FastFreddy2

I have been intrigued by the heel height of these shoes, ever since I saw them. While Pleaser do several styles with this sort of heel height (and higher) at significantly lower cost, these are plainly, a very élégante shoe. I had in mind to acquire a pair, until .... The plan was to get myself 'sized' for a pair that would fit, then wait until some new or nearly new shoes turned up on an auction site. The Italian "41" does appear from time to time, and I once tried a Pigalle in a 41½ that fell off, so my hopes were/are high. The immediately comparable shoe, the Jimmy Choo Anouk, I know I would need a 41½ as the 41 was uncomfortable. Reading the So Kate had a height of 130mm, had my choice made for the £30 more expensive S.K. over Anouk. Both claim a 120mm/4.7 inch heel. The Anouk only available in black leather to special order, which puts it above the £425 price of the Loubies. Buying from someone on the auction site should produce reductions on both those prices - I would hope. So.... I needed to check if the Kate's were 130 or 120mm. Took two visits to London, and Selfridges, the first finding both Louboutin and J.C. having sales (of odds and ends) with queues I did not join. Yesterday evening, I got into both places very late in the trading day. In fact the J.C. 'booth' was empty but for me. I use my middle left finger as a gauge. The top of the knuckle when bent at 90' gives me a length of 120mm or 4¾ inches. Any heel higher than my knuckle with the heel tip level with my finger tip, is a good height. Anything that goes noticeably higher, is practically, a 'must have'. Neither the S.K. nor the Anouk were higher than the Office 'On Tops' I have here. (See picture). The office shoe, while not being 100% leather, nor hand made, come in at £65. At this time, I don't see the point (for me at least) in spending several hundred pounds on a shoe I'll likely keep in a box (as I do) that I could acquire for significantly less money. So I likely won't be making a purchase after all. Secondary to this conclusion, I now wonder how the shoes sold at auction, look to have a higher heel, and measure higher too? I didn't just check one pair of the So Kate 120's, I checked at least 5 and it might have been 6. All the same, circa 120mm or just over, as expected. So what conclusion does this draw? Louboutin claim the following heights: Victoria 160mm (with serious platform) Lady Peep 150mm (with serious platform) Bianca 140mm (with platform) Hot Chick 130mm - no platform. A link to a YT video elsewhere, indicates even dedicated wearers can't keep these on for long. So how did those other shoes in a So Kate box, look and measure so high? Either the genuine Loubies have varying heel heights by size, and being handmade, maybe they do. Though why call a style '120' another '130' if that isn't what they are? Alternatively, and this could be a provocative conclusion, where those shoes on the auction site 'fake'? This shows my 'finger gauge' in action. Patent shoes on the left are 134mm high, the leather ones in the centre are 123mm high.

I may have only done it twice before. Once certainly, and for a toe-rag selling Win7 "Retail", that found me taking delivery of a used (so useless) OEM version. I was one of about 5 people he scammed. He was booted off days later, with a full refund from either him or the auction site. Here is a screen shot of the negative feedback I left. You will notice he/she has something of a track-record .... I got my refund 10 calendar days later. (As promised by PayPal.) I also got a rude PM from the seller, telling me to "get over yourself". Apparently, it doesn't matter what you've agreed with a sale, if someone bids higher after you've paid, they get the goods: "that's the way it works". Not according to Ebay it isn't.

I hardly ever swear at home, and it would be a serious problem if I did, but otherwise ..... Can't wondering if they are related? More likely .... 'typical of the species'?

Mrs Freddy would prefer a bit less "thorough", and a bit more speed!

We both know you are not as lazy as me.

I have a 'habit' of doing a job that should last days, and it getting it done in weeks. Having taken two rads off 'upstairs', I find cracks in need of repair behind both. Given my 'repair' method, possibly a weeks cycle time to conclude them. Then there's the fitting of the new rads, which will include raising floorboards which I already know from the nail patterns on the floorboards, will provide some unique challenges on replacing the boards. The walls are again, breeze/cinder block that show signs of settlement. The repairs are not structural, but mostly cosmetic. Unlike the previous owner, my solution to this isn't woodchip wallpaper. The plaster-work on the ground floor behind the old rad is 'blown' in places. It's the location of the large rad that heats the house entrance, hallway, stairwell and upper landing, 40+ years of heat has persuaded much of the cement rendering to part from the brickwork. Well over half the depth of the screws holding the radiator support rails, are kept in place by this cement render, so it needs to be properly fixed to the brickwork. If I had employed a plumber to change the rads the job would be done in a day, but I would have sleepless nights worrying over the condition of the walls behind them. Removing the upstairs rad wouldn't be a problem, though inconvenient, but the large one on the ground floor ... That won't want moving once it's mounted. So the inhibitor is (again) for my peace-of-mind in case the work over-runs as it almost undoubtedly will.

