Puffer

8 hours ago, Shyheels said:

About whom was the discussion of dementia directed?

Neither of them will remember!  😁

I quite like the look of leather or faux leather trousers, although I don't own any.   But I think that a man so clad could attract quite a lot of adverse attention from many people - more perhaps than if he was wearing obvious high heels.   They have a certain 'reputation' in the UK, unless worn by e.g. young (or once-young, now faded) pop singers and the like.   A shame, however; leather can look very smart.

Shyheels is right to question whether the 'regularly on TV' heel-wearers would keep them on when not on camera, but that is a separate issue and ripe for debate if not research, ideally supported by observation.   

The question posed by Heelsfor30 was whether 'heels appear to be dead and the frumpy look has taken over'.   The image that TV presenters (or their producers) wish to project seems clearly to be that heels are not dead, and I doubt that the heels are being worn to demonstrate an intentionally different or eccentric lifestyle.

I did not suggest or mean to imply that trousers are incompatible with heels, which is clearly not the case.   I was merely observing that, even in formal or semi-formal situations (such as a TV appearance by invitation), women seem to be in trousers more often than in dresses or skirts, regardless of footwear.   Whether for fashion, comfort or simply personal choice is open to question but the trouser preference does dilute yet another traditional, accepted and arguably attractive characteristic of the female of the species - and is sometimes bordering on the frumpy.    

6 hours ago, Heelsfor30 said:

I really want to keep this thread going because I’d like to hear from others as well. Like I said I hope I’m wrong but heels appear to be dead and the frumpy look has taken over. 

But, here on UK TV, it seems to be the rule (unwritten or otherwise) for the great majority of female presenters - including those delivering the news, weather etc - to wear heels.   Their typical footwear would be a 4" stiletto court (pump), but equivalent sandals and boots are often seen too.   I realise that such occupations are not wholly representative of the entire population, although by no means all of them are doing the 'glamour' jobs on TV either.    What is equally (and depressingly) apparent is that 'ordinary' women appearing on TV (e.g. being interviewed in the studio or as contestants in a quiz show) seem rarely to wear heels of any significance, and are as likely to be in trousers as in a skirt or dress.   Few make any obvious effort to 'dress up' for what is generally a special and very public occasion.

16 hours ago, Cali said:

You could use

Mlroseplant's Heels Explosed - Viewer advised.

6 hours ago, Bubba136 said:

How about:  “Tails about Shoes of a Shoealcholic” :-;

Spellings??

How about 'Upon my sole', or 'The height of fashion'.

19 hours ago, Cali said:

I had an encounter with a woman in combat boots this week. ...

 

I had to read beyond this at least twice before I could determine who was wearing the combat boots.   I did wonder if you had taken to kicking hapless females ...

As a latecomer to this thread, I have read the varied comments with interest.   Obviously, there are differences of opinion, clearly influenced by personal experience, age and background.   I can't add a great deal to the debate but I do suggest that the two most prominent watershed markers in 'high heel history' are (i) the popularity of the (high) stiletto heel c1960; (ii) the preference for comfort and female independence/identity in recent years - say from c2015.

As I well recall from its halcyon years, the stiletto heel was very widely recognised as new, sexy, elegant, daring and (above all) 'feminine', in an era when women were still expected to conform and look the part.   They soon realised that stiletto heels, in particular, allowed them to adopt a look which was not only conforming (in that they became part of a common 'uniform', along with stockings, pencil skirts etc) but also thoroughly smart and feminine.   In other words, their look was not only to their liking but also appealing to most men.   Comfort and practicality were seen as secondary considerations and stiletto heels were often worn for unsuitable activity during work or leisure, because the prevailing fashion was paramount.  

In recent years, the growing recognition, by women in particular, that they do not need to conform - especially to men's expectations and desires - has understandably led them to question their fashion choices, with 'difficult' footwear often eschewed completely.   They no longer need to wear a uniform in most situations, and certainly not one that is primarily dictated by male desire or conventional societal expectation, especially if it hampers their freedom and comfort.    Alas, the movement has (along with so much else that is classed as unacceptable for one reason or another) come under the scrutiny of the 'woke police', to the extent that it is often viewed as totally unacceptable rather than merely a matter for personal choice.

