All Activity

What you have said is absolutely correct, but the "context" of my original statement has a much simpler explanation: It was supposed to be, you know, funny. Or at least mildly amusing. Tongue-in-cheek, that sort of thing. I am hanging my head in despair, knowing that I have failed miserably in my attempt at humor. Wouldn't be the first time, and certainly won't be the last. What adds interest to this story is that you're not wrong! I rarely miss an opportunity to wear heels. Put another way, and perhaps closer to the way I actually feel, you will rarely catch me wearing flats unless there is a compelling reason to do so. I don't always wear high heels in the sense of our definition, but it's always in the back of my mind that I would love to be able to wear the highest heels well, and that definitely requires practice, preferably daily practice. In my case, the limitation doesn't really involve pain or lack of endurance, it is lack of ankle flexibility. Therefore, I do not have the effortless walk that is required to really pull of 12+ cm shoes.

That would be a tough day! I remember being at a local fair with the kids and as we were leaving I saw a young couple, 18-20 years old and she was wearing high heels. It was apparent she was already regretting her shoe choice. She had a grimace on her face and had not even made it out of the parking lot area yet. It is hard to describe, but I am sure everyone on here has seen the look, that grimace with every step with dread at making the next because she knew it was going to be painful. I felt bad for her because I knew she was probably wearing them for her boyfriend, and that is truly commendable. Not that someone should be in pain on account of someone else, but that she wanted to please her date. But considering how far she had to go, then the walking required at a fair over asphalt and grass grounds, it probably meant a trip back to the car early for her.

I might have taken @mlroseplant out of context too, at least in terms of motivation. I know he tracks his kilometers walking in heels and it is only natural when you do that, to want to increase the number. In that context, when looking at choosing between flats and high heels, it is only natural to see wearing flats as a missed opportunity to increase your overall kilometers in high heels per year. For others... like my wife... shoes are part of the outfit, and having the ability to make it formal, or informal, is part of the fun. I side with her in some sense on that because as a traditional man that dresses as such, as we talked about on another part of this forum about jazzing up the male wardrobe, I am a bit jealous of her because I think my choices of fashion and footwear are a little lackluster.

I am sorry to hear you have had a cold. I know I am quite the canoe paddle away from you westerly, but colds and flues have been going around here a lot. My wife was terribly sick with the flu just before Christmas and I have been threatening to get it. Others in the area have not been so lucky and knocked out by this year’s strain. Hopefully you will get over it quickly. I judge no one in terms of fashion from the 1970’s because my take has always been, that was an era of rebellion. Not in a bad way, just that it came on the heels of a generation that were quite strict, at least here in the United States. The 1950’s certainly seemed to be an era where conformity was expected. I say that with everyone having the same kind of haircuts to shoes. In the 1960’s, yeah, they loosened up a little bit with the miniskirt and bikini, but I think it was more out of guilt for being so uptight in the 1950’s. They had aged a bit by then and might have realized the error of their ways. But the 1970’s… that fashion era belonged to the next generation and they were not having the mandatory flattop haircuts for men, and the tea length dresses, beige pantyhose and 8 cm heels for the ladies. My take on 1970’s fashion? They were just rebelling on everything. Pants that tapered consistently? Nope: not having it! Vertical stripes top and bottom? Why not throw in horizontal stripes topside, or plaid… in a contrasting color, bottom side, or with vertical stripes? To me it seemed, my parents just did not care what was worn as long as it roasted what my grandparents had worn. My case in point? Flattop haircuts were out but bowl haircuts came in like a rogue wave! Talk about opposites! But Mary Jane style shoes? My wife has hundreds of high heels, and of Mary Jane’s, she only has one pair, which is pathetic I know, but she has them for some of the vintage photoshoots she does. I think hers are in the 9 cm range and has not complained while wearing them. I do not wear high heels myself, but if I did, I MIGHT find the strap across the metatarsal area of my foot to be annoying, but only because I got some safety shoes that hurts in that particular spot. But I still see Mary Janes occasionally in public and know a member on this forum is infatuated with them, so they certainly have endured the test of time. But the ads you speak of? I am not sure. I do not get those on this site on my computer. I am not even sure what you are referring too?

I’ll third the motion. I love knee boots, with or without heels and those are very nice

Same here!

