mlroseplant

It does seem very strange that they left the clubs, but took the work badge. And the shoes. I think sometimes people are just being mean for the sake of being mean.

It is interesting to see what younger girls are wearing these days. My son had a band concert last week, so I saw probably 100 13-14 year old girls between the 7th and 8th grade bands. We did see sneakers of course, a few of the aforementioned faux combat boots, quite a number of dress flats in various styles, and half a dozen heels! Two were black pumps/courts with stiletto heels (but not terribly high, I would say around 3 inches). Two were strappy sandals with block heels, and two were boots with moderate chunky heels, in the 2 - 2 1/2 inch range. No platforms! Go figure. I am not sure if this is significant, but 4 out of the 6 heel wearers were flautists. One saxophonist, one tubist.

No boys wore high heels (except for me), but my son definitely had the nicest shoes out of all of the boys. Here he is sporting his Allen Edmonds brogues, which look almost ridiculous on him at  size 11 men's, and he's a couple of inches shorter than me. It's an awkward age.

So here is the reason why I don't wear generously cut full legged trousers anymore. For some, I suppose it would be a reason to wear them. I did clean up the shoes somewhat before I wore them. It's been a while.

I can't say that I disagree with either of you, @Shyheels and @Puffer, but I've kind of quit caring lately. I just do what I do, and whatever article someone wants to write about men wearing heels, well, they didn't ask me, did they? I did find it mildly interesting that Christian Louboutin seems to have done an about-face when it comes to men wearing heels. Money talks, I guess. Unfortunately, he seems to have bought into the usual stereotype that we have to wear super ugly, clunky heels.

26 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

but no catcalls either. 

I'm thinking it has been nearly 7 years since I've been openly called out on the street. Oh, wait.  .  . I forgot about that time 5 years ago when I visited Dahlonega, Georgia. But that doesn't hardly count.

18 hours ago, Pierre1961 said:

Right! I agree. And the shoes look too large! 

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but since you brought it up, there it is. But we need to give her a break. I mean, she is 35 years old now. How many 35 year olds do you know (besides ourselves) who still wear heels?

Me and the wife went to Costco yesterday. We do this about once a month, and I cannot think of the last time I went to Costco in flats, because why would I do that to myself? I write this today, the morning after, not because the outing was noteworthy, but because our cashier went on and on about my shoes. In an admiring way, as I'm sure you're all familiar with. "Oh, I could never wear heels that high!" You know, I don't mind the attention, but it is my true desire to be left the hell alone.

This is exactly how I appeared, including the mask. Yes, I still wear a mask in public. I am not sure that I will stop, even when this public heath issue is over. I think I look better with a mask.

Wish I had that hair! Unfortunately, mine's basically gone. Looking good, brother!

I wish you well. I have often contemplated leaving this forum, not because I don't like it, but because I think my time might be better spent elsewhere. But, who am I kidding? I ain't going anywhere. My beautiful wife used to wear high heels daily, but like I have said to others, I can't live my life vicariously, so I took up heel wearing about 10 years ago, and I haven't looked back. My wife has looked back many times, but I think she has finally given up on me as being totally incorrigible.

Not her most flattering millisecond in my opinion, but she evidently felt the opposite, as this is plastered all over her social media. She seems to have branched out from Christian Louboutin.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CZ2Nex9v6Uo/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

19 hours ago, at9 said:

You've given me a first opportunity (outside of maths lessons) to use the word "frustum".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frustum

11 hours ago, Puffer said:

I also recall the frustum from maths and applied mechanics!    But a conical frustum would have its base (at the junction between heel top and shoe upper) parallel to the ground, which would make a heel of that shape impossible to walk on unless it was very low, probably combined with a platform sole - effectively a 'flatform' shoe.   

I am so proud of you boys! I am on the verge of tears.

Contemporaneously with the above quote, Puffer also said:Yes, you did say 'cone-ish' and that is as good a term as any for a heel which, if it came to a true point and didn't have a vertical slice removed and a sloping top would be a cone proper!   But I think we ought to give it a specific name - maybe a 'Melrose heel'?

