Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/19/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    To be honest Mr Fred I have two grandkids, a girl of the age 11, and a boy 7 and to be honest I have worn my heels every time I take them to the shops to buy sweets etc, and to be honest they have never noticed or said anything, but saying that granddaughter did say something about 4 years ago, why are you wearing nannys boots, but that was it, nothing since.
  2. 1 point
    This is the first chapter of ‘The Puffer Chronicle’ – an account of my modest involvement with high heels over the years. If you have any questions or constructive comments, I will do my best to answer them, but please understand that certain things in my life must remain confidential. Looking back over what is now quite a long life, I cannot really remember how or when my interest in high heels (or, indeed, women’s footwear in general) truly started. It probably stemmed from an accumulation of minor experiences and observations gained as a young boy. I had a growing perception that there were distinct differences between ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ and how they normally dressed and behaved. I realised that some ‘girly’ things were not permitted for boys (or men) and were therefore somewhat mysterious and, in their way, both attractive and enticing. Certainly, there was little to stimulate interest at my home in West Middlesex in the 1950s. I had a younger brother (but no sisters) and a father who was distinctly old-fashioned in dress – and usually in outlook too. My mother (aged 30 when I was born) never had any aspirations to a glamourous or even particularly fashionable appearance. She was something of a ‘free spirit’ and could well have been a hippy if they had been invented when she was a teenager. She rarely wore footwear with any sort of heel (and never above about 2” or stilettos) but liked flat sandals, although here again they were generally more frumpy than smart. I don’t recall any relatives, family friends or neighbours whose clothing or footwear was particularly elegant either – but we were still emerging from the austerity and rationing that followed the Second World War. The one exception was a cousin by marriage (aged around 30 in the late 1950s) who was fairly short and invariably wore 4” stilettos; a pleasure to see when we met perhaps once a year. Of course, there were sightings in the wider world – this was the start of the ‘rock-and-roll era’ and plenty of young (and not so young) women were embracing its typical fashions. Tight or full skirts, beehive hair and, of course, pointed stilettos were everyday-wear for many. I started at infants school in the autumn of 1953. Unusually, my teacher for all three years there ‘moved up’ with my class. She had a kindly and effective influence (and imparted in me much valuable knowledge, well-remembered to this day) and we were all fond of her. As she had at least one daughter living abroad, she was probably in her early 40s and was tidy and presentable rather than intentionally smart in what she wore. The other teachers - all women - dressed similarly, although the headmistress was always well-groomed and usually wore low-heeled suede court shoes. (It was rare to find any teacher, male or female, whom one might consider to be ‘well-dressed’ – and my observations suggest that nothing much has changed in 60 years.) I had to go into the local hospital to have my tonsils removed, and in fact was there on my seventh birthday - so got an extra helping of jelly and ice cream. The nurses were talking about Bill Haley and Elvis Presley, then relatively unknown but soon to become famous. Those were the days when nurses wore ‘proper’ uniforms, with seamed stockings. Matron and some of the other senior nursing staff looked very elegant in their close-fitting dresses with starched aprons and caps, and wore high-heeled ‘Oxford’ lace-ups - a style that I will always associate with ‘women in uniform’. Back at school, my perception of my teacher changed dramatically towards the end of my final year in her class in 1956. We had some sort of formal event at the school – probably a visit by the mayor or some such – and she dressed quite elegantly for the occasion. I was blown away by the sight of her black patent court shoes, with pointed toes and stiletto heels that must have been close to 4.5”, which she wore effortlessly. Alas, there was no repetition and mediocrity reigned for the rest of my time there, with little change following my 'promotion' to the junior school, as I shall describe in the next instalment.
