Puffer

Love the boots fancy a pair myself, doubt if i will get them ass cheap as you got yours.

I went mad when evans had their sale and bought 5 pairs as they were heavily discounted, those models they didnt sell out have gone back to full price and are not must buys now.

Here are what i bought:

The Green and Tan boots look a bit wacky but they are now my favorite boots, well worth the £20 i paid for them , they are now back upto £40.00

The laced ankle boots are very nice too but mine are in olive, would love a black pair too, very comfortable and like the kitten heel as make them easy to walk in. £20

The laced shoe boots i got in black and brown and look great with jeans, nice cuban heel gives height but stability due to thickness, paid £15 each

The short zipped boots i got in olive for £10 love them.

I found them all generously sized and really should have got them smaller - they are all UK10

So next i am going for a pair of the cowboy boots that the OP got, i have seen some on ebay but will only buy at the right price about £20 tops.

Glad you like my Evans boots, Barney; I like yours too. Right now, the black boots are only available in UK11EEE at £10 (less a further 20% finishing today). The brown ones are also still on sale (same price) in 9, 10 & 11EEE, see here:http://www.evans.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?beginIndex=0&viewAllFlag=&langId=-1&storeId=12553&catalogId=33054&parent_category_rn=&categoryId=209557&productId=1907849

The size 11 I bought were certainly not generously sized - I found more room in a pair of size 10 Evans boots tried in the past (and my Priceless size 11s are definitely roomier). ; same price. With fairly thick socks, you should have no trouble with these.

You might like these too; £15.00 -20% up to size 10W: http://www.evans.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?beginIndex=0&viewAllFlag=&catalogId=33054&storeId=12553&productId=2042501&langId=-1&sort_field=Relevance&categoryId=209557&parent_categoryId=209439&sort_field=Relevance&pageSize=20&refinements=category~[209565|209557]&noOfRefinements=1

I am also sending you a PM.

I just bought these from Evans, reduced in the sale from the original £35 to £8 net of all discounts! They are nothing special in terms of quality - faux black suede from China. Although a UK11EEE fit, they are not generous in sizing but are soft enough to give a little. The heel is exactly 3.5" and I think they could pass muster under jeans for street-heeling - members' comments appreciated. These boots are still available in black or brown in 11 and a couple of other sizes. Some other sale boots and shoes in larger sizes too that may be worth a look - but get in quick!

I was not going to comment on simple opinionated postings here (and LailaLily's in particular) but JNR’s thoughtful analysis merits a response.

The problem with this and many other polls is that the underlying question may be asked and/or answered imprecisely, especially if a clear-cut choice is not offered. A poster’s true response or opinion is often a matter of conjecture and I think JNR’s interpretation of LL’s responses may be partially flawed; let me explain.

1. The original poll question was (and is): 'Do Women like Men in heels?' - not ‘Do you like men in heels? – although members who are female and clearly respond to the latter question may be forgiven! So, is LL’s answer (‘No, It is sick and it goes against human nature.’) her personal view as a woman (as JNR assumes) or her belief of what women in general think of men in heels (as I now suggest)? Let us not forget that any woman who has no personal problem with men in heels might well recognise that she is in a (small) minority and would have to admit that women in general do have such a problem.

2. LL’s second sentence is, at best, sloppily presented and unclear: ‘Im most likely going to get comments from left and right but I could careless, when society accepts immoral behavior and defends it, everything goes down from there.’ In better English (with two sentences), I think she means: ‘I’m most likely going to get comments from left and right but I couldn’t care less. When society accepts immoral behavior and defends it, everything goes down from there.’ She expects, rightly, that her expressed views may not please everyone. And I think she is then suggesting, logically enough, that unchallenged immorality results in a downward spiral in society’s values – which is not quite the same as JNR’s interpretation.

3. I will say nothing more about anyone being answerable to God for anything or everything; a clear truism for those who are believers. But quite who the ‘they’ are, whom LL regards as so answerable, remains a matter of conjecture (as is often the case with such a widely applicable pronoun used imprecisely). Does she mean male heel wearers, people who disagree with her, or people who engage in immoral conduct?

