Why do so many stories regarding bare feet make so little sense. It’s as if their presence make people forget about logic.
Our story today comes from Singapore.
It’s a good story, and a good deed. Don’t get me wrong. A 13-year-old boy (Vince Thant) sees a 6-year boy wandering out, haphazardly crossing the street and in danger of the traffic.
He dashes out, grabs the boy, and guides him to the side of the road and safety, then calls the police. In a couple of hours the young boy is reunited with his parents.
That’s the important part, and they do tell us that story.
But then there is also the titillating part, which you can see from the headline: Student rescues boy running barefoot on road, lets boy wear his shoes.
It’s not clear just how the young boy became barefoot. We find out in the story that he had wandered away from a playground, so I guess that means that he was playing barefoot there?
Of course, what the story stresses is that the little boy was barefoot, and that Vince gave him his shoes.
Why? Because Vince was worried “the boy would step on sharp objects with his bare feet and hurt himself.”
Seriously, once they got the little boy out of the street — Yay! — he was pretty much out of danger of getting hurt.
Then, for the news media, they re-enacted the shoe swap, revealing that Vince had holes in his sock.
But what about Vince? He is quoted as saying
As for myself, I had my socks on, so it was okay.
Uh, don’t sharp objects also go through socks? It’s as if people (and I’m picking on people in general, not Vince) think that any sort of foot covering is some magic talisman against injury. If you cannot see the foot, it must be safe, no matter how easy it is for something to penetrate to covering.
Anyways, in the end, I’m happy the young boy was safe and reunited with his parents. It’s just that it would be nice if that was the whole story. But again we see that “civilized” thought is that if a foot is bare, it is a danger magnet.
(H/T: Barefoot TJ)