dr1819

There have been several polls asking people what their definition of a "high" heel should be. This poll is asking you how you think the definition should be determined, not only for high heels, but for low and mid heels, as well. Please take a moment to vote, then explain why you voted the way you did. Thanks for participating!

Now that's a crappy hands free phone if you have to push a button. My phone truly is hands free with voice control.

I'm happy for you. Sadly, even though my phone is only a month and a half old, it doesn't have voice control. That wasn't available unless I paid well over $200.

Hi, phlove - I, for one, think she's cute as a button, and looks great in those boots! Welcome aboard. Hope the derrogatory comments didn't scare you away.

Yesterday I received a pair of wedge two-strap sandals (toes and instep). Great shoe, except for the pointy toe. When one's toes follow a natural profile, and the shoe bottom is pointed, it just looks ridiculous (particularly when your big toe and little toe hang over the edge created by the artificial narrowing of the heel).

Ouch! Yes, I always wear my new heels for a couple of days each, over the weekend, on my carpeted floors. If they pass the "all weekend" test, their keepers. Any discomfort, I send them back. I send back about 80% of the heels I buy online.

Poll on the For Everyone thread.

Here's a list of people's most popular searches regarding heels. Ignore the guff at the beginning and scroll down to the bottom.

http://www.psyhist.com/heel.htm

Men wearing high heels come in at #31 and #39. It could be that guys in heels are more popular than we might believe.

Xa

It also appears in about seven other search combinations, as well as a very telling quote: "the high heel is common to a form of shoe often worn by women but sometimes by men too."

Do tell!

I tend to walk on my toes when I'm barefoot, and I'm barefoot a lot, so I don't know what that says about my ankles. Also, I'm in a marching band and all the backwards marching is on the toes and I've pretty much mastered that.

Like I said, I can balance well, it's just that I'm not used to such a small stride. With those on, I either move slowly and smoothly, or at my normal speed [i walk kind of quick-ish] but kind of awkwardly.

I was trying on shoes a few weeks ago and a high, skinny heel is easier to walk in than a low, skinny heel.

Years ago I ran track, and one of our exercises was to run the bleachers (up and down, from left to right), and we had a large high school, so that was a lot of bleachers.

All on our toes.

We would also run pyramids on our toes (110, 220, 330, 440, 330, 220, 110). By the time we were done, our calf muscles were killing us, but after doing it a while, they adjusted.

The point was to build the calf muscle, but as a result, I often found myself walking on my toes, either too/from class in college, or just around campus. I still have a tendancy to do this today.

I love this quote: "Women should stick to shoes with heels less than 4cm (1.5in) if they wanted to avoid a trip to hospital, he advised."

Huh. My old combat boots had a 1.5in heel. I guess all the soldiers fighting overseas are headed to the hospital. Well, that explains the casualties. And here I thought it was due to bullets, morters, and IEDs. Come to find out it's the high-heeled combat boot.

Nice. What out governments won't tell us...

For that matter, my hiking boot has a 1.5 inch heel. It appears, Micha, that would explain the fatalities in the Alps, too.

Here's another quote that I found ridiculous: ""There can be serious consequences, but we are not trying to ban them," he said."

Ban heels because they're dangerous? Even though he says he's not going to try banning them, why would the thought even cross his mind? Still, given some country's socialized medicine, I wouldn't be surprised if they said, "either wear flats or pay the medical bill!"

What's next - banning corsets because they can lead to internal injuries if laced too tight? Banning underwire bras because some studies has associated them with an increased risk of breast cancer? Banning soap because it's slippery in the shower? Banning beer because it leads to abdominal fat, the most dangerous kind with respect to heart disease and diabetes mylitus? (sp) Banning butter for the same reason? Banning whole milk for the same reason? Banning all foods except water, fresh fruits and vegetables, lean meats, poultry, and fish because all other forms of food are comparatively unhealthy? Banning computer screens to reduce the chance of cataracts? Banning indoor lighting because it tends to lead to sleep disorders which reduce a person's lifespan? Banning construction because of the higher than average accident rates on construction sites as opposed to those in an office setting? Banning coffee makers to prevent burns? Banning all plastic bags because they're a hazard to children?