I have little doubt that, as with most trends and fashions, high heels will never totally disappear and will indeed come back into vogue for a lasting period, before again melting away for a spell.   Perversely, the blurring of male/female fashion boundaries, and the growing acceptablity of 'men in heels', will do heel-admirers few favours, as women will no longer have the edge when it comes to being different, if not unique.   Unless of course women will seek to compete with men and wear higher heels etc than men do!   We can but hope.

Does CL actually call these 'boots'?   Given their overall (and unusual) style, I would call them slingback court/pump shoes.

Interesting, enlightening and inspiring, Bubba136; thank you.   

My eldest stepson is an RAF pilot, flying the biggest cargo planes (as often seen in the news in relief operations around the world).   At an early stage in his training on fighters, a potential heart condition was diagnosed and he was grounded for a time, during which he was the innocent victim of a motor accident and broke his back, although he did recover.   In his usual dogged and persistent way, he persuaded the RAF to let him fly again, although prohibited from single-manned aircraft.   As far as I know, he has no interest in high heels - but his wife is a fan, and only yesterday was joking with me about me wearing her stilettos (which I was admiring) for a night out!   If only she knew (and had much bigger feet) ...!

21 hours ago, Bubba136 said:

...

I have been a member here for a long time and have posted a lot about myself in the past.  Answers to your questions are there.  Just scroll back through my comments.

I am well aware of your antiquity but, as you have posted so rarely in recent times, and many here would not be familiar with your history, it seemed reasonable to ask for a catch-up, given your heel-wearing resume.   And a wish to keep the board alive and maybe interest newbies.   As a learned judge once remarked: 'Information and means of information are not the same thing.'.  🙂

3 hours ago, NrthEastHeel said:

Im 5'4". I am blessed for shoes size in heels and boots.

Does your height (or lack of it!) encourage you to wear heels?   And do you wear them openly in public, in male mode or otherwise?

I can see the attraction - comfort with a lift.   I agree with Shyheels that they are scarcely 'platforms' but essentially a clog with the expected thickness of wooden sole.   Come to think of it, they could be described as clogs, sandals, mules or slides - according to one's prejudices!

Bubba136:   Are you saying that you dress (or used to dress) for your various public activities in a combination of male clothing and high stiletto heels?   Or were you complementing the footwear with other femine clothing etc?   What was/is the reaction from workmates, family etc?

Very nice boots, NEH.   In relation to having a wide range of footwear to choose from, your small feet will be a blessing.   I'm assuming that the rest of you is in proportion! 😆

10 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

My point is that the usual footwear with very formal dresses is sandals, not pumps. The irony of this is that extreme formal situations (white or black tie events) always call for a floor length gown, and therefore who cares what you've got on your feet? Nobody can see your feet.

...

Thanks for the clarification, but it was your earlier assertion that 'you never see single sole pumps' that surprised me.   A strong word is 'never', and I don't accept it (or even your alternative of 'usual') as true here.   Look at pics of formal functions (particularly those involving celebrities) and, where the footwear is visible, you will indeed see many women wearing sandals, almost always barefoot.   But not all will be so shod; courts/pumps (with or without open toes) and even boots can be seen, not to speak of any of these styles also having a platform.   

Although women have often worn sandals with some form of 'evening dress' or other formal outfit for a century or so, sandals, especially if of a fully-open nature and worn barefoot, were until around 50 years ago considered by many in Western society as too casual and informal for most truly formal functions.   A noteworthy example of changing times, with the arguably ultra-casual item of apparel now being the common preference for the ultra-formal activity - and which may perhaps be contrasted with the inexplicable desire of many young women to don heavy 'work boots' to complement a floaty dress for casual activity on a hot summer's day.   I applaud the first scenario as much as I deprecate the second!

