Puffer

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):

I'm not going to enter into any further discussion here about the merits or mechanism of 'negotiation' as the whole subject appears to be a minefield. Suffice it to say that I draw a distinction between acceptance/tolerance (or not) of a poor situation, however grudging, and entering into some form of discussion/debate/negotiation in an attempt to change or compromise that situation. I accept that we do not usually inhabit a black and white world - but some intermediate shade of grey can so often be totally useless to all concerned. I entirely agree that my wife (as with women generally) has an elephantine memory for (alleged) misdeeds and will trawl them up and use them against me with monotonous regularity - hours, days, months or years after the event. Yet another example of the Sword of Damocles that hangs over much of my life. I accept that my abandonment of heels is unlikely to make much if any difference to the relationship when 'history' cannot be erased, or forgotten - but I meant what I said about willingness to do it if it would produce a worthwhile result. (Blimey - have I just suggested a 'compromise'? Next thing is I will be actively 'negotiating'!)

You have all given me food for thought - for which I sincerely thank you. At the moment, I don't think there is any solution that is both beneficial and acceptable. I am not opposed to counselling in some form, although I very much doubt my wife would be willing as she would regard it as intrusive and, quite possibly, merely a formal precursor to a permanent split. She would balk at any inevitable discussion of our (non-existent) sex life too. My main objection is that I am not too happy at discussing heel-wearing etc with any counsellor - a view my wife is also sure to have - especially as, although it is clearly one contentious sticking-point, it is not really the focus of our marital discord but would, I think, become a very prominent factor in any counselling and could cloud the issue. I am never very comfortable in any 'negotiating' situation, as I approach most issues on the basis of being reasonable in my demands at the outset and unwilling to concede much, if anything, unless a very strong case is made by my opponent. (My experience, alas, is that most opponents are merely trying it on when they have a poor case.) I well recall that, in my last job (where there were strong elements of opposition to certain of my ideas from people who were, frankly, both ignorant and unbending), it was suggested that I should go on a 'negotiating course'. I managed, however, to talk my way out of that, rather proving its irrelevance! At the end of the day, I would give up heels completely and dispose of my small collection if I really thought it would improve my position. Alas, that would make little difference given the steady decline in my marital relationship overall. It was suggested earlier that I must love my wife very much to put up with her 'bullying'. I really don't know what to say about my true feelings as love takes many forms; I certainly respect and admire her for most of her qualities aside from being a wife. Conversely, I am told quite often that she does not love me - nor even 'like' me any more. Enough said, I think.

Yes, and no. Again, I must clarify. I am not suggesting that I should now stick two fingers up at my wife (and much of the world) and wear heels etc with few inhibitions, or indeed carry on any other activity that might be deemed to impact adversely upon my marriage, household or family. But I don't rule out some mild 'putting my interests first' activity if the constraints imposed by others appear unduly intrusive. There is much in my life that I have achieved to a reasonable and acceptable standard - professionally, financially and personally. But I don't kid myself (or anyone else) that I have attained all my goals, or been as successful all-round as I should wish. And there is a fair list of things that I would like to do (or to have done) that are either now impossible (e.g. they no longer exist) or impracticable (e.g. because I lack the skill, time or essential facilities). Wearing heels is but a small part of my 'incomplete' list and I have to accept that it is increasingly unlikely to become adequately fulfilled, for the reasons already outlined and the inevitability of increasing physical constraints. Even if male heel wearing became a permanent and fully-accepted UK fashion/lifestyle in 2018, I would scarcely be helped as my wife, at least, would still condemn it - another example of double standards as she (like most women) will justify what she does and wears by stating 'it's the fashion' when it suits her. So, I reluctantly recognise that my situation is unlikely to change materially. I am not by nature a 'dabbler' as I like to do things properly or not at all. So, maybe the activities that are becoming more impracticable should be quietly abandoned before they involve even more disappointment and frustration - or disharmony. That has already effectively happened with one of my entrenched lifetime hobbies and is likely to happen with another pastime within a year or two. No, I am not throwing in the towel and sitting idle until my 'call-up papers' arrive, simply recognising that some pies in the sky are likely to remain unbaked (or should that be half-baked?).

