FastFreddy2

I have read somewhere, a statistic that suggested some 20% of males had tried on/worn women's clothing. I think the 'shoe' value was a bit higher. As I've mentioned a couple of times before, about three quarters of my shoe sales have gone to men. The most expensive pair going to a youngish tradesman who I met face-to-face with no secrecy over who they were for. Another pair sold to a biker, who had them delivered o a work place, rather than his home. I'd say there were a significant number of male heels wearers out there. Typically, hide them somewhere, and put them on for ten/fifteen minutes when solitude allows. Even on HHp when members talk about meeting up, everyone takes a step backward. Why? Possibly because men into wearing a heel, see it as a guilty secret they are loathe to share publicly. I've no shame. (Almost literally none.) I'm happy to meet like-minded people. I'm comfortable going out in public wearing a discreet heel. I haven't always been so confident in public places though, but am not reluctant to share. That pretty much mimics my early experience of wearing heels amongst others, but I've never stopped enjoying wearing tight clothing, and almost always have leggings on. I still have a taste for tight skirts too, but not to feminise myself. (And 3 hours a year hardly qualifies me as a TV.) If you are walking some distance, you will need a stock of tips. I recommend this outfit: http://www.stiletto-heel-tips.co.uk/ For a while I had a job that had me walking almost two miles home in the early hours. I put metal tips on a pair of boots because I used to walk miles in them and would use these for walking home in (rather than driving). Sound was incredible. I don't remember meeting anyone, but there would have been no hiding my footwear. They must. But British people are quite insular. Only children will talk about them openly, or drunks ....

Google searches tend to disagree. As you know, the most popular/most read appear at the top of any search results. Here are the top 5. Of them, only the last one even mentions women riding bicycles, and it's mentioned as one in a group of activities. (Not prioritised or singled out.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_trousers http://www.historyandwomen.com/2012/04/woman-and-pants.html http://the-toast.net/2014/08/07/wearing-pants-brief-history/ https://bellatory.com/fashion-industry/A-History-of-Trousers-and-Pants-in-Western-Culture http://www.fashionencyclopedia.com/fashion_costume_culture/Modern-World-1930-1945/Trousers-for-Women.html The overall conclusion from these, is that it was work that changed societies view of women wearing trousers, spurred on by their participation during the world wars, of doing work historically carried out by men alone. So work related in a climate of social changes. Bicycles changed the world, but not for many women. One of the articles I read (I don't remember if it's amongst those linked as I researched this two days ago) mentions that in modern times, some employment in religious organisations, still (unofficially) forbids women to wear "pants". Even in Christian cultures, women have been repressed in their personal freedoms. They were considered 'chattels' (possessions) until very recently, not even qualifying as second class people. As late as the 60's, rape of a wife wasn't outlawed in the UK. I love statistics. Which organisation independently verified this figure? As we know, retailers tend to overstate sales. (Like Tesco's board members charged with fraud for "accounting" errors that significantly increased the share value of the company.) Where is the breakdown of men vs women owner/users. Equally, all ownership/users. More importantly, the demographic of owner users. My stance on this is that employed (men) would have been the bulk of the users. (Postmen, butchers, bakers.) Shop girls (bakers, linens) would have been kept in the shop. Women with access to bicycles, would have been wealthy middle class. As I mentioned before, the poor barely had enough to eat - often, not enough. In todays Daily Mail, there is an article on Glasgows poor in the 1940's some 50 years after the 'bicycle boom'. Some of the people shown in the photograph are clearly wearing worn out clothes. Even my own (working class) family didn't own a bike until I got my second hand one aged around 6. Glasgow wasn't the only poor city. My fathers family who lived in London, started life in a slum. My father was fostered out because there wasn't enough money in the family to feed everyone in the family. Bike ownership? Not until the early 50's when my Auntie got herself a job did anyone in the family own a bike, and then it wasn't recreational, it was a requirement of (post war) work as shown in "Call the Mid-wife." Bicycles helped change the transport world, but it didn't put women in trousers.

Did they have the 'halo' pattern on them (above), or do they have the usual smooth texture?

Image 2 of 2. There was a rack of black PVC trousers in the store. A couple of these 'halo' ones were there amongst the more regular styles. I had gone to River Island at Brent X to find the red PVC pull on leggings I'd seen over the weekend. I found and bought a pair. Colour is awful, more of a dark red ochre really. Just like the colour in this header. I'll try them for size, and if a black pair come up, I'll know I'll be safe to buy them. These are definitely going back, even at £15.

