Not another shoe question

[Nicole_Lasmedias]

Ok, here is the question. When it comes to athletic shoes, do you prefer buy men's or women's? on zappos.com, all men's athletic shoes don't look as good as women's, that is my opinion. Some of you probably hear of Adidas first intelligent shoe. http://www.adidas.com/campaigns/usadidas_1/content/index.asp
On the web site it separates men and women version of the shoe. Although both version look the same. Does anybody know what is the difference?
On web site it says "Built on a man's last (specifically for men)" or
"Built on a woman's last (specifically for women)" How that could be different? And last question: assuming you are going to buy these shoes, which version would you buy? Men's or Women's?

[Tristen Cox]

Just an assumption, but I might say toes may play a part in 'internal' difference. Also foot-arch meaning the thickness of a man's foot in the middle is usually a bit more than a females. Otherwise not very much is different.

0.02

[Jamie M]

Yikes , i though a shoe was something that kept my foot dry but apparently they've got a brain and inteligence now aswell . Have I been keeping my shoes in a state of imprisonment and torture for the last two decades . Somebody call Amnesty Int. for me ;)

Anyway , assuming both shoes look the same , I'd buy the male version as without doubt my feet are male feet therefore I'd get the support I need and look just the same as everyone else . Does that make sense :confused:

[Mx Justina]

Just an assumption, but I might say toes may play a part in 'internal' difference. Also foot-arch meaning the thickness of a man's foot in the middle is usually a bit more than a females. Otherwise not very much is different.

0.02

My feeling is that a lot of sex-typed sneaker features may be just for control marketting. I usually find unisex looking women's walking shoes/sneaker more supportive to my feet simply because they are slightly narrower than similar sized men's shoe (with some men's shoes my heels have too much play or slide.

Except for a certain Reebok Classic model...most of what is available (or pushed at the buying public) is simply too damned garish ugly for my taste as a walking shoe. Also, I prefer Hi-tops which make selections even scarcer and harder (the hi-tops give more support and are more androgynous looking than lo-cut sneakers--IMO).

As far as I'm concerned, what is usefull to me is a simply designed good looking (femme-unisex) hi-top, made of leather and well constructed. Any ergonomic BS the manufacturer can keep.

I have a pair of men's leather hi-top olive-green Travel-Foxes (long long discontinued), and men's grey outer leather Reebok hi-tops (also long long discontinued) that I treat with TLC. Both designs are my ideals regarding casual unisex street shoes. Tempted to take dig. photos in order to illustrate what I'm writing about.

J.

[Katie Ashe]

Womens for a few reason... I'm flat foot, color choices, price is usaually lower, Mens don't have high heels ;)

[lauren]

I usually buy a women's shoe for the better fit they give me. I'm a 12W or a 13reg; either size fits my foot better than any man's shoe.

Lauren

[jo_ann]

I just bought a pair of plain white mens sneakers.. I bought some crayolas markers to colorize (feminize?) them, but they rubbed off "and they're not even the washable kind".. Me thinks I need to get sharpie markers so it doesn't rub off.. coming soon, crossdress your shoes :)