Bits and Pieces

[Puffer]

Some interesting - and quite diverse - comments above on what is truly a 'high' heel.   Imho, it much depends on what alternative descriptions are recognised; is the contrast between 'high' and 'flat' or should one take into account 'low', 'mid' etc?   

On the basis that almost all footwear has an element of 'rise' at the heel (either a thickening to the sole at the rear or an added separate layer, likely to measure 1/2" or so as a minimum) and this is regarded as the benchmark, anything higher than that could rightly be regarded as a 'high' heel.   (I would opt, reluctantly, for that definition.)   And many 'conventional' shoes (particularly those intended for men) have a fairly sturdy heel block of around 1" in height and certainly attract no special attention - but if that same block heel goes to 1.5" or more, it would be described by many people as a 'high' heel, even though very modest.

To some extent, the shoe style and heel shape is relevant in practice.   A kitten heel (i.e. a stiletto of typically less than 2") is widely regarded as a 'high' heel, but a 2" or 2.5" wide block heel would simply be looked on as 'chunky' rather than high.   I don't think that any platform changes this; if a shoe with a flat sole and a 2" heel is described as 'high', then the same shoe with a 1" platform sole is just as high in terms of its heel - even though the rise is halved it is still a rise.   A 'flatform' shoe is not an exception either; it is really a flat or almost flat shoe given an extra thick sole, and is not a 'high' heel as there is (almost) no rise to the foot.

    

[mlroseplant]

40 minutes ago, Puffer said:

Some interesting - and quite diverse - comments above on what is truly a 'high' heel.   Imho, it much depends on what alternative descriptions are recognised; is the contrast between 'high' and 'flat' or should one take into account 'low', 'mid' etc?   

On the basis that almost all footwear has an element of 'rise' at the heel (either a thickening to the sole at the rear or an added separate layer, likely to measure 1/2" or so as a minimum) and this is regarded as the benchmark, anything higher than that could rightly be regarded as a 'high' heel.   (I would opt, reluctantly, for that definition.)   And many 'conventional' shoes (particularly those intended for men) have a fairly sturdy heel block of around 1" in height and certainly attract no special attention - but if that same block heel goes to 1.5" or more, it would be described by many people as a 'high' heel, even though very modest.

To some extent, the shoe style and heel shape is relevant in practice.   A kitten heel (i.e. a stiletto of typically less than 2") is widely regarded as a 'high' heel, but a 2" or 2.5" wide block heel would simply be looked on as 'chunky' rather than high.   I don't think that any platform changes this; if a shoe with a flat sole and a 2" heel is described as 'high', then the same shoe with a 1" platform sole is just as high in terms of its heel - even though the rise is halved it is still a rise.   A 'flatform' shoe is not an exception either; it is really a flat or almost flat shoe given an extra thick sole, and is not a 'high' heel as there is (almost) no rise to the foot.

    

Oddly enough, in the sports shoe industry, they refer to a perfectly flat shoe as "zero drop," which seems completely backward to me. Shouldn't it be "zero rise?" They can be a flatform, and often do have a bit of a thick sole, but then there's "zero drop, zero cushioning" shoes, otherwise known as barefoot shoes. I have a couple of pairs of sandals that are that way, if you don't count the 2mm top piece stuck on the back of the leather sole for durability. I find cushioning to be overrated.

[Shyheels]

I quite agree - any rise above the standard half inch or so could rightly be called high heels  - although I also think you would need to be approaching two inches before eyebrows started to be raised (if you’re a guy) and the term “high heels”, in its feminine context, would start to be applied. By three inches you’re definitely in heels!

Good point about the style of heels - a two inch kitten heel is definitely “high heels”

A cowboy boot of similar heel height would pass muster

itd quite an interesting study in aesthetics, fashion and taboo

[Puffer]

20 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

I quite agree - any rise above the standard half inch or so could rightly be called high heels  - although I also think you would need to be approaching two inches before eyebrows started to be raised (if you’re a guy) and the term “high heels”, in its feminine context, would start to be applied. By three inches you’re definitely in heels!

Good point about the style of heels - a two inch kitten heel is definitely “high heels”

A cowboy boot of similar heel height would pass muster

itd quite an interesting study in aesthetics, fashion and taboo

I agree weith 2"; I wasn't meaning to suggest otherwise.   I have three pairs of men's boots with Cuban heels of around 2.6", which I certainly consider to be 'high heels' (and have been described as such by others, albeit not in a censorious way).   I have a similar pair with heels of 1.4" which neither I nor anyone else has said to be 'high', and I come to the same conclusion as you that 2" is probably the borderline, at least for a man presenting as such.  I don't really feel that I am in 'borrowed territory' until I go above 3" in a block/Cuban/cowboy heel - my avatar boots (2 7/8") go unnoticed when worn under normal jeans.

