Please settle an argument .......... in other peoples' houses ............shoes on or shoes off?

[helpamamaout]

On entering someone else's home, should the visitor keep their shoes on or remove them?

Experience of dozens of these threads on MN show it to be a class issue, often.

It would certainly not be the right thing to ask a health care professional to remove shoes. Unbelievably rude.

I ask "Are you a shoes-off house?" and take off/leave on accordingly.

I prefer shoes off, but I don't think a shoes-on rule is the worst thing a householder can have!

It has nothing to do with class anymore. Maybe it once did, but to call it one now is incredibly insulting to those who don't want dirty shoes inside their homes.

However, I would agree that certain health professionals should perhaps be exempt from the rules. Paramedics for sure! My health visitor took her shoes off without being asked after my kids were born.

@SchoolOfLife2 - Because simply I’m not approaching this from the perspective of “norms” and “culture”.

"Rude" and "manners" are all about culture and norms.

I don’t have to dumb down the debate just to show tolerance. This isn’t a personal issue.. it’s really about numbers.

Your comment hmm what’s so rude about having shoes off? Weird comment is about "as dumbed down" as it's possible to get in a debate.

Even if you are arguing the toss in terms of numbers, health is considerably more complex than exposure to number of germs. There is an increase in levels of allergies in the western world. The hygiene hypothesis suggests that living conditions in much of the world might be too clean and that kids aren't being exposed to germs that train their immune systems to tell the difference between harmless and harmful irritants, thus leading to an increase in allergies. This hypothesis is supported by studies. Of course, as it is a complex issue, there are other theories that are also being examined.

I’m just surprised at the people expressing how it’s “lower class”, “rude” and “overfamiliar” if someone’s is opting for a more hygienic option in their home or someone else’s home..

It's considered lower class because it's the aspirational wc and lower middle classes who are obsessed with having an 'immaculate home' and would have wall to wall pale carpets.

It’s rather illogically defensive. you are looking for logical on MN

It seems to be a lower middle class thing.

That’s not saying it’s ‘lower class’ at all, just observational in terms of the class bracket it manifests most strongly in.

I’m just surprised at the people expressing how it’s “lower class”, “rude” and “overfamiliar” if someone’s is opting for a more hygienic option in their home or someone else’s home..

You would probably find it a bit rude if someone handed you a pair of surgical gloves to put on before touching anything in their house, even though they would be opting for the more hygienic option. After all, God knows what they touched when they were out and about.

A lot of it is down to what people are used to and grew up with.

You would probably find it a bit rude if someone handed you a pair of surgical gloves to put on before touching anything in their house, even though they would be opting for the more hygienic option. After all, God knows what they touched when they were out and about

I would find it ODD, but not rude :D

*You would probably find it a bit rude if someone handed you a pair of surgical gloves to put on before touching anything in their house, even though they would be opting for the more hygienic option. After all, God knows what they touched when they were out and about.

A lot of it is down to what people are used to and grew up with.*

Yes I certainly would.. because I could just wash my hands , which you can’t do with shoes...

I wouldn’t be offended howverr if someone asked me to sanitize my hands before I touched their baby. That’s something I would do. It’s a hygiene preference and it’s logical.

The class argument is frankly a desperate attempt to overthrow the hygiene debate.

Idea people back then had to keep things immaculate so their overcrowded homes got controlled exposure to illnesses then good on them. They had better awareness of diseases because of circumstances.

If you don’t have a house cleaner coming daily sanitizing your carpets, then you aren’t high of a class enough to escape the hygiene debate.

To be honest yeh I also wouldn’t find it rude even. Slightly consider them OCD and will respect their hygiene preference.

What would be rude is if she implied I’m being lower class because I wasn’t wearing those gloves..

It’s not rude for people to have different hygiene standards. But it would be odd if their standards aren’t backed with much logic.. not rude.

It has nothing to do with class anymore. Maybe it once did, but to call it one now is incredibly insulting to those who don't want dirty shoes inside their homes

What class do you consider it insulting to be classed as belonging to?

It seems to be a lower middle class thing.

