mlroseplant

I had been trying to find this information, but was unable to come up with it. Thank you. I was aware of the 1/3 of an inch or "barleycorn" system. Who uses 1/3s of an inch, anyway? Where did they come up with that? And yes, it is difficult to know whether the listed shoe sizes, even if they are in inches/cm, are designed for the actual length of the foot, or whether that's the length of the shoe. When people are selling used shoes and they provide a length, it is often measured in such a way as to be completely useless.

It has been several weeks since I purged 11 pairs of shoes from my collection. I have not even thought about them until now, much less missed them. Perhaps I should purge more. I can think of several more pairs that I'm on the fence about, but probably wouldn't miss much, if at all if they were gone.

At the smaller end of the spectrum, that's what I'm used to seeing, is UK9 = EU42, or in my case, UK7 = EU40 = USW9. What drives me crazy is when it goes even further the other way, and they say UK7 = EU39 = USW9. 39 is just plain too small for me with an enclosed shoe. I've never personally run into a situation where a 39 was OK. Extrapolating up a few sizes, I would absolutely expect that UK9 would approximate EU42, but perhaps that is not the case. I seem to be unable to determine with certainty whether EU sizes increase incrementally at the same rate as US/UK sizes. In any case, it's just a thought exercise for me personally. In the real world, I know that I need a 40 for enclosed shoes, and a 39 or 39.5 for open shoes. Those numbers will work for me 98% of the time, with the exception of any direct marketed Chinese stuff, but that's a whole nuther world.

There is another problem with this style of shoe, one that doesn't affect everybody, but it does affect some. Specifically, they are sort of so. . . visually dense (not to mention that it cuts you off right at the ankle) that one must be careful about proportions. Evidently, we are in the minority, and a very small minority at that.

Yeah, sure, we'd all love to give it a go, what high heel lover wouldn't, given the chance? But that misses the point, which is that there is a practical maximum heel height, both aesthetically and physically, where shoes leave the land of the classic stiletto and travel into fetish territory. This border varies from person to person, but seems to happen somewhere around 5 inches, give or take (on say, size 38). As Shyheels says, even the lady who can wear So Kates every day can't do Hot Chicks. I haven't seen anybody, even on Youtube or Instagram, who can do Hot Chicks really, really well. I think part of it is that they're just a bad design for walking. On edit: "Bad design for walking. . . " I have to laugh at myself. In any other context than the present conversation, that would sound like a complete idiot talking. In any case, to my eye, the Hot Chicks don't look particularly fetishy, but ain't nobody can walk in them, so who cares? There may be other shoes of that height that are easier to walk in, I'm fairly sure of it.

Along those lines, I think the photo below is about as high as you can go and still not be sort of fetishy looking. There are certain makers who seem to be able to add a centimeter or two to this and get by with it, but it doesn't much matter, because hardly anybody can walk in them anyway. I wonder how many Christian Louboutin Hot Chicks et al. actually get worn, versus how many are simply admired in the display case.

I don't know if this boot subject has reached a point where one could compare it to beating a dead horse, but I'm going to change it anyhow. I just realized that within a few days, I will have been a member here for 9 years. In another few months, I will be celebrating my 10th anniversary of public heeling. It seems impossible that that much time has passed. Here is a picture of my wife and me, actually participating in a leisure activity together (eating at a restaurant) for the first time in a very long time. One might have called it a date, but in truth it was piggybacked onto other, less appealing activities, like shopping at Costco.

Yes, it may be an echo chamber, but I think we're smart enough to realize that. We know we're a tiny number, and I think we will always be a tiny number, at least in my lifetime. The question is, will we be largely accepted by the larger community? I think the answer to that might actually be 'yes,' sooner or later. In some cases, it already is. As to the fetish aspect of it, I have no idea whether you are factually correct in your assertions, and it doesn't really matter anyway for the purposes of this website. This website is unique in that it caters to the man wearing high heels without going down so many other rabbit holes, and although some of the rules seem overly strict, I understand why they're there. The fact is, if we were looser with the rules, we wouldn't be unique anymore, and we'd be gone. Just like that. So where is the place for fetish, as it pertains to this website? I certainly don't think it should be banned, I think we should talk about it. But I don't think it should be the focus, that content is available elsewhere. Preserving our niche on the internet is important. Having said that, would I like to be able to wear the shoes pictured several posts above? Well hell yeah, maybe minus the locks and witch toes. But in the real world, that ain't never gonna happen. Like those who can twist their bodies into pretzels and balance on one arm for 7 minutes, there are precious few who can actually wear these shoes in the real world. Do I fault you guys who buy shoes like these for whatever purpose? No, not at all, I waste plenty of money on many things. Just not that.

Pierre, you have once again hit upon a topic which is sometimes controversial for us here at HHP, and that is, how much of our feelings are fetish, and how much are fashion? I won't deny having a bit of fetish, but I certainly don't care for things like the above photo, because how can you wear that out in the real world, even if walking in them were not a problem?

Let me recount an interesting conversation I had with a friend last night. A non-high-heel wearing friend. I asked him the question, "What do you think about wearing your pants tucked into tall boots?" He said that sometimes there's a practical reason to do it, and then he went on to say he supposed if you had paid big bucks for a pair of Tony Lamas with fancy stitching on them, that perhaps. . . and then he suddenly remembered that cattlemen (as distinct from cowboys) in southeastern Iowa always wore one boot with the pants tucked in, and the other out. I asked him why that was, and he said he didn't really know if there was a practical reason for it, but that was the standard in his little pocket of rural Iowa (he currently lives in Texas). I woke up this morning and a memory hit me--my parents' neighbor of many years, who was a plumber, but he was a cattleman on the side, often wore his boots that way. I always thought it was part of his sort of disheveled appearance, but now that I think about it, maybe it was on purpose. I have not seen this in modern times, as these are all people who are now in their 80s to 100s, or would be, if they had survived.

