dr1819

According to your calculations, I'm less than 15 stone, and have little problem wearing heels. I simply prefer a lower heel.

Awesome thigh-highs, Trolldeg! Have you ever considered a manicure and loosing the gloves?

The tan pair look positively alien!

I will readily admit that there is something to be said for the proportion method discussed.

Thank you. If you can understand it, so can most Please help ensure this heads towards an international standard.

Thank you!

I've encountered absolutely zero problems while wearing skirts or heels (despite a few jeers). That's not the issue. The issue is that broad public reaction threatens to thwart societal acceptance of men wearing either skirts or heels. The only way to combat this is by gradual change. Rabid change will backfire. It always has. It always will. This isn't controversty. It's human nature. Either abide by it, or suffer the consequences. And please, consider the source of this information! I'm no government informer - I'm simply one of you. Jiminy! Look at my avatar! Folks - I can't get there from here, and I live in a very progressive country! Please don't counter my comments. Instead, take them at their face value, and act accordingly.

Let's face it, folks: While Jean Paul pushed the envelope in some respects, he pushed so hard that the public backlash said "NO!" This couldn't be more clear than in his most recent efforts, accounted for here: http://men.style.com/fashion/collections/S2007MEN/review/JPGMEN

Gradual change has always been accepted by humanity, while radical change has always been rejected.

This is simple human nature.

Anyone who fails to understand this will do more harm than good to the cause of everyone (particularly men) interested in wearing clothing that deviates from the norm to any substantial degree, regardless of whether it's heels of any size (no/low/mid/high) but of men wearing women's shoes, women's clothing (skirts, dresses, blouses, underclothes, etc.).

I think we've killed the fact that women can buy anything they want in the men's section (except perhaps a jock strap) and parade downtown wearing that without anyone noticing.

I'd like to get to that point with respect to men wearing women's fashion. No, not necessarily the frilly fru-fru stuff (although if that floats your boat...), but men, appearing as men (not the CD/TV/TS/TG crowd appearing as women), dressed in what I would consider masculine styled clothes.

I'm simply talking about a man wearing heels and/or a skirt. I wear heels out, and get nary a whimper. I wear a skirt, and provided it's masculine enough, I get a few harmless questions and the occasional attaboy. I wear heels and a skirt out while otherwise dressed as a man, and regardless of how masculine the heels and skirt may be, it's time for the wolf-whistles, or at least the jeers, fingers pointed in my direction, and suaural comments made about my attire.

Case in point: Last night.

I wore a pitch-dark, black denim ankle-length skirt with a zip fly that opens to the right. I wore my men's Levi's belt. I also wore my black, long-sleeved Pierre Cardin shirt and my black leather 4-inch stack heeled knee-high boots. Although a few women asked me about the skirt, I did got jeers from some of the guys at the pub. After the first couple of seconds, though, everyone went back to talking to whoever they were talking to.

When I've worn the same outfit in the past, but without the heeled boots, it's sort of a killer and many women have been interested.

When I wear the boots with with black denim jeans instead of the skirt, no one bats an eye.

Think about it - the only difference between my skirt and my jeans is the number of openings at the bottom. That's it. They're even made by the same manufacturer, have the same number and style of pockets, belt loops, the type of top button, even the zippers are identical. Everything's identical except one has two openings while the other has one. If I want to avoid the jeers, I can wear the jeans with heels, or the skirt without heels. But if I wear the skirt with heels, I get jeers.

So, here's what's currently socially acceptable for men to wear in my neck of the woods:

1. Heels, provided they're discrete, are ok.

2. A skirt, provided it's discrete, is ok.

3. The combination, regardless of how discrete it might be, is still not ok.

The old "wear whatever you like" is personal liberty at it's best, but societal responsibility at it's worst. There should be a balance between "Just do it!" and ensuring (perhaps even furthering) that others will continue to have the opportunity to wear whatever they want to wear.

It takes time to change society's mind, and two things must occur for that to be effective:

1. Consistant exposure (wear 'em if you got 'em)

2. Discrete exposure (save the costumes for Mardi Gras)

I'll not go out in both heels and a skirt for quite some time, but I'll continue to frequent the regular watering holes wearing one or the other. Hopefully, in time, the collective attitudes will mellow and I'll be able to appear wearing whatever I choose.

If you're the type who'd prefer to "do whatever comes to mind," I would ask you to reconsider and consider the rest of us who'd like to push the envelope, but in a way which will create a lasting/permanent acceptance, rather than a jeering backlash.

