally, a post on his thread I agree 100% with.

Also, I wanted to add to your eloquently stated post that getting down and dirty is good for the development of immune systems AND prevents allergies in older ages.

-Caitrin


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *talk de jour* 
If the policy is that everyone must wear shoes, then everyone has to wear shoes. I don't understand why the age of the person walking around without shoes on should matter.

It makes a difference b/c very young toddlers often have issues with shoes and behaving like grown ups in general.

When DS was that age he would take any shoe (including roobez) off and start eating them. Call me silly, but I didn't mind his feet getting dirty as much as I minded shoes in his mouth. As a result DS only wore shoes under very close supervision in the playground.

Also toddler often have are much more sure footed barefoot. Being forced to wear shoes sometimes causes them to fall frequently. This to me overides the "there might be glass" arrgument.

It is normal to make exceptions to policies when those policies put an extra burden on someone. I worked in a store where we had a "no dogs" policy, but we certainly never would have thrown out someone with a seeing eye dog. It is just common sence that if someone has limitations (being a toddler comes with many) that you work with them. What if the person being thrown out was very old and in a wheelchair and had circulation problems that made wearing shoes a problem should they have been thrown out b/c they needed to standup to adjust their cushions.

A toddler has a harder time understanding societal expectations than adults. At that store I mentioned we had a display of candy right at toddler level. Toddlers were often brought back into the store by their parents kicking and screaming b/c they had to put back candy they had taken. If an adult had stolen an item from the store and refused to bring it back unless forced we would have prosectued them and them might have been sent to jail. However, we never called the police on a single toddler we even thanked them for bringing the candy back if they walked back on their own.

Frankly it bugs me when I see teenagers and young women at the mall in pajamas (I'm showing my age here aren't I.) However, I'm perfectly fine with babies and toddler who are out in pajamas I understand that there is a strong possibility that they will fall asleep in the car on the way home. It is perfectly natural to make accomedations for age.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momily* 
I don't consider this strong evidence that wearing shoes isn't banned in restaurants.

It is extremely hard to prove a negative. Can you bring any evidence that there has ever been in any jurisdiction any such regulation? This sight shows that they did a reasonable search for such a regulation and did not find it. Sure it is possible that it is out there and that they just didn't happen to look in the exact right spot, but it was a fairly complete search.


----------



## Jenlaana (Oct 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viriditas* 
This thread is really interesting to me! For those of you who think it is totally disgusting to let your toddler go barefoot:

When you have a crawling baby, do you ever let him/her crawl around in public, or only on your own, super-sanitized floors?

*I don't let my babies crawl around on public floors where people are walking and they are not "designated" for children, no. I think its inappropriate.*

Ds crawled for about 10 months before he learned to walk, and I would have thought it cruel not to let him roam around anywhere that I thought was "unsanitary."

*In that same tone, I feel it cruel to put my baby down on a strange floor in a strange setting where I have no idea what he or she comes in contact with*

I guess lots of people were judging me when we got stranded in an airport for 3 hours and my then-14-month-old was crawling around everywhere.

*I wouldn't do it, but its your kid not mine. *shrug* All the more power to you, as long as I'm not going to fall over them.*

What about toddlers who are just learning to walk and fall down a lot?

*I wouldn't put a toddler down who was trying to learn to walk on an unsafe or non-familiar surface. Playground or open untraffic'd clean spot maybe, but not in the middle of a busy airport, or at the grocery store or at a restaurant where people are serving food and walking around*

Do you swoop down on your child with sanitizing gel every time they fall and put their hands on the floor or the ground?

*Sorry but this is JUST a little bit silly. We dont use sanitizing gel, we just use common sense. Call me mainstream if it makes you feel better, but its what I and my family are comfortable with.*

Ds has been walking for 5 months and he still falls down a lot, not to mention sits down on the ground, spontaneously puts his mouth on railings, and does a number of other things that make me cringe. I try to tell myself that it's no big deal and it's good for him. Clearly that's true, as he's only been sick twice in his 22-month life (both mild colds).

*My son had some ear infections when he was a baby, and otherwise is only sick maybe once a year at the most, sometimes once every 2 years, at 12 yrs old. My DD is almost 2 yrs old, and has been sick once, plus once due to a vax reaction. I could tell you my kids are healthy because of how I keep them from harms way just as you could say your kids are healthy because you let them lick railings.... To each their own but I don't think thats a valid defense since my situation is opposite and the result is similar and I think you could find a ton of people to back both sides.*

It just seems kind of strange to me that so many people (especially here!) would be so scared of germs.