  3. 1 point
    Chapter 4 – From school to work A notable event that I failed to mention in the last chapter was the demise of the London trolleybus. I had grown up with trolleybuses, which predominated the bus routes in my home area and further afield too. Despite their ‘green’ credentials (which today would have been a big ‘plus’), trolleybuses were seen as inflexible and inferior to a diesel bus such as the ‘Routemaster’. As nearly all of them still in use in London at the end of the 1950s were regarded as life-expired, the decision was taken to scrap them. Ironically, my area had been the first to get trolleybuses (replacing trams in 1931) and became the last to lose them – on 8 May 1962. The event was marked by a large local turn-out to welcome in the last bus in the early hours of 9 May; I was present with my father – we are somewhere in the crowd pictured below: It was some years before I saw ‘1521’ (or any other London trolleybus) again, until I enjoyed riding on one at the East Anglia Transport Museum, Carlton Colville (near Lowestoft, Suffolk) – well worth a visit! My schooldays continued, with O-Levels sat in 1964 and then A-Levels in 1966. I had intended to go on to university to obtain a degree in engineering, but alas it was increasingly obvious to me that my mastery of the necessary school subjects was not going to be to a good enough standard. I therefore decided instead to embark on a professional career, for which I could study by correspondence course whilst being ‘gainfully employed’. A few years later, I realised that this was probably a wise move, as many of my contemporaries at school had got their university degrees but not necessarily any worthwhile employment. (Ultimately, I ended up with two professional qualifications, each the equivalent of an honours degree, so I felt that I could hold my own despite never attending university.) As the 1960s progressed, life in England underwent significant change, to which no-one was immune. The period of often drab austerity which dominated the 1950s was replaced by one of growing wealth and opportunity – ‘You’ve never had it so good’ – and technological advance. But morals, fashions and music underwent much change too – and not in my opinion always for the best, as the ‘Swinging Sixties’ took hold, displacing the ‘Rock-and-Roll’ era. Women’s hemlines went up and their heels and hair went down, with tights replacing stockings, whilst many of both sexes began to follow a hippy or flower-power ‘free love’ lifestyle, with an increasingly colourful and often bizarre appearance. Mini-skirts and go-go boots on ‘dolly birds’ were all very well, but I much preferred the look of the early 60s that combined elegance with femininity. The pics below illustrate this contrast. Of course, the situation got even worse (in my view) when we entered the 1970s – but that is for later. I left school in the summer of 1966 and had a break of several weeks before I started work in a professional office a couple of miles from home. My father had shown a rare instance of generosity in not only ‘keeping’ me during that break period but also buying me my first ‘office suit’. My work was by no means all office-based as I had to visit clients in and around most of Greater London, and sometimes beyond, travelling by public transport. I was already familiar with most parts of London so this posed no problems for me, but it did open my eyes to much of the wider world, especially in the City and what is now Docklands. I soon found that I much preferred the environment of the City to that of the West End, which I have always found a somewhat uncomfortable mix of pretension and hustling, overlaid with an element of sleaze. The City seemed more civilised and respectable, with the women in particular dressed more to my liking. Certainly, there were many in the late 60s who still preferred to wear suits or separates with pencil skirts (usually just above the knee) and pointed stiletto courts, often 4” or higher. Most of the men however dressed a tad too conservatively for my taste. An acquaintance in a City office told me that there was a recently-dated notice stating: ‘Male staff are reminded that it is ungentlemanly to be seen in the street without a hat’. Bowler hats were still quite common, although seldom worn by those under 30 or so. But at least long hair and patterned shirts were rare east of Temple Bar. When not at work, I had to keep up with my correspondence course studies, with an initial exam in 1968, in which I did quite well. Time for significant social activity was still limited but I joined a local school of ballroom dancing which became my regular entertainment venue. I made a number of friends there of both sexes and went out elsewhere with a few of the girls I met. Several of the girls favoured stilettos, for dancing and otherwise, but alas they were increasingly considered unfashionable by many – and notable public sightings were becoming fewer. I do however recall several which made a lasting impression. One in 1968 was a tall slim brunette in Clapham making easy progress in pointed white sling-backs with a full 5” stiletto – a style I really like and similar to the pic below. Others from the same period included an older woman making her way cautiously down the exit ramp at Kingston station (which could be slippery when wet) in striking blue courts with contrasting red heels that were close to 5.5”, much the same as those below. And a young office-worker in Liverpool Street Arcade who was having difficulty in her 5” black patent courts; I wonder if she persevered and with what result?
  4. 1 point
    My reaction to dww's comment was one of sorrow. I invited comment at the outset but (Freddy excepted) have had none. There must be something to say that is not necessarily 'off-thread', especially given the broad coverage of my exploits? I had thought that dww in particular (who must be a close contemporary in age) would have something to say, given his recent brief account of his own 'formative years'. As to the content of my Chronicle, there is not much of substance that I could add; my other sightings and experiences, if remembered, would be little more than repetition. But the later accounts, yet to appear, may be more detailed as more happened and more is remembered. One more chapter may be expected before I take a brief holiday. Yes, I could find some illustrations - but they would be library items rather than my own and you, dear reader, can find them as readily as I can, if interested! But here are a few pics of women in 'smart' fashion typical of the period around 1960, as worn for more formal business or social activity. The accompanying stiletto heels were often rather higher than those shown - anything from 3 - 4" was commonplace and 4 - 5" favoured by some women, of all ages. Perhaps surprisingly, women quite often dressed formally within the home, or outdoors for local shopping etc - in dresses and stilettos and sometimes with a hat.