I may have seen a pair of 'holographic' PVC trousers in Topshop tonight. Although my images indicate a grey/sepia colour, they were a proper black. My camera, and the way I have it set have over exposed the material, so understand these images should be black not grey. Image 1 of 2.

I think 4" - 4½" is more realistic for a UK6, and then for evening wear if so inclined. Even those I know who wore lower heels for years, had crippled feet by their early 50's. Again I would suggest buying cheap first. I suspect 4" heels for your foot size would not present a challenge (if at all) for long. Conversely, starting at a height that immediately gave you problems (5") might dissuade you from continuing. That said, I would expect a 5" heel to be suitable given your fitness level.

We are talking about the UK .... It's not possible to 'pick and choose' countries to add weight to a view. Yes bicycles brought about a revolution in transport, and China - home to a quarter of the worlds total population - could not function without them now. But the effects you describe were not felt by the British working class. As I said, a significant percentage were too busy starving to death. The famous Jarrow March was done on foot, not on bicycle. Bicycles were not the driver to women wearing trousers.

I think that's quite a romantic turn on events. Most "working class" families didn't have enough to eat, much less afford a bicycle. Middle class families or busy tradesmen maybe. Around 25% of the men who volunteered to fight in WWI were so emaciated through hunger or ill health, they were deemed unfit to fight. Bicycles no doubt would have helped sow the seed of change in dress, but that would have affected something like 20,000 people. Even at 200,000 it would not have affected as many as were touched by WWI. That affected everyone. Charlotte 'Lottie' Meade was a munitions worker during the First World War. She died of TNT poisoning contracted on duty. Her death certificate recorded that she lived in North Kensington in London. It is believed she had at least three great-grandchildren. Faces of the First World War Find out more about this First World War Centenary project at www.1914.org/faces. This factory worker is not wearing a skirt, though she looks to be wearing her corset still. I'm not suggesting a switch was 'flicked' that immediately saw women wearing trousers, but it opened the door to everyone, that in certain circumstances, it was seemly for working class women (the great bulk of women) to wear a trouser. Not only did society get forced into accepting women in a trouser, skirts got shorter too. Ankles were no longer hidden. This could be debated ad infinitum as the learned Puffer would say. The point I'm making is that it wasn't a fashion house that decided it was okay for women to start the long road of being unsuppressed chattels. The Great War had women doing men's jobs, in men's clothes - or a version of them. 1918 gave some women the vote (along with working class men over the age of 21). "Freedom" was in the air. Right up until the 20's and 30's with people once again starving to death, with no work for the poor. It wasn't until WWII that the movement could continue. Later on, (lat 40's to mid 50's) when (borrowed) money started slushing around, fashion houses/theatres and film started to pave the way to women in trousers to be a fashion statement, not work attire. Yes, bicycles may well have sown a seed, but the wars changed how we ALL dress.

As I look back over recent times (100 years), I see very few 'drivers' for change. There were two big ones (wars), a small one, (working men - as well as some women - getting the vote) and a secret one: movement towards an internal economy. I don't think women decided it was okay to wear trousers, world wars put women in the work place, where Mr H+S decided they had to wear trousers for safety reasons. Once the ball was rolling, the second war ensured it stayed rolling. Our internal economy recognised the clothing market had changed regarding women's casual attire, and fed that market with constant change producing a recurring market. (Think of the 'trainer' market since about 1990.) The working class man was promised change if he fought, and change it did. Government sponsored social housing, and the welfare state. All born from politicians having to respond favourably to the voters, rather than the businesses that had previously put them in office. Better living conditions grew expectations, and then consumerism. Internal markets flourished. Women owning excess clothing came from that. A style for every occasion, several colours in each of those styles.... You are right about critical mass. But I believe wrong about what will drive change. If it happens, it'll be because someone found a way of convincing men they should have 30 pairs of shoes. Some with heels maybe. It's started with trainers, which after all are predominantly asexual. I know a couple of younger men who have 'collections' of trainers. These changes are slow, because of reticence, but there are indicators.