Slow and steady will accomplish most people's agenda, while a hurried approach will only accomplish the agenda of the hurried.

By the way, I have to complement all of you who attended the London Heel-Meet, as to the last man, your style very precisely balanced men's heel wear with conservatism. Thank you!

If they're decent-looking jeans

Mine are Levis Relaxed Straights.

Yes, I thin they're decent!

I've a good friend of mine who turns 88 this year. He walked 3 miles every other day with his wife, and remains in excellent shape. That's something you can do in the right pair of heels!

Here's an idea that will eliminate billions of dollars of waste: Tax everyone on a constant percentage basis with a deductable floor that's dependant upon your marital and child situation. It's real easy, folks, and would allow you to complete your taxes in seconds instead of hours. Gross Income: $50,000 Less Floor (1 couple, separated, with 1 child): $13,800 Taxable Income: $36,200 Tax Rate (same for everyone): 10% Tax: $3,620 Tax Paid: $3,000 Tax owed: $620 DUH! Which morons in the governmen are making it so dammed difficult???

In the german High-Heels forum there is a possibility to specify your sex. The most members are filling this option. But many couples are leaving this field (male or female?) in their personal profile blank. What should they answer? And what should crossdressers or transgenders answer?

May be that the options "female, male, couple, lesbian, gay and crossdresser" could work. To my experience the big majority of the transsexuals is wanting to be estimated as male or female. At least all gays are male and all lesbian girls are female. The same for gay or female couples But are all crossdressers really male

BTW: as Firefox mentioned there is never any guarantee against blunt liars.

@dr1819: Your classification could be an idea from me. But it won't work because not all people are mathematicians ...

I'm with you on this one, Micha, for the simple reason that most people who identify with the opposite gender aren't interested in being "made." Rather, they want to continue being identified as the opposite gender, rather than as a person of one gender trying to identify as a member of the opposite gender.

Thus, I'm all for self-identity, but with the option of remaining anonomous, or even of clicking the opposite gender button if one sees fit.

As for "gender," even though there are many gender groups, there should be just four:

male

female

transgender

prefer not to reveal at this time

Nordstroms, replete with many styles from many manufacturers, and available in many sizes (including larger sizes): Façonnable New York (#525) Rockefeller Center Plaza New York, NY 10020 (212) 319-0111 Hours, directions and events for this store. Nordstrom Roosevelt Field (#524) 630 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 (516) 746-0011 Hours, directions and events for this store. Spa Nordstrom - Roosevelt Field (#999) 630 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 (516) 663-6370 Hours, directions and events for this store. Nordstrom at The Westchester (#523) 135 Westchester Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 946-1122 Hours, directions and events for this store. Nordstrom Rack at the Mall at the Source (#529) 1504 Old Country Road Westbury, NY 11590 (516) 222-5544 Hours, directions and events for this store.

Heh-heh - these days I keep a buzz cut because it's cooler for cycling. And I'm still charged $8 for a 5-min haircut. Ugh!

I'm not sure who this guy is, but he's been the most staunch advocate to date of the articles I've written, even though he doesn't appear in any fashion forum that I know of.

Please endorse his recommendation, or dr1819 will likely "be disappeared" from Wiki.

You know the restraint I've applied here. I employ the same restraint at Wiki. The only difference is that Wiki is a hostile crowd (when it comes to fashion choices).

Thank you for your understanding and your support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dr1819

You can even endorse his comments as a guest. Anything would help, so please help!

Just think what Wiki admins would do if 30 people lodged endorsements... They'd have to rethink their whole system of belief, and it'd be on record! (you can't delete this page).

It's long past time to tell the world "This is ok. It's not wrong."

Please do so today.

Thank you.

