Shyheels

You are right to look at it in the terms of how many times gave you been to the opera. This is a big thing, a major treat, and there are times when it pays to push the boat out. Sure, the price might seem high, even unconscionable, but you're a long time dead. Money is for spending. Doing something special can be a wise investment in life. The cost will seem little enough someday when you're in your 80s and looking back...

Oh yes, I would have that many images were I shooting film - 1300 is not that many, just enough to keep me out of mischief in the couple of days that I am home. It is of course quicker with digital since there is no lab time, just downloading. But 1300 images is less than 35 rolls of film equivilant, not all that much in the circles I run in. you clearly know vastly more about fitting a pair of jeans than I do and obviously put a great deal if effort into your searches. It is a real pity the clothing manufacturers - ue: the Chinese garment makers - do not take the trouble to make sizing consistent. my trouble is skinny calves and sturdy thighs from much hiking and cycling. Trousers are just nit shaped that way!

Even if they were 100% hidden you would still know you were wearing them and that would no doubt be entertaining to yourself - and that's all that matters. Weirdly enough I am not that into heels, for someone on this site - only tall boots, which I had always associated with heels and femininity - but I can never resist the idea of sneakily doing something offbeat or something you're 'not supposed to do', especially if it is entirely legal and not harmful to anybody. So get yourself the tickets and the scarlet pumps and go for it.

I am editing over 1300 photos at the moment, home for 48 hours before going to Central America tomorrow. It is surprising how difficult M&S can be to get good things in the right size. I do not shop there but my wife does and their quality control and sizing seems to be totally random. It is almost like you have to forget whatever is on the label, try on every individual garment in the shop and see - on spec - if any of them fit! Good luck with your search!

i would expect that if anyone can score a pair, you can. You seem to know all the places to look. Although I get the idea that these PU or faux leather jeans and/or jeggings are always going to be tricky to fit, since they are supposed to be snug and everybody's legs are different. Too many contours for an off the rack item to fit unless you are lucky.

Odd they would do it in English. I saw Madame Butterfly in Sydney earlier this year and loved it. I am not really an opera fan but circumstances took me to the Opera House to see it and I totally enjoyed the evening. My footwear was nit anywhere near as exotic as what you plan on wearing - I wore my nice conservative RM Williams kangaroo hide boots which I like very much. I was indeed in Kenya. For all the talk of dangers, I very much enjoy Kenya and the Kenyan people. As I say they are overwhelmingly nice. Patent and shiny is just not my thing (although, as I mentioned elsewhere I'd like to dare myself to try rock chic PVC trousers one day) But for boots I am pretty conservative and low key - dark grey suede and maybe, someday, dark brown leather.

Suede is an interesting one, isn't it. I quite like suede myself and, aside from liking it in general, chose to have suede over calf for my tall boots as I wanted to downplay any suggestion of 'fetish' about my boots (as there is none, on my part, just a fashionable liking for the style) and anything with any sort of a sheen seemed to suggest it, especially in black. A silly thing because I would also like a pair in calf too. I suppose there is just this bit of self consciousness about it. Suede seemed 'safer' although it is, as you say, more feminine as a rule, or at least 'softer'. And I do like genuinely prefer suede. But a pair of tall boots in calf, for more inclement weather, would be nice.

Seems you're fated not to get the Zara boots. I take your point on the other response about parasites. I skipped the anti-malarials this trip as I dislike taking them, but the invisible pests like dengue and malaria are a bit scarier than hippos etc. I also take your point in long sea journeys - love them. I have had the opportunity to have taken a fair few in the course of my work, although none lately. I miss it. good luck chasing up the thigh boots. Ne woukd think that as they are supposed to be n trend this year that it woukd not be so hard to find a good fit in your size. With my big feet that is an impossibility, short of made to order.

Hippos are the most dangerous animal on the continent - one of the few that kill for the hell of it. Very scary beasts, especially if you are camped along one if their waterholes. Not to be trifled with - keep well clear! as for the snakes and crawlies, no big deal. Shake out your shoes before putting them on and don't step blindly over fallen trees or put your hand down holes. The criminals and rogue police, soldiers are another matter. This continent has more than enough if those. There is a reason Niarobi is known as Ni-robbery. all this said, the overwhelming percentage of people here are friendly, decent, kind - as they are most places - and the scenery and wildlife are truly spectacular, although the Masai Mara may not be the best place to wear heels!

Go for it! not boot season here in Africa. Hippos snorting outside my tent...

Go ahead. Make your day.

Those were the days! I have read quite a bit about safaris in the 1920s and the stories of their fashions, absurdities and real-life glorious excess are truly hilarious. One of my favourite hunting tales concerned some privileged ass, shooting from a tree stand, who accidentally touched off both barrels of his .600 Nitro Express. The resulting recoil sent this fool flying out of the tree and about twenty feet down, breaking both his legs. No mention of whether or not he hit his target (probably a little dik-dik gazelle)

The dispatch riders boots which I mentioned were knee boots - not thigh. I'd like to have a pair - in my case, given some of the places I go for work, they would be quite justifiable! I believe that people on safari in Africa in the golden age of doing such things, back in the 1920s, word thigh-high cloth boots in the evenings in camp to protect their legs from mosquitos and other stinging/biting things.

