Stu

I can identify with Heelfan's anecdote. (I couldn't in my wildest dreams imagine telling a woman to "keep her pecker up!") A close friend of mine from my college days was from Singapore. He had learned proper British English and had quite a time adjusting to American English. He walked into my dorm room one time and asked me nonchalently if I had a "rubber" he could borrow. I asked him who the girl was, another guy in the room began laughing hysterically, and my friend responded with a look of utter confusion. I finally explained to my friend that a rubber in the U.S. is a slang term for a condom; he was embarrassed because he had only thought he was asking for an eraser. "In Singapore," my friend said, "condoms are known as 'french caps.'"

I read your sample story, Laurie. As you demonstrated with your diaries, you have a way with words, and a good natural style that forms the foundation for good writing. One tip is to try to avoid extended periods where you're simply writing a dialogue -- it reads more like a script than literature, and editors hate that. I'm dabbling with fiction (no, nothing to do with heels) and have fallen into that trap myself. Writing may be fun, but it can also be a torturous way to make a living. I once saw a successful writer quoted as saying if a person should attempt to make a living as a writer only if they cannot do anything else. I can identify with that, as one can struggle for weeks on even a simple short story, only to find that it goes nowhere when you try to get it published. I started out as a newspaper reporter in my 20s and now, for lack of a better term, I'm in what can be described loosely as the PR field. In a past job, I did a lot of speechwriting, and while my current job involves a lot more than just writing, there is no question that my skill as a writer got me up the organizational ladder to an executive level position with a respectable salary. And yet, I am somewhat frustrated by the fact that people read what I write today because they are paid to do so. In other words, they read my work because it's part of their job, part of what they're paid to do. I would love to write things that people pay to read; it's the difference between being a craftsman and being an artist. It hasn't happened yet, and unfortunately I don't have the darn time to really focus seriously on literary writing. This is not intended to discourage Laurie or anyone else from pursuing serious writing. But it does take a lot of dedication, aggravation and perseverence. Hang in there, Laurie. You do have talent.

Candi, you are the best thing to come out of Austin since Stevie Ray Vaughn. There are a lot of washing-cars-in-heels photos on the Web, but these are truly of stellar quality. How long have your husband and you been producing photos, and whose idea was it initially to have you pose for photos, yours or his? Just curious -- hope you don't mind me asking.

Candi: These are absolutely wonderful photos. Your Web site seems to have a lot of terrific offerings as well. The world needs at least 20 million more women like you. I hope you'll keep visiting the forums here.

I hadn't realized you were no longer in a relationship. I'm sorry things didn't work out.

Great photo, Laurie! To be a goddess, one must be worshipped, but one cannot worship a stiletto goddess unless one can see her. With photos like this, you'll be worshipped.

Hi, Meg-Ann. Glad to see you're conversing again. The last time we conversed on Jenny's board, you said you were wearing 6-inch heels to your spa on a regular basis. Is that still the case? If so, has it helped give your business the kind of image you want? Have you had any interesting experiences?

I think you have to do a lot more than simply enjoy looking at women in high heels to be considered a pervert. It's one of the true pleasures of life. As long as you're discreet and not causing anyone to feel uncomfortable, you're OK. Remembering that women are people and not just a body on a pair of shoes helps you keep things in perspective, so I think you're doing fine, Frantic. I'm glad to see this subject has held its own here for quite some time. Why have a high heel site if you can't talk about admiring women in heels?

I'll be the first to admit that there is far more that science does not know than it does know. There probably is some higher order to the Universe, and perhaps life (including humankind) plays some kind of role in that higher order. One can wonder a lot about that. What I can't accept, however, is that people who lived 2,000 to 5,000 years ago figured it all out. Yes, religion has provided our species with some inspired breakthroughs (the bulk of the 10 Commandments still hold together pretty well after 3,200 years). But the concept of some fatherly (or motherly) being watching over us, perhaps with human or devine children or prophets to teach us how to live, doesn't ring true with me. Perhaps it explained things satisfactorily to ancient people. But science has revealed that the Universe is much more complex than the ancients could ever have imagined, so why do so many of us continue to view the religious legends of ancient peoples as literal truth? As a Jew, the one thing I do like about Judiasm is that it doesn't try to explain too much about the Universe. Yes, yes, we came up with the idea that God created the Earth in six days, but after that, Judiasm accepts that there are many things it cannot explain. There is no official belief in Judiasm as to whether there is an afterlife. Judiasm largely steers clear of resurrections (ie Jesus) or prophets being taken to heaven (Mohammed), and concentrates more on how one should live one's life in the here and now without worrying about what will come afterwards. So, even though I am largely an atheist, I have a healthy respect for Judiasm. If we humans can avoid killing ourselves and can remain a species for as long as the dinosaurs were, maybe we'll have it all figured out. However, I know that science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke has a favorite saying that he didn't write but he uses often: "The Universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine."

