Guy N. Heels

It would be cheaper and a lot safer to buy boots that already have the type of heel you're looking for. Many shoes and boots have unit bottoms so that changing the heel compromises the structural integrity of the footwear.

Those boots look like they have the "unit bottoms" mentioned earlier. This means the platform and the heel are all one piece, connected together with a curved shank. The uppers are stitched together and then fastened to this unit bottom to make the whole boot. Replacing this type of heel is not practical because removing the "unit bottom" would effectively destroy the boot.

As "onyourtoes" suggested, it might be possible to build up a more substantial heel around the existing stiletto using the epoxy resin he mentioned. Autobody filler such as "Bondo" might work here too.

I think unless you are willing to risk destroying those boots, you probably should leave them as is. As many have said, especially since those seem to be a solid one piece platform and heel, and since they are clear plastic on top of that, your options would be very limited. The epoxy resin sounds somewhat doable, but very risky to have you end up with a disastrous result unless you know exactly what you are doing.

As stated above, the problems associated with this kind of modification are so great as to make the job impractical if not impossible. Personally, I wouldn't touch this one with a barge pole. You will be far and away better off to purchase the kind of shoes (or boots) in the style that you actually prefer than to try and modify what you have.

It never ceases to amaze me. At least as often as not, our worst demons are those of our own making. Far better to be honest and up-front than to harbor those deep-seated doubts and questions. After all, what's the worst that could happen? On the other hand, you just might find that yer S.O. actually agrees with you! So now what?

Au contraire. To the best of my knowledge, all Christian churches recognize 1] Adultery and 2] Fraud (misrepresentation) as legitimate grounds for divorce. Many churches also recognize abandonment or desertion as another legitimate basis for divorce (but proving who is the responsible party in a church court may prove to be a very sticky business). If a person is divorced on legitimate grounds that the church recognizes, then the injured party has the right to re-marry.

Therefore, following this same line of reasoning, I can find no legitimate grounds for anything that we would call a "same-sex marriage".

No no. The Catholic church doesn't recognozie divorce.

Its position is that if there is misrepresentation when the ceremony took place, the

marriage isn't valid. Hence there never was a marriage. This is completely different.

Example: if for instance one of the parties knows in advance that he/she cannot

get children and withholds this information from the other party, the marriage isn't

valid.

Then in the middle ages they made a few rather weird constructions (non-consumption)

to get out of a marriage (for much money), again by declaring the original marriage

invalid. I don't think these are still used.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean with your last sentence. The church does

in the church things according to what the church preaches. In our current society

that is in no way connected to what ever legal contract the state allows between

individuals. The state is not to take the role of the church and the church is not

to take the role of the state. If it would, you might be forced to become catholic,

presbiterian muslim budist or hindoe when the majority in the country would

decide so. Not an idea I like.

Y.

In our post-modern societies the concept of a Church Court may seem like an anacranisim. However, both the idea and the term are perfectly valid, as there was a recent reference to some matter that came up about a bishop or an elder in some church somewhere (I forget the particular denomination) and the newspaper reported that the concerned party would have to face trial in a Church Court (civil laws do not apply in this case). Moreover, I happen to own a copy of the Book of Discipline for the United Methodist Church where we also find the term Church Court. The term, as I advanced it, is valid!

While I have not consulted the Catholic Encyclopaedia, and neither have I spoken to my brother, who married Catholic; I have now contacted an on-line informational site that explains the view of the Catholic Church on divorce in greater detail. At Ask.com the Catholic Church apparently takes the view that there is no biblical basis for a properly consummated marriage and, therefore, they hew to the Church teachings going back to 1651 that defines the basis for marriage. Unfortunately, while Christ did give the specific illustration of adultery (the Church seems to prefer the term infidelity), they do not address this specific issue at all; which leaves the matter somewhat open-ended in my mind. However, the teaching is clear that a person who has obtained a divorce in whatever venue will NOT be permitted to participate in the sacraments of the Chuch.

