Puffer

Interesting stuff - and has prompted some recollections of dreams and aspirations I've had too.   

I have a number of recurrent dream themes [make of that what you will], one of which is centred on the period just before final professional exams were to be taken - in the expectation that I was poorly prepared and would certainly fail.   (Of course, this was a retrospective view 45+ years on - the reality being that I could not now pass the exams I took then, quite aside from major changes in the syllabus since.)   The dream is tinged with concerns that my social life is limiting my study time and I am preoccupied with women and heels, including some shoes that I attempt to wear but which are too small [real life intervenes again] - and the time spent in finding them and trying them threatens my prompt arrival at the exams ...

Another footwear-related dream I have had revolves around the discovery of some sexy shoes of various sorts that I can wear - but in circumstances threatened by insufficient opportunity to do so or the probability of discovery [real life again?] and, of course, I invariably wake up before I really get anywhere.   Frustrating, ain't it?

As to what I would have done if I had my teens and twenties over again, I guess I would have been less inhibited in my clothing and activity.   But the environment then was less conducive to male heel-wearing etc than it is now, so I question whether I would have achieved more at that period of time.   (I realise that platform shoes etc were popular and widely worn by men in the 1970s, but that was not and is not a fashion that I would ever adopt.   And, ironically, although I had some mild winkle-pickers, I owned no cuban heels in the 1960s but have them now.   In retrospect, I would have loved to have worn them then, as some contemporaries did.)

I am, as ever, mindful that I have a retired psychiatrist as a next-door neighbour - and his wife is a psychologist.   And an anaesthetist lives on the other side.   I fear a whole lot of unpleasant new dreams in the offing ...   Quick, nurse - my medication!

Might depend on exactly what 'legwear' you have in mind; please explain.

2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I’m just an old sesquipedalian at heart...

Then you will certainly need a good lawyer when your case comes up ...

Freddy:   You have broadened the discussion concerning defamation and other forms of comment or disclosure way beyond the previous limits.   The English law on defamation was somewhat modified by the Defamation Act 2013.

There is a difference between 'fair comment' (now called 'honest opinion') and 'truth'.   A statement which is made maliciously will negate the defence otherwise available of being an honest opinion.   A malicious statement which is 'true' cannot be actioned in defamation but might be actionable in other ways, if damage is caused and proven.

My comment about you being 'obtuse' was not, as I trust you realise, intended to be offensive (let alone malicious or defamatory!) and of course it was you who described yourself thus. 

1 hour ago, FastFreddy2 said:

I think defamation, rather than slander.

If need be, re-reading my original remarks you will find they were obtuse enough as to be completely oblique. Unlike your comments.   

I was also careful not to mention her name in my original post ..... So a search on her name would not bring anyone here.

For my part, I quite like the way she dresses. Reminds me a bit of Celine Dion.  I find them both attractive. 

'Defamation' is the general term covering libel (written or broadcast - as above) or slander (spoken).   The scope for action and the remedy in a libel are not quite the same as in a slander.   In any action for libel, I would claim the defences of 'fair comment' and 'truth'.   I rest my case.

Failure to mention the lady's name is of no assistance to you; she was (and is) readily identifiable from the picture that you published here, as indeed my first reply indicates.

I do however completely agree that your own comments were 'obtuse' (although I'm not sure that you intended that to be the description). 

On 01/02/2018 at 9:29 AM, Shyheels said:

Shackleton, eh? Any relation to Ernest?

It was indeed (Lady) Fiona Shackleton.   And her husband is a descendant of Sir Ernest.   She appears to have a rather offbeat idea of fashion, at least given her profession and her age (61, and looks it).   [Having said that, she will probably now sue me for libel - I hope I will be able to afford someone cheaper than her to defend me; I believe she charges around £600 per hour!]

Fiona Shackleton?   If so, a very formidable lawyer, and woman, who is certainly best retained by your side - if you can afford her.

5 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Because of the global nature of the internet you will often get votes/comments etc in such polls by people from distant countries who have very limited English. 

Quite true on the sample size issue - 17 yes votes and 3 nays in 20 total respondents and you'll have 85%. Kinda meaningless. 

I appreciate that some respondents may have poor English skills.   But very few of them seemed able to make meaningful comments, however poorly expressed, which makes me doubt the value of anything said, beyond a simple and very subjective 'yes' or 'no'.

A somewhat pathetic poll, with most of the respondents scarcely able to marshal an argument, and seemingly semi-literate too.   The question itself does no-one any favours: 'Should men wear high heels?' implies that we are  being asked if men ought to wear them, whereas the question that really should be asked is: 'Should men be free to wear high heels if they wish?'.   

On the basis that an attempt to cast a simple yes or no vote produces a requirement to add a headline and a comment, it would appear that the responses so far are limited to those shown, i.e. fewer than 20 so far, which is far too small a sample to be truly meaningful.   I haven't voted.

