Master Resource: General Public Discussions of men in heels

[RonC]

No.  I learned a while back that women don't really seem to appreciate that, though I guess if I said something to the effect that she looked great without mentioning her heels maybe it would have been accepted.  But after a couple of not so great reactions to compliments, I just keep it to myself

[Cali]

Today I was traveling and stop by a Starbucks in the mid of central California. Two women walked out and they noticed my heels, they didn't say anything but I know they saw them by  the look on their faces.  One was in thongs, the other had 3+ inch heels. So women in heels is not a rare as a unicorns.

Edited September 17, 2020 by Cali

[p1ng74]

Though if women quit wearing heels then this kind of imagery will grow more pointless:

 

 

[HappyinHeels]

I see it a little differently. Women, via the new reality, have become the shapeshifters of our time. They are celebrated for their beauty and stature, mined by commercial interests for their ability to hawk products, venerated and utilised by media interests to continue to sow the gender rift. On one hand, applauded for their femininity in a masculine world, and on the other hand, also applauded because they can dress as manly as they want and act as manly as they want yet can reap the benefits of being a "minority" even though numerically they are almost never a minority in any country. I don't have a dislike for women at all rather I can't ignore what I see nowadays. Hey, I just watched a bunch of foul-mouthed, anarchistic, out-of-town jerks come into Kenosha and trash the place because they disagree how the police handled something. Media paints it as purely a racial issue again playing one group against the other. It's what they do. Recent tapes of CNN chief Jeff Zucker talking to a former lawyer of Trump showed saying " nobody can win the Presidency without CNN". Media bias. Everyone knew it but now it's on tape for everyone to see and hear. It really would be nice for everyone to get along WITHOUT the controlling, and corrupting influence of media. My point is don't look to women for your acceptance or any recognition rather express yourself as you see fit which can only come from inner strength: confidence. HappyinHeels

[Cali]

Two days in a row...

Yesterday it was in Central California. Today it was at the ATM outside the bank.  This woman had wedges, 2 inch platform 5 or more inch heels. She spotted my wedges and she knows I spotted her looking.

Let's hope for a three-peat.

[Gudulitooo]

Found this blog https://www.gender-blender.com/contact/

and instagram

https://www.instagram.com/genderblender1/

[RonC]

Interesting, and so fortunate for him that he found a partner that accepts him for what he is.

[Rockpup]

 

[mlroseplant]

14 hours ago, Rockpup said:

 

If you read through the comments, you might find somebody familiar. It was a few years ago.

[Bubba136]

Could not find any comments 

[mlroseplant]

11 hours ago, Bubba136 said:

Could not find any comments 

You are quite right! In this link, the player does not create a new window in Youtube. However, if you click on the actual title in the upper left hand corner, rather that the "play" icon, it will kick you over to Youtube, and you will be able to see comments. You can do this even if you've already hit "play."

[Rockpup]

So I was poking around the Zappos app this morning and noticed a new option under Men’s. So there is only one option right now, but the shoes do show men’s and women’s sizes. 

[Jkrenzer]

2 hours ago, Rockpup said:

So I was poking around the Zappos app this morning and noticed a new option under Men’s. So there is only one option right now, but the shoes do show men’s and women’s sizes. 

I don't know, I search their sight for pumps, clicked men's sizes and a few heels popped up to match what would be the women's counter size in the US. They weren't actually geared for either consumer, only for the ladies.

[SF]

I do like dealing with Zappos.  I have many shoes from them.  Great customer service and selection.  I wear a size 11 or 12 in gals sandals and Zappos has a great selection of shoes and styles in the larger sizes.  Some nice looking styles even go larger.  They use to have a clearance warehouse / outlet in Las Vegas (that's where the company is based) that was fun to shop at.  Was a mandatory stop when visiting Vegas.  The staff were very kind and knowledgable.  But that closed a few years ago.  Have fun...   sf

[VirginHeels]

https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/4av9km/men-high-heels-non-binary-fashion
 

Good article, if not been shared here yet!!! Not much of a mention of the usual sexuality thing. I like how it mentions how men wearing heels should be the normal.

[Pierre1961]

Yes good article. Or one more for nothing? 

A bit fed up earring that heels have been originally created for men! 

I hope I am just pessimistic tonight. 