Therefore, I must now modify my previous response to read: that for all those non-Catholic church-goers seeking a divorce through their church, I have no idea if the charge of adultery would have to be tried in a Church Court before a divorce would be granted by whichever church official that would be appropriate. Once again, the matter of the burden of proof still might require some doing.

What I was trying to state in my last sentence is: Under all of the known biblical laws, precepts, and judgements that men have lived by for thousands of years, and which do allow for matters like divorce; I can find no idea, notion, precept, law, judgement or instruction in the Bible that would in any way apply to a "same sex union". Therefore, unless one wants to turn to the pages of the Bible wherein the word "ABOMINATION" is attributed directly to the words of God, the only thing else that I can see is some sort of arrangement that exists outside of the compass of the Bible and every religion that I have studied. I was merely trying to give you the "shorthand" version of the last paragraph, although I have no objection to clarifying a point.

About the slippage factor while walking with metal tipped heels on very hard glossy smooth surfaces. However, before I present my point, I prefer metal tips for stilettos because of their better durability than plastic and the noteable attention grabbing feature leaves no doubt you are heeling. I have a few metal tipped stiletto heels from manufactures outside of the U. S. Most of my plastic tipped heels were processed within the U. S. Makes me wonder if the plastics are being used to make me replace them sooner. I am grateful that some pairs even have two extra plastic tips inside the shoebox the heels come in, so manufacturers are aware of the regular use span of plastic tips is short for stiletto heels.

Whether in flats or heels, metal appliques or tips on the bottom of heels or soles, such as tap shoes or high heels, have the tendency to be as slippery as being on smooth ice. So, extra care has to be taken in the stride and step placement, while walking. Even plastic tips can slip in these conditions. From personal experience in shopping malls, airports, and other places of business, when I was least expecting it, my stilettos have slipped. So far, nothing major like a complete prone position has happened, because I was able to stay some what in control, but it was very unnerving and embarrassing for a few moments.

About a year back, I took a pair of my worn stilettos to have the tips replaced and the cobbler put a hard rubber tip on, instead of the plastic. The rubber tips were about an eighth of an inch higher than new plastic tips and so much better in their support. Even though I miss the sound of the harder tips, the security I have enjoyed is well worth the difference. Obviously, as the plastic tips become worn down, I replace them with the rubber tips. The rubber tips seem to last a little longer than the plastic and they offer so much more in assurance.

:clap:BRAVO on the rubber tips!

I very seriously doubt that the plastic tips are being deliberately mfgrd. for early wear. Somewhere on this forum a study (disscussion) was done on the amount of damage that stilettoes do on aircraft flooring. Even though I have built aircraft (C-130s; C-141s; C-5A); I was greatly astonished to discover the amount of pressure a 120 lb. woman can excert on a high heel with, say, 1/4 sq inch stiletto tips. Let me tell you, they are well-named and fall just short of the real thing! So if all that pressure is going out through the heel tip, just what do you suppose is happening to the tip itself? Therefore, almost any material you care to name short of a high tensil steel is going to wear. That's part of the price of wearing high fashion heels.

However, in view of the damage that heels do to any kind of flooring, I am very negative on steel tips. With plastic, leather, or rubber, at least the floors stand some sort of chance.

If you're in the UK you can hear Sandi Toksvig wearing high heels for the first time on today's episode of "I've never seen Star Wars" on Radio 4.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j0h9n

Available until the 18th March.

Later in the programme you can hear her walking on stilts.

I was under the impression that they already had high heels on WWV, which may be found on about 5 different shortwave bands.

Yuk, yuk, yuk. Don't give up day job.

IMHO, who does what within the confines of a relationship should be something that is mutually agreed upon. However, this should not be what defines the relationship. My old girlfriend absolutely insisted upon doing most of the house work in our relationship. In fact, whenever I tried to do anything I was invariably handed a beer or a drink and told to sit down. But the bottom line here is what works for everyone concerned. One thing that should never happen is drawing-up a list of responsibilities, as that is the first sure sign that the relationship is in trouble.

