Comments on: The Loafers from the Tods

By: Lizzie

Lizzie — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:13:02 +0000

Cesar, I’ll one-up you - I’m a 23 year old who rather enjoys the thirty minute walk she takes to work as I find myself in possession of a severe abhorrence of the subway. And loafers, of course, are at once a practical alternative to heels and much preferable to (gasp) trolling the city in sneakers!

By: Cesar

Cesar — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:42:28 +0000

What’s wrong with the loafer styles pictured above? Must we wear stilettos each and every day? Was Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis constantly in heels? Were the Hepburns Katharine and Audrey? And no, I’m not old–I’m a 29 year-old who appreciates classic, well-made shoes and clothes.

By: Dwilkers

Dwilkers — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 01:09:21 +0000

Do not underestimate the attraction of a well dressed woman wearing the alluring, provacative, mysterious loafer! It speaks of strength and confidence, of pent up energies waiting to be released! A young woman confidently wearing the loafer as part of a well put together ensemble will often easily outshine her contemporaries - it is not the ‘old lady’ shoe.

As someone that appreciates the more refined woman I assure you the loafer is no turn off.

Dave

By: Norma Desmond

Norma Desmond — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 17:14:54 +0000

“firstly, time is passing at the same rate it always has”

That it manifestly is not. When I was a child, an hour was an eternity; now I can blink and miss six months. This is a phenomenon that increases with age, since any increment of time becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the time one has already lived, and thus subjectively seems to pass more quickly. If you haven’t experienced this yet, you will; it’s both helpful and depressing, as waiting in line at the supermarket seems less oppressive, but one sighs and wonders where the past year went. But you are, by intention kindly (and your intention is very much appreciated), trying to shield me from a label I embrace. There is nothing wrong with being old. It’s a very, very good thing, although I hate to echo the Martha Stewart in any way. I have never understood why people badmouth a state they can only hope to achieve.

And please, lest anyone misunderstand me even for a second — sexy is also very, very good. And old and sexy are not mutually exclusive. But enough out of me.

By: dgm

dgm — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:05:10 +0000

noradesmond, at 45 you are not “ever more rapidly becoming an old lady!” firstly, time is passing at the same rate it always has and secondly, your 40s is not anything close to old ladydom. i say this even as my next birthday approaches because i don’t get bummed about living another year. as you say, it’s better than the alternative.

By: tittilareau

tittilareau — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 08:08:18 +0000

I love the loafers, just not those loafers. I love the sexy(that’s right, sexy) high-heeled loafers. I would kill for a pair that’s under $500.00, or under $50.00

By: Norma Desmond

Norma Desmond — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 05:12:30 +0000

I think what I wrote sounded too hostile; I meant to take issue, but not to attack. It’s just that I don’t understand what is meant by “old lady shoes” if it’s not that they’re not sexy or girlish. And again, as someone who is ever more rapidly becoming an old lady, I just don’t find that a horrible thing; in fact, I’m pretty glad about it, inasmuch as it means I’m not dead, which is what I’d have to be to stay young forever. What does make me sad is women my age (45) making themselves into travesties of pseudo-youthfulness (c.f. la Donatella) in the attempt to fool people into believing they’re still 22, or the use of the word “old” as an automatic pejorative. If the shoes had been described as drab, or dull, or unattractive, which I guess is what was meant, I wouldn’t have thought twice about it; I’d have disagreed, but not vehemently. It’s the notion that old ladies or women are drab and dull and unattractive that rankled. However, I should have found a less biting way to express myself, and I’m sorry if I created an unpleasant atmosphere.

By: MD

MD — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 22:48:49 +0000

Whether the loafer is an old lady shoe or not has to do with that elusive thing known as style. Some women will wear such shoes and look fussy and dated. Some women will wear this shoe and look stylish, and perhaps even sexy! It is the woman and the way she puts the shoes and clothes together that creates the style! What looks good on one woman, may not on another. Sorry, for the preaching - you all know this already.

I, for one, like the bottom loafer but not the top. Loafers and jeans and jackets and crazy clunky jewelry and funky spiky hair is one way to go. Or, a fitted suit in a beautiful color with simple, straight hair, a touch of diamond, and the loafer might be another. The really cheeky woman could be punk - imagine an off the shoulder shirt or tunic with baggy pants and such shoes. I’ve seen it done on a woman who is six feet and slender - she, sadly, can wear anything and make it style. So, to review: if the shoe fits, wear it!

By: Miss Tanya

Miss Tanya — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:53:31 +0000

I am not sure if I’m of a certain age yet, probably not. However, I think these loafers are most handsome, if not exactly my style. I recently got a nice pair of suede loafers from Ferragamo with a bit of a heel and a touch of the moccasin styling. They work well for casual fridays or running errands with a nice t-shirt, trouser cut jeans and a sweater coat.

By: Lady Gloriana

Lady Gloriana — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:24:02 +0000

dgm - thank you…sometimes, I just want to wear the “old lady” shoes (I had a pair that I loved that the first time my husband saw them, that the first words out of his mouth were “Old lady shoe day?”)….and there are other days that I find them hideous and couldn’t imagine ANYONE, even old ladies, wearing them. Should I come into money that needs to be spent on a lovely pair of “old lady shoes,” the suede Tods would be the first choice on my list!