  5. 1 point
    Chapter 3 - At grammar school In September 1960, I started at an all-boys’ grammar school in West London. I travelled there by train, with one change in the morning and two going home, taking about half-an-hour. (My free season ticket proved very useful as it could be used at weekends too and got me most of the way into central London.) I soon got to recognise a number of regular travellers, either on my trains or waiting at the stations I used. A number of women whom I saw regularly were dressed smartly ‘for the office’ and usually in stiletto heels. One I well remember seeing most days when I changed trains was around 50, had ginger hair and invariably wore high black patent stiletto courts – at least 4.5” – although her gait was not very elegant. The many students at any of the several colleges along my line generally followed the prevailing fashion, albeit often not quite so elegantly as those commuters in employment. The girls favoured pencil skirts and the boys narrow trousers, in both cases usually teamed with winkle-picker shoes. My school, although fairly relaxed in terms of ‘rules’, had a compulsory uniform and forbade the wearing such trousers or shoes. But a number of the boys did so and generally got away with it – a particularly popular style was the pointed Chelsea boot, typically with a high zipped or elastic shaft. The Beatle-inspired boots with Cuban heels (typically 2.5 – 3” high) appeared a little later, around 1965. One of my classmates wore a very pointed pair – but it was to be another 45 years before I got some for myself! I did however get some chisel-toed flat boots and side-buckled shoes, after I overcame parental objections, and wore them regularly to school. Many pupils from several other schools I saw frequently broke wholeheartedly whatever uniform rules applied – especially those requiring caps or hats to be worn. Some girls in particular endeavoured to wear tighter skirts, discreet make-up and jewellery, along with kitten heels – or anything but the prescribed flat ‘school’ shoes (with ankle socks for the younger ones). I got to know most of West London well, as various school trips (and the weekly journey to the hated sports ground for an afternoon’s purgatory) took me to most parts. The sights and sounds of this cosmopolitan area made quite an impression, particularly that of the growing immigrant West Indian population. But this was not long after the Notting Hill race riots and discrimination was common and quite blatant. A number of the rather run-down tenements along Shepherds Bush Road, for example, clearly displayed notices declaring ‘No blacks; no Irish; no dogs’ to deter potential tenants. But those who had found a home there seemed generally colourful and cheerful, even if their houses and jobs were not. In the warmer weather, the women typically wore brightly-coloured dresses, teamed with hats and white stiletto courts, and their children usually looked very smart when in their best clothes for church or outings at the weekend. In my view, they set a good example which was not easy to beat. School work took up much of my time, along with my essentially indoor hobbies - particularly model making and stamp collecting. There was limited opportunity for socialising outside my immediate family group, and both that and leisure trips were somewhat restricted in scope as we never had a car. However, public transport links were quite good and I made much use of them for weekend jaunts, by myself or with the family. We joined regular summer Sunday excursions by train to the Sussex coast and our annual fortnight’s holiday in an English or Welsh destination was invariably reached by train. Although these expeditions permitted some ‘girl spotting’ (and discreet heel appraisal), there were few opportunities to meet the girls themselves That situation prevailed, alas, until after I had left school, as I shall touch upon in the next chapter.
  6. 1 point
    Chapter 2 - At junior school In the autumn of 1956, I left the infants school and moved into the adjoining ‘junior mixed’ school for the next four years. The scene was much as before – a sea of matronly frumpiness but with the addition of rather stern men in sports jackets. The deputy head, another pleasant and effective teacher in her 40s, was however an exception. She was a diminutive and neat woman who invariably wore stilettos – usually black suede ‘baby dolls’ with a heel of at least 3.5”. Her glasses were retained by a cord round her neck and perched on her fairly prominent bosom when not being worn. A never-forgotten event at the end of my third year was the retirement of the headmaster, a well-respected man whose rather formal ‘tweed suit and brogues’ appearance belied a kindly nature. During his retirement speech in front of the whole school and a number of parents (many of them former pupils), he burst into tears. He had been understandably overcome by the emotion of the moment, which we all briefly shared sympathetically with him. For the first couple of years, the secondary modern school on the same site was also ‘mixed’ and the older girls there (14 – 16) were not obliged to wear uniform and took advantage of that, with some seen in the prevailing fashions, including winklepickers and kitten or modest stiletto heels. Outside school, I had joined what was then known as the ‘Wolf Cubs’. In addition to ‘Akela’, there were two or three young women who helped with our activities from time to time. One of them, in her early twenties, was fairly tall and slim and in the summer often wore thinly-strapped slingback sandals with 3” stilettos. Not the most practical of footwear for active service but nice to look at; I have favoured them ever since. For the record, my experience of wearing any women’s footwear during this period was limited to a few attempts at trying-on a few of my mother’s shoes or sandals, out of pure curiosity. Alas, my feet were almost too big and anyway her styles were unexciting. How I envied those friends whose mothers or sisters had what was (to me at least) better and more adventurous taste – although I doubt their shoes would have fitted either. Once, during a game of hide-and-seek in a mate’s house, I found by chance a pair of his older sister’s white stiletto courts. Alas, they were just too small, despite being marked as an ‘8’ – probably American sizing but this puzzled me for years. I left the junior school in the summer of 1960 and, having passed the entrance exam, was awarded a free place at a good grammar school in West London, starting there in the September. This opened-up a whole new world for me, as I shall describe in the next part of this chronicle.