Actually this semantic problem does have a solution already:

civil marriage: marriage.

church marriage: holy matrimony.

As we will all agree, there is nothing holy about a civil marriage. To some extent, it

is just a contract.

The two are clearly and completely different. The Catholic church for instance doesn't recognize divorce and hence, someone who is divorced cannot remarry with them...

Au contraire. To the best of my knowledge, all Christian churches recognize 1] Adultery and 2] Fraud (misrepresentation) as legitimate grounds for divorce. Many churches also recognize abandonment or desertion as another legitimate basis for divorce (but proving who is the responsible party in a church court may prove to be a very sticky business). If a person is divorced on legitimate grounds that the church recognizes, then the injured party has the right to re-marry.

Therefore, following this same line of reasoning, I can find no legitimate grounds for anything that we would call a "same-sex marriage".

...It's not necessarily because we're guys buying men's shoes. My wife was interested in a pair of boots, and though she typically wears a sz 9, I ordered an 8.5, 9, and 10 for her to try. [The 10 ended up fitting the best, though unfortunately the heels were too high for here].

Right on! The bottom line here is that if you want to wear heels - that they must fit, unless you want to hurt yer feet and hoisery and/or look like Bozo-the clown. Therefore, a shoe that is a 1/2 size too small or too large simply won't do. In order to look astheicly pleasing and not hurt yer feet, the shoes must fit properly.

So what's the big deal about going into a shop and saying "I'm interested in that style shoe; do you have it in a size 10, please?"

Personally, I find it far more of a hassle and embarrassing to return an item than to get it right in the first place; not to mention the fact that more and more businesses have tightened-up their return policies. After all, once the loot has gone into the till, then like as not they need it to pay the light bill. That's just one reason why returning merchandise is a big hassle for everyone. So unless the shop has a sign that says something to the effect that: "We only serve women" (I have yet to see one), I assume that they want my business too.

I look at this with mixed feelings. On one side I feel the media is trying to make her become a "People" magazine mom in jeans wearing either sneakers or some flat sandal while taking her child someplace. The other side is that she along with her fellow member of "Spice" were always looking to cause some sort of a brew up just to make news. I remember her being on "Howard Stern" and even pissing him off with her comments.

Anybody who can get Howie pissed is welcome at my place!

Great thread...religion, sex and politics...if we threw in money we none of us would ever be considered polite company again!

Polite company??? I thought you knew that they have to be licensed to publish this stuff in public!

But to resurrect this thread before it goes to the "old thread graveyard", the California Supreme Court has finally heard the arguments on Proposition 8.

Now for all you non-Californians, Proposition 8 was on the ballot in last November's election to amend the state's constitution so that the institution of marriage would be defined as being between a man and a woman, and banning all other arrangements as illegal. But then certain groups brought a lawsuit challenging the outcome of Proposition 8, which passed by upwards of 52% of the popular vote Last November. Well naturally, the suit had to wind it's way through the courts until it finally reached the state supreme court.

Now when I heard about this matter I was absolutely agast that the supreme court even agreed to hear the case. After all, if the high court hears the case and then decides differently from what the majority of the voters voted for back in November - that bodes ill for democracy in every jurisdiction in every state within these United States. Just think on it! If the high court should decide differently from the will of the people, then any decision at any ballot box in any jurisdiction in this land could be swept aside by the opposition through the simple act of filing a lawsuit and then getting a judge (or group of judges) to overturn the election results. In effect, it would make the vote of every citizen meaningless! If the election results weren't to someone's satisfaction - all they would have to do is simply go to court. Then, if that court still didn't produce the desired results, appeal the decision and keep going back to court until you get what you want! So where is the meaning of any citizen's vote? In effect, everyone's citizenship would become neutralized!!!

Therefore, for the sake of democracy alone, I most sincerely hope that the high court will uphold the decision obtained at the ballot box in last November's election.