Giege , I would wear those flat heel boots as I did wear a pair of mine on New Year's Eve on a shopping trip with my wife. We were having heavy snow falling at the time so my heeled boots were definitely out of the question. Mine were just a plain riding boot with 1" heels and no ornamentation like yours, however I would wear a pair like yours in a heartbeat! Happy New Year Happy Heeling, bluejay

exactly

No, not at all. Wearing heels, at least for me, and I think for @mlroseplant and @higherheels as well, it’s a matter of style and fashion and I think it’s fair to say that we like stiletto heels in the 10 to 13cm range. And to be able to walk well in lofty stilettos you need a lot of practice. In my case I had a pair of 12cm stiletto knee boots I bought for their aesthetics but had never learned to walk well in them. @higherheels has a pair of imperious Louboutin Hot Chicks with 13cm heels which very few people can wear with panache, while @mlroseplant walks marathon distances in lower heels but also likes the aesthetics of higher ones. But other people will have entirely different aesthetics and personal styles. It’s by no means a given that everybody wants to move up into ever higher heels.

But does a person always have to be trying to get better at wearing 12-13 cm heels? I ask because its not that my wife only wears Keds; she wears high heels a lot as well and is quite comfortable in them. But I do remember a funny incident right after we found out she was pregnant. We were going to go out on a dinner-date, and she surprised me when she wore a short dress, high heels and SEAMED STALKINGS? Nothing against those who wear such stalking's, but one has to agree that in society it is generally considered quite suggestive to wear them. it I had to ask her about her last choice in any case, and she told me that she figured she was soon going to start showing so she could no longer dress like that, so she was going all out on that night. I will say, in the conservative area where we live, she did get some questioning looks. She did get a maternity dress that was nice and wore high heels with it a few times, but as she drew closer to her due date reverted to flats even with that dress.

Thank you! I felt pretty chuffed! And yes, 10cm is like a magic border! 8cm chunky heels are fun but proper high heels start at 10cm - and (for me) the perfect aesthetic is 12cm stiletto boots

@Shyheels oh, you wore your 12 cm boots too, not bad either 🙂 10 cm really is like a magic border where it gets interesting. I mean I also like lower ones, but the asthetics are just perfect and cannot be beat. @mlroseplant Yes, sometimes it can be difficult to put it in the right words. I don't know yet who you're talking about but I may find out 😉

Deep freeze along the canal - the frozen lumpy towpaths not at all inviting for anyone in heels, but a good day to be puttering about inside, putting extra lumps of coal on the fire and click-click-clicking about the galley making coffee and a hot breakfast! So the year seems off to a good start

These boots are amazing. A great combination of all the styles I like. Nice tall shafts, pointed toes, great tall rugged heels, and reasonable to walk in...

Just finished watching the Rose Parade on TV (only saw two in-person) and watch several women in heels, some high. Wonder how will they look at the end of the 5.5 mile (8.85 km) parade?

Those boots are perfect for most any occasion. They look great, feel great, and easy to walk in. I would also agree that 4" heels are optimum for me as well in terms of actually walking around doing things..

First - has anyone seemed to notice that the pop-up adds, as well as those coming up from the bottom of the screen, have increased and make writing more difficult and annoying? Anyways... Recently, I have been battling a slight cold that, at the end of the work day, has left me feeling drained of energy and wanting to do no more than spend the evening sitting in front of the television (nothing serious - I'm fine). So, I have (including New Year's Eve) been binge watching my favorite childhood television show, Emergency! For UK/EU members, this was (most likely) the first American drama series that revolved around a medical/fire-rescue environment and aired from 1972 to 1977. While watching the old episodes, I made some observations about the state of fashion and how certain items worn then are still being worn today, even if slightly different. First, with respect to the men's fashion du jour, all I can say is YIKES! It was bad and there is little redemption to it. With respect to the women's fashion, however, one can clearly see how certain trends worn during the time period of the show can be and are actually still worn today. In one episode, a woman was wearing an outfit that consisted of a maroon top, khaki colored wide-leg pants/trousers, and a brownish colored jacket (I do not recall the footwear beyond them being a pair of matching pumps). It was an outfit that if worn today, it would have no obvious signs that it was actually worn in the mid-70's. A later episode featured the beautiful Mariette Hartley wearing a brown striped, matching top/cardigan sweater combo, with black, wide-leg (non bell-bottom) pants/trousers and simple black flats (or low heeled pumps). Again, an outfit that could not be easily dated if viewed without any reference to the time period in which it was actually worn. The most recent episode I watched featured a young woman wearing a pair of double strapped, black patient Mary Janes, with a blue, just above the knee, slightly pleated skirt. What was most interesting about her shoes was that I have a contemporary pair that is very similar to that episode which first aired in 1975. The photo I have attached is of my pair of double strapped Mary Janes and if the heel on those were about 1/2 the height they are, one would essentially have the same shoe as seen on the TV show. Not to get off topic, but I recently wore my Mary Janes to the office with a pair of black, subtle patterned tights and a just above the knee black skirt. One of my female colleagues commented about the cuteness of the shoes and I replied that they, as well as the outfit, definitely had a 1960s mod flavor to it. Turns out, my description was rather accurate. So, I guess the two points I am trying to make here is that, first, timeless will always be timeless; certain styles will always outlive trends and fads. Second, what may separate time periods (in a fashion sense) from one another may be no more than putting a new twist on an old idea/item. Sure, the show features are many examples of mostly individual late teens/early 20s) dressing as if they were living in Haight-Ashbury and older people dressing is styles that made the 70's an awful time for fashion (just a note - wearing non-matching stripes and patterns as part of the same outfit is often a fashion disaster). There are examples, however, of the fact that, as just noted, simple pieces can be timeless. It is very much this approach has governed and influence my approach to my clothing choices. I say this with a serious degree of cynicism but I rather see clothing styles focus more on timeless pieces rather than new styles being introduced with every season. I guess if such were the case, then there is little money to be made in the fashion industry.

