dr1819

Fine. Deny all cell phone use aboard airplanes. It's what, 3 to 10 minutes between landing and gate? Duh! Just pack the cell phones with the check baggage.

Addendum: Most men have some fetish association with heels, or women wouldn't still be wearing them.

As a wearer, so long as it's not disrupting sigificant relationships, then it's fine with respect to US psychological "morals." (the term is very losely defined).

Bottom line - just wear 'em and enjoy 'em. Women do, and they wear our clothes, too.

Here's a short list of a few of the many traditional male clothing that's currently being marketed to women in the US:

Kurta

Tunic

Kaftan

Kilt (Scottish women never wore kilts...)

Sarong (also worn by women)

Pareo (also worn by women)

Poncho (Worn by men, not women, in Peru)

Gauchos (patterned after the pants worn by male cowboys. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaucho

Blouse - originally a man's shirt, not a woman's shirt (women didn't wear shirts then).

Pants/trousers

Corsets (originally worn nearly as often by men as women).

Tights/hosiery - worn by men who wore tunics. Dresses on women then were long enough they didn't need tights/hosiery

The list goes on and on.

So, if women wear our cloths, why should ever feel like they're no longer ours?

Right now I'm wearing a mid-thigh tunic. Tonight I'll probably change into a sleeper shirt before going to bed, as it's more comfortable (and warm) than merely pulling up the covers.

Newfieguyinheels, your story reminds me of an event during my earliest heeling days. You couldn't get shoes online, then, and the only place in my size was Payless. Fortunately, with their traditional "ding-dong" as people walked in or out, you always knew whether or not the store was empty. Back then I was deathly afraid of what might happen if someone came across me trying on a pair of ladies shoes, so I always waited until I was alone in the store, or at least that section was alone, before rapidly trying on a pair then cramming it back in the box. I'd just pulled zipped up two pair of 3" chunk heel ankle boots when the store clerk walked around the corner, took one look, and said, "most in that size are on the next isle, which is seldom visited." My jaw must have dropped, because she smiled and added, "Oh, don't worry - guys are always in her buying heels. Several times a week, at least." Based on this, some other comments I've received from other shoe clerks, and stats I've read, I think the phenomenon of guys wearing heels is a whole lot higher than people think in general. I think we're just a lot more secretive about it, in general, than women have been about changing their fashion choices.

Pics ahoy!

I posted them HERE, as I thought it would be more pertinant to that discussion.

Girls are inherently more flexible than guys, as well, due to the different hormones running through our bodies. This plays a critical role in childbearing, and a man's generally stiffer build helps men to excel with strenuous bursts of movement critical to bringing down prey and fighting in general.

First, if you don't work your way up gradually, you'll overcompensate for tightly stretched muscles and tendons, and will learn how to walk in appropriates.

If it doesn't feel natural, you find yourself bending forward, or a bit wobbly, the heel is too high for you at this stage. Go to a lower heel that feels natural, and practice, practice, practice. When it's absolutely second nature, and you can wear them throughout the day without pain, move up 1/4 to 1/2 an inch and start again.

In addition to helping you to learn how to walk in heels the right way, this way, between 2-1/2" heels to 4" heels, you gain between three and six pair of shoes!

Here are two very good links which discuss the issue in more detail:

http://shoes.about.com/od/fashionfootwear/ht/walk_high_heels.htm

http://www.ehow.com/how_16007_walk-high-heels.html

I dunno - I've seen some pretty sexy heeled sandals on women this summer. The cool thing is that some of the styles coming out in the Fall for larger sizes (up to 13) are quite the eyecatcher! I'll post some on the For the Guys forum.

So let me get this right:

You don't understand why someone on a plane using a cell phone is cause for concern?

Hang on a minute ... Weren't you the same dr1819 that thinks using a cell phone whilst driving a car is ok providing you can multi-task?

I can understand the title of this topic now. This is truly the point of stupidity.

"So let me get this right..." Sadly, you didn't get this right. Please re-read as is without reading into it. I'm quite capable of stating my own words without having others put words into my mouth without my permission.

Thanks.

Hi, sscotty727, - I agree with your sentiments! However, I have to keep flying commercial, as the aircraft I'm qualified to pilot (Cessna 172) has a difficult time making it across the pond...

