Puffer

Well, Simon, that is interesting. You and I have similar views on and tastes in 'appropriate' male heel wearing and I agree in principle with everything you said and applaud the sentiments in your final para. It hadn't occurred to me that Amanda's friend would have equated male high heels with stilettos (alone), if only because women do not do so with female heels - there are many styles other than the traditional stiletto in regular, current use. But you may be right in that, put on the spot by an unusual question, the friend might jump to the conclusion that one must be talking of extremes, i.e. high stilettos. Only Amanda can, perhaps, clarify what discussion actually took place. I certainly agree that most (but not all) thinking women are unlikely to react badly to the sight of a modest male cuban heel, even if their attention is specifically drawn to it. And, if I understand the comment from Kneehighs correctly, the reality is almost certainly less 'disgusting' than the concept! You are, alas, right about much male behaviour being regarded as suspect if not actually dangerous or perverted. Unfortunately, these negative ideas are greatly fostered by the growing body of OTT law and regulation that attempts to prevent such behaviour. (As an aside, I sometimes wonder how many people suffered some sort of mild abuse as children, thought little of it and probably forgot it and only now are exposed to possible wounding by the recognition such matters get in the media - and with a potential compensation claim a further persuasive force.) Where I do differ from you is that I am more likely to follow my instincts as a family man by going to the aid of someone (woman. child or whoever) in distress without first either considering the law too closely or carrying out the 'risk asssessment' that might waste vital time. I have in fact done so more than once and my wife has twice recently been grateful to male strangers who stopped to help when her car broke down. But I do not deny the risks you mention.

I was discussing this place with a friend of mine yesterday and she said she found the idea of men wearing heels disgusting. ...

Amanda: If your friend actually used the word 'disgusting' or made it clear that her true opinion was along those lines, I do rather wonder about her powers of expression and emotion. Dislike, discomfort, embarrassment, sorrow, ridicule - yes, maybe - but 'disgust'?

If she truly felt 'disgust' (a strong emotion) on seeing a man wearing any type of high-heeled footwear, I should be interested to know what she would think of any more blatant cross-dressing or any form of indecent exposure? And would she take the same view of a female wearing some item of traditionally male clothing, such as brogue shoes, a tie or a waistcoat - I very much doubt it?

Her reluctant acceptance of a man's 'courage' or 'individuality' cuts little ice; one could say the same about an assassin or a suicide without approving of their actual conduct.

And greetings to you too, Daniel. Your English is fine, especially now you haver learned a new word or two! My French is not good!

An 'accent' is purely the added mark (with which you are familiar in French) to indicate stress or pronounciation of a word. 'Punctuation' is the series of marks (stops, commas, etc) used to divide up a sentence and help the reader to understand its flow. If I write 'Puffer says Daniel is a fool', it has at least two possible (and opposite) meanings - adding punctuation makes that clear, as I'm sure you realise!

It is interesting that, although French-speaking, you do not use accents when writing in English, even when using a French word. The English language does not use accents, but normally keeps them on foreign words which are 'imported' (such as résumé), although people will often omit them. After all, it might be difficult otherwise to identify or pronounce an unaccented word correctly: resume and résumé look the same and have a common origin but their meanings are different.

Hope this helps.

Puffer,

Likely to be the difference between versions of english. Such a wonderful language and one that has evolved differently depending upon where you are yet still you understood the meaning.

Simon.

You can't be sure that I did understand, Simon - I had to make assumptions! Not really a case of different versions of English, more an apparent misuse of English, at least to UK eyes. As a self-confessed pedant, I struggle to accept that one can create a verb-form résuméd (= provided a resumé) from the noun résumé (= a summary) - if indeed résuméd, rather than resumed (= re-started), was the word intended by danielp6406. It lacked any accents - so presumably he isn't a French-speaking Canadian!

(No offence intended, danielp6406: if I have got it wrong, you will no doubt tell us. And your underlying point is certainly valid.)

...You resumed the situation perfectly only in a couple of lines...

