genebujold

The first pair of heels I ever wore, period, bar none, were a pair of three-inch, spike-heeled black leather, fur-lined boots made in Italy. They were my mom's, and I'd occasionally pull them out of the winter box in the closet and try them on when she was outside talking to neighbors. This was a passing fad, however, and although I tried on a couple of neighbor's shoes later on, and a few more owned by mom, I didn't "get into" wearing heels until much, much later, like a few years ago, when I purchased a pair of what I call my "mongo shoes," side-zippered block-heeled shoes from Payless than are indistinguishable from men's shoes, but sport a 3-1/2 heel.

It could also indicate she's come to terms with your choice of fashion and is extended at least a tentative "look-see" into how the two of you might co-exist in this new arena.

I'd accomodate her interest, but downplay your focus on your passion for the heels, and spend time focusing on her, in spite of you both wearing heels.

Just a thought...

If you're not appearing en-femme, definately go with the black ones over the lavender ones. Black just suits most guys, while pastels suit most women. Then again, that could just be my preconceived societal biases showing through... Elsewhere in the world guys wear pastels all the time, including as the color of their skirts...!

My wife has tried on a few pairs of my heels, although primarily because of the same reason any woman tries on heels - to see how they would look on her.

I read this topic with interest, because I've never considered it from this angle, even though I've noticed a handful of times when I was wearing the same heels as was being worn by a woman in line with me. I've often wondered, "what would she think?" Would she be flattered? Angry at having purchased and worn a pair of heels worn by a "pervert?" (some women still view men who wear heels as "perverts," even though we haven't any higher a percentage than the general male population at large). Back when I wore my Franco Sarto boots with a 4" tapered/stilleto heel, I once found myself standing behind a woman wearing a very similar boot. As I wore long pants, she didn't notice, but when I squatted to look at a magazine on the bottom rack, my pants rode up and she noticed I was wearing a heel. I heard what I thought was a muted "hmph," and when I stood up, I got the impression she was avoiding eye contact. Naturally, I couldn't help but wonder if she felt uncomfortable because I was wearing a nearly identical pair of heels that she was wearing.

She's away for the weekend now, but seemed to be easing up on the idea a little bit. I reminded of her staunch opposition to pierced ears for males... until I got mine done. I've since stopped wearing earrings (because I keep losing them :x) but she never objected, even covered the cost of a pair of earrings I once wanted.

I do plan on using my wedges as my house shoes to ease up her fears. I don't want this to become overkill though, so I'll wear my "other" shoes mixed in with my "normal" shoes.

Excellent approach, Danielle, and it shows your concern for her - very good, and it should work fine, given patience and time.

She's not going to be persuaded by the written word. No harm in trying though.

Actually, Firefox, the fact that she's already shown some progression outright aggression to questioning tells me she's headed in the right direction. Such people are often significantly influenced by the written word, particularly if it's from an authoritative source.

It's the one's that go from disbelief to antagonism to hate and avoidance that are unapproachable by any means.

And family members fall into one of four distinct categories created by two scales:

1. Ignorant - Informed

2. Unaccepting - Accepting

Obviously, we would hope for an informed, accepting relative, but it appears the relative in question here began as ignorant, but is tending towards informed and may soon become more accepting than unaccepting.

This is the same simple scale that's used to initially classify the responses of others for pretty much any behavior that causes relational conflict, regardless of the behavior or degree/type of relation.

If you had ever eaten at Vera's, you wouldn't have said that - she was born in the bayou. However, you're right about the fact that Slidell was a bit far off the beaten New Orlean's track with respect to food quality, per se'. That didn't stop a few far-ranging chefs from ranging into Slidell and other regions, though. It's very difficult for me to say where the "best" food I've ever had really was, as once the tastes go from an 8 to 9, they pretty much enter into the nether regions so far as comparisons are concerned. I've eaten at unknown $5 dives and highly reknowned $150+ per plate restaurants, and it's often the dives that win, for no other reason than their cooks are artists - not at building tremendous establishments with pricey clientelle, but simply because when it comes to throwing ingredients together, they rock!