[SF]

Yes, nice article.  I have always enjoyed wearing heels, maybe, just maybe it will become more main stream, someday.  I have noticed that since I began wearing heels in 1995, folks seem to notice and /or react less and that's a good thing.  I used to get stares, gawks, chuckles and even a comment or two (never negative), but the past few years I'm just another guy traveling through life in heels.  Kinda nice.  Or maybe I have just become more confident and don't really care anymore what folks think.  Smile...   sf

[mlroseplant]

I'm not totally negative about the article, but I have some serious problems with it. Actually, it's not the article itself, it's the accompanying photos. The article sounds so reasonable, like "Oh! This is something I've always wanted to do, and finally I decided I'm going to do it." It's a road that a lot of us have already been down. But then, you see the photos.

I won't even talk about the guy in the silver banana hammock and the tinfoil boots (in lieu of a tinfoil hat?). Next, you've got the guy in a sport coat. Check. Button down shirt. Check. Nicely tailored and not skinny, jeans. Check. Lucite extreme platform sandals. What the actual?

Exhibit 3, pretty normal looking guy. Says he likes the way heels make his legs look. Then, he's pictured wearing a wife beater, Mom pants, and about 2 1/2" boots. It could have been a normal, positive picture, but no.  .  . the fashion world has to introduce some weird, unflattering element into everything, just to be different, even when different is already there, front and center. Not to mention the fact that in this outfit, you can't even tell what his legs look like.

I am guessing that this article is directed mostly at women, but I am not at all sure what the intention was. If the intention was to normalize men in heels, the writer bombed badly, or has a skewed perspective. If the intention was to show how ridiculous we look, they did a halfway decent job. Having said that, it may have been an editor's decision to include the silly photos. The article itself doesn't really match the photos. Even Mr. Banana Hammock must have photos of himself in normal street clothing and heels. Why weren't these included? Somebody wants to keep us on the fringe.

[Shyheels]

I noticed the photos as well and thought much the same thing as you. And like you, i noticed the disconnect between the photos and text. That would have been the photo editor and, ultimately, the overall editor. The writer would not likely have had a say in, or necessarily been aware of, the photos that were being used.

We don’t know also if the photo editor and photographer asked for the subjects to dress up extravagantly for the shoot - entirely possible.

But yes, the article was certainly let down by the images and would have done absolutely nothing to make your average Joe want to take up wearing heels. The photos reinforce the perception of men in heels being either neurotic or gay

Edited December 8, 2021 by Shyheels

[Puffer]

On 12/8/2021 at 1:01 PM, mlroseplant said:

I'm not totally negative about the article, but I have some serious problems with it. Actually, it's not the article itself, it's the accompanying photos.

...

Exhibit 3, pretty normal looking guy. Says he likes the way heels make his legs look. Then, he's pictured wearing a wife beater, Mom pants, and about 2 1/2" boots.

...

 

I agree with you about the emphasis being totally wrong, given the photos; they all made me cringe, especially silver streak.   And I was completely flummoxed by the reference to 'a wife beater', which I now understand to be a sleeveless vest - a singlet to those in the UK.   A nasty term with a nasty origin, and rarely acceptable dress outdoors except for athletic activity.

[SF]

I have never worn "wifebeaters."  Always thought the term to be bizarre and the style uncomfortable.  But then again, I don't beat my "ol lady either.  

Merry Christmas all....   sf

[mlroseplant]

On 12/17/2021 at 3:57 AM, Puffer said:

I agree with you about the emphasis being totally wrong, given the photos; they all made me cringe, especially silver streak.   And I was completely flummoxed by the reference to 'a wife beater', which I now understand to be a sleeveless vest - a singlet to those in the UK.   A nasty term with a nasty origin, and rarely acceptable dress outdoors except for athletic activity.

I guess I'd never really thought about it, that's just what we've always called them, though to be fair, a true "wife beater" would probably have to be white, perhaps slightly ribbed, most likely be slightly stained, and have orginially come out of a package that said "Hanes A-Shirt." What the fellow in the article is wearing is technically here in the U.S. called a "tank top." The A-shirt was originally designed as a piece of upper body underwear, the function of which I never quite understood, having always preferred T-shirts myself (same thing, but with short sleeves). It wasn't until I was quite a bit older that I would have considered even wearing a white T-shirt as an actual shirt, much less an A-shirt.

