You know the phrase, "she's so beautiful she could wear a bin bag and still look good?" I think beautiful people hear it, express their disbelief and then their friends offer them a bet.

The beautiful people never win.

Bastards.

Ugg boots are the worst, especially when worn in the middle of summer. Have to confess though, that I really like the fleecy crocs that our packaging supplier gives me free with big orders - they make great slippers in the winter, and are especially useful if you have to nip out in the rain.

Those Worishofers, though, don't really look very ugly, more bland.

I'm afraid that's a problem of the bad taste of New Yorkers in general. Once I had a teacher from there and she had a really ugly handbag, which would fit very properly to these shoes. But on the other hand, she was very nice and she gave me an A in English.

However, such shoes are worn only by women aged 50++ in Germany. Maybe even 60++.

I look forward to the day when the uber-trendy walk around with paper bags over their heads so we no longer have to look at them.

Winklepickers to all this.

Please people, just don't wear Crocs if you're not a small child.

Ever.

No, they're not ok on the beach.

No, they're not ok because they're practical when you're sailing.

There is no excuse for adult humans wearing Crocs.

Ever.

Because ugly shoes are often very comfy and beautiful shoes turn your feet into calloused bunioned lumps. Having said that the shoe above is utterly hideous.

Ugly shoes become fashionable because most of those described as "beautiful" are painful, crippling and often impossible to wear.

The one factor linking all the shoes listed above is that they are comfortable.

I bought a pair of Dr Scholl's in the 70s, I was about 15 and saved up the money from my Saturday job. Boy, was I thrilled with them but they weren't that comfortable that I remember.

As someone earlier has pointed out, ugly or less attractive shoes are generally more comfortable and the older you get the more you value comfort over fashion if it means you can walk around without with tears in your eyes from the blisters, corns, bunions or any other foot ailment that you end up with.

You're way out of date. Those shoes were trendy in New York about 2 years ago.

The Worishofer, as pictured aboved, granted doesn't look that stunning as far as foot decor goes but will that apply to ever pair of Worishofers? or is it just the comment of snob appeal at work here? After all, they don't really compare to a pair of Jimmy Choos.

Crocs, well yeah, there are some really unattractive, brightly coloured ones that generally speaking do nothing to dress up the feet of your average adult - kids love them and for some activities they are perfect for them but hold on ... I own a pair of Capri Crocs. Ugly? Far from it. They look fab with a summer skirt or jeans and with every step I have my very own foot massage - don't know what I'm talking about? ... neither do a lot of people because they make bandwagon judgement calls. Amazing to think for such an 'ugly' sandal that all my girlfriends who've seen them and tried them, went out and bought a pair. Still, I'll rest assured that us uglies at least stick together!

There really isn't anything more ugly than making unimportant judgement calls on how people dress but then, our society really is that bored and shallow.

The more relevant question for me would be: how is it that women see high heels shoes as beautiful when they cause muscular-skeletal problems and generally turn your life into a small nightmare. I've always thought there must be a direct correlation between bitchiness and general female bad-temperedness and high heels.

I don't care about fashion or trends, but wear what fits and suits my feet - and always have.
You won't see me stepping out in high heels (I carry them to a venue in a bag if I really have to wear them), or Scholl sandals, or crocs even.

My current favourite shoes - Dr Marten's Mary Jane style, with rounded toe space, strap across the instep and flexible but hard-wearing non-slip soles - aren't the prettiest shoes on the market but have lasted me over four years and seen me and my rucksack through India, Pakistan, Iran, turkey, Egypt, Sudan and now China.
And, at 64, my feet are still bunionless and corn-free. I can still walk, on flat ground at least, for miles and miles and miles. : />))

you could not pay me to waer such uglie things.

and i have been paid to wear many cloths i did not like.

now i really wish espadrilles would go away. for ever.

You couldn't be more wrong!! Take for example the croc. The reason people like them is because they are highly practical., and they are in fact comfortable. I know several people who have used them to walk long distances in varying conditions. Use them for a quick venture into the garden on a wet day, as slippers around the house or flat, as beach wear, etc. When you compare these with so many so called responsible big name brands of shoes and boots, you actually find they are great value for money. I have had well known brand name shoes and boots which are anything but comfortable, and come to realise that you are actually paying for the name rather than any quality of comfort or material. So many so called quality shoes and boots are made in third world or cheap labour sites around the world, that they just do not justify their price tag or claims of quality. Crocs are actually like a modern day clog and moccasin combined. They may not look great but they are actually very comfortable and very well priced.

PS. You think wobbling about on high heeled , or platform shoes is classey or sensible?

P.P.S

Look at the cost of some shoes compared to crocs. Also, if your feet get too hot, just run them under a tap!

They're not that bad..... In fact, I think they're growing on me.

Of course, my personal weakness for girls sporting the "Enid Blyton" look might not offer a useful fashion barometer. But if you were to wear them to lunch Imogen, I wouldn't complain too bitterly (flutters eyelashes).......

One word - comfort.

I've seen a lot sillier looking "fashionable" shoes.

