Guy N. Heels

Weeellll, I did a little research and found Laurieheels posts dating back to 2003. I started to respond, but then, 3 yrs is a long time these days. As I recall, she wuz having some truble with her computer. Seems her disk drive wuz sounding somethin like a cement mixer (definitely bad news). I would've offered her one of mine but I don't think my 40gig will even go in a 386. I don't know much about her, but I wish her well.

There is no one answer, and as I said before, both. It's what ever floats your boat, bottom line high heels can be a stimuli, visually and psychically for either the wear or the watcher. Form some it's just fashion, for others they hate them or does nothing to sexually arouse. The wearer might describe how high heels make them feel. To feel more attractive, for their own pleasure or to another person's pleasure or simply it's just fashion.

Well, I agree with what you said, but the purpose of the question was to establish whether the respondants were saying that they were experiencing sexual stimulation, or were they trying to provoke sexual arousal?

i.e. Given my girlfriend's physical problems, I seriously doubt that she ever experienced any kind of sexual arousal from wearing heels. In my estimation, she did it purely to stimulate me. Do other women wear heels for the same reason?

I haven't bought or read a newspaper for many years. I usually get all of my news off of the TV and the radio and do that with a bit of a caviote anyways. When we were on our vacation, we received a free news paper each morning in our hotel. Didn't read them-just dropped them into the waste basket each day without opening them.

Cheers---

Dawn HH

Well, I find that there is generally a little more to the news that what will fit on the average sound-byte or bumper sticker.

On Friday I purchased a copy of USA Today for $0.75, rather than the usual $0.50, and it contained a whopping 7 pieces of paper (14 pages).

THAT's a ripoff!

And what, exactly, were you expecting? In the first place, do you realize that some tree had to give it's ALL to produce that 14 page paper? And just how would you feel if some one cut you down and sold you for $0.75? Sheez, some people are hard to please.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find how to send a PM on this new forum. Therefore, I will have to seriously amend a response that I would prefer to be more private. Fundamentally, DR1819 is correct. One really needs to keep one's perspective in these matters and try to understand that (as you state the case) the wife is forcing a choice between your footwear and the marriage. Now only a tyrant or someone so narrowminded they can look through a keyhole with both eys would force such a choice. But if that is indeed what you are facing, then it's high time to review priorities! All marriages constitute a covenant with God. While it might be less obvious for those that were confirmed before a majestrate or justice of the peace, as opposed to those that were confirmed through clergy, the concept of covenant still obtains. Therfore, are either of you fully prepared to stand before Almighty God and give answer as to why you would wilfully break your covenant and break the marriage? Furthermore, does the choice of footwear (of either party) constitute proper grounds for breaking marriage? (God only recogizes adultry and abandonment.) Now if either of you has already left the marriage bed over this, then the marriage covenant is already broken! In such event, the question becomes, are the two of you willing to return to the marriage and the covenant? Either way, God, before whom you have confirmed the covenant, will hold you, both individually and collectively, responsible. People have been known to take some silly notions about things. But if they were to stop and seriously consider the true gravity of what they are doing - well most people would come away with a totally different point of view. The matters you are discussing have some very grave consequences, indeed. You each need to take a much longer look at these matters and what is important and what isn't. I wish you the very best of luck and God's guidance in finding your way through this crisis. Let us know how it comes out.

Either the woman's reaction was way out of like or you showed her you were not confident and she took advantage of that. I don't see anything wrong with the boots you pictured.

This really is a head game. Don't let one unfortunate reaction get to you.

DITTO!

If you can't walk in heels - get some practice. If you don't know how to deal with the negative - the word is: Be Large & In-Charge!!! Nobody has a right to rain on your parade and they won't unless you let 'em.

What can one say to a lady whose boyfriend/lover is 2 meters tall (I assume he has 1" heels on). The lady is right! Centuries ago the aristocractic women of China had their feet bound and mostly had to be carried about by servants. The really royal ones also grew their nails to outlandish lenghts and literally had to be waited upon both hand and foot. One's inability to make do for one's self meant that servants had to bend to the tasks and thus one's physical limitations literally became a symbol of both wealth and status. Have we really progressed all that much in the last 400 years?

Why does one even have to say they are gay? Do we care what you do in the bedroom? I don't go around telling people I am straight, which those would perceive I do it with a man if I did say it!

Time to get off the soap box on being gay and just live your life the way God intended, if this offends some, oh well, I have my opinion too.

Dianeheel

Right you are! Most heterosexuals don't give 2 hoots in a high wind as to a person's sexual orientation unless there is some personal reason to do so.

Unfortunately, most homosexual people are either: 1] overly sensitive to their choice of lifestyle; and/or 2] busy trying to make some big deal out of their lifestyle choice and are therefore busy making much ado about a matter that is of relatively little interest to about 97% of the population. If yer homosexual - that's yer choice. I really don't approve, but hey - it's no skin off my nose either way. I'm not the One you'll have to give answer to.