*I'm not "scared of germs"... I just think that throwing caution to the wind makes no sense. You can not be a germaphobe and not run headlong into a germ filled bathroom barefoot and licking surfaces. Believe it or not there IS a middle ground to all of this. I could say that I'm suprised that anyone (especially here!) would be so attached to their children and so unconcerned with their "licking banisters" (which imo goes way beyond walking barefoot in a public restaurant)*

No disrespect intended, but trying to explain the other side of the argument...


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
It is normal to make exceptions to policies when those policies put an extra burden on someone. *I worked in a store where we had a "no dogs" policy, but we certainly never would have thrown out someone with a seeing eye dog.* It is just common sence that if someone has limitations (being a toddler comes with many) that you work with them. What if the person being thrown out was very old and in a wheelchair and had circulation problems that made wearing shoes a problem should they have been thrown out b/c they needed to standup to adjust their cushions.

Actually I believe that it is illegal to not allow a service animal in a place of business - and hardly comparable to a stubborn toddler who dislikes wearing shoes.

A child not liking to wear shoes would hardly be a limitation - if your young child doesn't prefer to wear shoes then make sure that they remain in their chair through the meal.


----------



## ledzepplon (Jun 28, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *djoy* 
At first this sounded ridiculous to me, but now that I read the other replies- its true, public floors are DISGUSTING!

This still sounds ridiculous to me. It's not like the dirt is going to soak up into your kid through the soles of his/her feet. That's what baths are for!

At 13 months my ds was being held/sitting on laps or in highchairs at restaurants, not really walking around. So I guess this didn't really ever come up for us. I still take him to the grocery store barefoot at times because I know he will not be walking around, he will be held by me, riding in the sling, or sitting in the cart.

I suppose if your child is a real walker and will definitely be on his or her feet, then I can see the restaurant's point about potential broken glass or whatever on the ground.

I guess I'm tired and rambling. Sorry if this makes no sense. Off to bed!


----------



## dis (May 21, 2005)

It's not so much the germs I'd be worried about (although, frankly, I think there's a difference between the germs at home, which we're used to, and god knows what all germs are outside in the larger world), it's the broken glass. Bits of metal. Pins. Pennies that can be picked up and swallowed. Discarded pieces of gum that can be picked up and swallowed. Etc. Etc.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

It is my understanding that the no shoes "thing" is really NOT an "enforcable law." Meaning, not a law at all. In which case I would not move over it. My DD, 17 mos., doesn't wear shoes. I'm not ABOUT to force her to. And bare feet are best for her anyhow. Thankfully, noone has ever said anything to us, guess they have better things to worry about than a toddler's feet.


----------



## Momily (Feb 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
It is extremely hard to prove a negative. Can you bring any evidence that there has ever been in any jurisdiction any such regulation? This sight shows that they did a reasonable search for such a regulation and did not find it. Sure it is possible that it is out there and that they just didn't happen to look in the exact right spot, but it was a fairly complete search.

Let's see -- they didn't look in my "state" at all, and at least one state ( of the 3 I looked at) stated that that's the kind of thing banned by LOCAL health departments, but they didn't check with a single local health department. I don't consider it a complete search at all.


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

So if public floors are gross and you should only wear shoes on them... then the bottoms of your shoes get covered with the grossness... do you take off your shoes when you get home right at the door and then walk around your house barefoot, every single time? Or do you, like most people, sometimes walk around your house in shoes and sometimes in socks and sometimes barefoot? What about the the grossness that your gross shoes tracked in from the dirty public that's now all over your home floors?

Seriously, I'm a big fan of barefooting. I'm not a germaphobe anyway. Just wash your feet before you put them in your mouth and we're all good.


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

And I don't see why Robeez shouldn't count as shoes. For thousands of years, the vast majority of shoes were made of leather, uppers and soles. Now all of a sudden we have cushioned rubber soles in all our cheap mass produced footwear and that defaults to the only "real shoes."

On a side note, there are people out there who think that cloth diapers and not vaxxing are just as dirty and disgusting and unsanitary as some folks here think barefeet are, and that all children should be vaxxed and wear nice clean disposable diapers.


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

I find it fascinating that people in this thread have no problem letting their kid run around barefoot in public places. Just because its in a building doesn't mean there isn't residue on the floors from outside in the parking lot. Oh lets see oil and antifreeze and whatever chemicals out there that have been carried into the building and are now on the floor. You really want your child walking and crawling in that?

I stand by my original post that is its gross and unhealthy.

ETA - we do not wear shoes in our house. Shoes come off at the front door or in the garage.