Before fitting the "new" drain cock, it was tested for function on the 4.5 bar mains. It's unused so functioned well. Ultimately, the replacement pipework will use a 'heavy' type A drain cock which seems to meet with universal approval. The older (now removed) drain cock had functioned well previously. I'm aware they can and do fail, and my mistake was not ensuring the seal was clear of debris of any sort before re-tightening. Lesson learned. The new rads will not be the same size, and at least 600mm of pipework will be replaced at each connection. New TRV's or new manual valves are to be fitted too. The 'bugger' of this particular radiator is the poorly made pipe covering fascia board. That and the fact I may need help lifting a 600x1400 double rad when the wall is refinished.

Had an interesting 30 seconds today. Over the weekend I separated 3 radiators from the heating system at Maison Freddy. Not much to report .... Emptied one side of the heating circuit. Uncoupled the three rads. Took two off walls. Removed 3 loosened rad valves and replaced them with isolation valves (I'd got a few lying around). Checked the ground floor valves which were left in situ didn't leak by putting some liquid back in the system, all okay so refilled and added £14's worth of inhibitor. Vented some air, ran both heating and hot water circuits independently, vented some more air ... Everything looked fine. Two hours later, I noticed a small pool of water under the ground floor drain cock that was dripping once, about every 3 minutes. Overnight I lost about half a litre of liquid. What was I to do? Recycling the system liquid wasn't an option, but the drain cock had to be changed.... I bought a 15mm to 15mm straight push fit connector (I must buy a pack) and used one of the two new drain cocks I happen to have, together with a 60mm length of copper pipe to make a small sub-assembly. (Connector-pipe-drain cock.) The last bit of preparation, was to clean and polish the bit of the pipe immediately next to the old radiator fitting/drain cock. Then came the 'hairy' 30 seconds. I inserted the leaking end of the pipe run into the bottom of a bucket, I had laid almost horizontal close to the floor. The replacement sub-assembly put within easy reach, and I grabbed the pipe slice. At this time, it might be worth noting, the heating circuit is still full of water, and I am on the ground floor. I started to cut the pipe with the 15mm pipe slice. (No turning back now.) It took more turns than I thought, but the slice cut the pipe and water gushed out! I put my left thumb over the open pipe** and the stream stopped. I grabbed the assembly, and readied it next to my thumb holding back the water. Thumb removed, the push fit connector slipped on and re-sealed the heating circuit. My left knee got a bit damp, and there might have been a litre of liquid in the bottom of the bucket.... But it has worked, no more leaking. If it hadn't worked, I would have been in very deep do-do. Now the heating circuit is no longer leaking, I can get on with repairing/painting the areas behind the rads, prior to installing newer, more efficient and correctly rated radiators. ** About an hour later when a little 'tidy-up' had been completed, I found I'd cut out a small chunk of flesh from my thumb, when using it as a pipe-bung. I'd not noticed any pain, but the blood smears on the towel were hard to miss. Saved wasting the inhibitor, and a couple of hours filling/bleeding the heating circuit, so it was worth it.