So much going on here. It is impossible to comment on everything. I don't know where to begin! I think p1ng74 kind of hit on something that applies to me personally, and that is perhaps the feeling of exclusivity. I suppose it goes without saying that a man in high heels enjoys almost total exclusivity anywhere he is likely to go, but perhaps that is not enough for me. I have to be the guy who wears sandals even when it's cold outside. The funny thing is, I tend to be colder blooded than most guys. I cannot wear just a t-shirt outside for any length of time when it's below 60º (or 15º). But for some reason, my feet don't get cold very easily, it's quite the opposite. Even I have my limits. I'm not going to wear sandals when there's a foot of snow on the ground, though there is some fascination with the thought of being able to do that. Bringing it back to the instant topic, does this have anything to do with power or empowerment? I am not sure. I just like it. I don't even really understand my own motivation(s), and I don't expect anybody else to. If there is one group of people who might come close to the edges of understanding it, it would be you folks. And I mean understanding it in the same way that almost nobody understands that I actually like to wear high heels, and by actually like, I mean that I actually like the way they feel completely independent from the way they look, and prefer them over flats in almost all circumstances. There are very, very few people who get that. Having said that, I rather like these new boots I just purchased, and I suppose I should wear them more than just a couple of times a year. And then there's all of the enclosed shoes that I own that literally have dust all over them. I know this because I went through the collection the other day, and purged 11 pairs. Some of them were even sandals I never wear anymore. Again, is it about power or empowerment? For me, I don't think so. There may be an element of that in there, but it's a small percentage.

We seem to have two separate discussions going on at once--the "how much people really notice" discussion, and the "empowering/powerful" discussion. I'm going to drop the "how much people really notice" part for the moment (or at least attempt to, people are gonna write what they gonna write), so that we may concentrate on the empowerment thought. It had not occurred to me before this discussion that boots ARE in fact depicted as powerful in popular culture. Superheroes wear boots, sometimes high heeled ones, if they are female. Super villains also wear boots. I suppose the opposite would be true of sandals. Or maybe not. Roman soldiers wore what were functionally sandals. Martial arts people fight barefoot. I think those are narrow exceptions, though, and not really part of Western culture. Perhaps my bias against boots is the fact that they do not fit my personality. I tried that for a while. Wore nothing but boots for many years. Oftentimes big, heavy boots. I'm not a big, heavy guy. It didn't really work for me. Perhaps these new boots will change my mind.

That is certainly my experience, normally, and it sort of depends on where you are. I even noticed this tendency before everyone had their head buried in a phone. I am convinced that the reason that there are as many auto crashes as there are is that people just don't notice stuff in general. It is just on this one particular occasion that people seemed to notice me, and I just happened to be wearing boots. Is there causation there? I kind of doubt it, but it made for good forum copy. This subject has come up before, but I don't remember the resolution, if there is one. What is the deal about wearing boots over your jeans? Why is it empowering? And why would one care if it is? I personally don't wear what I wear to feel powerful, but that seems to be an over-arching theme narrated by many on this forum. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it's a word that gets used a lot, especially when it comes to boots. Furthermore, why would boots over your jeans get you noticed in particular? Especially since it's a very normal style for women (and, to some extent, men) these days, I would think it would be something which would not really catch people's eyes. In fact, when is the last time you saw a pair of knee high boots NOT being worn on the outside? Cowboy boots in certain instances, that all I can think of, and usually that's a work or livestock type situation. Shorts and heels, on the other hand, are very unusual to be seen on anybody in normal life (in other words, not Friday night going to the bar or club). Perhaps in southern California, women wear shorts and heels to do their weekly shopping at Ralph's on a Tuesday afternoon, but I kind of doubt it. The chances of you seeing a woman in such outlandish garb here in Iowa are approaching zero. Not absolutely zero, but approaching zero. Therefore, I would think that a man wearing shorts and heels would garner more attention than a man wearing knee high boots on the outside of his pants.

I shall have to try it again to see if I get the same results. If I were truly interested, I would try it alone, with my son, and with my wife to see if THAT made any difference. I made a quick run to the store last night in nondescript jeans wearing some rather low heeled but patent leather sandals that kind of stand out to those who bother to notice. Four teenaged boys followed us into the store, and they were laughing hysterically. As it turns out, it had nothing to do with me.

So, the weather has turned to crap rather suddenly here. It actually snowed a bit, but it didn't stick. However, there was a high wind that made it feel like it was actually cold. I needed to go to the grocery store to purchase some comestibles. I decided to use this circumstance to try out my new knee high boots, chronicled somewhere above on this thread, and perhaps elsewhere. There are two things I noticed. I got more looks wearing those boots than I've gotten in a long time. You would think that a 50-some year old guy would get more looks in tiny shorts, but at least on this day, it wasn't true. I was definitely being stared at for pretty much the entire time I was there, which was not as much as 10 minutes. The other thing I noticed was that there are two snaps on these boots which annoy me, and there's no way to get rid of them without it looking bad. They really don't serve a function, they are decorative, and I guess they're kind of cool, but given the way I walk, they tend to catch on each other, as my ankles pass very close together with each step. I have spent years developing this style, and now I have to change it for these stupid boots. The things you don't notice until later.