If you meant 'summarised', why not say so?

i would love to see some pictures of them

Then I suggest you Google 'winklepickers' and you will find some! For example (in men's shoes), go to http://rapiers.typepad.com/rapiers_are_go/2007/04/index.html and scroll down to entry for 25 April 2007. These are true vintage shoes; I am not aware of anything made today that is exactly the same, although some come close.

For some reason, data and pics relating to women's winklepickers seem more difficult to find, probably because this style of shoe was (and still is) more common for women and more remarkable when worn by men.

The Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday is right up it's own back bottom. They used to have a policy that women had to wear skirts in editorial photos. The Mail are the poison of the nation, generally abusing their power to ridicule anything slightly left wing.

Oh dear, benno, you can't decide whether the Mail is singular or plural, can you? That aside, as a Mail reader, I can assure you that I am quite capable of deciding for myself whether its stance on 'anything slightly left wing' is justified or not - and I am sorry to say that the present government and its supporters need no help from the press to demonstrate the folly of most of it.

But, although the Daily Mail was indeed wrong in its suggestion that the TUC was intending to seek a ban on heels in the workplace, it made for an interesting debate. And the follow-up article today ('Hands off our heels') gave the ladies an excuse to tell us why they will go on wearing them - as if we care!

The facts are that a TUC affiliate, the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, has put a motion on the preliminary TUC agenda but it hasn't even been debated yet, never mind adopted. The motion reads: 'Congress calls on all employers who have dress codes that promote high heels to examine the hazards their women workers face and ensure that proper risk assessments are carried out, and that where these show the wearing of high heels is hazardous the high heels should be replaced with sensible and comfortable shoes.’

I would not myself take exception to the Society's sentiment; it is neither seeking to outlaw high heels in the workplace nor even suggesting that employers should never 'promote' them in a dress code. It is simply reminding employers that there may be good health and safety reasons to discourage them. We might however question the need for the reference to 'women workers'. For anyone interested, there is more on the Society’s website at: http://www.feetforlife.org/cgi-bin/item.cgi?ap=1&id=2350&d=pnd&dateformat=%25o-%25B

The article is actually in today's Daily Mail and appears to be reproduced correctly on the website quoted. As far as I am aware the TUC motion is (as euchrid suggests) misquoted and is actually about preventing employers from requiring women to wear high heels. Apart from obvious roles such as dancers or 'hostesses', I think this is aimed at the businesses which expect women to dress in a smart (or 'professional') manner, e.g. some airlines and many banks, legal firms and other city institutions. Women working in these areas may not be required to wear heels but are expected to do so as part of their overall look and will probably suffer an element of discrimination if they do not.

Some of the comments on the web make the point that men could wear heels to work if they wished. And the vast majority of comments deplore any attempt to dictate to women (or men) what shoes they should wear at work (unless for very obvious safety reasons). Quite right too!

Interesting too that a maximum height of one inch is suggested - most men's shoes have a heel at least that high and many ordinary folk of both sexes would find that uncomfortably low for everyday wear.

A disturbing and disappointing experience for HappyinHeels and I wouldn't blame him for seeking some sort of revenge. But, however bad for the business, the owner was quite entitled to refuse to serve him and, in effect, tell him that his custom was not wanted - and he didn't need any obvious or stated reason to do so. I'm sure that all of us have come across this type of 'service' from time to time, whether in shoe shops or otherwise. It works both ways too - I have more than once walked out of a shop because my time or patience was being sorely tried despite my attempts to make a major purchase. Not long ago, I abandoned a large pile of food on a supermarket checkout conveyor because the shop would not honour a clearly-advertised offer price on one of the items. Counter-productive, perhaps, but it made me feel better!

... Bloody expensive habit - wish my fetish was for something cheaper like bacon sandwitches - ah well.....

Or, to be even more economical, kosher bacon sandwiches ...!

I've seen Hollyoaks from time to time when my stepsons are watching it - but I have to take care not to give it too much attention or they start to think that I'm taking a pervy interest in certain of the (female!) characters. Yes, there are some nice looking girls (and shoes) to be seen, but not many of them are exactly bursting with GCSEs, are they? As for the crossdressing boy (Kris. is it?), I got the impression that he is merely a somewhat effeminate bloke who wears skirts, make-up and heels most of the time but seems to be well-accepted by his friends. A role model for many here, perhaps? I wasn't aware of him either being bisexual or the butt of many of the usual comments, but then I haven't paid too much attention.