I was thinking of doing another shoe inventory today, and I was reviewing the last one I did, which was probably a couple of years ago, and evidently, I have a lot of shoes with heels shaped like that. On the list, I put them down as "taper." I had forgotten that. We have taper candles, why not taper heels? Also, I had put my "near stilettos" down as "slim." I think those are reasonably descriptive terms, if a little boring.

17 minutes ago, Jkrenzer said:

I agree Helen, walking is for me far more comfortable and natural without platforms. I prefer a my heels to bend at the ball of my foot as I walk. Platforms don't give. Your foot just rolls with them, it's not natural.

Haha, I have to laugh at your expense just a little bit! There are some who would argue that wearing any shoes at all is not natural, but even you and I must admit that the mere act of walking in high heels is unquestionably unnatural.

Having said that, I had to go check, and it is as I expected. On my Söfft brand shoes which have a platform, the soles actually do flex a little bit. They are made out of some material that is similar in feel to hard rubber. It's not rubber, but it sort of feels like it. Some kind of unitized bottom, the heel is built right into it. The platforms on such sandals never exceed 3/4", so that may be what allows them to flex.

On the other hand, my favorite pair of sandals ever has a platform and heel made of wood, which does not flex at all. At least not on a macro level. These are the best walking shoes, at least for what they are. Perhaps it is because they are mules, and it allows my feet to flex independently of the shoe. Maybe if they were fully enclosed shoes, I would not think so highly of them.

1 hour ago, Puffer said:

I realise that, and apologise for implying otherwise.   I was lumping together the various shoes shown by you and melrose that have similar high tapered heels and saying that I didn't consider any of them to be 'cone' heels, with which you appear to agree.   As almost any heel that is not clearly 'slim' can be called 'chunky', I have my reservations about that term - and it does make me wonder where on the spectrum a cone heel lies (chunky at the top, slim at the bottom)! 

Here I go again with my vague analogies. I never said any of the heels presented here (except for your depictions) were cone heels, I said they were "cone-ish." I suppose this is something like my made up term "near-stiletto." I am trying to describe something that is close to the thing, but is not the thing.

A true cone is of course a three dimensional figure which tapers from a circle evenly down to a single, dimensionless point. There is no physical object that can really meet this definition, so everything we're describing, including undisputed true cone heels, are but partial cones or modified cones. To my eye, the three pairs of shoes I posted above, and the top two pairs Cali posted above are shaped like partial cones, partial cones with a flat section on one side. I say this because they taper pretty evenly from top to bottom, and have little or no curvature from top to bottom. Therefore, it's a partial cone! Sort of cone-ish, anyway.

I wonder if anybody has ever made a pair of shoes using pine cones as heels? Those would definitely be cone heels.

6 minutes ago, Jkrenzer said:

You have to do way worse to compare to '70s heels. These are nice.

Yeah, I'd have to agree, these are not 70s at all. It's not even so much the platform itself that gives the 70s vibe, it's the giant clunky heels! This is what concerns me most about what I am seeing in my area at the moment amongst the younger crowd. Block heels on delicate strappy sandals where the heel is actually bigger at the bottom than it is at the top. Yuck! And that's without a platform.

7 hours ago, Cali said:

Here's a variety of just a few of my “chunky heels” for you all to dissect in great details. Have fun! I think one could also be labeled a block heel.

It's a little hard to tell, since we've only got the view from the side, but I would say the top two are cone-ish, and maybe even the bottom left as well. They've all got that straight taper to them, but with a flat side in front, which is definitely not part of a cone. The bottom right I have no problem calling a block heel, as there appears to be very little taper, if any.

Yeah, I get the same at Costco. They don't even bother to check the card anymore. I should try going in flat sometime, just to see if I am challenged upon entry.

19 hours ago, Rockpup said:

A friend suggested shorter shorts with heels, as it’s often a bit warm for jeans or pants in south Florida. I do think I was noticed a lot more then when wearing long pants.

Was it "good notice" or "bad notice?" As a habitual shorts and heels wearer (though not for a few more months yet), the attention factor does go up somewhat. I cannot wear longer shorts like @Jkrenzer does, because it makes my short legs look even shorter than they are.

