FastFreddy2

The weather remains poor. Rain most of today here, a lull tonight, and more rain tomorrow - all day. It could be worse .... The temperature is low, and some parts of the country are experiencing snow fall, which is a lot less useful when you are older, than when you are young. The "sales" such as they are will end tomorrow. When I went out on Thursday evening, 'summer' stock was already being promoted. Well I assume bikini's are part of the 'summer' season wear? Mrs Freddy who is much more in tune with these things than me, says the end of February used to be the time for new season to start. Over the years it has moved toward the end of January ... With each store group competing to be the first to the market, to get any 'summer wardrobe' money that might be slushing around. They don't even wait until the end of January now. Sales finish two or three weeks into the new year, spring/summer lines start. Given how much bad weather we've had over the past few years, I would suggest any store trying to sell summer gear in the middle of winter, is optimistic to say the least. If I recall, much of last years summer range was still on the hangers in September, because summer never arrived in 2017. Yes, I remember two sweltering weeks, but I don't count that as a summer. Whether you believe global warming is the cause, (I do) expecting to see Spain grade weather in the UK was not going to be the outcome as hoped. Not only would it have meant the UK stopped producing the volume of edible goods it does, we don't have the capacity to make money out of a high volume of tourists like the Spanish do at present. No, "global warming" (whatever the cause) has the oceans getting warmer, and generating more moisture. More moisture over the Atlantic, means more water over the UK - and more water landing on the UK. I'm sure some parts of the UK keep reasonably dry, but my bit doesn't. We are promised a hosepipe ban already, during 2018 in some parts, because of high consumption and low rainfall. I get the high consumption, but LOW rainfall?

I have mentioned this before, likely when I was doing my inter-town walks. Walking in heels is (IMO) a significantly greater muscular task than walking the same distance in flat shoes. There must be more effort expelled in keeping the upper torso in-line too. Certainly the slimmest I've been for a while, was when I walked in heels more regularly than I do now.

And who said you can't teach an old dog new tricks?

Prompted by the notion of the phrase, I checked and your quote is correct (although abbreviated). You are spot on with the premise though. Sadly, the the 'heart-felt-good-intent' isn't always seen as such. "No good deed goes unpunished" is the 20th Century riposte to St Augustine's teachings. Not pertinent here though. With Christian values in your heart, it's hard to understand that person being unkind. Though it obviously goes on.

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.

For a while some years ago, they were auctioning their court shoes at very low start prices. I bid many times, even bidding to amounts not previously achieved on the style I was after, and still didn't win them. I haven't revisited their shop front since. I know others have bought from them and been very happy with the shoes, sadly I'm not one of the lucky buyers. If I remember, they are one of a group of three manufacturers in the same Italian town. There's some background to them on this forum somewhere, with their declared addresses being only streets away from each other. If you don't know of them, you might search Little Shoe Box (aka LSB) and one of the subsequent trading names Leatherworks. They were (or are) UK boot makers that cater for men. VERY well known over here, and highly thought of. Hand made boots at very reasonable prices.

Hopefully you are taking any/all responses with the "good heart" they are intended. I doubt anyone here has anything in mind but your best interests, and (possibly to a lesser extent because we don't know her) those of your wife too. I would agree. While neither of you feel there is mutual ground, counselling would be a waste of time for at least three people. I'm pretty sure a mediator will quickly understand the difference between a symptom of disharmony, and a cause. Even those reading your posts from today alone, will understand your interest in heels is not the cause, it's just a convenient target to be aimed at. Your 'soft underbelly' as it were. (Achilles heel.) I would disagree. It shows you are overly confident at winning an argument, and see relationships as adversarial. The 'art' (skill) of a negotiator, is seeing and understanding both sides of a confrontational situation, and winning both sides over to a mutually agreeable path. Of course a thug can win any argument in principle, at least in their mind. The 'art' (skill) of a negotiator, is to bring someone to consensus. Even if you did this, you would still be subject to "reminders/threats" of your past indulgence. I have yet to meet the woman who could not recite immediately if asked, every misdemeanour she had knowledge of over a period of at least 30 years. Most people in a happy relationship know better than to revisit hurt or trauma experienced during past times. Those looking to hurt others, will not hold their own counsel, but use the unhappy times of the past to their advantage when it suits them. Which of these scenario's sound more familiar? Does rather look that way. My take on all this (and any behaviour that doesn't stick rigidly to accepted social norms) is: Does it affect me adversely? Does it affect anyone adversely? Is it unattractive or does it make me feel ill or awkward. If all these produce "no's" then carry on with impunity. On another thread I mentioned (with pictures) the two men wearing woman's clothing/footwear in public. It was mentioned because it's pertinent to this forum. Mrs Freddy was with me when I spotted the fella in London. She wasn't with me when I saw the other chap, and the thing I talked about most when I met her minutes later, wasn't his attire. (Nor was anyone else much interested either. I didn't see one person do a double take.) The feminisation was full to the point of bright sparkly bangles being worn. He's either a well known figure in these parts, or no-one much cared. Either way, he went about his business without hindrance or bother.