To be quite frank, the overall imprecision of LL’s statements makes her true message almost impossible to determine and I for one am uncertain whether or not she ‘approves’ of men in heels. Only she can say and, I hope, explain herself.

To get your wife/GF to wear heels more often, I think you just need to ask her to wear them for you. Tell that you really appreciate it when she wears heels and that they make her look so good.

Its a gradual process though, so keep at it.

I wish it were that simple! When we met in 1998, she did wear medium heels and was happy enough to wear the higher ones I bought her. But the height has been declining steadily for several years now and my wife makes every excuse not to wear any of the shoes I really like - my polite requests are pretty much ignored. In essence, she will do very little to please me that cuts across her personal preferences - and that certainly includes wearing high heels (especially stilettos), probably because she knows I like to see women in them and considers that weird.

... This is an awesome time to be a high heel lover. I can't remember a time when just regular women could wear platforms with 6 inch heels out in public so freely? And I couldn't be happier. ...

Agree with jsmits80. This is a great time for high heel fans. An abundance of all sorts of very high heel shoes & boots in the shops, many girls wearing very high heels in public ...

True - but there is a downside. Some of us have a wife/GF who does not wear 'proper' heels (for whatever reason), despite the prevailing fashion and ready supply. As they have none of the common excuses trotted out in the past - ('They're old-fashioned'; 'I can't find any to suit/fit me', etc) - we have to conclude that they really do not want to wear them, even to please us. Somehow, that hurts even more than was the case at a time when high heels were not an everyday sighting.

Well said, Doc and Charlie. Those shoes are so boring and unsexy that I would not wish to wear them as a man and cannot understand how any remotely feminine woman would want them either.

Thank you, Jeff, for your kind and helpful response. I have long admired your 'jaunts' and especially your ability to be yourself. As you point out, we are much the same height and not exactly inconspicuous - but so what! I think we have the same shoe size too (11UK/13USW or thereabouts) - what a shame you are not nearer so I could borrow a pair or three!! I suppose that I was indeed 'furtive' on my first outing, deliberately made after dark in a quiet area for my peace of mind. But my next was in broad daylight in a much more public place and, as I tried to demonstrate in my last post, gave me encouragement to do more. The fact that I reverted to going out in the dusk for my most recent outings was solely due to circumstances - I was not free in the daytime. You are right that one should behave as normally as possible and without drawing attention to oneself (shoes or any other favoured clothing aside) and I have tried to do this. That said, presenting a positive - if 'different' or slightly unconventional - image with confidence produces a 'certain thrill', as you remark, and can only lead to better things. So, if an old buffer like me can achieve this small success, there is hope for everyone out there who has yet to take the plunge. And, as Fu Manchu was wont to say: 'The world shall hear from me again'.

This thread is probably one of the most useful, most constructive and least contentious I have ever read on HHP! It should be enshrined and thrust firmly at all members who have any doubts at all about their initiation into public heeling. I wish it had been available to me a year or two ago.

I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Walkonit about his suggestions for that first venture outside the bosom of one’s house – been there, done that. What could be more simple (or safer) than a furtive car-based walk around in a quiet area in the dark, wearing discreet and comfortable boots and jeans? But then Dr Shoe and others made the very good point that there is safety in numbers (and daylight), so maybe a busy public place is a better bet.

The boots in my avatar (2.75” heel) have now been worn outside (under jeans) on four occasions since early December. They are comfortable and I really like their look and feel. They are not noisy and, with the shafts concealed, there is nothing about them that screams ‘female’ or ‘pervert’, although they are probably at the boundary of what would be considered acceptable male street wear, especially as I am 6’ 1.5” without shoes so not exactly invisible in heels. This look suits me for the time being; my 3.5” stiletto knee boots will stay in the closet and 5” stiletto thigh boots can remain a dream!

My first foray was a fair way from home, in the dark for a walk round the edge of a park – I just passed a few other pedestrians but got no reactions. It was however early evening, so little chance of bumping into drunks, vampires and other potential assailants. Feeling more confident, I then drove a short distance to a large (and nearly deserted) DIY store – a bad choice perhaps as I was much more obvious to the two or three people also there, but was not obviously noticed.