12 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

... Oddly enough, at the extreme dressy end of the (usually) female spectrum, you never see single sole pumps, do you?

Not sure I understand your point here.   What footwear are you suggesting that a woman would wear in 'extreme dressy' mode?   Single sole pumps or sandals (usually with highish stiletto heels) seem to be current/recent favourites, surely? 

I think, upon reflection, that we have failed somewhat in these comments to distinguish 'casual activity' from 'casual dress'.   They ought to correspond (within sensible limits), but often don't - especially with the growing trend of people wearing casual (and sometimes sloppy) outfits for activity of a formal or semi-formal nature.   We can all think of examples, and not just the torn jeans and flip-flops at the dinner party.   

The trend to dress 'up' in a casual setting, if at all, is alas becoming rarer.   This is one reason why I don't go out so much these days (to socialise or otherwise) as there is no longer either any encouragement or much incentive to 'make an effort' after a day spent in 'retirement casual wear' - especially as my wife is reluctant to bother to look 'different', even though she would have good reason, or excuse, to explore her wardrobe.

On 10/27/2023 at 10:53 AM, mlroseplant said:

For once, you have me stumped. You must be using a different definition of "casual" from what I intended, and I can't figure out what definition that might be. What I meant by "casual" is that which is worn in non-formal situations in one's leisure time. To be sure, the popular definition of "formal" has shifted a lot during my lifetime, but I am talking about situations like grocery shopping or sightseeing, where one is highly unlikely to be wearing a jacket and a tie (or some floor length, flowing dress). The platforms go better with the casual look than with more formal, dressier looks.

I too find it hard to reconcile these concepts.   Yes, casual = non-formal, which surely implies some simplicity and utilitarianism in style and look, with minimal embellishment?   Since when has a shoe or boot with an intentionally built-up platform sole (as distinct from a cleated sole for grip) been other than embellished for effect rather than need?   (One might thus argue that any 'high heel' cannot be casual, but a modest cuban/block/wedge heel at least could be considered as an integral part of many otherwise plain/casual shoe styles.)   If I saw someone in high(ish) platform shoes - or indeed modest single-sole stilettos - out shopping for groceries, I would hesitate to call their dress 'casual', even if the activity is clearly both 'casual' and 'informal'.    That all said, I can accept that concepts have changed over the years.   In the early 1960s, a woman would be as likely to wear a pair of mid-heeled stilettos as she would a pair of slip-on flats for almost any informal activity, but nowadays the heels (with or without a platform) would (alas) be mostly kept for what little remains of formal/dressy activity.

11 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

... For dressier occasions the single sole pump looks, well, just better somehow. The platform looks more casual, which is fine, because I happen to wear heels in casual situations.

I agree that a plain(ish) single-sole stiletto court/pump with a pointed toe is the classic 'dressy' shoe for most occasions - simple but effective.   But I find it hard to equate a platform shoe with a 'more casual' look; its intentionally heavier/chunkier appearance suggests the opposite, surely?   And even more so the increasingly common 'work boot' styles with thick cleated soles and bulbous toes - casual only in the sense of being the opposite of elegant.   It seems to me that truly casual footwear has to be something like a ballet flat, a canvas plimsoll (sneaker) or a rubber flip-flop.   

Interesting to compare the Bellafina and Klory shoes, with a similar rise.   The look of the Bellafina, with its platform, heel shape and rounded toe is simply not in the same league as the Klory, imho.   The Bellafina simply lacks (in one word) 'elegance' and, if it was a human, I might struggle to give it the right pronoun!   

21 hours ago, Cali said:

I had a pair of older heels brake when I got out of the car at work two weeks ago.  I had to wear my running shoes.  I got so many questions of "are you all right?" "Why no heels?". It like I am expected to be in heels.

If the car was still moving when you alighted, I imagine your older shoes did have to brake.   Have the running shoes got brakes too - 'brake shoes'?   

