Languish.org

General Category => Off the Record => Topic started by: Josquius on May 15, 2009, 04:48:04 PM

Title: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Josquius on May 15, 2009, 04:48:04 PM
So, watching the Inbetweeners. Brings to mind similar incidents in my life.
Some nightclubs' fixation on 'shoes only'. Normally rather low class places too.
In the show the lad tries to get into a club, he's wearing some very expensive over £100 designer trainers of some sort but they're still trainers so its a blank fuck you. He then goes and buys the crap, pee stained shoes of a homeless man, puts them on and is allowed in.
Just WTF?
What is the thing against trainers? From what logic do they derive this? Black shoes can be just as crap as trainers. Anyone have any clue?
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Habsburg on May 15, 2009, 05:21:45 PM
Persons of a certain station would never be caught in "trainers" or whatever it is you people call them.   :contract:
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: saskganesh on May 15, 2009, 05:38:47 PM
gang wear is banned in many clubs. shoes, caps, bandanas; no excuses, no exceptions.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: The Brain on May 15, 2009, 06:04:02 PM
Few dress codes are about price tags.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Neil on May 15, 2009, 06:11:10 PM
What the fuck are trainers?  Aren't they shoes?
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Ed Anger on May 15, 2009, 06:14:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 06:11:10 PM
What the fuck are trainers?  Aren't they shoes?

I'm still trying to decipher the message.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2009, 06:15:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 15, 2009, 06:14:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 06:11:10 PM
What the fuck are trainers?  Aren't they shoes?

I'm still trying to decipher the message.
I think he means sneakers.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Josquius on May 15, 2009, 06:16:03 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 06:11:10 PM
What the fuck are trainers?  Aren't they shoes?
True.
Shoes covers all footwear but shoes also covers more specifically just 'shoes', i.e. black more dressy things. Damn English language.  The same problem exists with trousers- it covers all trousers but also dress trousers...and I guess shirt to a lesser extent has the same problem.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Razgovory on May 15, 2009, 06:27:05 PM
Tyr isn't making an sense.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Neil on May 15, 2009, 06:35:17 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 15, 2009, 06:16:03 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 06:11:10 PM
What the fuck are trainers?  Aren't they shoes?
True.
Shoes covers all footwear but shoes also covers more specifically just 'shoes', i.e. black more dressy things. Damn English language.  The same problem exists with trousers- it covers all trousers but also dress trousers...and I guess shirt to a lesser extent has the same problem.
OK.  Here's the proper way to address this in English:  What you call 'trainers' are actually 'sneakers', which are a subset of the larger group 'shoes'.  What you call 'trousers' are actually 'pants', and only the dressier versions are 'trousers'.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Josquius on May 15, 2009, 06:44:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 06:35:17 PM

OK.  Here's the proper way to address this in English:  What you call 'trainers' are actually 'sneakers', which are a subset of the larger group 'shoes'.  What you call 'trousers' are actually 'pants', and only the dressier versions are 'trousers'.
Then what do Americans (continental, not USian) call shoes? (not the broad category, the sub group of more 'dressy' footwear)

And I'm sorry. Trainers as sneakers...meh. Typical well known American stuff, semi-acceptable. Trousers as pants though is just too silly to ever get through despite it being fairly well known through US TV.

But anyway.
My point stands. What is with this silly door policy?
Not dressing like a scum bag- fine. But why are the best of trainers merit for instantly being turned away whilst the worst of shoes are acceptable?
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: ulmont on May 15, 2009, 06:59:58 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 15, 2009, 06:44:25 PM
Then what do Americans (continental, not USian) call shoes? (not the broad category, the sub group of more 'dressy' footwear)

USians call them "dress shoes."
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Neil on May 15, 2009, 07:11:07 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 15, 2009, 06:44:25 PM
Then what do Americans (continental, not USian) call shoes? (not the broad category, the sub group of more 'dressy' footwear)
Dress shoes.
QuoteMy point stands. What is with this silly door policy?
Not dressing like a scum bag- fine. But why are the best of trainers merit for instantly being turned away whilst the worst of shoes are acceptable?
Because adults wearing sneakers are generally scum.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Razgovory on May 15, 2009, 07:33:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 07:11:07 PM

Because adults wearing sneakers are generally scum.

What if they want to sneak?
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Neil on May 15, 2009, 07:49:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2009, 07:33:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 07:11:07 PM

Because adults wearing sneakers are generally scum.

What if they want to sneak?
You can actually sneak in any kind of footwear.  Don't like the sneaker barons control you.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on May 15, 2009, 07:57:21 PM
Next time go in high heels. That'll show them.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: PDH on May 15, 2009, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 07:11:07 PM
Because adults wearing sneakers are generally scum.
Or Anthropologists.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Alcibiades on May 15, 2009, 08:18:12 PM
What exactly would be 'acceptable' every day shoe wear for adults?
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: garbon on May 15, 2009, 08:26:48 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 15, 2009, 07:57:21 PM
Next time go in high heels. That'll show them.