Feeling more daring, I then visited a mid-sized supermarket on the edge of my town in mid-afternoon. Not too busy (75% women shoppers) but still scope for being noticed, especially when bending down etc. My basket was a useful prop - this (or a trolley) can act as a barrier to deflect attention if necessary. I didn’t see anyone I knew (a distinct possibility during a 15 minute stay) but got a slightly quizzical look from a woman outside as I was leaving – maybe not boot-related.

Last week, I visited two other supermarkets in the dusk, one being fairly local and quite likely to have neighbours present, although I saw none. Both were bigger and busier with a number of men shopping and I spent about half an hour in each, browsing and buying. I filled my car with fuel after shopping at the second and was clearly visible to the driver of the car waiting behind mine; I did not hurry. On each occasion, my boots were probably noticed but I had no feedback.

That last sentence says it all really – I cannot pretend that I am not wearing heels (however discreet) nor conceal them completely. Anyone I meet who looks down can see them, will almost certainly register their style and quite possibly form an opinion about them and me. So far, I have detected no reaction – but I am now at the stage when I really don’t care as I feel much more relaxed, and certainly not ‘guilty’. Indeed, I would almost welcome some non-violent response and the opportunity to comment appropriately (and if necessary pointedly) about my choice of footwear. (Am I turning into an exhibitionist?) My only fear is of bumping into my wife, stepsons or someone else that I know well; explanations would be tough.

It is now only a question of time before I venture out more openly for some longer daytime activity, such as shopping in central London. But that, as they say, will be for another day – watch this space …!

This is only advice because the back is nothing to ignore as i did for 15 years Dr always saying muscell spasms or strain till it crippled me for a week and an MRI revealed a ruptured disk and followed by surgery too remove acouple pieces of disk so please becareful

I feel for you, Fred. I had a similar problem for most of 2007 - displaced disk with sciatica. Two weeks in significant pain and using crutches was quite enough. Fortunately, the disk went back of its own accord and the only legacy is intermittent pins and needles in one foot and leg cramps. Walking is good therapy and wearing modest heels or exercise sandals certainly helps.

When I (eventually) saw a consultant (National Health Service) to discuss the prognosis, the problem had already subsided but he made the telling comment that, if this had been the US, he would still have recommended surgery. He simply smiled when I suggested to him that this was because the US surgeon would be well paid for the op in comparison with one in the UK! However, he made it clear that I could have an op if the problem recurred; no bridges were being burned by leaving well alone meanwhile.

Actually I doubt that that would ever come up. It never appears on an insurance claim form.

The criteria for breaking the law (e.g. not being in full control of a vehicle) and for making an insurance claim are not necessarily the same - and in any event these are separate processes.

Having a motor accident of some kind, even though involving damage or injury, will not necessarily lead to any police interest - assuming of course that the incident was ever made known to them - let alone a possible prosecution. That is particularly so when no other vehicle was involved or there was a simple 'shunt' and the matter can be disposed of by the driver(s) and insurer(s) concerned.

Conversely, there may be a serious traffic offence committed and pursued without anything happening that requires an insurance claim by any party involved - simple speeding is the most obvious example. Any incident that leads to a prosecution or conviction must however be declared to the insurer (even if no claim has arisen) as it suggests a worsening risk.

Insurance claim forms are fairly standardised, but cannot ask specific questions about every possible factor. The onus is on the claimant to give full details of the incident and all relevant matters - which might include wearing shoes or clothing that impeded control. But a claim could not be denied simply because the driver lost control through wearing high heels as this is neither a specific offence (as is drink-driving) nor a breach of any specific condition of any motor policy that I have ever seen - yet!

So, carry on driving in heels if you wish - but mind how you go!

I agree that the shoe fashions in the 1959-64 period were almost invariably stylish and exciting in a way that has never been equalled since. And of course, as others have said, stilettos (often well over 4") were almost universal and usually teamed with winklepicker toes, tight pencil skirts and stockings - and a lot more besides. (Sorry, Charlie - I liked the beehive hair too!) I don't know why there is such a strong desire to ignore or abandon things from the past which were tried, tested and well loved. OK, fashion moves on and there is plenty of room for innovation and fresh ideas, but the true 60s stiletto heel is very rarely seen on any more modern shoe. The shape and positioning is scarcely ever quite the same (and is therefore 'wrong' to my eyes). And peep toes and thick platforms go back to the late 40s (before stilettos were invented) and should have been left there.

