Master Resource: General Public Discussions of men in heels

[Shyheels]

Well if wearing anything  that is ostensibly designed for or customarily worn by the opposite sex is cross dressing then a schoolgirl wearing a necktie (as many do in their uniforms here, including my iwn daughter) would be crossdressing, as would any woman wearing a pair of men’s jeans or a man’s Panama hat. But not, apparently if said men’s jeans were labelled ‘boyfriend’ jeans and sold in the wonen’s section, even though the jeans themselves would be identical. What about belts? A woman who wears a man’s belt on her feminine jeans is crossdressing? 

Or look at gumboots. They  come in different colours. Men’s are nearly always green, women’s any colour you can think of. Suppose I take off my hunter green pair and put on a pink pair - everything else being the same - and out I go in my field trousers and flannel shirt and tweed cap, off to work the farm or walk the country lanes. Am I crossdressing? The boots themselves are utterly identical except for the colour. So...does the colour pink on its own make an item of clothing feminine? What about a pink business shirt? Would that not then inherently be feminine? Or a pink T-shirt? Or a pink canvas belt?  Or the pink jersey worn by the winner of the Giro d’Italia grand tour bike race? Or is it all situational? Do we have an umpire declaring it as we go along?

If one starts down this silly slope of declaring anyone a cross dresser who wears even a single object that is ostensibly designed for the opposite sex, the whole thing becomes comical, something out of Monty Python, and  the term itself is rendered meaningless. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Shyheels

[Pumped]

4 hours ago, Puffer said:

We've been down this route before - and the jury is still out, it seems.   In my book, wearing anything that is conventionally worn (or intended to be worn) by the opposite gender is, by definition, 'cross-dressing'.   The extent is unimportant and the term is not in itself pejorative and does not imply either any true intention to pass as the other gender, any medical condition or any conduct of a fetishistic nature.   That said, a deliberate and structured adoption of opposite-gender clothing (together with the use of cosmetics etc, if necessary) may well allow 'passing' in practice and may be a component of other broader conduct.   

I would distinguish 'fashion freestyling' (a useful and more neutral term) to denote simply the adoption and wearing of whatever clothes etc the wearer chooses (which may or may not include cross-dressing), regardless of their actual or alleged allegiance or the effect they may produce.   And that freedom of expression and conduct is, I would suggest, something that we would all like to see as acceptable - indeed, commonplace - regardless of any labels that may be (mis)applied to it.

I agree. 

I know of men that crossdress and make no attempt to pass as a woman but they fully admit that they are crossdressing. I believe some men that crossdress are afraid to accept that they do, and write it off as a fashion choice thinking it is more acceptable, like they are scared to admit it. Fashion choice or not the term covers the broad area of men wearing woman's clothing.

 

1 hour ago, Shyheels said:

Well if wearing anything  that is ostensibly designed for or customarily worn by the opposite sex is cross dressing then a schoolgirl wearing a necktie (as many do in their uniforms here, including my iwn daughter) would be crossdressing, as would any woman wearing a pair of men’s jeans or a man’s Panama hat. But not, apparently if said men’s jeans were labelled ‘boyfriend’ jeans and sold in the wonen’s section, even though the jeans themselves would be identical. What about belts? A woman who wears a man’s belt on her feminine jeans is crossdressing? 

Or look at gumboots. They  come in different colours. Men’s are nearly always green, women’s any colour you can think of. Suppose I take off my hunter green pair and put on a pink pair - everything else being the same - and out I go in my field trousers and flannel shirt and tweed cap, off to work the farm or walk the country lanes. Am I crossdressing? The boots themselves are utterly identical except for the colour. So...does the colour pink on its own make an item of clothing feminine? What about a pink business shirt? Would that not then inherently be feminine? Or a pink T-shirt? Or a pink canvas belt?  Or the pink jersey worn by the winner of the Giro d’Italia grand tour bike race? Or is it all situational? Do we have an umpire declaring it as we go along?

If one starts down this silly slope of declaring anyone a cross dresser who wears even a single object that is ostensibly designed for the opposite sex, the whole thing becomes comical, something out of Monty Python, and  the term itself is rendered meaningless. 

Sure, you will find blurred lines, clothing that is accepted both ways, such as the tie or boots you mention. It was not very long ago that it was not acceptable for women to wear pants ans they were for men. Women that wore pants were looked down on and questioned much as male crossdressers are today. 400 years ago it was wrong for women to wear heels, they were men's wear, time changes.

