How about higher heels for MEN's shoes?

[Ionic]

Gene, your last example is rather smart and could work in a highly formal situation such as with a dinner jacket/tux and the sash could mirror a sash on a military uniform. _ On our outing a couple of weeks ago up Oxford St, London we saw some broad splayed medium heels (fatter than your sandal example above but that sort of thing) which had an 18thCentury male flavour to them. One of our party bought a pair of Oxfords in this heel style but they didn't go up to a UK8 though they were in some peculiar far eastern sizing, going 255, 260, 265 etc. /I

[jo]

While that example Zappos mule is not at all high, I do still think it is a (very) small step in the right direction. Even if several thousand men are tempted to go even half an inch higher than before, then maybe next year they will offer something just a little bit higher still. Even so, there are some men will still view that shoe as womanly and avoid it, even with that 1 inch heel or whatever it has.

[genebujold]

While that example Zappos mule is not at all high, I do still think it is a (very) small step in the right direction. Even if several thousand men are tempted to go even half an inch higher than before, then maybe next year they will offer something just a little bit higher still. Even so, there are some men will still view that shoe as womanly and avoid it, even with that 1 inch heel or whatever it has.

Well, pity on them!

Probably the same prudes who insist the current translation of Deuteronomy 22:5 (men don't wear women's clothing/women don't wear men's clothing) is the "correct" one yet will absolutely refuse to go back to the original Hebrew ascertain it's true meaning.

If they did, they'd be absolutely shocked to learn that most men who wear heels doesn't fall under that verse, while more than a few of the prudes are "an abomination to the Lord."

But hey, we'll save the treatise on that until next Sunday or the second coming - whichever comes first.