12 hours ago, heelguypa said:

Hello @mlroseplant, I completely agree with you. However let's take it one step at a time, it is not a bucket list but something I want to do for me and yes I assume it will be exhilarating and so cool. But first I have to take that step that I never have, hopefully I will not chicken out and conditions will be good location wise and weather wise. If I do it I won't magically change myself either I will be myself but conquered something and fulfilled something I wanted for long.

I don't this is a subject I will talk to my wife any time soon and also and very important as well this is something I will never do where I live. 

If I can indulge every now and then when I travel for work then that is a another huge milestone. And in the mean time just enjoy reading your adventures, be a little jealous, and build huge shopping carts of wish to have shoes, ironically most of them would step 120 before I would wear them, lol, since I love the prettiest girliest colorful and flashy shoes. 

Here is selection from a topic from a while back showing some of my all time favorites, specially the Sophia Webster butterfly Ciara. 

 

So for now, black patent pumps, or something similar, are my choice to go out in public, and ver exited and happy about it 

I'm glad that you will get the opportunity to do something that you would otherwise be unable to do. If your new job requires you to travel from time to time, then I guess that gives you something to do when you are far away from home! Good luck to you, and let us know how it goes.

It suddenly occurred to me that nobody has stated the usual caveats. Perhaps it is because we got sidetracked on the whole public perception issue. Perhaps it is because it is somewhat uncomfortable to bring up. So here goes:

I think it is great that you have an opportunity to wear heels as much as you like for a while. I really don't think you should have any problems doing it. However, there is a downside to all of this. Let's pretend for a minute that you take your trip, do your training, and everything goes great. You get to spend all your free time wearing heels, and let's even pretend for a minute that not only do you not have any trouble, but that a number of people like your style, and you gain great confidence by wearing heels.

But then what? Your training is over, and you go back home to your wife, who will not have magically changed during the time you were gone. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just worried that this plan might make your problem even worse than it already is. For 99% of people, this is not like a checklist, or what do they call it nowadays, a bucket list? In other words, it's not like you do the thing (wearing heels in public), check the box on your list, it's done and you move on. I believe the experience, once finished, will make your desire to do it again and regularly much stronger than it is now.

I don't think there is much controversy there--block heels.

22 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I would say the heels in the top images were “chunky” and those in the bottom two were “cone”.

I like the chunky heel ankle boot by the way!

You'd probably like them even more if I told you that they are actually knee high.

12 hours ago, Puffer said:

I would not call these block heels (or even 'narrow' block heels) as they are both too slim and too tapered .   To my mind, a block heel has to have a depth (front - back) that is 2" or more and a width that is not much less than the whole width of the shoe, so likely to be 2.5" or more, and with no significant taper in its sides, back or front.   (Height is irrelevant - a 'flat' man's business shoe with a heel of around 1" or less is still a 'block' heel.)   Here is one example, at the slimmer end of the scale:

I would suggest that melrose's shoes have Spanish or Chunky heels, if those names are accepted as legitimate. 

It may be the case that I don't actually own any block heels by this definition. I don't even think my boots count as block heels, seen on the left in photos 1 and 2. On the right are my now rather well worn Coach clogs, which I have always thought of as having block heels, even though upon careful examination they are not particularly block-y, being nearly a perfect semicircle in the back, but they are about 1 3/8" in width and depth, or about 35 mm.

While technically your definition of the shape is accurate, in other words, roughly a rectangular solid of some sort, I don't think the dimensional requirements are necessarily that rigid. A heel that is 2 1/2" or more in width would look rather elephantine on a foot of my size, though we are seeing more and more heels that are exactly that these days. No thank you. I think that perhaps, like our definition of stiletto heel, which bears little resemblance to the knife, we can be more fluid in our definition of block heel as compared to an actual block.

I suppose we could get into a discussion of visual proportion about why such a wide heel doesn't look horrible on a man's shoe of less than 1" in height, but looks rather ungainly once you get up to about 2" in height, but maybe we'll save that for another day.

10 hours ago, p1ng74 said:

Or perhaps “cone heel”

Speaking of fluidity, I am hard pressed to really find a cone shape in any of the heels pictured above. However, I picked out three pairs that I would call cone-ish. Or would that be coney? The breast (or whatever it is that they call the front of the heel) is flat like most high heeled shoes, so it's kind of like a cone with a slice cut off of it. See photos 3 and 4.