I'm not having nightmares about these shifting sands, but I am concerned. The line has moved, or is moving about, for what is becoming known as consent. I remember being a hormonal youth/young man, wanting sex. I can remember women being equally keen, for the same reason. We (whoever that combination might be at the time) didn't always want sex at the same time. A certain amount of coercion and/or persuasion was used by both parties, though mostly by me. But not exclusively by me I might add. In my defence, I have never touched a girl or women where it wasn't expected at a time it wasn't expected. But given what I read in the newspapers, an old girlfriend (of 40 years ago) could look back on one of our encounters, and decide "I don't remember agreeing to sex on that night" and I could potentially find myself in doo-doo. Like I say, I'm not having nightmares, but I am concerned. Especially since I read the other day, a man was kept on Remand (in prison) for a year awaiting trial for rape, while the police withheld evidence that proved the man was innocent.

I'm built for speed. I expect the sabre to be a bit heavy for me. Plus I'm more your D'Artagnan (working toward a Porthos), than a Jack Sparrow. I may well do that when I dispose of the mill-stone around my neck. No, not Mrs F, but the disaster zone that is my home. I'm not afraid of the cost of the investment, but more ensuring I get some use out of that investment. I have over 60 pairs of heels here, already more than I could wear out unless I live to be 120 years old. If I bought some long boots that were to be made for me, I would need time to wear them. About every day for 2 years. Not going to happen for another year I would say.

You might find 120mm (4.75") doesn't look or feel as high as you might expect in your size. I'm a UK8, and sometimes get into a generous UK7 (just about anything with EU41 written on it). I have no trouble at all in a court shoe that high or ankle boot with a loose ankle. (Some aren't, and are restrictive when walking.) Of course walking in a high heel affects my walking, but only in as much as I have to be careful. No running anywhere, no ball games....

Jealous! Very much on my bucket list, fencing with a foil. (Along with wall climbing.) Despite being semi-geriatric, I still have good reflexes. ALWAYS wanted to have a go at fencing. Banana shoes are very helpful, and they carry reasonable stock levels, and sometimes have sale items at attractive prices. The "Leatherworks" outfit will make a semi-custom pair of boots for under £200 if I remember. "Semi" meaning material and colour to suit, built onto their last. One day I might order up some long boots made with slim legs. that's a big maybe though.

An EU39/UK6 in a Merci Allen, (also 130's) come in at 133mm measured. Higher with a larger shoe - apparently. There is a difference in wearing a very high heel, and wearing a very high heel. I read this earlier: "built more for posing than walking. So, slip her on, pose, and let others come to you." On more than one YT video, there is mention of the Hot Chick Challenge. This is wearing (I can only assume walking) in a Hot Chick for ten minutes. Not stumbled across anyone wearing them for that long in a video so far. You might like this (equally undoctored) video:

I avoid anything sold on Amazon, as a matter of principle. UK based companies, should pay UK taxes. Despite that, I used the link to see -what was for me- an unconventional looking pair of boots. The shape was okay, but the pattern meant I had to rest my eyes for a few moments. (Yes, I like any colour, as long as it's black.) I also looked at some other styles from the same brand, which included a Hot Chick copy - with a declared heel height of 4.75 inches (120mm). Because there was only one review, I looked at a duplicate site/brand. Same shoe, but lots of reviews. Apparently, the shoe received, didn't look much like the picture, and was reported as low quality. Returns were to China. The reason I recommend UK companies, is because Trading Standards and UK legislation provide protection from fraudulent selling. Returns are a mandatory obligation from the seller. Dealing with third parties (ie Amazon/ASOS MarketPlace/Tesco Direct) for example, aren't necessarily a nightmare, but can be. Another company I recommend, a retailer rather than manufacturer, is Banana Shoes.

By way of helping me decide what size to try tomorrow, I measured my waist tonight. I was shocked. "Officially" I have banned myself from cake and treats for some time. Two weeks of freezing weather has had my appetite ramped up, with me hibernating, so no walking either. I have gained 4 inches on my waist. I have never been this big before. Had a sandwich for my dinner tonight. Followed by two large slices of buttered panettone. I bought Mrs Freddy an exercise machine for Christmas last year (her idea), not been out of the box. It will be very soon.