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
Breastfeeding babies have the right to eat. Wanting to make a social/political/environmental statement with your bare feet doesn't even come close. No babies are going to go hungry or have to eat in a toilet because someone didn't want to slip a pair of keds on for five minutes.

The similarity is that the restaurant does not have the right to force you to do an unhealthy thing. Breastfeeding may have a greater overall impact on health, but forcing someone to wear shoes or denying them service is still coercing them to make an unhealthy choice. Not everyone goes barefoot for "social/political/environmental statements" anymore than everyone breastfeeding in public is doing it just to make a statement.


----------



## fiorio (Aug 30, 2006)

paquerette said:


> So if public floors are gross and you should only wear shoes on them... then the bottoms of your shoes get covered with the grossness... do you take off your shoes when you get home right at the door and then walk around your house barefoot, every single time? Or do you, like most people, sometimes walk around your house in shoes and sometimes in socks and sometimes barefoot? What about the the grossness that your gross shoes tracked in from the dirty public that's now all over your home floors?
> 
> Umm, yeah we do. It's not really a big deal. Most people I know with babies and toddlers do the same thing so there isn't all the grossness from public floors tracked on their carpet where the children crawl and play.
> 
> ...


----------



## olliepop (Jun 26, 2007)

Quote:

ETA - we do not wear shoes in our house. Shoes come off at the front door or in the garage.
We do the same thing, but haven't gone as far as asking our guests to remove their shoes as well. My mother had a rule of no shoes in the house and it made some people very uncomfortable. I never wanted to make my guests feel that way.

Just wondering if you make your guests remove their shoes as well? If so, how do you word it?


----------



## wryknowlicious (Apr 19, 2006)

I have no issues with germs. Or QUOTE *nasty* /UNQUOTE public floors.
broken glass and stale urine aside ( ofcourse. duh. but I've yet to see an area of the country where the public grounds are littereed in broken glass and stale urine)

Germs are my friend.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:

Health departments are concerned with the storage, handling, and preparation of food and of the hygiene of _employees_; but they are totally unconcerned with the manner of dress of _patrons_ (or their hygiene, for that matter). During a conversation with a health inspector in California [5], she said, "As far as the health department is concerned, you can enter a restaurant nude."
To be thorough, letters were written to nearly every state health department inquiring as to whether there is any regulation against bare feet.* To date, 41 states have responded [6]. ** All of them have confirmed that there is no such regulation. There are no health department regulations against bare feet because they are simply not a health issue. Bare soles do sometimes get dirty, granted; but so what? Are shoe soles clean? Put simply: somebody's bare feet can in no way affect anybody else.
http://www.barefooters.org/key-works...ation.html#2.2


----------



## crysmomofthree (Mar 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paquerette* 
So if public floors are gross and you should only wear shoes on them... then the bottoms of your shoes get covered with the grossness... do you take off your shoes when you get home right at the door and then walk around your house barefoot, every single time? Or do you, like most people, sometimes walk around your house in shoes and sometimes in socks and sometimes barefoot? What about the the grossness that your gross shoes tracked in from the dirty public that's now all over your home floors?


I am totally flabbergasted that people actually wear their shoes in their homes? I've never been to a home where people wear their shoes in the house, in my home we take our shoes off at the front door and wear socks or barefeet indoors.

I don't necessarily put shoes on my kids under 2 years but I also don't let them run around restaurants or grocery stores with shoes on or off, and not even really to do with germs but because they are likely to be stepped on or tripped over or have someone run into them with a cart.

I"m not a germaphobe, my floors aren't even very clean, but at least the germs in our house are familiar to the kids immune systems


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paquerette* 
The similarity is that the restaurant does not have the right to force you to do an unhealthy thing. Breastfeeding may have a greater overall impact on health, but forcing someone to wear shoes or denying them service is still coercing them to make an unhealthy choice.

How is wearing shoes "unhealthy"?


----------



## hubris (Mar 8, 2003)

Re: shoes in homes: most people I know do not remove shoes in their home. I think whether or not this seems bizarre depends on what you're used to.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TCMoulton* 
How is wearing shoes "unhealthy"?

Check out the barefooting links earlier in this thread. I'm not a barefooter myself and frankly, I'm not convinced either way about whether shoes are healthy or unhealthy, but I do think that the points made by the barefooters are interesting and no less likely to be valid than the "ew, disgusting public floors" arguments in the opposite direction.

The point is, people should have the right to make a decision governing their own feet.

And I'm really sorry that the OP hasn't gotten more support in this thread.







