azraelle

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_957945.html?menu=news.quirkies.sexlife

The fact that this happened in supposedly enlightened Germany, and not in the red-necked South (in the USA), or Utah for that matter, where you might expect it to happen, speaks volumes about a society where something like this can still happen. And volumes about the stone age basis of most of society's sexual prejudices, including it's views on CD.

sscotty727-- I have a pair exactlylike those that I bought in ~2002 at Pay Less, size 12, that I have regularly used as dress shoes at church, and on the job. http://home.earthlink.net/~azraelle/dox/shuz.html

Maybe my pants are longer, but I have yet to catch an "askance" view, much less a remark. But since they sooo resemble shoes that Donnie Osmond was wearing on the Osmond show in the late 70's, I just wear them with the confidence that they are what I would have bought then had I had the money! I think that how you project your "aura" has more to do with whether you are accepted in a particular shoe or not than what the shoe actually looks like, but I may be wrong. I do know, however, that I wouldn't project the same way if they had spikes for heels...

You have to scroll sideways here because of previously posted pictures, not because of the one I posted.

Not really. Sherlock Holmes said that if all other possible answers are exhausted then the one that remains, however implausible, must be the truth, or words to that effect. No one, anywhere, on the net can figure out a plausible or really compelling reason for why we ar still there other than some vague "political expediency" which fades into non-believability when one asks the question "whose political expediency?" So then you have to ask "Well, what other agenda is it serving?"

Kneehighs pm'd me...a public apology is in order here from me. I don't know what got into me--I think I was using you to preach to everybody, but I have no real right to do so as it would be Firefox's job, if anyone's. I am the one who is sorry.

Themz are mighty foxy chicka babes. With or without the heels! Especially the brunette.

Point taken, image size reduced to 918 x 689, 57 KB. But the major point was the size in Kilo Bytes, taking forever to download, and hogging precious storage space on the image server, not the annoyance of dealing with a horizontal scroll bar.

Not to hammer in thumbtacks with a sledgehammer, but to emphasize the point I made in the "lol" thread, behold the Empire State Bldg pix

reduced to 20% optimization, now a less bandwidth and image server memory hogging 57 KB, as opposed to the original 333 KB.

Maybe the lol is laughing about how much memory he just squandered on bpalma's image server. GD, it doesn't take a genius to reduce the file size of the photos before posting. Most rudimentary imaging programs that come with digicams allow for this don't they? And if not, download a hacked version of Illustrator or Photoshop from Kazaa and do it with that. This ain't rocket science folks.

For example, original photo posted was 1600 x 1200, ~633 KB. Reducing to a size that won't cause a need to horizontally scroll the picture (and all subsequent replies on that page as well) to 918 x 689, "saving for the web", and optimizing the quality down to 20%, we have:

at a mere 57 KB. Can YOU tell any difference?? I'll even provide a link to a quasi-legal advertisement/spybot-free version of Kazaa (named "Clean KMD++ 2.4.4" to be exact) here, if you don't abuse it (and therefore piss off the college hosting part of my website): http://awilkinson.php.cs.dixie.edu/zips/cleankmd244.exe