  7. 1 point
    As a fellow 'older diesel' car driver who lives near enough to central London to consider driving into or through it, I share your well-stated concerns. My trips nowadays are rare enough for the impact not to be of great concern, but I do resent very much the effective 'ban' now imposed - and which will get much worse in less than two years when the entire area within the North and South Circular Roads becomes the 24-hour charging zone. The latter will concern me more as it will effectively (very effectively) stop me from venturing briefly into, say, Lewisham, or Hammersmith or some such non-central area to pick up or drop off some large or heavy item that I could only transport in my car. I will not pay a ransom for doing this. And what of the residents or businesses located there? I know they have some temporary concessions, but they will (eventually) have to change their vehicles or face every-day swingeing costs - in the region of £100 per day for goods vehicles. That must mean that anyone living within the North/South Circulars and buying something (a fridge, a settee, a garden shed) that has to be delivered by road from a distance will likely have to pay a huge premium for its delivery, even if the same vehicle can make several drops in the same trip. Likewise, who will buy from businesses there, especially if collection is needed? I do however use the train, underground and buses to get into and around London; they pose no problems in navigation etc for me. I agree that they are not particularly cheap, but the true cost comparison with driving is not necessarily unfavourable, unless two or three are travelling together. The biggest drawback of public transport is the limitation on what can be conveniently carried (or comfortably/discreetly worn). The new charges are really a con, or at least primarily a revenue-raiser. They apply the typical British rule that one is totally prohibited, for the alleged benefit of the environment and civilisation, of doing anything useful, convenient or pleasurable - unless of course one is prepared to pay through the nose for it, when it suddenly becomes permitted - welcome even. (Rather like smoking, isn't it?)
  8. 1 point
    I've no idea if anyone from 'foreign climes' will be reading this, but we in the UK have a peculiar tendency to charge for anything and everything to do with travel. We also seem to be world-leaders in punishing drivers for doing what has been recommended by way of government policy. Some ten years ago, the UK government wanted us drivers to buy diesel vehicles. They produce less CO2 than petrol engined vehicles, and often go further on the same volume of fuel. We drivers did as the government recommended. 10 years later, diesels are now worse than petrol engined vehicles unless they use ultra-modern technology (which is not retro-fittable) although the new technology now makes them 'cleaner' than petrol engines once again. The bogeyman of older diesels "particulates". There has been a "Congestion Zone" in the Westminster/West End of London for some years. To the occasional visitor, that charge has been avoidable, since it only operated during 'weekday working hours'. The current charge is £11-50 and that charge is made between 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday. Secure parking is expensive too, at circa £10 an hour. On street parking not much cheaper, if cheaper at all and usually comes with a 4 hour maximum stay. Who would WANT to drive into the West End? Transport for London (TfL) would say this works well keeping the street open enough for buses and taxi's to navigate the busiest areas, and encourages people to use public transport. Having used London Underground, and been completely confounded by the London bus system, no-one will be surprised I would not use it, and that's before costs are brought into the equation. Circa £12 for a daily ticket, and an inclusive ticket that includes overground travel being closer to £24. For two people using public transport, it can still be more expensive than a short car trip into the West End, and a lot slower if you are going to one place. With the news "particulates" from diesel powered vehicles are more dangerous than CO2 emissions, the London mayor and TfL have introduced a new charge for vehicles that produce particulates, the very engine type the UK government encouraged people to buy claiming they were more 'environment friendly'. And unsurprisingly, this new charge is applied around the clock, so no escape from it - other than staying away or even more expensive public transport. As some are saying, this is not much more than a local tax, and not a cheap one at £12-50 per day for a smaller vehicle. Visitors to the West End using diesel vehicles that don't have new technology engine management systems (with additives injected into the fuel system to prevent particulates being formed), are being charged £ 24 per vehicle per day (unless exempt from the £11-50 Congestion Charge). I drive an older diesel, as recommended by the government of the day. How is this pertinent on the Outing V thread? Not only do I not plan to walk through London's public transport system to get to the venue wearing a court shoe (which might ruin them anyway), I do plan to drive there. My journey might be late enough to avoid the Congestion Charge, but I won't be able to avoid the Emission Zone charge of £12-50. I might be more inclined to use public transport if the each way journey didn't add up to £12 each (there will be two of us travelling) and there is car parking at the Underground Station to add to the £24 (total) transport cost. And add to the the two lots of costs, a fair bit of walking too. Paying the ULEZ charge is more economic, saves time, and a lot of energy. So has the 'charge' actually done anything to reduce the particulates from my vehicle? Will that charge/money do anything about reducing the particulates from any vehicle? So it's not a charge, it's a fine. I get fined for driving a vehicle that uses an engine the government told me they wanted me to drive. Rant over...