Find me main stream stores that sell high heels directed to men, or bras and panties, dresses, the list can go on. Do we see men wearing dresses on a daily basis? Or even occasionally?  When  was the last time you were out shopping and you saw a man in a dress and heels?

Most items of clothing are easily placed as male or female, many are not. Pants are accepted both ways, it is also acceptable for women to wear men's wear, but not the other way around. Pink shirt? If the cut is made for a man, then no, although it fits the blurry area as the color is typically female. Now add some lase or a frilly bow to the pink shirt and then yeas it is crossdressing.

IMO, many men run from the term "crossdressing" like it is some sin or the plague when it is just a term. Men, relax and admit you like to wear women's clothing, it is ok!

[Shyheels]

You are missing the point of my argument completely. The premise put that anyone wearing any single article of clothing ostensibly designed for the opposite sex is crossdressing. I demonstrated, reductio ad absurdum, that such a premise is illogical and inconsistent. 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Shyheels

[Cali]

2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

If one starts down this silly slope of declaring anyone a cross dresser who wears even a single object that is ostensibly designed for the opposite sex, the whole thing becomes comical, something out of Monty Python, and  the term itself is rendered meaningless. 

It goes both ways, if one item is not, then is 2 items?, Is 3? Is n or n+1? 

[Pumped]

Exactly! One item is not, but two is, or maybe three items of clothing. Where is the line, and who decides?

I spend some time on crossdressing sites and some there might just wear women's panties under their male clothing and they feel they are crossdressing.

[Shyheels]

I would suggest these people you mention who wear women’s panties under their suits and imagine themselves to be crossdressing are engaging (indulging?) in wish fulfilment. They are active on crossdressing sites, clearly have an interest in crossdressing but do not dare to do so in public and therefore do it by proxy. It would please them to believe they are crossdressing.

That is something that exists entirely in their minds - nobody else in the office would  know, or believe they were crossdressing. 

3 hours ago, Cali said:

It goes both ways, if one item is not, then is 2 items?, Is 3? Is n or n+1? 

No it doesn’t. And at any rate, I had only to disprove a single sweeping assertion, which I have.  That is the trouble with sweeping assertions - they are so easily disproven or reduced to the ridiculous. One need find only a single exception to blow them out of the water. Or is it seriously your contention that a woman in heels and a silk blouse and wholly feminine jeans is crossdressing if she’s also wearing a man's plain leather belt? 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Shyheels

[Puffer]

3 hours ago, Shyheels said:

... And at any rate, I had only to disprove a single sweeping assertion, which I have.  That is the trouble with sweeping assertions - they are so easily disproven or reduced to the ridiculous. One need find only a single exception to blow them out of the water. Or is it seriously your contention that a woman in heels and a silk blouse and wholly feminine jeans is crossdressing if she’s also wearing a man's plain leather belt? 

With respect, you disprove your own assertions by mentioning potential boundaries.   My bare assertion, which I maintain, is that the mere wearing (overtly or not) of a single item of clothing that is conventionally associated with or intended for the opposite gender alone constitutes 'cross-dressing'.  Simple definition; no exceptions needed.  So, a woman wearing a 'male' belt or necktie (although most such could be considered at worst to be unisex - and a uniform necktie for a schoolgirl is clearly a female item ) would indeed be cross-dressing.   But so what: unexceptional, harmless and probably unnoticed.   Ditto, a man wearing a pair of 'female' jeans (different fly-front and/or fancy stitching) or trainers (pastel colour).   

We really don't need to get hung-up on this if we accept that the borrowing or wearing of any identifiably opposite-gender clothing or apparel is cross-dressing, the degree or intention being irrelevant.   Of course, that begs the question of whether the item is indeed identifiably opposite-gender; if it isn't (as perhaps with a pink shirt/blouse), then the cross-dressing issue scarcely arises.   And nothing about such activity simpliciter implies any form of fetishism, deviancy or intentional arousal - that is a whole new ballgame.   But I would argue that worrying about cross-dressing or related labels or conduct might cause emotional or other problems, to wearers or onlookers.   

[Shyheels]

What boundaries have I mentioned? I merely pointed out that a categorical statement that any wearing of any article of clothing designed or meant for the opposite sex is crossdressing is nonsensical in that there would be so many broadly held exceptions to the rule as to make it meaningless. Only one exception need be found for make such an assertion invalid, yet there are many. Nobody - or at least nobody who was not utterly obsessed - would look at a picture of a woman in heels, skinny jeans, and a blouse and declare that she was cross-dressing because she was wearing what appeared to be a man's belt. 