Ah, chris100575! You're absolutely right, and is the principle reason behind every takeoff and landing briefing aboard commercial aviation today.

Not Terrorism.

Lindsey: "This is why you are asked not to use cell phones on a plane. So when someone does (as in the case of this topic), it could be considered a deliberate act of sabotage, therefor, cause for concern."

Of course not, particularly given the fact that half the pax were attempting to use the cell phones, almost invariably because the other half were trying to use theirs.

Human nature pushes through. It always has. It always will. Attributing terrorist motives to mob mentality is both stupid and foolish, as the two are totally unrelated - Terrorists act as individuals or very smalls cells (2 to 5 people). They highly idealistic, not drunken monkeys bent on thrashing a few stop signs.

Totally different animals.

Hi to everybody, I was hoping that yall could help me piece together some things ok. I have been enjoying heels in some form or another since I was around 6 years old. I have done the whole crossdressing bit in the past but have had no intrest in that for a few years and I don't really see that as something for me in the future. The only thing I wear now that can be described as feminen is high heels. I have worn them in public occasionally but not very often at all. I do have some sexual desire linked to heels but not all the time. That is odd to me since I always figured it was one way or another. I mean you can't have a fetish only part of the time can you? I am confused as to where this is going and how to react to it so I hope yall can give me some feedback and (for lack of a better term) diagnose me so to speak. I look forward to your replies.

Addendum: Most men have some fetish association with heels, or women wouldn't still be wearing them.

As a wearer, so long as it's not disrupting sigificant relationships, then it's find with respect to US psychological "morals." (the term is very losely defined).

Bottom line - just wear 'em and enjoy 'em. Women do, and they do our clothes, too.

Why shouldn't we?

Straight as an arrow, yet enjoy heels and MUGs (male unbifurcated garments), such as kilts, skirts, pareos, sarongs, and other forms of dress worn by men over the last 50,000 years. By contrast, heels are a relative newcomer, having been invented by men, for men, around 500 years ago, culminating with heights as much as five inches in the courts of King Louis of France about half that time ago, before rapidly dying in popularity in the wake of the French Revolution in just the last 200 years. Heels saw a brief resurgence in the 1970s, and a slower, but more steady increase beginning in the late 1990s, continuing to this day.

This point has been reached: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/23/schiphol/index.html

Main Quote: "Dutch police said Wednesday that 12 passengers were in custody after a Northwest Airlines flight bound for Mumbai, India, returned to Amsterdam when several people on board aroused concern."

And how did they "arouse concern?" "some of the passengers had pulled out cell phones during the flight, and that some appeared to be trying to pass the cell phones to other passengers..."

Wow. Imagine that. People. Humans. Communicating...

Cause for concern?

The security folks that are now apparently running the airlines need to get a clue or two as to what's considered NORMAL human behavior. Every airline flight I've ever been on in the past decade has seen 20% of the passengers communicating by cell phone shortly before takeoff and shortly after landing.

So what's changed, as I'd really like to know...

Cute heels, Scotty - very womanly. Glad you were both able to heel.

This wednesday(Aug 23) I will try to venture outside on my B-day,the wife and I have agreed upon to try to go for supper and a movie in heels..It will be an experience that I will never forget...

Lets hope that everything will go ok..For the past couple of nights,we have been goni for a walk to the mailbox at night in heels,and tryin to teach outr kitty to walk on a leash,so it takes us a while to go to the mailbox...

I will be wearing bott cut jeans and a black top made by players...and the new balc pair of ankle shoes that I just purchased last weekend....

James

Kitty on a leash, hmmm... Sounds like tiger in a cage. Neither one sounds happy. I've heard of success stories, but the 37 times we tried it resulted in:

1. An escape, which required 2 hours of searching and 5 minutes of waiting inside the house before she mewled at our door (we cinched her up tight, but she was still able do throw off the body strap, shoulder strap, and collar)

2. Wrapped around and biting the ankles

3. Wrapped around and biting the leash

4. Wrapped around and biting the other person's ankles

5. Wrapped around and biting the mailbox

6. Wrapped around and biting the neighbor's dog (which bit back - painful and expensive)

7. Wrapped around the lamppost

8. Wrapped around the right front tire

9. Wrapped aroud and biting the ankles (second time - no no, bad kitty)

10. Wrapped around and biting the mailbox (second time - stupid kitty)

(anyone notice a theme running through this, please chime in...)