That’s not saying it’s ‘lower class’ at all, just observational in terms of the class bracket it manifests most strongly in.

I think the hygiene standard isn’t of any class.. just how to go about it might’ve been a class thing. Which doesn’t apply to this decade seeing how homes are small and there is more strains of virsuses and ... no live in cleaners.

It used to be lower class t breastfeed. Glad that backwards understanding got improved with science !

@SchoolOfLife2 - What would be rude is if she implied I’m being lower class because I wasn’t wearing those gloves

I never mentioned class. To be honest, I find the British obsession with class to be rather odd.

Always. Why would anyone wear outdoor shoes inside? It's how I was brought up. Basic good manners and hygiene.

I don't like people wearing shoes in my house but I don't make a big issue about it.

Shoes on unless they ask me to remove them. If I'm not wearing socks I double check they don't mind my verrucas etc being on their carpet.

Also normal in Asian culture. And probably lots of others. Nothing to do with upper classes whatever that means.

There’s no evidence whatsoever that superior ‘hygiene’ from shoes off results results in better health outcomes. In fact, with current thinking on germs it might well be the opposite, so 🤷‍♀️

By the same logic, it might be more hygienic to remove all clothes when entering a house, but there are entrenched cultural reasons why we don’t do this. And no particular reason to think we’d benefit.

So to present ‘hygiene’ as the trump card that beats everything else seems a bit nonsensical.

What on earth makes you think this argument can be settled in MN, maybe a referendum?

When visiting a house you should ask if they would like you to take your shoes off. If they want you to but are too polite to say that is really their problem.

In our house we don't object to clean shoes indoors, ie normal shoes not obviously muddy wet or dirty. I can think of maybe one time in the last 2 years that someone walked in dog poo and that was daft DH and it took 5 minutes to clean up.

Everyone else is welcome to their super clean habits but (seriously ill people aside) don't kid yourself it makes any difference to the health risk of your household. Tbh if my floors don't get you then my handbag, pets, towels, dishcloth, loo brush and bathroom bin will.

Oh come now Auntie. Don't be obtuse, we all know that implying someone is of low social class is seen as an insult. To anyone.

This thread is getting a bit hysterical. Why do so many people have a problem with feet?

There’s no evidence whatsoever that superior ‘hygiene’ from shoes off results results in better health outcomes. In fact, with current thinking on germs it might well be the opposite, so 🤷‍♀️

By the same logic, it might be more hygienic to remove all clothes when entering a house, but there are entrenched cultural reasons why we don’t do this. And no particular reason to think we’d benefit.

I’m happy for people to think this is their way of developing immunity.. but I’m not happy for them to assume I need their idea of bacterial tolerance imposed on me so much so that I’m not allowed to have a different position as to request they remove their shoes in my home, or that I might assume by accident that they want mine removed in theirs.

I do not support the debate that 440,000 units of bacteria and viruses from animal faeces and diseased phlegm and STI urine is a way forward to increase my immune tolerance.

I’m happy to respect people who reached that threshold and I’m not offended by someone who asked me to keep my shoes on... I’m relieved they are honest about the state of their floors as to not get my socks dirty..

But the idea that it boggles someone’s logic that someone else might not want that for their home, is as bad as my husband who thinks it’s better for his immunity to not wash fruits before he eats it...

Might be better for your immunity too to go into a public loo stained with diarrhea, just not everyone’s preference.

Some people used to give their kids doses of venom to increase their immune tolerance, good on them, not for me though.. and they’re breaking a standard knowingly.

What stupid is to refuse to accept the hygiene debate behind it and assume it doesn’t exist.

Always off as I do in my own home.

I have never been to a house in real life where anyone was expected/asked to remove shoes. If someone did ask I would be a bit taken aback but would do it, dh would laugh at (not with) them and tell them what he thought.

If you are funny about hygiene then give your floor a quick clean when your visitor is gone instead of making them uncomfortable.

Ime it's an aspiring to be middle/upper class thing. Actual genuine UCers I know would never dream of asking guests to take their shoes off, nor would the 'LC' I know, interestingly I suspect for the same reasons.