I posted this on another forum, but it may bear repeating here... There was an economist from India that wrote a book in the mid-80's--Ravi Batra, don't remember the name of the book. He said that all civilizations have fallen, usually by civil war, when the top 1% gain control of 50% of the wealth. At least I believe that was the figure. At the time the US was edging at around 47%. His thesis was that if something drastic wasn't done to change it that America was heading for a social collapse sometime early in the 21st century. His suggestion was to replace income tax with an "inherited wealth tax", then institute a wage structure based somewhat on the Japanese system. In Japan at the time, the highest paid executive was the CEO of Matsushita, making about $230,000 annually, while in America, it was Lee Iacocca of Chrysler, making in excess of $10,000,000 per year. His suggestion was to not pay the highest paid worker of a company (presumably the CEO) more than 10 times what the lowest paid worker received. Of course, his suggestions fell on deaf ears! One of my roommates and I were having a heated discussion about this when he said something that had never occurred to me, the jist of which is that the powers-that-be are very much aware of the crisis of the haves vs the have-nots, and have been trying to "solve" it for years by attempting to remove the weapons from most Americans (who coincidentally happen to be the have-nots) through ever-more stringent gun control. This plan backfired on them, recently, when statistics caught up with them as to the fact that in all states where "shall-issue" concealed weapons carying permit laws have been enacted, the violent crime rate actually went down, in some cases rather drastically. Therefore, the "establishment" have more-or-less come to the conclusion that they may have to put down a well-armed insurrection (as opposed to the preferred disarmed insurrection) some time in the near future. Which explains the real reason why we are in Iraq right now--to train the Army soldiers (whom they figure to use to put down said insurrection) in urban warfare, it being a foregone conclusion that since the vast majority of the REALLY poverty-stricken have-nots are in the urban, inner-city areas of the US. Twas, and is, food for thought. It would explain much in regards to why we are still over there, and haven't just pulled out and left the place to the shiites and their shite(!)._

"Certain soldiers even wore high heels, again as a statement to their enemies."

In all my reasearch, I've yet to find any example or drawing of this. If anything, I've found the converse to be true - that soldiers wore functional gear in battle. Those that didn't were soon dead. Heels are NOT good in battle for a number of reasons, especially on either soft or rough terrain.

Have to disagree with you there, at least a little bit. The "reiters", e.g. raiders, or mobile cavalry of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1500s and 1600s wore over-the-knee boots with at least some heel height, if for no other purpose than to hold their feet in the stirrup. So in this case at least, moderate heels WERE needed for survival in battle, as long as they remained seated in the saddle!

who says that men forced women to wear high heels to control them. What a riduculous concept when it attributes to making the female more sexy and confident. in most situations.

Also ancient history shoes that me have worn heels before, and not so long ago in the 70's with the platform styles, so why if given the choice can we not choose to wear heels.

1) I SAID: "as they suppose"! No where did I imply that women thought that way. That said, however, men are, at least indirectly responsible for women buggering up their feet for the last century, and directly as well for at least 80 of those years. If men in general weren't so turned on by the hi-heeled look, women wouldn't be using hi-heels to lead them around with. Also, up until quite recently, most jobs REQUIRED their women employees to wear hi-heels (it was part of the dress code for my mother as an elementary school teacher as late as the early 70's, for example, in Nevada). And in the vast majority of those businesses, again until quite recently, it was men only in the upper management who determined the sexist dress codes.

2) I didn't say that SOME men wouldn't take the choice if offered, just that MOST men wouldn't, if it was merely a chice. Again--why would they? The only thing that drives most straight men with regards to fashion (assuming they pay any attention to it at all) is what they believe will get them more chix to hook up with. Or more sexual favors with present steady spouses/GFs. This isn't just my opinion. Books have been written on the subject!

I'll start wearing hi-heels made for men when they start being made for guys identical in every respect to the female counterparts except one--namely being made on a guy's last, and in generally larger sizes. If the sole is made thicker (so as to last longer--kowtowing to guys' supposed addiction to practicality, or to make them look more massive/masculine), or the leather less supple, or the heel shape is different, ao the straps are wider--FORGET IT!! But if I could buy non-fetish fashionable hi-heeled boots made specifically FOR men, with the aforementioned provisos, I WOULD, in preference to wearing something made for someone I am not. What I would like is stylish, femminine-inspired hi-heeled boots that really, truly FIT MY FOOT. Is that too much to ask?