Hi, Danielle. I, too, have encountered not one, but two, family relatives with similar mindsets regarding my heelwear. Both of them suffer from the same malady, namely, ignorance. The problem is, they don't know what the don't know. While other family members have ranged from more tolerant to outright accepting, there remain those who just don't get it, wrongly equating choice of personal attire with a variety of other non-related issues. As a lay counselor in Las Vegas who works primarily with marriage an family issues, as well as one who's encountered several gender-identity-related issues over the last couple of years, I believe the path that would help you the most would be education. Most people can't resist referring to something in print, even if they weren't the ones who found it, so in this light, I would like to refer you to two treatises I wrote on this subject in the hopes that your mother will be persuaded by the written word. The first is located in the For Everybody Section, and is entitled, "A Time Has Come." In essence, it's a strong critique against the DSM-IV, which I believe, both professionally and personally, is a far cry from reality when it comes to transgender issues, including men wearing heels. The second is a history of man's wear of high-heeled shoes (did you know men wore high-heeled shoes for 25 years before the fashion caught on with women?). You might find it by searching on "fashion plates." I'm away from my usual desktop for a while, so if someone has the link, please chime in!

Now you've done it - reawakened memories of places like Vera's along the northern shore of Lake Ponchetrain, just west of I-10, and about a thousand other dives that served up the best tasting food in the world! N'Orlans - what a town!

joenj: Thanks for sharing from the heart. That takes a lot. I agree with you that some people are x, others are y, some are z, and that all people are still people, regardless of personal choices. j-Turbo2002: You began with, "Gender Identity Disorder (transexualism)," when in fact, TS is but a very small subset of GID, and even fewer people resolve TS with SRS. Most either continue CD or simply accept themselves for who they are, resolving the dichotomy/discord internally rather than externally. I liked your reference to Comer, however, and agree that labels stink. Diagnoses, however, particularly those which correctly assess an individual's characteristics on several levels, are invaluable in terms of how best to proceed. I strongly support, however, the ideal that no patient's diagnosis would, or even could, be used against them unless historical data clearly demonstrates the patient has an immediate and high potential (30%? 50% or more?) probability of causing moderate physical or severe mental/emotional injury to themselves or another individual. For example, I fully support recovering alcoholics remain with their families, even though many of them tend to snap at their loved ones. In the long run, both they and the families do better when they recover together, as a family. BobHH - I too see a police state eminating from DC, yet I still voted for the man (for other reasons). Mandating "morality" from on high has never worked for any civilization, historically. Just ask the Taliban. The problem is that while some things are absolute (murder, etc.), many things in our society that God-fearing Christians would call "absolute" are actually quite relative. For example, one day we had friends over from church, and I wore a jeans skirt and Tevas (sandals). At one point, after his wife had prompted him to mention it (to either exhort or rebuke me), I responded by asking him, "What would Jesus do?" His response, in earshot of my wife and his, was, "Well, he certainly wouldn't wear a skirt, that's for sure!", to which I responded, "or a dress?" "Certainly not!" was his answer, then I directed their attention to the picture of Jesus holding a lamb in the field. He was wearing a robe (dress), just he did in real life. I said, "are you sure? Or are you simply reverting to modern-day western civilization standards?" We degenerated into a discussion on how men would never wear skirts, so I showed them the MUGs page from Bravehearts, and a few plates from a historical fashion website. I thought they'd have gone away enlightened, but instead, they went away confused, unable to reconcile historical fact with what they've been taught, namely, that men wearing skirts is "wrong." Bubba: "So, think on, my friends, think on. And when you get to the part where you can say with all honesty:"Bubba, it's simple. You love to wear high heels because you love the way they look and make you feel." Fair enough! I do hope you realize my intent is to get the self-proclaimed "genius" psych folks off our collective backs so we can go about doing what comes natural? Hope so! Lisa: "For the original poster I'm not exactly sure what it is you are trying to get at in your LiveJournal post, why not clarify. If you're suggesting that society be more tolerant to people as a diverse group just say so." My main beef is that the original and subsequent iterations of the whole issue of gender identity is ridiculously inadequate, and because of this, the DSM-IV (psych bible) does our society serious harm by trying to pigeon-hole us into "morally" acceptable niches. It's my personal opinion the real problem involves society's unwillingness to accept deviations from some mythical "norm," when the statistical definition of "norm" is merely the geometric mean, not a marker of perfection. For example, the norm of all numbers 1 to 99 is 50. That doesn't mean that the numbers 1 and 99 are wrong, nor does it mean that all numbers should be rehabilitated to move closer to the "norm!" The norm is simply a measure, and what the psych guys forget is that it has absolutely no inherent value with respect to right or wrong, morality, etc., in and of itself. That's all.

