Firefox

Welcome Sky. Have a good time here!

Hi Welcome to the board. I sorted out your image for you as it was messing up the display. Have fun here

Mostly accurate apart from my boots were 3 3/4"

Sorry, too short notice for those of us with a day job Have fun though!

I might also suggest Uxbridge. Two large shopping centres with the tube station and town square in between. Also a cobbled high street. Add a few hundred girls merrily strutting between the shopping centres and to and from the tube.

I've just tried the process of opening a new windows on the board, and all seems to work OK in Firefox and IE. I'm pretty sure no settings have been altered. Try doing it in another browser type (eg Mozilla, Opera assuming you use IE). This may help track down the problem. We'll help if we can!

Welcome back Francis!

Best wishes to you, Dawn. Get well soon!

Ahh thanks Knee Highs. Well, I'd almost given up trying to encourage people. Some people seemed so illogical about it even though that's what they wanted, they'd talk themselves out of it so I thought "what's the use?" Still one convert makes it worth the effort!

Thanks for your contributions which are being moved to the "for everyone" forum.

Would you consider Bluewater part of the smoke? We haven't been there as a group and there is lots to do, nice surroundings, shops, walks, bars etc.

Well if you really want to post some article, my suggestion would be Men's High Heeled Shoe Fashion or similar. We don't categorise people by one item of clothing so headings such as "Heelmen" are somwhat weird and fanciful. And IMO, it would be best to concentrate on the street fashion applications. Guys wearing their wives shoes behind closed doors hardly qualifies as anything of public interest

There's a definition of high heel too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_heel

Not too bad, apart from the dreadful picture of a white platform court shoe

If someone is a member of wikipedia, please log in and upload a more tasteful image such as:

The point about men wearing heels is it's a very very minority interest and I personally don't think its fair to distort a world online reference with whole category on such a topic.

It works for me, but I may have it cached. Try the basic one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heel

I actually thought the bits at the front were pedals so you can operate the machine hands free, but on closer inspection I think you are right. They're bits.

I think he meant it in an ironical manner. In every civilized country it's legal to wear high heels as a guy. If a policeman in my hometown Frankfurt should have the crazy idea to arrest me because of my heels he would get definitely a lot of annoyance

BTW: Well done, Luckylad!

Dead right Micha

I don't think it needs an entry. I mean you wouldn't have an entry for "heel wearing women"... that's how I think the subject should be approached.

Actually, it was me who wrote the expanded definition for the word "heel" to include the fact that they were sometimes worn by men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heel_%28shoe%29

I guess it would have a grinding wheel so you could match the edge of new soles/heels and a punching or drilling rig so you could fit studs and fasteners. I don't think the machine is fully assembled. You can see the spindle where an abrasive wheel might fit, but the wheel and guards are missing. The shoe shaped objects hung up are presumably for mounting on a vertical spigot so you can slip the shoe on and work on the underside.

Careful how you go. The police may arrest you for wearing womens shoes in a public place or behaviour likley to cause a breach of the peace.

So are the guys going to tell us what women want, or are some women going to venture an opinion, or do the women not care anyway?

I'm sure you didn't offend anyone. It's just that boards can be very slow especially around the summer period, when people have vacations and tend to be outdoors with family and friends. I post a load of things which often get ignored because the right people didn't log in at the right time. But stick with it! Here's to the success of the next meet in NYC!

I tend to think the whole subject of walking awkwardly in high heels, permanently high heeled feet, struggling, stuck in mud, etc etc falls under a bondage type restrictive fetish. Personally it does nothing for me, as I prefer to see female or male heel wearing done in a confident maner with appropriate attire and presence. If you like the subdominant angle to the subject though, fair play to you. It's simply the opposite side of the coin.

Hi Jen

We only have one post on the board on the same topic. As you say, you've posted the same thing at

http://www.hhplace.org/hhboard/viewtopic.php?t=4886

so people should go there to discuss it and I'll lock this thread to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks.

I've posted my opinion in the other thread http://hhplace.org/hhboard/viewtopic.php?p=87332#87332 so I won't repeat it here.

But you will note there that I've argued it makes no difference if you blank out the face. If you follow the strict moral argument, you would still have to ask the person if you could use the image of their body/clothes. They can easily be identifiable by their clothing, their shoes, and the context of the street scene so (if you follow the moral argument) you must still ask even if you use the shot with face blanked, or other features removed.

Personally, I would be against any restrictive policy on the grounds explained in the other thread.

Yes it depends on what country you are in. I think taking and posting street shots in public places is legal in the UK and US so long as they are not used commercially when you need a signed "model release". In France for example, I don't think street shots of people can be strictly legally taken. Well, that's the legal argument which is different to the moral argument. Morally you can argue that it is some kind of invasion of privacy and that permission should be sought or the faces blanked out but I don't think this is practical. For example, if you asked the person if it was OK with their face blanked out they might well even say "No". So merely blanking the faces out is not good enough if you follow the strict permission/privacy/moral argument. You would also have to ask the person in addtion about the use of their photo with a blanked face. Aside from that, what about the pictures taken in a newspaper of a football crowd or a street scene or footage shown on televison of individuals walking on the streets. The people are clearly distiguishable, the images preserved/archived, and they are seen by millions more people than would ever visit a specialist website like this one? Did the newspaper/TV ever ask all the people if it was OK to record and use their images. No they didn't. They took the shots and used them because the images were in a public place and it was within the law. Indeed, some people's privacy has certainly been infringed by such shots. What about the person who was seen at a football match on TV by his boss when he was supposed to be sick. Or the woman seen out on a date with her secret lover when she had told her husband she was going to the dentists. Do these people have any redress against the newspaper/TV company? No. Is a TV company recording archive footage of street scenes for public interest legally or morally any different to a hhplace reader recording fashion images for public interest or archival purposes? No. Is there a reason why it is OK for a newspaper to take photos and publish them but not for a hhplace reader? No So therefore, if your moral stance is that you don't like images with faces, then I respect that, but I reserve the right to differ. If you feel strongly about the issue then you could join a pressure group to lobby the Gov to change laws to forbid the printing of images taken in public where the face is identifiable, whether this be on TV, newspaper, or a private individual recording archive material. In the final analysis it's just not practical proposition, unless you want to completely change our way of life.