Coincidentally, an article appeared today, in my usual source of high heel wearing women in the media.... >> here << The article is interesting, and slightly pertinent, in that it relates to relationships later in life, or the lack of them... Please read the comments. It may be mine is recognised... But read them all. Ref the the 'dressing up' ..... and making effort in (say) the bedroom.... I've spent a lot of time 'learning' about what makes people, mostly women, "tick". I started this in earnest around the age of 17, when for me, Cosmopolitan was mandatory reading. It lined me up for what was low expectation on my part, and high on 'theirs'. Cosmo women expected attentive, enthusiastic partners who delivered. (If you thought "delivered what", you are already behind in the game. Everything and anything should have been your assumption.) Putting that into perspective, I was born in a time when women were almost unpaid help for the breadwinner, and pretty much got -only- what was allowed. This may well have been different in better off families where women folk might have had a better education, came from a more liberal family ... But not in my circle. Cosmo sought to change that, to make women at least the equal of men, and perhaps more. In any relationship, as far as I know anyway, I've always assumed equal status with anyone. Be that male friend, or girlfriend, often boss, and even employee/staff. That doesn't mean I've always been treated as an equal, more of someone with a 60% shareholding with the voting rights of the larger shareholder. Or perhaps that since I seem to 'assume the role' of major shareholder, I got the role of major share owner. In practice that meant: I decided places to visit, and likely when. Not least because no-one else was interested in participating in the decision process, or in my early days, of funding it. To an outsider, it might seem like I'm the decision maker. Maybe so, but only because there is no will or want from anyone else. That was also -largely- true when I used to organise our groups weekend social activity, back in my youth. As far as relationships go, I'm quite laid back, but like to think I put in as much as I take out. I'm lucky in that I've avoided the wear and tear of being a parent, pretty much. I've also missed out on some of the joy of course. So far as intimacy is concerned, I rather fancy I did well in my more active years. Cosmo taught me that I come second, and I pretty much took that literally. It was always appreciated in the right quarters. I've not readily tolerated what women would called 'being used'. I once had a girlfriend who was incredibly good looking. How I got her as a girlfriend, I can't tell you. Good car, job, possibly looks, I don't know. What I do know, is she expected to be treated like a princess. We lasted around 6 or so weeks. She was nice, so I'm not being critical. She was the youngest of two daughters, and her boyfriend for the previous two years was probably out of his depth with such a smart/intelligent girl, and followed her fathers lead. I have deep pockets and short arms, so .... Since I have never found the female form particularly simulating in itself, intimacy for me has always involved a bit of dressing up. Always. There has been the odd occasion when naked body met naked body, but I suspect these were so few in the last 30 something years, I could probably count them on the fingers of my two hands. Just to confirm, I wouldn't be doing any of the 'dressing up' either. If my lover wanted to stop having 'relations' it would be an easy matter, no 'dressing up'. As with my previous comments, and those written in the (linked) article, women and sex later in life, is an unusual thing. Companionship, friendship (hopefully) and a common direction are the best to hope for. Unless ..... Someone I met around 3 years ago ... Told me about his 70+ year old pal. (He was around the same age at the time.) They drank locally in the same pub, and had done for years. Apparently his mate was a 'bit of a one' with the ladies. He knew several women, not necessarily single, in their 70's and 80's happy to get a bit of male attention in the bedroom department. One in particular, a lady in her early 80's, was still very keen. I don't how or why, but she was "grateful" as he put it. Hope for us all? While I do get a bit of justifiable ear-ache from Mrs Freddy, we both enjoy reasonably good health, and thus far, no sign of the bailiffs. We could be doing better, and equally, we could be doing much worse. Barring the odd 'wrinkle' every 4 or 6 months when my lack of progress with the house comes to a head, we have an easy going, respectful co-existence. I think I'm lucky, though I've spent a long time 'learning the skills' it took to become "lucky".

I think things changed some time ago. I bought an SSD drive a couple of years ago at a very favourable price because I'd gotten a voucher off Ebay. For reasons best known to themselves the company (CCL computers) cancelled my purchase and I lost my voucher. Never got a word why, though their feedback suggests it's not an uncommon practice of theirs.... I would have left negative feedback, but as I had my money returned immediately, the whole transaction was void and I had no part in it at all. (Ebay did give me back the voucher though.) With that experience in mind, I had someone bid on something of mine, they subsequently realised wasn't what they wanted. No point in forcing the issue, so I said we'd have to go through a cancellation procedure. To my surprise, I found there was no need for any agreement, and cancelled the sale just as CCL had done to me. As far as I can recall, as I had given a full refund immediately with no case raised, I got full credit for my fees. So much for the bidding/sale process being binding... I suspect I only managed to get the negative feedback in this time, was because the seller has kept my money pending the clearance of an echeque. The cancellation status is 'pending' allowing me to red-card the seller.

In the Noof Lundun vernacular .... "Whatever". You are right, of course, but such a common mistake (my subsequent research reveals) I too am going to forgive myself the error. (Though I will endeavour to be more careful with the use of these particular words in future.)

