Puffer

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!

Hi all the reason I joined is because I used to work In Regent Shoe Shop Wardour Street Soho London 1965 - 1968 there was a ladies and mens department and a lot of show people used to come in Cliff Richard, Ike and Tina Turner, Everly Brothers, Christine Keeler, Sabrina 'to name just a few, the Flamingo Club was next door. They were happy times I shall never forget

Very interesting, James. I well remember Regent Shoes - always good to look in the window (albeit a little furtively!) when passing. One of the few places to still offer a good range of stilettos in the late 60s when they were (allegedly) out of fashion.

Another member here, Heelfan, worked there too (perhaps a lttle earlier than you) and has told us of his experiences. It would be good if you could do so too - how about it?

... in one man's opinion "stripper heels" as some call them are the clear plexi-glass sandal-types with ankle strap that do not seem to appear anywhere else in fashion or fun EXCEPT in stripper bars-

Quite right, JSpike. And the sandals (or mules) that you describe should STAY in stripper bars - where decent 'only-one-dance-and-my-wallet's-empty' folk like me will never venture!

By chance, I came across the website of Yesstyle.com, which is a Hong Kong business but ships worldwide (free of charge on orders of more than $150). It lists a range of men's shoes called 'Deepstyle' which appear to come from Korea; see http://www.yesstyle.com/en/deepstyle-mens-shoes/list.html/bcc.11537_bpt.299_bid.311493 The size range is rather erratic; some but not all are available up to 300mm (approx equivalent to UK11 or USM12). Prices are mostly on the high side but some styles are currently discounted.

Several of the styles shown are quite 'dressy' and feature modest high (cuban) heels. One style, called 'Handmade boots' (sizes to 300mm), features a 100mm block heel and a platform sole of around 25mm - rather chunky in my view but indicative that high heels for men are being offered as normal wear. Are they more commonly worn by men in Korea or elsewhere in Asia than in the US or Europe?

The range is available elsewhere on the web and may interest some members.

The boots Rob mentions are all eminently wearable and certainly not boring. As he says, the problem is the price and I agree with him that we need more stylish men's shoes that are not only readily available but more affordable.

The Paolo Vandini range is worth looking at. I have these boots:

http://www.vandinishoes.com/17,8,paolo_vandini_veer_collection.Veer_4_Mens_Leather_Boot_Winklepicker_Black.html#

- very comfortable soft leather and with a 1.75" heel; they are favourites of mine (and were bought on eBay in first class condition for about £30!). This is a similar boot with (I think) a centre seam:

http://www.vandinishoes.com/17,109,paolo_vandini_veer_collection.Lazarus_Mens_Winklepicker_Boot_Leather_Black.html#

These boots have a more obvious and higher cuban heel (height not specified but probably about 2.25") and would be worth looking at:

http://www.vandinishoes.com/29,166,just_arrived_.Vandini_Veer_12_Winklepicker_Boot_Black_Leather.html#

A cuban heel looks much better to me on a boot (or possibly a slip-on shoe) than on a lace-up - but then I don't much like lace-ups. And it must have some narrowness and taper in the back and sides ( i.e. not be too 'blocky') if the shoe is not to appear too clumpy. For the same reason, at least a semi-pointed toe is a must, imho.

... All afternoon, we were reminded that the CAUSE of most accidents on the roads are a) Lack of concentration and anticipation...and Excess speed.

A driver's inability to control the vehicle after the accident has begun is a secondary factor - which can be avoided if you strictly observe speed limits and thus allow yourself more reaction time . At least, that's what the Police Officer and Driving Instructors told us.

I guess they were wrong then.

Pussy: this is not the place for a detailed exposition on the legal doctrine of causation - nor do you want one! What you were told (and said yourself before) is essentially correct in lay terms but it is not the full story. (And, given the purpose of the course, you might well expect some embellishment or exaggeration to take place to pursuade everyone to mend their ways.)

Yes, most accidents will have poor concentration/reaction or speed as an indirect contributory factor but neither is the direct cause of an accident. Think about it: you can drive safely for miles at excessive speed or with a wandering mind (as many do!) but there will only be a problem when adequate control of the vehicle is lost - for that or some other reason, e.g. a burst tyre or black ice. It is that loss of control (for whatever reason) which is the direct cause of the accident.

You go on to talk of loss of control 'after the accident has begun'. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that - presumably a failure to react correctly when a collision or other dangerous situation has become obvious - but not yet inevitable. Yes, that is a secondary matter; it is not the same as the failure to control the vehicle which led to the danger in the first place.

If we go back to my example, one may drive at excessive speed for miles without a problem. Suddenly, an obstacle is seen in the driver's path. He reacts swiftly and surely and stops or steers round the obstacle. He has not lost control and there is no accident. Alternatively, he fails to see the obstruction in time or fails to react properly when he does (or both); his vehicle is then not under proper control and some sort of accident takes place - the cause being that lack of control (but not his speed or slow response as such).