Banning all objects heavier than 2 lbs because in the event one drops them on one's foot it can lead to broken bones, as can the inadvertant spill while wearing heels?

Of course heels can lead to injury. So can soapy water in a shower. So can riding a bike, playing football, skiing, and driving a car.

Yet in the last few decades, I've known precisely one person who was actually injured while wearing heels. She was walking off stage, transitioning from very bright lights to the dark stairs, stage rear left. She misplaced her footing, and during recovery twisted and broken (hairline fracture) her ankle. They again, she was wearing 5" heels with a 1" plat (mid-70s).

And since I first began wearing heels five years ago, I've had my share of missteps, but I've never strained anything, much less broken anything!

Here's an idea - let's change the speed limit to 5 mph in cities, 15 mph in rural areas, and 25 mph on interstates and autobahns. That way we reduce the risk of serious injury or death to almost zero!

As for alcohol and heels, I've always found they're a good mix, as the alcohol loosens you up a bit and one tends to walk much more fluidly, instead of stiffly. If you have enough to the point where it becomes dangerous, just remove the heels and walk barefoot.

Reminds me of the time when I was exiting a casino, carrying a pair of heeled sandals while walking barefoot. A rather bold lady waiting to cross the street asked me, "Who's sandals are you carrying?" As this was in my earlier days of heeling, I said, "My wife's - she left them in the casino earlier this evening. I'm taking them back to our room." She took one look at my bare feet, which still bore the strap-marks, and said, "Uh-huh. They're yours, aren't they?" Getting my dander up a bit, I said, "Of course they're mine. Do you see any other males around here carrying women's shoes?" That caught her off guard a bit, and she asked, "why are you wearing heels?" to which I replied," because I like they way they look and the way I feel wearing them." She asked me to put them on, but we were in a crowd waiting to cross the street, and I wasn't all that steady on my feet, so I declined, fearing I might take a spill just putting them on while standing up. "Sorry, but I've had a bit too much to drink." She said she understood, the light turned green, and off we went in separate directions.

The most telling comment in the article was this: "Martin Shalley, president of the British Association for Emergency Medicine said he had not spotted a recent increase, but he reiterated that high heels could definitely lead to serious injuries."

No recent increase, as was claimed by Dr. Evans, who provided no basis upon which he based his conclusion, other than the fact that "he noticed." One of the principle fallacies is that just because someone notices something that there's been an actual increase. People can begin to notice things for many reasons, and they assume there's an increase, even when there's a decline. When I bought a Honda years ago, I noticed an explosion of Hondas on the road! There weren't, but that was my perception, as I then had a personal interest in Hondas.

If there were any increase, I would attribute it to the spaghetti-strapped sandals which offer very little support compared to a high-heeled boot, which offers tremendous support, particularly if it's adjustable (buckles, lace-up, etc.). Even a good adjustable, thicker-strap sandal provides very good support, provided the straps are at key points.

I'm wearing a pair of RSVP Shandra's, with a 4-1/2 heel:

The cool thing is that the toe thong is very stable, as it's snug, without being too tight. The instep strap is a little tight, but that's good, and because it's woven fabric, it's non-slip. Plus, the footbed is contoured. Result - a very comfortable and stable sandal. I got them yesterday and have been wearing this around the house all yesterday evening and all day, today, with narry a bobble.

My wife used to say, "you have pretty feet," but as a male, I always found that somewhat uncomfortable. I do know that when I wear sandals, I look like a sexy women from the ankles down.

Been a big dansko fan for a while. I have 4 pair at the moment. Wish they made more of the sandals larger than 42!

