Puffer

ouch!

I can think of the following non-exclusive reasons for a man to wear 'elevator shoes' (or, indeed, any men's footwear with a raised heel), in approx order of legitimacy: 1. Because of a medical reason, to give comfort and support from elevating the heel (which appears to be Russ's principal requirement, as he explains); 2. To increase one's apparent height, primarily for reasons of vanity or improved confidence; 3. As a fashion statement, for essentially visual reasons (unlikely to succeed unless the shoes are very well styled); 4. As a physical challenge; 5. Because wearing a 'high heel' is a turn-on and such shoes provide the means. Each to his own, and maybe more than one of the above will apply. If wearing women's high-heeled footwear, there is the additional reason (overlapping with 3, 4 or 5) that they appeal because they are women's. And, of course, anyone could simply say 'because they exist' as personal justification.

What is the metal 'clip' on her toe?

Leaving aside what Trump has actually said, done or threatened, I find both incredible and frightening the power apparently vested in one person as President. He seems to be able to do whatever he wants with little or no direct and immediate means of keeping him in check - more a dictator than the head of a democracy. Could he actually press the nuclear button on his own initiative? If so, heaven help us all! As an aside, there are three things that irritate me whenever I see him and which seem to sum up his falseness: (i) putting his hand over his heart when making a solemn declaration (which appears to be the American way); (ii) saluting military officers when he is not himself either in the military (except, nominally, as commander-in-chief) or in uniform; (ii) that peculiar up-and-down arm gesture with his encircled right finger and thumb when he is emphasising a point - probably a 'BS is active' indicator.

If you can truly say that the shoes were not correctly described to you, or not supplied as agreed, then you have a justifiable reason to seek full redress from the supplier - which should include carriage both ways and (arguably) the import charges and fees, if not otherwise recoverable in the UK - which the VAT and any duty should be. As the supplier is in the US, you cannot invoke UK law but I think you will find that US consumer law does provide a remedy. I suggest you look here for guidance: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/buying-abroad/buying-abroad/buying-from-an-overseas-seller-outside-europe/ and otherwise as Google suggests. The initial step is probably to raise a firm complaint to the supplier and see what happens. But imho you should seek reimbursement of all your outlay. I assume that you paid for the shoes directly and used a credit card. If so, and they cost more than £100 (exc carriage), you could potentially make a claim against your card issuer under Section 75, Consumer Credit Act 1974 for the full amount charged to the card if you can demonstrate that your order was not correctly fulfilled. See for example: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases This could be a much simpler remedy as you don't need to involve or argue with the US supplier or any US enforcement agency. (But be aware that the card issuer might resist if any intermediary was involved in the payment, such as PayPal or World Pay, although the validity of this resistance has yet to be fully established in court. PayPal etc does offer its own redress mechanism.) Good luck - and let us know how you get on. Will you identify the US supplier to us, or provide a link?

... except for Freddy, who is clearly very familiar with her bum (and probably taught her all her mathematical skills too).

I do indeed know (and like) Carol - but I find it hard to recognise her from the initial pic you posted, with her face turned away and a different hairstyle to what I associate with her. She looked at first sight more like a younger Petula Clark, but Pet wouldn't wear those clothes and is flat-chested. Carol does wear her age well but I'm still not over-keen on the trousers, on anyone.

No idea who she is, or how old she is. Don't think much of the outfit - the trousers are not very flattering (on her) and open-toed heeled boots with cleated soles look as though they have been cobbled together (literally) from spare parts left over from various other shoe styles.

Where were you living, Shyheels, when you saw the go-go boots? I assume the US from what you have told us but was it in a major city or a quiet 'backwoods' place? If the latter, perhaps your access to any shops etc was sufficiently limited that you would have had few opportunities to see the boots before (or indeed after) that initial sighting on a local girl. Even if otherwise, I can believe that you might only have registered the existence of the boots for the first time when seeing them worn, unless you made a conscious effort to look out for shoe shops and other places where you might spot 'interesting' items. I certainly recall that juvenile street-sightings of shoes were much more likely to register with me than any window-shopping or the like - if only because I was (then, and probably until my 30s) very hesitant at pausing to look deliberately at anything 'naughty'; a shoe shop window adjacent to a bus stop or similar would have provided a rare exception and opportunity for proper inspection. Nor (alas) did I have access to any worthwhile shoe collection of any friends or relations; my mother's choice of footwear was distinctly boring.