OK - this is something of a semantic argument and I accept that speed etc can be viewed simplistically as the 'cause' of many accidents although in reality it is nothing more than a scene-setter or influencing factor, however crucial. I would be hard pressed to convince you that jumping off a high building was not the 'cause' of death in the street below - but the true cause is the failure of the human body to withstand the impact on landing. The jump itself was neither fatal nor particularly unpleasant; the arrival at ground level was however both!

... It is a published fact, that ... 75% of all road traffic accidents in this Country are caused by.....excess speed. Police figures show this time and time again. ... If a high heeled shoe causes you to drive at excess speed, or interrupts your concentration, then it could be cited as a contributory factor, but that is all. ...

I hesitate to criticise, Pussy, as your comments are well-meant and correct in essence. But a little more precision is needed to put things in perspective.

Accidents are not caused by speeding or by wearing a particular type of shoe (or no shoes at all) or by e.g. eating a sandwich or doing some other act. They are caused by a failure to control a vehicle correctly - to which end any of the other acts may be a contributory factor but not a cause as such. The various offences arise from such a failure to control or to drive in accordance with arbitrary legal restrictions (speed limits, signs, alcohol limits etc) or for using a vehicle that is not in a safe condition. Any of those failings will be cited if a prosecution is brought but the essential wrongdoing is one of not controlling the vehicle properly, having regard to all the prevailing circumstances that every driver is obliged to take into account as soon as he gets behind the wheel.

I neither condone nor condemn driving in heels or in any other manner that might interfere with necessary control. It is the driver's judgement and, alas, an error may be made. But, if there is no accident, there is unlikely to be any related offence (or, at least, any detected and actionable offence). As you say, merely wearing heels is not (yet) considered a specific offence - contrast with being presecuted for being 'under the influence' even if there has been no movement of the vehicle, let alone any accident.

What does worry me is the reported trend of prosecuting for alleged lack of control when e.g. eating an apple at the wheel in stationary traffic. Doing something that might, if continued, contribute to poor control is not the same as actually losing control and (unlike DUI or using a phone) has not yet been made the subject of a specific offence.

Mind how you go!

A very interesting, intelligent and literate account of yourself and your activities, Confused. You are, by your own description, something of an enigma - or perhaps maverick is a better word - in that your appearance, interests and pursuits do not make the most obvious of matches! Unconventional - probably; well-balanced - almost certainly. I don't think you need to be concerned about your emerging feelings for heels. Most of us here have experienced them too - but maybe so long ago that they are simply history and nothing more than marking the first hesitant step along a road that is now increasingly trodden with growing confidence and pleasure. (Forgive the flowery prose - but it does fit ) Your GF is clearly sympathetic - that is one major hurdle which you seem to be clearing with greater ease than many here and a big bonus. You have been given some good supportive advice above. And you are so lucky to have a foot size that can be satisfied in any high street! You will be spoiled for choice when shopping but don't go overboard at first, especially if you plan to street-heel in male mode - and I doubt that you would find it easy to adopt a more feminine persona, even if you wished to. It was suggested above that you check heel heights carefully when browsing; more good advice. A small tape measure or a 6" ruler (easier to use) is certainly useful - or you could mark the side of your thumb in ballpoint at (say) 5" from the tip so that, when you lay your thumb discreetly along a heel, you have a pretty good indication of its true height - I often use that trick. Whatever happens, good luck to you - and let us all know how you get on.

If anybody calls me "Cherie", I'll bust his/her nose! That would be offensive and derogatory.

Why is that term offensive in some way, either generally or just to you? It simply equates to 'luv', 'dear', 'sweetheart' or similar mild title of affection.

Is it because that spelling is to be used in addressing a female - otherwise 'cheri' for a male? But in speaking, they sound the same and I fail to see your problem.

You said that there is no asexual word of address in French. I am no linguist (cunning or otherwise! ) but I gave you an example. Please explain what is wrong with it.

I often attend 1940s events dressed in the fashion, and love looking the part, with my hubby dressed as a Spiv, selling stocking etc from his case.

Have made some really good friends at these events, so if you know of any please drop me a line, come and see a real 1940 model

That sort of event is quite commonly organised in conjunction with vintage transport and/or wartime re-enactments. Most of the preserved railways hold such events annually and they can indeed be great fun. Some years ago, I went to one at the tramway museum in Crich, Derbyshire and it was really enjoyable, with people in 1940s outfits or uniforms and demonstrations of the Lindy Hop etc.

It is a different way of having a fancy dress party or dance too and can appeal to all ages. A novelty for the young and nostalgic for the old. It is surprising what vintage costumes are found in the attic and given a new airing!

I think that the 'Goodwood Revival' (mentioned above) is really all about cars and fashions of c1960 (stilettos included, naturally). A different era but equally enjoyable.