Clarks makes some nice clogs, and in sizes about 1 larger than Dansko. I have a pair of Clarks clogs with a 2-1/2 heel that feel like they were specifically made for my foot, down to every bone and joint. It's uncanny sliding into them - they're that comfortable. And because they're a rather plain dark brown design, I can wear them with jeans all day long and never get a double-take.

WERD^^^^

"Werd," huh? Is that like, "werd up?"

Excellent coordination between clothing styles and colors - as always, very well done!

In fact, it's so well done, I've half a mind to forward some of these pics to the fashion designers and say, "This is what we want to see on the runways, as this is what'll sell in the marketplace," while contrasting that with pics of what will never sell, the current over-the-top men they currently have running up and down the runway in heels, or worse, the parodies of very masculine men wearing very feminine heels. Either way, those approaches will forever keep men and heels in the closet.

If you agree, fashionablefun, could you PM me with a response either way? They're your pics, so I'll not forward them without your permission.

Thank you.

One of the threads was locked, but I was able to include a supportive post.

As with nearly all endeavors involving more than one person, people have to make choices to accomodate the other. She may be uncomfortable with your heel wear. You may be uncomfortable if she slept around. Obviously, if the relationship is to work, you would probably want her to be monogamous, as you're comfortable with that kind of relationship. She probably wants you to tone down your heel wear, as she's comfortable being with someone who doesn't attract too much attention. The key thing to remember is that it's not how much and of what kind of attention you actually attract. What matters is how much and of what kind of attention she thinks you'll attract. It takes time (minimum a few months, up to several years, sometimes never) before a woman becomes reassured that her man's deviations from fashion norms aren't going to have all of society breathing down their necks. Some people are deviants, and welcome things that are novel, but most are conformists and shy away from anything outside of what they usually see from day to day. While this happens, if she initially accepts your wearing conservative heels, the best thing you can do to gain her trust and respect is by respecting her input. If she says she's ok with moderation, then be moderate. Pushing the envelope is a sign of disrespect, and that doesn't help. Give it several months, and over time, if you have higher heels in your closet that she knows about, wear them around the house once a week or so, but keep it about 10% of the time you're with her indoors. If she asks you why you're wearing them, just be honest, and work with her. Your respecting her wishes will usually make her want to accomodate your desires, and repeated success with the more conservative choices will help her accept more bold styles.

My first real "outing" was at a gas station, too, and far, far from home. The lack of reaction there gave me confidence to go out to the movies, then a casino, and finally, to other places, until I was wearing heels regularly away from work.

Interesting adventure, Micha. All of my imports are often looked at (peepholes punched through the box, sometimes envelopes slightly torn), but they're delivered as advertised without my having to pay VAT/Import fees. Then again, since I'm not a permanent resident, might this mean the difference?

People used to tell me they thought I looked like Bill Clinton. Then I lost a lot of weight, cut my hair short, pierced my ears, got a tan, and now they tell me I look like Harrison Ford. Go figure.

Awesome! It's always refreshing to see manufacturers making sensible decisions with respect to size. By the way - I called the folks at HowCool, spoke to someone in the marketing dept (my dime), and discovered that they sell more women's shoes in size 12 and 13 than they do in sizes 9 and 10. What does that tell you about who usually purchases them? While she said she couldn't reveal direct numbers, she did say that it was quite sizeable, comparing favorably to any of your well-known fashion designer shoe labels.

THE FACTS ARE IN!

Here I was thinking that I was the only one seeing such behavior. I rest my case!

I agree with Daniel's assessment, that "it's probably got relatively little to do with cell phone usage than it does with general multi-tasking skills."

Some people can multitask, others cannot. Don't punish those of us who can multitask just because some people cannot.

But let's not banter! Rather, let's get the facts: http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/

Key points in the statistical analysis:

1. More than 212 Million people in the US use cell phones, and most use them while they drive.

2. Cell phone use has increase 4,930% since 1990. That's almost fifty times more people using cell phones today than in 1990.

