Apart from the whole potential for injury/liability issue, I strongly suspect that this is a poverty related taboo. Not so long ago the very poor would often be forced to go shoeless - in fact my 96 year old grandpa tells how, when growing up, he used to see "ragamuffins" barefoot and in rags so tattered that "their bottoms were hanging out". At the same time, you are probably quite respectably dressed, which sends out very conflicting social signals. You can't instantly be categorised as either a potentially shiftless timewaster or as a valuable customer, which makes people uneasy. The idea that someone capable of affording shoes would choose go without is so very alien that some people might even suspect you had a few screws loose.

I propose a little experiment; go shoeless in scruffy old clothes and unshaven, and then try it neatly groomed and in a smart suit. If I'm right people will write you off as disreputable in the first instance (concordant social display) but will merely be uneasy and confused by your "eccentricity" in the second instance.

I think that sometimes weird looks are more looks of curiousity, not anything more sinister. You're doing something that doesn't conform to the norms, so you'll attract attention by default.

That said- a lot of businesses near where I am have "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policies. I'm not sure where the "no shirt" taboo came from (probably poverty-taboo-related, sure)- but the "no shoes" one does at least have some basis in disease transmission. There are diseases and parasites that love bare feet, as a couple of commenters point out above (plus the standard plantar warts, athlete's foot, etc). There's also the liability issue- if you are on someone's property and there's a bit of glass or something else that cuts you, they're liable (they have a responsibility to keep their property safe- tho they could fight that if you drop a knife/glass/etc on your own foot). If it cuts you, you get blood on their floor, and they have to clean it up- they have to follow blood-borne pathogen rules. If you happen to have a disease, and someone else trods in your blood- perhaps also with an open wound (burst blister, whatever)- then that's another problem.

So- even though I'm all for straight-up bare feet in more natural areas- areas which can deal with these nasties through their local ecosystems, and there's no possibility that anyone would think it's a sterile/safe surface- I'm all for things like Vibrams or flipflops or huraches in urbanized (or, ugh, even worse- suburbanized) areas. Furthermore, I'm even kind of twitchy re: lawns- those are not natural ecosystems. They're usually chemically-treated within an inch of their lives, and I've no desire to pick up more herbicides/pesticides than necessary.

Honestly- foot protection is a product of living in a community of more than ~150 people. The current inability of most people to live in groups this small without ridiculous externalities (sprawl, pollution, etc) is a result of overpopulation. The norm is to wear foot protection because you (or perhaps, the average person) literally cannot trust your neighbor/coworker/shopkeeper (the average local-geography-community-member) to not have transmissible parasites/diseases or have sprayed their flat surface with some chemical nastiness.

For the same reason we use forks and surf the internet: we are not cavemen.

ONE WORD >>>> HEPATITIS

in many third world countries it is still accepted to go barefoot, although it means that you are very poor, that you can not afford to buy shoes. Outside beaches or your own home, it would be unthinkable to go barefoot if you have the means. BTW many hunter gatherers, in temperate and cold areas used to wear sandals or some type of footwear made often from leather...

It seems to be a combination of poverty stigma, obsession with cleanliness, and social convention. Some theorize that the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" thing is a product of changing times in the sixties as a slightly more polite way to say "no longhairs allowed in this establishment."

I've always hated wearing shoes and have tried to go barefoot as much as possible as long as I can remember. In fact, I just came across my sixth grade class photo, which was taken outside, and I am only wearing socks. I went to a progressive college where more people went barefoot than shod most of the year, me included. Since discovering the whole barefoot movement thing I've become more aware of people's responses than I was previously. I rarely get anyone talking directly to me about it, just the occasional passing grumbling about glass/needles, dirt, the cold, and assorted variations of the "lol that's so random" variety.

I think the 'dirty' and 'stinky' stigma that feet carry with them is the main reason, and if you think about it, it is only the very 'bottom' of your feet that people see as necessary to cover. Fact is, if you are walking around barefoot, the bottom of your feet do become extremely filthy. But more than half the people in Cali were sandals all through summer. Nobody views this as barefoot. Also, woman often wear "shoes" that reveal almost their entire foot, save for one little strap over the big toe, and it's regarded as cute and appealing, so long as there's a layer between her foot and the surface she's walking on, other than "dress appropriate" situations for certain events where fully or mostly covered feet is expected.