Wow! What a lot of interesting comment since I posted my tear-stained rant this morning! I should now perhaps set up the 'Puffer Persecution Fund' - all donations welcome and I expect a 'high yield' outcome. There is no obvious and truly practicable solution to my difficulty, but I don't want it to appear to be life-threatening. Wearing heels (or wearing or doing anything else considered 'unusual' for a man of my age/build/status) is not so important to me that it clouds my very existence or well-being. But being firmly told by my wife that I am perverted (or whatever) for expressing or pursuing such mild, harmless and essentially private interests is both demoralising and discomforting. I am not by nature an exhibitionist or even an extrovert, nor am I really gregarious; indeed, my background and upbringing is pretty conservative in most respects and I have never wanted to stand out in a crowd - especially as I am too tall to 'hide in plain sight'. Nor would I wish close family or friends to see me openly in the footwear I might wear from choice - and I have been (and am) careful to be discreet during my limited public excursions. As Grouch Marx wisely said: 'Marriage is a marvellous institution - but who wants to live in an institution? As both my first and my second marriages appear to have failed in most of their essential 'relationship' aspects (sons/stepsons aside) but have been pretty successful otherwise (i.e. materially and in terms of security and general comfort), I would be wrong to write-off the concept completely. But - and it is a big 'but' - my honest appraisal is that I would, on balance, have been better to remain both single and reasonably private/celibate, and thus able to lead a modest and quiet life of my own choosing. That, however, would have deprived me of the pleasure of being a father (and now grandfather) - but would I truly miss what I had never experienced? As seems to be the common experience of others, my wife has her own ideas of fashion and her age, activity and leg/foot health no longer involves any significant heel-wearing. She will wear modest heels, but only when she wants to and infrequently at that. More sadly, perhaps, she rarely bothers to 'dress up', even when occasion suggests (or requires) some effort in that direction and she has far more than her usual ten minutes of preparation time available. That saddens me, because although we don't go out together too often, it is good to use more formal excursions as an excuse to be and appear different from the all-too-familiar casual (aka sloppy) look that is the everyday fall-back of most of us these days, alas. Perhaps if my wife was more willing to adopt a more elegant/glamorous look on occasions (especially with heels), I would be less inclined to compensate by wanting to wear heels myself. Freddy rightly suggests above that I might be unwise to 'start to give [my wife] a real reason for criticism', as I stated earlier. What I really meant was that, faced with her apparently unshakeable belief that I have a number of unacceptable character defects, I might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. No, I am not proposing to enter into an extra-marital relationship, fuelled by booze and hedonistic pleasures, but maybe spending a tad more selfish 'me-time' would be appropriate during my (rapidly) declining years?

Illogical indeed - and unfair and just one example of typical female hypocrisy. My wife (whose abhorrence of my heel-wearing, and interest in footwear generally has been mentioned before) has a whole set of double standards by which she expects us both to live. She will, for example, enjoy watching on TV gay [how I hate that hi-jacked word!] or camp male presenters or actors, in character or not - even including female impersonators - yet loathes Eddie Izzard or any other man whose appearance might indicate a trace of make-up or female clothing in 'real life'. I am ridiculed if I decide to go out in my modest men's cuban heels or anything else with a pointed toe (which 'embarrass' her) - and she has made it very clear that she is 'sickened' by the thought of me wearing any women's high heels, which clearly indicates to her that I am at least an active crossdresser and probably homosexual or a potential transsexual. (She is an intelligent woman but her ignorance in these matters is quite astounding.) As to the ranking of heel-wearing in the catalogue of unacceptable husbandly activity, it is clearly a high one. But so, it seems, are most of my other characteristics when it suits her. And they are never counter-balanced by my skills and efforts in household management generally (including much of our shopping, nearly all of our significant DIY needs and looking after our finances) and an almost complete absence of those mostly blokish activities that can so easily ruin a marriage (financially or emotionally), such as drinking, gambling, womanising, fast cars, playing or watching sports. Maybe I should start to give her a real reason for criticism ...?

Indeed. Shirley ('Strictly') Ballas - who should know better - was pictured in a similar garment recently:

A good result, SH; my envy is unbounded! So we can all put things in true perspective, could you please confirm the boot size you have and the exact heel height (measured at the back). And if you can post some pics of the boots (ideally with you wearing them in one or two), that would be equally informative. After that, on to your next pair ...

