dr1819

Out with the old, in with the new.LOL New GF is 5'3" and has more fun with heels than me and loves me to wear them when we go out, says I look very sexy in heels. YES!Any who in some ways, sizs really doesn't matter. Thats my own personal experience.

I had a 5'3" girlfriend, once, for about 8 months in college. She was by far the sexiest partner I've ever had!

On the other hand, for something like this, it would be best to NOT give a link, for fear of breaching copyrights.

Links to copyrighted material on websites where the author has given their permission for the material to be posted, violate no copyright laws. It's only the copying and reposting of content on websites or media sources not sanctioned by the author that violates copyright laws.

Out of all other places for men to post, what the hell is one segregated thread going to hurt?

Since it's just one thread among many, please refrain from posting there.

Thanks.

By doing so, you're respecting the rights of the women who do post there, and hopefully (time will tell), help rebuild this board's female population to former levels, particularly since it's the only thread among many that the women can call their own.

To many rules will drive people away.

You're absolutely correct. Too many rules along one line will drive some people away, while too many rules along another line will drive other people away.

The goal of our administrative staff is to promote an open forum with respect to the wear of heels, but guard against this forum being overrun with either males or females, or other issues such as narcism, transvestic fetishism, etc. So long as the posts adhere to the few simple rules (one of which is no male posting in the women's forum), the healthier the forum is as a whole.

Honey, I like to wear heels.

Perfect.

There's no need to overcomplicate things by trying to explain or justify it, must less getting "professionals" many of whom would be more prone to try and "cure" you simply for being different. For some women it might be a major adjustment. For others, particularly those who're already aware that both men and women have interests which differ from the norm, it may not be a big deal at all.

Be honest, but also be ready to make a choice, as some women may present you with an ultimatum, that either the heels go or they'll go. After 19 years, I'd recommend chucking the inconsequential pieces of leather, wood, and plastic, rather than the long-term loyal companion and mother of one's children.

A copy of my latest posting on this site (don't know if they'll post it, but stay tuned...:

A man wearing a skirt is NOT "cross-dressing," as men have worn skirts for nearly all of the last 100,000 years (Jesus wore robes), and about a third of the men on this planet still wear male unbifurcated garments/MUGs(skirts), mostly throughout Southeast Asia, Oceana, and Africa.

It's only throughout the idiotic, "I can't do anything that differs from anyone else" Western World that pant wear has become the norm. Those who oppose men wearing skirts need to get a clue and realize that part of the reason behind the population growth in the west is because a man's pair requires cooling for the proper formation of his contribution to the beginning of life, and that skirts afford him this cooling, while pants do not. God said, "be fruitful and multiply." Therefore, pants are Satan's design to prevent Christian men from doing so. Remember that nearly all Muslim men still wear either skirts or robes, and remain quite fruitfull. Don't be hoodwinked! Pants are for the fallen who follow societal fashion, rather than following Jesus, who never wore bifurcated garments.

Those who have an interest in fashion freedom may want to poke their noses into that forum as well. http://www.imff.net - sometimes worth a look on this topic.

- Peter

Alternatively, they can simply forge ahead with one of the offerings from Roaman's or Eddie Bauer.

There are lots of makes of large-sized skirts out there who's offerings are fairly masculine, no lace, frills, etc., including flies that open to the right.

Just go hunting!

Why anyone would want to say any given height of a heel is the minimum height for a high heel and then admit that smaller heels are also high heels is, to my mind, a total contradiction of terms.

Agreed, just as what one normally enjoys wearing in no way constitutes some sort of "minimum" so far as heel height is concerned.

I think the breakdown is fairly simple, even though an apparently slewed consensus shows 3.5" is the beginning of a "high heel." That consensus is that heels between 0" and 2" are low heels, heels between 2" and 3" are medium heels, and heels more than 3" are high heels.

A high heel is not the height above which you teeter or have difficulty walking.

I think it's time we revisit the word-based definitions rather than looking at numbers:

Flats: What it says - they're flats, with a heel no higher than the toe.

Low Heels: Can't tell the difference between these and flats. Even for a larger shoe size like mine, this falls into the range below two inches, as I can definately tell the difference between a two inch heel and flats.

Medium heels: I can tell the difference between these and flats, but have no difficulty walking in medium heels, nor do I need to make any adjustments for my gait. One can tell it's a heel but it comes as naturally as wearing flats.

High heels: High enough that one has to make adjustments to their gait.

The last is a little nebulous, but let me add this: If someone has been wearing high heels for a long time, they'll come to think of their modified high heel gate as normal, when it's actually not. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about measurable differences between a normal flat, low, and medium-heeled gait as compared to a high-heeled gait.

Everyone's different, not just in foot size, but also in their ability to adjust their gaits to different heel heights, which is what makes it so difficult to put a number on it:

1. The definition of a "high heel" depends on the size of a person's foot.

2. The definition also depends on how well they adjust their gait to the heel.

I recall a 1970's add where Cheryl Ladd walked effortlessly in a pair of 4-1/2 inch heels for a Charlie commercial (perfume). Still, her gait was slightly shorter than normal, so she was indeed wearing a pair of high heels.