This is an interesting coincidence because BBC4 (UK TV) screened a dramatised account of the love life of Hattie Jacques last Wednesday - well worth seeing. Hattie was of course the sexy 'large lady' actress who played the Glamcabs manager in the original film - see the last pic above; she is in the blue outfit. For the drama, several Glamcabs film scenes were re-created (very authentically, I thought), with 3 or 4 pretty girl drivers in short pink uniforms with pillbox hats and stiletto sandals. But these were not the same girls or outfits that are shown in the pics above, which must be of another re-creation for rallies or something similar. They are obviously not scenes from the original film as the onlookers' clothes etc are too 'modern' for the early '60s. Would this be something seen at the Goodwood festival?

Come now Puffer....there ARE limits!

UpBy5

Yes indeed - I was thinking of 4" max.

OK. I conceed that I may have gotten my wires crossed. On further viewing, the second pair are actually backless, with a strap across the instep........and yes - a mule is any backless shoe.

Graciously said, Pussy. As an informed female, do you have a view on the sandal-shoe distinction?

These sexy shoes do seem to have been popular with good reviews, despite (or indeed because of) the full 5" heel on the largest sizes. So popular, in fact, that the largest UK8 sizes seem to be sold out online - quite possibly because they run at least a size small. But the good news is that the available sizes have been discounted by up to 50% online - and if one looks on the Schuh eBay shop there are various pairs (some slightly shopsoiled) on offer for even less. It will be interesting to see if Schuh continues to sell them - with true sizes up to at least UK8 available again. And most of the happy customers have asked for more shoes of the same type. Will Schuh - or a competitor - oblige on that too?

Please don't take this the wrong way - but according to my husband at least, the 'slapping' sound is a very 'girly' sound and is really associated with women in high heels, not guys. Of course, mules are the most feminine of all high heels styles.

Not that guys aren't entititled to wear mules, far from it, and we're both staunch supporters of men in high heels - but - it is a VERY 'girly' noise. ...

Very true, Pussy.

I often wear flat slides (e.g. single strap exercise sandals) outside in the summer and am conscious of the 'smacking' sound as my bare feet and sandal soles collide. It is slightly disconcerting to advertise my presence in that way as such sandals are not too common for men's wear, although Berkemann and Scholl styles were very popular some years ago with both sexes. And the Birkenstock 'Madrid' (a very comfortable and light style, quieter to wear) is now usually sold as unisex.

If one walks briskly and naturally in sandals like that, the toe clenching and movement of the foot makes the smacking inevitable - and is the 'exercise' which is supposedly beneficial for one's feet and ankles. Having suffered from sciatica (which leaves me with pins and needles in one foot most of the time), I can vouch for the benefits of exercise sandals, quite apart from the fact that they are cool and pretty comfortable. But I haven't tried the higher heeled varieties - I doubt they are made in my size anyway!

That would be this poster then

Yes indeed - and I remember going to see Dressed to Kill (in about 1973) purely on the strength of those pictured shoes. Needless to say, no-one in the film wore them or anything like them; Angie Dickinson (the 'victim' in the film) did wear heels but they were merely the typical fashion of that era, i.e. nothing exciting.

... You'd think with the popularity of "Mad Men", that women would be embracing the glamourous styles of the early 60's - but in reality, it seems like the trends are going away from the classy & elegant stuff and are going more towards the casual. ...

Yes, I think that is a very good point and the perversity of attractive and otherwise impressionable younger women never ceases to amaze me.

Mad Men is a great series and captures the era so well. But, alas, there were very few really exciting shoes to be seen - plain semi-pointed courts with a heel (usually stiletto) of around 3.5" max seemed to be the almost invariable choice of all the 'office girls'. Peggy did wear some nice slingbacks on a couple of occasions but that was an exception.