11. Wrapped around, in, under, and over a bush. With thorns.

12. Wrapped around my arm and the neighbor's dog. Fortunately, different neighbor, different dog - no injuries. Except to the dog. Expensive.

13. Wrapped...

Let's face it, folks - cats are very good at relating with humans. Better than dogs, in my opinion. But when it comes to navigating obstacle courses, particularly while on leashes, cats weren't even in line when God handed out them brains.

Dogs on the other hand, appear to be quite good at learning about "non-dog" devices such as collars, leashes, capes, doggy-backpacks, doggy-pulled trailers and wagons, etc. As for cats, I think they regard everything beyond the surface of their skin as alien. So long as it's feeding or caressing them, they'd ok.

Everything else is a constitutes an Act of War.

13. Wrapped around the neighbor.

14. Wrapped around the leg of the couch (couldn't even make it outside the house that day).

15. Wrapped around the cat herself. We were on a beach. Nothing to wrap the leash around, and I was dodging out of the way. She improvised.

16. Wrapped around the kitchen table legs.

17. Wrapped around a passing boy on a scooter who ventured too close. More injuries. Fortunately, she's had her shots. More fortunately, we kept records.

18. Wrapped around the right front tire. Again. She likes that tire.

19. Wrapped around a kite string. It was at the park. Don't ask how, as I'll never divine the answer.

20. Wrapped around the neighbor's right front tire. At least she's got the quadrant nailed, since she picked the wrong car.

21. Wrapped around my wife. More injuries. To the wife.

22. Wrapped around my arm. I must not have been paying attention, as I'm rather quick when it comes to cats, courtesy of a cat who used to leap out of the bushes at us as we walked by as kids. That only happened twice, the second time of which resulted in that cat learning that such actions may result in personal bodily harm. To the cat, of course. I didn't mind the nine stitches, but I'm not going to allow a cat to take a chunk out of my forearm without a quick flip to the sidewalk. But I couldn't do this to this cat, as it was my wife's cat. Fortunately, there was no bloodshed that day.

23. Wrapped around the axel. Well, not of the car, but the cat got so entagled in itself that I simply picked up the mewling fuzzball and dumped her unceremoniously on the living room floor and said, "you got yourself into this mess - get yourself out of it." About 2.4 seconds after we exited the room she waltzed in sans leash and coller, as if to say, "I'm sorry, but I just wanted you to rescue me."

24. Wrapped around the bushes (chasing a butterfly).

25. Wrapped around the neighbor's daughter. Fortunately, no one, not even the cat (although I wanted to), was hurt.

26. Wrapped around a box. Now this one was strange, but she'd darted for it immediately after we put on the leash. It'd been delivered earlier that day. She managed to go once around, twice around the originating lead, and back around before going over the origninating lead again. I didn't bother untangling her. Since we were inside the house, I merely unhooked her.

27. Wrapped around a tree. One would think it would have been common, but she was pretty good at avoiding trees. Probably because dogs peed on them.

28. Wrapped around another right front tire, this time belonging to the neighbor across the street.

29. Wrapped around the axel again (herself). Carried her inside, dumped her and let her go.

30. Wrapped around my kid's swing seat. Amazing, as he was swinging at the time. Scared him to death. Extricated him, then unwrapped the cat.

31. Wrapped around me. "Swirling dirvish" is the only explanation. On went the leash, and "WIIRRRLLOOOSSSH" went the cat. Unsnapped said cat. Unentangled said cat owner.

32. Wrapped around the wife again, and biting, hard. Required stitches for her (just two - she got off light).

33. Wrapped around the axel (herself) again. Left her lying in the front yard. She howled. Neighbors threatened to call the animal rights folks. I said, "call 'em! She got herself into this mess!" Thought about the legal consequences and rescued her before the neighbors actually called. Rang the doorbell of the neighbors to see if they'd actually called... Fortunately, they hadn't.

