poor families of foot binding

the fact is that only a small portion of female population had their feet bound to the point of having a crippling effect. most of the literature discusses the 3" Lotus foot as the ideal and, by desaign, the most crippling, but this was only practical for elite women who did not need to work. these elite families had servants and were conveyed around town. poor or middle class women tended to have the 5" lotus feet which was far less crippling, so that they could still work.

there are records to support this disparity between the size of the lotus feet and the class of girl family. binding the feet of girls of affuluent families was started at the earliest possible age, whreas the bindings of the feet of the girls in farming families, for instance, began around puberty and their feet were often unbound after marriage. the wealthy woman was more valuabe in the marriage as a symbol beauty and class if her feet were smaller and the poorer women a more valuabe commodity if her feet were some what larger and she could help with the family business.

it is interesting to note that women from wealthy families and prostitutes had the smallest feet. this does lead to the conclusion that both women from wealthy families and prostitutes were treated like commodities, due to the attraction to their tiny feet. this fact also discount the idea that the women with the tiny smaller feet would be kept chaste and at home since prostitutes were certainly not chaste. it sounds comparable to the saying "keep her barefoot and the pregnant"