Thighbootguy: It was the best chili - straight up ground beef (not hamburger) with onions, garlic, tomatoes, ground chilis, cumin, salt and pepper, and a couple other things. What's in it isn't as important as the proportions, or how it's prepared, which in this case was moderately, but not uncomfortably spicy, aromatic (you could taste/smell each and every ingredient), and slow-cooked to perfection at low temp (heat kills the flavor!). Bubba - What? Wendy's chili? Leftover burgers, salsa, and a few spices? Say it isn't so!

Gosh, Trolldeg, that is colder that it was at McMurdo Station, Antartica on the day of my one and only visit.

I once saw -173 on the IOAT, but of course I wasn't directly exposed! It did gel the fuel in the externals - had to draw from wings until we couldn't , then from center body mains.

After finishing up some consulting work this morning, I drove to Little Rock, Arkansas' River Walk area, and did some sightseeing.

Cold, wet, and wonderful! Having spent some time up North, I really grew to love the low, overcast clouds and wet weather - makes one appreciate that bowl of hot chili just THAT MUCH MORE!

I found an indoor market place where one store served the best Reuben sandwiches on the planet, and the other store the best chili on the planet. I could deduce how they built the rueben, but had to ask the chili lady for her recipe. I was quite amazed when she printed it out and gave it to me!

Then again, here's the conversation that transpired immediately prior:

Me (after tasting her chili and wandering up to her counter): "I haven't tasted chili this good since college, more than 22 years ago! Back then it was a recipe that'd been in my girlfriend's roomate's family for nearly a century - what's your secret?"

Her: "Oh, a bit of this and that. Actually, it's got a whole bunch of things in it."

Me: "That's ok - I've some recipes that have more than thirty items. Is there any chance at all I can get a copy of your recipe? I'm from Vegas, so I'm not likely to spread your secret to your competitors! I'm not in the restaurant business, anyway - I just love chili, and like I said, this is the best chili I've tasted in more than 20 years!"

Her: "I can print out a copy. But first, you have to swear to me two things."

Me: "Ok - shoot."

Her: "First, promise me you'll never share my chili recipe with anyone other than your wife."

Me: "Done! I promise! Oh, I'll probably serve it up to my son, but he's only five, so I don't think he'll be making off with the recipe anytime soon..." (laughter).

Her: "Second, please tell me why you're wearing a pair of women's shoes..."

Me: "Uh... Well, ok. I could give you the short story or the long story - which would you like?"

Her: "Well, it's my lunch break, so how about the long story?"

Me: "That's fine by me - how about my table? Ok by you?"

Her: "That's fine - let me grab my lunch..." (her lunch turned out to be a sandwich and bowl of her own chili).

When she joined me at my table, she handed me a copy of her recipe, which I thought was pretty daring for a sole proprieter who served the best bowl of chili I've found in 45 states. But I'm a man of my word, so if you feel like you have to ask - don't. Ain't going to tell.

Back to the heels...

Her: "So why're you wearing those heels?"

Me: "These? They're not really heels."

Her: "Sure they are - you're probably wearing a four-inch heel. Those are heels."

Me: "Ok - you got me. I'm wearing a pair of heels."

Her: "But why? Is it some kind of fetish, or just personal choice?"

Me: "Actually, I wear heels because I severely injured my ankle playing soccer about eight years ago, and I find it a lot less painful walking in a moderate heel than in men's loafers."

Her, after pondering it a bit: "Ok, I'll buy that. But why not an elevator shoe?"

Me: "Well, to tell you the truth..."

Her: "Please do!"

Me: "...most men's elevator shoes either cost too much, or are very uncomfortable, so I usually wear a pair of comfortable, but conservative, women's shoes when I'm not in the office."

Her (somewhat incredulously): "Really?"

Me: "Yep. And what's more, I'm hardly alone."

At this point, I proceeded to tell her about www.hhplace.org/hhboard/, and many men around the world wore heels.

The cool thing about all this was the more we talked, the more open she was to the whole thing.

At first, I was very surprised, this being Arkansas. Then again, things have changed in the last decade since I was here. For one, gone are the macho swaggerings of yonger men. They've been replaced by genuine concern for the customer, as well as a variety of jeweled adornments, including earrings, lip rings, and a variety of other piercings. Long hair is coming back in style, and dress outside of the work environment is radically different - even saw a guy wearing a skirt this evening at dinner.