Nice-looking boots - but very expensive, surely? I believe the maker is 'Omano', which does (or did) a very good-looking 'man's' ankle boot with a 5.5"+ block/cuban heel.

You won't be needing any PVC leggings then?

Yes, I know that film - made on the Midland main line (Bedfordshire?) as I recall. I will post a link when I can relocate it. The annual London - Brighton ride was catered for by special return trains for the cyclists and their bikes, but not for some years I believe as it was allegedly no longer 'operationally convenient'. I fully accept that the 1890s was far more 'bike-minded' than the 1950s (or later) but they were certainly still commonplace, especially among working men.

Good news! It could be that the fan (bearings) were just a bit sticky and the fan not turning as it should - a drop of lubrication may be beneficial. (I had the same problem on an oven fan recently, which appeared to have seized up - and, if the oven was used, there was a real danger of the element burning out because of the lack of an air current. On removing the fan and after cleaning/lubricating it, it worked perfectly. A good result - minimal delay and no cost.) Although I do use a gas-detection spray (e.g. Toolstation, which does one for £3.58), it is not essential as the traditional soap suds solution does the trick (but is best washed off afterwards). Checking for leaks is obviously very necessary; it can also be achieved by isolating all appliances except the one under test and watching for a meter movement, although that will not of course pinpoint the source of any leak. I had to do that some time ago at another property when a very faint smell of gas was noticed; there was a leak - at the meter itself, but fortunately easy to put right.

I envy you, SH, for your supportive and admiring wife - and feel sympathy for you, Freddy, in that yours, although also a supporter, is now a reluctant wearer. My wife is also a reluctant wearer - her reluctance being magnified to some extent by the knowledge that I would like her to wear them - and most certainly an opponent of me or any other male heel-wearer. She would not be swayed by any claimed benefits in terms of backache relief or improved exercise.

I am surprised by your assertions, based on my own close observations when growing-up through the 1950s. All things are relative, of course, and I would not disagree with the statement that bicycles grew progressively less popular in the UK as affordable alternatives (especially private cars) became more available. In my part of the world (suburban Middlesex, with a wide cross-section of residents - ranging almost from slum-dwellers to tycoons), bicycles were still a regular and very necessary form of daily transport for many working men and not a few women. Apart from postmen and policemen, they were widely used by other tradesmen (even for light deliveries), meter-readers, turncocks, local council officers, teachers, nurses, school children, students and many others. Just look at a typical 1950s factory gate (even in the affluent south-east) at the beginning or end of the shift and it will be swarming with manual workers (and clerks), a good number of whom would be on bikes. At least two of my school-friends in my own road had fathers who cycled several miles to and from work every day, in all weathers, as did at least half of my infant/junior school teachers. And bikes were still quite a common form of leisure transport - either relatively simple 3-speed 'push-bikes' or more sophisticated drop-handled jobs, used as much for convenience/cheapness as for sport/exercise. It was really only in the early-mid 60s that cars really took over for private transport. In my road (around 80 houses), I guess we went from about 4 car-owners in 1958 to 20 about a decade later - and my family didn't have a car until I got one in 1970. At the same time, more sophisticated bikes for leisure use (particularly by children and youths) came into vogue, probably more than replacing numerically the old ones made redundant by the car.

Are you then saying that your inclination is to go for the more-challenging (nominal) 120mm/5" heel, in the knowledge that in your size it would in fact be rather higher than 5"? Or are you saying that the nominal 4" (probably around 4.5" in your size) is the better introduction? I have little doubt that you could walk easily enough in 5"+ (as I can manage 5" and have few pretensions of fitness or agility), but I can see the merit of the 'lower entry point'. Do keep us posted - and details and a pic of whatever you do buy (with you wearing them or not) would be much appreciated.

Yes, the bicycle paved the way and the need for practicality was as good an excuse to seek liberation as any. I think that 'bloomers', which emerged around 1850, set the trend; they were a sort of pantaloons worn under a shorter skirt and initially met with much disapproval.

