Puffer

Yes, a sound analysis. And Joe might agree that the shoe design and construction is what one might expect from an engineer who had been told 'Make a pair of shoes with very high and thin heels.'.

'Mary spent more than an hour with her make-up before going out on her special date. She killed the look with extra blue eyeshadow.' So, did she improve her appearance or ruin it? (No peeping allowed.)

I am not immune to the use of slang or idiom - in its place. But I have learned to avoid it in both personal or professional communication in contexts where it might be misunderstood or inappropriate I think we have both lost sight of the point here. It was not so much the secondary meaning of 'slay' (with which I am slightly acquainted) but that of 'kill' in the apparent sense quoted by Cali as in 'you killed the look'. What I cannot understand is that usage in the implied sense of met or fulfilled; it seems to me that anything 'killed' has been, at best, spoiled or stopped and at worst totally destroyed. That point was not answered. It may be commonplace for words or phrases to take on what are effectively opposite meanings in street parlance (e.g. wicked = good) but that is not to say that they should be universally adopted, especially when accuracy is required. I can think of many historic examples where imprecise or inverted language has caused real confusion, sometimes dangerously.

I am well aware of your residence and occupation - and that you grew up overseas. Communication was a large part of my career too but has not embraced slang or idiomatic expressions in great depth, I am pleased to say. The dictionary may well include the secondary definitions you mention but that is not to say that they will be used and understood as universally as you suggest. I accept that the meanings exist, but not their appeal.

... or the fitness/energy and affordable insurance!

Not in the UK, at least with people who endeavour to communicate effectively.

Sad, but true! I agree that inhibitions diminish with age, if only because (especially after retirement) we are no longer obliged to conform and obey or impress to the same extent. When I first wore cuban heels outside, some 15 years ago, I thought that the sky would fall on me. Now, I know it is simply a question of whether a visible 4" heel is too much.

Surely today's women in general do indeed display confidence whenever they go out, after dressing and putting on make-up etc as the mood takes them? The confidence that they have chosen a look that, almost regardless of how offbeat or flamboyant (or otherwise) it might be, will be acceptable to the world at large and not give rise to any significant adverse comment, let alone ridicule or persecution. The same certainly cannot be said to be true for a man who, if he strays outside a pretty narrow avenue of convention in his appearance, will excite questioning and probably negative reaction from most people who see him. We expect women to have a free hand and to show off - we do not expect men to do so.

If you say so, but I cannot infer anything other than negative connotations in the concept of 'killing' anything (or anyone). After all, if there is a discussion going on and someone or something interrupts it, that event may be said to 'kill the conversation', i.e. bring it to an abrupt end.

Likewise!

So, are you saying that the comment 'You always slay with your heels' meant that you were considered to have killed (i.e. spoiled/ruined) your appearance by wearing heels? That is not what I inferred from your original post but can't see any other interpretation of 'kill that look'. I recall, some years ago, drafting a complex commercial agreement for a colleague to present to a potential customer. Afterwards, I asked her how the presentation had gone and was told 'They were cool with it'. I assumed that this meant lukewarm or indifferent, at best, although she actually meant that they were content. Two parties divided by a common language!

An interesting read, with some thoughtful comments. But I wish he had said what he means by 'US size 13' - men's or women's? It is not that difficult to find women's styles of footwear in size USW13, but not at all easy in USM13 (= USW15).

True enough, although there are often comments about incorrect sizes (or even mismatched pairs) being sent out. And that seems to be even more prevalent with US and other overseas customers, perhaps because of poor conversion (by either party) of ASOS's somewhat inconsistent sizes. It helps to read the reviews before ordering a particular item although (strangely) there are very few apparent for 'men's' footwear, at least on the UK website.

That is an interesting thought. In the UK, one might sometimes hear 'you slay me', or similar. (An informal use; not one in my lexicon.) The accepted meaning of 'slay' in this context appears to be 'to greatly impress or amuse (someone)' and I assume that this is what was intended in Cali's encounter. However, the past tense ('slew') takes on a very different meaning in UK slang, where it apparently means 'to make a public mockery of someone through insult or wit'. I can see therefore the impossibility of proper comprehension if Cali's commentator had said: 'You always slay with your heels' (= 'I'm impressed') and he had then told us: 'The woman said that I slew her because of my heel wearing' (= Cali had allegedly made a mockery of her). Two very different messages. It would be sensible to refrain from vague slang in such circumstances, quite aside from any possible differences between US and UK usage. Let 'slay' (in all tenses) mean just 'kill with violence'.

Which style/size, please? And how do you find them?