They sound similar to a pair of 1917 motorcycle boots I saw and wouldn't mind having, They are exact replicas of those worn by dispatch riders on the front in WWI. Tall, sturdy, lace-up, low heels, sturdy soles. Very useful and good looking, in a classic retro way.

Thanks! Thousands of miles of air travel, many time zones, much pressure and dodgy environments. Sometimes - increasingly often these days, and that's no joke - I think I should have found a more sensible way of earning a living. Back briefly, heading out again Sunday. Some of the places I am going are a bit dodgy, so yes, I will be quite happy to return in one piece and pull up the drawbridge!

Ouch!

Suede is lovely. it would be really difficult, I think, to wear pull-on otk boots under jeans. I am sure it could be done But you'd really have to put in an effort. I rarely wear mine out, but that's mainly because I rarely go out myself - unless it is to travel, in which case the places I go are not really suitable for nice suede boots. For example in the next three weeks I will be travelling on assignments in Africa and Central America. When I get home I tend to pull up the drawbridge. When I have gone out I do not know if I get looks as I don't pay that much attention - usually jetlagged or otherwise off in my own little world.

I was 30 years younger once...

I wear my suede otk boots with jeans. They are nice and warm and comfortable on cold rainy days. But you are quite right as regards leggings/jeggings etc. They would not have much thermal value. I have several pair of very high quality merino tights for cycling, but even they require something over them - they are not called base layers for nothing. My otk boots are pull-on style and so are much less form fitting than ones with zips. This makes them much easier to wear with jeans.

I think the Fates are having fun with you. To round it out perfectly let's imagine she is a size seven but the damned fools at Zara sent her an eight, which she is having trouble walking in but she likes them too much to send back...

I like the top pair too, although not so high. Funnily enough I aways thought I liked thigh boots but having actually made the plunge into tall boots I find that over-the-knee style is more my thing. And only just over the knee. I can't see myself in tights or jeggings - again, Lycra on my bicycle is as far as I go in that direction - but I wear my suede over-the-knee boots with slim-fit jeans. I like them a lot and it is a look I feel comfortable with. I do not think it looks feminine at all. The only feminine association - and this just a theoretical one - would be simply because women are the ones who wear tall boots, evoking a Pavlovian response in the minds of those who notice. As to styling, there is nothing intrinsically feminine about my boots. Nothing at all. Had I stilettos there would be, or delicate heels, but mine are chunky (2 3/4 inch) or flat. And being suede, which I prefer anyway, there is nothing shiny or suggestive of fetish. They are very understated and classy, really. They are also very practical. I spent a lot of time at my computer either writing or editing/captioning photos and on these cold and rainy late autumn/early winter days they are wonderfully warm and comfortable. I like to work in a fairly chilly room, preferring to put on a jumper rather than turn on the heat (not out of cheapness but because I prefer cool air) and tall, heavy suede boots are a wonderful addition.

Good luck. I suspect you are correct - no size 8s. Or if they had them your order slotted in during that moment when the computer still listed them but the warehouse just ran out

Curiously enough one tall boot that is galloping off the shelves in the US is the traditional Maine hunting boot by LL Bean, the famous outfitter in Freeport, Maine. This is a duck-boot style with tall leather uppers invented in 1912 and for decades the classic boot worn by hunting guides and trappers in the north woods. That was then. Nowadays they are very fashionable - so much so that LL Bean cannot keep them in stock. Were you to try to order one now you might - just might - get it in April. And believe me, hardly any of the people buying them are likely to be venturing off into the north woods - these are city boots now. (Although I expect some disgruntled and bemused hunting guides probably still buy them, simmering to themselves over the higher cost and delays in obtaining them) Now I am not going to claim that these are gorgeous or elegant boots - fashion comes in many guises - but they are tall, varying in height from, as I recall, 6" to 16" and they are worn by men and women alike. Whether the male demographic is buying the taller heights, or keeping to ankle or mid-calf heights, I do not know. But they are certainly very, very popular in the US and have been for the past few years. They are also good boots. I grew up in the north woods and wore them a lot forty years ago. As you might imagine, I wore the taller heights. :-)

Exactly - why not? I've enjoyed the tangents and learned something about the idea of canal boat holidays. On the subject of unisex boots - the original topic of the thread and one of interest to me - I do not know much specifically about the offerings of YSL, but I am certainly pleased to see more interesting offerings along these lines. I think it would be nice to see barriers broken in both of the areas that limit men's choices in boots - heels and boot height, and preferably both. I quite like tall boots as a fashionable item (heels optional). But the wearing of tall boots by men - unless they are actually going horseback riding - seems to be off limits, regardless of heel height. There is no logic to it. I've dug into the history of boots and fashion, even contacted some prominent museum curators and history-of-fashion experts asking about this curious phenomenon and they can't explain it either and similarly see no logic. 'Boots are theatre', as one put it to me, and men foreswore the notion of theatrical dressing and fashion in the 18th century as part of the Great Male Renunciation, as it became know. While boots remained practical wear in horse and buggy days, and thus legitimately still worn, when the automobile came to the fore in the early 20th century they were no longer worn by men - except perhaps those on motorcycles. And when fashion designers made tall boots part of the sleek new look for women in the early 60s, what had been a neutral item became feminised and therefore no longer wearable by men except under the most traditional of circumstances - on horseback. A belated act of renunciation that has its roots in the mid-18th century and the so-called Age of Enlightenment. Isn't irony wonderful?

The actual topic of the thread is unisex boots fromYSL