Regardless of what we all do in our own homes or in public with our feet and our children's feet, is it really necessary to tell this mama that allowing her toddler to go barefoot is disgusting?


----------



## Viriditas (Aug 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crysmomofthree* 
I am totally flabbergasted that people actually wear their shoes in their homes? I've never been to a home where people wear their shoes in the house, in my home we take our shoes off at the front door and wear socks or barefeet indoors.


I think this is largely a cultural/regional thing. I grew up in California, and we wore shoes in the house all the time. It was the same in all the houses I visited. When I moved to Toronto I learned that everyone there has a place to leave shoes right inside the door. My parents never would have gone for this.







WAY too cluttered. When I was growing up my step-dad was always throwing my shoes up the stairs!


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hubris* 
Check out the barefooting links earlier in this thread. I'm not a barefooter myself and frankly, I'm not convinced either way about whether shoes are healthy or unhealthy, but I do think that the points made by the barefooters are interesting and no less likely to be valid than the "ew, disgusting public floors" arguments in the opposite direction.

The point is, people should have the right to make a decision governing their own feet.

I understand their rights as barefooters but it really isn't anywhere close to saying that it would be the same to stop someone from entering/remaining in a restaurant/store without shoes and preventing a mom from breastfeeding in that same space.

Sure, theu have a right to make decisions regarding their own feet but restaurants have a right to require patrons to wear shoes while in their establishment. I know here that many convenience stores/fast food restaurants have "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" signs in the windows.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

I also do wear shoes in the house, "inside shoes" that are for wearing in the house only. I have varicose veins and boy do they ache if my legs don't have support from shoes.


----------



## crysmomofthree (Mar 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viriditas* 
I think this is largely a cultural/regional thing. I grew up in California, and we wore shoes in the house all the time. It was the same in all the houses I visited. When I moved to Toronto I learned that everyone there has a place to leave shoes right inside the door. My parents never would have gone for this.







WAY too cluttered. When I was growing up my step-dad was always throwing my shoes up the stairs!

your right







It must be a very regional thing, I"ve always lived in BC and haven't done very much traveling and everyone I know takes their shoes off (even guests) except my mil, she always tries to wear her work shoes in the house, which totally grosses me out (she's a care aide at a retirement home, I"m a nurse and I know how dirty our shoes get at work :yuck) but I just ask her to take them off because I don't want outdoor mess inside the house

Although in response to the OP I think its bizarre they asked you to leave with your toddler, I just can't see why the waitress thought it was that big of a deal.


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

That's crazy. They're well within their rights, but that's still nuts. It's perfectly legal to go anywhere barefoot. Basically they're just losing themselves business if they treat their customers like that. I go barefoot 99% of the time and there are some restaurants that I do wear flips in (clients of my dh). Even so, if dd doesn't want to wear shoes she doesn't wear shoes even to those restaurants. It's not healthy for children to wear shoes. We've never had any comments at all (except positive ones and questions, but we live in a fairly progressive area).

Bare feet are cleaner than shoes. They pick up less filth and generally people who barefoot wash their feet on a regular basis. My feet are *always* cleaner than someone else's shoes because they get washed two or more times a day. At the very least they get washed before bed if we're gone all day.

My feet are even cleaner than feet that have been in shoes all day. Feet sweat and my foot sweat evaporates. Shod feet sweat and the sweat sits right next to the feet and rots, encouraging growth of yeast and bacteria, and smells nasty after a while. Yuck







:

Small particles of glass actually don't penetrate the feet if someone is used to going barefoot. Large particles of glass that could potentially penetrate can easily be seen.

And, yes, it is purely a liability concern - except in the case of an uninformed employee. No health departments in the US care whether customers wear shoes or not. The signs that claim "NSNSNS by order of the health department" are technically illegal in some states (GA for example) since it's not by order of the health department. The NSNSNS part is fine as long as it's not hiding behind false laws/authority.

You can always offer to sign a waver stating that you take full responsibility for any injuries that could have been prevented by wearing shoes. Rather like with vaccines. We made the decision to take responsibility for our daughters' health by not vaccinating and likewise we take responsibility for our daughters' safety and don't force them to wear shoes unless it's a dangerous situation (really hot pavement, broken glass, frozen ground, etc).

