Puffer

¿Qué?

I think you have in mind items which, upon adoption by women, ceased to be worn by men until a much later revival - as distinct from those taken-up by women without being abandoned by men. If so, then I question whether earrings count as they were never completely abandoned by men - think gipsies, pirates and various overseas tribes. I'm hard pressed to think of anything that truly fits your criteria; very few items are essentially single-sex, even if you are just considering the Western world - even skirts (kilts) or stockings scarcely qualify. One might argue that open sandals were largely abandoned by men, but not women, in much of Europe and the US for perhaps 1000+ years but have become commonly re-adopted by men within the last 30 years or so. As to men's heels, didn't Egyptian butchers allegedly wear heels to keep their feet out of the blood and offal on the shop floor, rather earlier than Persian cavalry?

I do have a cut-throat razor (inherited from grandfather, I think) but have never used it for shaving and find the concept rather disturbing - one slip and it's all over. I too remember them being used at the barbers, in my case to remove the long hairs from the back of the neck after the haircut was completed (and before the anaesthetic wore off). As I haven't been to the barber for several years - my wife is retained for my bi-monthly trim - I don't know if cut-throats are still in use ('elf-'n'-safety and all that crap) but I guess so. And I suppose I should be grateful that I still have a full head of hair, as did dad and grandad well into old age. I am not otherwise notably hirsute and glad of that. I too find shaving (face only) something of a bore and often go two or three days without, although it is then needed if I am to look reasonably respectable. I've never had a beard, or attempted to cultivate one, and doubt it would be very successful as there are a few bald spots in the designated foliage area. A moustache would be achievable but has again been avoided so far, even though the paternal ancestors all sported one.

Aside from agreeing that male heels and boots should be both acceptable and mainstream, I can't really contribute much to a discussion on what is, might become or should be 'fashionable'. I have never really understood the 'herd instinct' which encourages - indeed requires - people (particularly women) to adopt certain modes of dress, and then drop them in favour of something different. Of course, many of these fashions will be attractive and appealing and rightly become popular - only to be 'declared' outmoded even though they have their entrenched adherents who do not want to change but feel under peer pressure etc to do so. Stiletto heels provide an excellent example - very widely adopted in the late 50s and very reluctantly abandoned by many (but not all) in the mid-60s, as much because they became hard to get rather than because they lacked continuing appeal in comparison with alternatives. As to women stealing male fashions, there are certainly instances of this where the item is effectively lost to men forever. But not always - chunky, flat oxford or brogue shoes have become a female fashion (to my great regret) but, alas, are still a mainstay of boring formal menswear. I often wish they would simply disappear from the planet, leaving the way clear for all genders to wear something more stylish and adventurous. (That said, I welcome the female adoption of both loafers and 'Chelsea boots', which fortunately have not been lost to men and are very suitable (with or without heels) as unisex apparel.)

As 'fashionable' and its immediate synonyms imply that the look or garment is established, perhaps 'stylish' would be a better self-description of your intended look. You see yourself (modestly and justifiably) as a trendsetter - and maybe en route to becoming an icon! Given your profession, is there not scope to take some discreet selfies and submit illustrated articles to the right publications? (More immediately, could we see a below-the-waist pic of you in your boots?)

I am obliged for the clarifications, Shyheels, and respect your obviously thoughtful and structured mode of dress. For the avoidance of doubt, I was not advocating that you should wear PVC jeans and PVC thigh boots together - perish the thought - only that I could envisage little obvious difference in appearance if 'shiny legs' were the principal object. It is interesting too that you regard your wearing of your OTK boots as 'fashionable' when we both know that long boots are scarcely common street-wear for a man at the present day. Fashionable for women, certainly, and I sincerely hope that you are a trend-setter for men too. Your statement that you are '... in no way being judgemental about anyone who does like their fetish/dominatrix gear or wearing PVC boots in the bedroom - each to his own and more power to their elbows' conjures up some additional images; I am reliably informed that some people enjoy wearing long PVC gloves too. But, that's enough excitement for one day ... ' .