- Dave

Good for you, Shafted! And yes, Nigel. I've been a member of MS beta teams for a decade. I'm always exploring holes and fixes. One myth that's been circulating recently is that Firefox and Opera have less holes than IE. Not true. IE simply has about 1,000 times the people trying to find it's holes. Neither Windows nor IE will ever provide the security you need. They're not designed to. Only an external, hardware (firmware) based firewall will do that, in combination with appropriate settings for Windows IE, Outlook, Windows Firewall, and your AntiVirus program. When you do all of those things correctly, you shut out 99.9999999% of all hackers. As a network security specialist, I've a separate machine that does nothing but monitor the traffic, and to date (since 1998), there's been only two intrusions into this setup that bypassed my protocols. Again, this machine just monitors, and is not visible to outsiders. When compared with my machine logs, it found two files that didn't belong. In short, I watched and waited, and both were fixed by Norton Antivirus in less than a month, long before they were due to deploy their package. Sure, anti-IE and anti-Microsoft folks would have you believe that your security is wide open. However, my investments beyond my PC and Windows XP / IE total a whopping $168, and it's been long proven, overseas, to boot, to be darn neigh bulletproof. As a networking security specialist, I'll stick with Microsoft. No, they didn't do the best job of security in the beginning, but they've learned a lot along the way and their current implementations complete with security updates, when combined with a strong antivirus and strong anti-spyware and firewall solutions render pretty much anyone, anywhere, as strong as any corporate solution.

I (would) like a standard proportion system because that would allow meaningful comparisons between styles and manufacturers. But then I think we all would like a standardized sizing system too and the lack of that has been the subject of much discussion hereabouts. Dream on!

I think the simplest standard would be to use actual foot length measurements, preferrably expressed in centimeters, followed by a width standard that reflected the population as a whole, with the median width getting a rating of B, followed by appropriate changes in width with respect to length as determined by a similar ratio as the standard ratio.

Scrap the US/UK/EU systems, as they're both arbitrary, and I've ordered size 44 shoes which were way too large, and size 46 shoes which were too small! I've had the same luck with the US system, and once had to eat a pair of shoes that I hould have been able to wear with thick socks, but couldn't even fit into them comfortable with kneehighs (the garment, not the person... ) Sorry, dude - couldn't resist.

ANYway...

Yes, there's got to be a better way, including measuring arch and instep circumference. You know, it stands to reason that large-scale manufacturers would (as have a few small shops) have been able to figure out how to increase their sales tremendously by combining modern technology with CAD/CAM (computer aided design/computer aided machining). A few simple instructions, and five minutes later, the computer has a perfect idea of a person's foot. At first there may be some errors, but when combined with the appropriate feedback (unconditional returns if you fill out this form), the process can be adjusted so that it results in a 98% perfect fit every time.

Personally, I don't think any manufacturer would go for this. They have neither the inclination, the desire, the expertise, nor the vision.

But Zappos did something really radical - it threw all the manufacturers' wares into a database, combined them with a series of required and heavily standardized photos, and is doing a fantastic business. They'd be the ones to to push the next step to the manufacturers, charging a premium, say, $30, for a pair of custom-made shoes for any manufacturers desiring to participate. For those that would, with certain shoe choices, they'd simply add a field that would display a "Custom" button. If you're a regular Zappos customer, just click the button, log in, and it will pull up your measurements. If you're not, you'd have to register, enter your measurements, then it would allow you to custom order.

This would be a tremendous incentive for manufacturers to standardize on sizing and size quality control. It would also be a tremendous boon, as it may allow some folks (like me) to request sizes beyond what's normally offered by that manufacturer.

I can see it now: "You mean to tell me that more than 70% of all our custom heel orders for boots are between size 11 and 13?"

Duh...

At the very least, this measure, if adopted, would truly leverage the power of the PC, launch us into our current century (novel idea), serve the customer, reduce manufacturing costs, significantly reduce the costs of returns, reduce prices overall, increase profits overall, increase customer satisfaction overall, increase the proliferation of styles throughout all size ranges...

So why doesn't anyone else share my vision?

To he/she who gives me a million to realize this dream, I'll make them a ten millionaire (less than half in jest...)

Ohhhhhhhhhh! how cute!! kitty heels!! Nice find though.

Man, you're getting caustic in your old age! :x

On a more serious note, :drinking:

Beyond that, I did notice that the angle between her instep and the landing was rather pronounced, about as much as in the pair of 4.5 inch heels I'm wearing this evening (previously shown on another thread).

Amazingly, this (your comment in response to her post) is the reason I started a poll about what standard should we use to denote the difference between a no/low/medium/high heels.

Check it out: http://www.hhplace.org/hhboard/viewtopic.php?t=7527&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Before you get your dander up, I know you were just having fun, so no worries, Hoverfly, eh? Thanks.

excluding fetish heels..

low would be like 1-1.5 in

mid is above 1.5 - 2.5 in

high is above 2.5 - 5 and then that becomes the realm of fetish

That's probably a good guide for your size 9, but what about a size 6, or a size 13?

I hardly notice a 2.5 inch heel, even though a four inch heel seems quite high under normal circumstances.