I don't go around telling people that wearing shoes is disgusting (even though the very idea of wearing closed-toes shoes with socks squicks me out) because I respect that they (you?) are making the best decision for themselves. I also expect respect for my (well-researched) decision to go barefoot and allow my children to go barefoot. If not being able to go to certain places is the price then I can certainly spend my money elsewhere. Though around here, not one single grocery store, restaurant, or any other place of business has given us the least bit of trouble.

love and peace.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paquerette* 
So if public floors are gross and you should only wear shoes on them... then the bottoms of your shoes get covered with the grossness... do you take off your shoes when you get home right at the door and then walk around your house barefoot, every single time?

Yes, actually, in my house we do. Shoes go into closet right beside the door. Box of clean "house socks" (white socks we use in the house) is right there in the closet too, to change into. I find the idea of someone tracking filth from their shoes to my floor very gross indeed.

For those who say it would only be a problem on public restroom floors, you DO realize that people walk into the restroom, then right back out into the restaurant? I definitely wouldn't put anyone down there barefoot, but especially a child of an age that would still be putting things in their mouth randomly.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

We are a no outside shoes in the house, shoes get left by the door family. However, I grew up in a typical shoe wearing american family. I never really liked wearing shoes all the time and tended to take them off if I could. The way I was raised I always asked if it was ok to take off my shoes when I was a guest in someones home.

My DH is Chinese so he was raised to take of his shoes and put on flip-flops when he came home. Since I never liked shoes anyway I very easily adapted to the no shoes in the house thing.

Having cleaned the floors in our home and in my parents home and my grand mothers home I can say from experience that no shoes makes a huge difference. In my parents and grandmothers home the floors are dirty through out. The water used to mop turns gray very quickly no matter what room you are in. In contrast when I clean our floors the water doesn't turn gray until you clean the small area in front of the door where people take off their shoes. That small area gets quiet dirty, but everwhere else stays relativly clean.

Also taking outside shoes off at the door has been shown to reduce lead exposure in small children.


----------



## Redifer (Nov 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *trmpetplaya* 
That's crazy. They're well within their rights, but that's still nuts. It's perfectly legal to go anywhere barefoot. Basically they're just losing themselves business if they treat their customers like that. I go barefoot 99% of the time and there are some restaurants that I do wear flips in (clients of my dh). Even so, if dd doesn't want to wear shoes she doesn't wear shoes even to those restaurants. It's not healthy for children to wear shoes. We've never had any comments at all (except positive ones and questions, but we live in a fairly progressive area).

Amen. According to my state laws, I can be barefoot anywhere that does not have a POSTED SIGN on the DOOR OF THE ESTABLISHMENT stating shoes are required. No sign, no shoes.

Quote:

Bare feet are cleaner than shoes. They pick up less filth and generally people who barefoot wash their feet on a regular basis. My feet are *always* cleaner than someone else's shoes because they get washed two or more times a day. At the very least they get washed before bed if we're gone all day.

My feet are even cleaner than feet that have been in shoes all day. Feet sweat and my foot sweat evaporates. Shod feet sweat and the sweat sits right next to the feet and rots, encouraging growth of yeast and bacteria, and smells nasty after a while. Yuck







:
Agreed.

Quote:

Small particles of glass actually don't penetrate the feet if someone is used to going barefoot. Large particles of glass that could potentially penetrate can easily be seen.
Once again, agreed. My mom was a barefooter since she was about 12 (she's now 46). I've been a barefooter since birth. People are constantly amazed that we can walk over glass and not cut our feet open. I have to explain constantly that when you barefoot regularly, your skin thickens, but all the while retains or GAINS flexibility and elasticity, making it harder to cut open. The skin on my feet is like a football: you can't pierce it without adequate strength, force, and sharpness.

Quote:

And, yes, it is purely a liability concern - except in the case of an uninformed employee. No health departments in the US care whether customers wear shoes or not. The signs that claim "NSNSNS by order of the health department" are technically illegal in some states (GA for example) since it's not by order of the health department. The NSNSNS part is fine as long as it's not hiding behind false laws/authority.
You said it.

Quote:

You can always offer to sign a waver stating that you take full responsibility for any injuries that could have been prevented by wearing shoes. Rather like with vaccines. We made the decision to take responsibility for our daughters' health by not vaccinating and likewise we take responsibility for our daughters' safety and don't force them to wear shoes unless it's a dangerous situation (really hot pavement, broken glass, frozen ground, etc).
I have, when I was younger, actually carried around waivers for that specific purpose. I'm not the suing type to begin with; but it tends to make people more comfortable.

Quote:

I don't go around telling people that wearing shoes is disgusting (even though the very idea of wearing closed-toes shoes with socks squicks me out) because I respect that they (you?) are making the best decision for themselves. I also expect respect for my (well-researched) decision to go barefoot and allow my children to go barefoot. If not being able to go to certain places is the price then I can certainly spend my money elsewhere. Though around here, not one single grocery store, restaurant, or any other place of business has given us the least bit of trouble.

love and peace.








