Puffer

I've got one of Christine Bleakley too, as am also a big fan...latey.

Shame she sits behind the table all the time!

I have some "footage" (excue the pun) of her talking about heels and then she takes her 5 inch straight heeled Pigalles (Christian Louboutin) off and shows them to the camera on my Sky+ box but don't know how to get it off and onto a PC.

Recently she's broken her toe and taken to wearing flats. Yeuk. With legs like that it's such a shame.

I found this picture of Christine holding her shoe:http://img164.imagevenue.com/view.php?image=94560_snapshot20080212050654_122_675lo.jpg

and also the relevant video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol_D7F-fNcE&feature=related

I was away when she announced her broken toe and initially horrified to see her in flatties - but she seems to be back to heels again now! And I agree that she should 'get out more' from behind that table - or swap places with Benny Hill (er - I mean Adrian!)

The thread started by Thighboots2 at http://www.hhplace.org/discuss/everybody/9299-latest_purchases.html#post143612 gave me much food for thought, and not a little encouragement to be a little adventurous. More specifically, Tb2 was kind enough to go on to give me some info and advice on men’s Cuban-heeled boots, which was very helpful. As I was ‘cautiously interested’ in getting a pair of these boots, I did some further research before going ahead and I can now report the outcome.

By way of background, I am just 59 (but told I look younger), 6’ 1.5” and fairly slim build (185lbs). I normally take a UK11 shoe and my feet are slightly wide across the joints (but no bunions yet!). I have found that pointed toes are not a problem; my feet are in fact a little pointed to suit! I am primarily an admirer of high heels on women but certainly not adverse to them on men and would like to ‘participate’ a little more actively. Discretion is necessary as my wife is by no means sympathetic to my interests (such as she knows of them) nor herself an enthusiast – more on that difficult subject another time, perhaps.

Some Google and eBay searches in mid-January revealed several sources of male Cuban-heeled boots. Most were very reminiscent of the ‘Beatle boots’, popular in the early 60s and still favoured by musicians and others adhering to the styles of that era. I never owned any then but I did wear the contemporary pointed shoes and boots that are again now in fashion (I hope!). Here is summary:

• The Underground make seems the most common; I think that is what TB2 has. The somewhat tapered (cowboy?) heel is more obvious than the blockier Cuban heel more often found on a man’s shoe/boot, but is neat and not indiscreet. The Underground list price (UM04 leather or suede, elastic sides) is £69.90, exc delivery. Underground told me of 3 stockists in Camden and I went there in January but the info was not fully accurate. Only one shop (Darkside, 245 High Street) seemed to stock the boots (£69.99) and I tried on a pair of size 12 in black suede with a zip rather than elastic sides. They seemed OK (and I liked the zip) but I wasn’t sure if the suede was what I really wanted, so I left them.
• On the web, I then found the Underground boots elsewhere (but only with elastic sides); the best price was at Cloggs in Birmingham: £59.95 inc delivery – but no 12 black then in stock! The boots shown by Pennangalan look identical and were £68.40 inc delivery; ditto those from Rubba-Sole (£63.00 exc delivery).
• I’m not sure whether the suede elastic-sided boots from Adaptor (£64.99 exc delivery) are also from Underground as the pic on eBay is not too clear.
• London Boot shows what looks to be a slightly different elastic sided boot (lower heel?) at £59.99 exc delivery.
• Rubba-Sole also lists a zip-sided boot with a centre seam (very nice 60s style, I think) at £69.75 exc delivery; here again, the heel looks a little lower.
• There is also a range of several boots from Beatwear in Liverpool but these are significantly dearer; see below.

I then happened to find on eBay a shop in Darlington selling an odd pair of the Underground zipped UM05 in black leather in size 11 – picture below. They were on offer at a reduced price of £39.99 (exc delivery) because they were ex-display and one boot had a crease in the upper, which is exactly what one will get as soon as they are being worn! I contacted the seller who said that the size should not be a problem and I decided to buy them; they arrived promptly.

