I remember in around 2001 or 2002, I was giving an interview at a press conference for a traveling exhibition. I saw a woman reporter who was in a suit and flip-flops. I was intrigued that she bothered to come to the press conference dressed in a suit but hadn’t changed her footwear. She was willing to be dressed in a traditional symbol of authority in every way, with the exception of her feet. I don’t know if it was a small expression of rebellion or youthfulness or what it was, but it was a contrast to the rest of her outfit, for sure. But even if you’re wearing a pair of $10 flip-flops, you’re not looking your best if you don’t have your $30 pedicure. So there’s a constant demand for upkeep that keeps the money flowing. Increasingly, men are feeling that pedicure pressure, too. I don’t think as many are bowing down to it, but some are.

[…]

The acceptability of the flip-flop is related to the hypersexualization of women’s dress. That’s why my research has been focused on the high heel. The introduction of the sandal—not the flip-flop but the toe-exposing sandal—in the 1930s, was part of a greater trend towards the “nudification,” for lack of a better term, of the female body. I feel that there has been a marked progression toward increased exposure of the female body.

What I find intriguing now is that men have begun to follow suit—perhaps not the best term here. Men are now falling in line with this increased exposure, and it could be argued this increased exposure is starting at their feet. With that increased exposure is concern about male pedicures and all kinds of grooming of the male body. I do see this as part of this larger continuum toward hypersexualization in dress. But if this exposure of the body is related to hyersexualization, I think the question—are flip-flops sexy—also needs to be asked, and I think the answer is no.