dr1819

Catchy title, interesting history, and certainly some fodder for discussion!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0507.larson.html

For example, I did not know that rulers across Europe coveted talons rouges (red heels) for their footwear. I did know that King Louis XIV of France wore red high heels, some of which were as high as five inches. But I didn't know is how much influence Enlightenment thinking had on the return to more utilitarian garb. I suspect Englightenment had a lot to do with the French Revolution, though, which put an end to opulence in the French courts.

HighHeelLover86, I wore a pair of 4" Franco Sarto hh boots with a near-stiletto heel to visit the arch in St. Louis, and I wore both a pair of strappy sandals as well as a pair of 4" heeled boots to several establishments in Little Rock and the boots in Atlanta (three nights, two establishments per evening). No worries, mate. What I wouldn't do is go to a bar that's attended by mostly regulars, as that's bordering on a mob crowd to begin with. Nor would I walk in there wearing a pear of 5" pink FMPs. But I think a pair of lower-heeled, preferrably block-heeled, boots would be fine. Guage the reaction with the lower stuff. Gain the support of the bartender/owner. Or go to places where alternative fashion is the norm.

Guy N. Heels, would you be willing to share some of the reasons why? It might help others learn more about why they wear heels in the first place.

Has anyone else on this forum noticed that their local radio stations are playing far, far less Christmas Music this Holiday Season than in past years?

At any rate, Merry Christmas to all, and a Happy New Year!

Yes, but then again, it's August, so...

Ain't the Internet Wonderful?

For kicks, yesterday I stopped by a store downtown I've ridden by several times that sells ladies fetish wear. One pair of boots caught my attention. They were lace-up thigh highs with a 4-1/2 inch tapered heel, but they came with a matching waist cincher which belted to the boot-tops by means of two straps. After noticing that I was looking at them with some interest, the proprietor asked, "Would like to try them on? I think we have a pair in your size." When I said, "Yes, but..." she said "Then I'll close the shop for a few minutes for your privacy." She flipped the sign, locked the door, and we went into the back, where she retrieved a box with the pair in my size. No pointy toes, just good, old-fashioned well-made boot with a great, appropriately placed heel. It took about ten minutes to lace them, then another five minutes to lace the waist cincher and attach it to the boots. By this time I was down to my T-shirt and a pair of biking shorts (I'd cycled there), so when she asked if I'd like something to go over all of it, I said "Yes, please," not knowing that she'd return with a black cotton-spandex short-sleeved shirt dress that fell to mid-thigh. I felt silly enough, but she seemed supportive, so I said, "Ok, whatever," and took off my t-shirt and donned the dress. It was comfortable, and definately completed the look, except for the rib-cage on up. Definately lacking shape, and the mug, well, let's just say the dude doesn't look like a lady, at least not without some help from Clinique. I don't think I'd ever be able to wear a dress in public, although I'd definately get away with the boots/cincher and a pair of jeans or even a long, dark skirt with a long dark dress shirt worn over the top (as I've done with my knee-highs. The boots themselves - extremely comfortable. If they'd had a thigh-high or knee-high pair, in a lesser price and with a lower heel (3.5" would have been perfect), I'd have bought them in a heartbeat. Regardless, I'd had my fun, and although she was disappointed that I didn't splurge the 650 Euro she wanted for the boots and cincher, she invited me back to try on anything else I wanted, "privacy included." I got the impression that she does this a lot with male clients here in Germany...

That's quite a collection!

You should have attempted a citizen's arrest for her parking in the handicap spot. Then you could have had a longer look.

...you do still get the annoying fashn of boots which have their length hidden under clothing so you can't tell just how high they go

Personally, I think that's sexier than letting it all hang out, whether on women or on men.

I think you forgot to include the link...

I read this five times and I still don't get it.

So in one case you wore a skirt, but in the other case you wore a skirt. Huh?

I don't get it either! Re-edited for clarity.

So that brings the total up to 5 pair of Steve Madden Snatch I own, yet not 1 pair was sold on their website, but they were available via Ebay.........

Explain that one please?

Scotty

Could be knockoffs. In South Korea, it's illegal to import copies of brand-named items. But it's perfectly legal for the Koreans to make them and sell them to others.