Gosh! Another lot of detailed exchanges with some interesting discussion - and not much 'sabre-rattling' either! I am a satisfied Amazon customer - several transactions pre-Christmas with exemplary service - but agree that one must be wary of the 'marketplace' sellers overseas, although on the one occasion when this caused me a problem a few years ago it was properly resolved with A's help. I agree too that some of the HH footwear sold thru Amazon (or other markets) is of doubtful quality, even if it conforms to the description. But reports elsewhere suggest not all; caveat emptor. As I also wear an Eu 45/46, I can speak with a little experience relevant to SH's intentions. I can wear and walk in a 5" (block/cuban) heel but my slightly bandy legs make them lean out a little too much in anything above 4". A 5" stiletto would probably not give me quite the same problem as the thin heel would cope with the 'lean' better without twisting the shoe upper - I can't say for sure as I've not tried any that fitted comfortably enough for proper wear. I can wear a 3.5" thin stiletto boot with ease - and with the definite feeling that it should be an inch or so higher. The world would be a better place if 4.5 - 5" non-platform heels were more or less universal - I would gladly accept the absence (or prohibition) of anything higher. But imho a 5 - 5.5" heel can still look graceful and attractive if worn with confidence - although that assumes a woman of reasonable height, build and shoe size. (My ex-GF was a case in point.) Frankly, I suspect that SH's perfectly reasonable view that a 120mm/5" stiletto is 'high enough' (on most women) is not really applicable to him, given his greater height and foot size as it will be scaled down. The equivalent gradient of a 5" heel on (say) Eu39 is about 5.8" for Eu46 - so perhaps a 5.5" heel ought to be his goal, even if not the immediate sensible step. I don't know quite what to make of the video link from Freddy (thanks!). (I don't think the look of the shoe is improved by the heel being so set back - and I suspect that it hinders walking too.) The wearer can clearly walk in the very high heels shown but the very limited perambulation does not really show whether she (?) would be at ease in walking properly over any distance. There are however other videos where similar heels are worn with some facility outdoors.

I wasn't trying to suggest that serious sexual assault, including rape, was commonplace, let alone truly accepted, at any recent period in time. My point - addressed later by Freddy - was that there was contemporary recognition that it did happen (or at least was alleged by victims to have happened) and was often brushed aside and not pursued at the time, but is now at risk of exposure and action decades later. A mere allegation is now enough to get the perpetrator promptly sacked, blackballed or whatever, regardless of any independent evidence, let alone legal action. Your second comment sums up my main concern, voiced to me by more than one other 'gentleman' friend recently. It is becoming increasingly difficult to show or express any admiration or consideration for the opposite sex without it being regarded as a form of invasion, bordering on assault. (And 'assault' means the mere raising of a hand or weapon rather than any subsequent impact (which is 'battery').) Just before Christmas, I got a dirty look from a woman of about 30 because I held a shop door open for her. But then again the pretty girl of no more than 20 who took my money in Asda was delighted when I complimented her on her long and immaculate nails. We can't really win these days - or even know what the odds are. As to women in trousers, I believe that it was more a question of them recognising that some type of trouser was far more comfortable and practical when carrying out manual work, particularly when this became widespread activity during WW2. Although employers would generally have provided protective clothing for many tasks, their obligation to do so for H&S reasons scarcely existed (prior to the 1974 Act) and I suspect that it was pressure from the workers rather than their bosses that brought about the general wearing, if not the issue, of trousers and other utilitarian clothing to female workers. And housewives followed the trend when they realised that this facilitated coping with the increased physical challenges of home-front wartime (and indeed post-war) life. It is interesting to compare the position to that of the Great War, when women were employed on any scale for the first time in work previously done exclusively by men. The women were still wearing skirts - usually almost to the ground - in almost every job, whether in uniform, overalls or street clothes, although there was some shift towards trousers, leggings and the like where an undivided skirt would have made their activity almost impossible. And, interestingly, I have seen pictures of women in the 1920s who were employed to clear away sludge from the ground at a chemical works who were in trousers and rubber waders, no less!

To my surprise, there are quite a lot of HH boots of various styles on Amazon, in sizes up to (allegedly) UK12 or UK13 - although I suspect some are not as generous as the size number suggests. Prices range from £25 or so upwards. One pair of rather nice (but not so cheap) OTK boots (up to UK13) is here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/UMEXI-Zipper-Stilettos-Contrast-Stitching/dp/B0783GFGSJ/ref=sr_1_85?s=shoes&ie=UTF8&qid=1515450744&sr=1-85&keywords=boots&refinements=p_n_size_three_browse-vebin%3A1920003031%2Cp_n_feature_seven_browse-bin%3A1919422031|1919426031&th=1&psc=1 As Freddy suggests, it may be sensible to buy something relatively cheap but suitably high (not necessarily a stiletto) simply to establish whether a 4 or 5" heel is wearable.