Haha, I can walk in any height heels as long as they're clonkety and don't affect my stride length too much. I have a pair of pointy shoes and I can only stand to wear them to walk around the house to amuse myself.

Wolfie, you go girl! I've got about 3 pairs of pointy stillettoes (the reason I spell it with 2 l's is because sometimes they're **ll to wear) and it's just about certain I'll never wear 'em out. About once every other month I try 'em on just to remind myself that they still fit.

But please don't go back to the chopines.

...I think it's interesting to note that the female members of this board responded to a "Why I Wear Heels" survey originally posted at Jenny's website, and subsequently posted by FireFox, here. Amazingly, sexual arousal was mentioned as a reason, and scored an average of 4 out of 10. The answers ranged from 0 to 10... In conclusion, sexual arousal associated with an inanimate object does not, in and of itself, constitute sexual fetishism, nor is it necessarily a paraphilia.

So, if you obtain sexual arousal from your heeling, whether you're a guy or a girl, that's ok, provided it doesn't eclipse the significant others in your lives, or cause yourselves or others harm.

I thought I had posted this before, but perhaps it got lost in the shuffle. I think we need some definition on the term "sexual arousal", as employed in the responses to the survey. Does that mean that the respondent experienced some sort of personal sexual arousal by/through wearing heels, or does it mean that the respondent was trying/expecting to provoke sexual arousal in someone else?

Again---It is interesting, informative, and educational. Stirring the pot a bit really does spice up the conversation. What a great bunch of minds we have here on the Forum.

Cheers---

Dawn HH

Thank you, Dawn. (Interestingly enough, my favorite English teacher was named Dawn.) I bow to your wisdom.

...Besides, going back over the numbers of the poll, I did what's commonly done with statistical data - I threw out the highest and lowest responses. Since there were more responses in the 4.5 inch ranger than the lowest range, the mean is now much closer to 3.5 inches, and for expedience, we can simply call it 3.5 inches.

Right you are, Dr1819. Nevertheless, just to try and keep it honest I did include both the 2" votes as well as the 5" votes. Still, that 3.5" number seems to be holding pretty solid.

Re: permission to be born...

We don't need permission to be born (at least not yet), just a document to ceretify birth!

GNH: Fortunatly we live in a society where you can state that without fear of someone knocking down your door and arresting you as a threat to national security...

YET!!!

Hi there, Thighhighs. Great looking boots! I would like a pair for myself, but I doubt that I can still balance on the narrow heels.

Bingo, on all accounts. From what I've been able to gather here, on other sites, and interviews with store managers who routinely sell heels to men, these are, by far, the predominant reasons, and I think most people who see men in heels know this. Only the ignorant jackasses conjure up non-existent motives which serve no purpose whatsoever save to calm their troubled souls.

DITTO

But one question I would like to posit about the previously mentioned survey (which I don't think I've seen) is exactly what is meant by "sexual arousal" ? Were the respondents saying this because they were experiencing some kind of personal sexual arousal from heels; or were they saying that they expected to provoke some sort of sexual arousal in others (boyfriend, husband, etc.)?

The closest I've gotten to a purse is a laptop computer tote or a briefcase. Not very close-lots bigger in fact.

I dunno. Some of those bags the gals are carrying these days could hold a laptop or a notebook. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they start coming down with some kinda muscle strain.

WEeelll, you've got to bear with me, Taliheels. I sometimes have a bit of trouble focusing on things. At any rate, let us know how things worked out, or will work out, or you hope will work out, or whatever. Aw shucks, maybe it's time for a nitecap and beddie-bye. :drinking: :sleeping:

AHhhhh, the post-poll pundits. Yet I am amazed at most of the comments that still seem to ignore the real purpose of the poll in the first place. So for those who never bothered to read it, I say again:

What would you consider would be the minimum height for a heel to truly be considered a High Heel? ...Please keep in mind that this is not necessarily the minimum heel height that you wear personally, and neither should it be the minimum height that you would like to see (on yourself, girlfriend, wife, boyfriend, etc.). The question is intended to establish the point at which a shoe ceases to be an "ordinary" shoe or boot and falls into the category that any manufacturer, advertiser, seller would call a High Heel.

Having restated the true purpose of the poll, I must say that I find many of the answers absurd. How anyone could consider a 5" heel as being a minimum height is quite beyond me! I know dancers who could not balance on such a skyscraper, and to expect a manufacturer to not make anything smaller defies all bounderies of financial responsibility. For that matter, even a 4 inch heel would be much too high to ask the average manufacturer to begin his production. The market would simply be too narrow to expect to make a profit.

On the other hand, there are shoes and various types of boots that have 2" heels and so it might be a bit much to start calling shoes with 2" heels High Heels. So common sense dictates that the minimum height would be somewhere between 2" and 4". But then I had to throw in the centimeters for those who don't wear heels in inches and who might not know an inch from a furlong. So almost immediately I was over the maximum of 10 choices allowed on the poll. And I must admit that even for the purposes of calculation I did not convert the centimeter's to inches. Rather, I rounded the figures to the nearest 1/4 inch and figured from there. Nevertheless, the poll was both interesting and fun.