  9. 1 point
    @Puffer et al..... If someone starts a thread.... (Starter is known as "OP" original poster AFAIK) there is a declared subject matter. Usually not well hidden in the title of the thread. So lets say I start (or you start, or someone starts) a thread called "my new bicycle", and the OP goes onto to write up about their bicycle (as expected). Contrary to your declared understanding, that thread ISN'T open to discussion about umbrellas, wellingtons, pineapples, nor overcoats. The subject of the thread is "bicycles" and that is pretty plainly understood to everyone on every other BB I've ever been part of. "A thread", or any thread, isn't a free for all that allows anyone wishing to make comments about; the weather; where they go shopping; or how old they are. THAT would be described as something "off thread" or "off topic". And again, contrary to your rather 'straw man' point, keeping the subject "on thread" isn't going to stifle democracy, nor 'free speech'. If the OP writes something about bicycles and someone wants to make a comment about the price of oranges, that second subject (price of oranges) should get it's own thread. If the person who wants to declare they are upset about the price of oranges, or the taste, quality (whatever) and can't be bothered to start a new thread (possibly titled "Have you noticed the price of oranges these days?" the chances are the issue just isn't important enough to be mentioned. Nothing to do with democracy, nothing to do with free speech. This thread, or the MKII is and was about 'outings'. If someone wanted to contribute, the expectation would be/could be, others would share their 'outings' planned for the next few months, or further forward. This would be 'on topic' and wouldn't be a contribution by the OP at all. (Obviously.) Euchrid for example, goes to lots of places to see bands, with or without heels. His 'on topic' contributions would have been very welcome, because they were "on topic". In fact I'm disappointed he doesn't have his own "Outings" thread here because he could keep us all interested in his activities. Edited and returned, having had some very positive contact from from Puffer.
  10. 1 point
    Hi all, I have been lurking this board for soem time now. I have been active in the past on this board and on hhplace as wel. time to break the silence and say hi. I'm living in the Leiden area and I work as an IT consultant. I have loads of heels and womens shoes. Feel free to ask any questions. Kind regards GJOGJ
  11. 1 point
    Yes, Not was the word that should have been in there. I have corrected it. I agree - it is great that girls have more openings and are not being pigeonholed but boys need the same latitude and there seems to be little movement in that direction.
  12. 1 point
    I assume you meant '... not a fetish thing ...'? I think you are right about girls, much more than boys, being in the 'genderless' spotlight. All part of the female striving for equality. Nothing wrong with that, if it cuts both ways - but men are still denied much that is supposedly reserved for women, including certain clothing I could mention.
  13. 1 point
    I don't recall any interest in heels when I was young or that much interest in footwear in general, other than a general feeling of being left out because girls could wear interesting boots and boys could not. Then, as now it seemed unfair. It was not a fetish thing or an obsession, just a fashionable wistfulness that manifested itself in the autumn when new boot styles would appear in the high street shop windows and I would realise, ruefully, that all of them were 'forbidden' to me. Although there is much talk of genderless play and toys these days, nearly all of that is about making certain that girls do not feel obligated to stick to pink and girly toys, but feel free to explore their inner selves. Boys are still overwhelmingly directed to boys toys.
  14. 1 point
    I'm sure most of us can relate to this, either personally or through our offspring. I know that, as a youngster, I admired several female shoe styles - flattish boots and strappy sandals in particular - and coveted the idea of wearing them as a change from ugly, boring conventional 'boys' footwear - although it never happened (then). And the prevailing fashion for stilettos was not lost on me either, although I fully realised that they were, literally, a step too far. I didn't even have the courage to wear men's cuban heels in the 1960s - I had to wait until almost 2010 before I got any. My grandson (3 1/2) is mad on tractors, diggers, cranes, buses, trains and the like. But he also quite often puts on his older sister's frilly tutu, Supergirl outfit or sparkly party dress. It is all part of make-believe and play for them both and has no connotations beyond that, as far as I can tell. However, last time we visited, my wife took off her bootees (3.5" tapered heel) and left them in the hall. Said grandson appeared wearing them shortly after - so there may be hope (or not) for him yet!