:wub:
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 15, 2009, 08:50:42 PM
Lots of different kinds of "dress shoes," with the most common kinds of men's dress shoes being oxfords, wing tips, or rounded toe shoes, FYI.

Sneakers/trainers... there's just a stigma that they convey "slacker." There are a handful of "fashionable" sneakers that I find pass muster, but none of the "athletic" shoes or canvas sneakers (Converse and its ilk) ever pass.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: vinraith on May 15, 2009, 09:00:09 PM
Reason its good to be in academia #245: No one gives a shit if you wear comfortable shoes to work.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 15, 2009, 09:05:14 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 15, 2009, 09:00:09 PM
Reason its good to be in academia #245: No one gives a shit if you wear comfortable shoes to work.

:cheers: As funny as my proportions are, formal dress codes are the biggest downside to working in law for me. I'm going to be blowing all kinds of cash on tailoring. :(
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: dps on May 15, 2009, 09:39:35 PM
When Tyr started posting about "shoes only" nightclubs, I thought he was talking about some kind of weird club where they didn't let you in unless you are naked except for shoes.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2009, 09:44:37 PM
Quote from: dps on May 15, 2009, 09:39:35 PM
When Tyr started posting about "shoes only" nightclubs, I thought he was talking about some kind of weird club where they didn't let you in unless you are naked except for shoes.
:lol: Me too.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: sbr on May 15, 2009, 10:44:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2009, 09:44:37 PM
Quote from: dps on May 15, 2009, 09:39:35 PM
When Tyr started posting about "shoes only" nightclubs, I thought he was talking about some kind of weird club where they didn't let you in unless you are naked except for shoes.
:lol: Me too.
It took me a few posts to figure out what was going on.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Josquius on May 15, 2009, 11:56:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 07:11:07 PM

Because adults wearing sneakers are generally scum.
Not under a certain age, its quite the standard thing to wear amongst everyone. Its part of the standard way of dress in many fashions. Amongst some weird people trainers are a big fashion item in themselves with people paying thousands for custom made stuff.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Magnus on May 16, 2009, 12:24:41 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 07:11:07 PM
Because adults wearing sneakers are generally scum.
What if you are mowing a lawn, or some repairs on the house, car, etc.?
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Alcibiades on May 16, 2009, 02:17:26 AM
Neil's retarded, don't feed him.  He's the straight Martinus.    :(
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 16, 2009, 02:18:48 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 06:35:17 PM
OK.  Here's the proper way to address this in English:  What you call 'trainers' are actually 'sneakers',

Nope. Tennis shoes. :contract:
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Martinus on May 16, 2009, 02:22:27 AM
I suppose this may be one of those "I know them when I see them" rules, because otherwise one would be hardpressed to define where the line between sport shoes and modern casual foot wear exactly is.

I mean, many of the sport trainers or sneakers (like Nike's) have a leather version that is pretty much indistinguishable from the casual wear by Hugo Boss or Camel Trophy.

So unless they are expecting people to come to a club in dress shoes, this seems like a dumb rule.

Of course I suppose the kind of venues I go to, do not really have a problem with gang members or chavs coming en masse. Hell, all the queens would be all over the single straight scally lad that decided to came. :P
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Martinus on May 16, 2009, 02:27:02 AM
Quote from: dps on May 15, 2009, 09:39:35 PM
When Tyr started posting about "shoes only" nightclubs, I thought he was talking about some kind of weird club where they didn't let you in unless you are naked except for shoes.
Yeah.

There actually such parties, btw. I heard from a friend.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Syt on May 16, 2009, 02:30:35 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 16, 2009, 02:27:02 AM
I heard from a friend.

Well of course. You only know about no shoes clubs.
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 16, 2009, 02:31:29 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 16, 2009, 02:22:27 AM
Of course I suppose the kind of venues I go to, do not really have a problem with gang members or chavs coming en masse. Hell, all the queens would be all over the single straight scally lad that decided to came. :P

Why do you assume the gang members or chavs are straight?  :huh:
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Martinus on May 16, 2009, 02:40:02 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 16, 2009, 02:30:35 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 16, 2009, 02:27:02 AM
I heard from a friend.

Well of course. You only know about no shoes clubs.
Actually, a guy dressed in nothing but sport shoes is extremely hot to any foot fetishist. Just sayin'.  :P
Title: Re: Shoes only- wtf
Post by: Martinus on May 16, 2009, 02:43:19 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 16, 2009, 02:31:29 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 16, 2009, 02:22:27 AM
Of course I suppose the kind of venues I go to, do not really have a problem with gang members or chavs coming en masse. Hell, all the queens would be all over the single straight scally lad that decided to came. :P

Why do you assume the gang members or chavs are straight?  :huh:

I was joking. Yes, we have guys dressed like this coming to gay clubs, and they are gay. However, since most gay guys have a hard-on for "bad boy" types, it's never a problem really. In fact there is an entire big "sneaker sex" fetish scene, involving chav-like outfits, jeans or tracksuits, baseball caps, and sneaker shoes. Even I have an outfit like this for special occasions - I wouldn't be caught dead wearing that otherwise, though. :P