I'm struggling somewhat, Tech, to understand your responses:

I only really say anything if others are "in my opinion" blowing things out of proportion or just being dis-respectful, same as I would and do in day-to-day life.

OK, you thought vector used a word which was undesirable, indeed perhaps objectionable, and merited a mild rebuke. But no-one else seems to have reacted as you did. I think that if you had read vector's posting more carefully you would have seen that his comment was fair and reasonable, even if an alternative and perhaps better word could have been used.

I am, but why is everybody making it into something so sinister, and something it isnt? Lighten up, its footwear, its not mentally disturbed behaviour that warrant's calling the men in white coats.

I was suggesting (somewhat tongue in cheek) that 'taking a break from the norm' is, at best, a weasel phrase - a pretty pointless euphemism for 'deviating from the norm' (which merely means 'being different from what would be generally regarded as normal'). And I would not expect you, as a plain-speaking bloke, to favour such weasel phrases, any more than I do! You may have been intending irony, in which case I apologise for not treating your response accordingly; it did not seem as though that was your intention given your specific objection to vector's word. And I don't think anyone here had any type of 'mentally disturbed behaviour' in mind - that is something quite distinct from arguably 'deviant' (but otherwise rational) behaviour.

One can properly say that all left-handers are 'deviant' (because that is not the norm) but having that characteristic certainly does not in itself make them worthy of criticism, let alone classed as 'mentally disturbed'. (But they are, by definition, literally 'sinister'!)

Not everybody thinks this is "Deviant", I think thats probably not the best choice or wording it buddy... Maybe "Eccentric" is better or even "Taking a break from the norm"

No, it is not deviant in your view, Tech, or WA10's or mine - but vector's point was that less tolerant or enlightened people (such as WA10's parents) might well dislike '... what is perceived to be "deviant" behaviour...'. The key word is 'perceived', indicating a subjective view, and the quotes round "deviant" suggest that it is not necessarily to be taken at full face value.

With respect, you do have a tendency to jump on people here with all your guns blazing when they display what is perceived to be "objectionable" behaviour on this board. (See what I mean?)

'Taking a break from the norm'?? Oh, come on - I thought you were one who disliked mincing words and advocated plain speaking!

By chance, I came across this item from the Independent on 27 June and members may or may not identify with the writer:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jacobson-the-eroticism-of-high-heels-disappears-once-they-reach-seven-inches-1721563.html

she a nice young lady wearing gorgeous heels, and what is that i see on the bottum of them, yes thats right the label, for goodness sake it only take two mins to remove!

I agree, and there was a whole thread here on this subject (including techniques for label removal) about four years ago. As I then recalled, I was at a family wedding in the mid-1970s and kneeling down in church for prayers. A lady in the row in front of me did the same, revealing her shoe soles with a very prominent sticker on one saying 'Faded - to clear, £2'. Apart from them being a purple colour (faded??) I can't remember the shoes, but I doubt that they were very exciting, given the prevailing fashions. I do remember several other people spotting the label and sniggering.

In films or tv, people always find a parking space.

...and never lock their cars.

... and, when they are police officers on 'obbo', their presence nearby must be so obvious to even the thickest crinimal that they might as well have a flashing neon sign on the roof saying 'UNDERCOVER POLICE'.

You will be thinking of Chlorofluorocarbon as this was the nasty propellant used in years gone by that destroyed the ozone leading to global warming.

Regards

Al.

Indeed, but are CFC ones now totally obsolete? (I for one still have a few that are usable with CFC: stand by for another hole!)

... and the ones I know deplete the ozone layer if pressed.

Free tool loan!

I'm sure that you have a valid point there, but there would still be men here that would be stanch users of the stiletto pointy-toed femme shoe for good reasons.

Cheers---

Dawn HH

I don't doubt it, Dawn, nor do I suggest they should not wear more extreme styles. My point was only that legitimising a modest foray into the currently 'forbidden territory' would be satisfying for many and sufficient for some. It would be a start, at least!