In short, it may be the South, but TV and other media have accelerated it's cultural progression into the mainstream.

For the last three or four minutes, Ms. Chili and I talked shop about the wear and care of heels, particularly in light of the current wet weather.

Very interesting! Particularly so if this kind of experience and open-mindedness becomes the norm!

Wow, Trolldeg - now that's cold!

Awww, that ain't cold. Cold is when I went overnight backpacking/camping at Upper Yosemite Falls in Yosemite Valley (CA) in mid-January, and when I woke up to take a leak at 3am, the thermometer read 18 degrees below zero. Of course, what do you expect at 7,000+ altitude in the dead of winter during a winter storm? Then there was the time I walked about 75 feet from the air shuttle to base ops at a northern tier base about two years later during a blinding snowstorm at 22 below, but I had a lot better protective garments on then! Cold is cold, and right now, my hotel room here in Little Rock is about 67 degrees, I left my sweats at home, and it's COLD in here! Then again, there's freezing rain outside, so...

Just doing some local network security consulting: "Yes, you do need firewalls. Well, for one thing, would you grant your principle competitor unfettered access to your entire system of paper files? You would? He's your cousin? Hmmm... Perhaps you don't need me as much as I'd originally thought..."

Here I sit in Little Rock, Arkansas. I'm "enjoying" a whopping 26.4kbps connection at my hotel, which is approximately 400 times slower than the connection I enjoyed when I spent three weeks in Seoul, S. Korea, and just under 100,000 times slower than the connection I use while at work. What gives? Is this really the state of the EX-president whose Vice President continually touted the "information superhighway," as if he knew all about what it could do but knew absolutely nothing about how to get from point A to point B with respect to establishing the appropriate infrastructure? How in the world could any region be 400 to 100,000 times slower than neighboring regions? Tulsa Oklahoma, for example, enjoys 1.5 Mbps broadband throughout the region, as does Shreveport, LA, Memphis, TN, Wichita, KS, Dallas, TX, Oklahoma City, OK, Springfield, MO, and even Jackson, MS. But not the STATE FROM WHICH THE EX-PRESIDENT originated. Oh, well. Says a lot about how glad I am the EX-president's VICE wasn't elected.... Besides - it's late and I'm tired, so good night!

I'll be taking an extended vacation for a few months. I'll keep in touch from time to time, but will quite busy with the vacation itself. Thank you for all of your support and understanding! I wish all of you well, and hope to see you on the backside, sometime around mid-summer! Gene'

Black leather clad platinum wedge heel? What? What? I think it's time for a new TV show: Lifestyles of the Rich and Stupid. Or Lifestyles of the Rich and Frivilous. Or Lifestyles of the Rich and Self-Indulged. Or Lifestyles of the Rich and There's a World Beyond My Own? Or Lifestyles of the Rich and Oh Not ANOTHER Starving Child Commercial... Or Lifestyles of the Rich and My 193rd Party of the Year Begins Saturday! Couldn't you just Die? Or Lifestyles of the Rich and Could You Believe Her? She just went on and own about some people who were dying on the other side of the world! They should work for a living - you know, like we do. Or Lifestyles of the Rich and Yech! It's on every chanel! What's going on, here? I thought TV stations were supposed to stick to programming, especially when we're paying $530 a month for Premium Digital All-Chanel TV... Or Lifestyles of the Rich and What Tsunami? Whaddya mean I could feed 1,000 starving children for a month? What are you talking about? Nevermind! Please fetch my Mia catalog - I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed today and I need to spend money... Or Lifestyles of the Rich and Can You Believe It? They're even in front of Saks, wanting to rob us of our hard-earned money to support some "wave" cause. What wave are they talking about? WhatEVER! Wish they would all just die... The sad thing is there are many such rich people in America and throughout the world who feel very much like I described. The good news is that there are also many rich people who've emptied their pockets to help those affected by the tsunami, some divesting themselves of half their fortunes, or more. As have some who were poor. It takes all kinds, rich and poor.