The boots are good looking and seem well made; the crease is entirely irrelevant. The heel is exactly 2.5” – a little lower than the 7cm suggested by Tb2, which is interesting. They did fit me but were a little stiff and tight, especially as the toes are not so elongated as on the more modern pointed styles (where I usually find an 11 to be a generous fit). However, I carried out some gentle stretching, using iso propyl alcohol/water mixture rubbed well in with the boots packed overnight with newspaper, then wetted again and worn ‘wet’ for a couple of hours with a polythene bags over thickish socks. This made them a good if snug fit, and they eased a little more with further wear. I should, however, have gone for a 12!

I ventured out in the new boots and fairly narrow jeans for a bit of supermarket shopping; I went by car and walked across the car park in light rain before going round the shop and then round the adjoining Homebase store. I had never before gone out in heels higher than the lowish (1.75”) semi-Cubans on another pair of boots and I was a little apprehensive. Well, the earth didn’t swallow me up, the boots were comfortable enough (when one got used to the smaller heel base) and no-one called me names! So, suitably encouraged, I determined to wear them again, and did so for local shopping trips. A business trip to Liverpool then gave me a good opportunity to wear them for a couple of full evenings, with much walking around and a sit-down meal. It was very appropriate to be in Beatle boots in that rapidly changing and friendly city, especially when sightseeing around the erstwhile Cavern Club. I visited the nearby Beatwear shop and inspected the boots there; they are expensive (£110+) but seem very well made; they have a fairly slim straight Cuban heel but the highest is only 2”.

I then decided to reveal the boots to my wife as I really didn’t want to keep them hidden away. I already had some chisel-pointed boots (which she quite liked) and my other semi-Cubans and had told her, quite truthfully, that the lower back and leg pain I was still suffering (following a bout of sciatica) was eased when I wore shoes with heels higher than the conventional 1 – 1.5”, and medical opinion agreed. I showed her the new boots and told her they were comfortable and, whilst she didn’t pretend to like them, agreed that they were an acceptable rather than fetish style for men. I then wore them during a day out with her and her only remark when I told her that they helped my back was to suggest that I didn’t seem to be walking too comfortably. (She was right in that my gait was a little different, but I didn’t feel awkward, physically or emotionally.)

So, there things stand, in more ways than one I don’t know whether I shall go ‘onwards and upwards’ in anything more daring, much as I might like to in principle. I really cannot see any objection to a high ankle boot with a slim (stiletto, even) 3 – 4” heel, ideally in a fairly plain style – and I would prefer a pointed toe but that is a matter of individual choice. Worn under jeans with the heel mostly hidden is one option – not a look I like on women (why hide one’s high heels?) but with the advantage of discretion to a shyer male. After that, who knows …!

I did not state above that I found SJP (or her butt) of particular interest or attraction. What I did address was the concept contained in the last sentence: 'For any man, the thought of spending every spare moment traipsing after even the pertest butt buying shoes is about as sexy as a cold shower.'

Perhaps another posting I made this morning (#12 in http://www.hhplace.org/discuss/everybody/10493-own_up_time_ladies-2.html#post158933) has proved appropriate if not providential.

According to the UK 'Daily Mail' (29 March):

'Sex and the City' star Sarah Jessica Parker is perplexed at being voted the unsexiest woman in the world by a men's magazine. But the reason is obvious. It's not the sexual smugness as she's teetered around in her Manolo Blahniks for the past decade, it's the Manolo Blahniks - an entire warehouse full of them. She boasts an Imelda Marcos-style collection of 1,000 pairs of designer shoes. For any man, the thought of spending every spare moment traipsing after even the pertest butt buying shoes is about as sexy as a cold shower.

I don't think I'll start a poll on this; I suspect that the final sentence describes our ideal pastime, pert butts (SJP's or otherwise) optional. (And I once knew a masochist who loved cold showers - so he always took hot ones.)

‘The ONE Show’ each evening at 7pm on BBC1 is co-presented by Christine Bleakley, a very pretty, friendly brunette with a dazzling smile and who manages to make the often-harsh Ulster accent sound sexy. More to the point, she wears some very nice outfits and is usually in stilettos; her shapely legs and shoes frequently being on show. A few samples at:

http://img142.imagevenue.com/view.php?image=96346_christineb100108011_122_999lo.JPG

http://img201.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=32381_MEI_UDF-4108_122_588lo.JPG

http://img159.imagevenue.com/view.php?image=79119_MEI_UDF-3350_122_904lo.JPG

http://img171.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=43949_christineb051207014_122_1105lo.JPG

The same topic was dealt with a little more thoroughly in the Daily Mail on 4 Feb. You can read it (and readers' predictable responses) at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=512065&in_page_id=1879

It is entirely possible that a person could (and would) be sued for damaging flooring with their high heels. After all, there is an element of "responsibility" for exercising good judgement "at all times" when interacting with the general public. Another point to ponder!