[Shyheels]

I think if I wore my 3” ankle boots with boot cut jeans they’d go unnoticed - but with skinny jeans their heels and feminine styling are quite apparent. There re does seem to be some overlapping areas, especially with block heels 

[mlroseplant]

I am definitely jaded, but I've worked very hard to get to that point. In my own head, and by my own personal definition, anything less than 2 inches is a flat. Having said that, I can still feel a definite difference between the way a completely flat shoe "walks" and the way a 2 inch heel "walks," even though I can't really feel any sort of heel at a mere 2 inches. In fact, I really can't feel much of anything until I get to 3 1/2, which to me is squarely a mid-heel.

I have never had anybody explain to me clearly exactly how any why these "mid-heels" hurt, and how  it's not possible to wear them for more than a short period of time. I can sort of remember when I was at that point in 2013, when I wore 4 inch boots to the mall and almost didn't make it back to the car, and again in 2017, which was my first entire weekend continuously wearing high heels. And somehow I have managed to get over that hump, and I think it's been from walking. I do not know if this method would work for everybody. I still almost don't believe my friend when she says every time she wears her 2 inch block-heeled ankle boots to work on the sales floor, she regrets it within a couple of hours. I wish I knew why that was, and if there was anything I could do to help.

[Puffer]

1 hour ago, mlroseplant said:

I am definitely jaded, but I've worked very hard to get to that point. In my own head, and by my own personal definition, anything less than 2 inches is a flat. ...

We seem to be divided into two camps: those who consider 'high' to be an indicator of a more-than-minimal rise at the heel, and those who regard a 'high' heel as one that makes a detectable (but inevitably subjective) difference to feeling or gait when worn.   There is nothing empirical to either view and perhaps we should leave it to lay people to decide (usually wrongly) what is, to them, a 'high' heel; each of us knows better!   After all, we don't take much notice of laiety (especially if unbelievers) when it comes to heel heights or indeed shoe or other fashions in general.

[Shyheels]

I think there is a figurative “high” and a literal “high” and they are not the same. From what I’ve read in the fashion magazines high heels start at 4”. But if you’re a guy wearing anything over two inches with even a hint of feminine styling you’ll be “accused” of wearing high heels. 
 

I too fail to understand how anybody can have troubles wearing three inch (usually block) heels, find them painful and intolerable to walk in after a couple of hours. I just don’t understand 

[mlroseplant]

In the end, I think the reason we are so good at it is because we really want it, and want it in a way that very few women do. I have no idea what must go through a 8 year old girl's mind when she's begging her mother to let her wear heels. Something then happens in the subsequent couple of decades, and by the time that girl gets to be 28 years old, the bloom is off the rose and those strong desires are pretty much gone, other than wistful thinking. Why doesn't this happen to us? I can't imagine there's a man among us, absent traumatic injury, who will wake up one day and say, "I just can't wear heels anymore."

[Puffer]

48 minutes ago, mlroseplant said:

In the end, I think the reason we are so good at it is because we really want it, and want it in a way that very few women do. I have no idea what must go through a 8 year old girl's mind when she's begging her mother to let her wear heels. Something then happens in the subsequent couple of decades, and by the time that girl gets to be 28 years old, the bloom is off the rose and those strong desires are pretty much gone, other than wistful thinking. Why doesn't this happen to us? I can't imagine there's a man among us, absent traumatic injury, who will wake up one day and say, "I just can't wear heels anymore."

In two words: 'forbidden fruit'.

[Shyheels]

37 minutes ago, Puffer said:

In two words: 'forbidden fruit'.

Precisely! There will always be that allure, that frisson of tension about breaking ranks and going your own way, making a statement. There is absolutely no expectation that we should or will wear heels as there is with women - quite the contrary - and so the excitement stays fresh 

[Aly]

20 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I too fail to understand how anybody can have troubles wearing three inch (usually block) heels, find them painful and intolerable to walk in after a couple of hours. I just don’t understand 

Part ofthe reason might be "vanity" - many women just can't accept the fact that they wear a certain size. "Queen size pantyhose is for fat people, and I'm not fat!"; "I'm not a "Large" - I wear "Small""; "No way my feet are size 10 - I've always worn size 8"

Men, on the other hand, tend to value comfort more, it seems. Sizes are just a number rather than an identity.

[Cali]

Also wearing certain shoes makes womens feet change and the lack of muscle tone does not allow 'her' to stand too long in heels. If you don't use it, you lose it.

Edited October 8 by Cali

[mlroseplant]

20 hours ago, Aly said:

Part ofthe reason might be "vanity" - many women just can't accept the fact that they wear a certain size. "Queen size pantyhose is for fat people, and I'm not fat!"; "I'm not a "Large" - I wear "Small""; "No way my feet are size 10 - I've always worn size 8"

Men, on the other hand, tend to value comfort more, it seems. Sizes are just a number rather than an identity.

I think that is a thing that is fading with time. I knew a lot of older ladies who didn't like their size number to be too high, but I've never known a young woman who cares at all. The most hilarious thing about it is, it's not like the size is stamped on your forehead. Who would ever know whether you wore a size 4 or size 10 dress?

17 hours ago, Cali said:

Also wearing certain shoes makes womens feet change and the lack of muscle tone does not allow 'her' to stand too long in heels. If you don't use it, you lose it.