6 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I have never been afraid of hard work. In fact, I’ll lie down next to it and go to sleep!

Or, as the poet said; 'Hard work never killed anybody - but then again resting results in very few casualties'.

I was not intending earlier to dismiss footwear with more substantial soles (as distinct from true platforms) as I can see that their better wearing properties and greater insulation (from both cold/wet and uneven surfaces) are beneficial and do not need to upset the style unduly.

I wonder however whether blind people make a conscious decision to avoid footwear that negates the useful warning given by tactile projections?   Come to that, would a blind person who is otherwise fully mobile consider (high) stilettos, platforms, loose-fitting mules etc to be too dangerous for wear except in very familiar or obviously safe ground conditions?   (Visions of an accompanying guide dog in high heeled bootees come to mind ...  )

Religion may well be the opium of the people, but someone once said that 'work is the curse of the drinking classes' - all too true.

Cheers, everyone! 

12 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Sometime between 2016 and the Autumn 2017, I sank another bottle of Gordon Sloe Gin. I remember the second bottle loitering for some months, and two summers (two small ones) helped me get through a second bottle. I know how to live it up!

Christmas 2017 saw me receive what is supposed to be an upmarket (own brand) version of Sloe Gin, care of Tesco. Marginally higher alcohol content, but not so much I would notice. . But the taste .... Absolutely awful! I'm guessing this stuff is made with very dry gin, and unless swamped in lemonade and Dubonnet, is almost undrinkable. I am surprised that two seemingly identical (budget) products could be so different? Were it not a present from a close family member, I would be using it for what I expect was it's original purpose: drain cleaner.

...

It is called 'sloe' gin because it hangs about for ages, as you have found.

I don't often imbibe spirits, although an occasional white rum and cola is acceptable, and a white vermouth (scarcely strong stuff) is good, especially with a lemonade mixer.   Gin (or rather tonic) is far too bitter for my taste.   Campari is likewise totally unacceptable - but I found that it brings my paintbrushes back to life quite effectively.

5 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Any government wants conformity too and will seek it with even greater vigorour - having (generally) more power.

I could live with greater conformity imposed in spelling.      (And the vigorour the better.)

Shyheels:   You make some interesting and valid points about the degree of (so-called) cross-dressing.   But some of your examples of what women have borrowed from men are not so sound.   Go back 100 years or so and a necktie was a familiar item of everyday dress for women, and has remained so in a smaller way, particularly as part of a uniform, in schools and otherwise.   Ditto, 'Oxford' shoes (i.e. lace-ups with a toecap and a heel of varying height) which were commonly worn by women of most classes in a non-dressy situation until well into the 1950s; again, often as part of a uniform (nurses, policewomen, servicewomen).   Although (now) predominantly male wear, both items have never been exclusively male.   Leaving trousers aside, many other items of male wear have been 'adopted' by women, often for expediency rather than pure fashion, e.g. loafers, macintosh raincoats, caps.   I can agree that women can and do wear men's items without thought of being considered weird, but my feeling is that this is largely because the items concerned are pretty tame and often utilitarian.   The reverse is not the case when men adopt the more frivolous and 'pretty' items worn by women, e.g. stilettos, some sandals, dresses, frilly blouses - none of which could really be considered utilitarian or more suitable than 'normal' menswear.

My feeling is that this is largely about attitudes to fashion.   Men are expected to be boringly drab for most of the time and any departure from that calls for comment, often adverse, especially when anything more colourful or delicate is involved.   The extremes of the late 60s - late 70s exemplified this.

I am not of course advocating censure of men for wearing 'high' heels or other traditionally feminine items, although often they go to extremes in appearance and conduct which does them no favours and 'queers the pitch' (pun definitely intended) for others.   And I agree that tall boots or cuban heels, for example, do not per se constitute cross-dressing, and certainly do not call for criticism or ridicule.   It must be largely a question for education, but that takes time - and the current obsession with 'trans/gay equality' etc is probably doing more harm than good because it merely highlights a quiet revolution in a way which, to many, invites censure and prejudice.  (There are parallels in the molestation situation that has become flavour of the year; I'm sure that mischief is being made simply because the concept has become more widely recognised rather than because real harm has been (allegedly) done.   An unpopular view maybe - and I certainly don't support rape or serious assault, sexual or otherwise.)

5 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Seen at tonights Grammy awards ......

 

 

"Make-up artist Patrick Starr is known for his bold beauty looks....."

 

Forget the (alleged) sex of the wearer - I think the overall look is well-coordinated and attractive.   The nails  are a finishing touch and show attention to detail.   Flamboyant and showy, yes, but not nearly as OTT as many 'event outfits' worn by people who should know better.

He could quite easily 'pass' imho - although my initial reaction was that I was looking at Martha (from the Tom & Jerry cartoons) on her night off!

5 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I never liked platforms of any sort. Especially with stilettos - they counteract; the stiletto is meant to be sleek, elegant, the rapier; not paired with a clunky platform sole.