The difference between an A-shirt and a tank top is unclear to me, there probably isn't any. I find it rather charming that you British English speakers refer to this as a "vest." We also have "singlets" here, but they are used only for the sport of wrestling as far as I know, and they include the pants in one piece as well, so they're totally different. Yet another way we are divided by a common language.

I suppose I had ought to stop using the term "wife beater" to describe said item of clothing. It just never occurred to me that one would call it something else.

[Puffer]

8 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

I guess I'd never really thought about it, that's just what we've always called them, though to be fair, a true "wife beater" would probably have to be white, perhaps slightly ribbed, most likely be slightly stained, and have orginially come out of a package that said "Hanes A-Shirt." What the fellow in the article is wearing is technically here in the U.S. called a "tank top." The A-shirt was originally designed as a piece of upper body underwear, the function of which I never quite understood, having always preferred T-shirts myself (same thing, but with short sleeves). It wasn't until I was quite a bit older that I would have considered even wearing a white T-shirt as an actual shirt, much less an A-shirt.

The difference between an A-shirt and a tank top is unclear to me, there probably isn't any. I find it rather charming that you British English speakers refer to this as a "vest." We also have "singlets" here, but they are used only for the sport of wrestling as far as I know, and they include the pants in one piece as well, so they're totally different. Yet another way we are divided by a common language.

I suppose I had ought to stop using the term "wife beater" to describe said item of clothing. It just never occurred to me that one would call it something else.

Yes, different terms for the same thing.   In the UK, a vest is usually regarded as a sleeveless cotton (or string cotton) undershirt (which may or may not have buttons), although we do understand its alternative name for what we usually call a waistcoat - they are both sleeveless and worn under something else.   A T-shirt is like a vest but with short sleeves and is generally worn exposed, but can be used as an undershirt.  A singlet can be a vest or a sleeveless T-shirt, the latter being worn exposed (as for athletics etc); I have never heard it called a A-shirt here.   The term tank top is not used so much but is understood to be a more stylish sleeveless T-shirt/singlet, particularly if worn by a woman as a fashion garment.   Some people wear a T-shirt rather than a vest/singlet as an undershirt.   Complicated, ain't it?   And, to round things off, there used to be a man's jacket called a doublet - which despite its name was not the equivalent of two singlets and fell out of fashion in the 17th century!

Here is the well-known Scottish character Rab C. Nesbitt, wearing his grubby string vest (and sweat band).   He was the star of a late-1980s comedy series and, although an alcoholic and uncouth layabout, not a wife-beater as such!   And slovenly layabouts in general (real or fictional) do often wear a fully-exposed grubby singlet in the warmer weather, typically sitting above a beer belly - not a pretty sight.

[mlroseplant]

14 hours ago, Puffer said:

Yes, different terms for the same thing.   In the UK, a vest is usually regarded as a sleeveless cotton (or string cotton) undershirt (which may or may not have buttons), although we do understand its alternative name for what we usually call a waistcoat - they are both sleeveless and worn under something else.   A T-shirt is like a vest but with short sleeves and is generally worn exposed, but can be used as an undershirt.  A singlet can be a vest or a sleeveless T-shirt, the latter being worn exposed (as for athletics etc); I have never heard it called a A-shirt here.   The term tank top is not used so much but is understood to be a more stylish sleeveless T-shirt/singlet, particularly if worn by a woman as a fashion garment.   Some people wear a T-shirt rather than a vest/singlet as an undershirt.   Complicated, ain't it?   And, to round things off, there used to be a man's jacket called a doublet - which despite its name was not the equivalent of two singlets and fell out of fashion in the 17th century!

Here is the well-known Scottish character Rab C. Nesbitt, wearing his grubby string vest (and sweat band).   He was the star of a late-1980s comedy series and, although an alcoholic and uncouth layabout, not a wife-beater as such!   And slovenly layabouts in general (real or fictional) do often wear a fully-exposed grubby singlet in the warmer weather, typically sitting above a beer belly - not a pretty sight.