A quick comment on the sidebar conversation about the A-bombing of Japan during WWII: The firebombing of German cities in 1945 by Britain and the U.S. was just as deadly as the A-bombs dropped on Japan a few months later. More people died in the firebombings than died as a result of the atomic bombs. One set of attacks carried a nuclear stigma that has been seized upon by later generations, while the other set of attacks did not. It is wrong to look upon the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in isolation from the rest of WWII, even though people today commonly do just that. Rightly or wrongly, the bombing of civilian populations, from London to Cologne, Dresden, Munich, Tokyo and lastly Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was a central part of WWII. I disagree with those who focus on the U.S. a-bombing as something that was fundamentally different than all of the other bombings of cities during that war.

There is a lot of traffic (not surprisingly) on this subject, but, PJ, I'll briefly respond to your posting of only yesterday. I don't honestly know whether the no-fly zones were part of a UN resolution, so if you say they aren't, I'll believe you. However, the French and the Germans are now proposing that the no-fly zone be expanded to the entire nation of Iraq, so that tells me they are not opposed to the concept. In response to some of the postings involving Highluc and others on the subject of the news media, I often see people point to bias in the news media to explain why most people in a given population don't agree with their views. I don't buy it. In democracies like the US and Britain, there are more sources of news now than ever before, thanks to cable TV and the Internet, and people are bombarded with all kinds of information from liberal, moderate and conservative viewpoints. That's a good thing. The days when William Randolph Hearst could engage in yellow journalism to force the US into a war with Spain are long, long gone (105 years gone, to be exact). If Americans in general are feeling more pro-war than Europeans, it's because we're still angry and feeling vulnerable over 9/11. Dictators with weapons of mass destruction don't seem so far away and benign to us anymore. I don't wish another 9/11 on anyone, but if such a terrorist attack were to occur in Europe, I believe more Europeans would change their attitudes about the dirty business of war. This is not to say I've completely bought off on the need for an Iraq war. I still don't completely trust the Bush Administration and am not convinced that Iraq poses such a threat that we need to go to war. I also feel Bush has needlessly antagonized Europe and the rest of the world with his arrogant "America will go it alone if we need to" attitude. But, if Hussein does indeed pose a threat, then an invasion is probably the only solution. My mind is still open on how serious the threat really is.

The link between the Iraqi government and Al-Qaida has not been definitively proven, but it would be naive to assume it does not exist. It was the Arabs, I believe, who coined the phrase, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The U.S. is the enemy of both Iraq and Al-Qaida and, whether they are Sunni or Shiite, they are both stronger if they act together. The information cited by Powell and reprinted on this forum indicates that both Iraq and Al-Qaida understand this. Firefox is right in saying that terrorism cannot be defeated through the invasion of foreign countries. What will ultimately defeat terrorism is the development of stable democracies in the Middle East that give their people constructive outlets for their frustrations and energies besides declaring jihad against countries that are more affluent and powerful than theirs. The overthrow of Hussein, either by the U.S. or by elements in Iraq, would represent an important first step on the long journey of democratizing the Arab world. That fact alone does not justify a U.S. invasion. But if Hussein does indeed threaten the peace and stability of the region and the world, an invasion can be fully justified provided that there is an effort by the international community to develop democracy rather than simply support some other dictator or sheik. Nobody is saying such a thing would be easy, but the world would have to try. Invading Iraq does indeed raise the risk of increased terrorist attacks in the short run, but like I said before, Al-Qaida has shown it doesn't really need provocation to attack the U.S. and other countries. They'll try to attack us again whether we attack Iraq or not. The Hitler-Neville Chamberlain analogy is valid in this case.

Highluc's posting made my day. And, while I am still sitting on the fence over the need for a war with Iraq, I'd like to take a shot at answering PJ's questions: 1. By whose authority are the US and Great Britain flying armed combat planes over a country we are not at war with? That's simple: The UN's authority. The Persian Gulf War never truly ended; The UN alliance agreed to a ceasefire under the condition that Iraq would comply with various UN resolutions. Whatever you think of Bush, he is absolutely right when he argues Iraq has violated all these resolutions. Part of the conditions under which the US, Britain and the other allies ended hositilities in 1991 was that they would patrol the no-fly zones. Iraq started the war by invading Kuwait. If Iraq truly wants to end that war once and for all, it needs to comply with the UN resolutions. It's that simple. Iraq is not the innocent party here. 2. If we go to war, how can we be assured that we can overthrow Hussein while minimizing injury and death to innocent civilians? Nobody can give absolute assurances. However, all the smart bombs and other high-tech weaponry can hit military targets and avoid "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent civilians) better than anything that could have been conceived 20 years ago. Of course, even this technology is not perfect, and Hussein doesn't make things easier for his citizens by putting important military equipment in schools and mosques in civilian neighborhoods. If and when civilians die, Hussein shoulders at least part of the responsibility. 3. If war begins in Iraq, how prepared are we to deal with terrorists attacking targets in the US and other countries? The sobering answer may be: not much. After 9/11 (and Bali), however, why do we think terrorists will only strike at us and our allies if we attack Iraq? Whether you are for or against a war with Iraq, it seems pointless to me to worry that we may do something that would provoke Al-Qaida. We have the memories of 3,000 dead people in NYC, Virginia and Pennsylvania to tell us that Al-Qaida doesn't need provocation to kill Americans. The plot to release poison gas in the London Underground should drive the same point home with Britons.