Having had to go through a lot of physical therapy over the years has helped you, I'm sure. Since I've never had any injuries or problems that have required medical intervention, I had to invent my own physical therapy to address feet that were killing me. I've actually expanded my "physical therapy" as of late to address my achilles tendon issues. It's not a miracle cure, but it seems to be doing some good, rather than any harm.

[CrushedVamp]

I am not surprised to hear the suggestion that a lot of men wish to wear high heels but so few men do out in public. I am a person that tends to seek out percentages on things and read recently where 47% of men have tried on what is considered feminine clothing at least once in their life. That is a lot, but I think it shows what we know: fashion curiosity is a human thing and not a gender thing. Heck my wife is constantly wearing my shirts and I can never find my jacket she wore and left somewhere.

Just as an example to this though, I was a competitive swimmer in my youth, and for faster swim times my swim coach had men and women do shaving parties before tournaments. This gave me a huge dislike for body hair, so I have always been almost fully shaven. I was so self-conscious about this that I have said for years that I have a condition where little hair grew on my body. I flat out lied. I shaved and I have for years. Well come to find out, I am hardly the only man that does. A very personal part of me that I shaved 30 years ago that few men ever did, now a whopping 66% is shaven now by men. And a man that shaves his legs is up to 15%. Over time I see that percentage increasing even more as other men find out, we are not so different as we thought.

My point here is that what people do privately might astound people in the higher percentages than they ever imaged. I mean, who would have ever thought 15 out of 100 men you see have shaven legs under their pants. I came here because my wife LOVES high heels and I love that she wears them, but I admit I have tried them on. I have never worn any out in public though. But as a lover of history, I know that high heels were historically for men, then taken over by women, and now reverting back to men’s wear. I am glad to see that reversal. I think over time high heels worn by men will be far more common place.

And it has happened. Keds was the first shoe ever designed entirely for women in 1916. Now in 2024 a fashionable shoe for men is a type of shoe that looks very similar to Keds. While a bad example because they are not high heels, it does prove that even in shoes; fashion styles transcend genders. Who is to say it will not happen with men wearing high heels?

[Puffer]

Interesting, CrushedVamp.   I'm not sure what we can make of the statistic that '47% of men have tried on what is considered feminine clothing at least once in their life'; that seems low.   It very much depends upon what type of clothing, in what situation and for how long.   Briefly popping on a woman's hat or coat for fun or masquerade is not the same as donning underwear or a skirt or dress - or shoes.   If you include the 'pantomime' aspect, I suspect the trial percentage is much nearer 100.

Your wife loves heel and you admit to trying them too.   Was she aware of this and would she approve if you wore them, in public or not?

[Shyheels]

A century ago pink was a masculine colour - seen as merely a paler version of martial red. Blue on the other hand, the colour worn by the Virgin Mary, was seen as a girls colour. It was an American department store in the 1920s who reversed this, for reasons of their own and which I can’t remember now.  So yes, these things can change 

[mlroseplant]

It has been 10 years at least since I started shaving my legs. I have been shaving the tops of my feet since I was a teenager. No one has ever mentioned a thing about it except for my wife. If someone ever does mention it, I have the perfect comeback prepared. "Because hairy legs with Daisy Dukes look terrible!" Which is simultaneously the whole truth and kind of a smartass answer. My construction buddies would appreciate it.

[pebblesf]

On 10/8/2024 at 6:04 AM, mlroseplant said:

In the end, I think the reason we are so good at it is because we really want it, and want it in a way that very few women do. I have no idea what must go through a 8 year old girl's mind when she's begging her mother to let her wear heels. Something then happens in the subsequent couple of decades, and by the time that girl gets to be 28 years old, the bloom is off the rose and those strong desires are pretty much gone, other than wistful thinking. Why doesn't this happen to us? I can't imagine there's a man among us, absent traumatic injury, who will wake up one day and say, "I just can't wear heels anymore."

Good points indeed

2 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

It has been 10 years at least since I started shaving my legs. I have been shaving the tops of my feet since I was a teenager. No one has ever mentioned a thing about it except for my wife. If someone ever does mention it, I have the perfect comeback prepared. "Because hairy legs with Daisy Dukes look terrible!" Which is simultaneously the whole truth and kind of a smartass answer. My construction buddies would appreciate it.

Great comeback.  Would love to hear your construction buddy's compliments!

On 10/8/2024 at 7:33 AM, Shyheels said:

Precisely! There will always be that allure, that frisson of tension about breaking ranks and going your own way, making a statement. There is absolutely no expectation that we should or will wear heels as there is with women - quite the contrary - and so the excitement stays fresh 

for sure!

[Cali]

I have been waxing my legs for 8 years so that I can use KT tape on them to play sports. Only a few times a year. I now have very short light-colored hair, and almost no hair in places. But I still need to wax them, because even a little hair intefers with the actions of the tape. The women that wax my legs are jealous of how little hair I now have.  I hate stubble when shaved hair grows back, so instead of shaving a region before an operation, I will now get it waxed. It only hurts the first couple of times......LOL