Nobody calls them "A-shirts" here, either. That's just what the package they come out of says. The thing I've never understood about A-shirts as undergarments is what, exactly, are they supposed to do for you, besides possibly show through your dress shirt? They do nothing to protect the armpit area from sweat stains, which to my mind is one of the reasons for wearing an undershirt in the first place. Back when we didn't wash clothes every single wearing, this was kind of important. Now that we do tend to throw the shirt in the wash every time we wear it, I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of an undershirt, sleeved or unsleeved, is. No wonder we had to start wearing them on the outside.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your illustration depicts perfectly why I won't wear a tank top. Fair or not, that's the image that goes with such a garment on a man. Well, that and the fact that my shoulders are toilet-bowl-white, and it would take many sunburns to get them to equal out with the rest of my arms after so many years. I would be remiss if I didn't mention the fact that this is a double standard, and one which I personally am not willing to break, particularly at my age. Women are allowed, if not expected, to show their shoulders and arms, even in some of the most formal settings. Men aren't allowed to do this.

Back to our original image of the halfway normal looking guy, the deeply scooped tank top combined with the super high waisted (and front pleated!) Mom pants, not to mention to mention the empty and protruding belt loops, produce an image that I would rather not be associated with. Same goes with the other normal looking guy with the Lucite pole shoes. Why didn't somebody get him a decent looking pair of shoes to wear instead of those ridiculous things? Does he actually wear those in real life?

[Cali]

 I do things where I want my core warm and I want my arms and shoulders free for movement, such as kayaking when it 40-ish F (5-ish C). So I wear many sleeveless tops, mostly sleeveless turtlenecks as a base layer. Yes, they were women's. 

[VirginHeels]

I will defend Rab C Nesbitt. He is a Glaswegian hero. His fashion choice wasn’t the normal but there was folk in the late 80s to late 90s that had that look down for about 15 years here. With a four cornered handkerchief hat in the summer.

When it comes to movement, I like to keep my core warm enough to push myself but cool enough to be able to do so properly when doing my 5K+ walks/runs.

This year I have so far learnt about lean layering, layer with enough gear, but not too much. The snow is on its way, maybe for Christmas Day, so things could easily change and the down jackets come out.

[ohnoberty]

16 hours ago, Cali said:

 I do things where I want my core warm and I want my arms and shoulders free for movement, such as kayaking when it 40-ish F (5-ish C). So I wear many sleeveless tops, mostly sleeveless turtlenecks as a base layer. Yes, they were women's. 

Just to be clear, you go kayaking in sleveless tops in temperatures of 40F (ish)?

Surely at that temperature a wetsuit is mandatory, or is it just me who only start showing body parts at 60F+

[Puffer]

23 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

...

Back to our original image of the halfway normal looking guy, the deeply scooped tank top combined with the super high waisted (and front pleated!) Mom pants, not to mention to mention the empty and protruding belt loops, produce an image that I would rather not be associated with.

...

Forgive my ignorance (and possible lack of fashion credibility) but can you please explain:

(a) what are 'mom pants'?   Are those shown apparently women's trousers; it is hard to tell in the dark pic?

(b) what is the objection to 'front pleated' trousers?   (Again, not easy to see.)   Are you objecting to trousers with a crease down the front - which was always the norm, at least for formal trousers, until (for reasons I do not know), a crease at the sides became common in more recent years.    I prefer a front crease - it looks sharper and makes the trousers easier to hang up.

[SF]

I can't define "mom pants" either.  It's one of those styles that when you see it, you will know what it is.  

I have my own "mom pants" several pairs of Gloria Vanderbilt denim pants, love 'em, and they go great with heels.  

Have fun....  sf

[Cali]

5 hours ago, ohnoberty said:

Just to be clear, you go kayaking in sleveless tops in temperatures of 40F (ish)?

Surely at that temperature a wetsuit is mandatory, or is it just me who only start showing body parts at 60F+

Kayaking in a wetsuit would be tough since it would restrict your movement.  In those temps you need warm non-bulky layers. I usually will have a tight fitting thermal long sleeve top (a ski base layer), a high neck sleeveless turtleneck, a warm hoodie, and lifejacket. You don't want binding of multiple tops around your shoulders while padding. 

I wear many turtlenecks in the late-fall till it gets warm again, about half of them are sleeveless.

===

Mom pants or mon jeans is a slang term for high-waisted women's jeans that were originally fashionable in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

They are characterized by being high waisted (4+ inches above the belly button), baggy, high ankle in length (short), with a flat curvature for the buttocks. Non-faltering.

I prefer slim and skinny jeans, especially those that are hyper-stretch.