I recently saw a lot of negative vibes from the media about Victoria Beckham who took her sons to a theme park in C.L. heels that might have been too big for her. Most articles complain that her heels are not appropriate for this.

While I can understand that some people may think like that, I don't really see why this is reason enough for those journalists to throw her right into the garbage. My main criticism is that her shoes look too big and leave that gap in the back. I am actually surprised that she didn't realize this before she wore out those shoes.

Examples:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1159464/Why-Posh-Spice-just-dress-like-ordinary-mum.html

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article5840543.ece

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25128534-5012974,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/03/high-heels

Damned for looking good, and she would be damned if she didnt...

I'd rather hear proper news too, this is just media guff, surrounded in fluff and polished to a buff...

I noticed that the Guardian is the only rag to give her anything like a fair report.

Nevertheless, whenever I read the news I try to always remind myself of what we used to do with it afterwards, i.e. wrap the garbage in it and toss it out. Also, I'd like to remind some of our readers that up in those hills of backwoods West Virginia one can still find homesteads with "outdoor plumbing". I think that in some circles they're still called "thunderboxes". So without going into the various bodily functions, I'd simply like to say that more often than not, one will find a copy of the news in there, and believe me, it wasn't placed there for reading. In fact, some of the nicer ones actually cut the paper into strips for the convenience of the occupant. In any case, it proves that some people truly understand the appropriate place for the news.

Caustic and abrasive responses only serve to engender more hostility. If it is not your purpose to win the other person over to your side then a simple, "A pleasent day to you." will usually serve. We have far too much hostility in our world today. Whatever anyone can do to reduce the level of hostilities actually serves all of mankind.

Well, they said it was coming, and now it looks like its finally here. Last night a snowstorm blew in here and now we've got about 10 - cm of snow outside with 0 degrees - that's celsius. (See how dramatic those metric numbers sound?) They closed down the schools and everything and so here we are in a winter wonderland.

I made some blog entries on this subject, here.

In summary:

1. Listen to your body. Pain is a message. Translated, it means "Hey! Cut that out!"

2. Eat right. If all you did was limit, 100% (no cheating!) your intake to this food list, you'd look better, feel better, be healthier, loose weight, live longer...

3. Exercise right. 98% of people simply don't. See my blog for some quick tips on how to do it right!

VERY, very, GOOD!

About the only objections I have would be with the scallops and the shrimp; actually rather small concessions for an otherwise healthy list of foods.

I forget what the name of the disease is but shellfish really aren't all that good for you and shellfish can give you a disease with a name about as long as my arm. But even worse, there's no cure for it, even if you don't die because of it, you will die with it. But if the average person would simply eliminate pork, shellfish, and sugar from their diet they would be much healthier and happier.

You need to be very cautious when taking in just one seam. Boot legs are designed to fit the shape of the average calf & altering just one seam can in some cases make the boots twist. you sometimes need to alter the shape in 4 ¼'s otherwise they can be uncomfortable & end up looking bloody awful.

I'm sure Achilles will advice appropriately.

Lee

In addition; you might want to consider removing some material from the sides and replacing it with elastic. That way, should your calves ever enlarge, you will have the "give" in the sides to accommodate that and won't have to rework the boots. Just a suggestion.

Most High Street Cobblers buy zipping on a roll, then fit the ends & runners to fit the item. So any length is available... Lee

Thanks guys and gals for the suggestions on the full length zipper issue...Now i have been investigating in timpsons (UK cobblers) and other high street cobblers/repair oulets but am still struggling to find anyone who can find a zipper in 28inch in length..the most they seem to come up with is 20inches which is too short obviously!

Any more suggestions as i don't feel confident in sending them to leatherworks.com for an overhaul looking at previous reports on their service levels! this will be my final and last option once i have explored the rest!!

ANY IDEAS???