  15. 1 point
    That’s quite true. I quite innocently fancied a pair of go-go boots as worn by a very pretty red haired girl in my class, never really giving any thought to the idea that they were strictly for girls. I’m not sure I was even fully aware of it. It was 1970 and fashions were quite colourful and fluid and I thought those boots were really cool. I don’t recall what it was that clued me in, but when I realised that I had been wanting a pair of girls boots I was mortified and relieved that I hadn’t yet asked for a pair, as I had been about to. That set me off on a course of distrusting my own tastes and style. I was in my mid-fifties before I finally dared buy and wear a pair of knee boots. Now I wear them all the time. And the world didn’t stop spinning. Nor did I attract the least bit of notice. Never did buy any go-go boots though...
  16. 1 point
    While out shopping today, I noticed these. Reduced in store to something like £120. The heel is not as high as I would like, but the sort of heel that could be worn all day (if the opportunity arose.) What attracted me to them was the narrow-ish shaft, and small spacing between the lacing eyelets. It suggested the boots could be tightened to fit my very slim legs. Better still if the were higher, and covered calfs.
  17. 1 point
    I quite like knee and over the knee boots - I’m not fussed about the heels. I have several flat pair of tall boots which I wear all the time during the winter and do not attract the least bit of attention.
  18. 1 point
    I was given for Christmas a DVD collection of Bette Davis films. (Not sure why - I'm not really a fan of hers.) I watched one of them recently - The Virgin Queen (1955), which is all about the relationship between Queen Elizabeth I (Davis) and Sir Walter Raleigh (Richard Todd - who is excellent). Throughout the film (which had a fair amount of swashbuckling action), Sir Walter and most of the other 'men of substance' wear thigh boots in nearly every scene. Although the boots are flat, they are close-fitting and long (typically approaching crotch-high) and in black leather, brown leather or brown suede. Interestingly, Joan Collins also appears (as Sir Walter's lover and later wife) but wears no notable footwear. I don't know how accurate the costumes were. Thigh boots were certainly worn by men at this period, mainly for riding or as part of a uniform so perhaps not as frequently as in the film suggests for other activities. But it was good to see them 'in action'. Here are some stills which show Todd in his boots:
  19. 1 point
    I think it's Melbourne based on the facebook posters profile. I should point out that the video is not mine, nor do I know the subject or the commentator. The commentator doesn't seem to approve, but many in todays West would simply shake their head and walk on, and some would be supportive. I have said before that what people wear and how they present themselves is up to them. People should be free to do and say what they wish so long as they don't infringe the rights and freedoms of others. However, society does have expectations, and if you push outside the envelope tooooo far, there are those who will take it upon themselves to push back. Society's norms change slowly, and I would argue that those who push the envelope are the main agent for change. the less stout of heart follow after? This young fellow is apparently attending a pride march. If 10% of western populations are gay, bi, or LGBT of some sort, you could argue that his outfit is really the male equivalent of a girl in hot pants or a mini? Having said that, I think the outfit is more appropriately clubwear than streetwear. So outfit critique, clothes and heels. Over to you.
  20. 1 point
    Well, I truly admire your concern for your grandson's well being and emotional health. This is a tough situation for sure. But, I feel that if your Grandson has a possible interest in heels, he will discover them sooner or later, even without knowing you enjoy wearing them. So, perhaps it is better to talk with him now, kind of "feel him out" on his opinion of you wearing heels. It surely sounds like your Grandson has been raised correctly and would accept your heeling fully, even if he is not interested in wearing them. But, in case he is/might be interested in wearing heels, perhaps you can help him by exposing him to your heels now, so this will help him to feel that it is "OK", and he will be accepted and encouraged by family members. I spent so many years trying to "hide from myself", crippling myself with self hatred, I just hope I meet a young guy someday that I can help avoid wasting so many valuable years. You are not exposing your Grandson to anything "bad", you would not be giving him his first cigarette or beer. I know that you only want the best for him though, and I respect you greatly for that....Don
  21. 1 point
    Great job DWW, kids are more durable than we believe. It is best to expose them to your heels when they are very young. Like you say, they will ask a few questions but that is fine. They will grow up knowing that men in heels is perfectly normal, and won't be bothered by any other kid's (or stupid adult) comments..........