We do seem to have a more mixed selection of female footwear at present, everything from the flattest barely-there sandals through their high-stiletto counterparts to block heeled and/or platform courts, wedges and, of course, boots of all types. I guess it is almost a tug-of-war between style and comfort, with the lower and chunkier footwear gaining ground mostly on grounds of greater practicality but stilettos still a popular (and preferred) look for many. I didn't think the Guardian article told us anything new, nor was particularly encouraging; it was mainly a vehicle for showing Kate's choice of sandals (which I like). Sandals seem ever-more popular with women of all ages and backgrounds, regardless of the condition of their feet. Here again, there seem to be two distinct styles (with or without heels): the very brief 'barely-there' types and the much more enclosed heavier patterns. Personally, whilst I can see that thin straps and often puffy or mis-shaped feet are not a good combo, I like the look (unless the wearer has really gross tootsies) and 'less is more'. The more enclosed styles are often very unfeminine (shoes with holes in!) and rarely attractive. As an aside, I note that painted toenails are increasingly popular, again regardless of a woman's age or status. If done nicely (no tar brush or really garish colours, please!), they deserve showing-off in strappy sandals - another reason for the latter being so popular. Conversely, a glimpse through a very enclosed peeptoe style may be suggestive but imho it is not attractive; why bother? Interestingly, men are wearing sandals much more often than in the past, and often much lighter and more open styles too. I like wearing sandals but have always steered well clear of the heavy, chunky types that were traditional for men - and the equally ugly 'sports sandals' with rubber or canvas straps - but now I have a better choice of lighter, comfortable styles which are effectively unisex - in addition to the ubiquitous flip-flops (love 'em or hate 'em). I would have an even better choice if my feet were smaller (and would take it), but that ain't going to happen!

From your previous posts, I gather that you wear heels as much for medical/comfort reasons as because you like the look or feel. If so, you have a perfectly good reason to wear 'ordinary-looking' men's shoes with an elevator heel - and obviously they are entirely appropriate for you or any other man needing support, or indeed extra stature. Hard luck on being fleeced with a purchase from the USA. My Miguel Jones boots came swiftly by ordinary post with no VAT or other charges, although I may have been lucky. I doubt that using the post rather than a carrier would be a better bet; the Post Office has a dedicated import unit with Customs staff in attendance, although they do not examine everything. Surely, elevator shoes are available in the UK at a competitive price?

In the sense of 'being there', yes; of course many of today's male heel wearers were growing up (as far as teenagers ever do!) during the late 60s - mid 70s, when flower power merged into flares and platforms and then into new romantics etc - all prevailing fashions with a strong unisex bias (and appeal, to some). I can't agree however that 'most boys wore heels of some sort' during at least part of that period. From personal observation, very few young men (say 14 - 30) wore anything higher than a slightly raised heel (say 1.5", common on 'ordinary' shoes then, as was a slightly thicker sole) and 'proper' platforms and stacked heels were definitely a minority interest, except perhaps for special social occasions such as clubbing. (Thank goodness! I disliked platforms then (on either sex) and continue to do so.) I think that men's cuban heels were probably more popular in the early 60s than were any 'high heels' subsequently produced for men, and even then they were not worn by anything like the majority. And cuban heels (unlike any other male high heels, with or without platforms) have enjoyed a limited revival too in recent years - I wear them now but was never a heel wearer in the 60s. I'm surprised if you found many schoolgirls (or other females) in high stilettos after about 1966 - they were still seen, but increasingly rare on any fashion-conscious teenager until the revival began (initially with a platform too) in the mid-70s. High heels were certainly re-emerging in the early 70s (after years of low and flat 'dolly shoes') but they were not initially slim stilettos and much like the chunkier styles now again being promoted as 'trendy'.