Very well put, SH; I agree entirely. I would only add that the 60s were even more easy-going [think freedom of speech; increasing wealth; the Pill etc] and progressively liberating, albeit in many ways more restrained than today. I'm not advocating that we should all be able to behave like Harvey Weinstein - but the fact remains that such conduct was widely accepted as the norm. But I am advocating, for example, that we should be able to make a personal comment without an officious bystander reporting us to the Gestapo.

What a lot of interesting stuff above - the pair of you have been 'at it' all night, it seems! The reasons for men wearing heels now has its own thread (started by Shyheels) at https://heels4men.net/topic/988-why-do-we-likewant-to-wear-heels/ and I suggest we continue that discussion there. The Louboutin analysis is thought-provoking. There are several videos on YouTube of women owning/wearing/analysing the Hot Chick 130mm heels and, although some find them 'difficult', they are clearly by no means impossible to wear, inside or out, even by women with a modestly-sized foot (say UK6). I admire those who can, and do. The pics are puzzling; the third (leopard print) pair in particular. I have seen these online frequently and attempted to identify them; they do (or did) exist in the L range but never with a claimed/admitted heel height of more than 120 or 130mm - yet the pic (if un-doctored) certainly suggests a height in excess of 5.5" (140mm). Some (female) discussion on the highest L heels was inconclusive; did such high (130mm or more) heels ever truly form part of the L range? If so, what were (or are) they and how high in reality? Before I met the present Mrs P, I had a GF who was willing to wear heels out with me, despite not really having a true HH background (and working as a maternity assistant in flatties). Her shoe size was 6.5/7; her age mid-40s. She had no difficulty with 100/110mm stilettos and, to my surprise and pleasure, accepted and wore a pair of pointed patent slingback courts that I bought for her from Honour (in her presence) which had a full 5.5" heel (no platform). Although not really suitable for long walks or dancing, they were certainly wearable for 'going out', e.g. to a restaurant or the cinema, with at least a modest walk to and from the car etc. If she could do it, I think almost any woman could. (Alas, the relationship finished when she gave me an ultimatum that I could not, at that time, accept. I've never been sure since whether I missed her heels more than I missed her - although there was a lot more to the relationship than just shoes, stockings, suspenders ...)

Your recent posts (including this one) suggest that we are beginning to see you 'in a different light', in more ways than one.

Who said anything about smiling? Not quite kinky enough - but better than nothing. (I'd lend them to Freddy for when his boiler leaks but they are much too big - although he would enjoy their length on his shorter legs!)

Well said, Shyheels. In my case, heel-wearing was prompted by two stimuli: (a) an admiration of footwear (on women) coupled with more than a tinge of envy that they could wear something more glamorous and elegant that men were 'allowed' - and heels in particular; (b) a wish to experiment, much as you suggest, for essentially physical and curiosity reasons. But you will be aware from other posts how I have been pilloried (by Mrs P) on both counts, just for having those thoughts, let alone indulging. I am however honest enough to recognise that there is another underlying 'encouragement'. The wearing (actual or imagined) of an article of female clothing with a sexy image is likely to be arousing. I'm not sure I understand exactly the parameters but indulging in something which is different/naughty and recognising that most men have a degree of latent femininity trying to escape are key aspects. Whether, and to what extent, it brings on more sensual feelings (and potentially fulfilment) is something that only experimentation can determine. And whether wearing women's footwear is but a stepping-stone [pun alert] to more complete cross-dressing or some form of 'transition' must be again a very individual and personal matter that is likely to take time to emerge. In my case, no such desire exists (beyond, perhaps, 'dressing-up' for fun on some suitable occasion, such as the Rocky Horror Show - not that I ever have.) The psychologists would have a field day, I'm sure! And I must be careful as I have one living next door - with a psychiatrist for a husband!

OK, you should be fine with the new 30kW combi, given that there is just the two of you and showers are more usual. (I much prefer a relaxing soak in a bath, so am biased against any set-up which makes a bath more onerous. A combi would not be adequate in my house.) As to the 'weep', I would have thought a trial with sealant (but not PG) would be worthwhile - nothing to lose and it might just do the trick.