  22. 1 point
    There was recently a late 15th century skeleton found in a construction site near the Thames, still wearing the pair of thigh boots he had been wearing when, apparently, he drowned. It is believed, from evidence provided by his skeleton, that he was either a fisherman or a sailor. Several pair of thigh boots were also found in the wreck of the Mary Rose. The 15th century thigh boots found on that skeleton are the oldest thigh boots known. Although simply made, and unadorned, they would have been expensive at the time. At that point in time - late 15th century - boots in general were fairly rare. They came into their own over the next century or so.
  23. 1 point
    I entirely agree about the hyperbole that seems to attach to any press mention of 'high' heels. Although the Daily Mail, for example, gives fair coverage of heel-related fashion and stories, it does seem incapable of mentioning heels without attaching trite and unnecessary qualifiers. Enough to send my blood pressure 'sky-high'!
  24. 1 point
    This is a critique part of the Forum, knock yourself out. "In the flesh" these looked taller, and the heel isn't exactly unpleasant. The real stopper is the price. Even reduced to £120, and assuming they had my size, I doubt I'd be making a purchase. That might change if I worked in an office and could wear these at work. That 4.25" is a very wearable height for my size 8 feet, and I'd like to wear heels for a work day or work week to get the experience of it. Ho-hum.
  25. 1 point
    Nice boots - if you will permit me to say so! I agree that a longer shaft and a heel higher than the advertised 4.25" would be an improvement.
  26. 1 point
    The lovely, Helen Mirren. At 73 ......
  27. 1 point
    A regular high heel wearer .... Celine Dion Always a special pleasure to see a mature lady wearing high heels.
  28. 1 point
    I'd wear these two.
  29. 1 point
    Interesting, Freddy, and certainly illustrating the growing advantages of online shopping. I find myself buying 'over the counter' (of almost anything apart from food) quite rarely these days as the speed, convenience and greater certainty of buying online wins hands-down, quite aside from any potential 'return' requirement. The halfway-house is ordering (and maybe paying) online for collection at a local shop, with the likely advantages of speed, not missing a courier and minimising delivery charges. The sealant I wanted on Monday from Screwfix was in stock locally when I checked late on Sunday evening - but only one tube. So, a few minutes online secured it before someone else bought it and I had no wasted journey.
  30. 1 point
    If I thought it would achieve anything, I might be tempted. But realistically, the best option is Twitter (Zara must have an account) and I would need to open or reopen an account to do that, when I really don't want to waste any more time on them. I've put the unpleasant experience behind me, and any possibility I might buy from them again. And there we have a good reason to avoid in-store purchases, and returns. A protracted returns procedure the very reason I gave up buying from House of Fraser, which was just as effective as Zara seems to be during the sale period. As a reminder, I had returned some shoes to HoF Oxford Street bought online. I saved them the return carriage cost by making a personal delivery. Showing the delivery note with all my details, wasn't enough for the supervisor to put the money back in my account, I had to present the c/c too. Not usually required these days, but it was part of their procedure. Not only did I have to present my card, but I also had to 'sign in' the receipt. The supervisor didn't like my signature compared to the signature on the card. A heavy verbal debate ensued. My stand was that I was returning goods, not taking them. Would a crook return products (I was entitled to return as the delivery note confirmed). If I returned the goods by post, HoF would have pay carriage, and neither card nor signature would accompany the goods being returned. Worse still, during that time I could sign up for 'instant' store credit, and walk out with £200+ worth of goods based on providing a name and address. The supervisor conceded this too. I got a credit on my card. A day later I got a phone call from the store General Manager, who was apologetic and agreed all my points regarding the return procedure. But it wouldn't be changing. Well, how did that work out for the group of stores? A painless returns policy 'made' Marks and Spencer. That policy took hundreds and hundreds of pounds off me over the years. Many retailers realised it gave customers comfort when buying, so have copied their procedure. John Lewis and Screwfix being obvious nominees for the 'copycat' awards. Both offer pain free returns, both are very busy businesses. That isn't their only attraction of course, but pain free returns mean customers will take products away to try (JL) or buy more than they need (SF) knowing surplus can be easily returned. Not that everything bought with a view to returning if necessary, gets returned. A side benefit of the 'easy returns' is that the returns window is sometimes missed. Been there, done that. New Look started to make life difficult for buyers, when they decided any discounted stock could not be returned. Anything you bought in a sale, had to be kept - unless bought online of course. Idiotic? Same was true of Select. No in-store purchases at all could be refunded, only store credit was offered instead, unless you bought online!! Like New Look, Select is another retail group shrinking fast with high street shops just disappearing. Of course Select quality was never great anyway. A pair of their shoes I wore for the first time, all but fell to pieces. (Written up elsewhere.) I like to support the high street, and loathe the Amazon business model, I don't see why a high street should offer a lower service than one I get online. Just doesn't add up to me. But 30 minutes queuing for returns to be processed - not acceptable Zara.