I found two 'appropriate' references to the word ..... First >> twot << Second >> twot << Twotted = twatted = broken. (Useless.) Also used in Hertfordshire/Bedfordshire/Essex and Lundun to replace "fucked". Example: "The gearbox was twotted" parsed, reads as "The gearbox was fucked." It would mean 'broken beyond further use.' Nothing to do with sex, or anyone's private parts, but a phrase usable in mixed company or in front of children that would not cause raised eyebrows. My apologies for using parochial terms. And preempting a further query regarding "twat" .... From Wiki >> here << Although sometimes used as a reference to the female genitalia (a usage that predominates for the word in North American English), the word twat is more often used in various other ways: As a derogatory insult, a pejorative meaning a fool, a stronger alternative to the word twit – 'He can be a complete twat'[7] (frequent in British and Commonwealth English, and not unheard of in North America) Informally as a verb meaning to hit someone[2] (a British usage) In August 2008, the publisher of a children's book, My Sister Jodie by Jacqueline Wilson, decided to reprint the word twat as twit in future editions of the novel so as not to offend readers or their parents after receiving three complaints[8] It's inferred use in the phrase "the gearbox was twatted", the gearbox became useless.

Had a bit of bad luck myself on the auction site this week. I'd made a couple of offers on a pair of 'used' Office courts last week. "We" finally settled on a price, and I paid promptly, as I do. Couple of days passed, and no indication of dispatch, which isn't always a bad indicator... Checking my PayPal account, I find I have a refund for the shoes, "pending", with a cancellation request also "pending". (The technicalities are: my refund is coming via an echeque, possibly. Until that money is actually sitting <back> in my account, the cancellation request by the seller can't be concluded. Handy, as it allows me to leave negative feedback. Instant repayment due to a cancellation - stops this possibility, I believe.) So, no shoes, no money until next Monday. And no contact from the seller at all. My negative feedback was the second in a row for the seller. Hopefully the person who doubtless offered more money than me, doesn't like them when they arrive.