I know that really high stilettos were not quite as common for everyday street/business wear in the early 60s as some would believe, but in the UK at least there were a lot of smartly-dressed women dressing for work in 4" (and higher) stiletto winklepickers as a matter of course. But not, in seems, in Madison Avenue?

(As an aside, curse the BBC for not getting the rights to show the next series of Mad Men. I am almost tempted to subscribe to Sky for that alone!)

Pussy: your definitions actually support what Dr Shoe says, and most of us believed to be the case anyway! A mule is simply a backless shoe, i.e. it has no solid back piece (counter) or sling-back. A sling-back shoe worn with the strap down becomes a mule. A mule may still have a number of straps over the top of the foot; only if anything goes back round the heel (or ankle) does it cease to be a mule. My understanding is that an open-toed mule may also be called a 'slide', although that term is not traditional in the UK. Someone will no doubt tell me if I am wrong on that. I would however be glad to know when a shoe becomes a sandal. Some manufacturers, sellers or wearers call any shoe with an open toe and/or open heel a 'sandal' - but to my mind a true sandal has to have open sides (or no sides), regardless of the toe and heel - although an open-toed mule is always a sandal too! It probably doesn't matter: the lighter and more open (more 'strappy') a shoe is, the more we tend to regard it and wear it as a sandal. Anyone have a view on this?

Hi All,

Now I know these aren't 'High' heels, but for those who really want to go out in heels but want a good easy place to start. . . .

http://www.atomretro.com/product_info.cfm?product_id=5081&d=MADCAP-ENGLAND-CUBAN-CHELSEA-BOOTS-BEATLE-BOOTS

They are a good 'break from the norm' which goes with near all of the usual 'man wear', and unlike nearly all mens stuff looks more like a sports car instead of wearing a pair of vans on your feet!

Much the same as YSL 'Johnny' boots that you can't buy anymore, you'll never have to wear flats again if you're dressed smart!!

BTW i'm not selling these and don't own any either.

What do you all reckon?

You haven't had much of a helpful response, antha, but I will try to give one now, albeit a little late in the day.

Those boots are absolutely fine for a start in public heeling. I can say that with confidence as I have a very similar pair (see my avatar) and described here how I chose them: http://www.hhplace.org/everybody/10499-cuban_adventure.html#post158965

Yours look as though they might be better quality than mine (and I like the centre seam!) although the heel is possibly a little lower. There are several other comparable products around (just search 'cuban heel' or similar on eBay) - but be careful with sizing as they might run a little small, especially if they have a pointed toe.

My newest boots are a discreet woman's 'cowboy' style and a little higher - I describe my recent outing in them here: http://www.hhplace.org/guys/10503-streetheeling_what_footwear-19.html#post266465

Good luck with your initial foray into public heeling - putting that first 'toe in the water' certainly takes an effort but you will not reget it.

Apart from the men's 'beatle boots' in my avatar (2.25" cuban heel), which hardly count, I have been out a few times in these new boots: http://www.hhplace.org/attachments/high_heels_wanted/11288d1289675091-block_chunky_heels_size_11_12-cowboy_1.jpg They have a 2.75" slim block heel, are very comfortable and look discreet when worn under normal length jeans. They are not noisy either - I have noisier men's shoes. I wore them when supermarket shopping the other day and was interested (and, let's be honest, a tad apprehensive) to see whether there would be any reaction.

I tried to walk around normally but I'm sure the heels were reasonably visible to anyone looking down - the more so when I was crouching at a low shelf, when the shafts too would be partially visible. If anyone noticed, I was not aware of any reaction. But when I came outside and walked past the large plate glass window, I saw a clear reflection of my legs and feet and the heels were (to me) quite prominent - but that in itself was rather satisfying as I felt I had achieved something! A woman shopper who had come out just behind me did glance back as our paths diverged and gave me what might have been a curious look, albeit not unpleasantly. Maybe she just fancied me - alas, I can't say I felt the same.

I'm quite sure that a plain ankle boot or loafer with a heel like this of, say, 2.5 - 3.25" in height can be worn almost anywhere with impunity. After all, the shoe style is masculine in origin even if the heel is higher and a little slimmer than is conventional for a man.

I think they're gross quite frankly.