How about experimenting with shaped pieces of lightweight wood bonded securely to the sole where the support is needed and then replacing the insoles?

I think Benno's idea has merit. Balsa wood is an obvious choice, albeit rather soft; obeche might be better - both should be easy to find in a model/hobby shop. Cork is another possibility, laminated layers of floor tiles might suit. I suggest removing the insole and glueing the wood/cork temporarily with a few dabs of impact adhesive (and perhaps using PVA wood glue if a further layer is needed). The top shape could be roughed-out before fitting (ideally a little overheight) with coarse glasspaper, with further careful sanding as necessary after trying on. When happy with the fit, remove the entire 'support' and refix it firmly with impact adhesive and add the insole likewise. (I imagine that orthopaedic shoe lifts are custom-made in much this way.) Worth a try, anyway!

Some very interesting comments here and it is difficult to draw firm conclusions - but then opinions are bound to vary on what is or is not an acceptable 'look' (especially when fashion rather than good taste enters the equation). I can certainly see that most women would not find a modest cuban heel (as widely advocated by Thighboots2, whose views I firmly respect) to be objectionable, but even here there are shades of opinion. My wife quite likes my discreet 2" cuban heeled slip-ons and my semi-cowboy elastic-sided boots with a similar heel and understands that I find them comfortable because of back problems. She does not really like the boots in my avatar (2.7" heel) because of the shape of the heel rather than the height; it is like an underslung cowboy heel (as I explained to her) but she thinks it is too tapered. If I attempted to wear anything higher and/or slimmer (and I would if I could find something suitable and reasonably-priced), I can imagine her reaction being very anti. And I am sure that she would not be alone in that. I do differ slightly from Tb2 in that I cannot see any reason why a man who is not too bulky and ungainly should not wear a modest stiletto heel, or at least a thin near-stiletto heel, on the right footwear. A boot very like that in my avatar with a fairly pointed toe and a 3.5 - 4" slim heel would be wearable and look right if worn with e.g. skinny jeans and perhaps a leather jacket. One sees quite tall and fairly well-built women dressed like this all the time in everyday situations such as shopping and the overall look is, to me, totally unisex and neither ungainly nor overtly feminine. I strongly suspect that, if a look like that was acceptable male fashion, it would be widely adopted by many here and their yearning for more extreme high stiletto styles would diminish. How about it?

In the US men's sizes are 2 sizes "smaller" than a woman's shoe. Therefore,a female 12 will fit a American male who normally takes 10s.

In the UK, a men's size is about 1 size smaller so a mens 9 is a ladies 10 but only because of the width so a man with narrow feet can get into a womans of the same of his men's size.

In Europe the sizes are the same but men's shoes tend to be broader so a man with a wide foot will need to go one size up.

If shoe 'size' is an indicator of length (not width), then surely the position in both the UK and continental Europe (your last two paras above) is the same, i.e. men's shoes and women's shoes of a given size have the same nominal length but the women's 'standard width' tends to be narrower than the men's? Or is there something else that needs consideration and explanation?

This subject has been discussed before at http://www.hhplace.org/everybody/9068-just_one_leg.html

I and others commented on sightings of amputees wearing high heels (or usually just one!).

What really "Grinds My Gears" is when someone uses the lavatory (washroom for the U.S readers) and leaves just one sheet of paper draped over the cardboard inner roll and no spare rolls anywhere in sight.

Absolutely right, B_R! And, if there is a usable roller-towel available (not just a scraggy, filthy trailing end) why do I always have to pull it down TWICE before I can use it?

But, of equal concern (and potential confusion) to those who speak proper English, is Uncle Sam's habit of calling the place you go for a piss the 'washroom' or (worse) the 'bathroom' or 'rest room' . I have yet to find one where you can have a bath or a comfortable rest! Why the euphemism: what is wrong with 'lavatory/toilet/loo/gents' (or even, in the politest of society, 'the bog')?

Must go now - dashing off to point Percy at the porcelain, shake hands with the unemployed, etc ...