Puffer

An interesting and rather 'attractive' effect! But I do wonder what would happen if the magnet was 'gay'?

Very elegant, p1ng74, especially the outfit on the left. (The boots on the right are a little too heavy to wear with a dinner jacket etc.)

I had to smile, with a vision of the two ladies bending down and saying something like 'Hello boots, I do like you - very smart!'. I do hope that it was you, rather than your (very nice) boots who was given the compliment.

Hmm! Looking at the first pic, I think you need some more practice, Cali. And boots would be more suitable.

'The Sun' on 9 May ran a feature about one of its reporters dressing to emulate the 'Harry Styles' look; see here: https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/9033421/man-tries-harry-styles-met-look-london/ For those who can't see the article, I attach one pic below He doesn't look too bad imho, although the mismatched nail varnish does him few favours. The boots have quite a modest cuban heel and look perfectly good for male street wear. The overall reaction (if any) from onlookers as he went around in London seemed generally positive.

I sympathise; they are not easy to find in the UK, although Amazon does supply. I enjoy wearing the Original Sandals (as pic above) in the summer - very comfortable.

The point about the wearing of platforms being 'cheating' is really because people state/boast/claim that they regularly wear (for example) '6" heels', without further qualification. But when those shoes have a 2" platform, the true elevation of 4" is scarcely impressive and the wearer is, in essence, 'cheating' by claiming the heel height (6") as the accomplishment. Personally, and quite aside from the question of elevation height and misleading claims, I find most platform footwear unattractive. It can look very clumpy (orthopaedic even) and, if the shoe has an 'added' under-platform (rather than the concealed type), the whole shoe can look very unbalanced and ugly. (Sorry, HappyinHeels, your avatar shoes are exactly that imho!) I am hard-pressed to see the point of platforms except to add another inch or two to one's apparent body height when standing, and how many people really need that? Some say that a platform gives a useful cushioning effect - but surely a padded insole would do that much better, and with minimal extra height? I will now descend from my platform - or soapbox, rather - and move on ...

Historically, I think you are right that mules were closed-toe - but I maintain the view that any backless footwear is a mule, and that includes the sub-category of backless clogs, which are essentially chunky mules, usually with a wooden sole (or they may be all wood, as in the Netherlands version). If 'slides' (or 'sliders') are anything, they are also a sub-category - typically open-toe but with the main characteristic of having a front part that is shallow, so readily 'slid' into. A Berkemann clog would be a mule, as would a Berkemann original sandal - but the latter is also a slide (so-called) - and of course a sandal:

Interesting! But I find it surprising, and the preoccupation with other things is rather worrying. I guess there are quite a few locals falling down open manholes as they progress on their dreamy and badly-dressed way along the pavement - (or sidewalk if you must)!

More accurately: 'Boots and shoes we wished we had bought more of' - the emphasis surely being on past regrets rather than current indecision?

Given the later (very helpful) comments on heel-positioning, it looks to me as though these black courts have the heel set rather too forward - or is that an illusion given the angle of the first pic? Some of the early (mid-50s) stilettos had a similarly forward-placed heel, but the classic style was more with a 'central' positioning (under one's own heel), much as in Heike's left-hand pic. I can see why so many shoes now have a set-back heel, but I don't like them either, in terms of wearability or appearance.

As you are in the UK, I'm not sure if you will find the same range of footwear under the 'Clarks' label as our US members, but maybe worth another look. You could see what ASOS has to offer (some shoes in wide fit) and there is always Evans, with various widths.

Was there any apparent reaction to your appearance, in boots? If these interviewers were comparative strangers, I should imagine that they would be at least intrigued, possibly puzzled, maybe a little concerned. (I'm not suggesting that you should be criticised or 'marked down' for wearing heels at work - and I think you look great - but not everyone will have the same degree of tolerance or understanding.) Good luck anyway!

Was his name Clementine, by any chance? And what happened when you met...?

I think these terms are both used loosely (no pun intended!) and there is little real difference. A mule is any backless footwear, but the term 'slide' seems to be used nowadays for an open-toed flat or low-heel mule-sandal, because one can simply 'slide into' them. But then a flip-flop or backless thong sandal (subtlety different) are also 'slides' but not normally described as such. Imho, the term slide is arguably redundant. What is your terminology, mlroseplant?