3 hours ago, Isolathor said:

Exactly! And what should the designers do, it is hard to come up with a better design than the old classic style.

 

Those are a very beautiful blue color. I think I want some. Is that a pose, or is it a freeze frame of a walk?

All right, what the heel, let's run with this for a while. Do any of these qualify in some way as block heels? Why or why not? They are all right there in that 1" or 25 mm range in thickness, but none of them suffers from the traditional beef I have with block heels, and that is, one tends to clomp in them. If the heel is lower, this is not really much of a factor, but as one rises above somewhere around the 4" range, block heels tend to become ungainly to walk in. I'm all with @Jkrenzeron this one: Contrary to common thought, stilettos are much easier to walk in gracefully, if one can deal with the pitfalls of dropping one's heel into unperceived gaps in the surface.

9 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Golly, and I spare myself all this existential angst  by simply preferring block heels! 😊

I am quite sure we could examine the subtleties of block heels as well, if we so chose. After all, I have a caliper now! Perhaps I shall have to examine some of my block heels to see what makes them tick aesthetically. I would welcome any working definitions of a "block" heel. For example, how thin can a block heel be before it's no longer a block heel?

I have bought a pair of cheap Chinese mules once again. Sometimes this works out, sometimes it doesn't. I think that in this case, it will work out, if I can figure out what to wear these with.

A little background first: As many of you know, I browse Poshmark on a fairly regular basis, and that platform often "picks out" stuff for the user/member, be it shoes, dresses, pants, skirts, whatever. As you can guess, it mostly picks out shoes for me, as that is the vast majority of my purchases. A a couple of months ago, it picked out these shoes for me, only it wasn't these exact shoes. The ones that the algorithm picked out were these shoes, only in sort of a chocolate bronze color. They caught my eye right away, but they were 60 bucks plus shipping. I'm like, "There's no way I'm paying close to 75 dollars for another cheap Chinese non-leather pair of shoes." I just let it ride.

Several weeks later, they fed me the exact same shoes from a different seller in a different color for somewhat cheaper. I "liked" them, and within a day or two the seller made me an offer at a significant discount from the asking price, and also a discount on the shipping. So I bit. And now I am the owner of something called MDT shoes, model name "Mackley." And they're not horrible. For one thing, size 8 1/2 is size 8 1/2. For another, they came with a pair of color coordinated replacement heel tips right in the box! After wearing them for 30 minutes, it became quite evident that I'd have to install some footpads because girth-wise, they're actually a little big.

Yeah, they're not leather, and they're a little stiff feeling, but I also don't feel like I wasted my money. Technical details: Just a tidge over 4 1/2" heel height, and about 9 mm heel thickness at the bottom. Fully four toes show when wearing these, so the strap is set further back than many mules. As a result of this, they do not flap much when walking, which is either a plus or a minus, depending upon your point of view.

It is time to up my geek game here. I have recently acquired a digital caliper. Actually, I bought this as a birthday present for my son, who is involved in a number of diverse projects where knowing the precise measurement of certain components is critical. What I did not think of at the time was using this caliper to measure the thickness of high heels. For your viewing pleasure, I have included a photo of my thinnest stilettos, at least as measured at the tip. I measured right above the heel cap, as the cap tends to "mushroom" right away once you actually wear the shoes. Evidently, my thinnest heels are my Steve Madden "Barbb" mules, at about 6.6 mm in the north-south dimension, and just over 7 mm in the east-west dimension.

Nearly matching the absolute thinness of my Barbbs happens to be another Steve Madden model, my recently acquired Daisies. The heel thickness is within 0.2 mm of the Barbbs in both side to side and front to back measurements. The main difference is that the Daisie heel remains far thinner throughout its length than does the Barbb, which really gives it the appearance of being lethal. The Barbbs taper outward significantly within an inch or so of rising from the ground.

The Barbb heel height is right at 4 1/2", whereas the Daisie is slightly higher, at >4 5/8", almost exactly 120 mm. Maybe 118.5. I find the Barbb heel easy to wear for an extended period, despite its steepness and thinness. I have done so on many occasions. The Daisie, while as of yet untested in the real world, is proving to be more of a challenge.

Does it bother any of you that I mix English units with Metric freely?