And have you seen Victoria Beckham's feet!!!!!!!!! Says it all about fashionable shoes.

And give me my Timberland lola bay slides or thongs any time.

Whilst I agree that many of the shoes mentioned are ugly - I have to disagree that ugly equals uncomfortable. The most comfortable items I can wear on my feet are Crocs (actually very cheap market copies). For hot weather, beach walking, or just pottering around the garden they are ideal - agreed I don't go 'out' in them but don't knock them for the uses I've mentioned!!

Is there a shoe uglier than those MBT things? The MBT website carries the following statement@

Wearing MBTs can have desirable side-effects: this is the conclusion of an increasing number of international studies...

It forgets to include the undesirable side-effect of demonstrating you simply don't give a solitary fuck what you look like.

Ah, how I love lazy, unscheduled days off work! I have just clicked on an article about the fashion of shoes, a subject about which I have no interest at all, read the entire piece, and then read every comment regarding said article. The bliss of indolence.

For me the beautiful shoes are the ones that are foot-shaped.

I was quite curious as to what this article was about, and was surprised to see at its focus a very ordinary-looking sandal. Now of course people can find anything ugly, and that's all well and good, and adds to the variety of existence, but the fact that such an innocuous piece of everyday footwear can be at the centre of a front page article on the Guardian's website about ugliness suggests very strongly that the lifeandstyle department have got their collective head stuck up their collective arse.

Wait, only in 2003 did Birks catch on in the UK? Theyve been a fashion staple alongside the Adidas Samba on most US college campuses since the early 90s. Any good hippie would tell you THE only sandals you should wear are Birks

Has anyone actually had a proper look at the original Ugg boot? It's a total utter rip-off. The sole is more foam then plastic and certainly doesn't give you a good grip while walking in the snow or ice; they're completely shapeless and badly designed; and the sheepskin inside is much thinner compared to other real sheepskin boots.

I bought a lovely pair of high, dark brown, thick sheepskin Bearpaw boots, and they are wonderful. The tread is thick and sturdy, the sheepskin is furry and thick, and the boot actually has a decent shape to it. It is well-designed and doesn't squash in that horridly annoying way at the back, the sort of thing you see happening to other Ugg-wearers when you're walking behind them, and they seem completely oblivious to it, or fine with the stupid way they are walking. They cost me £27 from TK Maxx, RRP around £80. The smallest, simplest Ugg boots cost at least £120 if not more. Total rip-off for an Ugg-ly shoe.

What tickled me at this year's Glastonbury, was quite a number of ladies insisted on wearing their new Hunter wellies, for the first couple of days in the bone dry searing heat. That is until the penny dropped that the fashion supplement needed to be ignored.

You can trace this back to Bros wearing Doc Marten shoes, it's not a pretty shoe, and previously it was not worn by pretty people.

I've bought my share of ugly shoes in the past - highlight of which were probably the four-inch platform shoes I got in the mid-70s as an improvement on the two-inch heel, two-toned platform soled shoes they replaced. Shortly afterward, at university I proudly clunked around in a pair of highly, hippily fashionable - for a split second - wooden-soled Swedish style clogs. Modern examples include the mock croc-skin, pointy toed boots from Aldo that have now languished under the bed for more than a year.

At least I managed to totally avoid the lure of Clark's Cornish pasty Polyveldts, Nature Treks and my fling with desert boots was merely passing, though the passion for Doc Martens proved a bit more difficult to shake off.

Many of them were comfortable, others were excruciatingly painful until just before the moment they fell apart, but most have now been consigned to the bin or the charity shop.

However, I have a habit of holding onto the ones I like best. For example, I lovingly wore a pair of tan, square-toed, mock croc-skin (again) Gucinaris bought for a song on the King's Road until the heels crumbled beyond repair.

I still own a pair of suede Grenson's - sturdily British but un-British-ly bright tan with orange laces and red soles, that I bought in 1982. In the early '90s I treated them to a face (or ought that to be sole?) lift with a makeover at Selfridges.

And I still wear, almost daily, a pair of ultra wide, ripple-soled flip-flops (thongs in Oz parlance?) that I bought in Manly Beach in 1988. Great for the beach - they've been all over the world with me, and I've often walked 7-8 miles in them on city pavements with no adverse effect apart from very dusty feet.

Two words - Doc Martens.

They are so comfy and look good with all but the smartest of skirts and dresses to. (mine are the 14-hole ones.) On the very hottest days when it's just too warm for Docs it's trainers (with jeans/trousers) or flat gladiator sandals (but it's quite rare to have so many warm days in England.)

High heels fine for a special event or a night out but wear them each day to the office? - no thank you!

The shoes above don't look so totally hideous but they do look very 'old lady'...

Every single pair of Doc Martens I've ever had has lacerated my feet. I had a persistent corn because of them that took several visits to a chiropodist to get rid of. They are NOT comfortable.

Also £55 is NOT CHEAP for what is essentially a flip flop.

Button through dresses? So this season.