Before I begin, please bear in mind these are not my own reasons - merely others': 1. They hurt one's feet, ankles, calves, knees, legs, hips, back, etc. 2. Don't want to associate with the image it conveys. 3. Tired of getting the heel stuck in every crack. 4. Increases undesirable from undesirable males, while reducing desirable attention from desirable males. 5. Increases undesirable attention from others, period. 6. Good heels are too expensive! 7. Can never find what I like in my size. 8. Matching clothes are too expensive! 9. Flats are simply more comfortable. 10. My husband prefers me wearing Uggs. Hey - it COULD happen, although the liklihood would be about 1 in 3.5 Billion...

Actually yes, I park outside Nordstroms and walk throught the mens dept to get to the mall. Also have to pass the womens shoe dept and check out whats displayed. Unfortunatley I couldn't stop to browse the last visit since I had a friend along and although I had 3" blade heel kneeboots on he thought this was uncomfortable.

Jim

Should have tried the ladies dept - they're probably as busy, if not busier.

To date, I've shopped at Nordstroms here in Vegas for heels, while wearing heels, three times.

To date, I've received one half-second look from a man, one one-second look from a woman, and one polite inquiry from a saleslady, which amounted to, "would you like these as is, or gift-wrapped?"

And she was the one who helped me try on three different pair!

"As is, thank you Ma'am."

Not a big deal. You should try it sometime - real confidence booster!

I always believe part of the "back-peddling" on the administrator's part, no matter what they personally believe about an issue, is "lawsiuit" advoidance. Not that there is anything wrong with the way you were dressed. But, unusual occurrences demand explantions. And, with children that young, not many adults want to delve into controversial subjects with them.

(Perhaps the school's administrator should put a pagein to their "policy book" which requires every newly hiredemployee to be briefed that "the guy that wears heels is OK" to prevent re-occurrances. )

Hi, Bubba - I agree with you in principle. I think a more appropriate entry for the employee handbook would be "never discrimate between parents based on age, sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, or attire.

In addition, employees should have to pass a test that shows a typical businessman in suit an tie and a long-haired hippee wearing a skirt, with the question: "Which of these two is considered more of a threat to the children?

A. The typical businessman.

B. The hippee.

C. One cannot discern the answer to this question from a person's attire.

Correct answer: C

If they get it wrong, make them repeat the ENTIRE test until they get 100%!

The reason I say this is that half the fathers in this school are sprouting at least one earring, a third wear their hair long, and one of them (other than myself) likes to wear skirts on occasion. Then again, he's Indian (from India), and it's his traditional garb. As far as I know, I'm the only guy who wears heels.

Then again, when I'm dressed as I was, I look a lot less threatening than do some of these parents, sometimes sporting multiple piercings, tattoes, and long hair. Having involved myself in the community to some length, I know that a lot of these manifestations have nothing to do with the Hollywood perception of degeneration, but rather, with the common, fairly pacified act of non-conformity, usually caused by a general feeling of not being accepted while growing up.

Bottom line - these are usually the last people you need to worry about, as they've found their out.

It's the people who've repressed their negative emotions, burying them behind the commonly-accepted facade of successful businessman, police/military, or friendly-neighbor-without-any-problems that you should worry about. That repression is like a worm, and it channels itself through their souls to SOME outlet, in some way.

You know - like Timothy McVeigh.

I was going to say, Michael Jackson, but there does a exist a point of rational judgement beyond which no one escapes notice - regardless of how innocent or guilty one might be!

Genebujold:-)

Boy! What a story! You held your cool and thank goodness everything came out all right.

Cheers---

Dawn HH

While everything came out in the wash, I wouldn't exactly say I held my cool! After all, I did yell at her...

For our household, it's not that we're too good for television, but rather, the fact that there's far better programming available elsewhere. Like it or not, the face of programming has vastly expanded since the days I could receive four channels, one a little fuzzy, from the aerial atop our roof near a major metropolitan area in Florida. These days, programming includes the following: 1. Computer games 2. Computer educational software (I'm studying German right now) 3. Internet research - like to know more about a topic? Look it up! 4. Netflix - all the movies you care to watch (your choice, too!), for less than $20 a month - cheaper than cable! Let's not forget the programming of old, that existed before the days of TV: Playing cards Backgammon Chess (my son loves chess - we're letting him win most times, but before long he'll be winning on his own) Checkers Monopoly And many more - yet that's just the inside! Try outside activities Tag Soccer Flying a kite Swimming Hiking Sightseeing... Ladies and gents, our lives are very rich, and very full - all without television programming, either via the airwaves or cable. Cheaper, too! It's not that we're too good for TV - it's that there's simply so much more productive ways of spending our time.