The Truth About Womens Shoes

Scene: Friday Evening. Assistant Kuzers apartment. An activated discussion.
ProfessorKuzer: Do you apperceive what you are saying? Do you accept the ramifications of publishing this approach on your career?
ProfessorGillford: I apperceive and I do. And I will.
ProfessorKuzer: Gillford don't do it, it will be the end of you. Your approach is added arguable than baptising a monkey.
ProfessorGillford: It is the truth. And I am accommodating to pale my acceptability on it.
ProfessorKuzer: The feminists and liberals will drive a pale through you and your acceptability if you put this out. Can't you analysis and analyse a altered subject? one with applied non-academic uses?
ProfessorGillford: Non-academic! How cartel you sir! How cartel you!
ProfessorKuzer: I beggarly there are affluence of added acceptable subjects...
ProfessorGillford: This is a accountable of all-inclusive importance. It affects the spheres of Economics, Psychology and Philosophy; in accession to our own acreage of Anthropology.
ProfessorKuzer: Anthropology does not affair itself with women's shoes!
ProfessorGillford: Does it not? Acquaint me, accept you anytime met a guy who has not wondered why women absorb so abundant time, accomplishment and money affairs or cerebration about shoes? Or one who has not been bargain to a tumour inducing brainy state, because of the ball about women's shoes?
ProfessorKuzer: Well yes, every man acquainted that at some point of time. But that is a allotment of existence; it cannot be helped.
ProfessorGillford: No, not any more. I accept spent 6 years researching it; and the apple will assuredly apperceive the accuracy about the affiliation amid women and shoes.
ProfessorKuzer: That women abrasion shoes to be chaste and that the alone belief they accept while affairs shoes is how big-ticket they are!!!
ProfessorGillford: That's right. Women buy shoes to be celibate. And the best is not based aloft colour or blazon or comfort, all those things are just acclimated to absolve the big-ticket bulk tag. Shoes are the bulk that women allegation to be celibate.
ProfessorKuzer: Again why don't they just airing into the abundance and buy the a lot of big-ticket pair? Why absorb hours on end aggravating assorted pairs of shoes and soliciting opinions?
ProfessorGillford: Ah yes, that is because of three reasons. Firstly while affairs shoes women charge to account what is the best bulk that they can absorb on a brace while still accepting money larboard for food, secondly how to absolve the bulk to others and themselves and thirdly how to acquisition abundant flaws in the unaffordable shoes as to not feel bad for not affairs them.
ProfessorKuzer: Seriously? You beggarly to say that women's shoes accept annihilation to do with walking and bottom protection?
ProfessorGillford: Accept you anytime appear beyond a women's shoe advertisement anecdotic how adequate a shoe is? They don't even call how acceptable a woman will attending in the shoes, it is all just about how acceptable searching the shoes are! And actively accept you anytime approved to get a woman to walk, they yield off their shoes in 20 accomplish and accuse about them!
ProfessorKuzer: Maybe they anticipate that shoes are an important allotment of all-embracing appearance, you apperceive the ensemble - hats, outfits, accessories and the like...
ProfessorGillford: Who but a gay man would attending at a woman's shoes? And that cannot absolve the bulk of time that women absorb affairs shoes? I beggarly no guy looks at a woman's shoes and goes man I got to get me some of that! All the acceptable locations are way aloft the shoes, there is no charge to attending accomplished the skirt. And in animosity of accepting smarter than men; women abide to absorb time accomplishment and money to buy shoes. That proves that their affidavit for accomplishing so cannot be rational.
ProfessorKuzer: OK but the hotlink to abstention is still cryptic to me. How do shoes accumulate women celibate?
ProfessorGillford: The after-effects of my abstraction are that the best a females anxiety blow the arena the added abandoned she becomes, attending at birds and angle both acquaintance for activity - low leg contact. Now accede lower mammals and insects they just can't get abundant - massive leg contact. The aboriginal affair that women yield off during sex, anywhere, are their shoes, accept you anytime wondered about that? Why even if a woman is bashed she will assert on demography off her shoes afore any hanky panky.
ProfessorKuzer: Couldn't that be because they affliction added for what happens to their shoes, than what happens to their bodies, which is why they yield them off during sex?
ProfessorGillford: If women admired shoes so abundant again they would amusement shoe makers and shoe aggregation owners as cine stars, or shoe makers would accept groupies like artificial surgeons. Acquaint me accept you anytime apparent a woman animalism afterwards a shoe maker? It is all for accepting celibate. Do you apperceive that as an absorbing aftereffect during all my campaign I begin that tribes area there are no woman's shoes are domestically the happiest in the world.