34. Wrapped around the right front of our vehicle, 13.2 seconds into our walk.

35. Actually finished a five-minute walk around the block while pulling (dragging) her away from just under 1,734 hazards in which she could have wrapped herself around.

36. Wrapped herself around the stop sign.

37. Wrapped herslef around the neighbor's leg. More bites. More stitches. More expenses.

I burned the leash that night in the Fall fireplace, amidst drinks made with rum and various spices, and declared to the entire world, including my wife, and our cat, that she (the cat) would forever remain indoors, unless the wife were willing to risk her being run over.

The latter was no, so we kept her another two years until she finally died of natural causes after having never been wrapped around anything again.

We buried her amidst tears beneath her favorite window, out which she looked 90% of the time at the various birds and critters flitting around outside.

Yes, I loved my cat. I loved my wife far, far more. Sadly, my wife never understood this and is soon to be, by her own design, my wife no more.

Fortunately, there are two individuals vying as replacements, both of which have more a few times as many clues with respect to both how to raise cats as well as how to treat husbands.

Bottom line: I'd rather have wound up with the cat, as she was very sociable so long as she was not on a leash.

Good enough. The movie said, "Build it, and they will come." I say, "Wear it, and you'll be fine." Heels, skirts, dresses, pants (for the ladies), doesn't matter. It's just clothing.

I believe cosmetic (or any) surgury used to repair below-average features (birth defects, gross acne, major trauma) are fine and normal. But I believe costmetic surgury used to improve average features into above average features is vanity at it's highest, and a reflection of a deep inner problem with security.

But hey, that's just my opinion, so before you pull out your flame-throwers, all I ask is that you examine why.

The key thing, asdf174, is underlined: "In other words, a fetish is when an individual is sexually aroused by a specific object or objects and is generally unable to achieve sexual satisfaction without that object being present." - From your link to Sue's comments.

Unless they're keeping big, deep, dark secrets, I don't think that fits most people here. Whether heeled or not I've had no problem in that department, although I have found somewhat increased arousal when the element's been present, regardless of whose wearing them (me, her, or both).

But honestly, I prefer just good, clean fun the old fashioned way (naked, beneath the sheets).

However, whatever floats your boat, and I agree with you - just because something's outside the bounds of what's statistically normal, provided it's voluntarily engaged in by those old enough to understand the issues and repurcussions (adults), with no collateral damage, go for it.

What I didn't like was her advice that fetishes are that deeply rooted and unlikely to change. Nor did I like her advice to "Be gentle, but be very clear that you are not comfortable with the fetish and you are ending the relationship."

What a moron!

That's the same pedantic nonsense that's ending far too many marriages, and underscores her terrific understanding of the DSM-IV and modern psychology, but her incredibly poor understanding of human sexuality, reality, and simple biology.

What "Dear Sue" forgot to mention is that MOST people, both men and women, have one fetish or another. Let's face it folks, we're sexual beings. It's raring inside of us and sustains our contributions to the genetic pool. The non-sexual beings never made it to the bedroom, much less the next generation. With all that drive we, as human beings, will, at some point in our lives, associate sexual connotation with some innanimate object, whether it's mom's heels, a schoolgirl's dress, or for women, bulging biceps, washboard abs, immaculate dress, nice manners.

Our brains are HARDWIRED to do this, folks. That's how we perpetuate the species. The only difference between us and animals in this regard is that we have a lot of man-made items around us. Is it any wonder we imprint on them from time to time? Of course not - it's normal, as some of those man-made items have come to symbolize things which our social mores forbid us to entertain (ie, it's usually covering so we're not running around naked). Thus, everything from corsets to dresses, to heels, a tux, sport cars, hosiery, etc. - you name it, became a stand-in for what we couldn't immediately attain - sex.

These things became a fetish.

NEWSFLASH: Fetishes are NOT the product of decrepid minds. They're the product of conservative societies which tend to repress natural tendancies with artificial trappings (various coverings) AND when combined with healthily sexual individuals within those conservative societies who're busting to express themselves the way their genes are telling them to without crossing too many societal boundaries.

The victorian era was known for it's neck to toe covering. In response, it was also known for it's corsetry, heels, and prominant bustlines.