It could also be part of a tiered marketing plan, where they limit online sizes to 10 and sell larger sizes through retailers. Sometimes retailers will ask manufacturers for variations, and so long as the retailer is willing to take the loss, the manufacturer will make it. But if the manufacturer doesn't think they'll sell enough in size 11 to make it worth their while, they'll limit it to a size 10.

I see nothing wrong with loosing interest in one thing or another. I used to love watching movies, but that's taken a back seat to writing on the Internet. There was a time shortly after I began wearing heels when it was almost an obsession, but now that I'm in a situation where I can wear heels as often as I want (just not to work), sometimes I'm in heels at home, sometimes I'm in clogs. Last night I went to play darts at one of my favorite bars wearing a dark charcoal, long-sleeved dress shirt, nice jeans, and my 4" taper-heeled kneehigh black leather boots. After standing for about 45 minutes, my feet hurt a little and I wished I'd worn my low-heeled (2.5") blockheeled ankle boots.

It appears that as time progresses, things will progress naturally. It wouldn't force the issue, but I don't think it would hurt to tell him that you love him and are committed to him, before mentioning again that you're very open-minded about things, and that if he would ever want to wear any of your stuff, you wouldn't mind, and you would actually go along with it. Or you might just say, "I know you like wearing heels and hose. No big deal - I'm ok with that. Wanna go out to eat tonight, or stay in?" In other words, very briefly reffirm your acceptance of him, the fact that you know, and change the subject. If he denies it, just say, "Ok... So - where do you want to eat tonight - in or out?" Once it's out there, he'll finally realize he's not going to risk loosing you by telling you more about his "secret," and it will pave the way towards more openness about it. After a while, he'll be comfortable enough to wear them in front of you, so long as your reaction is short, sweet, and accepting, like, "You look good in them. What's for breakfast?" In other words, "no big deal." If, on the other hand, your raise the subject and he remains in staunch denial, or tries convincing you that he's not into stuff like that, there may be bigger issues of which heels/hose are only the symptom. Again, just respond, "Ok. So you're not into heels. What's for breakfast?" Judging from his responses, it appears he's simply suffering from a case of "society-itis," afraid that you'll think what most of society thinks. Personally, I believe this is the single-most reason why half the planet only wears flats. I think that if it were socially acceptable, about a third of all men would be in heels - not necessarily a jeweled spaghetti-strap stiletto, but heels nonetheless. One thing you might consider - showing him this website, and telling him that lots of straight, heterosexual guys wear heels, and you're fine with that.

The only verse in the Bible which addresses the issue of crossdressing/transvestism at all is Deuteronomy 22:5, which states: "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this." However, all verses in the Bible must be taken into context. Lest we not forget, Deuteronomy was written at a time when evil was rampant, and was considered something to be purged from Israel. Consider a neighboring verse: "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel." - Deut 22:22. Notice that there is no punishment proscribed for crossdressing. Furthermore, wearing the clothes of the opposite sex was usually done as a ruse for sexual reasons. Do not forget that the lighting at night back then was incredibly poor. Simply dressing in a female's robes was usually enough to convince others that you were female. Men would do this both to gain access to women-only areas, as well as to engage in acts of a sexual nature with other men, a move the Bible does have a punishment for (death). I do not believe the verse was intended to prohibit all manners of dress. Furthermore, clothing back then was very different than it is today. For example, men commonly wore what we could consider dresses and skirts. But back then, those were considered men's clothing, too. If I were to walk throughout Africa or the Middle East wearing a robe, no one would bat an eye. In the US, however, people would call that cross-dressing. In my way of thinking, because of the huge variety of fashion styles available to both women, and to a lesser extent, men, there are only two things which could actually be considered cross-dressing: 1. A woman wearing a jock strap. 2. A man wearing a bra. And the latter would only be if there were no medical need to do so (gynecomastia). Everything else is pretty much fair game, with the caveat that if I were to wear women's clothing with the purpose of trying to look like a woman, that's still considered crossdressing/transvestism, and is often associated with gender identity disorder, yet another DSM-IV attempt to lump people into one category or the other, when in reality gender identity is a continuum, with around 25% of each sex actually thinking and feeling the same way as the opposite sex. Only 10% of those, however, actually do anything about it (crossdress full time, engage in homosexuality, undergo gender reassignment surgery, etc.). The rest simply go on with their lives, many adjusting to the fact that they're different than most, but are still in the company of a quarter of the world's population.

