Puffer

Interesting find! And the description is encouraging in that they are positively aimed at men, with the offer of manufacture in other sizes if there is demand - will there be? I will not be buying as I am a little doubtful that they would fit my UK11/Eu45-46 feet in complete comfort and could prove a costly failed experiment. Also, they are a little too rugged for my taste, although I can see that they could be very wearable in ordinary street situations.

For what it's worth: 1. I have a pair of boots by Miguel Jones of cowboybootsusa. They are well made and a perfect fit - I took care with my measurements. I consider them fairly-priced and well worth considering, especially if (like me) your feet are too large for almost anything available off-the-shelf. Miguel will custom-make almost anything and I found him a pleasure to deal with. I had no problem with importation either, although UK customers might have to pay VAT and a customs clearance fee, according to the declared value. 2. Re-heeling boots or shoes with new rubber or leather is not difficult with basic tools and the right materials. This supplier has a wide range at fair prices and is a good source - worth a visit if geography allows: https://www.leatherandgrindery.com/index.php?route=common/home I particularly recommend this impact adhesive, both for shoe repairs and general DIY use: https://www.leatherandgrindery.com/Shoe-Repair-Supplies-shoe-repair-materials/Adhesives/Svig-E-Universal-Adhesive-1-litre 3. I advise caution if trying to alter the height of a heel by more than a nominal amount; it is all too easy to upset the balance of the shoe, and prejudice its construction, quite apart from possibly spoiling its appearance. 4. It is not difficult to shape wooden heels to replace damaged wooden, leather or plastic ones - although fixing them securely may not be straightforward. And the hollow plastic block or cuban heels often found on cheaper boots can be filled with shaped wood, allowing new top pieces (heel plates) to be nailed on in place of the worn or missing 'plug-in' plastic originals.

The two shoes in fact have relatively little in common. The green shoe (which I like very much) has a true stiletto heel of the classic profile and properly-positioned under the wearer's heel - which many people say makes for easier walking. The Steve Madden's heel is set back and therefore has less of a curvy shape and, to my eye, looks 'wrong' - although I realise that many shoes now on the market have the heel in this position - but WHY? I'm a 'pointed toe' admirer, although the very long points on the green shoe are perhaps a tad too unwieldy! I do hope you master wearing them - they are far too good-looking to languish in the closet!

The 'boundaries' (or 'exceptions', if you prefer) are the suggestion that a single item, or something innocuous such as a tie or belt, cannot constitute cross-dressing when worn by the 'other' gender. I am saying that, rather than getting bogged-down in identifying boundaries/exceptions/limitations, we simply accept that wearing anything truly of the other gender does constitute cross-dressing - in many cases a low-key and harmless activity. Yes, the term is charged or emotional to many but it shouldn't be if it is accepted at the face value I suggest. And it certainly shouldn't be taken as implying that the wearer is trying to pass as of the opposite gender - that requires an attitude and specific preparation and conduct, not just putting on some 'other gender' item(s). Call it what you like - it is certainly what we generally understand to be 'freestyling' (because you are wearing what you choose, regardless of its pedigree) but when it includes women's garments/cosmetics, it is also cross-dressing. Your intention to present as a male (or not) is irrelevant to that; it is a separate issue. (One can of course 'freestyle' by wearing exclusively clothes of one gender, as most people do for most of the time.) You mentioned pink, suggesting that pink wellies would be for women. But, as Cali and you also say, pink shirts etc are by no means unusual menswear - you are right and something pink does not have to be intrinsically feminine, although it is not the most masculine of colours either! And perhaps you should be positive, by defining rather than denying. If someone takes and keeps money that is the property of another, it doesn't matter if the amount is 1p, £100 or £10,000 - theft, as defined, has taken place. Many people would regard the theft of a really trivial sum as meriting little or no comment, censure or punishment, but that does not negate the commission of the crime. Wearing a single opposite-gender item may be likewise of little note or importance (and is certainly not reprehensible) but it is still at the least cross-dressing.

With respect, you disprove your own assertions by mentioning potential boundaries. My bare assertion, which I maintain, is that the mere wearing (overtly or not) of a single item of clothing that is conventionally associated with or intended for the opposite gender alone constitutes 'cross-dressing'. Simple definition; no exceptions needed. So, a woman wearing a 'male' belt or necktie (although most such could be considered at worst to be unisex - and a uniform necktie for a schoolgirl is clearly a female item ) would indeed be cross-dressing. But so what: unexceptional, harmless and probably unnoticed. Ditto, a man wearing a pair of 'female' jeans (different fly-front and/or fancy stitching) or trainers (pastel colour). We really don't need to get hung-up on this if we accept that the borrowing or wearing of any identifiably opposite-gender clothing or apparel is cross-dressing, the degree or intention being irrelevant. Of course, that begs the question of whether the item is indeed identifiably opposite-gender; if it isn't (as perhaps with a pink shirt/blouse), then the cross-dressing issue scarcely arises. And nothing about such activity simpliciter implies any form of fetishism, deviancy or intentional arousal - that is a whole new ballgame. But I would argue that worrying about cross-dressing or related labels or conduct might cause emotional or other problems, to wearers or onlookers.

We've been down this route before - and the jury is still out, it seems. In my book, wearing anything that is conventionally worn (or intended to be worn) by the opposite gender is, by definition, 'cross-dressing'. The extent is unimportant and the term is not in itself pejorative and does not imply either any true intention to pass as the other gender, any medical condition or any conduct of a fetishistic nature. That said, a deliberate and structured adoption of opposite-gender clothing (together with the use of cosmetics etc, if necessary) may well allow 'passing' in practice and may be a component of other broader conduct. I would distinguish 'fashion freestyling' (a useful and more neutral term) to denote simply the adoption and wearing of whatever clothes etc the wearer chooses (which may or may not include cross-dressing), regardless of their actual or alleged allegiance or the effect they may produce. And that freedom of expression and conduct is, I would suggest, something that we would all like to see as acceptable - indeed, commonplace - regardless of any labels that may be (mis)applied to it.

The sentiment may be correct but I don't think that what is pictured does us many favours. The ankle boots look smart and perfectly acceptable for male street wear, but hairy bare legs and a kilt are scarcely attractive, regardless of the footwear. And add a pair of clumpy platform Mary Janes (especially the red ones) and we have a look that is close to absurd - those shoes are plain ugly on anyone (male, female or undecided), although Minnie Mouse may approve. Gender-specific dressing may well be BS; appropriate dressing is not.

I think you have a 'spool heel' in mind - almost an hour-glass shape.

A BBC radio comedy programme from years ago regularly featured a rather gormless couple. In one sketch, they went to a dance and she asked him why he was wearing one black shoe and one white shoe. He told her that he had learned his ballroom dancing 'out of a book'. And then, after a long pause, added: 'I've got another pair like this at home'.

Quire right, Shyheels! Last month, I flew Gatwick - Barbados (on holiday) and return. The weather was very cold on leaving the UK (snow a day or so beforehand) and almost everyone was in warm clothing (depending on how they have travelled to the airport) and sturdy footwear. A few women waiting for their flights had made an effort and wore boots with modest heels, but nothing really exciting. Barbados was another matter - the temperature (high 20s) 'required' shorts/skirts and flip-flops/sandals throughout for almost everyone (locals and tourists, including me), with almost no sightings of heels of any sort. But I was not really surprised to see that about half of the passengers (of both sexes) waiting to board my return plane remained similarly dressed, in various degrees of casual-to-sloppy holiday wear. More fools them - the temperature at Gatwick at 7am was less than 10c and some very under-dressed individuals looked distinctly chilly as they made their way home. (I wore lightweight long trousers, a long-sleeved shirt, a cotton jacket and loafers both ways - a good comfortable compromise for the two climates.)

Since when has the equivalent of Eu42 been 'very large' - or even 'large', by Western standards? No help at all to many of us!

I wouldn't want ANY sort of kick (side or otherwise) from those boots.

I thought the check skirt looked good (perhaps a little tight at the top) , and the black tights complimented your legs. Jeans and boots will never be wrong too!

I suspect that the 'looks' were more because your overall look was feminine (I assume) rather than because you wore tights with sandals - although that is a fairly rare sight these days (except on a really elderly woman!). I'm not sure where you were to get 15C today (East Anglia?) as the best temperatures I've seen noted were 13.5 - 14C. Make the most of it - many areas will have at least a light dusting of snow tomorrow - and you'll not want to be in sandals then, with or without tights!

In England, Ashley is quite common as a man's name, probably more common for men than women; women traditionally spell it 'Ashleigh'. The meaning is 'ash meadow'.