Puffer

I hope not; Freddy has much to offer here - and he should not be the only one to make positive contributions.

Freddy: No-one intentionally hijacked your thread (this one); they joined in because they thought they could, however mistakenly. I understand entirely your points about going off-topic but dww (and then I) did not deliberately do so, because we thought you were encouraging others to reminisce about their earlier life etc. The mistake made - and I repeat that it was unintended - was to put those contributions and follow-ups into your thread rather than starting new ones. I for one apologise for that and I hope we can now move on - your continuing contributions here are appreciated and I hope they will continue.

Well, my dear Freddy, my immediate reaction to that was - until I read your later post below - one of concern, as I don't believe anything there was taken out of context. But I will accept that you were having fun, or attempting to. Neither dww nor I was trying to hijack your 'thread' (or invade your 'lounge'), as we believed we had been invited into it. (I suspect that the concepts of a 'topic', a 'thread' and a 'post' have been somewhat confused - understandably perhaps as they are not entirely mutually exclusive.) I do NOT wish to go over old ground but clearly there is still a perceived problem if and when a topic is started and the OP considers it, in effect, as 'his' - such that nothing should then be posted by others that could be regarded (in the OP's sole opinion) as in any way challenging or tangential. Whether that is an accepted or desirable component of board etiquette I do not know, but there is a danger of free exchange on this board being stifled. But I do think that the initial post on any new topic should contain a clear notice to others if response is unwelcome, or at least restricted in its nature.

You did say (above): 'You are wrong if you think your memories of those days are unimportant, or uninteresting. Write them up here?' The mischief appears to be in the ambiguous word 'here'; clearly you meant 'this board but not this thread'. I shall stand in the corner in penance (and flat shoes).

We must be very close in age and I have many memories from the same era, albeit not the same locations. So, yes, I too would like to hear more about your past (heel-related and otherwise) - and maybe it will inspire me to write likewise about mine.

Interesting thoughts, Freddy, but I can't say I agree with all of them. Maybe a more considered response later - no time at present. I do however disagree about your 'CV' advice. Absolutely nothing wrong with solitary pursuits, nor are they necessarily damaging (and scarcely fatal) to a prospective career. Not everyone is required to be 'Jack the lad' in terms of team-playing; skill and attention to detail demonstrated in a constructive or intellectual pastime may be highly desirable. (When recruiting, I was always wary of those whose interests were primarily sporting or social, for much this reason.) Quite so. The world does not revolve around screens and push-buttons, despite the attempts of many. (Perhaps thery are too busy 'team-playing' rather than developing constructive skills and proper communicative ability - see above.)

Well, not strictly 'high heels' in the sense that we usually refer to them, but height-increasing footwear with a built-up heel are favoured by some men who wish to increase their stature 'discreetly'. (For the avoidance of doubt, I am not one of them; I neither need the height nor like the look of the footwear - or the prices.) By chance, I happened upon this high-end maker of such items, which apparently include boots with a (claimed) five or six-inch rise, e.g. https://www.guidomaggi.com/us/mansfield.html (as pictured below). OK, so some of that rise is clearly in the thick sole, but the internal 'wedge' is by no means trivial, particularly for the shorter man with a smaller foot who would likely be the typical customer. I do wonder how comfortable they are to wear; probably quite stable (given the wide heel-base) but surely rather ungainly? I am not keen on the 'workboot' look; I know it is currently popular but far too heavy for what I would consider any truly casual activity, let alone more formal or dressy occasions.

I like to read, especially in bed before bye-byes time! I have a Nook 'Glowlight' e-reader which I find excellent, although it is no longer directly supported in the UK but now under the auspices of Kobo. A wide range of free e-books is available from the public library and from other sources, some free or at nominal cost. I think the system is more flexible than the Amazon/Kindle tie-in. However, there is some very poorly-written material around; I'm guessing it is effectively 'vanity publishing' that has cost the author little or nothing to get into circulation. I also read much in printed books, fiction and non-fiction. For relaxation, I much enjoy Clive Cussler's 'thrillers' and Lynda La Plante's crime novels - ideal for a holiday flight or lazing in a comfy chair somewhere - and look forward to new ones. I also enjoy naval historical fiction; there are several authors whose 'heroes' invariably provide a good read. Likewise, the Sharpe novels by Bernard Cornwell are consistently good; I was prompted to read them after watching the excellent TV dramatisations.

Indeed. Let's concentrate on 'men wearing heels as men' as far as possible. But we should not outlaw men wearing other footwear (not necessarily with heels) or ancillary items (jeans, leggings etc) that do not amount to overt cross-dressing. And I see no harm in diversions into other 'blokeish' subjects if they foster some friendly exchanges.

I assume you meant '... not a fetish thing ...'? I think you are right about girls, much more than boys, being in the 'genderless' spotlight. All part of the female striving for equality. Nothing wrong with that, if it cuts both ways - but men are still denied much that is supposedly reserved for women, including certain clothing I could mention.

I'm sure most of us can relate to this, either personally or through our offspring. I know that, as a youngster, I admired several female shoe styles - flattish boots and strappy sandals in particular - and coveted the idea of wearing them as a change from ugly, boring conventional 'boys' footwear - although it never happened (then). And the prevailing fashion for stilettos was not lost on me either, although I fully realised that they were, literally, a step too far. I didn't even have the courage to wear men's cuban heels in the 1960s - I had to wait until almost 2010 before I got any. My grandson (3 1/2) is mad on tractors, diggers, cranes, buses, trains and the like. But he also quite often puts on his older sister's frilly tutu, Supergirl outfit or sparkly party dress. It is all part of make-believe and play for them both and has no connotations beyond that, as far as I can tell. However, last time we visited, my wife took off her bootees (3.5" tapered heel) and left them in the hall. Said grandson appeared wearing them shortly after - so there may be hope (or not) for him yet!

I was given for Christmas a DVD collection of Bette Davis films. (Not sure why - I'm not really a fan of hers.) I watched one of them recently - The Virgin Queen (1955), which is all about the relationship between Queen Elizabeth I (Davis) and Sir Walter Raleigh (Richard Todd - who is excellent). Throughout the film (which had a fair amount of swashbuckling action), Sir Walter and most of the other 'men of substance' wear thigh boots in nearly every scene. Although the boots are flat, they are close-fitting and long (typically approaching crotch-high) and in black leather, brown leather or brown suede. Interestingly, Joan Collins also appears (as Sir Walter's lover and later wife) but wears no notable footwear. I don't know how accurate the costumes were. Thigh boots were certainly worn by men at this period, mainly for riding or as part of a uniform so perhaps not as frequently as in the film suggests for other activities. But it was good to see them 'in action'. Here are some stills which show Todd in his boots:

I entirely agree about the hyperbole that seems to attach to any press mention of 'high' heels. Although the Daily Mail, for example, gives fair coverage of heel-related fashion and stories, it does seem incapable of mentioning heels without attaching trite and unnecessary qualifiers. Enough to send my blood pressure 'sky-high'!

Please explain!

I will leave it to other members of this board to determine whether: 1. there is a place on what is intended as a 'Heels for men' forum for a topic featuring general female fashion, in all its extremes, selected by the poster on the grounds of being 'special' in some way; 2. if such material is posted, it should be open to comment and criticism on aesthetic or other grounds. In considering the above, it should be remembered that (a) anything posted on H4M is open to comment by others - that is why H4M exists as a forum; (b) public figures in particular invite public comment when they wear or do something; (c) few if any of us here are within the allegedly large bunch of sycophantic followers who hang on to so-called celebrities' every word and deed; (d) there is a difference between fair comment (however critical) and that which is malicious or destructive. I fail to see why these recent exchanges have ruffled feathers in the way they apparently have. Freddy chose some pics of 'fashion' which he considered 'special'; I thought the outfits worn by VB and CD were risible. We are both entitled to our opposing views. And, when I challenged VB's outfit, Freddy agreed that he disliked the boot style and the way her skirt and sweater were being worn, so how was it 'special' apart from being worn by Her Holiness? Moreover, although Freddy says he posts pics of women who 'wear higher heels, or higher than you'd expect to see in everyday life (given age or status)', CD's bootees were very tame in comparison with others has worn so, given the rest of her strange outfit, I could not understand its appeal or relevance to us. I make no claims of expertise in the theory of fashion (as distinct from being a shrewd observer) so, when I ask what is so 'special' about something, it is because I am trying to understand (and perhaps appreciate) some subtlety that I may have missed. So, go on posting what appeals to you by all means, but don't expect it to pass without comment, favourable or not. (And, for the record, I did like the pics of both Kate B and Helen M, both of whom 'filled Freddy's bill' in terms of heels and overall elegance.)

Nice boots - if you will permit me to say so! I agree that a longer shaft and a heel higher than the advertised 4.25" would be an improvement.

Oh dear, Freddy! And me thinking that a topic entitled 'Something Special' would be showing just that and inviting response. (Perhaps the topic should be called 'Seen in Public' or some-such.) You are perfectly entitled to post whatever eccentricities you like (and I don't intend to ignore them) but I see nothing in the rules to preclude criticism, however the topic is labelled. My complaint was about what you (in good faith) shared with us on this occasion, with some sort of implied endorsement, not that you posted it. Your valued support of this board (which I do my best to emulate) does not exempt you from comment on your posts, whether or not this conflicts with your own views. I'm sorry if you think otherwise or that your efforts go unappreciated.

I agree that the boot emphasis may have been on shorter or taller boots of late, but knee-highs have never disappeared and are probably the most popular style where durability and warmth is required. Hence the folly of any boots with 'openings'. And I had read the Mail article too. I'm still not sure why you posted the picture - what was attractive about any aspect of Victoria or her outfit? And the same goes for Celine in that particular pic. Miss Mirren, however, shows what can be done ...

I don't doubt that knee boots are fashionable - have they ever been otherwise? But (long) boots with open toes look stupid. I don't dislike Celine and she often wears stylish outfits and sexy shoes. But I wouldn't want her on my arm looking as gaunt as she now does, and certainly not in such an eccentric outfit.

Hideous boots and skirt on Victoria. And as for Celine's outfit and 'overall' (sic) appearance ...

Here? Where?

Interesting, Freddy, and certainly illustrating the growing advantages of online shopping. I find myself buying 'over the counter' (of almost anything apart from food) quite rarely these days as the speed, convenience and greater certainty of buying online wins hands-down, quite aside from any potential 'return' requirement. The halfway-house is ordering (and maybe paying) online for collection at a local shop, with the likely advantages of speed, not missing a courier and minimising delivery charges. The sealant I wanted on Monday from Screwfix was in stock locally when I checked late on Sunday evening - but only one tube. So, a few minutes online secured it before someone else bought it and I had no wasted journey.

Are you going to lodge a strong (written) complaint with Zara over the all-round time-wasting you experienced, and especially the protracted returns system? I think you should - in your usual eloquent style. I don't often buy clothing (or anything else) that needs to be returned (particularly in-store), but my rare recent experiences were all positive. First, there were the two pairs of boots from ASOS that didn't fit (curses!), readily returned FOC by courier and refunded within days. Then, there was a man's jacket from Amazon (poor quality and fit) which was refunded even before it had arrived back at Amazon. Finally, there was another man's jacket (one of two identical: one being too small, the other just right) ordered for store delivery at Next and returned to store, refunded almost before I got home. Of course, paying online by credit card makes the whole thing a lot easier, before and after any return becomes necessary.

Ah - nostalgia ain't what it used to be! Yes, the country has gone steadily downhill (and its pace is accelerating as I write) but I think the rot set in prior to decimalisation in 1971. I have heard that the death of Grace Archer (of 'The Archers' radio soap) in 1955 marked the turning point, but my estimation is about 10 years later than that - when stilettos, winklepickers, stockings and pencil skirts were on the way out and The Beatles (although good in their way) had usurped proper singers with proper orchestral backing. Oh, to turn the clock back 60 years - and preferably be around 10 years older than I actually was - and remain in the pre-1970 era. But motor bikes, fast or souped-up cars (or women, ditto), drugs and loud music were never my scene, so it was the tamer but equally pleasurable, and largely innocent, activities that appealed, then and now. (Excuse me, I have some flowers to arrange ...)

I enjoyed the M40 story - but didn't award a HaHa to the post as the second part was anything but funny - you were lucky there, if rather foolhardy. Perhaps we should have a thread about 'the long bum of the law'?