3. During the last 16 years, accident rates due to inattentiveness, which includes cell phone use as well as other distractors (operating the radio, talking, drowsiness), have actually dropped, not increased.

4. The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, conducted by the NHTSA and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, clearly demonstrated three things:

a. Cell phones are the most common distractor.

b. Cell phones are among the least likely distractors to lead to an accident.

c. Key quote from the study linked above: "These findings confirm an August 2003 report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that concluded that drivers are far less distracted by their cell phones than by other common activities, such as reaching for items on the seat or glove compartment or talking to passengers." The truth doesn't get much plainer than this, folks.

5. The VTTI was founded by Scott Geller, a psychologist, who successfully motivated the entire United States to begin wearing their seat belts. His program has saved hundreds of thousands of lives, increasing seat belt use from less than 30% in 1980 to more than 86% today. So, he and his organization have a proven, long-term track record of separating fact from fiction, and knowing how to do what's right.

6. Several studies have challanged the idea that hands-free phones would lower accident rates. In fact, they show using hands-free phones increases the rates, usually because the driver has to bend over to push the buttons, instead of being able to hold the phone up so that he/she can see both the phone and the road. The studies concluded that talking on a cell phone is distracting and can diminish reaction times.

7. Other studies have shown that talking to others in the vehicle is more distracting than talking on a cell phone.

8. Despite these statistics, governments, businesses, and the legal system in particular, is spreading a believable fear campaign designed to discourage either hand-held cell phone use, or all cell phone use.

Conclusions:

1. Before you ban cell phone use, ban the following, far more hazardous activites:

a. Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

b. Talking to others in the car.

c. Reading a map (other than an occasional glance).

d. Operating the radio.

e. Operating a GPS (unless it's a HUD model; basic functions required for visibility are ok - but no programming).

f. Getting something out of the glovebox or back seat.

g. Eating (like that'll pass - McDonald's, Burger King, and the other drive-through fast food places will lobby that one right out of the park).

2. People are easily swayed by things that frighten them (the idea of being in an accident) and are subject to influence from authority figures (governments out to "protect the people." From themselves. Yuck.

3. All laws banning any activity in the car should be waived for anyone who's able to demonstrate they've driven more than half a million miles doing all the activities anyway without having caused a single accident.

Bottom line: I'm sick and tired of "do-gooders" who tell me how to run my life (what shoes/clothes I can and cannot wear, whether or not I'm "allowed" to use a cell phone while driving), when I've had nearly three decades of experience running my own life with a very high degree of success without the unwanted and grossly invasive intervention.

It's called boundaries, folks. If you want to dictate whether or not someone should or should not do something, please find a mirror and dictate away, as that's who you're responsible for. You are not responsible for me. My insurance is ridiculously low because I've proven (for a quarter of a century) that I'm a careful, attentive, safe, and effective driver.

Please take care of your own business and do everyone the favor of allowing them to take care of their business. That's called respect, and we've very little of it left these days.

PS: Some additional links to reality from reputable sources:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,56733-0.html, which makes a key point: "Merely talking on a cell phone doesn't necessarily mean the phone contributed to an accident."

Duh!

An example of the emotional appeal (communications term). Yes, it's a tear-jerker, but it's totally devoid of objective facts. http://www.morganlee.org/ It does, however, mention the same study I referenced at the top, but as a sign of defeat, rather than victory. Nevertheless, it validates the fact that the report is genuine, and widely read.

Here's a lie on their website: "Cell phone users are four to five HUNDRED percent more likely to get into traffic accidents than those who do not use them (NEJM, 2/13/97)" The truth is that you're less than 30% more likely to have a traffic accident while using a cell phone - but that's only during the time you're actually using it. If you use it 5% of the time while driving, your cell phone use raises your potential for getting into an accident a mere 1.5%.

That's about as close to negligeable as you can get.

Here's another factoid: Results of a recent survey indicate 87 percent of adults believe that using a cell phone while driving impairs a person's ability to drive.