Given these new considerations, I have to revise the definition, as it applies to me:

Flats: heel height - toebox height

Low heels: 0 to less than 2"

Mid heels: 2" to less than 3.5"

High heels: 3.5" or more

Can I wear 5" heels? Of course, although I'm more comfortable in 4" heels. Why kill myself or engage in stupid competitions to see who can wear the highest heel?

My point is that when I put on a 3.5" heel, I feel like I'm wearing high heels. When I wear a 4" heel, all the better. At 4.5", I have difficulty walking, so it's no longer fun, it's just stupid. At 5", walking is still possible, but it's become even more stupid, so I never go there.

My favorite pair of heels are 3-1/4". My favorite pair of high heeled boots are 4", and the heel height of my highest heels that I currently own are 4-1/2". I can wear the latter all day long without discomfort, but I usually don't, as they're stilleto sandals, and that's not the image I like to present outside, so I normally stick to my 3-1/4" or 4" boots, depending upon how I feel. In broad daylight, with large crowds, I have a pair of 2-1/2" block-heeled boots. By my definition, that's still a mid-heel, so I'm both happy, and anonymous.

Even so, during summer I occasionally wear a pair of women's toe-thongs with straps thick enough that no one gives them a second glance. They look just like guy's sandals, except for one thing - I can't find styles like these in the guy's section!

Sooner or later, designers will wake up and begin offering, en masse, heeled shoes for men. Not dainty heels in larger sizes, but heels that the vast majority of the male population would be proud to own, provided they weren't the only ones wearing a heel over 1/2"...

It'll take time. In the meantime, I'm headed for my local pub this afternoon, and I'm wearing a pair of 3-1/2" blade-heeled boots. I've worn them there before, so I'm not worried - should be a good time!

I'd suggest these much cheaper and safer too.

Chris

Definately, a vote of thanks for sanity. Why inject anything when so many much cheaper, more effective, and far safer products are available?

I wish I could put it more politely than this, however, those who inject silicone into their bodies are morons, little more intelligent than repeatedly smashing one's face against concrete because they don't like the one they have.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, folks, but injecting silicone is extremely dangerous.

It's more dangerous than riding 150 mph on the Interstate without a helmet. There are countless incidents of death and serious disfigurement, and the link above points to the huge medical evidence of just how disasterous this process really is.

Silicones are generally biologically inert -- meaning they don't rot, are impervious to fungal or bacterial attack and do not enter into biological processes. Theoretically they would be inert inside the body...

Not true. Follow the link above.

I haved bought any new heels for a while, and the offerings on Zappos kept getting better, so after loading half a dozen phantom shopping carts in the last couple of months, I finally trimmed things down to just four, and splurged!

These are for going out:

These are for occasional wear at the office:

I got these just because I think it's an incredibly sexy shoe:

And these are for lounging around at home, casual wear, possibly the movies, etc.:

I love bare legs. Hairy ones, too. So does my girlfriend.

What in God's name else would one wear beneath a kilt???

Correction - I should have added, "bare legs, but only on women," and "hairy ones, too, but only my own."

I shaved my legs once, two years ago, just to see what it would be like. Yes, it actually felt more comfortable wearing a pair of pantyhose than with hairy legs (not that I do that as a matter of routine, anyway), but I didn't like anything else, and let it grow out.

Getting back to topic... I think thin works better with stilletos, and thicker with chunkier heels. However, I've seen a few pics of men here who are beefy (muscles), although not fat, and with the right outfit, they looked fine in a pair of 4" pumps. I think the color and style coordination is more important than one's body type, as I've seen both skinny and overweight girls look both good and terrible in all types of heels.

The picture of her in the pink sweater is pretty incredible!

Welcome aboard! I have friends who live near Long Branch, NJ.

I'm no nurse, but as a person whose dealt with a heart issue, I second Mrs. Heel's recommendation! Earlier this summer I was grossly overweight due to an unrelated medical condition, and started having some symptoms of heart trouble. So, I radically changed my diet and began biking to work. I had to take it very easy at first, just so that I wouldn't precipitate a heart attack. After a month I was comfortably well along and began interval training. By three months I was down 20 lbs and was at the point where I was passing obvious road-racing cyclists who were out training. I guess Lance was right - it's not the bike (my Cube is a racer, but it's at the bottom of the list with respect to being lightweight). It's really all mental. It didn't hurt that I grew up cycling, kept it up back in college, and ran track, either... But I'd been getting more and more out of shape for fifteen years straight, and it was taking it's toll. Similarly, my father, now 77, was diagnosed with high blood pressure and mild heart disease when he was 74. He stopped smoking, changed his diet, bought a treadmill, and remains 30 pounds lighter than he was three years ago. He no longer has high blood pressure or any sign of heart disease. So, it's possible, but definately, easy does it for a while! I'm very glad things are progressing.

But the Lumiani ones have a tapered heel, which looks nicer, I think.

I agree with you that tapered heels look better. But it doesn't look as if it's three inches or above, which is my usual criteria.

Hi folks...

After a long time, here they are! The pictures!!!