According to modern psychology, wearing an article of clothing intended for the opposite sex is called "transvestism," while sexual arousal associated with the practice is called "transvestic fetishism." The first is not considered abnormal by the DSM-IV, the so-called "Psychologist's Bible," but the latter is. Personally, I find that the DSM-IV has gaping holes when it comes to the transgender community. Take for example homosexuality, which was listed as deviant in the DSM-IV until the late 1970s. Why group orgies with other men is not considered deviant while sexual arousal brought on by wearing a pair of heels is considered deviant is utterly beyond me. My diagnosis: You're fine. In fact, most men are aroused by heels - that's why women wear them! The fact that you also choose to wear them is irrelevant, and considering the fact that men wore heels for more than half of the last 500 years, I'd say wearing heels is, over the long term, a normal activity for men. Just because it's currently not an often-indulged choice of fashion is irrelevant. Neither were gauchos two years ago, but some women wore them. Does that make them deviant? Of course not. My advice: If you enjoy wearing heels, then by all means wear heels, and don't worry about what others think. Most people follow the herd, anyway.

Depends on the girl. At first I thought my ex was all for it for a couple years, then one day she flipped out. My gf, on the other hand, was a bit apprehensive, but after seeing me walk into an airport, rent a Cessna, mission plan, preflight, fly, postflight, all in a pair of hh boots, without a single double-take from anyone, she was convinced.

Hi, I'm from london.

I'm more a tights/skirt wearer but I found those heels the other day and:...

And, well... It looks like you bought them!

Wear 'em if you got 'em.

Well, that poll on the For Everyone forum is not really a poll about minimum heel height. It seems to me that they're more concerned with trig and math and the notion of standard proportion over there. The main problem is that no shoe manufacturer I know of measures their shoes that way. In the world where I live, both shoes and heels are either measured in inches or centimeters. I suppose we could go to cubits or fingers, or something else, but I don't know of anyone using those standards today.

Based upon what I've seen here, it seems like the minimum heel height is generally agreed to be about 3" or around 7 cm.

Another poll, here: http://www.hhplace.org/hhboard/viewtopic.php?t=7707

And this one has nothing to do with math and trig, but simply how large women's feet have actually grown, and how correspondingly narrow-minded manufacturers' minds have growth, in stark raving contrast to the evidence before them.

Why shouldn't we enjoy the same styles in larger sizes?

Why shouldn't we enjoy the same variety of higher heels in our size?

Dr1819:-)

1000th post. Wow!!! Now that's really a bench-mark. Keep posting and add them up.

Cheers---

Dawn HH

Yeah! Who knows? Perhaps one of these days I'll pass the 1434 mark, or something.

Once you reach the site, just go to your address bar, highlight the url (begins with "http..."), right-click, copy, and come back here and paste it. Simple.

I'd love it , Floria, if someone slighted for wearing appropriately tasteful wear, but originally intended towards the opposite sex, sued, won, appealed, Supreme Courted the matter, and they said that was discrimination on the basis of clothing style, which is far more benign, when you think about it, than discrimination on the basis of sexual preference! I mean think about it - I simply choose the same materials as everyone else, and has man has worn for between 200 and 50,000 years. Why would anyone discriminate on that basis? How often have you seen women in the workplace wearing, literally, clothes designed for men? Between the early 1970s and about a year ago, I know that women in the Air Force wore the same flight suit that has been designed around the male physique as did the men (albeit usually in smaller sizes). Only recently did they begin offering flight suits more suited to their different physiques. Same with the boots. I'm sure that makes all female Air Force officers crossdressers, huh? Yeah, don't think so. Sheesh. We'll not be free of it until the highest courts rule otherwise. Even then, it'll be an uphill battle against the residual prejudice (translated - it'll be a generation of re-re-education before people realize, "oh, I guess they're wearing what our ancestors wore all the time."). Duh.

On other forums, people are using Googlehits to measure relevance of a concept.

Here, it's Zapposhits we've used to measure availability of heels, in general, in our size.

Call me jealous (cause I am), but I'm getting sick of those who say, "Ooh! Ooh! Look at what I just got!" when the largest size is a US Women's 10.

Yech.

If I had such small feet, I'd be able to jump up and down like a kid on Christmas day, too.

But I don't, so I have to live with the unbelievably meager leftovers. While they're improving, they still have a LONG way to go.