We have certainly opened up a big subject here; there is much to be found (and enjoyed). A brief dip into the archives reveals some c1960 pics which show the prevailing fashion, albeit with lower heels and wider skirts than we might prefer, although I find a longish A-line skirt, possibly pleated, also very appealing. The first is obviously a fashion parade and rather too chic for everyday street wear. The second is more typical of 'office worker' daywear - and the absence of hats reminds me that hairstyles were an important component of the overall look too: ideally a beehive or anything worn 'up' imho. The third pic (New York 1961) is very typical of street fashion, although the girls' expressions are not too encouraging. And Sarah (of Rosa Shoes) captures much of 'the look' well in this contemporary view: Finally, this link to some archive video for the 50's: http://fashionthroughtheyears.weebly.com/1950-1959.html

Indeed so - whether suggestive of fetish or slavery, the big 'choker' is hideous imho. As a general rule in fashion, less is more (provided that decency is maintained), at least with accessories, including shoes (e.g. narrow straps and/or barely-there sandals).

I should have added that the pencil skirt, in addition to becoming increasingly popular, also became shorter until the 1960-ish style was (at least for younger women) most often just on or above the knee; the calf-length skirt was limited to older women and formal wear. With a rear slit (for some ease of movement), these shorter tight skirts could easily give a glimpse of stocking top and suspender ... Now I need a lie down, in a darkened room, so goodnight to all...

I agree completely about the allure of that overall look you describe; the shoes are a bonus although the heel height is less important than the fact that it is a stiletto and the toe is pointed. I think we can also agree however that the 'look' pre-stiletto, although still very attractive and very fashionable at the time, was literally taken to new heights when a stiletto was added - 'an interesting new path' as Shyheels comments, albeit modestly. Seeing a woman in a tight skirt and 4"+ heels climbing onto a bus platform was a wonder to perceive.

The 'Bettie Page' pic above is almost certainly no later than about 1950, unless she was intentionally re-creating that period later on. Intended to be fetish, but pretty tame by current standards. The 'Oh so 1950' pics are bang-on for that period. This pic (from Getty archive) allegedly shows a Dior 'New Look' model, which suggests 1947 or very soon after. But I wonder - the shoes look more mid-50s to me: This is perhaps more typical of 1947, at least in 'glamour wear': But neither pic shows the pencil skirt which became increasingly common.

I realised, Freddy, that you were referring to heels in general in quoting the 1946 - 54 period, but the implication you gave was that the overall look you described did not survive that period, as of course it did. We both acknowledge the 1946-7 start and I feel that the 'rock-and-roll' era (your preferred look PLUS stilettos) had everything you described and more. I agree that your pic shows 'repro' fashion - those shoes are indeed too modern; platforms disappeared when stilettos came in and did not reappear (in combination with true stilettos) until the mid-70s. Stilettos emerged in the early 50s - the precise date (and indeed who introduced them) is not something I can be precise about. Initially, they were generally quite low (3" max) and with rounded or open toes, but as the fashion caught on they got higher and usually more pointed. By about 1958-9 true stilettos (slim and properly positioned) of anything up to 4.5" were commonplace, with even higher (5") emerging in around 1960-62. Yes, a 3 - 3.5" heel was very common (and some women never rose above the even lower 'kitten' heels), but 4 - 5" were by no means rare for everyday wear to and at work. I was commuting by train from 1960 and regularly saw women (of all ages) in 4" and higher heels doing the same - an indelible impression to this day.

Yes, a choker can be very attractive on almost any woman, young or old. But only if it is the classic 'Victorian' style, typically in black satin or velvet, not more than 1" deep and with a small jewel (single or cluster), brooch or pearl at its centre. An example: I wonder too if such a choker (with minimal embellishment) could look good on a man, worn with an open-neck shirt in, say, white silk? Certainly no more flamboyant than an ordinary neck-tie (such as Shyheels favours) or a foppish cravat.

I agree totally with the 'ideal female outfit' you describe, as exemplified by the pic above. But I think your period is a little out; whilst it started with Dior's 'new look' in 1947, it was not really everyday/high-street fashion until roughly the time when stilettos truly arrived in the mid-50s (and thereby completed the ensemble). I'm pleased to say that I was around then and very conscious of my surroundings; imho, the 'golden years' closely matched those of the rock-and-roll era: say 1956 - 1964. In other words, from when Bill Haley etc arrived and until the Beatles etc became too hippy and psychedelic (and Mary Quant's mini skirts and low heels had gained the upper hand, and thigh). OK, not all women abandoned the classic look you describe (thank goodness) but it became all too rare by the mid-60s, when I came of an age to truly appreciate it but scarcely to enjoy it, alas. If I could turn the clock back to, say, 1962 and be there again but 10 years older than I then actually was, I would be delighted - and want to stay.