  31. 1 point
    I almost haven't bought any shoes for ages. What I should say is, I haven't bought any to keep/wear recently. These proved irresistible: Can't see a time or place where I could or would wear them, but as I said, irresistible. Missed these from Zara in my size: I also bought some flat stretch knee boots from Zara to try at home. The shafts were loose, despite being a stretch material.... Not sure why I keep torturing myself even trying to find some boots with shafts something close to the size of my thin legs. The eternal optimist may be?
  32. 1 point
    I'm trying to find an acceptable way to show my heels to my younger son (25) and his girlfriend. She's lovely and almost bound to accept them. I intend wearing my cowboy boots with 3.75 inch heels on Friday to meet up with them - and her mother! I've worn my concealed heels before, but that's just what they are - concealed. She might have noticed them and recognised them for what they are, but she didn't say anything. I have a dialogue with my wife at the moment who wants me to get rid of anything I wouldn't wear when family and church friends are around, so...
  33. 1 point
    In your previous post, you referred to No. 1 grandson and (later) No. 2 grandson. Presumably the latter was a typo! I only have one grandson (so far) and he is 15 months! So, a little young to be interested in shoes of any type, but his mum does have a few pairs of heels so he may grow up in the right way ...! His dad (my son) is not so inclined and as, like me, he is a UK11 or 12, he has a disadvantage there anyway.
  34. 1 point
    There is only the one, and he's 13. Lovely boy. We hope he stays that way.... He would certainly know about the 'heels' and Mrs Freddy. There was a time when her family and friends expected her to appear in very high heels every time they met her. (I may have had some influence there...) Been a little while since that was the case, but her shoe collection is still 'Legend'. While my heels are not left out for him (or anyone else) to stumble over, an inquisitive person (he is) might not have found it too difficult to find the rack with my shoes and boots on. If he had suspicions, he might ask. Since he hasn't asked, I have to assume he doesn't 'know'. I'd like to tell him, but it might create some 'influence' (normalisation) and that could draw him down a route he might otherwise not take. My concern, is this: If he knows men wear heels, he will try them on (his mothers.) If on trying them he both likes/enjoys them, that will never change. (Experience tells me.) That could in turn, lead him along the same line of 'interest' I have had for the wrong side of 50 years. I found a way to make it a pleasure for me for all that time, but it was a challenge to make it a pleasure. I was brought up in challenging times, so it wasn't something I felt was a hardship, as with everything else, you just 'got on with it'. Our current youth don't have this sort of environment (school of hard knocks) to toughen them up to the challenges they will experience in their lives. They are (frankly) soft of mind and body compared to those of the late 50's and 60's. Back then, people were still going hungry. Still struggling to own a car. Using a phone meant walking to a street corner to use a public phone. Televisions were often rented not owned. Dirty work often killed parents prematurely. So my concern is: My influence might lead a 'soft' (malleable) mind toward a path they ultimately struggle to cope with. If it (the mind) gets there without influence, then 'fate' (or DNA) is responsible, not me. If it (the mind) does get there, I can offer support and experience, provided either would be welcome. (As with all young people, they all know everything, so are usually unwilling to take guidance.) Why am I so sure this situation is a prospect? He is considered to be quite a 'genteel' lad. Not interested in sport because he is tall and slight, lacking 'strength' but is a very bright lad. Has more girlfriends than 'mates', though he does have mates too. In many respects, he has quite a worldly head on his shoulders. He has the intellect to cope with unusual situations, but I don't know he (yet) has (or will ever have) the strength of character to walk away from temptation ~ even when knowing there could be a precipice somewhere along the route. Coming full circle, my own experience suggests that's a challenge my family are not well equipped to deal with. I might have been in my mid-thirties before I realised I could be my own person. That's too late for some.
  35. 1 point
  36. 1 point
    as a matter of fact i do. these are jeffey campbel Lita boots.
  37. 1 point
    Hi Freddy, I wear them, mostly in private. Chelsea boots with a lower heel are worn to work. 95% of my shoes have the origin in the ladies department of a store. The rest are either designed with an unisex or male appoach. So comming back to your question I wear them and I have a small collection.


×
×
  • Create New...