FACT: Woman's shoe sizes follow the Normal Distribution Curve (Bell Curve). It's fairly smooth, with 8.5 being the median size these days in the Western World (US, Canad, UK, EU, etc.)

Consider the recent search on Zappos, women's high heels:

Size 8: 13,071 items found

Size 9: 12,559 items found (ok, fairly consistant with the normal curve)

Size 10: 12,302 items found (still consistant...)

Size 11: 3,753 items found (WOAH! Who pushed the down button on the elevator??? This is less than a third of the previous figure!)

Size 12: 577 items found (WOOOAHHH!!!! Still accelerating! Now less than one-sixth of the previous figure)

Size 13: 230 items found (About half the previous figure - sort of a burp)

Size 14: 17 items found (BAM!!!! We hit rock bottom, because...)

Size 15: 3 items found (and...)

Size 16: no items found

REASON: The marketing models are based primarily off of old NDP data. For those of you who don't know, NDP is the company, founded 1967, whose market data drives much of Fortune 500 company efforts, including those in apparel.

NOW - Here's some REALITY for you:

Columbia University Study: http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2005-03-01/bradley-bigfeet

Temple College Study: http://www.temple.edu/news_media/sop0408_04.html

Quote from another study: According to the market research firm NDP Group, today one-third of American women wear a size eight or larger shoe, versus 11 percent in 1987. Why? Blame sports! Foot bones grow in response to stress, and the huge post-Title-IX increase in girls and women participating in sports, combined with the huge increase in numbers of women working out at the gym, have led to an increase in average women's foot size.

Well, folks, it's not just exercise. Japanese women, between 1900 and 1945 got plenty of exercise, but they remained very short (and even those who didn't bind their feet still had very small feet). Fast forward to today, where young (circa 25) Japanese women are the same height as their US counterparts.

The problem? Nutrition. These days we feed our kids enough vitamins they can't help but grow to their maximum potential size, and the increasing emphasis on sports has increased the relative width by one full measure (A are now B, etc.), outpacing even the increase in foot length. So, women's feet are longer, and much wider than they were 30 years ago.

That holds with my family. I'm 2" shorter than my father, but I wear a size larger, and a size wider (he had very narrow feet). My brother's just one inch taller, but he wears 3 sizes larger, and one wider.

Back to NDP: Their data attests to the fact that there should be approximately 9,000 offerings in size 11, 5,000 offerings in size 12, 2,000 offerings in size 13, 1,000 offerings in size 14, and about 5,000, 200, and 50 offerings in size 15, 16, and 17.

Furthermore, here's the real kicker - their data suggests that the vast majority of women who wear sizes 11 through 15 WANT the same offerings as enjoyed by women who wear a size 8.5, including heel height, if not proportionality.

The problem with the marketing departments of these idiotic companies is that they errantly believe that taller women want lower heels.

NOT TRUE! Say the long-term results.

Then, they turn around and show how their sales numbers "prove" it, when they're only offering 1/4 the number of size 11s as they do size 10s.

It's the case of the tail wagging the dog. They don't offer enough, or in the same styles, and people don't buy, so they claim there's no demand, when in fact, demand abounds!

The stupid companies are cutting their profits in half.

The smart companies, like Nordstroms, who've long realized that larger-proportioned women want the same styles as shorter women, have long been providing stylish heels in larger sizes.

By the way, Nordstroms was founded by a gentleman from Holland, whose family held several significantly larger females who were always disappointed with the size 9 max limit of the day.

SO: PLEASE shop Nordstroms.

This is not an endorsement of a particular company. If you find another company that's offering mainstream shoes (like Zappos) in sizes 13 and beyond, shop them too. Please, especially before you shop Pleaser.

Unless, of course, the only style you'll ever wear are a pear of cheap, plastic, FMPs.

As for me, I'd rather enjoy the very large selection of styles from which to choose. The only way we'll every get that is if people choose to support those stores who embrace that philosophy for all sizes.

Well, thank you.

Firefox, thanks for taking the time to look into this, close a couple previously open threads, and address the issue. Nice to see you back, even if the patient was in the ER. Hope you visit during the recovery, as I miss seeing your zany FF logo! It's sort of, well, cheerful! Perhaps I need to change my avatar...

Yeah! Rusty's in the club! (from an old Farside cartoon)

I thought it was rather funny, but despite the bod, not all that sexy. Some women know how to move, and others don't. She doesn't. Pretty good magician, though!