What do you think?
Rate this book
Erotisme du pied et de la chaussure
With thoroughness and elan, the author takes us on a walking tour through history, from Chinese footbinding to the outrageous distortions of the foot gladly suffered by women over the centuries in the cause of sexual allure. He explores the peculiarly American obsession with "sick" and "tired" feet, and the huge industry that has sprung up to cater to our negativism. He gives an insightful psychosexual guide to people via footwear. This book is a unique piece of social history, a provocative, often witty and always original, inquiry into human behavior.
- GenresHistory
Paperback
First published January 1, 1976
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 22, 2019
A bizarre book those stance is, bluntly, that female feet have strong erotic power, and so everything done to enhance their allure (most shoes, cosmetics, ornementations…) are just ways to accentuate their sexual attraction. Is that an over-stretched claim? You bet! Now, don't get me wrong. It's not that 'The Sex Life of the Feet and Shoes' is all bonkers. It's just that, William Rossi got so engrossed in his subject that he came to see everything concerning feet solely from a sexual perspective, with no regard for anything else and no sense of nuance.
Of course feet are, with more than 7,000 nerve endings in each, a powerful erogenous zone indeed. But does that mean they are mostly just another erotic organ women use as tool to seduce men? The author makes some relevant points (and so it still worth a read) but, carried away, he is being reductionist and, quite frankly, plain sexist.
I for one too agree to say that there is nothing sexier than a woman in heels - how heels shape women's silhouette, affect posture and gait, offer a sexy an enthralling look at legs, butts, hips and thighs. Knowing how unnatural and unhealthy heels are, yet how they never go out off fashion despite the ordeals they put women through, it also seem to me quite difficult to argue that there's nothing sexual about wearing them:
'There is no practical reason why boys and girls, or men and women, should wear shoes with pronounced styling differences. The only reason is sexual, an insignia to designate the separation of the sexes.'
BUT he is talking here only about heels, and high heels especially. What about the obvious practical side of wearing shoes? You would have to be seriously twisted to see in mocassins or clogs an unconscious way to express sexual impulses! (Wait... He has an answer to this though...!) Plus, heels were first worn by men, and I don't see that men had to wear them so as to enhance the sexiness of their butts and legs for females around to gawk! Those are disproportionately male fetishes indeed, not females'; and that's the whole trouble here.
For here we are: again, I for one too agree to say that there's nothing more sexier than a woman in heels; but my view, as is the author's, is indeed one of a man. Are women wearing them just to bewitch the men around? That sounds dubious! Well, he could have asked them. Here though, not only their opinions are strikingly absent (it all relies on male fashion designers, male shoemakers, male marketers, even male psychiatrists!) they also are dismissed in a way which is quite shocking, even considering it was written in the 1970s:
'Who wears sexless shoes? Mostly sexually turned-off women (…)'
Yes ladies! You read right. Shoes express your sexual make-up; if you disagree it just shows that you are frigid. Seriously!?
About, there's a lot of psychoanalytic doolali, for instance trying to convince us that pompoms and the like on top of shoes symbolise vagina, putting them on penetration, or some designs unconsciously phallic that, well... Psychoanalysis and its extravaganzas!
But here's a pattern with this book: William Rossi strikes a chord with relevant and interesting arguments on a given topic, then get completely carried away, to finally end up by oversimplifying things, mostly from a sexist perspective. Such simplification and sexism is a real pity because, otherwise, this read contains some nice little insights. For example, I found the chapter on how bipedalism affected our sexuality quite interesting. I therefore don't want to dismiss it outright, despite its excesses.
Only if you are really interested in the topic; and even then, take it with a pinch of salt!
Of course feet are, with more than 7,000 nerve endings in each, a powerful erogenous zone indeed. But does that mean they are mostly just another erotic organ women use as tool to seduce men? The author makes some relevant points (and so it still worth a read) but, carried away, he is being reductionist and, quite frankly, plain sexist.