Yes, of course you do - and (be honest) you need them too! I'm struggling right now to understand why you are happy to wear PVC trousers and also just-over-the-knee boots but would apparently not countenance shiny PVC (or latex?) thigh or crotch boots, even with flattish heels? They would equally cover your legs all the way up in something snug and shiny. Given that any onlooker would be dazzled by the reflection from either leg covering, what is so different about them that makes one acceptable and the other not?

So, 'marketing-speak' strikes again? [See thus: https://heels4men.net/topic/960-the-joys-of-otk-boots/?do=findComment&comment=8248] That makes me wonder about something advertised as 'PVC OTK boots' - could be anything! I see no reason why the PVC itself (whether solid or a coating) should not easily survive for 50 years - as of course PVC-covered cables are expected to, and more. But the underlying fabric may not and constant wear or poor storage could well damage the garment.

Unfortunately true. Marketing = 'the dishonest misrepresentation of goods and services that are neither wanted nor needed'.

Interesting! I had assumed that PVC would be cold and clammy - but I suppose it could be snug if it limits 'ventilation' and therefore traps some perspiration. I'm not sure that I would welcome the creakiness with movement either - I have enough of that from my unclothed legs!

I don't think we are really in disagreement, but in this context 'vague' equates to 'subjective' in that, as you say, OTK doesn't really tell us enough and we must guess. And, if there truly is an understanding of what 'OTK' means, then why are so many boots that extend noticeably higher up the thigh still described as OTK? Weasel words! I do suggest that, whilst we (in our enthusiast roles) can conveniently refer to any boots that go above the knee as being OTK, we ought, when they are truly thigh or crotch-high, to risk an orgasmic thrill rippling around polite society by using that more precise nomenclature. Freddie's examples illustrate that.

I am obliged for the clarifications - and confessions. I hadn't really thought about the sensitivity of the terminology in the context of everyday, non-fetish wear but I can see that the bland 'OTK' description is appropriate and non-contentious. The problem is that it remains very vague and, to my mind at least, suggests a boot scarcely above the kneecap rather than well up the thigh. That may leave the reader (or potential customer) wondering, unless of course a clear photo (ideally showing the boots worn) or measurements are appended. It is perhaps unfortunate that the simple, and accurate, term 'thigh boot' has such apparent perversion/fetish potential; it makes me wonder whether 'stiletto' will head the same way?

I have no involvement in any 'social media', nor do I intend it. I can see its appeal but I consider it intrusive and time-wasting. Nor do I access the internet other than through a PC, so connecting to and navigating a site like this presents no problems. I agree that the 'sign-up' process for this site was both protracted and off-putting and, unless it can be streamlined, it will likely deter newcomers. Counter-productive all round.

We have to be a bit careful with terminology here. By definition, the thigh starts just above the kneecap so any OTK boot is a 'thigh boot'. When someone refers to an 'OTK boot' without further description, I assume that it doesn't reach much above the kneecap, whereas a (true) thigh boot is noticeably longer. The ultimate is a 'crotch boot', which speaks for itself, and its variant the 'chap boot' which fastens in some suitable way to a belt. Perhaps Shyheels can tell us how high his boots come - I'm guessing not much above the knee as he contrasts them with thigh boots And I'm not sure what the 'Vivian effect' objection is all about - presumably a reference to the boots worn in 'Pretty Woman', which I consider too baggy, too short and too low in the heel to be 'interesting' and are potentially just tarty. I totally agree about open-toed boots of any type - pointless (literally!) and unattractive. I do like to see open-toed sandals and shoes - but they must be properly open and not just with a tiny peep-toe which looks as though someone has cut the end of the shoe off to make it fit, an equally pointless style.

Not my cup of tea but I can see the appeal. And, for those wearers who are worried that their gender might be doubted, the fly is the gent's way round!

