This might get me excommunicated from the Christian blogsphere, or failing that just getting de-linked from a few Christian blogs. I felt that as I was the only blogger who dedicates a whole blog to the issue of the shoes-off rule, I had a duty to watch an episode of a popular television show that dealt with it as a subplot.
You Tube: Sex and the City- A Woman's Right to Shoes (Part 1)
Sex and the City is a programme I would not normally watch. From what I have heard it is vulgar and obscene. As it happened, I have seen more objectionable things than this episode, but the second part (not linked here) features male nudity.
In this story, the character Carrie attends a baby shower where she is asked to remove her shoes for hygeine reasons. Her Manolo Blahniks are stolen during the party. The hostess begins to offer compensation, but changes her mind when she finds out they costed an extravagant $485.
I do object to the portrayal of people with a shoes-off policy as anti-social and selfish. I suppose it would be a dilemma if some expensive shoes were stolen. Would readers pay $485 for somebody's stolen shoes? I doubt this happens very often. Usually people invite people they trust to their parties.
It is true that the stolen shoes were a finanicial loss to Carrie (though she recovers it in this story), however, if one is responsible for the financial loss of stolen shoes, what about the financial loss to a host of ruined floors? If hosts can be expected to be responsible for stolen shoes, then surely guests can be expected to remove their shoes? Respect goes two ways.
In the second part, when Carrie returns to the hostess, I did recognise an expression on the woman's face when she makes a silent request for shoes-off. I have made that face at people before.