I don't really have an answer, although in Belgium I have found that people give me more looks if I wear VFF, then when going totally barefoot.

Cultural beliefs/customs can be so strange. In Tanzania my wife got an angry response from an old lady because she had short pants, although very decent. Apparantly, you don't show your legs. Funny thing was that the old lady herself had a long skirt, but was topless!

In Uganda (and in many other African parts), adult men don't wear shorts, no matter how hot it is. Shorts are obliged in primary school. Once you can go to secondary school, you can wear long trousers. Shorts are for kids.

If I have good reason to do other then the rest, I don't care what people think. That's why I'm barefoot on walks and runs. But otherwise, I like my Feelmax Pankas. They are the most minimalist shoes I have tested. And they do not attract strange looks as much as VFF.

I think it maybe a cultural thing. Here in Australia it is perfectly acceptable to walk around barefoot. Unless it is into restaurants pubs or clubs. The reason for this is a safety one. If you step on glass or a knife falls and stabs you ect.

This is spain. I got stopped by the police, they thought I was a drunk or something. They asked me if I was ok... their main concern after establishing that I wasn't drunk, was that I would step on a syringe or broken glass. It has to be tried to be understood - that is the problem, when people see from the outside, they don't understand. I don't go barefoot much at the moment (maybe I will in the summer), I don't like doing it on concrete anyway.

I'd have to go with the homeless/impoverished theory. Nobody wants to go around being seen as poor (for the most part). Where I live (central america), people bathe in cologne and always dress up. Many clubs don't even allow people through the doors in shorts (except for tourist areas...those pesky americans and their sandals!). I've been called a cow to homeless when walking. I don't usually walk into stores though. I take the standard american issue flip-flops for that. They are at least used to that. Though I must admit that my size 14's get looks with or without shoes.

Around here, it isn't advisable to go barefoot anywhere but a private home, a pool,or the beach.People break beer and liquor bottles on the sidewalks, and there are sand spurs everywhere.(for those not familiar,sand spurs are small,spiky grass seeds.I spend half the year pulling them out of the dog's feet.)Indoors,if someone dropped a glass jar on the floor, we missed a piece by accident, and you cut your foot,then we have to do full blood pathogen clean up.Same if you cut your foot on a little piece of tile sticking up or the corner of a rack.

When my little guy was learning to walk, I rarely had him in shoes - we were lucky as it was summer here, so he wasn't cold. I think that it was much better for him to learn to walk barefoot (or in socks) rather than have chunky, clunky shoes on (which he would just trip in anyways).

I got the most horrific looks from people - as well as quite a few comments on my parenting 'style' like "Oh, look isn't that cute a little hippie" and "oh, I guess he lost his shoes" me "nope" them "hmmm...well don't you think you should get him some shoes - aren't you teaching him bad habits" It got so bad, that at a drop-in clinic the receptionist asked me to either put his shoes on or leave (and in this instance he had socks on).

I don't understnad what the big hoopla is all about - he wasn't wandering around naked peeing on their chairs - he was learning to walk naturally without the impediment of poorly designed shoes.

kin the summer I walk barefoot on my college campus, when people see me walking with no shoes on they ask "why don't you have any shoes on?" and I simply say "my feet feel better without them" and then they ask about callouses and I shrug and say "I like callouses"

and they still look at me weird but I keep on keeping on!

I don't know why its socially unacceptable though, most people I know worry about getting a ring worm or plantar's wart.

If you shuffle along apologetically, they'll give you a weird look; if you walk with assurance and good posture, they may greet you with a friendly smile. Your self-confidence can make it socially acceptable.

I think people in many Western cultures have foot phobias. People get weirdly freaked out by seeing others barefoot except in limited circumstances (e.g., beach, pool). People think feet stink and radiate germs or something. (In reality, foot odor is caused by bacteria in old sweat, so keeping feet encased in hot, sweaty shoes is a major contributor to odor.)