Puffer

Did you mean to put 'queen' (twice) rather than 'queer'? I am no expert (nor a practitioner!) but I don't think they mean the same thing.

Some interesting - and quite diverse - comments above on what is truly a 'high' heel. Imho, it much depends on what alternative descriptions are recognised; is the contrast between 'high' and 'flat' or should one take into account 'low', 'mid' etc? On the basis that almost all footwear has an element of 'rise' at the heel (either a thickening to the sole at the rear or an added separate layer, likely to measure 1/2" or so as a minimum) and this is regarded as the benchmark, anything higher than that could rightly be regarded as a 'high' heel. (I would opt, reluctantly, for that definition.) And many 'conventional' shoes (particularly those intended for men) have a fairly sturdy heel block of around 1" in height and certainly attract no special attention - but if that same block heel goes to 1.5" or more, it would be described by many people as a 'high' heel, even though very modest. To some extent, the shoe style and heel shape is relevant in practice. A kitten heel (i.e. a stiletto of typically less than 2") is widely regarded as a 'high' heel, but a 2" or 2.5" wide block heel would simply be looked on as 'chunky' rather than high. I don't think that any platform changes this; if a shoe with a flat sole and a 2" heel is described as 'high', then the same shoe with a 1" platform sole is just as high in terms of its heel - even though the rise is halved it is still a rise. A 'flatform' shoe is not an exception either; it is really a flat or almost flat shoe given an extra thick sole, and is not a 'high' heel as there is (almost) no rise to the foot.

I've only just seen this thread but, better late than never, suggest that the boots are these men's boots from ASOS. Readily available until recently. I would prefer them without the rather obtrusive chain detail.

Maybe it's just my personal preference (or prejudice) but I think that melrose's suit would have looked better with somewhat narrower trouser legs that were also a little shorter - and which surely would be less inclined to get caught on a shoe. But a smart look nevertheless.

Shyheels is right in his analysis - and I reckon that even the 80:20 rule is not met. There is enough heel-related 'news' (whether public or personal) to report or comment on as it emerges, so where are the rest of the 'special correspondents'?

Apologies for going off-topic but I gather then that you are doing some freelance tour-guiding, but hotel=based and not directly connected with your narrowboat residence? Sounds interesting - can you tell us more? Also, I assume that you live alone on your narrowboat and I know from experience that working a boat single-handed can be something of a chore, especially in certain locks or flights. How are you finding things generally?

Found at first outlet by chance, but China made and available elsewhere at varying prices - see second/third outlets or search image on Google: https://prettyunik.co.uk/collections/boots/products/black-stiletto-heel-summer-sandals-thong-boots https://fedoramonet.com/products/black-leather-pointed-open-toe-clip-toe-hidden-zipper-thin-heels-knee-high-boots-women-summer-sandals-thong-boots https://www.aliexpress.com/i/1005006102419680.html and see them in action (sort of!) here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQlgRDVwjWA

As Shyheels suggests, boots are more durable. Maybe these would be a good compromise: On second thoughts ...

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.

I think you are right. One can admire (and simultaneously fear) the technology that makes this article possible, but deprecate the excessive length, dull style and needless repetition. Overall, it adds almost nothing to our fund of knowledge - and precious little to that of those outside our circle.

I agree, although I had to look-up what you meant by 'crickets'. Not an expression I have ever heard so used in the UK.

I agree with both of you! What appear to be identical boots are being offered elsewhere (at significantly higher prices - £150+), which suggests a generic (Chinese) product distrubuted to several outlets. That says nothing about the true quality, although the higher prices do imply that there is some substance to the product. A very tempting purchase, which could of course be returned, but I would never get much use out of them, and probably none outside. Still, it would be great to try them on ...

I found these by chance - and to my surprise they are (allegedly) available up to size USW15/UK13/Eu47, assuming that they run true to size: Link here: Women Thigh High Boots PU Leather Black Sky High Chunky Heel Over The – Prettyunik The heel height is not specified but looks at least 4". A tempting purchase, especially at the discounted price of £59.99 (with the same boots seen elsewhere at £150 or so), but I will have to pass. Little of the other footwear from this supplier ('Prettyunik', about whom I know nothing) is available in sizes above USW11 or 12.