This. our daughter is now a seasoned barefooter at 3 years old. We have never once been asked to leave an establishment for her lack of shoes.

She stumbles, falls, trips, and hurts herself more when she wears shoes than when she is barefoot. She strains her legs more, and becomes more tired and more sore very quickly. Same goes for myself, especially on uneven grounds. I need to feel what I'm stepping on, what material it is, can it support my weight, is there a rock/marble/pebble/etc that I may slip on. These senses are greatly depreciated by wearing shoes.

If I think I'll have an issue being barefoot or that someone will cause drama, I just whip out my handy-dandy barefoot sandals (aka slave anklets to the more crude). Makes it look to the casual observer than I'm wearing sandles, when in fact my soles are bare.


----------



## crysmomofthree (Mar 18, 2004)

I'm sorry if this question comes across as bizarre, but where do you "barefooters" live that it is reasonable to go out barefoot all the time? (I"m referring to weather) Here it is hot as can be on the pavement in the summer (and sand, gravel, tile) and its freezing in the fall and winter. I think even today its 60-70 degrees out I think my feet would be cold if I was outside with no shoes on. (I don't even wear shoes inside)


----------



## twopinknoblue (Feb 22, 2007)

Wow, I never intended to start such a debate







. I think I should clear a few things up from my original post. There are too many replies to go back through and quote them all, so I'm sorry, I don't recall who said what. But, first, I didn't refuse to put shoes on my child, I simply didn't have any shoes because she doesn't wear them. Yes, I could have restrained her rather than leave the establishment, but have any of you ever tried to restrain a 13 month old that you've already set free?? It certainly wouldn't have been enjoyable, and we may as well have just left anyway.

I don't, as a general rule, let DD run around restaurants in barefeet. We were at a family function in a private dining room, there weren't wait staff carrying trays all over the place, there weren't strangers for her to bug, she was being watched by each and every one of my relatives, she was not, as someone stated, picking up chewed gum and mouthing it, etc. She was supervised and visiting relatives. If we were out for a meal during normal circumstances she would not have been put down.

It is not gross to walk around barefoot. As someone else stated, when I do put shoes on DD they immediately come off and go straight to her mouth. She doesn't mouth her feet, therefore it's much more sanitary for her to walk around barefoot than it is to chew on the shoes that she's been walking around in. And, for the poster that mentioned residue from parking lots etc being brought in to the indoor floors, yes, it probably does happen, but I am sure in very small quantities, and let's get real, we CAN NOT protect our children from everything. I mean, your kids are going to touch gross things, any *gasp* even things that aren't so healthy. It's just not fair to constantly restrain our children and keep them completely sterile. Children should be allowed to be children, period.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
It would have made much more sense just to ask you to keep the child seated.

Eh, we would have had a big ol' fight about it if they had made that request as well.


----------



## Redifer (Nov 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crysmomofthree* 
I'm sorry if this question comes across as bizarre, but where do you "barefooters" live that it is reasonable to go out barefoot all the time? (I"m referring to weather) Here it is hot as can be on the pavement in the summer (and sand, gravel, tile) and its freezing in the fall and winter. I think even today its 60-70 degrees out I think my feet would be cold if I was outside with no shoes on. (I don't even wear shoes inside)

I'm in Buffalo, NY. Home of frigid, snowy winters and hot, humid summers.

I'm still barefooting about 75 - 80% of my time. Hot pavement doesn't affect my feet, cold snow doesn't affect my feet. Hot, sweaty, sticky shoes in the summer do, and cold, wet, clammy shoes in the winter do.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

We're a litigious society. Even thought there are no health regulations regarding wearing shoes in public, biz would still fret. If something fell on a toe, or a waitress on patron stepped on a toe, or someone stepped on stray lego (or pointy rock a kid collected), that fell out of a diaper bag , and sliced their foot open, they could sue the establishment for not talking appropriate precautions for patron safety. So, it's not so much that naked feet are illegal, it's that biz don't trust peeps to not sue their asses in case of accident. It's why there are warnings on ladders not to climb too high.

Thankfully, the baby was not harmed by stray weirdness on the floor, and we don't have to tell the OP to find a lawyer and start proceedings on a law suit, or that the nurse in the ER had no right to tell her she's not allowed to nurse her baby as he's stiched up, or how butterfly bandaids and/or super glue are better than stitches.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean* 
Eh, we would have had a big ol' fight about it if they had made that request as well.

















Too true, too true.


----------



## firstkid4me (Nov 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nosleepmommy* 
I've worked in restaurants too - SCARY nasty floors! The policy is more liability/for your safety. I found that "Robeez" or similar style shoes for little people make a nice alternative to bear feet in public.









Why are they considered a nice alternative? Glass will go through the leather just as quickly as it'll go through feet. I love Robeez, dd wears them all the time, but to say that you'd rather a baby wear Robeez than go barefoot in a restaurant is kind of silly. (They do protect feet in situations like using a jumperoo, where baby's foot can get rubbed raw on carpet, in cold climates, or just to keep little toes clean, but to assume they protect you from glass is just silly IMO.)


----------



## firstkid4me (Nov 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
In states that don't have specific laws restraunts are also _within their rights_ to throw out women who breast feed b/c they have policies that require patrons not to expose the midsection.









:


----------



## firstkid4me (Nov 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
Really







:

Breastfeeding babies have the right to eat. Wanting to make a social/political/environmental statement with your bare feet doesn't even come close. No babies are going to go hungry or have to eat in a toilet because someone didn't want to slip a pair of keds on for five minutes.

But the sanitation argument has been made for both and it has been proven that there is no basis for the argument. People quote that breastmilk is a biohazardous liquid, but it's not classified in the same way blood, urine and semen are. People get all up in arms about germs on feet but think nothing of germs on shoes. Both arguments are based on a fear of germs and/or illness that just isn't true, it's just fear.


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crysmomofthree* 
I'm sorry if this question comes across as bizarre, but where do you "barefooters" live that it is reasonable to go out barefoot all the time? (I"m referring to weather) Here it is hot as can be on the pavement in the summer (and sand, gravel, tile) and its freezing in the fall and winter. I think even today its 60-70 degrees out I think my feet would be cold if I was outside with no shoes on. (I don't even wear shoes inside)

Near Seattle, WA







And during the big ice storms last winter we were in the deep south visiting my parents so it was 75 degrees where we were while it was freezing cold up here







:

I go outside barefoot unless the ground is frozen. Also, even in places where the temperatures are extreme, people's feet *do* acclimate to extreme temps. Some barefooters wear shoes for part of the year and just barefoot indoors during those extremely hot or cold seasons.

One reason bare feet actually are NOT as cold as you would think they'd be during chilly weather is because going barefoot gives the feet much more stimulation than wearing shoes does and encourages blood flow. That's one of the most asked questions we get around here when the temps get below 60 - "aren't your feet cold?" and we always respond that they aren't because of the increased blood flow







We're also acclimated to it. When it's rainy and below 50 (common around here in the winter) it gets a bit chilly for the feet, but after a few days, we acclimate to that as well.

One of the main reasons we started going barefoot all the time (other than the fact that we hate shoes







) is so that we can monitor the ground temperature and texture for dd. If it's too cold or hot for us then she needs to either wear shoes or be in a carrier. I think it's a bit irresponsible (notice - I say just a *bit* in my humble opinion) for someone to let their preverbal child barefoot outside (especially on pavement or that nasty nasty playground bark - ouch!) while the parent wears shoes. How can you tell the ground is safe and a decent temperature for your toddler if you can't feel it yourself?

Oh, I did go snowfooting one time. Barefooting in the snow/hail one day when it started up unexpectedly while I was shopping with a friend (I hadn't brought any shoes into the store at all and when we came out the parking lot was white







: ). That was pretty intense! As long as I kept moving it was fine though. It's the snow/ice melting that hurts and causes frostbite. Thankfully it was just out to the car. I'm not *that* extreme of a barefooter though there are many who are.

love and peace.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firstkid4me* 
Glass will go through the leather just as quickly as it'll go through feet.

Really?


----------



## apple_dumpling (Oct 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
We're a litigious society. Even thought there are no health regulations regarding wearing shoes in public, biz would still fret. If something fell on a toe, or a waitress on patron stepped on a toe, or someone stepped on stray lego (or pointy rock a kid collected), that fell out of a diaper bag , and sliced their foot open, they could sue the establishment for not talking appropriate precautions for patron safety. So, it's not so much that naked feet are illegal, it's that biz don't trust peeps to not sue their asses in case of accident. It's why there are warnings on ladders not to climb too high.

Thankfully, the baby was not harmed by stray weirdness on the floor, and we don't have to tell the OP to find a lawyer and start proceedings on a law suit, or that the nurse in the ER had no right to tell her she's not allowed to nurse her baby as he's stiched up, or how butterfly bandaids and/or super glue are better than stitches.