I agree, and in a way square-toed sandals are worse imho. As the toes are exposed, fully or nearly so, the failure of the insole to follow their outline fairly closely looks both ugly and absurd to my eyes. (In the other direction, sandals with a sharply pointed (usually extended) toe can look equally absurd, for much the same reason. The 'duck-bill' toe shape spoils these otherwise elegant sandals, as does the 'roach-killer' shape of the second pair: At least with closed-toe footwear, one cannot be sure what lies within, and even a square(ish) toe can pass muster! But I agree with those who consider an almond toe to be the most natural and flattering - it follows the foot outline fairly closely - but a pointed toe can look very elegant if not too exaggerated and unwieldy in overall length.

Although there are obviously some standards and specifications that relate to quality, depending upon the product, your comments are essentially subjective and may not be shared by all, according to country and time. I am old enough to remember when many products sold in the UK (mid 50s-late 60s)were marked 'Empire Made' and often came from Hong Kong, then of course within our Empire. The quality was usually doubtful, in some cases dreadful. Much the same applied to anything from Japan, and likely Formosa/Taiwan too. Alas, an item that is genuinely 'British Made' (or 'US Made') is no longer wholly reliable; just look at the (few) hand tools that are home-produced and compare them with what was made in the UK or US during WW2 and could be bought afterwards on the surplus market. Are you saying that this was your historic experience too, but quality has since changed for the better? I would certainly consider most recent/current Japanese imports to be of adequate or better quality, and much the same can be said of Korea. It is China and India that show 'inconsistency' in quality, although for the price paid their items are usually good value. The superficial appearance of much from India is pretty dire, regardless of performance. Frankly, I doubt that many could afford (or be willing to pay) for the quality that we really need if an item is to have reasonable performance and longevity. And don't get me started on obsolescence, the need for repairs and the availability (or not) and price of spare parts.

Understood but, footwear aside, you must find it difficult to buy almost anything these days as so much seems to come from China!

A size too large??

If the Chinese size you buy is said to be Eu43, that seems a good conversion of UK9, or USW11, so not far out. Many Chinese offerings go up to so-called Eu47/48/49, or even beyond, but they are NOT true size according to stated length. A true Eu46 (= UK11.5 or USM12.5) is by no means large for a male foot these days. My point is that quoted Chinese sizes seem exaggerated, especially the larger ones. Onlymaker may be a happy exception, perhaps resulting from customer feedback.

It rather depends upon what you mean by 'very large sizes'. The lengths quoted for the largest listed sizes (e.g. Eu45 - 48 or so) almost invariably seem to be too small to be a true match. This makes me doubt that someone wanting such a size can actually get it, at least reliably. I've not bought anything directly from China so cannot speak from experience, but a Chinese-made pair of (flat) sandals I bought through Amazon were intentionally bought two numbered sizes bigger than normal and proved a correct fit. What have others found about Chinese sizing; is it ever accurate?

I agree with you about lax dress codes and slipping standards. Interestingly, however, my TV observations (particularly on the BBC, nationally or regionally) suggest that, even if a female presenter or newsreader is in fairly casual clothing (trousers; leggings; sweater etc), she is likely to be wearing courts or boots with a 3.5 - 4.5" heel, typically stiletto. I doubt that this is a BBC dresscode requirement - and it clearly doesn't apply so much outside a studio - but it suggests to me that these women are at least conscious of making a smart impression and realise that a pair of classic courts (little or no chunkiness or platform) is a good way of achieving it. I attach one example: Naga Munchetty on BBC Breakfast. She occasionally wears trainers but is usually in stilettos. Nice leather skirt too! I agree too about the greater choice of footwear for those of us with big feet - I am a UK11/12. ASOS in particular is recognising the demand, and the styles are not what I would call fetish wear.

There is certainly a killjoy element around, often masked by 'woke' or other humourless/intolerant attitudes and reinforced by growing - sometimes draconian - regulatory restriction. Indeed, I wonder whether we shall have any tangible/worthwhile freedoms in a decade or so. But, contrary to that (and despite it - perhaps as a backlash), there seems to be a growing tendency of extremes of behaviour and self-expression. Protests (however well-founded) are becoming more violent and disruptive and crime is not only increasing but also poorly policed. High heels may be increasingly regarded as fetish-wear rather than everyday smart fashion, which is unfortunate, but I increasingly see (with 'profound disapproval', sometimes disgust) tattoos, piercings and extreme hairstyles that truly make me doubt people's perception of beauty and good taste. Perhaps the truth of it is that we have largely lost the will, and maybe also the ability, to act with restraint and consideration whilst retaining a sense of self-respect, humour and tolerance. And I don't see that changing for the better.

Cold porridge by candlelight? You're lucky - thin gruel under the stars is about all I could muster (so my butler keeps reminding me). That surely sums up the historical experience of most of us here. We survived (and generally flourished) and the sky remained intact and properly positioned.

I am pretty sure that the Irish living in the UK do celebrate St Patrick's Day with some gusto, but without the very public razzmatazz that seems prevalent in the US. Go into any 'Irish' bar in England today and you will find the Guinness flowing very freely.