Puffer

I am not exactly bow-legged but I do find that I tend to wear my shoe heels down more on the outside back, which is not exactly uncommon. The effect is significantly greater when wearing heels higher than about 4" and does not help my gait. I would appear to be 'suffering' from supination, which goes along with high arches, although I'm not sure if my arches are truly 'high'. I don't know if there is a cure, or any simple way to improve my gait in heels. Possibly a tapered insole that is thicker on the inside? I should be interested to know: (a) if you find the same with heel-wear; (b) if the problem is more pronounced with increasing heel-height; (c) how you think you can overcome it as you suggest. Maybe others here have a view too?

In my limited experience (and based upon that of others), US border officials are not noted for their understanding, patience or good humour. I can quite understand an adverse reaction to being 'slapped' by a passenger, but is there really justification for a knock-out blow? If they are also armed (are they??), I hate to think what might also happen. In the UK, I think it likely that a similar incident would result in detention (handcuffs?), courtesy of the nearest police officer summoned by the border official. (I hope to fly out of London Gatwick in less than a fortnight - not in heels! - and will keep all this in mind.)

It is not really clear what is happening here, other than an apparent refusal of a man in heels to comply with airport security. You have been warned!

Imho, they are far better candidates to be called 'stilettos' than many others seen advertised as such. Nice sandals anyway.

Sandals like these are still available from various sources, but often at what seem excessive prices. These are Berkemann Hamburg (from Amazon):

They are definitely NOT sandals. I am shocked that you would sully this thread by mentioning them here! 😆

I am another who enjoyed some interesting (and usually amusing) exchanges with Megan a while ago. May she rest in peace.

Both are mules because they are backless, but more specifically sandals because they are both backless and open-toed. Sandals trumps mules!

I suppose that is true if you consider the angle of your feet!

Depending upon the degree of gloss, I can only suggest a suitable oil-based paint might cover the scratches. You could try a black spirit marker if you just want to eliminate the light-coloured marks. Either way, I doubt that much of the damage would remain obvious. Going back to your recent comments about closed-toe mules, my eldest stepson's wife was wearing these Jimmy Choos today as she set off for a friend's wedding. I think she wore them for her own wedding in February - but, if so, they were totally hidden under her long dress - which rather defeated the object! A very thin 4" heel and a sharp toe. Elegant, although I think an open toe and/or a thin slingback would be better (and she is a regular sandal wearer). She is neither a wealthy woman nor a spendthrift fashionista and I can't help thinking that the money apparently spent (at least £600 in the UK!) could have been put to better use, including to buy several pairs of stylish shoes and sandals of good quality.

I agree on all counts. A very nice-looking open-toed court shoe. In the press, or in catalogues/websites, I think that is how it would be described (i.e. NOT as a sandal), but the all-embracing term 'shoe' seems to be (mis)used for almost anything these days that is not clearly a boot. There is certainly a thin dividing line between shoes and sandals, with heels irrelevant.

If the vamp of a closed-toe mule (effectively a court/pump with the back removed!) is not perforated or otherwise fails to expose the foot/toes, it can hardly be a sandal by either your reckoning or mine. Our views differ only to the extent that you consider an open toe to be essential on a sandal (if that is still your position); I don't.

They would all appear to be sandals by Melrose's definition or by my wider one. I'm surprised you have to ask. Some people might regard your second pair as peep-toe shoes, given that they are not very 'open', but in my view they are a variety of sandal. But this is where it starts to get interesting - or difficult: Clearly a slingback shoe (court/pump): Clearly a peeptoe shoe (court/pump): But put the two components together and you have what most would call a sandal:

Yes, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I tend to agree that a 'sandal' ought to show toes - and properly too. But as, by definition, a sandal would generally be considered as nothing more than a light shoe with piercings or openings (not necessarily revealing toes or heel), I don't think you can be right. Below are examples of closed-toe sandals. That on the left is a man's 'fisherman' style; OK for walking but hardly attractive imho; not one I would wear. On the right are the sort of traditional children's sandals that are still (just about) seen in the UK. Well, I suppose that one might just catch a glimpse of toe-upper in some of these but I rest my case. And I now suppose that we need to consider the status of mules and slides. In my book, a mule is well-recognised historically as any item of backless footwear, but if also open at the front it will (also) be a sandal. A slide (which seems to be a newish and superfluous term) is seemingly an open-toed mule, usually but not always with a single strap - so is also a sandal. And a flip-flop (or thong, to some) is a slide that has a toe post. So, I wonder what we should call these 'sandals' (which I have heard described as 'toe-wrap'):

Like this?