Thanks

Ruud

As Lee stated above, many repair shops buy the zipper material on a roll. In that manner, even if you needed to replace the zipper on a case for a long-barreled shotgun with a polychoke (roughly 50 inches) - no problem.

Therefore, instead of sending the boots somewhere, you ought to phone around a bit and find out who has the zipper material on a roll so that you can be sure that they can make one long enough. Also, when you find a shop that carries the material on a roll you can be pretty sure that they have all the other things necessary to get the job done and that they've already replaced a few zippers before you ever rang-up. Then you carry your boots in and tell them what you need done. Once you've done that, they ought to be able to handle it from there.

The repairer has cracked the heel where the tip pushes in. The heels on these shoes are not covered and Evans only had them for sale for a very short time so Ic ant get another pair. Is it practical to have the whole heel replaced or what should I do. We went back to the repairer and he refunded the tip fee and offered to buy the shoes off us for the purchase cost, but these are the only proper stiletto's I have had the confidence to go out in public in and they are a little sentimental...

They are 4" Black Patent Oxfords

Any thoughts??

Andi

What a bummer! It should be possible to replace the entire heel without too much trouble. However, getting heels that match the original may be a bit of a problem. The shoe repairer should be willing to do this, or at least pay for the cost at a different repair shop of your choice.

I've been following this thread with some interest. But you guys have already covered the salient points. The reason the heel comes out, ie slips, is because there is insufficent gripsion on the heel to keep it in the shoe. This problem is most often corrected by adding an extra strip of some sort of grippy materiel inside and to the back of the shoe. In about 85% to 90% of all cases, this works and you forget about the blisters and/or the worn hoisery.

However - there are some shoes where nothing seems to work! I am a leathersmith (craftsman) and I can build-up a leather ridge on a shoe that will not even allow you get your foot in - leave alone out! Only I had one pair of shoes where every skill and piece of leather at my command just wasn't up to the job! (I think I finally tossed the shoes.) About the only thing I can figure is that there is something about the manufacture of that particular shoe that just doesn't co-operate with any sort of remedy. (No, I don't have all the answers.) Believe me, I tried everything except the ankle strap thing and nothing worked. So take it from me, every so often you will come across a situation like mine, where nothing seems to work. After the 2nd or 3rd try - give the shoes to charity. It'll save you a lot of grey hairs.

Not sure about everyone else but i LOVE this cold weather in London for a change!,come back snow!

Last monday i measured 12" of snow on my car in south London,so many people could'nt get to work it was like civilisation had taken a step backwards for the day,people were actually talking to each other and havig fun! i wish it could happen more often that the seasons were just as they were,i hate the mild winters!!!

just a note ,could all the people that winge about not being able to get around get off their butts and shift some snow instead of crying that nobody has gritted their road...common sense has really gone out the window...have been to clients this week who couldnt even be botheredto clear their steps but moaned like crap how dangerous it was!!! elbow grease is all it takes!! i'll calm down now...

While no(t) taking exception to your points, I am just noting some linguistic differences in expressions. Here in the US we say "shovel" the snow, not shift it -- because, I guess, we use a "snow shovel" to "shift" it off of our sidewalks. We also say "plough" or plow the streets -- usually using a truck fitted with a large blade (like that on a bulldozer) to clear the roads...then road crews apply salt or sand to them to reduce the chance of skidding -- hence "gritted" --

And, yes, when we lived in Manassas, VA. I have "shoveled" snow while wearing high heeled boots.

Hi bubba,as to shift ie move,but yes technically you'd "shovel" the snow.

Maybe because i live in a semi 'posh' area 'shovelling' snow was not high on the agenda,didnt see anyone doing any clearing til thursday and then it was all women!

Let us ever bear in mind that the English and Americans are a kindred people who are separated by a common language.

I know, its been on the radio for days up to the point I posted that..

Fine example of our "Modern society" and "How far we really have come"

(In keeping with the other thread on how far we have come )

I could rant alllll day long about how "pathetic" society has become, but I'll spare you the ear bending

What about all those bloody snow ploughs that throw it all up onto the pavement from the roads?