On 9/26/2023 at 10:58 AM, mlroseplant said:

This week's church outfit is almost a repeat from about two months ago, but it's not an exact repeat--the shirt is different. I wanted to wear my red patent Via Spiga sandals again, and these red items of other clothing were readily available.

...

12 hours ago, ohnoberty said:

Apart from good story, I cannot applaud you enough on your strength and conviction in being able to be this open and direct. I wish I had this level of convistion too. 👏

I can't recall you ever commenting specifically on the reaction you get, or have had, from your church congregation (whom I assume are nearly all 'regulars') to your 'unconventional' footwear.   I'm sure they are (almost) all decent and polite people and probably would not be critical or worse, at least to your face, and of course they are by now well-used to seeing you thus shod.   But surely there were some raised eyebrows and questions, at least 'in the beginning' (as the good book puts it)?

7 hours ago, Jkrenzer said:

Protection js protection, PVC is PVC so just use whatever as long as you mark the pipe so the next guy knows what you did.

Most U.S. states require a "certified" electrician to do all work. Melrose does high end jobs but most house wiring is super simple. It's the old, bull shit, union rules that got legislated in that you need to be aware of. I have rewired multiple homes (not 100% just sections), as long as it isn't overly obvious most home inspectors will never know the difference. Most of those guys are failed contractors who weaseled there way into a well paying position requiring no actual output.

The English situation (since 2005) is that most domestic electrical work is supposed to be carried out by a qualified electrician, who will then notify the local authority of its satisfactory completion for recording under Part P of the Building Regulations.   There are a number of exceptions, e.g. like-for-like replacement of defective fittings and simple extensions of an existing circuit, which do not require 'professional' action or notification.   But e.g. adding a new circuit or replacing a consumer unit ('fuseboard') are notifiable.   In practice, much can be done without a 'professional' as detection is unlikely, and will only then possibly cause a problem - assuming it has not been carried out dangerously! - upon formal inspection at the time of a property sale.   And anything started before 2005 can be finished ...   (Some houseowners are slow workers!).

I rebuilt a derelict property over four years and did all the electrical work myself, other than the initial connection of the consumer unit to the incoming mains, which requires a sealed fuse to be tampered with.   As the entire property refurbishment was subject to Building Regulations, I had to get the electrics signed-off and some electricians are authorised to do 'third party' inspections and certifications.   I found one and he did the necessary and was complimentary about my standard of work and adherence to the (progressively more stringent) regulations.

My earlier comments were relating to essentially UK domestic applications.   As at9 says, larger conduit is available and there is a wide range of trunking (mostly square/rectangular) available.

The uPVC electrical conduit can be bent, using a bending machine or an internal spring (as with copper plumbing pipe) but is more often solvent-joined with elbows, although larger radious pre-formed bends are available.   The galvanised steel conduit that is widely used in more challenging locations is certainly formed or bent using heavier equipment, and of course screwed likewise.

Although, in domestic situations at least, ordinary insulated and sheathed cable can be run outside (say to supply a shed/garage) in uPVC or metal trunking - fixed above ground in a suitably protected location - it is preferable to use an SWA (stranded wire armoured) cable, with suitable glands each end; the cable is often buried.   The steel wire armouring can be used as the earth (ground), so avoiding need of a third copper conductor.   I assume similar in the US.

Yes, 'solvent weld' is the usual term here for the process to join uPVC and/or ABS pipework (including electrical conduit, which comes in 20mm and 25mm o/d sizes).   As you say, the smell is quite distinctive - and potentially addictive - and the solvent should be used with care as it has some anaesthetic qualities, as do most chlorinated organic solvents such as chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene etc that are widely used for cleaning/degreasing as well as being common plastic solvents.

I can't see too clearly from your pics but I'm guessing that the threaded plastic parts are the unscrewable elements of the trap and what appears to be an air admittance valve.   Threads in uPVC components can give trouble if they are mot put together squarely (i.e. crossthreaded) and thereby get damaged or stripped.