There are high heels and then there are high heels. And, I really don't like those. They look too clunky to me. One of the features that I really enjoy about wearing women's shoes is that they are very "light" in weight, not :heavy: like most male shoes.

That style really looks too clunky and heavy to me. While I'd not refuse them if someone gave a pair to me, they probably wouldn't get much wear.....

I totally agree with both of you - although many members will not! All platform shoes look 'heavy' and often unbalanced to me, especially when the combination of the thick sole and the usually chunky toebox is set against the delicacy of a true stiletto heel. But, given the current predominance and apparent popularity of platform shoes of broadly this style, your opinion does surprise me - is it simply because these shoes, whilst plain enough in appearance, are more extreme than the typical high steet platform court?

I always thought there shouldn't be an absolute end time to an auction, but rather a minimum counteroffer time, say 2-3 minutes. So, if you bid 30 seconds before the scheduled end of an auction, there would still be at least 120-180 seconds that other people could submit a higher bids. Real auctions do that ("going once, going twice, sold"). If was was auctioning items, why would I want to stop an auction that still has people interested in it.

That is all very well, but potential bidders cannot realistically be expected to sit around (whatever the time of day) wondering when - or if - the auction will ever end! And the seller is likely to want certainty (and settlement) within a finite period. With a live auction, both the auctioneer and the public can usually detect from the atmosphere in the room how the bidding is going and it will run a fairly predictable course, even if there are some surprising late bids (including those by phone) which significantly increase the hammer price. There is really no way of measuring true interest with an online auction, especially as the potential bidders are not identifiable or even visible.

I would say yes. All you need to do is look at mainstream shoe stores to see how heel height has increased over the years. Years is a bit too short, but certainly a decade ago, 5" and 6" heels were pretty much relegated to fetish stores. Now, I'm not sure there's any major shoe store that you'd walk into and couldn't find shoes with 5" heels. Walk into Baker's Shoes, and you'll find one with a 6" heel. ...

You are right in terms of heel height but there are, unfortunately, not many truly high heeled shoes (4.5" +) in the shops currently that do not have a platform sole. That is what has changed over the last decade or so. Take away the thickness of the typical 1 - 1.25" platform from the highest 5 - 6" heels and the net height rarely exceeds the same 4.5" that has been quite common since the mid-80s, at least in the UK.

With one or two exceptions (the 5" Lois court from Schuh comes to mind), a single-sole shoe/sandal/boot with a heel higher than 4.5 " or 4.75" (11 -12cm) is still very hard to find in any high street shop - with 4" a more normal maximum.

I think what has happened is that platforms are so much the current fashion that younger women wear almost nothing else and the older (and usually more elegant) women who prefer non-platform styles often cannot cope with quite such a high net rise. I hope to see both those trends reversed (yet again) in my lifetime! And, as for the trend for peep-toes usurping points ... !

Actually I'm looking forward to it. Living as I do within a few hundred yards of the Velodrome and less than half a mile from the main stadium my flat's worth a fortune in rents. Bring it on I say! lol

Yes, I thought you might well have a positive view, Doc! I hope you make something out of it. Why not hire out some high heels too, to give the spectators a better view?

We survived the blitz. We survived the IRA bombings. We survived the 3 day week (1973/4) We survived the winter of discontent (1978/9). We survived 7/7. We survived Maggie's poll tax riots.

What we didn't so well with were the so-called town planners who did much more damage than Hitler's bombers ever managed.

Well said, at9.

It's a little known fact that, despite the cull of many pets during WW2, the weight of the s**t deposited by the remaining dogs in London was greater than that of all of Hitler's bombs, if a trifle less annoying. (Just thought I would share that with you all - as no doubt the dogs and Hitler also decided.)

But I do wonder if we will also survive the enormous disruption and cost (to the taxpayer) of the forthcoming Olympic Games, particularly at a time of falling incomes and rising prices and taxes. Already, there have been a significant number of small businesses evicted with scanty compensation from their premises in East London to make room for the stadium etc; many have not survived. And few living or working anywhere near the Games venues will escape the chaos when they are being held, and priority for travel and access etc is given to competitors and VIPs. Scrap the Games now, I say!