One of the more cynical sayings: You don't have to put out the bait, when you've caught a fish .... I'm sure it works both ways too. I can remember a time when having a good car (fast car) was quite an attraction. Later, having a good job .... Even now .... An ex-girlfriend with wrecked feet (I have mentioned previously) who I haven't seen for 3 years, met me for a coffee last week. Second question she asked after the preliminaries: "What you doing for a job these days?" Believe me when I say, it wasn't "chit/chat". I'm open to alternative experiences, but I think even 'genuine' changes work something like this: 18-28: Everything is new, almost nothing is too much bother (for women at least). 10,000 years of DNA programming want them pregnant, so they are enthusiastic about sex, and don't mind putting in some effort to get it. 29-39: Often the "baby years", but certainly 'the work' years. Still enthusiastic, but physical tiredness now playing it's part. Without some effort (gym) bodies starting to show signs of age, and with it, a reluctance to flaunt what was once an attractive physique. Self awareness, possibly lack of personal success (actual or perceived) start to introduce 'doubts' about personal attractiveness. 40-50: Menopause is either looming, or kicked in. That 10,000 years of DNA programming has women avoiding conception as they wouldn't (historically) survive the birth, or the child wouldn't, or mother wouldn't live long enough for the child to survive without them. "Nature" wants them to put the brakes on getting pregnant. The libido of many women will be in it's death throws. 51+: Few women are with a man they find sexually attractive. Truly attractive men (looks, money, charmer) has been tugged away by younger women with 10,000 years of DNA programming wanting them pregnant. Those who still have their attractive partners, are not likely to be in good shape (there's always exceptions) and would prefer companionship over anything close to regular sex. With age comes lack of energy. Bones and muscles ache. Waists are thick, skin has been less elastic for a few years ... As time goes on, ANY sexual contact is fraught with difficulty. Workable positions are few. Lack of enthusiasm from men (even 20 year olds use Viagra - apparently) all helps keep sex out of the (middle aged) bedroom. Although a little different these days, 30 or 40 years ago nearly every woman was slim, and certainly they were (typically) before childbirth. Wearing a heel, stockings, and/or a short skirt would have looked attractive, even on a plain girl. Becoming a mother and not losing the baby weight, or getting older and gaining weight anyway, would have many women in too much pain to wear a heel with any height. Short skirts don't look so good on a larger/older women, nor does (say) longer hair or hanging out a (sagging) chest. So being cynical about the cynical comment (ref bait), it might be true the bait is no longer 'put out' for a partner but not because a fish has been caught, rather because it's painful (where it wasn't before) or just plain inappropriate. For example: I got Mrs Freddy to try on a PVC, "leather look" dress in a store, and I liked it so much I had her buy it with a view to it being returned if she couldn't find shoes/underwear to wear with it. At this time, she would have been in or approaching the last section mentioned above. The dress was in a shop, with the customer profile, typically being in the first section above, maybe the second. NOT the third or last sections. Much to our amazement, she looked really good in the dress, with or without heels. I did some quick picture of her wearing the dress, and some high heels to show off her and the dress. She looked really good, even though I say so myself. I'm going to describe it as a prank, (meaning, no ill-will or wickedness involved) I loaded up a picture of her in the dress, onto her FB page in her absence. She got to hear about it by the time she got her 4th "Like", and at least 2 rather flattering comments from friends. (The picture - her wearing what appeared to be a fashionable leather dress, drew only praise.) She went ballistic. Apparently, she saw herself in a completely different light, and was ashamed/angry that anyone who knew her might see her dressed in such a manner. Now, before anyone thinks this dress might infer she worked in a 'gentleman's club', let me assure you, it looked nothing like that - at all. It was shaped, to show off her slimness, and the upper bodice squeezing just a little to show off some cleavage. It did remarkable things ... And wasn't at all inappropriate. One of the "Likes" came from a very close family member, who is more prudish than Mrs Freddy herself. Now some 4 years later, Mrs Freddy would agree she over-reacted. The dress went back, and I have deleted every photo of her wearing that outfit. I mention it only to illustrate why I make the conclusions reached. She has since bought a PVC 'leather look' dress without any encouragement from me, and a long pencil skirt in the same material, again without any encouragement from me. I don't know why the purchases were made. I saw them 'modelled' when they came into the house, but I've not seen them worn out, not least because we don't go anywhere they might be worn in the light of 'suitable' attire. If ever I work it out, I'll come back and report it. Since that time, I have not taken a photograph of Mrs Freddy for myself, nor do I intend to. Shame really, because for her age, she is exceptional. (I repeat ... for her age. .) But I'm not taking photographs of anyone too ashamed to share them - in case they are mistaken for 'soft porn'. I'm happy to have my conclusion wrong, though 'one swallow does not a summer make', meaning, there are exceptions. I mention these groups as generalities, but equally, as fairly accurate generalities to my experience at least. No sexism is intended. Men are at least as bad, if not worse. Don't know how to dress well. Lack personal hygiene. Unfit, with pot-bellies. Thinning hair, and hairy ears/shoulders/back. Comments gentlemen?

The answer is yes. Once 'dressed' I considered myself 'in costume', and unlike the women of today, back then you wore your shoes from one end of the evening to the other. Even now I try to start my day/evening out, in heels if possible. It gets my ankle and foot 'prepared' for sustained use in that position. I had a visit to the West End some 16 days ago, putting on my heels for the first time during the day immediately prior to leaving the parked car. The shock to my ageing ankles might have been obvious to everyone ... Some hours later, I was walking 'like a pro', but disappointed it had taken a good hour to loosen up my ankles. I had driven Mrs Freddy's car, and didn't want to move the seat position to accommodate my heels. (Not worth the grief of leaving the seat in the wrong position.) The only pair of shoes I own I distrust while driving, are my trainers. If the soles get wet, they like to slip off the control pedals as if greased. Since I don't wear platforms, driving in a heel seems no different to driving in flats with the pedals further away than is (usually) comfortable. Research suggests heels can affect response times, and this might be the case, but every 'bump I've had has had me wearing flats ... At the time of my breaking the clutch cable back in '85, if I had twotted the gear box, it would have taken a day to replace, so it would have seemed like inconvenience rather than the disaster it would be now. My mate's family had (and still owns I think) a car scrap yard. I had ramps, access to a dry garage. Brother in the trade ... And experience. NOTHING could be as hard as demounting and remounting that 3 litre gear box, something I had done some 10 years earlier. I remember well, using the 'usual' procedure of pushing the box away from the clutch assembly and letting it drop onto me when the drive spigot was away from the clutch plate 'tongues'. Not so with that Transit box. Pulled it out thinking I could rest it on my chest before laying it on the garage floor. Nope. Laid it on my chest .... and couldn't move. Literally, pinned down by the bloody gearbox. Luckily for me (as breathing was almost impossible) my brother was on hand to pull it off me. Yes, I certainly knew how to live it up back then! Today, I had one attempt at changing up without a clutch. Didn't do very well, so I won't be trying that again. I don't know if front wheel drive affects the technique, or the lack of practice during the past 30 years has me unable to do it again ... And unlike 30 years ago, twottng a gearbox in modern cars is a four figure expense, and one I choose to avoid! Despite the (modern day) costs of it, a call out to a recovery company would be considerably cheaper. Not that I expect to experience the same problem these days, as cars and their components are much better designed than they were.