Repression begets response, and when one can't always have the original item, fixation on the response usually occurs - a fetish.

Turning around and further repressing that society by calling a fetish something bad, or encouraging a break-up in response to a fetish (which is a normal brain imprinting), is just ridiculously stupid.

Baby ducks are hardwired to imprint on the first thing they see, whether it's mama duck, a rowboat, or an ultralight (great movie about this, by the way...).

Men and women are hardwired to imprint on anything of a sexual nature. I believe God intended it to help us bond with our first mate. The problem is society has so warped itself that first mates are rarely our long-term partners. We're taught never to take the first thing that comes along, to try the merchandise, to, in essence, fail in the first dozen relationships, so that by the time we do finally marry, we're no longer able to tell which way's up or down, much less to imprint upon our current mate. Is it really any wonder divorces have soared past 50%?

DUH!

And the psych spooks keep trying finger-licking thumb the societal aether in the DSM-IV.

What they need is a biologist to go through the DSM-IV and rip out every page that describes normal animal behavior, which would certainly reduce publication costs a considerable amount. While they're at it, they should re-write anything dealing with sexuality, as most psychologists seem to have studied other people's reports about sex, but also seem to know very little about it themselves, and if someone's behavior crosses a DSM-IV guideline, it's "breakup time."

yeah, like ripping little joey and dana away from mom or dad is healthy...

Yes, this is a rant, but I think it's a good one, with good motivations, namely, to shock the reader into realizing that modern psychs know a lot less than they think they do. I hope it's worked. While psychologists are good at getting help for people with certain problems, they often cause more harm than good in other areas.

And yes, as a lay marriage and family therapist, I've undergone some serious psychoanalysis. It took me four people before I found one who actually had a clue, a former Army officer (of fairly high rank) who simply knew and understood people because he'd worked with so many in so many different environments throughout his 30-year career, that when he retired, he got his degree in psychology, obtained his license, and began a very productive practice.

I think few people would ever consider you average, Firefox!

No... Hollywood's a different country. Been there several times, pretty much pushing the envelope to the max without any response at all, like sliding 60 mph on ice in multiple 360 degree spins. I was young then, mid-90s. Skirts, heels lace-up shirts (pirate shirts from International Male, but still)... Nothing. HH Boots. I crashed several partied and a few star-studded events wearing 3.5-inch Franco Sarto boots, a long kaki skirt, and nice shirt. Perhaps it was my earrings. I dunno. It all just seemed to work. I was simply let in, enjoyed the environment, then let myself out. Couple of times I think my ex thought there was something amiss, but this was never the case. Her loss.

WELL SAID

However, I would like to add that as a leather crafter I am often called upon to tool belts. Except for the sizes and the buckles used, there is no real difference between a man's belt and a woman's belt. But for some reason that I still am unable to fathom, men invariably ask for very plain dowdy colors whereas women want really bright colors. If I only tooled for men I doubt if I would ever need more than 6 different stains or colors.

Ah, now, JMC, I'd have to differ. Perhaps my brain is wired differently. Perhaps those of artists and photographers past are similar, but I distinguish no less than 1 in about 30,000 shade difference. Then again, I'm a semi-professional photographer. No painter, but I writer, too. I'm a prolific writer (in case you haven't guessed).

Nevertheless, a recent study noticed that women, in general, preferred, brighter, and more pastel colors than men. Since this multi-cultural study showed similar results throughout the world, I suspect it's the result of a hormonal wiring of the brain.

Ok, that's fine! I like subdued colors, in both clothes and heels, even in my skirts. Then again, I'm a man...

Dr.1819 I really like your letter. Very straight to the point but sensitive. It's a hard decision. My insticts are screaming what you are saying with the whole he is struggling with telling me.

How does a person know when its the right time to bring something like this up? What if I do it too soon and he freaks and runs? Do I wait until he is ready? What will that do to me? Ladies who have gone through this, any advice? Why cant men just talk? Especially with a person they know is 100% devoted and in love with them. Do you mind if I keep your letter? I think I could use it for support for myself. Maybe I should just take the plunge.

Thank you, Ruby. My example was intended to be short, simple, non-confrontational, supportive, kind, loving, sweet, to the point, and, at the end, deflective.