Cross dressing is a charged term with widely accepted connotations and to suggest otherwise or ignore them is mischievous. 

We don't need to get hung up on this if we accept that there is wide common sense latitude here and that the wearing of a single piece of opposite-gender clothing - eg: shoes, a belt, socks, jeans -  does not constitute cross-dressing 

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Shyheels

[Cali]

So when I have my Victoria's Secret sweater with my women's turtleneck, panties, women's socks and high heels with male pants, a little eye shadow/liner and project as male, am I cross-dressing?  Some may call freestyling but I call it blending.

 

Remember pink was a Power Color in the 90's..almost every man had a pink power tie and a pink shirt.

[Shyheels]

What does pink have to do with this! That’s a non sequitur. But for the record, I’ve nothing against pink. I have at least three pink shirts in my wardrobe right now. I don’t consider pink to be an exclusively feminine colour by any means. I know there are people of both sexes that do, but so what?

I don’t care to characterise your outfit - it makes this discussion too personal and specific. That’s how trouble starts. Better to stick to generalities. Furthermore, you will note that I never made any claim to defining what is crossdressing, but have specifically confined myself to saying what it is not. On that score I will repeat what I have said all along - that wearing a single item from the other side of the shop could not ever reasonably be considered crossdressing because to do so would be to render the term meaningless. One can cite countless examples of people who are clearly not crossdressing yet who may be wearing something normally marketed to the opposite sex  - I have given several examples already. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Shyheels

[Puffer]

5 hours ago, Shyheels said:

What boundaries have I mentioned? I merely pointed out that a categorical statement that any wearing of any article of clothing designed or meant for the opposite sex is crossdressing is nonsensical in that there would be so many broadly held exceptions to the rule as to make it meaningless. Only one exception need be found for make such an assertion invalid, yet there are many. Nobody - or at least nobody who was not utterly obsessed - would look at a picture of a woman in heels, skinny jeans, and a blouse and declare that she was cross-dressing because she was wearing what appeared to be a man's belt. 

Cross dressing is a charged term with widely accepted connotations and to suggest otherwise or ignore them is mischievous. 

We don't need to get hung up on this if we accept that there is wide common sense latitude here and that the wearing of a single piece of opposite-gender clothing - eg: shoes, a belt, socks, jeans -  does not constitute cross-dressing 

The 'boundaries' (or 'exceptions', if you prefer) are the suggestion that a single item, or something innocuous such as a tie or belt, cannot constitute cross-dressing when worn by the 'other' gender.   I am saying that, rather than getting bogged-down in identifying boundaries/exceptions/limitations, we simply accept that wearing anything truly of the other gender does constitute cross-dressing - in many cases a low-key and harmless activity.   Yes, the term is charged or emotional to many but it shouldn't be if it is accepted at the face value I suggest.   And it certainly shouldn't be taken as implying that the wearer is trying to pass as of the opposite gender - that requires an attitude and specific preparation and conduct, not just putting on some 'other gender' item(s).

28 minutes ago, Cali said:

So when I have my Victoria's Secret sweater with my women's turtleneck, panties, women's socks and high heels with male pants, a little eye shadow/liner and project as male, am I cross-dressing?  Some may call freestyling but I call it blending.

Remember pink was a Power Color in the 90's..almost every man had a pink power tie and a pink shirt.

Call it what you like - it is certainly what we generally understand to be 'freestyling' (because you are wearing what you choose, regardless of its pedigree) but when it includes women's garments/cosmetics, it is also cross-dressing.   Your intention to present as a male (or not) is irrelevant to that; it is a separate issue.   (One can of course 'freestyle' by wearing exclusively clothes of one gender, as most people do for most of the time.)

2 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

What does pink have to do with this! That’s a non sequitur. But for the record, I’ve nothing against pink. I have at least three pink shirts in my wardrobe right now. I don’t consider pink to be an exclusively feminine colour by any means. I know there are people of both sexes that do, but so what?