Out of everything said here, I just wanted to jump in and give a big old YEAH THIS to UUmom.... I think she's hit the nail on the head with regards to 'why' businesses frown on shoeless customers - it's just a potential lawsuit for them. Sad, but true nowadays.


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Redifer* 
She stumbles, falls, trips, and hurts herself more when she wears shoes than when she is barefoot. She strains her legs more, and becomes more tired and more sore very quickly. Same goes for myself, especially on uneven grounds. I need to feel what I'm stepping on, what material it is, can it support my weight, is there a rock/marble/pebble/etc that I may slip on. These senses are greatly depreciated by wearing shoes.

My dd trips and falls more when she wears shoes as well - as do I! She was walking at 9 months old and has only worn shoes so far when she wanted to (last winter she was slung outside most of the time). One could even theoretically threaten to sue a store if you get hurt because of wearing shoes if they require them. Shoes are dangerous if you're not used to wearing them...

love and peace.


----------



## apple_dumpling (Oct 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *trmpetplaya* 
Shoes are dangerous if you're not used to wearing them...


OT but...
My dd just broke her leg because of wearing shoes she wasn't used to... leg twisted underneath of her when she was trying to work a strap on the shoe. It was an accident and a freak thing, but still... needless to say those shoes are gone (they were stride rites too, go figure







)!!!!! And thankfully her cast comes off next week too.


----------



## firstkid4me (Nov 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
Really?

Emily had a pair of Robeez/Target brand (can't remember which) that when we got home were practically sliced open (I didn't notice before), and I had just assumed it was a piece of glass or metal because it wasn't the normal wear (like the little holes they get at the toes) and it's not like someone went after them with scissors.

We were constantly at battle with our apartment manager in WI (before she was fired) because I would allow Emily to run around the halls barefoot. (Imagine running through a nice hotel barefoot.) She used the glass excuse, and I told her that her job as the manager was to ensure that there was no broken glass on the floor, and also that I would be sure to see it before dd could get to it if there was any on the floor (I walked down the halls many a time barefoot too.) She saw Emily once in Robeez and said, "Ahhh, good, she's wearing shoes, I don't have to worry about glass cutting her."







:

ETA: We're not barefooters but we do go barefoot 100% of the time at home. Dd and I are mostly at home, so I would say 85% of the time we are barefoot. Our feet aren't that tough though, so that's why I said glass would go through the leather of Robeez as easily as a foot. I totally see the argument for going bare foot, I just don't see the argument that Robeez are ok but bare feet aren't.


----------



## formerluddite (Nov 16, 2006)

to the OP, sorry you had to deal with a germaphobic waitress with an authoritarian nature.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
We're a litigious society. Even though there are no health regulations regarding wearing shoes in public, biz would still fret. If something fell on a toe, or a waitress or patron stepped on a toe, or someone stepped on stray lego (or pointy rock a kid collected), that fell out of a diaper bag , and sliced their foot open, they could sue the establishment for not talking appropriate precautions for patron safety.

i agree we are a litigious society, but this line of thinking would mean that all of us ladies with pretty feet would be required to wear steel toed boots for protection, instead of strappy little summer sandals.

the waitress wasn't concerned with a perceived risk to the child's feet, she was concerned with preserving her own comfort zone.

and i'm pretty sure the NSNSNS rules were established to keep out poor people, and later hippies, not for "germ" reasons.

i was trying (unsuccessfully) to google for the origin of the phrase, and came up with this from the onion: Nation's Shirtless, Shoeless March On Washington For Equal-Service Rights

Quote:

Dubbed "The Million Incompletely Dressed Man March," the demonstration began on I-66 in Arlington, VA-with the barefoot participants walking on the white center line to protect the soles of their feet from burning-and concluded with a rally on the National Mall in Washington.
...
"Why can't these folks just put on some shirts and shoes if they want a Whopper?" U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) asked. "If we cave in to these demands, next year, it'll be trouserless Americans demanding equal access to Tavern On The Green. After that, the underpantsless will be calling for priority seating on airplanes. Then, people who are completely naked will want preferential treatment in college admissions. These people can put on a full wardrobe and get treated like everybody else."

Hutchins dismissed Craig's response.

"I'm hardly surprised [Sen. Craig] ascribes to the repugnant and prejudicial notion that we have 'chosen' to be this way," Hutchins said. "Well, I've got news for you, senator: This is the way I am. I was born not wearing a shirt."
it made me







:


----------