In fact, my favorite boot is a leather side-zip ankle boot with a 2.5 inch block rubber heel. I like it because it makes no noise, it doesn't look like I'm walking in heels, and even if someone were to get a glimpse, they never assume it's a man's boot. I've had several guys ask me where I bought the boot, and I always reply, "Italy." At that point, they give a knowing nod, and usually comment, "I'd like a pair like that" or "they look like what the Beatles wore."

I'm just funny, I guess!

While perusing a thread here on HighHeel Meeting Place, I noticed some unusual offsite activity (rare, as I only had a HHMP window up).

The source: PhotoBucket. Here's what the report looked like:

It appears that every time you access a website (HHMP or another) that references photos on PhotoBucket, the latter deposits cookies on your computer (one for each photo you're viewing), AND it logs the URL of the website (HHMP) which referenced PhotoBucket.

I looked at the cookie and it contains encrypted information. Because of this, I strongly suspect it's a unique number. Thus, the next time you visit PhotoBucket, PhotoBucket reads it's cookies, and knows exactly what websites you've been to that have referenced PhotoBucket.

If you log in to PhotoBucket, now PhotoBucket knows that you, User X, have been to all those other websites.

Moral of the story - before logging in to PhotoBucket, erase your cookies! And don't access any more content anywhere else until you've logged out of PhotoBucket.

Spoil Big Brother's Master Plan!

Or something like that...

By the way, if you want to see my privacy settings, if you're using Internet Explorer, go to Tools, Internet Options, Privacy tab, and set it to Medium High. There you can read the kinds of cookies PhotoBucket is using, none of them very nice ones. By the way, I recommend Medium High, as it allows you to do 99% of the stuff you would normally do (without others being able to intrude on your privacy), but blocks activity from badly behaved sites (which you don't want to be visiting anyway!). As for security, I use medium, but I'm also using both Windows Firewall and a hardware-based firewall, in addition to the latest version of Norton Antivirus.

Thank you - I'm quite happy with them!

I discovered rather quickly that casinos could care less what you're wearing, provided it's not distracting the customers (could given an uneven advantage to an alliance at a table - against the gaming laws, which casinos enforce as much as possible themselves as it keeps the gaming commission out of their hair).

If the casino has a movie theater in it, all the better. One of my favorite hangouts, and the first place in which I wore heels was a casino with a movie theater. I walked up to the bar, began playing video poker, was comped a beer, bought another, then walked over to the theater. A couple of people noticed my heels, but didn't say anything.

After pushing the envelope during the second and third years, I've settled into a routine of wearing whatever I want around the house (usually a skirt, and usually heels), but out on the town I usually wear a very conservative pair of heels, just boots with a 3" block heel.

dr1819, love the casino story. Nice pair of sandals you procured for yourself as well.

In re-reading, I just saw the part about the casino story - thanks!

Here's another I thought you might like (I couldn't tell anyone this before my divorce):

I was in Vegas, early in my heeling days. After spending about 2 hours at the video poker bar at the Riviera, trying to screw up enough courage to swap my sneaks for heels (aka, plying myself with drinks), I finally exited, changed footwear, and strolled back in wearing a pair of dark, muted two-strap sandals with three inch heels. With low jeans they appeared to be men's sandals, as the straps were wide.

I strolled around the casino, extremely aware of every eye on me. I must have been very nervous as the security guards picked up on it and I noticed them staring at me, but they were staring at my eyes, not my heels. So I forced myself to relax, strolled up to the bar, and ordered another beer, feeling a bit tipsy at that point.

After about five minutes of playing video poker, I strolled over to the craps table, where the action was rather hot (well, excited, anyway). I noticed a beautiful dark-skinned brunette at the table next to what appeared to be a rich man. Our eyes locked for a moment, and we exchanged the gentlest of smiles before returning to the action. I wandered a couple of tables over, watching the blackjack action at a $100 minimum table - boring, but I am into blackjack.

After a couple of minutes, I felt an arm slide into mine.

It was her.

She told me her name, I told her mine, then she suggested we get some fresh air.

I was married at the time, but I thought "how often does a beautiful brunette take you by the arm and ask you to go for a walk?"