Those (like me) who remember the late 1950s and early 1960s in the UK will no doubt recall when fashionable men's shoes had sharply-pointed 'winklepicker' toes (or, a little later, squared-off 'chisel' toes) and 'Beatle boots' with cuban heels were made popular. A lot of us flouted school uniform rules in order to look (and feel) 'with it'! I came across this feature with reproductions of old shoe catalogues: http://rockpopfashion.com/blog/?p=1263#comments Very nostalgic - and £3.00 or so was the usual price for a decent pair of leather shoes in that period!

Well said, Shyheels; cool! Given your final sentence, I suggest we should have a prose and poetry topic to sharpen our minds.

You were quite a regular poster last year, Shyheels, so the overall silence owes something to you. Have you nothing new to declare? Yes, the board is only going to be as good as its contributors make it. We shouldn't need to go elsewhere and, although I'm no expert with pics, I can't see why the file size should be a problem - my pic above was half the limit.

Well said! I'm not sure what is happening on HHP but I agree that it seems to have lost its way and the extreme behaviour and views of some make me feel uncomfortable at times. That said, there are a few regular members who post intelligent, literate and thoughtful comments which are worth reading. It seems that a hard core of long-standing members (mostly moderators) jumped ship a year or more ago, for reasons never explained as far as I can see. Presumably some sort of 'management dispute', the nature of which must be speculative but is not perhaps hard to divine. It would though be good if the more moderate and restrained blokes who have posted here on H4M would continue to share their thoughts and exploits with the rest of us from time to time.

No, you haven't - and oh yes they do!

It has been very quiet here lately and it would be good to see some more activity. Much the same has been true recently of my heeling; opportunities have been limited and I haven't made much of an effort either. A couple of days ago, I had reason to go to the next town to do some shopping at a large supermarket not represented close to home. I decided to dust-off my Miguel Jones ankle boots (pointed toes and 5" heels) and wear them under boot-cut jeans which conceal about half of the heel whilst standing, although very little whilst walking or sitting. The expedition went well enough, although I was rather glad of the support given by my small trolley towards the end of my shopping when my ankles were getting a little tired - more practice is clearly needed! Was I spotted? I don't think so, although the heels would have been pretty obvious to anyone looking when I was crouching or reaching and my trouser leg got pulled up. I didn't really care - heels or not, they were men's boots, made for me and my choice to wear. My only fear was bumping into someone I knew - unlikely at that location although an ex-neighbour does now live close to that store - when neither concealment nor explanation would have been at all easy. These are my boots - sorry the pic is not very clear; I will try soon to take some whilst wearing them:

No, I was not in heels - flat shoes, a three-piece suit, shirt and tie was more appropriate for my early-evening function in the City. But I did think of you when passing Mincing Lane and again later whilst indulging in some mince pies.

If the Aldo boots were the Tokologo, Freddy, I'm surprised by what you say about the 'girl's shoe' appearance as, from the front, the plain toe looks totally unisex to me - although the heel, if visible, must be a giveaway. A shame that they aren't comfortable. I see that they are currently listed as available in an alleged 9.5, if anyone is interested. I was at Stratford Westfield for a couple of hours yesterday around lunchtime. I wasn't impressed with what was on offer, although a few pairs of 5" or near-5" stilettos were on the shelves. Primark was totally dominated by block-heeled ankle boots - should really have been in the men's section! New Look didn't seem to have anything in large sizes. I saw a few women in 'worthwhile' heels (shoes or boots) there, and more in the City later on - either commuters going home or girls going to early Christmas parties, but overall not as inspiring as I recall from my many working visits there in former years - but then nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

We all like to have 'high yield' shoes, Freddy! But don't brag too much about it or the Chancellor will surely bring 'chattels' within the scope of capital gains tax.

A nice, unisex style, Freddy - good choice. But the original price of £80 (for a synthetic boot) is taking the piss rather, ain't it?