Then again, I'm a lay marriage and family therapist with our church, so you'd expect nothing else?

I think if you lay it out as stated, and he freaks and runs, then he's a few issues of his own to work out that you're not a part of now, nor were you a part of when they became issues, and that he should work those out. It would be time to wait. Not back off, just be supportive and give him room to adjust.

As for men just talking, I'm a man, and I can talk. Then again, I'm 40+, and have unlearned old falsehoods so I can pretty much talk about anything.

I would ask you this - why can't women talk? Just tell him that you know. That's talking, so talk to him. If he doesn't know where you're coming from, he'll conjure up all kinds of things. Neither men nor women live and love well in a vaccuum, so communication is critical. Keep it simple: "I love you. I am committed to you. I could care less what you like to wear, be it heels or hose. I love you. I am committed to you..."

I'd like to say it takes a village, but he's beyond that, and like all young men, working through his own issues.

Give him room, but give him hope, and given him a reason to stick around.

Uncertainty isn't hope, so let him know.

The Fair Acoustic Version is really a different style of guitar playing and I really enjoyed it. The electric versions, alas, were not my style.

I wish it'd been longer - sounded interesting.

I had a roommate when I was a freshman in college who'd studied classical guitar for 11 years. Many a night I fell asleep to his practice, and have loved classical guitar ever since. He could play anything, and would have put this guy to shame, as he could play entire flamenco dance riffs with one hand (although he preferred both due to the richer sound). He never did 12-string or electric - he was dedicated to the 6-string acoustic and could make it do pretty much anything he wanted it to. At least once a month he played with one philharmonic orchestra or another, and was never absent during any local concert.

In later years, I thanked him for his dedication and he said that after I fell asleep my snores were so regular he adjusted his timing to play in accordance with them, as playing against them sucked. He said several times he opened the door and played as hallmates listened to my snoring and his playing. I do have one recollection of waking up briefly to some of them laughing, not knowing what it was about, and falling asleep, and it's probably during one of those moments.

Ahhh... College days.

So long as you approach increasing heights very gently (I recommend anything over three inches in quarter-inch increments no more often than once a quarter), AND you routinely wear lower heels and flats (ie, you wear heels less than half the time), I think you should be able to wear the equivalent of a three-inch heel on a size 8 (US) foot without any problem. Payless has a great size/length conversion you can use to find your own ratio. Any higher than that, however, and some men and women have had problems, mainly bunions, a very painful and abnormal development of the ball of the big toe.

I am able to walk about 10 steps before the agonizing pain fells me to the couch. I guess that will just take some time to master.

Woah! Heels are supposed to be fun, not "agonizing!"

If you want "agonizing," consider modifying non-essential body parts without anesthetic.

But if you'd like to walk normally past, say, 40 or 50, lay off agnonizing one of the most critical body parts known to mobility - the foot. And as the foot goes, so does the ankle, then the knee, hip, and back.

A couple of summers ago I worked up to wearing 5" heels, beginning with 3.5" heels, even though I often wore a four inch heel. I used the same "interval training" we used in track:

Mon: 2"

Tue: 3"

Wed: 3.5"

Thu: 3"

Fri: 3.5"

Sat: 3.75"

Sun: 2.5"

Mon: 3.5"

Wed: 4"

Thu: 3"

Fri: 3.5"

Sat: 4"

Sun: 3.75"

Mon: 4.5"

Tue: 3"

Wed: 4"

Thu: 4.5"

Fri: 3.5"

Sat: 4"

Sun: 4.5"

Mon: 5"

It's an undulating cycle that allows for tendon/flexor recovery, and the above schedule is very abbreviated - the original one was two months long, because the last thing I wanted to do was hurt myself.

That's just stupid.

On the other hand, the human body is capable of adapting, provided one takes things slow, and never goes beyond the pain factor (muscle soreness isn't pain. Cramped toes in a too-tight boot is pain).

Pain is your friend. It tells you when you're doing something wrong.

So listen to it, and don't do it.

Unless you're really hell-bent on walking with a lot of pain in about ten to twenty years. If that's the case, indulge, but my Mom's got bunions the size of walnuts, all because she pushed too hard, too fast, and for too long.