Sued, yes, quite possibly (especially in a litigious environment such as the US!). But obtaining judgment and anything more than nominal damages is another matter. If the owner/occupier of premises with 'sensitive' flooring wishes to avoid it being damaged, it is up to him to remove that possibility by excluding heel-wearing (or other damaging activity), usually by displaying a specific prohibition notice. If there is no ban and someone has an invitation (licence) to enter the premises (either implied, where they are open to the general public, or express, as with a private house) and does so, he or she owes only a modest duty of care to the owner regarding the premises and contents generally. The invitee who then causes damage would only be in real danger of being sued if his or her behaviour was markedly careless or otherwise unreasonable or reckless.

So, if high heels are a generally accepted item of dress (as they are, at least for women) and have not been banned from particular premises by a notice, then their known propensity to cause damage is impliedly accepted by the owner/occupier. So, any damage caused by such an invitee heel-wearer behaving reasonably can scarcely be the subject of a lawsuit. But stamping up and down on the carpet or deliberately scratching a parquet floor, for example, is unreasonable and probably actionable in negligence or nuisance.

I do wonder what the position might be in, for example, a 'gentlemen's club' (where entry is forbidden to women) and a stiletto-clad man walked in and damaged a floor. If there was no prohibition notice and he was in principle an invitee, would it be unreasonable of him to walk on the floor when he knew or should have known of at least a possibility of damage resulting? (There are 25 marks for answering this question.)

No, I'm not a lawyer (although much of my work is involved with legal issues) so I don't suggest the above is a totally definitive analysis - but that is my view of the situation, at least under English law.

Hi Puffer,

Don't worry about what you may feel is acceptable for men as it depends on the whole outfit. You can't easily just stick high heels on a man who is just wearing drab mens clothes and expect it to look good. This forum ought to be more concerned with our looks from the ankles up if we want to wear higher heels.

PS. Pumps are superb. I have loads !

You make a good point, mikeheel, although many posters on this board demonstrate that they can look good in heels with little or no alteration to their normal male attire, drab or otherwise.

However, my point was that I would not feel able to wear 'proper' heels in public unless and until they became generally accepted as a male fashion. A cowardly cop out, maybe, but that is the reality, for me and many other men. I can still admire and imagine, though!

On a woman, my choice would be either (a) a slingback court (pump) with a pointed toe, preferably with open sides and no ankle strap; or ( a sandal in much the same style but fully open at the toe. In both cases, with a 'proper' stiletto heel (slender, curvy and not set too far back), 4.5 - 5.5" high, depending upon the wearer and occasion. If I was in heels (i.e. I could physically wear them and they were acceptable fashion for men), I would favour a fairly plain high ankle boot with side zip, pointed toe and 4.5 - 5" stiletto heel. In other words, something that takes an accepted male boot style into (literally) higher realms. A boot (or loafer) will always be 'original male equipment' whereas a normal pump/court appears essentially female regardless of its heel.

I just really find it difficult to wear earrings and heels to work. That said last friday I did wear the first shoes at work and am wearing them again today. As I do have a lower back problem which is releived by wearing heels, I guess that is a valid reason. Wore the normal boring mens shoes to work and changed when I arrived. I must admit that I did chicken out for the two meetings I went to and changed back, althouth the journeys to the bathroom and tea bar were quite interesting.

Of the two pairs shown both are from Evans, the first is leather with a 2.75 inch heel whilst the others are PU with a 4 inch heel.

I bought a pair of the first shoes, hoping to wear them outside; the discreet masculine loafer style is ideal. I too have a lower back problem which I hoped they would relieve. Unfortunately, the shoes (UK10 wide and true to size) are too small for me, despite a careful attempt at stretching. I shall have to sell them unused, reluctantly, and maybe someone here would like them. If so, please PM me.

