Since it was recently discovered (or uncovered) that former governor Eliot Spitzer liked to wear black socks to bed, there’s been a bit of buzz on the “under the covers sock debate.” Some people say socks are a no-go, while others don’t care if they, or their partners, do it with them on or off. In the socks vs. no socks debate, I would opt out of debating, because I don’t care about them one way or the other. Unless of course they smell worse than your feet, then I care a lot. But I think wearing thigh-high socks, whether they be solid, striped or pretty patterns, can be as sexy as wearing heels to bed, and besides, since my feet always get/are cold, socks keep me comfortable.
However, we are living in a media world, and this sock story is no longer just about socks. In other words, this sock story has taken off on its own two feet. So much so that today I’ve received numerous requests to do radio interviews on the subject of socks and intimacy.
See, I was quoted in the Daily News, in an article that started out with this sentence:
If former Gov. Eliot Spitzer really had sex with his socks on, it may have signaled a fear of intimacy during his trysts with high-priced hookers, sex experts said Sunday.
And while yes, I agreed that it could be a sign of a fear of all things intimate, I also believe that it may not be a sign at all. I mean this is someone he’s paying to have sex with, and therefore a seemingly unimportant decision, like whether or not Spitzer, or any other person for that matter, leaves their socks on or off is really an open and shut, who cares anyway, sort of case. It’s not a big deal at all. It’s personal preference. Or perhaps it’s being considerate to the person you’re with. Maybe you have the stinkiest, nastiest feet with pointy nails that could rip through skin and you didn’t get a chance to trim them before your tryst - wouldn’t you want to leave your socks on too?
Read more »