OKAY! The numbers are in and don't lie! After due consideration of all known factors and taking my zip code and dividing by my age the magic number is: (big drumroll and cymbals) 3.56 inches! So all you guys that consider 5" to be the minimum heel height for high heels - TOUGH LUCK! :x And I might add, I'm so glad the store owners in my neigborhood don't see it your way either. (Lottsa luck buying those "ordinary boots and shoes with those 4.5" heels. )

I am somewhat surprised that the voters did put the minimum heel height about 1/2 inch higher than what I personally voted for at 3", but - hey, that's what polls are all about! So now that we've got that piece of sticky business out of the way - IT's PARTY TIME! :drinking:

Glad to hear you opinion, johnieheel.

One thing I'd like to comment on, however, is your use of the term "fetish," for several reasons.

First, heel-wearing by guys is a fetish only if done for purposes of sexual arousal. That's both the dictionary and the DSM-IV definition.

This is important because more than a few male heel-wearers hold security clearances, and anything considered "abnormal" by the DSM-IV jeapordizes those clearances. Currently, the DSM-IV does not address the wear of heels by men, other than by way of cross-dressing. Since I'm not wearing women's clothing (merely a shoe), and am not at all trying to appear as a member of the opposite sex, it's not considered cross-dressing by the investigators. However, they're keen to ask about fetishes, and I have to make it clear to them that a fetish involves sexual arousal while my heelwearing does not.

Because of this, as well as general societal avoidance of the word "fetish" and anything associated with it, it's very important that we avoid the use of this word unless it's specifically warranted. If it is warranted in your case, please take the time to differentiate between your involvement with heels, and the involvement of most of the men on this board, for whom wearing heels is not fetishistic.

I hope you understand. Thanks.

Ever the scholar, Dr1819 has almost given us the low-down on "fetish". But he left out the all important point that the term "fetish" actually has it's origins in religion! (As a remarkable number of terms do.) Therefore, it is from the realm of religion that the term eventually became adopted to sexual usage. Unfortunately, in today's usage (and thanks in no small part to Freud) almost any item that is associated with obsessive/compulsive behavior is often refered to in sexual terminology. In reality we should relegate degenerate minds like Freud to the rubbish heap, where they belong, and quit over analysing everything. I like high heels! I liked them when I first tried on a pair of my mother's heels at around 9 or 10 and have liked them ever since. This has absolutely nothing to do with my sexual life! If there is anyone who's heels are an integral part of their sexual life - get help.

There's quite an interesting essay behind the pictures. It's special and often richly decorated examples of items get preserved for the future. Thinking about today, the shoes that people wear out, get worn out. There will be proportionately more of the shoes that people don't wear surviving. I wonder how many extreme heels will be around in five hundred years and what will historians make of them? And will college kids write essays about them?

OF Course!, of course, some Indiana Jones type will uncover a thrift store somewhere and find a pair of stripper's heels with about a 9" heel and a 5" platform and conclude (from the size 6 shoe) that we were all about 62 inches tall so in order to enhance our size and appearance, along with our aggressive tendencies, we all stomped around in such footwear. If they should happen to find the stripper's cache of shoes - BONANZA! That proves the entire theory; write their paper, case closed.

...It's not that it is illegal to get married without a license, but the government won't recognise the marrage otherwise. For example the couple would be unable to file a joint tax return and reap addtional tax breaks afforded maried couples and their kids.

HUUUMMmmmm.

The only government I can recognize is one that obtains it's right to exist from a people who were granted their rights from a sovereign God and who have, in turn, delegated some of their rights to a government that is also accountable to that same sovereign God. Any other is pure tyranny! Therefore, all of my rights, including the right to choose my style of clothing, are god-given rights that are not bestowed by, or to be withdrawn at the caprice of a man-made government. My right to be or not be married is god-given and is NOT to be held hostage to some licensing fee or to be withdrawn by a government of man.

Governments, like clocks, are man-made and obtain their motion from men! Therefore it is governments that need men rather than men who need governments. Moreover, whenever governments become destructive of man's god-given rights, it is both the responsibility and the duty of men to abolish such government and to institute NEW government that is founded upon godly principles and which secures the god-given rights of the individual!

Your mother has great taste in boots! That's a nice picture you took too.

Hey Shaq91, Quit worrying about what the sales clerk thinks. If I bought a King Kong outfit for Halloween, would that make me King Kong? Of course not. And the same thing goes for Darth Vader or Superman costumes - much to my chagrin, it just ain't so! The same thing also goes for high heels. Besides, if the clerk gives you any shine, you can always tell 'em your money is paying for shoes, not nose.

pata/pantera of www.light-fetish.de wears them in a recent video. She refers to them as killer heels as they "killed" her feet after an hour of walking.

For real! I'll just tell you that ARCH ENEMIES ain't got nothing on those killers! :x