Shortly after we strolled outside, talking about all kinds of things, she asked, "what's that sound?" We'd wandered away from the crowds, and she'd heard the clicking on my heels (she was in flats). I showed her my sandals and she said, "Ohmygod! You're wearing heels!" She laughed a bit, but I didn't care, as she was good company. Then she said, "That is so incredibly sexy," and tried kissing me on the spot, obviously intent on helping persuade me to go elsewhere. I averted her kiss, then told her, "I'm sorry - I really do enjoy your company, but I'm spoken for," showing her my ring." She said, "That doesn't matter," and it was my turn to laugh, for in my much younger days I'd have gone with her willingly, and she was obviously quite a catch, physically speaking. I explained that I was faithful, and while I didn't mind strolling around with someone as beautiful as she was, I'd never been unfaithful to my wife, and that night would be no exception. She tried once more, and when I averted that one, too, she asked if I was gay, to which I replied, "Not by a long shot. If I were gay, I certainly wouldn't be with someone as beautifully sexy as you!" We walked for about another ten minutes, and she said, "I have to get back to the casino. It's been really nice talking with you. You're wife's lucky. I wish I was as lucky as she was."

At that point, she turned, and walked off. I thought about calling after her, but I just stood there, watching her walk away. About twenty seconds later she turned around, looked back, saw me still watching her. I smiled at her and waved. She smiled back and blew me a kiss. I caught it, and brought it to my heart to let her know how much I thought of her, even though it wasn't meant to be. She just smiled more, turned, and headed back to her friends, and to her own husband, the guy who was at the craps table when she and I first exchanged smiles.

I think Danskos are from another planet.

Really? You don't like the Rayne? (second from the top).

Very comfortable, water-proof boot and with a 3-1/4" heel in my size. Great under a pair of jeans - very stealthy!

dr1819, you surprised me. If you like them enough and they are comfortable sooner or later I'll bet you'll want to try them out in public.

I'll bet you could pull off that last pair easily with one of your denim skirts.

The last pair does look good with a denim skirt! And the first pair looks absolutely terrific beneath my black denim jeans.

Sadly, the first pair is very uncomfortable, as the "arch" remains constant from the instep to the outside, which means it hits the outermost metatarsal midway. Ugh.

The second pair looks nice, but huge, and it's much narrower than the M I ordered (even though it says "M"). So they're both going back.

I'm wearing the third pair now. Might try them out with longer jeans, but they're really "all girl," meaning that I'd be spotted off the bat. I actually enjoy wearing heels that no one spots as heels.

Ouch, I see your point. Who knows maybe some government regulation(eek) will make it a mandatory feature on all cellphones.

I wouldn't mind them mandating that cell-phone makers include this feature at cost, which is probably no more than $5 for the additional software/hardware, rather than the $50 premium it is today.

I've had voice recognition software on my computer since 1996. But I type better and faster, so I rarely use it.

Here's another link (and no, I'm not an NRA member!): http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2000/june00/psrjune2000.html

Dr1819: Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not attacking you, just explaining my lack of involvement in the Wiki debate.

I doubt that a Wikipedia article on men wearing clothing traditionally associated with women is going to raise awareness. People are only likely to look it up if they're already interested.

While I see your point, I would have to ask, "What's the purpose of HHMP?" Many of our members have been vastly relieved to know that there are others of us out there, and many have begun heeling outside the confines of their four walls because of what they've read here. Wiki has a much larger audience than HHMP.

Another thread detailed how often the concept of men wearing heels is Googled - apparently quite a bit - so Wiki article detailing alternative fashions is an excellent way to get the word out, broaden acceptance, which would also be a big hint to manufacturers to provide a greater variety of larger sizes, and perhaps some more masculine styles (which I would prefer) in heels.

Also predjudice tends to come from closed-minded ignorant people, ie they're not likely to be great readers, and even if they read it they won't change their minds.

For some, no. For others, yes. The point is that for the others, it would be yes, rather than them remaining in the dark.

As for the term MUG, I'd never heard it before you brought it up. So there's you saying that it's in common usage, and a whole bunch of other people saying that they've never heard of it.

Not me. Ton's of other people:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22male+unbifurcated+garment%22

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22MUG%22+and+%22skirt%22+and+%22kilt%22

While I applaud you for standing up for what you believe in, I don't think that Wikipedia was intended to be used as a soapbox.

It wasn't. But it was intended to be used as an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a place to create articles that are relevant, even if they're relevant to a tiny percentage of the Wiki population. If the subject is real (men wearing heels is real, or we wouldn't be here), if it's relevant to at least some Wiki members (various comments on my pages indicate some support, so they're out there), and if it's document by credible sources (several newspaper articles, including those with shots of runway models and a celebrity or two wearing heels), then it's deserving, by Wiki's rules, of a space on Wiki.