I think we are saying essentially the same thing, Freddy. Without going into detailed analysis of a sine wave, the null point (however brief) and reversal of AC current is normally conducive to a 'release' - but I suspect much depends on the person concerned (strength etc) and the effectiveness of earthing. Yes, a (fairly) high voltage can jolt the heart and maybe stop it, but here again sufficient current is needed to do real harm, as I understand it. Defibrillators typically require 500 - 1000v but I do NOT advocate trying one out, especially if home-made!

I'm assuming that Freddy (at least) would really aspire to shiny black narrow tyres on his penny farthing? Meanwhile (back on course), how about this look:

Picking up on a couple of points raised above above electric shock: 1. It is usually considered that an AC current will tend to help the person 'shocked' to be released from contact with the conductor, presumably because the alternating effect makes-and-breaks and tends to attract/repel cyclically. DC on the other hand is supposed to make the contact more permanent, 'frozen' almost. I am aware of children who have died after coming into contact with the 'third rail' on the Southern Region tracks (usually 660v DC in the suburban area) simply because they were quite unable to release themselves. On the other hand, I have seen a railwayman crossing track whose long wet mackintosh brushed against the live rail and merely flashed-over, throwing him clear. Experimentation is not, however, recommended! 2. The general rule is that 'it's the volts that jolts, but the mills [milliamperes] that kills'! Back to my Van der Graaff generator ...

Freddy's 'electricity escapade' closely mirrors one of my own at age 8 or 9. I was getting annoyed with the moths that decided to flit around my bedroom when I was attempting to sleep. (They had doubtless escaped from my father's wallet - more on that another time.) I decided that electrocution was the answer and made up a 'probe' by fastening a piece of wire (from a paper-clip) to one sprung plunger inside a bayonet socket that was at one end of an extension cable used for a table lamp. [The bayonet socket was effectively the same as one still uses in a ceiling light; it would accept a plug with bayonet fittings as found on a light bulb. The other end took a two-pin (unearthed) plug that went into a socket at skirting level. Nowadays, of course, proper 13a plugs and sockets would be the norm.] The 'probe' would not have worked, even if connected to the live plunger, as no circuit was completed by touching the moth, or anything else unless it was effectively earthed. But, weapon in hand, I advanced on my quarry when it alighted on a table and succeeded in prodding it. Nothing happened, so I prodded harder - and the wire must have twisted to the side to touch the other plunger: BANG, FLASH and all the house lights went off as the fuse was blown. I dropped the probe and I remember it bouncing off my bare leg, so it was just as well that it was then 'dead'. It only took me a minute to retrieve and dismantle the 'evidence' - before dad came into my room to tell me (unnecessarily) that a fuse had blown so my reading light would not work. As such blown fuses were not uncommon (our wiring was then pretty hairy, especially after a few of dad's 'improvements' - another story there to tell) so no suspicion fell on me and the moth lived to flit another day. I have had a few 'proper' electric shocks over the years, all accidental and arising from a fault or contact with a live circuit that shouldn't have been. Luckily, I've never experienced more than a tingle, probably because I was not properly earthed, but I treat electricity with respect - but not with fear; it can be worked on 'live' if necessary if care is taken.

Anywhere in Brighton (and Hove) that is within a mile or so of the seafront has parking restrictions, typically 9am - 8pm, 7 days a week. High parking charges apply, if you can find a space. And the zones creep outwards steadily, regardless of the absence of congestion or any lack of spaces - the exercise is revenue-driven. If you go to Eastbourne, for example, it is not difficult to find free street parking within reasonable distance of the town centre/seafront - and there are quite a lot of single yellow lines allowing free parking after business hours or on Sundays. I have a bus pass and use it when appropriate to access towns where parking is difficult/expensive - Canterbury for example, and sometimes in London. The bus services in East Kent and Thanet are pretty good, and frequent, which is helpful when a day out is planned in that area - one can drive to an outlying part of town and park there if necessary.