I don’t care to characterise your outfit - it makes this discussion too personal and specific. That’s how trouble starts. Better to stick to generalities. Furthermore, you will note that I never made any claim to defining what is crossdressing, but have specifically confined myself to saying what it is not. On that score I will repeat what I have said all along - that wearing a single item from the other side of the shop could not ever reasonably be considered crossdressing because to do so would be to render the term meaningless 

You mentioned pink, suggesting that pink wellies would be for women.   But, as Cali and you also say, pink shirts etc are by no means unusual menswear - you are right and something pink does not have to be intrinsically feminine, although it is not the most masculine of colours either!   And perhaps you should be positive, by defining rather than denying.   If someone takes and keeps money that is the property of another, it doesn't matter if the amount is 1p, £100 or £10,000 - theft, as defined, has taken place.   Many people would regard the theft of a really trivial sum as meriting little or no comment, censure or punishment, but that does not negate the commission of the crime.    Wearing a single opposite-gender item may be likewise of little note or importance (and is certainly not reprehensible) but it is still at the least cross-dressing. 

[Shyheels]

I can’t tell whether you are deliberately misquoting me or just keep missing the point. I never made any value judgements at all about the colour pink but simply stated the fact that pink wellies were and are marketed as women’s wear. That is a fact. That is not my doing or my value judgement but a fact. Go to a shop and look. My point was that by your  definition of crossdressing, if I were to take off my hunter green wellies and put on an identical pair, but in pink, I would be crossdressing because the pink ones are marketed to women. The only difference between the two pair of boots would be the colour - but by your  definition that difference would make me a cross dresser.

I have made no value judgements there at all about the colour pink but have merely applied your own definitions of crossdressing to a situation to illustrate how absurd they are. Farmer Jones grabbing his wife’s pink wellies to go out and clean the stables or walk the dog is not crossdressing. Sorry. He just isn’t

And who says pink isn’t a masculine colour? Not me. Ever watched the Giro d’Italia? A lot of very alpha males giving their utmost to wn the pink jersey. 

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Shyheels

[SF]

I have  a pink - uh, "coral" dress shirt that I proudly wear to work all the time.....   Folks say it looks great.  And, what's a wellie???  

have fun...  sf

[Shyheels]

A wellie is a gum boot - worn much around farms and by the landed gentry as they walk their spaniels down picturesque lanes. Hunter is the posh brand. The traditional colour is green but in today’s fashion conscious world you can buy gum boots - wellies - in all shades and colours and patterns, although the candy  coloured and patterned ones are marketed to women .

Wellie, by the way, is the diminutive of Wellington - the gum boot being shaped like the classic Wellington boot originally worn by the Iron Duke himself.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Shyheels

[Sydheel]

Folks. Count to 5

agree to disagree. 

Lets not have a single word blow up and cause chaos here

have a great day

[CAT]

A few topics here seem to have been “heated” here lately. 

 

[Pumped]

20 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Or is it seriously your contention that a woman in heels and a silk blouse and wholly feminine jeans is crossdressing if she’s also wearing a man's plain leather belt? 

No, because a leather belt does is not obviously male or female, way too general. You must have missed my point that there are many styles of clothing that could go either way, no obvious "gender" for the lack of a better word. If women never wore leather belts and they were solely an male item, then yes, but you can buy a masculine appearing belt in the women's section of the store. IMO, like I have stated before, it has to be a bit more obvious what the "gender" of the clothing is. Also, women's wear has the privilege of stealing style from the men's side of the store. Men do not share the right.

 

3 hours ago, CAT said:

A few topics here seem to have been “heated” here lately. 

 

I don't know why this has to be "heated". Unless some people are afraid to accept where they are at.

I am not afraid to say I am a crossdresser and I am ok with it. Right now I am wearing a women's stretch faux leather pants, women's panties, a man's t-shirt and my obviously female 6" spike red high heels. Earlier this evening I was wearing the same panties, work boots, men's jeans and denim work shirt while working on my Harley.

[Shyheels]

1 hour ago, Pumped said:

No, because a leather belt does is not obviously male or female, way too general. You must have missed my point that there are many styles of clothing that could go either way, no obvious "gender" for the lack of a better word. If women never wore leather belts and they were solely an male item, then yes, but you can buy a masculine appearing belt in the women's section of the store. IMO, like I have stated before, it has to be a bit more obvious what the "gender" of the clothing is. Also, women's wear has the privilege of stealing style from the men's side of the store. Men do not share the right.