I think without putting your (respective) finger(s) on it, the benefits and qualifiers have both been mentioned. Both parties need to agree there is some benefit, and then agree to at least try to go along with the suggested compromise. When both parties are completely intransigent, it makes clear at what stage the relationship is at, and worse, the personalities in it. I don't know a mediator would appreciate that terminology, since there's not supposed to be winners and losers, but winners and winners. What you probably mean is the thing you wanted to introduce to the relationship wasn't completely unreasonable, and could your wife try to accommodate this interest? Was there a 'barter' for this change? Were you asked to do something new that improved the situation for your wife, or restart something you'd stopped doing?

I'm pretty sure no-one envisages you walking around in high heels just to annoy your wife. Conversely, I think several here are disappointed for you, that you live under such a repressive regime. Not quite North Korea, but .... I'm pretty sure I've mentioned to you I used to be a shop steward while on the shop floor, and a staff rep when I got myself office bound. (I've also worked the other side of the table too, which was much more unpleasant. Making 8 people redundant in Christmas week while the company owner was known to be holidaying in Florida was pretty bad.) Bottom line, I've some negotiating experience at (upto) company board level. Given what you want, and what you get, "we" would class your position as 'complete capitulation'. My (repeated) suggestion about third party involvement is no different to going to arbitration (in trade union terms). In either scenario, someone who is not directly involved, sits and takes into account the needs of both parties, and usually identifies some middle ground (if there is any to be found). It's their job to then persuade both parties to accept compromise for the 'greater good'. Where no compromise can be found, then industrial action usually arrives (or divorce in your case). Nobody wins. If you are unhappy enough in your circumstances to voice this unhappiness, and these things are much better out than repressed, you have an unresolved problem. This isn't just about shoes/heels (as you are very well aware), but your relationship in general. I'm sure that during a negotiated deal, you too would have to make compromises - doing something you don't want to do - and maybe you've already decided any compromise on your part would not be worth the benefits of any compromise on the part of your wife. In which case you've already reached a place of "balanced disharmony". Bullying, disrespectful, and for me would qualify at 'notice of termination' for the relationship. During the course of my life I've met no end of women who have been badly treated by their male partners. I don't believe I've met one who gave up on the relationship, preferring to stay thinking things would only get worse for them if they left ..... Those who parted because HE left, always found a better life. Mrs F's two close friends went on to meet men they fell deeply in love with, enjoy(ed) every moment with their new partners. (Sadly, one of the two men got terminal cancer at quite a young age.) This isn't a personal thing, I think it's a people thing. A lot of people don't recognise being alone, is better than living with a bully. They acclimatise, and learn to live a second class life.

I've been watching a lot of You Tube video's lately, mostly about equipment, it's use, and making money around it (if possible). There are well trodden routes for the money making: Selling your work/time (commissions). Revenue from the advertising possible from YT and other social media. Sponsorships, full time or per article. Affiliate programmes where buyers use promoters discount codes to provide a kick-back for the code owners. Many of the media incomes are dependant on subscriber numbers. 100k is good, 200k is better. These numbers don't happen overnight, obviously.... One of those I've found quite interesting to watch is a landscape photographer, which isn't really my thing, but he seems to be quite a good story teller and narrator. I've linked three of his 'blog' type videos that I watched recently, and found entertaining. 1. Why would anyone bother? Really, why? 2. I really enjoyed this. Especially around 14.25... 3. Street photography on my 'home' turf. (Shows how easy it is to photograph people in London.) Keep your eyes peeled at 9 minutes in. Very likeable chap.