I for one too agree to say that there is nothing sexier than a woman in heels - how heels shape women's silhouette, affect posture and gait, offer a sexy an enthralling look at legs, butts, hips and thighs. Knowing how unnatural and unhealthy heels are, yet how they never go out off fashion despite the ordeals they put women through, it also seem to me quite difficult to argue that there's nothing sexual about wearing them:
'There is no practical reason why boys and girls, or men and women, should wear shoes with pronounced styling differences. The only reason is sexual, an insignia to designate the separation of the sexes.'
BUT he is talking here only about heels, and high heels especially. What about the obvious practical side of wearing shoes? You would have to be seriously twisted to see in mocassins or clogs an unconscious way to express sexual impulses! (Wait... He has an answer to this though...!) Plus, heels were first worn by men, and I don't see that men had to wear them so as to enhance the sexiness of their butts and legs for females around to gawk! Those are disproportionately male fetishes indeed, not females'; and that's the whole trouble here.
For here we are: again, I for one too agree to say that there's nothing more sexier than a woman in heels; but my view, as is the author's, is indeed one of a man. Are women wearing them just to bewitch the men around? That sounds dubious! Well, he could have asked them. Here though, not only their opinions are strikingly absent (it all relies on male fashion designers, male shoemakers, male marketers, even male psychiatrists!) they also are dismissed in a way which is quite shocking, even considering it was written in the 1970s:
'Who wears sexless shoes? Mostly sexually turned-off women (…)'
Yes ladies! You read right. Shoes express your sexual make-up; if you disagree it just shows that you are frigid. Seriously!?
About, there's a lot of psychoanalytic doolali, for instance trying to convince us that pompoms and the like on top of shoes symbolise vagina, putting them on penetration, or some designs unconsciously phallic that, well... Psychoanalysis and its extravaganzas!
But here's a pattern with this book: William Rossi strikes a chord with relevant and interesting arguments on a given topic, then get completely carried away, to finally end up by oversimplifying things, mostly from a sexist perspective. Such simplification and sexism is a real pity because, otherwise, this read contains some nice little insights. For example, I found the chapter on how bipedalism affected our sexuality quite interesting. I therefore don't want to dismiss it outright, despite its excesses.
Only if you are really interested in the topic; and even then, take it with a pinch of salt!
September 29, 2023
2/5
330 pages pour peu de faits. Malheureusement l’auteur n’a que le pied en tête, tout n’est vu que de ce point de vue. Parler des pieds de lotus en disant que “Les femmes ont toujours aimé les bases fragiles et la démarche souple auxquelles les hommes ont toujours été sensibles.” En dénigrant toutes les autres variables et la douleur de cette pratique, l’auteur ne voit seulement que les femmes adoraient ça…. Hum
Bref certains des sujets sont intéressants ( évolution du pied) mais bien qu’il cite des recherches, aucunes sources ne sont référencées.
Un livre qui a mal vieilli et à tendance macho
330 pages pour peu de faits. Malheureusement l’auteur n’a que le pied en tête, tout n’est vu que de ce point de vue. Parler des pieds de lotus en disant que “Les femmes ont toujours aimé les bases fragiles et la démarche souple auxquelles les hommes ont toujours été sensibles.” En dénigrant toutes les autres variables et la douleur de cette pratique, l’auteur ne voit seulement que les femmes adoraient ça…. Hum
Bref certains des sujets sont intéressants ( évolution du pied) mais bien qu’il cite des recherches, aucunes sources ne sont référencées.
Un livre qui a mal vieilli et à tendance macho
July 6, 2013
utterly silly, pseudo-scientific, outdated, misogynist crap. The prose is almost unbearably pretentious and the information often inaccurate, but I tried to slog through it anyway for the occasional weird idea I could explore via a more reliable source. Eventually, however, it simply ceased to be worth the agony the book inflicted. Do not waste your time.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews