Puffer

It was not clear from mlr's comment if he was referring specifically to 13cm Hot Chicks, but there are Chinese clones of these available too, along with many other styles of 13cm (and higher) heels. And it is purely speculative to say that wearing any of them must be dangerous, although no doubt some are poorly made or poorly fitting and pose a hazard - but only someone who has tried a particular pair could comment on that. And, as I understand the many online comments by genuine Hot Chick owners, the real thing is not easy to wear, comfortably and safely, either. I have also read that, although they are discontinued, Louboutin will still make the 13cm Hot Chick as a 'special order' - at a hefty price, of course.

I claim no expertise in identifying Louboutin copies, but it took me just two minutes to find this offering on AliExpress, which appears to mimic Hot Chick (12cm heel) closely - in appearance, if probably not in quality. All for £30 and in big sizes too. And there are many others similar.

From a UK perspective, I find that rather surprising. Whilst it is certainly true that genuinely high (4"+) heels, especially stilettos, are fairly rare on the high street and on some major retailers websites, there is still quite a large selection online from e.g. ASOS and the smaller and more specialised outlets, quite apart from the likes of AliExpress, Amazon etc - which regularly offer heels of 5", 6" or even more. Clearly, most of these are Chinese-made and may be of unknown quality or fit (buyer beware), but they do exist and are being actively sought and bought. I do wonder if the limited availability from local or other physical shops is self-defeating - would more heels be bought if they were more actively promoted in the high street and on display? There must be very many (youngish) women who have never had a proper opportunity simply to try 'high heels' properly, and I can't believe that they are not at least curious, however much society seems to condemn high heels for one reason or another.

I think you miss the point. If stopped for any reason (realistic or not) by the police (e.g. manner of driving; speeding etc), an officer will usually check both the vehicle (tyres etc) and the driver (drink/drugs?). Any unusual footwear or clothing, if seen, is likely to excite his interest if it suggests in his opinion some 'impairment of control', or worse. But the principal situation would be police involvement after some type of accident, whether or not involving a third party - in which case any evidence of possible impairment will be noted. I did not, and do not, suggest that simply being observed driving whilst wearing heels is likely to lead to any form of report, charge or prosecution. Of course it won't, unless it clearly constitutes some danger in itself or is said to have been potentially contributory to one. I suggest we leave it there; further speculation has little merit and the only opinion that really matters is that of a police officer on the spot.

The evidence offered by a police officer would be considered, with other factors, by the court. And the civil aspect is perhaps even more important in that any third party claim is very likely to involve consideration of apportionment of negligence, with a loss of control due to inappropriate footwear being a potentially key factor. It is by no means as trivial or clear-cut as you suggest. This from the AA: 'In 2010, the AA conducted a survey and found that 27% of people said their choice of shoes led to difficulty while driving. Around 5% went as far as to say their footwear caused them to drive dangerously, lose control, or even have an accident. Evidently, the kind of driving shoes you wear really does make a difference – no matter the weather or road conditions. You may be tempted during warmer months to drive without shoes. However, according to Rule 97 of the Highway Code, drivers should make sure “clothing and footwear do not prevent you using the controls in the correct manner." Failure to do so can result in fines or a penalty. Driving barefoot isn’t illegal, but it’s also not advised.'

There is no specific UK law that prohibits driving barefoot, or in any particular type of footwear such as stilettos or flip-flops. But it would not be difficult to frame a charge on the blanket basis of 'failing to control' a vehicle properly if, following a collision or other motor accident, it is alleged that particular footwear (or the lack of it) caused or contributed to the lack of control. There have certainly been instances where individual drivers have been challenged by the police when wearing e.g. skimpy mules, high heels, heavy boots or wellies. Let's be honest, all of those footwear choices can prevent full pedal sensitivity and control, especially if wet or muddy.

In a 'proper' car (manual gearbox), we use both feet! And probably better to replace both stilettos than having a pair of mismatched shoes on to drive.

On TV last night, I saw part of a quiz programme with 'celebrity' parent and child teams. The attractive daughter (19) of her (equally attractive) TV sports reporter mother had long legs in long trousers (a little baggier than bootcut) which partially concealed her boots, with what looked like a close-to-4" slimmish block heel. It was good to see a pretty teenager wearing 'proper' heels but, alas, she did not walk that well in them when striding to and from the podium. I think that her mother (usually in 4" stilettos for formal appearances, as last night) needs to give her some lessons.

My Victorian house has 10' ceilings on the ground floor; steps are essential for any overhead work; heels would not suffice. My wife is a skilled seamstress and has made some beautiful (and quite elaborate) curtains for the floor-ceiling drop in those high rooms. They are heavy and take two people to fit or take down. I recently described my wife to a friend as someone 'who readily runs-up curtains' - and maybe I should have added 'but not in high heels', to further confuse the listener. (I'm assuming that 'runs-up' is generally understood outside the UK to mean 'makes', as by sewing or carpentry.)

I have recently been doing a great deal of work in my middle stepson's rebuilt and extended house. My wife has also been there, doing painting. I have lost count of the times she has taken away from me my short stepladder or hop-up platform because her painting target was just - only just - out of reach. My suggestion that a pair of comfy 4" wedge heels would have been her more convenient option was not well-received, alas.

I quite agree! Although I like the look of skinny jeans, I would not expect to pair them with very chunky footwear (not that I normally wear such) nor any with long pointed toes (which I do like to wear). One could easily look somewhat cartoonish with seemingly big/heavy feet (whatever their actual size) sticking out from spindly legs. Boot-cut jeans are (as one would expect) usually a good companion to high-heeled boots, with the advantage of concealing at least part of the heel height if its detection in public wearing would be an embarassment, as many of us have to admit is a concern.

You may find this article from the Daily Mail's 'You' magazine (5 October) interesting, if discouraging: Why women are giving heels the heave-ho Once a devotee of stilettos, Esther Walker says that now the real ‘statement’ shoe is a flat ‘Oh no,’ said my husband, ‘not those again.’ He was looking at my putty-coloured rubber pool slides from the Australian brand Archies, which I have worn every day since May. It being autumn and too chilly for open toes, I think he was hoping they would be replaced. But no. I simply accessorised them with a pair of matching putty-coloured socks. I don’t know what to say, except the borderline scandalous comfort of slipping my 44-year-old feet into the squishy cocoon of these slides is a siren call I can’t resist. But everyone is at it. I walk a lot in my daily life and I’d say only one woman in 50 I see is wearing any sort of heel. Take the front rows at the recent Copenhagen Fashion Week, where editors and It-girls wore anything but heels, choosing ballet flats, trainers and – most popularly – black leather flip-flops instead. This is reflected in buying habits: figures from online shoppers at John Lewis show a 28 per cent decrease in searches for ‘heels’ in the year to June 2025. M&S has seen sales of heels slip so low that flats make up 77 per cent of its new autumn/winter shoe collection, and of its handful of kitten-heeled styles none is higher than 4.5cm. When I met my husband, I was 27 and exclusively wore high heels. I had them in black, white, gold and brown – strappy, spiky, studded. If I wasn’t in heels, I was barefoot; trainers were strictly for the gym. At 15 I’d started wearing my glamorous elder sister’s discarded heeled boots, which were a size too big. At 16 I got my own: they had a block heel and elasticated straps and were profoundly dowdy. But they made me feel like Jessica Rabbit. High heels became a non-negotiable. They signalled to the world that you were a grown-up. Then in 1998 came Sex And The City. It set a new standard for many things: cocktails as fashion accessories, multiple partners as a lifestyle and heels as essentials for striding down the street. I was good at walking in heels – I didn’t totter or stagger. So what happened to me? What happened to all of us? Well, a few things, the most significant of which was the then head of super-chic French brand Celine, Phoebe Philo, taking a bow at the end of her A/W 2011 show in a pair of white leather Adidas Stan Smith trainers. ‘That was a watershed moment,’ says fashion editor Harriet Walker. ‘Trainers worn not for sport or with leggings but very deliberately with tailored trousers. That juxtaposition looked so much cooler and more nonchalant than heels.’ It proved to be pivotal. Philo looked so incredibly chic, relaxed yet in charge, in her all-black outfit topped off with a dazzlingly white pair of tennis shoes. We all wanted a piece of that. Shortly after, I left office life and started working from home. Wandering about the house in a stiletto seemed a little strange. Then I had children – and kids and high heels just don’t mix. The physical demands of looking after under-fives mean you are constantly exhausted and in mild pain. The last thing you need is aching arches.

I'm not sure what mlr meant by 'giant' as the sandals, although a little on the chunky side as to strappery, are far from inelegant and, like most sandals, surely tend to minimise foot size? And the heels, although commendably high, are in proportion. I have the same size feet as Shyheels and have rarely felt awkward about their magnitude, whether in sandals, shoes or boots - with the exception of those with a thick sole and/or a very rounded toe, which I avoid. Whilst I do like pointed toes, they too can look out of proportion if exaggerated.

Assuming that you meant 'ill-suits', I completely agree. Even a 1/2" platform can upset the visual balance of stiletto-heeled footwear - anything above 1" upsets the physical balance too, and Crushed Vamp's wife's red courts are at the limit imho. I agree with your first statement (especially when there was a tiny peeptoe too), but am most reluctant to agree with your second. Certainly, there are many totally uninspiring footwear fashions around at present but big platforms are not the answer.

Please do keep this thread going, melrose. It is appreciated, enjoyed and does indeed prompt considered response - on tangential issues as well as to the specific subject matter.

I strive to be at least as accurate as that! 📐🔨 My middle stepson may well have a view after I have finished assembling and fitting a whole series of wardrobes in his refurbished and extended house, where the floors are out of level by typically 2-3mm per metre across the wardrobe width.

Regardless of the water level and any motion, a narrowboat is always going to be sensitive to the effects of loading - and that includes someone walking around. It can be slightly unnerving to find that the boat lists slightly one way, and then the other, and when walking around (in heels or not) one can feel as though slightly drunk! Also, as I well recall when doing some work on my brother's narrowboat in fitting a shelf along one side wall, being pleased that my spirit level initially 'proved' the shelf was level - and then a re-check ten minutes later said otherwise! I simply forgot that the lack of stable foundations made use of a spirit level (or a plumbline) pretty well pointless!

Nice sandals - a pity to ditch them. I agree with Cali about a glued repair - assuming of course that the strap has merely pulled away and not fractured. A polyurethane glue (such as Gorilla Glue) would be most suitable.

TBG is certainly missed here.

Frankly, I think they are ugly, particularly if worn by a girl of relatively modest build. Almost orthopaedic in style. I really can't see the appeal.

... before you closed your eyes and prayed?

Another pair that would look good on men. Believed to be by Biondini, but not sure if still available.

Yes, an interesting, non-judgemental and literate article which could indeed promote the look. The boots themselves are not very appealing - a rather heavy 'shoe' with a wader shaft attached - but I suppose that was to get away from the look of the typical female thigh boot which some men would find off-putting. Maybe something like these would be better - sleeker but still discreet, and with potential for a higher heel if desired:

We are used to seeing some weird and not-so-wonderful footwear styles but I question whether these 'double-heel sandals' are remotely attractive or practical. Introduced by Simon Poirte Jacquemus, available now in several similar combinations and a snip at £805.