Did I hear the sound of a penny dropping? Sooner or later we will all get the "3 months" or "6 months" notice of our demise, some will get less, and some none at all. With each passing day, that notice period looms closer whether we acknowledge it or not. After a lifetime of living with/for others, providing years of help/support and accumulated a useful legacy, what more needs to be done to qualify for "I want to do this - I will do this"? Short of a bully enjoying being a bully, why would anyone want to repress another person anyway? This situation goes beyond good/bad life choices. It goes beyond good/bad marriage. It's as basic as (personal) freedom to express a desire. In my mind, it's about free will. Is it there, or isn't it? In the situation -as described- seemingly not. An intolerable situation for (just about) anyone. I'm not necessarily advocating "amputation" as obvious a solution as it may seem, but plainly living a life under these circumstances is far from attractive. I have advocated getting some third party help as this is only avenue for a mutually agreeable compromise, failing that, a less happy future awaits for both.

Other than someone paying me to marry for a passport, I won't be doing this again, under any circumstances.

I had never been interested in marriage and/or interested in being a parent. I distinctly remember driving to work while approaching 40 years old thinking; "It's not to be." While I thought I might have 'missed out', certainly missed out finding someone I liked enough to want to spend the rest of my life with, apart from that I wasn't at all bothered. My life changed fairly soon after I had that thought. Weird. Not that I changed my mind about marriage, but Mrs Freddy hadn't been married before either, and I think it mattered to her. We had a proper church wedding with as many of her friends and family as we could muster. It was a good day, and one that provides her with memories, and an experience she thought she'd never get. Still one of the best things I've ever done (for someone else).

I get a lot of mileage out of it.... When I was slim, a great dancer, dressed well, and had lots and lots of hair. (Crying over my lunch as I write.)

That doesn't sound much like a conundrum to me, more a natural movement most people make as they age. You wouldn't believe it of me now, but I used to be interested in the leading edge of fashion. Mrs Freddy too, has always had in interest in fashion, clothes shopping and wearing outfits she finds attractive. As I've become bigger (all over) and developed slightly saggy skin and some hair loss, I no longer feel inclined to dress in such a way as to draw attention to myself as I used to. It would be true to say I now dress much more conservatively than when in my late teens/early 20's. As with Mrs F, and other people of our age we know, most of the women/girls in my small social circle gave up heels in their early or late forties because the discomfort level outweighed what they perceived as 'benefit'. (To them in how they felt wearing them, or how it made them look to others.) I include one girl amongst those who is still slim/small enough to wear a heel all day (at circa 8st and a size 8-10) - if only her crippled feet would let her. Even Mrs Freddy who has always liked a heeled shoe, won't wear one if it's uncomfortable from the moment she puts it on. When these women were in their 20's, they doubtless tolerated pain (i) because they could and (ii) because it mattered to look as good as they could regardless to any discomfort. In later life, people are less tolerant of pain/discomfort, and are not so keen to show off any lumps and bumps they may have acquired leading up to their middle years. When I'm out with Mrs Freddy, we tend to walk quite a way (miles sometimes) and she really can't understand why I would want to do it in a heel, especially a high heel. It's a disappointment to me she doesn't wear a heel as she used to, but three accidents involving ankles and feet in the last 8-10 years means she struggles to tolerate wearing a heel now. She isn't 20 any longer, so I'm not overly surprised at this situation as much as I wish it wasn't so. I suppose I could trade-her-in for a younger model, but my family name isn't Trump or Jagger, and I'm several £millions shy of being of interest to a gold-digger otherwise. We compromise, in that I wear a heel as she doesn't. As much as I might portray otherwise (writing about heels on a men-wearing-heels forum), my relationship isn't just about heeled shoes, even if it sometimes plays a part in it. (Currently, about 3 or 4 hours a week.) Talking and living with someone my age with a similar background brings many comforting rewards. I'm aware, I have a great life with my wife. She's a keeper.