Ok. And I agree. Where I disagree is to what extent does it impair a person's ability to drive? Is it impaired just 2%? Given my driving record (>500,000 accident-free miles over 25 years), I would argue that at 98%, I'm still a much better driver than your average motorist.

Why should I get ticketed while I'm still safer than the average motorist? That's absolutely absurd. It's beyond that - it's idiotic, fueled by fear, scare tactic, ad hominum arguments, emotional appeals, appeals to authority, and gross misuse of the factual data.

Don't ban cell phones! Simply be honest with yourself, and make the right choice for YOU.

Let others make their own decisions.

Thank you.

PS: The following logical fallacies have been used by posters in this thread advocating either hands-free cell phone use banning all cell phone use:

affirming the consequence (If A then B. Since B, therefore A).

appeal to authority (the government says...)

appeal to consequences (if you use cell phones while driving you're at greater risk, therefore we should ban cell phone use while driving)

appeal to force (if you use cell phones while driving, you'll receive a ticket)

appeal to novelty (recent studies have shown (intimating that just because they're recent they're somehow better than older studies)

appeal to pity (the poor child died - all because he was using a cell phone when he hit her)

appeal to popularity (most state legislatures are...)

appeal to tradition (our legislatures have always had the public's best interests at heart...)

bandwagon fallacy (an increasing number of governments are passing laws that ban cell phone use)

cum hoc (assumes that when two things occur together they must be related - "He was using a cell phone when he hit her, so of course the cause of the accident was him using the cell phone")

Well, I'm about halfway through the list, and about 80% of all logical fallacies have been represented thus far. See my signature for the complete list.

And yet we're the ones who can do several things at once, with supposedly addled brains. Hmmm...

Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy takes out his phone and calls the emergency services.

He gasps: "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says: "Calm down, I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a gunshot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says: "OK, now what?"

Well, that's officially the world's funniest joke, so I quit!

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/03/joke.funniest/index.html

A guy finds a watch on the street and sees that it has the name of the local priest engraved on it. A week later he goes to confession and says "Father I found a watch on the street and I wanted to keep it but that doesn't feel right. Do you want to have it?" The priest says "no you gotta give it back to the rightful owner". The man replies "But he doesn't wanna have it." The priest says "Then it's allright. You can keep it."

A woman goes into K-Mart to buy a rod and reel for her grandson's birthday. She doesn't know which one to get so she just grabs one and goes over to the counter. A K-Mart associate is standing there wearing dark shades. She says, "Excuse me, sir...Can you tell me anything about this rod and reel? He says, "Ma'am, I'm completely blind; but if you'll drop it on the counter, I can tell you everything you need to know about it from the sound it makes". She's skeptical, but drops it on the counter anyway. He says, "That's a six-foot Shakespeare graphite rod with a Zebco 404 reel and 10-lb test line. It's a good all around combination; and it's on sale this week for only $20.00." She says, "It's amazing that you can tell all that just by the sound of it dropping on the counter. I'll take it!" As she opens her purse, her credit card drops on the floor. "Oh, that sounds like a Visa card," he says. She bends down to pick it up and accidentally lets out a thundering fart. At first she is really embarrassed, but then realizes there is no way the blind clerk could tell it was she who farted. Being blind, he wouldn't know that she was only person around. The man rings up the sale and says,"That'll be $34.50 please." The woman is totally confused by this and asks, "Didn't you tell me it was on sale for $20.00? How did you get $34.50?" He replies, "Yes, Ma'am. The rod and reel is $20.00, but the Duck Call is $11.00 and the Catfish Bait is $3.50.

A Southern biker was visiting a Yankee relative in Boston over the holidays. He went to a large party and met a pretty co-ed. He was attempting to start up a conversation with the line, "Where does you go to school?" The coed, of course, was not overly impressed with his grammar or southern drawl, but did answer his question. "Yale," she replied. The biker took a big, deep breath and shouted, "WHERE DOES YOU GO TO SCHOOL?"