raincat

Hey Gary, Emma Bunton most certainly is an attractive young woman. If her feet are a bit on the large size, all the better for wearing those high, high heels!

colored

jugs

"Footsuckers" A novel by Goeff Nicholson

movie star

Hi Jennifer. I wish I could clear this up for you. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that there is no one single set standard for measuring heel heights. I do recall that back in the 50's - 60's heel heights were measured (in the industry) at the front of the heel shank. The results were measured to the nearest 1/8", and were stated in 1/8" increments. So, a "23" would translate to a heel that was 23/8", or 2 7/8" tall at the front of the shank. This same heel would then measure approximatley 4" at the back of the heel. Paradoxically, on a small size shoe, a "23" would have a steeper rise than would a "23" on a larger size shoe, which would result in the smaller shoe ending up with an even higher heel (measured at the back of the heel) than would the smaller shoe. As the years have passed, heel heights have been measured at the front of the heel, center of the heel as you described, and up the back of the heel at its highest point. For most of us consumers, the most meaningful measurement is when measured at the back of the heel. It is also more accurate than measureing up the center, as when you attempt measuring up the center, you can easily vary 1/4" because you don't know exactly where "center" is. At least when measuring up the back, you know where the ends are. Whenever you want to be perfectly clear about heel measurements, it's always acceptable to state that the height was measured at the front, center, or back, as your preference. And of course it's acceptable to inquire the same as to where the measurement was taken. I know this does not answer your question, but I'm afraid that not everyone is on the same page as far as the measuring thing goes at this time in history. I do wish you well, and hope you are enjoying your new 6" or 7" heels!

Great model, great subject matter, great photography. Too bad we don't hear from PostCode or Missy any longer. Would love it if they'd check in once in a while.

Dita certainly captures the essence of glamour photography. Very well done!

Way to go, Anita!

Saucy! That pic is extremely reminiscent of the cheesecake of the 1950's. (If anyone can remember back that far.) Great pic, Susan!

Yet another set of terrific pictures from the talented PostCode and lovely Mistress. After seeing so many positive comments about the metal-heeled pumps, I simply had to speak up in favor of those exceptional sandals! Extraordinary shoes, complimenting Missy's beautiful nylon-clad foot. And should I mention that the nail-polish and ankle-chain contribute so much to the sophisticated final image. Thank you both for such terrific images! Would love to see Missy sashaying about in those sandals, for sure. :-)

Apparently, there have been doubts expressed regarding Susan's authenticity. Perhaps I can shed some light on this issue. Since I am a stranger to most of you who will read this post, a brief background is in order. I've been an active participant in Jenny's chatroom but for the mostpart have refrained from participating in posting on the forums. I was among the first to meet Susan in Jenny's chatroom some 5 years ago. Most would agree that whenever a "new" chatter enters, there's always some buzz amongst the regulars, speculating as to whether or not the newbie has represented themself as they truly are, or might they have "invented" what they portray in the chat. Susan's first few excursions into the chat were greeted by the same degree of skepticism as any of the others. "No one wears high heels exclusively." Or, "She can't possibly wear heels that high ALL of the time." Or, "I can't believe that anyone would do that to themselves." (Regarding loss of ankle flexibility, thereby being "locked into" high heels for good.) "No one could be that dedicated to high heels." And so it went. And yes, I shared in the skepticism. It's only natural to harbor doubts about anyone or anything which appears to be outside of the box. There are not a lot of women who purposefully submit to full-time wearing of ultra-tall heels. By her own hand, Susan submitted for posting the story of how she became a full-time wearer of heels. This was followed by shock and more skepticism. In my own case I recall seeing what I felt were a few inconsistancies in her writings. In every case, when asked about whatever didn't seem "right", Susan had answers that were completely satisfactory. Anything that had appeared as an inconsistancy was merely the result of hasty writing which had not fully explained things initially. I might add here, too, that as Susan's participation continued, so did her writing abilities improve. She learned the hard way that her writing needed to be very clear in order to be understood as she intended. As time went on I came to regard Susan as a friend to be cherished for the unique person she is. I still do, and have every hope that will continue into the future. I witnessed her winning over the respect and admiration of many who came to know her as a charming and pleasant woman. I witnessed her being badgered by others for reasons that I could only guess at. I witnessed her agony as she defended herself and her husband from attacks that seemed to come from nowhere and from anywhere. I saw her talk about dedication to her family and all that they meant to her. I saw her shaken badly when she learned that her husband had cancer. I saw her stand resolute with him as he battled that dreadful disease; she never faultered in answering his needs. And at the awful conclusion of that battle I saw her recover, comforted by the memory of a loving husband and by the continuing support of his extended family. Susan proved herself to be made of the "right stuff". And she did it all with class. Now I suppose that anyone who "happened in" on any, or even several of Susan's postings or chatroom conversations could afterwards be left with that nagging doubt of authenticity which was discussed earlier. After all, it's only natural to doubt that which is outside the norm. But, and pay attention here, when you've had ongoing chatroom discussion, seen the various postings and exchanged emails for a period of no less than 5 years, you then have had opportunity to develop a sense of what that person is about. I will state unequivocally that Susan is for real. She is what she says she is. If you're looking for a porn queen or a cyber-sex symbol, then Susan isn't it. She is an everyday American housewife, taking care of her family. And she's learned how to enjoy life along the way. She has friends and interests that contribute to her unique way of life. She's thankful for being born a woman. Further proof of her authenticity is the pictures she's sent to me. There's one of her as a delightfully young woman along with her soon-to-be husband that would have been taken some 30 years ago. There's a family portrait showing Susan, her husband and their children. There are also several close-ups featuring her shoes/feet/ankles/legs in a variety of high heels. Very high heels, I might add. :-) I suspect that Susan has made more friends through her participation in Jenny's than she realizes. There are many who from time-to-time quietly ask for news of her. And they cherish the memory of her active participation in the chatroom. She was a jewel; one who's sorely missed. So, when you add up all that's transpired between Susan and myself over the past 5 years, there can be no doubt that she is for real. Of course there will still be those who doubt. But then, there were those who never believed that Hitler could have really slaughtered all those millions of innocent people. For those of you who don't believe in Susan's story by now, you probably never will. But that doesn't mean that it's not the truth. Susan's Friend, raincat