First - has anyone seemed to notice that the pop-up adds, as well as those coming up from the bottom of the screen, have increased and make writing more difficult and annoying? Anyways... Recently, I have been battling a slight cold that, at the end of the work day, has left me feeling drained of energy and wanting to do no more than spend the evening sitting in front of the television (nothing serious - I'm fine). So, I have (including New Year's Eve) been binge watching my favorite childhood television show, Emergency! For UK/EU members, this was (most likely) the first American drama series that revolved around a medical/fire-rescue environment and aired from 1972 to 1977. While watching the old episodes, I made some observations about the state of fashion and how certain items worn then are still being worn today, even if slightly different. First, with respect to the men's fashion du jour, all I can say is YIKES! It was bad and there is little redemption to it. With respect to the women's fashion, however, one can clearly see how certain trends worn during the time period of the show can be and are actually still worn today. In one episode, a woman was wearing an outfit that consisted of a maroon top, khaki colored wide-leg pants/trousers, and a brownish colored jacket (I do not recall the footwear beyond them being a pair of matching pumps). It was an outfit that if worn today, it would have no obvious signs that it was actually worn in the mid-70's. A later episode featured the beautiful Mariette Hartley wearing a brown striped, matching top/cardigan sweater combo, with black, wide-leg (non bell-bottom) pants/trousers and simple black flats (or low heeled pumps). Again, an outfit that could not be easily dated if viewed without any reference to the time period in which it was actually worn. The most recent episode I watched featured a young woman wearing a pair of double strapped, black patient Mary Janes, with a blue, just above the knee, slightly pleated skirt. What was most interesting about her shoes was that I have a contemporary pair that is very similar to that episode which first aired in 1975. The photo I have attached is of my pair of double strapped Mary Janes and if the heel on those were about 1/2 the height they are, one would essentially have the same shoe as seen on the TV show. Not to get off topic, but I recently wore my Mary Janes to the office with a pair of black, subtle patterned tights and a just above the knee black skirt. One of my female colleagues commented about the cuteness of the shoes and I replied that they, as well as the outfit, definitely had a 1960s mod flavor to it. Turns out, my description was rather accurate. So, I guess the two points I am trying to make here is that, first, timeless will always be timeless; certain styles will always outlive trends and fads. Second, what may separate time periods (in a fashion sense) from one another may be no more than putting a new twist on an old idea/item. Sure, the show features are many examples of mostly individual late teens/early 20s) dressing as if they were living in Haight-Ashbury and older people dressing is styles that made the 70's an awful time for fashion (just a note - wearing non-matching stripes and patterns as part of the same outfit is often a fashion disaster). There are examples, however, of the fact that, as just noted, simple pieces can be timeless. It is very much this approach has governed and influence my approach to my clothing choices. I say this with a serious degree of cynicism but I rather see clothing styles focus more on timeless pieces rather than new styles being introduced with every season. I guess if such were the case, then there is little money to be made in the fashion industry.