The comments above about high heel memories from early schooldays etc ring very true with me, too. Without too much effort, I can recall with great clarity probably a dozen or so 'sightings' up to the age of about 11 which I shall never forget for their impact. They did not involve extreme heels, beautiful women or anything else of an ultra-glam, five-star nature (and I was far too young to understand what sexiness was!) but clearly the combination of shoe, wearer and situation made them special to me and no doubt added to the cumultative if subconscious interest developed in my most formative years. And then of course there were the later sightings and experiences, in my teens and beyond ...

I suppose that I shall realise that I am getting really old (or dead) when those early memories can no longer be dredged up and savoured. Not a bad test of still being compos mentis, I'm sure!

I wear 5" heels every day, but I'm a size 6 (U.S. sizes). This is as high a heel as permitted in the work place (dress code) ...

I've only just seen your posting, hhbarb, and am intrigued by the fact that you have a work dress code that is so specific (and seemingly quite generous) in its reference to heels. It seems more usual for such codes to be much more restrictive, even when there is no obvious safety issue.

So we can put your employer's rules into perspective:

1. Can you tell us what type of business you work in and what your particular job is?

2. What exactly are the dress code references to footwear, male and female?

3. Do you (or any of your colleagues) experience comment or criticism about your choice of shoes - or is it just a non-issue?

(One of my reasons for asking the above is that, in my own workplace years ago, new rules about 'unsuitable shoes' were actually welcomed by the (regrettably) few ladies who normally wore very high heels as they no longer had to compete in terms of height etc and, if they were honest, preferred the greater comfort of lower heels, at least during office hours. I never did quite work out their logic but I suppose it is like having school uniform - a social leveller and simplifying choice.)

Puffer, Lighten up!

Touché, Boot Guy - as you appear to be treating my last remark very seriously!

I think you're nit-picking here.

Well, jmc, if you think that my comment about using an entirely wrong word is 'nit-picking', then so be it. (If, for example, a piece of writing suggested that an 'inventory' was a place where things were invented, rather than a list, would it be wrong to point this out?)

I made no criticism of the story, nor do I have one, and understood (plu)perfectly well what the author was trying to say. And if the original author was not Maverick, then I cannot criticise him personally, but my correction stands. You do not need to defend that which I did not attack!

Look up 'pluperfect' Doc - it does not mean sublime, exquisite, more than perfect or some similar expression of superior quality - which is what Maverick clearly tried to express, colourfully but incorrectly.

Just because someone is disabled doesn't mean that they cannot enjoy heels the same as anyone else.

If you are commenting on my posting just above, Dr Shoe, then I agree with you of course. I was merely trying to ascertain whether this lady had a liking for heels independent of her disability and, if so, whether she had commented on it to raincat. I think that, on meeting someone who declared that heels were worn constantly, any of us would tend to ask about the background, e.g. for style, comfort (!), wish to be taller etc, and when such regular heel wearing started. Maybe raincat did ask, maybe not - but I guess he, you and I are all at least curious.

And a happy Christmas to you too, Heelfan (and everyone else) - and I'm sorry to hear of the demise of your Peachy business.

So, Maverick: 'With pluperfect posture she walks the length of a long platform ...'

Does she indeed? I'm all for some colourful language (even from an Aussie!) but you've rather spoiled the effect you were trying to achieve as 'pluperfect' denotes that her action happened before some other past action mentioned. So, her posture as admired by you was that preceding her walk, was it?

No - I'm not a retired professor of English, just a pedantic bystander!

What puzzles me, raincat, is whether this lady had a special reason for wearing very high heels 'in every waking moment of every day'. Did she say (or did you ask) why she liked and wore them constantly? Did her liking for them pre-date her accident? I can only assume that her reasons were primarily aesthetic rather than practical, given her disability - or was there in fact some link with her paralysis or use of crutches? That said, I suppose that, with crutches for support, she might have found very high heels easier to wear and 'walk' in than a woman without a disability.

Hi Puffer,

Wellmine are certainly a 7 cm heel. But the website has changed. Worth a quick email. They do respond quickly. I would order a 12 as they are tight. Expect to struggle with the elasticated sides for the first few wears as they are very strong to hug the leg. no heel noise whatsoever just the slap of the sole as you walk.