It does not matter whether an item looks masculine or feminine, not according to the premise laid out at the start of this discussion which is that wearing any item of clothing marketed for the opposite sex is crossdressing. There was no distinction mentioned about whether it looked masculine or feminine, only that it had to have been marketed to the opposite sex. I realise it was not you who laid out this premise, but that has been the point at issue here - the absurdity of that argument. That is why I focussed on belts, to take it to it’s ridiculous extreme. Most jeans would fall into this category, as would shirts, T-shirts, trainers as well as indeed would many styles of boots - they have no obvious gender. 

Indeed I would argue that footwear in general has no intrinsic gender as wearing something on ones feet is nearly universal. It comes down to a matter of styling. This is especially so with boots. The overall design shape and appearance of a boot is broadly similar the difference being typically shaft and heel height, and there is plenty of overlap. 

So if we say that nobody of either sex who wears clothes that fall within the range of this overlap is crossdressing, regardless of how the item was marketed, or to whom, I have no problem. 

I am a writer and like accuracy in description, and what’s more when I hear someone lay down an absolute rule such as the one laid out here the religiosity of it makes me bridle and want to poke it with a needle to make it pop.  I shall stop now. 

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Shyheels

[CAT]

1 hour ago, Pumped said:

No, because a leather belt does is not obviously male or female, way too general. You must have missed my point that there are many styles of clothing that could go either way, no obvious "gender" for the lack of a better word. If women never wore leather belts and they were solely an male item, then yes, but you can buy a masculine appearing belt in the women's section of the store. IMO, like I have stated before, it has to be a bit more obvious what the "gender" of the clothing is. Also, women's wear has the privilege of stealing style from the men's side of the store. Men do not share the right.

 

I don't know why this has to be "heated". Unless some people are afraid to accept where they are at.

I am not afraid to say I am a crossdresser and I am ok with it. Right now I am wearing a women's stretch faux leather pants, women's panties, a man's t-shirt and my obviously female 6" spike red high heels. Earlier this evening I was wearing the same panties, work boots, men's jeans and denim work shirt while working on my Harley.

I’m not one of the heated ones.  Just an observation.  I am one that wears what I like and could care less what people think or say. But 99.9 %of the time is very nice comments and some conversations.  I think everyone veiws this cross dressing topic in different ways.  As I have said for years I don’t fully dress not my thing.  I have no problem with those that do, I would hang with anyone anywhere any time.  When I’m out I’m just a guy in a skirt and heels.  Sometimes a men’s shirt sometimes a bodysuit and a jacket. To each his own everyone has there own thing going on.  I’m not here for a long time, I’m here for a good time !!!!!

Edited June 1, 2018 by CAT

[Pumped]

23 hours ago, CAT said:

I’m not one of the heated ones.  Just an observation.  I am one that wears what I like and could care less what people think or say. But 99.9 %of the time is very nice comments and some conversations.  I think everyone veiws this cross dressing topic in different ways.  As I have said for years I don’t fully dress not my thing.  I have no problem with those that do, I would hang with anyone anywhere any time.  When I’m out I’m just a guy in a skirt and heels.  Sometimes a men’s shirt sometimes a bodysuit and a jacket. To each his own everyone has there own thing going on.  I’m not here for a long time, I’m here for a good time !!!!!

Cat, IMO, you and JeffB are a crossdressers, as are a few others on the site. Some guys get tense about it, but for sure you two wear clothing that is obviouslly designed for a woman, and wear it well. The reasoning behind why you choose to wear it is unimportant, but you do. Call it fashion, or what ever the point still remains that the clothing came from the women's side of the store and is obvious. I believe there are more guys on this forum that are CD'ers, but will go to their death before admitting it!

I make this comment, not to offend, but just to make a point. You may, or may not agree and that is fine.

I do have to give you two guys credit, especially you,. You guys wear it well, and I am envious!

[Shyheels]

I think in a lot of subcultures, especially those on the fringes, there is a tendency among members to universalise their interests or what they do, appear more mainstream than perhaps they really are

Edited June 2, 2018 by Shyheels

[CAT]

On 6/1/2018 at 8:52 PM, Pumped said:

Cat, IMO, you and JeffB are a crossdressers, as are a few others on the site. Some guys get tense about it, but for sure you two wear clothing that is obviouslly designed for a woman, and wear it well. The reasoning behind why you choose to wear it is unimportant, but you do. Call it fashion, or what ever the point still remains that the clothing came from the women's side of the store and is obvious. I believe there are more guys on this forum that are CD'ers, but will go to their death before admitting it!

I make this comment, not to offend, but just to make a point. You may, or may not agree and that is fine.

I do have to give you two guys credit, especially you,. You guys wear it well, and I am envious!