I decided to show up my face here too.

Just remembering: I'm crossdressed, maked-up and everything, but it was a costume party. I'm not a real crossdresser. So please, the images should be funny. Crossdressed friends, don't consider it an ofense please. I like you all!

Well, here they go! Of course other people's faces are blured because they don't want to appear on the internet.

Many thanks to all of your replies and sorry for this too late picture posting. I'm vey busy at the new work these days...

Takes a lot of guts to post a non-you you! I'm sure the heels felt fine, though...

It is terrifying the first couple of times you do it. But the shops are there to sell shoes and if you're buying, most of them don't care.

That said, I still do most of my buying online. I still get nervous buying heels in a brick-and-mortar store.

I'm still slightly nervous, but much less so, as I usually do my buying while away in other cities in which I don't live.

There are no standards as to what constitutes a US 13 or UK 11 in women's sizes. The decision is based largely on market experience and the choices made by the manufacturer. Most choose to go with some sort of average, but a few tend to make their's larger or smaller than average. Hopefully, all fashion houses will convert to metric, with a comparable accommodation for what constitutes differing widths (proportion of instep girth to length? Duh...) It's not rocket science, but apparently fashion designers are either ill-equipped or unwilling to check out basic algebra. "It's art, not science," says one as he floats by on riches made by unsuspecting customers who thought they'd be getting a size 13 and in reality, it was a size 12, marked a size 13 on the whim of a fashion designer... I think Zappos feedback has done a great job of calling them to task, however. A lot of companies have begun adjusting their sizes in response to the comments posted there, as a failure to do so would have resulted in lost sales.

Actually, Imperial units have all but fallen by the wayside, particularly since the British adopted the Metric system in 1995. The US system is alive in well, at least in the US. I grew up with the US system (inches, feet, yards, miles, pounds, etc.), vastly prefer the metric system, having initially been exposed to it in the 6th grade and well grounded in it throughout college.

Mathematically, yes, dr1819 - but why the difference and what is the relationship between the US and imperial measures? The long decimal suggests something more complex than a simple fractional reduction (to short-change gullible settlers?)

Ah... I see what you're getting at.

The Wikipedia article on Imperial Unit has the answer. Scroll down to Measures of Volume and see also Current Use of Imperial Units.

Well, we did stop at the toe-licking, and it was done on a dare by her own husband, with whom I'd worked a few years back, so it really wasn't an "orgy." Still, I thought it was funny that here I was in heels, he'd given me this challenge, then his wife actually gave into it, offering up her feet for the ordeal, and appearing to enjoy it immensely!

It was more in jest than anything else, but the entire evening was filled with stuff like that, from all corners, so we had a blast.

The next morning, his wife drove me home the next day, as the girl I'd gone to the party with with split rather than staying the night! Her loss, as the party continued (non-orgasmically but rather enjoyably) for a few more hours after she left and before we all crashed. Good, clean fun. We even went so far as to play Spades! Woohoo!

Nice pic, but I thought it would say Rui across the moniker...

What do you mean "what the men REALLY want"? Somebody will want everything you can imagine, from manly boots to stripper heels! I think you mean what will sell in a regular shoe or department store?

Preferences are varied, and some are much stronger than others. Most men who wear heels want manly boots - they just like the heels. The comments here would lead you to believe otherwise, but the most prolific posters here like the more feminine heels.

When one subtracts the volume of posts from the types of heels desired, preferences for heels for men revert to masculine-looking heels.

Statistics do not lie, neither do I!

Okay, now no male is allowed to post ANYTHING in the "girls'" forum for any reason. Supposedly that will bring back women to posting there. Well, what kind of women post there, based on what I've seen so far of course?

Actually, a few years ago, before uncontrollable men drove them off, there was a rather large contingent of women who posted there regularly, on a wide variety of quite good, healthy, wholesome, female-heeling topics.

They enjoyed themselves, and life was good.

Along came a bunch of dudes who thought that because they wore heels and other feminine clothing they could post there willy-nilly.

The women felt violated, robbed of their territory, and almost all of them left.

Since this is a site about heels, not about males who wear heels and who outnumber the women in the women's section by 5 to 1, we came up with this rule to restore balance to this website.

Please respect our decision.

If you want to see what the fuss was about, check the older threads with similar topics in the female forum. That person and I really went at it. I'd gotten tired of the same old refrain and so many of the other posters were scraping and grovelling that I just couldn't ignore it anymore.

To the admins: I've noticed you are deleting men's posts on older threads there brought back up. I am asking you to not do that, please grandfather those threads in. For one thing, they were made before the rule change. Secondly, it throws the metre/continuity off of the thread immensely. Thank you.

From what I've seen, older threads prior to the moratorium date have indeed been grandfathered.

There may be a slip here and there, but that date was very well discussed and will be honored. I'll bring up possible slips on the moderator's forum.

Thank you.

He returned with 2 pails and the explanation that the 5 gal. bucket wouldn't hold it all.

My problem is that I still can't figure out which is the more correct: the Imperial system or the US system?

From Google: 1 US gallon = 0.832673844 Imperial gallons

There's your answer!