TB2

Thanks, TB2, that's helpful. I was going by what's on the website today when I asked my questions but, as you suggest, I ought to contact the supplier direct. When you say 'tight', do you mean for width or length - it isn't very obvious from pic how narrow or pointed the boots are and whether that is the critical factor. I am a little doubtful that a 12 will be roomy enough.

Puffer

Sorry, my grandmother wore those years ago, and they always remind me of grandmother shoes.

Yes indeed, and to my mind they are ugly and unfeminine, regardless of the heel shape or height - but I accept that 'unfeminine' high heels are exactly what some men wish to wear. (I don't like men's Oxford styles either as they remind me too much of stuffy businessmen or school uniform requirements.)

This style was once very popular for normal everyday wear by UK women of all ages as it was sturdy, practical, presumably comfortable and with enough of a heel just to look stylish. But, by the late 50s, it was rarely worn by anyone under the age of 60 unless with a uniform or similar, e.g. by hospital matrons. (Oh for the days when nurses still wore black stockings, starched caps, capes etc and looked totally professional as well as smart!)

I recall that Quentin Crisp wore this style of shoe as it was about all that he could buy in the 40s or 50s that had a heel yet was superficially masculine enough to avoid too much adverse comment.

It's OK, I edited it for you!

Would you like me to correct your puctuation and grammar too?

(Runs off to hide!)

... while I attend to your attroshus speling?

Before I respond, blestat, can I point out that although your definition of an ‘elevated heel’ is OK for your survey purposes, it does include the intentionally male shoe/boot with a modest Cuban or cowboy heel (of say 2” or so) which most people would not regard as indicating a wish to dress in a feminine manner, in public or otherwise. That wide definition is likely to affect any interpretation of answers to several of the questions.

In particular, Q4 rather suggests that any elevated shoe is something 'socially determined to be ladies wear' because you refer there to ‘other items’ of that kind. I feel that Q4 would have better read: ‘Men, do you wear in public any item of clothing apart from shoes that is 'socially determined to be ladies wear'? a) Yes always. Yes sometimes. c) No. (And you might then have usefully added a further question to establish whether such ladies wear is always/sometimes/never worn in conjunction with elevated shoes.)

I hope you find that comment useful – or at least that you realise the possible limitations of the information given in answer to your existing questions.

Now to respond:

1. Yes (both male and female styles)

2. Yes (male styles only to date)

3. No real pattern but perhaps 10 -12 times a year

4. ©

5. (a) when wearing male styles; © as far as I know when wearing female styles in private

6. Unacceptability; wife has prejudices

7. ( to date

8. N/a

9. N/a

10. N/a

11. (

12. (

13. (a) (and has already done so with essentially male styles)

14. (a)

15. 58; England

I notice that tey are being worn a lot more in the clubs... in fact I'm seriously starting my own club night called "Heelz" where you can't get in without heels on...

... or if you can spell!

What do I think? A little too high for wearing out and about - 5+ in. would be better and also looks good. Don't care for the "peep toe" - better to show off pretty toes if you have them.

I thought all mules were peep toe? i dont commonly see a closed toe mule. But again, I like the height and the arch.

I think there is some confusion here, equally applicable to discussion of other types of shoes and sandals. Mules with closed toes do of course exist, with or without high heels. But this thread is dealing with the common open-toed mule, as the first posting shows. I think BobHH is commenting on (and disliking) those mules that have a small front opening that exposes less than most or all the toes - he calls it a 'peep toe' but that is really a very small opening (whether on a shoe, sandal or mule) showing little or nothing more than the big toe. Many mules show most or all of the toes and he prefers that style, as indeed do I.

Perhaps posters should consider the distinction between a true peep toe, a more open toe and a closed toe when describing shoes in general. But it ain't easy to categorise something like a shoe (or sandal!) with a perforated side or top that is neither a fully enclosed toe nor open enough to show anything of the toe tips/nails. I have never seen a fully comprehensive definition of a sandal; suppliers seem content to call something with both an open toe and an open heel either a shoe or a sandal as the fancy takes them. As always, a picture is worth a thousand words!