There are many opinions and definitions here.  I see CD as trying to pass as a women with the fully dressing from head to toe.  I do not do this and I am seen as just a guy in a skirt and heels.  With all the things going on today In society as we know it’s not that big of a deal to see a guy in clothes from the female side of the store.  I totally think there is is a double standard that women can wear what ever and it’s ok.  That to me is BS.  

No offense taken. 

This was my outfit on Friday night 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by CAT

[Shyheels]

I would certainly agree that women have far more leeway to borrow from the men’s aisle - but then again they have taken those liberties themselves, not waited to be granted them by society at large. They have shaped the fashion rules, rather than be shaped by them. Men, for a variety of reasons, don’t dare. 

[Logjam]

4 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

I would certainly agree that women have far more leeway to borrow from the men’s aisle - but then again they have taken those liberties themselves, not waited to be granted them by society at large. They have shaped the fashion rules, rather than be shaped by them. Men, for a variety of reasons, don’t dare. 

Agreed.

Logjam

[Heelster]

1 hour ago, CAT said:

With all the things going on today In society as we know it’s not that big of a deal to see a guy in clothes from the female side of the store.  I totally think there is is a double standard that women can wear what ever and it’s ok.  That to me is BS.  

I don't see this often, and only on the two coasts, and that does bother me a bit. Once you get away from any major population, what I do see is less interest in appearance by either side of the aisle unless they have too. Stores that would carry nicer styles etc.are disappearing at an alarming rate leaving retailers like Walmart to set the trends locally. There is a difference between Walmart stock depending on where you are at.

I had two wait for seating at a somewhat nicer chain restaurant recently. We watched what people were wearing. Jeans, t-shirts, tanks, sneakers, flip flops, a couple pairs of flats, basket ball shorts, leggings (of which she did not have the figure for by any means)  - - - The staff was the best dressed of all. 

[Shyheels]

It is the age we live in. 

[CAT]

30 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

It is the age we live in. 

I wish this age was 25 years ago so I could have dressed the way I like when I was ,,,,,, younger not old like I am now !

[Shyheels]

I think in any field - whether it is fashion or career - it would be great to go back a few decades and  bring with you the knowledge and experience you have today. We’d all be world beaters. 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Shyheels

[kneehighs]

Gen Z and Millennials open to men in heels.  

Gen Z and Millennials don't rely on traditional glossy publications to guide their purchases.  They don't rely on socially constructed stereotypes either.  They rely on Social Media. 

From The Business of Fashion:

"Indeed, many millennials view the traditional luxury brand playbook — with its glossy advertising, glitzy flagships and seasonal runway shows — as a tired and inauthentic marketing formula, tied to old-fashioned ideas of social hierarchy and extravagance. Instead, it’s edgier streetwear brands like Supreme and Gosha Rubchinskiy with their carefully cultivated ‘cred’ and innovative business models, rooted in cool but accessibly priced product and tightly controlled releases, that have captured their attention."

This new attitude represents a generational shift in spending that will self sustain for decades.  For the new money that's driving growth in the economy of luxury fashion is anti-Old School, anti Print Publication, anti socially constructed stereotype.

A quote from The Business of Fashion: 

"high-end streetwear helped boost global sales of luxury personal goods by 5 percent in 2017 to an estimated €263 billion ($309 billion), according to a study released by consultancy Bain & Company. What's more, Generations Y and Z are already the main growth engine of the luxury goods market, driving 85 percent of luxury expansion last year. By 2025, they are expected to account for 45 percent of total luxury goods spending — but even this underestimates their influence."

While Gen X, Baby Boomers and Silent Generation members here may not appreciate the change since it doesn't manifest as style they approve of, my argument is that men in heels is no big deal for Gen Z and Millennials.  (been saying this for years)

 

 

[Shyheels]

I don't doubt for a second these generations are a big driving force behind the growth in sales of luxury goods. And I would accept that they are, in theory, more tolerant towards fashion outliers such as men who wear heels - but theory would seem to be as far as it goes there. They do not seem to be adopting the idea themselves. If they were manufacturers would be following this new direction in fashion and we would be seeing high heeled footwear in the men's sections of high street shops and we would be seeing a lot of men in heels. We do not. I've never encountered any.   

As you say, you've been saying this for years and while I accept there are cultural changes afoot (so to speak) it is not manifesting itself in a new wave of men in heels.  

Edited June 13, 2018 by Shyheels