A stiletto heeled boot with 5" heel that looks classy and fashionable? No probs. UK size 10? I would respectfully suggest, you try something that fits with a heel, before you splash out £100's on having something made for you. It may be your ankles don't like a heel, or you don't enjoy walking around in one. When you know you want a pair made for you, then I would suggest sourcing them from one of the Leatherworks/LSB team. Someone in Scotland may be producing styles from the original lasts, and selling them under the Leatherworks branding. Historically, a very sturdy shoe, as is the Sexyca brand. But you are right, Sexyca doesn't cater for stay-at-home-mums. Pleaser and Ellie might do styles you like, but their boot shafts (as shown recently) may be loose on your legs.

I think you are right. In fact some of the big shoe retailers, seem to have stopped selling very high heels, and it can't be because they aren't fashionable. I suspect there has been H+S issues mentioned by legal teams. or even court action taken by one or two individuals that may have discouraged stupidly high heel shoes being promoted. You may be right about 'trials by social media too'. There seems to be an increasing tendency to berate anyone who is disinclined to 'toe the company line'. (No pun intended.) The borders of what is acceptable in social situations, seem to be narrowing over time, getting ever closer to each other. Borg mentality?

You are right about that. I recommend a brand called Sexyca. Made for both men and women in the UK, but available (I think) in your size. I found their sizing accurate and would have kept the boots I bought from them but for the usual problem - shaft with too much room. Good customer service too.

I am tempted to respond to each point you make, but this one about sums it up. Why isn't any form of clothing free to be worn by anyone, in any social situation? Given how many very young male children enjoy wearing a dress, I suspect in 30 years the boundaries will be a little more vague, but I won't live long enough to enjoy that happening. (Although being 'senile' or at least acting like I am, might open the androgyny doors a little earlier.) Throughout my life I've watched things that were 'taboo' come into the mainstream, for one reason or another. Two rather obvious ones, PVC and OTK/thigh boots. These are everywhere, sold by every retailer, even the conservative ones. Plainly, I was born 40 years too early. Were I in my 20's now, I would be having the time of my life. Not that I thought otherwise when in my 20's, but now I could swim in a sea of provocatively dressed women, where before I could barely get to drink it in. Ultra high heels, no longer strictly regarded as fetish, with fashionistas paying £800 for a pair of Hot Chicks because that's what you have to pay to buy the latest/hottest high heel shoe from Louboutin. 40 years ago, same height shoe, £25 from Covergirl. The world turns ....

Oooh! They (almost) might fit me! No way I'd get a 40 on comfortably, though I'd welcome the chance to try. The real interest is in the measured height of the heel...... Hopefully you will find a way to acquire that?

I've just returned from "food shopping". Tried to find a pair of the River Island shiny leggings to take home to try - no luck. Also went to Topshop on the off chance, and found they had some shiny PVC looking trousers for £15. (Not on web site?) Then went to New Look, and found some PU leggings for circa £5/£7 depending on which size I picked up. (Not on web site either?) I checked with T/S the trousers can be returned, but N/L I get store credit which is good for a year. Not sure why I'm bothering (nor was/is Mrs F) but there's 'fun' to be had in the hunt.

Unless the women in the video has under 3" fingers, there is no way those Hot Chick heels are 'just' 130mm. I have some KG's here with 135mm heels that mimic that style (some Office of London shoes that do the same) and neither one has the rise those Louboutins have. (Pictures tomorrow.) I can walk in the KG's, I struggle a bit with the Office ones because they are a tad on the tight/small side, and I don't want to make them loose as they'll fall off my feet. I had some Dune shoes that produced the same/similar effect, though only had a 5" heel. The rise was compressed (as with the Hot Chicks) and I really couldn't walk in them at all, unless I practiced for 30 minutes beforehand. As Shyheels has a friend with a pair, might it be possible for both the shoe size and the heel height (because the heel height might change with shoe size) to be revealed? I am going to be very surprised/disappointed if a UK 7 or UK 8 doesn't have a heel closer to 140mm than 130mm. They are no longer made, or I'd buy a pair (to be returned obviously) to photograph and measure. In my younger days, I had a couple of pairs of LSB (Covergirl) heels with 5½" heels in a size 7 that I could EASILY walk in. On nights out that lasted 4-6 hours with me continually on my feet (I never sat - ever) I didn't struggle at all, and never experienced foot pain in them either. I know I can't do the same now. I do have a pair of heels I swapped with h4evr that have a 5½" heel that I would struggle to wear for longer than an hour. Again in my younger days, I used to 'train' my ankles while doing my ironing, while wearing a pair of LSB/Covergirl heels with a 6½" heel. Just could not do that now. Things might be different if I'd spent the last 20 years wearing a (very) high heel regularly, but that hasn't been the case, and with the demands of my dilapidated home, not likely to change in the near future either. Contrary to what Mr Louboutin may have indicated, anything past 127mm/5 inches, pretty much falls into fetish territory - for a reason. They just can't be comfortable unless worn while horizontal, and walking in them well, if not almost impossible - then impossible.

