The opposite of seduction

I agree with Manolo. Crocs are certainly the opposite of seduction.

Visually, they present an interesting juxtaposition: They share some elements of their proper function ((Preston, B. (2000) The function on things. A philosophical perspective on material culture. In Graves-Brown, P. ed. Matter, materiality and modern culture. London: Routledge)) and the the colour. Other than that, the perception, for a viewer (or owner) looking for a seductive experience, couldn’t be different.

The seductive experience is not a question of comfort, either, but of the experience of wearing these shoes, mainly for girls –this is a gender specific issue, I am sure–. What drives this experience is the appearance, the way the shoes look and what that may mean. Crocs encase whereas Blahnik reveals the foot; Crocs protect feet whereas Blahnik hugs them with the straps; Crocs have holes for ventilation (implying smelly, sweaty feet?) whereas Blahnik has bows; Crocs widen the feet whereas Blahnik lenghens the legs, hinting at, enhancing other parts of femenine anatomy and provoking a specific way of walking.

I’d like to do an experiment. I’d loke to wear each of these of a different foot and hop from one to the other… I wonder what kinds of psychological impact may this Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde study bring…