I rather cut off my feet than wear-

Crocs
Uggs
Birkenstocks
Dr Scholls
MBTs
Jeremy Clarkson style deck shoes
Those dreadful things in the ATL pic

Also, hasn't anyone else noted this years most repellant footwear phenomenon, white Havianas flip flops? Apart from brand new pairs hanging in shops I have yet to see them on anyones feet looking anything other than filthy and disgusting. Young men appear to be the worst culprits.

There's a confusion here between ugly-but-comfortable shoes that people will wear because they simply don't care any more and just plain ugly-but-uncomfortable shoes that have been given the seal of approval by celebrities?

Occasionally the two cross over, as in the bizarre adoption of the Clarks Wallabee by the hip-hip community, which has led to that company pulling more and more bizarre items out of its 70s and 80s stylebooks.

I shall shortly be taking delivery of a pair of brand-new Polyveldts aka the "Cornish Pasty shoe" which I last wore in 1975 and are so hideous that I should probably go around with paper bags over my feet. If Jude Law wants to pick up a pair that's fine, but I'd rather be thought of as a desperate seeker of comfort than a fashion victim.

There are just too many attractive shoes around to want to wear this sort of horror. Also - and I'm talking especially about Birkenstocks and Uggs here - why want to wear the same thing as everyone else? If you want to wear flat shoes the shops are stuffed with pretty ones.

I understand the shoes. My girlfriend had a pair last summer. I liked 'em.
I also understand appropriating certain items of, perhaps, slightly leftfield apparel to further enhance your own sense of personal style. Especially if you wear them well.

What I don't understand is so called 'fashionable' people slavishly purchasing the latest 'must-have' items whether they suit them or not in the mistaken idea that it marks them out as some kind of sartorial genius.

Any moron can base their wardrobe on the 2nd or even 3rd hand directives of the perpetually panic stricken fash-ist tyros...but why would you want to?

Velour tracksuits, thermal boots like my nan used to wear, giant glasses with no lenses, jeans that look like you've sat on a wet park bench or pissed yerself followed by low-slung skin tight jeans on overweight men past thirty.........this decade is gonna be looked back and laughed at harder than the 70's ever were.

As Coco famously said; "Fashion fades and only style remains."
Wise words indeed.

@ photomass - spot on. I bought a pair of crocs in Naples a couple of years ago for 8 euros and i've used them as slippers ever since. they're so comfortable i forget i've got them on, and when they get a bit grubby i just soak them in warm water + washing powder, scrub them a bit with a sponge pad and they look like new.

pollystyrene

Every single pair of Doc Martens I've ever had has lacerated my feet. I had a persistent corn because of them that took several visits to a chiropodist to get rid of. They are NOT comfortable.

This. German Army boots are where it's at. Waterproof, hard-wearing, comfortable.

And thanks to the sexual liberation of women, from household kitchen to army firing range, available in a range of sizes.

@ repeatandfade
I enjoyed your post immensely but I have say that the behaviour you describe only occurs in me when I happen to be IN work.

They're "Mum sandals", aren't they? And that's what the cool girls are wearing now, is it? How amusing.

I love retro and vintage, so I like them and I could easily see myself popping into Urban Outfitters to get some. Clarks are doing some really lovely vintage sandals at the moment which look quite similar to Worishofers.

@allthings:

The more relevant question for me would be: how is it that women see high heels shoes as beautiful when they cause muscular-skeletal problems and generally turn your life into a small nightmare.

You seem to be confusing appearance with effect, dear thing.

I think there should be a law that states all ugly looking shoes should not make a clicking noise whilst walking. The number of times I turn around thinking there are some stilettos approching, or even better high heeled boots, only to find they are just ugly shoes!

maybe the next trendy thing for crazy Americans: entirely wooden shoes from the Netherlands.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cGuySP58AuU/SnVUrqqkzmI/AAAAAAAABk4/gWgcozO3d78/s400/Holzschuhe.JPG

Summertimefantasy ..... clogs I guess you mean.

On a more serious note and to help cut the our import bill, VAT at 200% on womens shoes, yes, that's right just womens (I don't know of any men having more than a few pairs). Green policy too, all those car miles saved if they don't go searching for yet another pair.

My Mum will be delighted to know how on-trend she is...

Confession time: I quite like Uggs on a lady. In fact, with the shorter skirt, can look pretty damn hot. Crocs too - cute colours, fun, practical. No objection to Birkenstocks either - even got some myself. Is it just me?

as a woman i tend to buy mens shoes for day to day wear, i have size 7-8 feet and hunted high and low for a comfortable ( with a slight heel, decent tread and not wafer thin) flip flops. the only ones i could find were a lovely tan/beige pair from the mens section in a camping shop.

before wearing flip flops ( cheap primark ones up to more expensive £0-£40 pairs) i would suffer pain in my calves, back and knees. now with these new ones i can walk for miles in them all for a reasonable £13.

just to add what i find ugly about women is bad posture, grimaces and constant complaining about painful, ill fitting or completely impractical shoes. who cares what you feet are wearing when you can force a smile through crippling pain.