Two thoughts: :: All other things being equal, hi-heels make the butt more pronounced, especially while walking. Granted, as JinxieCat informed me not too long ago (I think it was her), if a woman wants to flirt with her hips, hi-heels aren't needed, but they do enhance the effect. Generally it is considered unmasculine, if not downright gay, certainly comical, for a man to purposely wiggle his tush when he walks, ala Dom DeLoise. :: Quoting from a recently posted article, "Masculinity is still the must­have factor in so many of the achievements that our culture prizes. In such circumstances, how can we possibly understand those who would voluntarily surrender this valued asset? We may have abandoned many of ourpreconceptions about the nature of the female but we still can¹t understand why on earth any man would want to be taken for one. Boys who want to play with girls' toys are somehow downgrading themselves." What real man is going to give up the ability to move swiftly, freely, and comfortably, if unstylishly, in low-heeled "sensible" shoes, for the relatively inhibitiveness, if not enslavement, of hi-heels that they now use, as they suppose, to control their women with??

Gee Hoverfly, you're about to get stuck wearing those hideous 6" oxfords. Makes me want to start all over under a new handle just to avoid the things!

YUP! It's not bad--better than the last one that Lindsey Lohan was in. You might want to see it through twice to catch on to everything (or maybe I am just a bit slow!). WOOHOO! 900!!

I wonder if the fascination with "ballet boots" among guys stems from the fact that learning au point in dance and/or ballet was, and if I'm not mistaken, still is a skill unavailable to them. I confess no urge to wear them. I also confess that one of the major things that made me like Michael Jackson, and disbelieve his child molestation philanderings for so long was his ability to do pointe as a real guy. I wanted to take ballet in the worst way as a child, until I found out in the 4th grade that ONLY GIRLS were allowed to do pointe. I am not a particular afficianado of ballet, but I have been to a number of performances, and seen many more on TV, and NEVER have I seen a guy doing pointe. Bottom line: I think that ballet boots represent a counterfeit of something yearned for as a child, but denied, even more unattainable than wearing hi-heels or other femminine attire. After all, you knew that you could secretly go out and BUY the clothing. But how can a child coerce the dance establishment to teach a boy how to dance like a girl?? Especially with his parents looking on. It is doubly damning when he knows that either he gets the training now, while his bones (and brain) are still forming, or he will never be able to--at least that was what was taught 40 years ago. This was one more reason for fascination with Michael Jackson--he was an adult, and he was still able to learn to do it--maybe there is still hope after all. Is there, really??

Oh Lordy, you have a way with words, gene. Had I heeded this advice in a timely manner, in all things, not just heel wearing, I'd still be married today.

I like bijan. I always figured if I could tell the difference between what constituted a female fragrance and a male fragrance, others could too. This may have been true 30 years ago, but now, with CK and others blurring the lines of distinction, it may no longer hold true, unless it is extremely floral or strong (which many perfumes, even some colognes, tend to be).

Trolldeg, figured you might want to know. Your website doesn't work in Mozilla Firefox, for some reason, but does work in Mozilla. Go figure.

I remember attempting to load Zaxxon onto an Atari 800XL but the tape drive kept crashing. I finally gave up and settled for Ms Pac Man, Qix, and Q-bert with cartridges. I wasn't addicted though--the only one that ever came close was solitaire on Win 3.1 running on a Korean-made 80286 clone with 1 MB of RAM!!!

I have several pair of black flared hip hugger jeans that would go quite nicely with them, thank you, as well as a pair of crimson velvet jeans. Did I forget to mention that I didn't buy any of them in a menswear store? I also have a couple of stretch suedecloth shirts in purple and maroon, respectively, and at least 2 black fancy shirts, one that laces up the back. And I'm making a Queen of Swords style Pirate shirt/Poet's Blouse/bodysuit combination. All of which would go quite well with a fancy pair of maroon and black snakeskin boots such as those, even if they are synthetic. Of course the heel could be a bit higher...

If they were my own, I'd keep them as they are!!

Thanx, JinxieKat. I know the answer should have been obvious, but I somehow forgot. Probably due to my erronious assumptions about the motivations (and "purity" perhaps?) of the predominantly Mormon females that go to college here. You've opened my eyes in more ways than one.

There is a special place in hell reserved for men like that. The hell I refer to is in this life, though. While he's in prison, he will be a homophobic redneck no longer--the inmates take special care of child molesters/rapists/beaters/ murderers.