5 hours ago, pointyboot said:

Something about platforms always seems like "cheating" to me. 

4 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I can see that point too. If I am going to be in four-and-a-half-inch stilettos, I want the full proper deal. But aesthetics are important too. Stilettos have an elegance that is blunted badly by platforms. 

I agree entirely!   Platforms (or even just a thick sole) do nothing to improve the look of any footwear, especially when the platform is clearly an 'add-on', often of a different size/shape to the 'normal' sole and upper.   The fastest way to destroy the elegance of what would otherwise be a stylish shoe is to add a platform, regardless of heel height.

7 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Actually I shoot for Strict Woman’s Weekly. You don’t usually see us displayed on the stands - we’re shrink-wrapped and sold under the counter. 

Ah!   Now I see the interest in tight and shiny clothing.   I assume the 'we' means Freddy and you; mind how you go!  

6 hours ago, Shyheels said:

One would hope.

I know - know as a fact - they would be out on their ear if they did anything like that at the magazine for which I work.  Gone...

I didn't realise that Woman's Weekly was so strict.

8 hours ago, Shyheels said:

At least you chased them. Plenty of people wouldn’t have bothered...

Empty sand/ballast bags - regularly re-used for taking rubble/rubbish to the tip.   Far too valuable to blow away and enhance the environment - or worse.   (I heard of an incident where such a bag blew into the road and wrapped itself around the head of a passing motor-cyclist, with obvious unpleasant results.)

10 hours ago, Tacchi Alti said:

Windy and drizzling here on the south coast. A lot of women walk like ducks and geese in high heels... ;-)

Hello ducky!   Mind if I take a gander at your heels?

Even more wind here in West Kent than experienced after sprouts on Christmas Day.   Rain too; not nice - especially when chasing empty poly bags across car park at Wickes this morning after they blew out of my car.   (No, I wasn't in heels.)

9 hours ago, pointyboot said:

Careful, my friends. What happens in the bedroom should STAY in the bedroom. ;-)

Oh dear!   You mean that I can't have a snooze in the lounge in front of the TV?

9 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Carpeted with asphalt? 

 

Surely, Freddy, you would want a properly-tanked concrete floor and vinyl sheet (siliconed at perimeter) in every room?   [Private joke ]

1 minute ago, Tacchi Alti said:

Well, I congratulate you on your reluctance to separate as I hate marriage splits. I suppose such a thing would also involve split of assets etc... No, I don't want to know about that situation but it was just something that comes to mind which could well be a strong factor. It would be with me!

You are right, and I think I have mentioned this before.   The financial aspects of any marital break-up are likely to be daunting, to say the least.   There are no true 'winners' (however much of Freddy's negotiating skills are employed!).   I am certainly not exempt from such heartache, although both parties would emerge with sufficient assets to maintain a reasonable lifestyle.   But what is more daunting, and certainly more stressful, is the whole range of logistical and physical processes that would come into play - especially the potential sale of property and house-moving.   (I dread the thought of a house-move regardless of its trigger; my workshop alone would take a week to sort out and pack up!)   All in all, 'staying put' is the current intention.

59 minutes ago, FastFreddy2 said:

I like a 'pointed' toe myself, but a rounded almond toe is always going to be a better fit, unless the point is quite long as with the boots shown. The downside to having a toe-box that long, is the terrible wear on the toe-tip. It's almost like it's dragged when walking, causing a surprising amount of scuffing on the end of the sole and worse, on the skin of the upper. The boots shown look to have a metal tip in place to help prevent the premature scuffing, but it wouldn't stop the upper being caught from time to time.

Of course there is an argument that suggests there's not much of a scuffing hazard found in a bedroom.   

38 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

For those of us with long feet naturally a super long pointy toe makes you like like an elf or that you're wearing shortened skis!

My feet are much the same size as SH's and, although not narrow, are fairly tapered (as distinct from stubby).   My wife (SWMBO) calls them 'witches feet' - but she is only jealous because hers are fairly wide and stubby - not very pretty, and not ideal for stylish shoes.

Quite apart from liking the look of pointed shoes (on both sexes), I find them more comfortable than those with rounded or squareish toe-boxes, which are too roomy, and always choose at least an almond shape.   Yes, a long point (as on my MJ boots) can drag or catch a little, but in practice I have not found that an issue.   The bigger problem is the potential for the 'empty' toe space to become squashed or misshapen.   I well remember the halcyon days of winklepickers, when few such shoes escaped without some such distortion.

The visual advantage of pointed shoes is that the extra length compensates for the foreshortening effect of a high heel - the opposite of the 'elf' scenario!   And, even tall blokes with big feet like me can benefit from the sleeker look of a pointed toe as we can otherwise easily look as though we are wearing clodhoppers - which of course many men traditionally do wear.   A case 'in point' is these boots of mine, with modest cuban heel and pointed toe (which needless to say are not to my wife's liking):