Another thing to consider - tight, pointy-toed, high-heeled boots are the worst Rx for your feet. Period. I believe the podietrists are in league with the manufacturers, as nearly all of the shoes available today, despite two decades of warning, are pointy-toed.

Your toes need to spread out, in part to distribute the weight, and in part to ensure proper circulation.

Let them.

Many ultra-sexy high-heeled shoes and boots have been built in your size that are anatomically correct. I buy from Zappos because they have the largest selection of 3+" heels in my size. I usually send back about 75% of my orders because they don't fit.

As cute as they are, it doesn't sound like your boots fit. Your ankles never developed when you were growing up to over-rotate like that, and your toes didn't develop to be highly compressed bearing 240% of the normal weight they hold into a tiny compartment that's not at all shaped like your foot.

Let me lay it out for you - Pleaser Sucks. All they want is your money. If the top fashion were round-toed boots, they'd give you round-toed boots. But that's not the top fashion today, and they could care less about your health and welfare. They just want the money.

My advice: Step back, check out the several quite awesome custom shoe and boot makers out there who build anatomically correct footwear. Work with them. Visit them if you can. You may pay $300 for a pair of boots, but that one pair will be quite high, but extremely comfortable, and will last you several years - well worth the investment.

My favorite pair of 4" heels are to die for - so much so that I find myself saving them for special occasions when I know I'll be on my feet all day. There's absolutely no pinching in the toes (although they're comfortably snug, there and everywhere else). The 4" heels are high enough that I'm at my limit of comfort, but not crossing into my threshold of discomfort. The lace-up styling with the side zipper means I can adjust them as they wear in, yet get them on and off in a hurry. And the fact that they're leather with a lining means that if I wear them with at least hose, if not a thin sock, they'll last a long time. They'll probably last me 10 years, as I've had then 2-1/2 years, already, with minimal signs of wear and only break-in adjustments. Then again, I paid $350 for them, with two sitting/fittings, so I tend to respect the craftsmanship of the maker.

They're my favorite pair, and because of the personal sittings/initial fittings, entirely well worth the expense.

My second favorite pair of boots are made of leather, have a 3" block rubber heel, side zips, and simply fit quite well while being very stealthy yet comfortably high - great for nightlife.

A whopping $30 on eBay, shipping included.

However, as I've only routinely worn one in five shoes I've purchased one eBary, that comes to around $50 per pair of valid heels, and the construction isn't as nice, generally, as the shoes found in the mall (which are too small anyway...).

Custom heels, gents - do it right, find a cobbler willing to work with you, and if you listen to him (he's been fitting people a lot longer than you've been wearing), you'll wind up with a pair of heels that'll be well worth the additional expense.

I'm not a fan of wedges, either, particularly the cork ones. However, there was a really cute pair that I just had to get for lounging around the house:

Sadly, it didn't come in my size, so I purchased one that's almost identical, but with cork sides (yech) and thick horizontal straps, one across the toes, the other across the instep.

Fortunately, I found some magic in a bottle of black shoe polish, and turned the cork into pitch black, so the shoe now looks a lot more like one in the picture.

The cool thing about the cork, however, is that it's ultra quiet, which is why I decided to walk to a restaurant nearby, wearing these, and my usual long jeans. It was dark, and the area around here isn't lighted all that well, so I didn't mind it if I were spotted, as about all they'd see is that I was wearing some sort of a sandal. It's doubtful anyone would spot the heel or the fact I was wearing a wedge.

I arrived at the restuarant and asked for a table near the back, and sat down. I thought things were fine until the waiter returned with my credit card slip. She'd written, "Nice shoes!" on it with a little smiley-face. Without moving, I peeked under the table to discover that when I'd sat down, my pants rode up to my ankle, exposing the entire shoe and my foot in it. The shoe almost disappeared in the dark beneath the table, but my white foot, the two black leather straps, and the fact that my foot was clearly in the "I'm wearing a high heel" position was clear for the world to see.

Fortunately, the only "world" at the time consisted of my waitress, so I was glad she had the good sense to humor me, and as I left the restaurant, she gave me a "bye, now - come again" sendoff and a little wave.

I'll bet they are! But probably not as loud as a blue pair of high-heeled boots being worn by a man!