Puffer

Very interesting - I had been wondering about this deterioration. I have two pairs of knee boots (different styles) of the same (Chinese) brand and material and bought at the same time, about five years ago. Both have been rarely worn and kept in storage. One pair has deteriorated markedly within the last nine months or so, especially around the ankle where the shafts were folded over in storage - the coating is coming off exactly as described, and potentially visible when worn. Fortunately, the other pair (which I prefer) has survived so far, but I wonder for how long? I suppose that shoes and boots of this construction are not intended to have a long life (whether worn or not) as it is assumed they will be discarded as fashions or preferences change - but annoying nevertheless.

Relevance?

My hotel was probably built within the last ten years or so, as was everything else in the entire surrounding area, which was nothing but a tourist development (and all clean, modern and spacious). The signs may well be a supposedly clever idea for international comprehension, although surely the simple man and woman silhouettes do the job well enough? In another place, I saw an alternative sign for the 'gents': a Tyrolean hat with feather - but I suggest not really 100% identifiable as male, unlike the pipe. I didn't see the female equivalent. My wife (who, alas, has very little interest in footwear) needed simple flip-flops for the beach and was delighted to buy a pair on our first day for 10 lira (£1.20 or $1.60) which, although of plastic/rubber construction, served her well and have survived for another holiday or three. But the purchase made a huge dent in our holiday spending money! I agree about Turkish food; my hotel offered a very wide range at the buffet meals and it was impossible to go away unsatisfied - although I see negative reviews from British people who miss their 'full English breakfast' and 'tea like mother makes'! As to smoking, I estimate that about 20% of the predominantly Russian guests were moderate smokers (mostly of American brands); the percentage of obvious Turks, there and elsewhere, who smoked was probably nearer 50%. All the staff and most of the locals were approachable and friendly - but the typical hustling by shopkeepers wanting to entice you inside (or who follow you round when inside) got very irritating and was certainly counter-productive. Most of us like to view, inspect and consider potential purchases in peace.

Yes, WC = water closet/lavatory/toilet/loo/bog etc in proper British English. I refuse to use the US terms and call it a 'bathroom' (as there will not be a bath in there) or a 'restroom' (as there will not be any encouragement to linger or relax)! Flip-flops come in many different styles and qualities; I have no problem with them being worn in the right place and the more stylish types are perfectly OK out and about in casual mode. What I don't understand is why the cheap-looking branded rubber types (e.g. Havaianas) seem to cost a lot more than smarter and better-made ones, often in leather. At my hotel, almost everything revolved around the pool, so beachwear and flip-flops or other sandals were perfectly acceptable everywhere, but no swimming costumes were allowed in the dining areas and everyone respected that. Incidentally, 80% of the guests were from former Soviet countries and the Russian language was dominant.

I have just returned from a week's holiday in southern Turkey. In the hotel foyer, next to the small souvenir shop, there was the pictured archway with a sign displayed each side. I initially thought that this led to other shops (for tobacco and shoes) but it proved to be the entrance to the men's and women's WCs. As a reformed pipe-smoker who has a modest interest in stiletto heels, I found it difficult to decide which WC I should use! All guests adopted casual dress throughout the day and evening, in the hotel or outside. Shorts and flip-flops (or equivalents) were almost universal everywhere, with just a few low wedges in evidence. I reckon that, if Turkey imposed a 'Tourist Flip-flop Tax' of 10 lira (about £1.20 or $1.60), its economic woes would be solved within a month or two!

Agreed. I have edited my earlier post to reflect the usually unimpressive taste in Costa etc.

Difficult to say without seeing you as you would currently venture out in heeled boots. Your weight/build may be an issue. Could you post some pics of you as 'dressed' (your face obscured if you wish) so we can better judge? As you are not tall, wearing heels probably helps rather than hinders your overall 'acceptability' in public, but what reactions do you get?

I don't own either of these pairs but both have a distinctly 'masculine' look to my eye. The first ('Timberland' style) are obviously based on a man's rugged workboot but made feminine with the stiletto heel and sharp toe. A stimulating combination imho! The second are a newish introduction by Topshop (the 'March' boot, 4" heel) and I admired them in-store yesterday and felt they would easily pass muster for public wearing. Alas, not available above Eu42.

Nice idea - but the coffee is too expensive, especially given the mediocre quality! As Costa seems destined to be acquired by Coca Cola, we will however soon get the chance to imbibe an alternative over-priced beverage whilst people-watching.

I am pleased to say that I don't agree with this. My one pair of MJ ankle boots were well-made to my order, seem to be of good quality and fit well. Although not exactly 'cheap', they were no dearer than an off-the-shelf pair of similar boots in the UK (given the mote favourable exchange-rate at the time) and almost certainly of better construction. MJ thigh boots (and other boots) appear quite often in YouTube etc, with favourable comments. Well worth considering!

Semantics again. 'Negligible to the point of non-existence' does not mean non-existent, only that (given the world population etc), men in heels are an extreme rarity - to the extent that, for all intents and purposes, they are never seen, as you have discovered from your valid but fruitless observation. But my experience suggests rather less rare than you believe; I don't dismiss a sample of 10 in (say) 500,000 as totally without value, albeit indicative. 'Negligible' must be taken in context and may be considered either quantitatively or qualitatively. Perhaps we should get David Attenborough to mount a 'Zoo Quest for the Male Heeler'? (Actually, I suspect he would be amused by that idea.)

I respect your opinion, and wearing experience, NZ. You (and others) have commented elsewhere that a 'rear-positioned' heel is less easy to wear and most of the shoes you are pictured in seem to have the heel in the conventional mid-position under the wearer's heel - which to my mind also gives the most balanced appearance. So, are you of the opinion that the more forward placing of the Carrie heel has no effect (or at least no adverse effect) on wearability?

I think you miss the point. Your implication that male heel-wearing is negligible to the point of non-existence because you, personally, have never witnessed it (which I find surprising) is devalued by even one sighting, let alone my ten. Yes, it is rare - and I for one do not claim otherwise - but clearly it does exist.

Agreed. The shoes shown were mostly chosen for their design features rather than being totally typical.

I'm not nearly as well-travelled as you, nor do I frequent clubs. However, over the last 60-odd years, I reckon I have seen at least ten men in public in the UK who were wearing heels that were either intended for women or at least of a conspicuous height and style - so excluding 1970s men's platforms, cowboy boots and Beatle boots and the like. Probably half of them were dressed as women (or at least wearing other feminine clothes); the others in essentially or wholly male mode. I can't identify any particular trend as to the time or place of my sightings but they remain quite vivid memories because of their admitted rarity. But 10 is not zero.