I have no idea about the age or source of those boots but they are certainly not a style that was worn in the UK in public in the 1930s (or indeed at any time in the 20th century, apart from perhaps in the first or last decades). They look very Victorian to me and scarcely street wear even then. My guess is that they were worn by (or intended for) showgirls, actresses, models (e.g. Bettie Page) or other 'ladies' of more shadowy occupation. They are however quite attractive.

Maybe someone can be more specific about their pedigree.

Some good suggestions above regarding 'acceptable' but more exciting men's shoes. Apart from those in my avatar, I have these cowboy boots: http://www.hhplace.org/attachments/guys/11290d1289676294-who_has_bought_some_new_shoes-cowboy_2.jpg and these loafers: http://www.hhplace.org/attachments/shoe_repair_modifications/103d1188336601-more_stretching_needed-evans_1.jpg, both with very similar 2.75" heels and readily wearable (although the loafers (10UK) don't fit me and are for disposal if anyone is interested).

The Shark's loafers are OK for male wear but are rather too heavy (especially the soles) for my liking. The Oxfords are also acceptable (if the narrower heel is tolerated) although not a style I would wear.

(Note: Why cannot I post the pics direct from my files? I get a message saying that they have been uploaded before so I had to link to earlier posting. Why is repeating a previously used pic unacceptable?

... I'm usually addressed as "Luv', Dear, Hon, Sweetie ... But there isn't such words in French. ...

Cherie??

There is a product called Goo Gone which is available in most grocery and big box stores in the cleaning supplies section. It dissolves the residue, it isn't dangerous or flammable, and it has a nice citrus smell. Best thing to use.

Steve

Goo Gone probably not available in the UK - and, if it is, it will be ten times the price of one of the common solvents I suggested. Granny's remedies are invariably simple, economical and worth trying first.

Any ides for getting off those particularly sticky labels which always disintegreate when you try to peel them?

It's just more frustrating to have bits of label left on the shoe.

Ian G

A little gentle heat (hair dryer) used with caution will often work. But lighter fuel (or petrol), white spirit or meths - in that order of preference - rubbed into the label will generally take it off in combination with a thumbnail. (No smoking or naked lights, of course, and be wary of sole colouring also being removed.)

damn,i thought new zealand was a kewl place...maybe not,eh

Not a kewl place - but certainly a kiwi place!

Whatever next - the UK increasing the VAT rate on high heels? (You read it here first.)

Well worth watching, even if one has no Swedish! As Awtucs says, quite a lot of dialogue is in English. A minor irritation in this and other films with subtitles is that they invariably appear at the bottom of the picture - just right to obscure many of the shoes on view!

Leaving the stickers on is not only sloppy but can be embarrassing. Some years ago, I was in church for a wedding. When we knelt down to pray, I got a good view of the shoes of the woman in front of me (which were totally unexciting, as was she!). On one shoe sole was a prominent sticker clearly marked 'Shopsoiled: £3 to clear'. Enough said!

We are of a similar mind, Histiletto. It's interesting that you have felt obliged to wear men's shoe styles that you dislike 'to satisfy social expectations' - which I assume to mean 'to conform'. You are certainly not alone - in the UK we can still see the archetypal 'city gent' whose clothes and shoes have changed little in nearly 100 years and who might well face ridicule if he departed markedly from his expected uniform. There are other examples too, at work and otherwise.

As a teenager and young adult, I was never truly rebellious or even particularly fashion conscious and largely conformed to what was expected of a schoolboy (in uniform) and then a trainee and subsequently qualified professional, working in and around London. But I never wore lace-up shoes with round toes (the Oxford - or 'beetle-crusher') or any other similarly stuffy, formal footwear, for work or otherwise. Slip-on shoes, Chelsea boots and the like were my normal footwear - with pointed toes when they were in vogue (and if they remained undetected at school!) - and they still are. Yes, I suspect that a few contemporaries and figures of authority considered my footwear to be too informal but I doubt that I lost anything as a result. I could never pluck up courage to wear 1960s cuban heeled Beatle boots (although I do now!) and I detested the clumpy 1970s platform shoes (and most of the other fashions of that era), the near-universal adoption of trainers from the 1980s and the more recent adoption of 'work boots' for supposedly smart casual wear.

I suppose I have been stuck in a time-warp for about 50 years (and I'm scarcely unique in that) but have invariably tried to put a slight edge on my otherwise fairly conservative male appearance by wearing shoes that are just a tad more exciting than those normally worn by men in formal mode, or even casually. I think the main ingredients have to be lightness (no thick soles), no very rounded toes or toecaps, a minimum of laces (if any) and a little discreet embellishment such as a buckle, snaffle or strap. Even a plain black shoe can be smartened in this way; another colour may be a bonus if the outfit calls for it. A slighter higher and narrower heel than normal is fine if the shoe or boot will take it without looking contrived. The loafer is a good example - it has been borrowed from us by the ladies and given a higher heel and it's about time we took it back in that form! Ditto the Chelsea boot.

Men's shoes are not always boring - even if their wearers may be.