ProfessorKuzer: I anticipate you accept spent too abundant time beneath the sun, during your analysis on those close islands. And the after-effects are showing.
ProfessorGillford: OK lets attending at the facts. Affluent women boutique for shoes the added than anyone abroad and yet accept you anytime apparent a affluent woman airing or say that she has abundant shoes? Is that not paradoxical? In accession even if they do go out the shoes are consistently beneath the table, area no one can see them. Shoes are the bulk that men pay to accumulate women celibate.
ProfessorKuzer: Now you just aureate me.
ProfessorGillford: Let me accord you a claimed example. Accept you noticed that in every one your lesbian fantasies women never abrasion shoes? That's because subconsciously men apperceive that a woman with shoes would never get funky. Wish more? OK accept you heard of a fantasy of women authoritative out in a shoe boutique or watched a porno area women are accepting it on in a shoe shop? Considering how abundant they like shoes, there should be a ton of both but no it isn't so. Why?
ProfessorKuzer: I am a assistant of Anthropology and appropriately married. I do not watch porn! And your so alleged abstraction is all qualitative and lacks numbers.
ProfessorGillford: You ability be a average age-old assistant but you are still a guy. And as for numbers accept you apparent the citizenry abstracts of bald bottom thirdworld countries? What could be added proof? I acquaint you the affidavit is all about us. Haven't you heard of the old adult who lived in a shoe?
ProfessorKuzer: That was a allegory you cannot analyze that. And additional she had a accomplished agglomeration of kids.
ProfessorGillford: Precisely had a accomplished agglomeration of kids and again capital to be chaste so confused into a shoe. It makes absolute sense.
ProfessorKuzer: Nonsense. In all your years, column a breach up has a woman anytime larboard abaft a brace of shoes in your apartment? Clothes maybe, architecture maybe, accessories maybe but shoes never. That proves that they artlessly like shoes added than aggregate else.
ProfessorGillford: That is not it. A woman's anxiety and not her academician are the a lot of able animal organ. It is so obvious, a woman can change her apperception at any time but she can never change her feet. That's why the Japanese acclimated to bottom bind and cut of the women's toes and compress the anxiety to ascendancy their women.
ProfessorKuzer: That was a crazy fad, not something based on reason!
ProfessorGillford: No they knew absolutely what they were doing. The bottom is the a lot of able animal organ. But women with the advice of Italian appearance houses accept approved to adumbrate this truth. Why even today the few men who apperceive the accuracy about anxiety are not listened to, but accounted to be bottom amulet perverts by society.
ProfessorKuzer: Which is what I am added starting to doubtable that you ability be. What you are adage cannot be true. If abstention was the purpose, again why would women ask men how their shoes looked?
ProfessorGillford: Ah, that is a ambush question. Because they apperceive that alone gay men attending at and accept opinions on women's shoes. And yet they ask because a woman is aggravating to say that, I am accepting chaste for you by cutting these shoes so you abiding as hell apperceive about it. And if a guy answers that they attending bad, again she will feel bad because she is accepting chaste for such a poor reason; and if he says they attending acceptable again she knows that he is gay or is assimilate the accuracy about shoes.
ProfessorKuzer: I am just not assertive by this.
ProfessorGillford: Open your eyes and your apperception Assistant Kuzer. Let me explain one added abstruseness to you, why do you anticipate that women abuse to hit men on their arch with their shoes? As a man do you anticipate that it would hurt? No sir, the absolute acceptation of that is that the woman is aggressive her man that she will yield off her shoes and as a aftereffect not be chaste any more.
ProfessorKuzer: Shoes and celibacy, who would accept thought?
ProfessorGillford: Absolutely and actuality the accuracy has become so breakable that men are affairs and traveling arcade for big-ticket shoes with women in the achievement of accepting some, if that is the actual affair that is blocking them. Can you imagine? Accurate bold is in accepting the shoes off and not her dress, because you can be abiding to get some with no shoes, about no dress is not fool proof.
ProfessorKuzer: But why do women wish to be so chaste and not accept sex?
ProfessorGillford: Wo Wo authority on a additional there! I said I was acute abundant to amount out the accuracy about women's shoes, I am not acute abundant to amount out women! Please!
ProfessorKuzer: Could it not be accessible that you accept just strung disparate $.25 of facts to anatomy this approach about women and shoes?
ProfessorGillford: Do you accept a bigger explanation?