My point is that despite it's reality, relevancy, and valid sources, the same fashion police that would love to pass an ordinance prohibiting men from wearing heels > 1", are fighting against it, using the most insane and illogical arguements.

The problem is that no one is bothering to counter them.

That's the funny thing about rights - if you don't defend them, they will be slowly taken away from you.

All I'd asked for was for a few people to follow the links and post their support. How many folks do we have here who're interested in supporting our right to wear heels? Tons.

How many actually posted their support? Perhaps three.

It's not my fight. It's out fight, whether you realize it or not. Society has, many times, swing back and forth between very permissive, and very controlled. Right now, we're in an increasingly permissive swing, but that began to turn around 9/11 (as these swings usually do in response to events known around the world, like the French Revolution, when we lost public acceptance of men wearing heels in the first place).

It'll happen again, sooner or later, like it always does. Just a matter of time.

Unless you (everyone) does something about it. If you don't, the fashion police, those whose narrow minds think everyone should be THIS way, or THAT way, will convince the powers that be that they're right and will cause laws hiding under terms like "propriety" and "best interest of the public" to pass that contain provisions against men wearing heels or other items of women's clothing unless they've been properly diagnosed as a transvestite or transexual (they'd never actually take away our rights, but they'd make us jump through all kinds of expensive and time-consuming hoops to exercise those rights).

Don't think it can happen?

Think again: http://ccrkba.org/defender.htm

When I first obtained a concealed carry permit in the Northwest, the cost was $27, and it was good for a three-year permit. No gun safety courses were required if you could prove equivalent, and I was in the military with an expert rating, so I qualified. The course was $20 if you didn't qualify.

Cut to just two years later. The money-grubbing lunatics that call themselves the North Carolina General Assembley passed a concealed carry permit shortly after Michael Jordan's father was shot and killed in that neck of the woods. But they established a fixed $100 fee for the course, and made annual attendance mandatory.

Oh - and the fee for the permit was another $100, so that's $200 per year in NC, vs $10 a year (which covered actual costs) in the state where I lived in the NW.

Why was it so expensive? Fortunately, I lived down the street from a state judge. One evening during a neighborhood outing, someone asked the question. The judge, an avid hunter, replied that while he didn't believe in concealed carry, he reported that the assembleymen were swayed by input from police and sherrif departments that claimed there would be a rash of shootings if they didn't raise the barriers to concealed weapon carry. Their motive? They collected the fees, to be used for bettering their departments, and they ran the safety courses!

Two items of note:

1. The per capita violent crime rate in NC was far higher just before concealed carry law was passed than it was in the NW state that had enjoyed concealed carries for decades.

2. The per capita violent crime rate in NC dropped after the law was passed.

Whether it's the fashion police or the real police, the bottom line is that there are people out there who don't want you to wear heels. Unless you toe the line and fight them on this, including Wiki, they'll get their way, or at least make it prohibitively expensive or inconvenient for you to exercise your rights.

That's human nature. It's the way it's always been, it's the way it always will be. Groups who don't band together and defend their rights loose them.

Always.

I chose standard propotion, as it meets several needs: 1. Easy to calculate: (Heel Height - Plat Height ) / Equivalent Foot Length For example - if you're a size 11, your equivalent foot length is 10-11/16 inches. For a 4 inch heel with a 1 inch plat, that produces a standard proportion of .28. The higher the proportion, the higher the heel. 2. It's very easily calculation to standardize online searches, as most online retailers have both the size and the heel height in numeric fields. It would be a simple matter to add the plat height, too. 3. It would allow users a multitude of search options, including overlapping ranges: - From -- 0 -- .1 -- .2 -- .3 -- .4 -- .5 - To -- 0 -- .1 -- .2 -- .3 -- .4 -- .5 -- .6 -- > .6 By the way, a standard proportion of .5 in size 11 is 5.34 Similarly, if you know your most comfortable standard proportion, you could search for shoes with a standard proption of, say, .33, and you could specify +/- .1 around that, so the search would return all heels ranging between around 2-3/4" to 5" 4. It just makes sense. Comparing a 3-1/2 heel on a size 8 to the same on a size 11 is like comparing apples and oranges. But if someone said, "I enjoy SPs between .3 and .4," it makes sense for all sizes, as it's a reflect of the angle of the ankle, which at any given SP, is the same throughout all size ranges.