I don't know you "should", but I have suggested several times, you might be more inclined to fight your corner. Your wife (i will not use the term 'partner') clearly has her world run her way, and continues to keep you "in check". Several of us, and I include some who don't write here very often (and more who have stopped writing altogether) have found a 'happy medium' where tolerance in this matter has become part of an agreeable solution. This means that while a complete conversion to heel wearing by the male half of the partnership full-time is not possible, (or maybe even wanted), part-time use in a shared environment has been achieved. It doesn't seem an unreasonable outcome amongst reasonable people. Unusual; yes, even odd, but acceptable and accepted. While the 'moral code' of your wife seems to have an unclear barrier, plainly there is one - or at least one she likes to enforce (with you). I would suggest that since there is no obvious downside for her, at worst she should be turning a blind eye to you interest, even if she refuses to share any measure of it with you. Meaning, you ought to be able to own and use heels in her absence, without criticism or indignation. It ought to be considered -at worst- a private indulgence by you that doesn't in any way impinge on her life or lifestyle. Agreed. While I am no pioneer to heel wearing, nor martyr to the cause, I would really struggle to accept Puffers situation. I have had, and in some ways continue to have something of an outlandish lifestyle. My wife has known me better than 40 years, and we've been together for over 20 of those years. I don't recall her telling me ever, "you aren't doing that" or even criticising me for doing anything like it. That includes buying expensive bikes I never rode, (more than once), and same with camera equipment. I like to think I'm supported if that's quite the right phrase, as I pretty much 'support' my wife in whatever she does or wants to do. Bottom line of a marriage I like to think, is to enhance our life experience of our partner while we can. If it isn't mutual, what you have isn't a partnership is it....

Post updated to include pictures, and details of the circumstances the pictures were taken in. Going back to why the thread was originally started, it was a good job I took a screen grab of the linked Instagram page, because as anticipated, the original has disappeared.

I've added a more saturated version (though I may have overdone it a bit.) The colour is very close to Louboutin lipstick red.

I'd say I got the colour 'spot on'. In the photo it's at least one stop overexposed to bring out the shininess of the leggings. It's one of the first taken using an android phone to control the camera. I thought when I first looked, the controls were obvious and easy. (hahaha!) The screen looked completely different the second time I started the Panasonic app today though. I need to find out how to work the thing with fully manual or aperture/shutter priority. I still need more light than I'm getting too. Using program, the aperture was as open as the lens allows, and at times I had to use 800 ISO. There's no budget yet for studio lights, but I will need them, so I'd better start saving!

With Office copies of Hot Chick (on left) called Hampton. (Now out of stock.)

So true!

In my mind ... More inappropriate than awful.... There's a place for that sort of clothing, a night out .... (To the cinema - seems quite popular. I've seen very questionable dress sense by some ladies when visiting the picture house. Not sure what that's about, but often wondered.) Mine quite the 'rock chick' in her very slim late 30's. I have a picture of her here somewhere wearing very shiny PVC trousers, in a size 8. She wasn't so bothered about short skirts back then.

The back looked even worse. What's not shown here (and I'm loathe to include it) is that the skirt part of the outfit doesn't exist in the rear. If I remember, the lovely Shirley is wearing black knickers, and shows them to us as she dances in a circle. I'd have preferred some slinky leggings which would have been much more appropriate, and I don't mean because of her age. This is a midday/lunchtime show. I doubt even Katie Price would have a lack of taste so low she would be foolish enough to wave her knickers at the audience? (Okay, maybe she would. )

Ahemmm.... Sounds like my kinda woman. There are places on a scale that are acceptable, some not. I went to a wedding once, and the grooms friend brought his then girlfriend. She wore a white mini-dress that barely covered her fufu. So wrong, on so many levels.... Mrs Freddy dresses way too conservatively for her body shape and age. I remember well my first ever trip abroad, to Amsterdam. I couldn't believe there was a place where middle aged people dressed fashionably! We have been very slow to follow... Mrs F will wear a short skirt with leggings or thick tights, but her legs are slim enough (and her hips still small enough) to get away with a shorter shirt still. It's not about waving her bits at anyone, it's a case of making the most of her legs. I regularly see girls out in leggings/thick tights with no skirt at all, and knickers in plain view. I am not suggesting her 'good self' do this - obviously. We are a long time dead, and not quite as long confined to a wheelchair of bed, so I think she should be showing off a bit more than she does. I guess she would say she would be happier to do that if she could shake off a stone or two of excess weight. I had a girlfriend who used to dress like a hooker. (Used to wear black stockings and suspenders under yellow semi transparent "ski-pants". (I have a photo here of her wearing that very outfit.) She provided some very interesting times ... And I suppose I would be lying if I said I hadn't fallen in love with her during our 10 year on/off relationship. I almost never saw her out of stiletto's, wherever she was, whatever she was doing......

There are some really sweet people in the world. Lucky you for finding such a person.