Puffer

Here we go again - all metal sandals with 15cm stiletto heels in alternative thicknesses.   I can scarcely imagine anything less comfortable; without padding those stiff metal uppers must surely cut into ones feet and toes?   It certainly looks as though the wearer was having great difficulty in walking; hardly surprising.   A fetishy gimmick if ever I saw one.

Trying on NEW METAL SANDALS with 15 cm HEELS ! (youtube.com)

48 minutes ago, mlroseplant said:

In the end, I think the reason we are so good at it is because we really want it, and want it in a way that very few women do. I have no idea what must go through a 8 year old girl's mind when she's begging her mother to let her wear heels. Something then happens in the subsequent couple of decades, and by the time that girl gets to be 28 years old, the bloom is off the rose and those strong desires are pretty much gone, other than wistful thinking. Why doesn't this happen to us? I can't imagine there's a man among us, absent traumatic injury, who will wake up one day and say, "I just can't wear heels anymore."

In two words: 'forbidden fruit'.

I note, Gige, that you lived in Den Haag for some years.   I am not surprised, as most Dutch people have a very good command of the English language ('as she should be spoke') which is often better than those who claim British citizenship.   I'm sure some of their skills rubbed off on you, in addition to the obvious influence of your stepmother.

You are right about the importance of proofreading (or is that 'proof-reading'? 😜 ).   Too many worthwhile posts, here and everywhere else, are let down by sloppy errors - often caused by the keyboard gremlin but always correctible.   (I now see that, in my last post above, I failed to correct 'Geoge' to 'George'.   I would chastise myself for that failure to spot and correct but I think I might enjoy it too much. 😏

1 hour ago, mlroseplant said:

I am definitely jaded, but I've worked very hard to get to that point. In my own head, and by my own personal definition, anything less than 2 inches is a flat. ...

We seem to be divided into two camps: those who consider 'high' to be an indicator of a more-than-minimal rise at the heel, and those who regard a 'high' heel as one that makes a detectable (but inevitably subjective) difference to feeling or gait when worn.   There is nothing empirical to either view and perhaps we should leave it to lay people to decide (usually wrongly) what is, to them, a 'high' heel; each of us knows better!   After all, we don't take much notice of laiety (especially if unbelievers) when it comes to heel heights or indeed shoe or other fashions in general.

20 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

I quite agree - any rise above the standard half inch or so could rightly be called high heels  - although I also think you would need to be approaching two inches before eyebrows started to be raised (if you’re a guy) and the term “high heels”, in its feminine context, would start to be applied. By three inches you’re definitely in heels!

Good point about the style of heels - a two inch kitten heel is definitely “high heels”

A cowboy boot of similar heel height would pass muster

itd quite an interesting study in aesthetics, fashion and taboo

I agree weith 2"; I wasn't meaning to suggest otherwise.   I have three pairs of men's boots with Cuban heels of around 2.6", which I certainly consider to be 'high heels' (and have been described as such by others, albeit not in a censorious way).   I have a similar pair with heels of 1.4" which neither I nor anyone else has said to be 'high', and I come to the same conclusion as you that 2" is probably the borderline, at least for a man presenting as such.  I don't really feel that I am in 'borrowed territory' until I go above 3" in a block/Cuban/cowboy heel - my avatar boots (2 7/8") go unnoticed when worn under normal jeans.

1 minute ago, Gige said:

Not to get too far off topic - some words that have crept into my vocabulary...Trousers, zed, water closet, and CV in place of a resume.

Interesting that you should comment, Gige.   I have read (and enjoyed) most of your posts and got the distinct impression from your writing style that you could be British.   It's just the odd word or (mis)spelling (e.g. 'realize') that suggests the wrong side of the pond.   Please maintain your high standards! 👨‍🎓

Compromise in language differences is no bad thing - but meeting halfway would doubtless mean both of us would drown.

1 hour ago, mlroseplant said:

I have no doubt that Joe got autocorrected--twice. I have long used the chiefly British expression "queer fish" (I think I must have read it in some book when I was young). Everyone, even here in the U.S., understands exactly what it means, but one has to be very careful these days where one uses such an expression. I suppose I should use the more pedestrian American expression, "odd duck." I also habitually pronounce the last letter of the alphabet as "zed," which causes a lot more misunderstanding than calling somebody "a bit of a queer fish." I have no idea why I do this.

I am delighted to hear that you say 'zed', in common with the great majority of the English-speaking world.   Now, please concentrate on using 'different from' and using the 'loo/bog/toilet' rather than the bathroom or restroom.   😉

I agree that care must be taken in using certain words or expressions - not that this should really be necessary in intelligent society, and certainly not just because certain groups have hijacked perfectly good words and given them a new meaning that is now sacrosanct, and often for use only by other group members.   But, in the UK at least, we are still able to use 'queer' in its established sense and context.   And 'queen' likewise, which reminds me of a tale attributed to the late Queen Mother (widow of Geoge VI).   Whilst waiting to be served her gin and tonic, the Queen Mum could hear two openly-gay members of her staff arguing in the hallway outside her sitting room. Impatient at being kept waiting, she eventually called out 'When you two old queens have finished arguing, this old Queen wants her gin.'.

On 10/4/2024 at 4:15 AM, Jkrenzer said:

Been public for many years and even at work. I'm not even queen as you put it. I love my heels, love how they feel and love how they look. I wear nothing less the 5 inch mostly stilettos yet everyone knows I'm masculine. Women have told me it takes balls, but I'm old enough to remember when if a guy wore an ear ring he was considered queen. Now women have tattoos and brush cuts so why should I not wear heels. 

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'?

13 hours ago, Shyheels said:

If I was on my own I would - indeed if I was on my own I would have been wearing them already, but I’m representing the tour company and gave to keep within bounds.

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?

6 hours ago, Jkrenzer said:

Not really surprised. Way too much stress on the goofy thong. Be done with them. Stick to true mules and sandals. 

Really like these and the boot may support the foot sufficiently to unload the thong. Where in the world did you find this boot?

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

1 hour ago, mlroseplant said:

...

The bad news is that I bought four pair of thong sandals over the past month, and I've trashed two of them already. I never have any luck with those things. Maybe I should just give up. Both of these pair were awesome to wear, right up until the point that they failed. This type of fastening must somehow be intrinsically weaker than others. This always happens to me, and fairly quickly.

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.

23 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I skimmed it just now. I have a strong suspicion that it was written by AI. 

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.

22 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

Crickets on this one so far. I think we're to the point where we don't have to gush over every article which refers to us in a positive light. Wordy, but not in an academic way. I'm not sure what the heck it was I just read.

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.

15 hours ago, pebblesf said:

Boy o boy, those boots would surely be hard to resist.  

13 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Yes the styling us very nice. My only reservation would be about the quality of the material and the workmanship. I know nothing of the maker, but faux leather can vary greatly in quality

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.

11 hours ago, Shyheels said:

While such a thing as being booked for wearing inappropriate footwear while driving might theoretically be possible - although I sincerely doubt it would hold up in court even if some officious jobsworth of a policemen dreamed up the charge  - I  think the odds of this happening are about the same as being beaned by a baby grand piano falling off a passing meteor.

 

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.