@mlroseplant Thanks for the compliment! Indeed, the boots are fabulous and for the most part, rather comfortable in both wearing and walking. I was recently doing some "experimenting" with different looks with these boots and realized that they can be "dressed up," as seen in the photo, or "dressed down" with a pair of skinny jeans. The "issue" I face is that I have very little real life reference as to the current state of contemporary fashion. As I have noted, probably ad nauseum, my employer has no dress code of which to speak other than "jeans are permissible." Beyond that, just about "anything goes" provided that one could make a case that the item covering one's body is somehow clothing. The only mandate that has been expressed is that when I or some of my colleagues are out in the field for a meeting, we present ourselves in a professional capacity. For some (mostly my male counterparts) it means simply changing from a t-shirt to a polo style shirt and that is as far as it goes. Likewise, with the exception of the "Goth Chic," I could count the number of times I have seen any woman in my building wearing a skirt on two fingers, and I have never observed a man wearing a necktie or so much as a dress shirt. This, sadly, pertains to all individuals within my building across all five floors of it. Thus, trying to determine what is/is not appropriate office fashion is really left to my own discretion. So, with no real point of reference as to what others are wearing, I tend to lean towards conservative pieces so as to be safe. Some time ago, I purchased a pair of black, flat heeled riding boots that, for me, were more embellished than I would normally wear (with exactly what, however, is hard to describe - see the photo). Perhaps interesting to some degree, I am much more comfortable wearing these that a pair of towering heels. I guess that I am stuck on the notion that the taller the heel, the closer it is to being unacceptable for office attire. With respect to the second point, I find it to be interesting that above 4," each measurable increment (e.g. 1/2," 1/4," etc.) truly make a difference in how easy it may be to walk in whatever heels are being worn. Thinking about the boots that are the topic of this point, I recall that the first time I wore them they felt incredibly tall and perhaps, even "too tall" for me at the time. Without a doubt, I needed to practice walking in them prior to first wearing them out. Now, however, they are very manageable but probably at the maximum limit of what I realistic can wear. Sure, I can walk in 5" heels, but not for very long or very far. At 5," however, I can feel that my stride is much shorter and my cadence feels choppy as if I am taking half-steps. I just do not feel that I have the grace in 5" heels that is needed to make them a normal item to wear as much as I would love to do so.

Indeed! A nice bit of recognition and acceptance

I guess 2026 is starting off ok! I just got this message from my favorite cousin in Vietnam (she is in her late 30s). High heels is not a subject we usually talk about.

@higherheels, I'm glad you picked up the humor about the Keds. It was actually meant to be funny. It's very difficult to convey humor in just printed words, and there is one person on this forum who absolutely does NOT get my sense of humor. That in and of itself is kind of funny. I do not believe I will do any super high heels today, but I should at least walk some, as the weather is not too bad for January 1st. I don't want to get completely out of condition, as I haven't walked since Sunday, the day that the storm came in. All that's melted now. Happy New Year!

Those are very nice looking boots, indeed! I wouldn't feel weird about wearing them to more places. When you described them as "fancy," I rather expected them to be heavily ornamented, a bright color, or patent leather, something like that. The picture rather surprised me. They look as though they could complement almost anything. I second what higherheels said. Once you get above a certain height, and for me personally it's 4 inches, 1/4" is a big difference. I say once you get above 4 1/2 inches, 1/8" is a big difference. Although you haven't explicitly said so, I get the idea that you're not necessarily into heel height as an aesthetic absolute in the way that I am. In other words, at least in my interpretation of your description, you thought the boots were attractive as a whole, and they just happened to have very tall heels, and maybe taller than you expected. Is that correct?

Wow, @higherheels I’m impressed! A New Years Eve in 13cm boots is quite an accomplishment! My new years was fairly quiet, but nice to stand outside on the boat in the frosty air and watch the fireworks over town (in the distance) in my 12cm boots - which were also pleasingly warm too. Starting the year as I mean to continue! And yes, once you get to 10cms our heels are viewed as insanely high by most people’s standards, yet aesthetically the heights between 10 and 13cm seem to me the most elegant - not at all freakish, just challenging to wear with the grace and fluidity this elegance requires.

On your last post I somehow already had the feeling that this won't be the end of 4"+ heels for you 😉 I know that feeling. Even if i was sometimes demotivated with a pair that was higher than what I usually wear, it never let me go! The higher it gets, the more small increasements in heel height will already make a big difference. I'm sure you felt that.