A difficult question for me to answer, if I am to be both honest and constructive. As others have said, or at least implied, there are several reasons for wanting to wear 'high heels'. (I will not attempt an exhaustive definition but, as a working one, let us assume anything greater than a net 2" (after deducting any platform) and regardless of heel style/shape. In other words, a heel that would rarely be found on any male footwear other than some cowboy or Beatle boots.) One may wear such 'high heels' for reasons of any one or more of the following: (a) comfort/health - although Cali's need is probably rare; (b) boosting ones height, if appropriate; (c) style/appearance; (d) feeling - which may or may not include some form of arousal; (e) simple desire to wear 'girl's shoes'. This last reason (e) is the most complex; is it because one gets a thrill from wearing something essentially feminine in otherwise male mode, or as part of a wider (or possibly complete) adoption of feminine clothing and appearance? And is it the feminine appearance of the footwear that is paramount, or simply the fact that it is daring/exciting to wear something 'borrowed' from women? There is clearly a big difference between, say, a man in (i) a 3" block heeled boot (which would often go completely undetected when worn with trousers); or (ii) a 5" stiletto sandal (which would be obvious almost regardless of other clothing). And, whatever the style of footwear, does the male wearer wish to conceal it, or to wear it openly? I can only say that, as far as I am concerned, I have long been an admirer of 'high heels' , worn by women, and of feminine footwear (such as strappy sandals) generally. I have always wanted to wear such footwear myself, mainly for the look and apparent feeling but also, to a modest extent, because it is daring to do so. (I have little desire to wear any other feminine clothing, beyond perhaps a private and experimental 'dressing up' session out of curiosity, which has never happened.) However, availability, comfort and discretion limit my ideal footwear styles and my activity when so shod - perhaps more than I should wish. A heel of less than 3" does very little for me, although I have some men's boots with Cuban heels close to that which I can and do wear openly. I can comfortably (and discreetly) wear boots with a 4" block or semi-block heel, and also, with more care, my Miguel Jones 'cowboy' boots with 5" heels. I would love to be able to wear stilettos (ideally around 5") as man in public but the reality, having tried, is that I cannot do so comfortably or without risking detection and ridicule. And the latter really precludes wearing lower stilettos too. So, I guess I must conclude that, for me, anything less than a 3" heel is of little interest unless the footwear has other attractions, in which case it might be very flat. And anything much more than 4", especially if a thin heel, is mostly impractical, however desirable.

I imagine that even more boring than watching grass grow or paint dry would be observing the flow of electrons through a cable. But someone has to do it.

That third pair looks unusual. Can we see more please?

The evidence gathered after an accident will include that relating to a driver's control (or otherwise) of a vehicle, and that could include mode of dress just as much as physical condition, illness, drink/drug influence etc. I did not have the rapacious lawyer in mind, but he too will be minded to exploit such evidence as may be presented. The law does not contain specific 'clothing' offences but the Highway Code (notably Rule 97) is always relevant when considering the conduct of a driver/rider. I rest my case.

Not nearly as unlikely as you suggest. Have an accident whilst wearing arguably unsuitable footwear (or clothing) in relation to control of a vehicle and it would very likely be a factor in charges and proceedings. And in terms of insurance recovery or liability where contributory negligence arises. Plenty of scope for trouble, and should be easily avoided, although most of us transgress from time to time.

Interesting. In the UK, although there is no specific law relating to footwear worn when using a 'motor vehicle', it would be quite possible for someone to be challenged and possibly booked if it was alleged that the particular footwear (or lack of it) precluded 'proper control' of the vehicle, e.g. heavy boots, wellies, flip flops, mules, platforms, very high heels etc. A fortiori if the vehicle was a motor bike, given the need for foot control and that feet are on show. I am somewhat surprised that helmets are not required on a motor bike/scooter; mandatory here since 1973, unless (like a Sikh) one can claim a religious exemption. I'm not one to criticise you or preach but I would observe that an accident is just as likely to happen within 'a couple of miles' than on a longer journey - and a short journey is not an excuse for lack of protection acceptable to the law either.

Certainly an interesting - and somewhat daring - choice for motor bike riding. I am not a rider, and although I can see that a modest heel may have advantages in keeping one's feet on the rests/pedals (unsure of terminology!), I would imagine that mules are at risk of falling off, and those with open toes scarcely offer protection. Anyway, you (and your feet and bike) have survived. Your two friends aside, did your wearing heels to the concert excite any interest or comment from those present, who were presumably strangers?

Clearly an enjoyable trip, and reunion. It isn't clear what non-flat footwear you are wearing in either pic. Did your old friends notice, and make any comments?

Mlrose makes two good points. Yes, freedom of expression at a distance by 'keyboard warriors' can easily skew (or corrupt) true feelings and opinions. (Alas, that can be true of this forum - but we seem to have eliminated the worst miscreants in recent years.) And I recognise the concept of living vicariously in terms of heel-wearing. In my case, my very modest indulgence would probably be greatly diluted if my wife, in particular, humoured me by still wearing heels on more than very rare occasions. I am hoping that our Labour government will not turn out to be quite that draconian!

Could it be that the (dis)organisers considered that there were too many vendors of the SAME types of Asian food, so some (including mlr and wife) had to go? (I'm sure that your offerings were in some way both special and tasty, but not necessarily recognised by management.) As to the decline in heel-wearing, there is a UK website called 'Mumsnet', which may or may not also operate, or be copied, outside the UK. I had to consult it recently on a matter relevant to my wife and took the opportunity to browse a little. It seems clear that it has a very feminist membership and the very idea of high heels is (perhaps unsurprisingly) anathema to the great majority of those commenting on any heel-related posts. And the very many members responding to a woman asking whether she should go along with her boyfriend's request that she wear heels for him (in an ordinary setting, not for bedroom fun) almost universally condemned him, and the footwear, as being outmoded, uncomfortable and fetishistic, with the frequent recommendation that he should be dumped pronto. A sad world, ain't it?

I bought these elegant Tailingjia sandals on an impulse recently but have decided not to keep them. They are labelled as US14/Eu44/UK11 and fit my UK11 feet but would be a better fit on UK10/USM11 feet. They are black patent with 5.2" stiletto heel and 0.4" platform; the back zip is functional (needed to put them on). The construction is sturdy and they are unmarked - tried on only. I would be happy to sell them for £25.00 (inc UK postage) - extra if to be sent overseas. Link to manufacturer here: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32687123992.html?spm=2114.12010612.8148356.17.369e4d43Yicu6J