Sure, clear the roads, by ploughing all the crap up onto the pavements (Sidewalk for U.S)

According to my understanding, the main reason that London was recently "paralyzed" by about a foot of snow is due to the lack of snowplowing (or is ir snowploughing?) equipment. Moreover, his lordship, the High Mayor (do you actually have a low mayor?) sez that there will be no purchase orders issued for them (whichever spelling you use) because they only have a significant snowfall about once every 20 years or so (that's a SCORE, for you old-timers), and therefore the money could be better spent elsewhere. I, for one, agree with his lordship. For example, the money could be better spent on me!

At any event, you lot are still doing somewhat better than the lot I saw in Austria shovelling off (that's shifting off, for you purests) about 2 feet of snow from their roofs. (There's no word on whether they plan to "grit" their roofs afterwards.)

One last point, in most locations it is the responsibility of the property owner/tenent to clear the snow and ice from the strairs, walkways, pavements, and driveways under their jurisdiction within 24 hours (8 hours in some cases). Most insurance companies also require this, as they don't like to pay out claims to people who have fallen and injured themselves.

This out-dated article is a perfect example of how "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". This, obviously prejudiced, writer decries the wearing of high heels without so much as a blush about the fact that over the centuries women have been so down-trodden that they had only won the right to vote just a few short years before the article was published. A more perfect example of double-standard hypocrisy would be hard to come by. The woods are full of such double-minded Neanderthals who are mere steps away from clubbing women over the head and dragging them by the hair into their lairs; for purposes that are best left unstated on this forum.

You said it, SQ! If there is a "holy grail" for HH lovers, he's found it!

I haven't been posting much for a while, but I just wanted to tell you that I'm quitting the heels, at least in public. I'm just gonna have to realize that I'm just not the kind of guy who can pull it off. I realize that the narrowminded people wins, but it's just not worth it to be a laughingstock. I was watching Loveshiheels and Dr.shoe trying on heels in Camden (no shoes in my size).The shopassistents were really nice and helpful and customers really didn't react that much. Whenever I walk into a store the shopassistents would rather run to a corner gigling, than help me. I realize the my current mood is influenced by the fact that heeling in London is always much worse than heeling here. Especially the hotel staff was horrible, but it's probably just because the scandinavians are too polite to point and yell at you.Their view is the same.

Now you're probably all going to say that it is my attitude and this may be so, but I'm more likely to believe that it's my appearance and heels that just don't match. I'm fairly tall and overweight. Bottomline is that it's just not worth it.

Well, I can understand your reasoning. The plain and simple fact is that the guys around here are pretty "avant guard" when it comes to HH fashion. But that's not to say that we don't encounter some negative in the process. The bottom line here is that you have to grow a fairly thick layer of "bark" (as in - TREE) in order to be able to survive the jibes and the ridicule that some narrow-minded people are wont to use when they encounter such a fashion statement. Of course, such narrow-minded folk would never be on the "cutting edge" of anything, and so, being the "followers" that they are, they are responding in the only way they know how.

On the other hand, the image you present will greatly influence how you see yourself as well as how others see you. So if overweight is a problem, then you really need to adjust that aspect of your life if you want your image to match what you are trying to project. Indeed, for some reason, high heels and overweight just don't go together well. But the good news is that overweight can be overcome, and if that is your situation then I suggest that you correct it and then re-evaluate your decision.

Nevertheless, I can respect what you're saying. Whatever you decide to do, I wish you all the best with it.

Great googlimoogli! (music plalying "Some Day My Prince Will Come", fades into the background....Or, is that strains of "Imagination")

I think, "Great Pretender" is probably a little closer to it.

Quite right about loose writing. I couldnt help but think soon they would have 'Best before' dates on the bottom of soles or have ages printed on them like baby clothes!

Quite right! They should come with a note that says something like, "Best if used after age 13 and before summoning undertaker."