Feb. 5 is going to be an extremely critical day, as Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. could well make the difference between war and peace. IMHO, Powell's most important challenge will be to convince Europe (specifically France, Germany and Russia) that there is sufficient justification for a war. If he can get them to go along, Bush will probably get the U.N. resolution that he insists he doesn't need, but in reality he needs very badly. Opinion polls in the U.S. show that a strong majority of Americans favor a war with Iraq only with the support of the U.N. I'm in that majority, and I think it makes good sense for the U.S. not to act unilaterally but to be willing to take out threats like Hussein as long as there is an international consensus for doing so. It is sad, in some ways, that Americans in effect trust the opinions of foreign leaders more than they trust their own president, but that is essentially the situation that exists in America right now. I think we Americans are conscious at some level that we have a right-wing cowboy as president, and we're OK with him being the leader of the posse...as long as we have a posse. (P.S. Don't blame me, I voted for Gore, as did the largest share of American voters.)

Susan is no longer very active in this forum or the one on Jenny's site. She mostly communicates privately with others she met here via e-mail. She is still registered here but did not leave an e-mail address. Ilse, I would leave a private message with her and see if she responds to you. Susan emphasizes the training she undertook to prepare herself to be a permanent high heel wearer. She says she has been wearing heels exclusively for almost 30 years without any major problems (other than the fact that she can no longer wear flats). She is a wealth of information and would probably be willing to converse with you, Ilse, if she somehow learns of your interest and you convince her that you are serious about this. In my own opinion, the fact that you can wear heels of 4" or higher at will for as long as you want is impressive. I do not understand why you want to deny yourself the ability to go lower, as there are almost certainly occasions when this is necessary. However, I realize that restricting oneself can be exciting. Good luck with your endeavor.

Susan is no longer very active in this forum or the one on Jenny's site. She mostly communicates privately with others she met here via e-mail. She is still registered here but did not leave an e-mail address. Ilse, I would leave a private message with her and see if she responds to you. Susan emphasizes the training she undertook to prepare herself to be a permanent high heel wearer. She says she has been wearing heels exclusively for almost 30 years without any major problems (other than the fact that she can no longer wear flats). She is a wealth of information and would probably be willing to converse with you, Ilse, if she somehow learns of your interest and you convince her that you are serious about this. In my own opinion, the fact that you can wear heels of 4" or higher at will for as long as you want is impressive. I do not understand why you want to deny yourself the ability to go lower, as there are almost certainly occasions when this is necessary. However, I realize that restricting oneself can be exciting. Good luck with your endeavor.

Great photos, Post Code and Mistress M. Dang, it looks like a lot of fun. Every time I sit down and try to learn Photoshop, I lose my patience and go on to something else. If I had photos like this, I would probably be inspired to keep plugging away at it.

Personally, I don't see a connection between high heels and childhood shyness, but for what it's worth, I was shy as a kid.

Human beings have an amazing ability to focus on the negative. Yes, the guy who made the streetwalker remark is a total jerk who probably made his remark out of jealousy, but overall it seemed like a wonderful experience. Your wife's heels became a sort of sensual group experience....and what better way is there to bring joy to the world? Unfortunately, I have no such experience to share. If you're willing to post photos, stiletto, I'd love to see them.

Congrats on the new car, and on your "sexy stride" as well.

Transferring is the way to go, as long as you're happy with the company. And a whole new office will become acquainted with a stiletto goddess....

It's a big step for the two of you, but I'm sure it's a happy one, too, so congratulations. Laurie, does this mean you will be looking for another job?

Yes, I definitely like photos of heels in unexpected places. Variety is the spice of life. More like this castle photo would be welcome.

There was a similar issue last year involving cocktail waitresses in Las Vegas in the U.S. The waitresses wanted to end a mandatory 2-inch heel dress code in favor of one-inch heels. I was only partly sympathetic to the cocktail waitresses, given that flash, image and sex appeal is what Las Vegas is selling, but I think the funeral workers in Australia have a point. If they are expected to perform genuine physical labor (and I would say lowering caskets into the ground qualifies as physical labor), then the safety and mobility of flat shoes is important. As was previously pointed out, most people wouldn't consider the shoes in the photograph to be high heels anyway, so why make a big deal about flats?

Showing off is the most straightforward explanation for wearing revealing workout clothes, but I thought we might hear from some who might say it's an expression of femininity, similar to what many of our regulars say about high heels. Doesn't look like anyone is offering that argument.