I am almost "shiny leg wear" out. Unbelievably ASDA are doing some shiny leggings for £12-50 under their George brand. I saw in River Island, some red vinyl/PVC leggings in their sale, I now wish I'd picked up, at £15 reduced from £35 (I think). I might have to go back for those.... While looking at them, Mrs Freddy asked how I was getting on with my other shiny leggings .... Had I worn them much? The leggings have been removed from the RI web site, but here is a picture of the black ones. £15! And available in sizes up to 18 ... (In red at Brent X at least.) That 'holographic', in shoe speak anyway, usually means reflective; like the white or yellow piping found on high viz wear. Here is a jacket with mostly holographic panels: And holographic shoes .... Reflectant black is a novel idea ... Great for when you go clubbing! Actually, perfect for cycling. Stylish when in a coffee shop, highly visible under headlights!

While I may have hidden my feelings (if I had them) in my earlier years, I have never hidden my feelings from myself. Rather, I've tended try and turn any idea I had, (no matter how fantastic they might seem) into a reality. Past the age of say "late thirties", and having had a brush with psychology through college studies (business management) I've pretty much been an open book wherever possible. I'm sure being honest with yourself - perhaps working through difficult feelings or thoughts, is the key to avoiding the potential for confusion and anger. I knew at a very young age, I liked the look of a heel (on someone else) and enjoyed the feeling of wearing a heel too. Back then I would have seen high heel wearers as glamorous made-up ladies. I tried on my mothers heeled mules, and loved them. I would have been under 8 years at that time. There is a notion that we have pretty much made up our personalities by the time we are 6. I've always been a late starter, so for me it would have had to be later than that - possibly. One thing is for sure, I don't remember much of my life not being interested in the look of a women, how they presented themselves, what they wore. Most of that would have come from films and television, we lived in a quiet rural town, and I was young. Women folk, for the most part mothers looking after their children, would have appeared drab to me. Those at the cinema, theatre and on TV, very alluring. Over the years I tried to experience a higher heel, by stacking two pairs of my mothers mules, one pair on top of another. I experimented with some of her other things, and that was far from unpleasant too. Years later when I got some money, I got a girlfriend to buy me some heels, saying they were for someone else. Those shoes were probably the first pair that produced an 'exotic' reaction. All through my teens, it became obvious to me, tight clothing and heels, produced 'exotic' stimulation. Could this have been the time I 'self-conditioned' myself into liking to wear a heel? While the main cause of enjoying these these tight things or high heels may have been items associated with feminism, I did not see myself as a boy attracted to or wanting attention from men. Having a curvier body might have been useful, but I've always considered myself manly. At worst, had I three legs, two would be in 'man camp', a third in the woman camp. Or maybe not even that much, but there is something there. There was a period later, when encouraged by my girlfriend, I experimented further. It was hard work, but given the outcome of the adventures, and my hedonistic lifestyle at the time, will make great memories later in life. More conditioning? Back to now, I have 'fessed up to Puffer several times, I have all the things I need here to clothe myself in quite an androgynous way. Do I? Nope. I still haven't fully decided that is me. If I get a day when I feel curious, I can play "dress up" and then store all my play clothing - probably for another year. Do I have these things, including a mountain of high heels, because of my childhood experiences? I ride a bike, as I did as a child. I do other things (I have never mentioned here) that I did as a child. Even as a 10 year old, I owned a camera I used. Am I doing the core things I enjoyed in my younger years, because they are fundamentally pleasurable things, or am I trying to relive my formative years? In reality of course, the reason for it makes no difference; it's done because it brings me pleasure, and at my age, I'll take whatever I can get. When I'm out in a flat shoe, I miss the excitement of doing something forbidden. I miss the potential of being 'spotted' doing something that causes some people to frown. I miss being taller! All in all, I just don't see a downside to wearing heels. And as long as I don't overdo it, I get support at home too.