I think these days, "clubs" (any) don't often open their doors before 10.30pm and the night doesn't actually get going until at least an hour later. Back then, 'kicking out' was pretty universally 2 a.m. Now, 4 a.m. is more typical, and 6 a.m. not unknown. Venues stay open as long as people spend money at the bar. After that, any point in staying open - stops. When you can charge £5/£6 for a small bottle of water, you don't even have to sell alcohol to make good money from your 'guests'. The 'double-declutching' was a technique used in heavy lorries and race cars that used straight cut gears. Modern vehicles have synchro-mesh gears, which self-align at mis-matching speeds. (If my 40 year old memory of the technology serves.) The idea of the let the clutch up in neutral (the double bit) and revving the engine, was to get as many parts turning at the right speed as possible.... Didn't always work .. Driving without a clutch is simple but potentially dangerous for a gear box. A "power" test I read about in a performance car mag', was to start your car in 4th (no fifth gear back then) and see if you could actually drive away in gear. My 3 litre Capri could be started in 4th gear, foot off the clutch, could pick up speed and I could drive away. Not a clever thing to do many times, but I know I did it at leave twice. I believe the version of gearbox I had, was originally made for a transit. One day, I broke the (crap) gear stick. That was interesting .... So driving with no clutch .... Start off in gear, 2nd If I remember. Changing up is/was no bother. Getting back down a bit more difficult. "You" have to slip out of the gear being used, and lightly touch the accelerator to get the engine revs up. A gentle (and I mean gentle) bit of pressure on the lower gear, will usually let the lever slip into place when gear and engine speeds match-ish. This downward gear change can be practised in modern cars too! The nasty bit is stopping. IF you time it right, slipping into neutral -braking- and switching off the engine when stopped is the right way to go. Engine off, into second, ignition key at the ready .... Bear in mind, I was travelling out of London at 3-4 a.m.** during a time when there wasn't a set of traffic lights on every junction, and there was nothing like the congestion there is now. Nor were we living the 24/7 lifestyle we have these days. I probably wouldn't have seen another 30 vehicles going my direction, all the 20 -ish mile route home. I wouldn't have needed to stop at roundabouts either. Apart from having to stop say 5 or 6 times, it wouldn't have been anything like the challenge it might seem. I would have been barely 30 at the time, and still spent a lot of time working on cars, it would have seemed an inconvenience (to me then) at worst. Nerd Trivia: Though technology has moved on a bit since 1985. Most cars back then had historically used hydraulic actuated clutch levers. "Cable" was fairly new, and I can tell you from experience, pretty unreliable if you drove a Ford. It was the only time I snapped one, but I changed several frayed ones over the course of my 'car enthusiast' years. ** Just to put those times into perspective .... "Once" and I definitely mean the once - after returning home from that club (so around 3 a.m.) I got my girlfriend to drop me off about half a mile from our flat, and the other side of our town centre. So I walked, dressed as described above, through my own pedestrianised town centre at 3 - 3.30 a.m. to get home. Didn't see another person the whole 10-15 minute walk. Was truly surreal. I always drove home from London, so I would have been perfectly sober. I don't do drugs either, so fully compos mentis though a little 'high' from spending 6 hours 'dressed' and mixing with people like it was perfectly normal. Boy George, Culture Club, 'Marilyn' were seen daily in the newspapers and heard on the radio all the time. They were very androgynous times so I wasn't as 'out there' as it might seem now. Plus looking back, I had what I could only describe as an 'enviable' shape. A slim body with 28" waist that could easily get me into a size 10 or large size 8. I don't even know a woman that size now .... So less 'daring' and more showing off really.

Just a little tip for male readers .... Be very very very careful with sharp stuff around the scrotal area. Cuts around 5mm can take a surprisingly long time to repair....

Bit of a longer story (apologies if you've read it elsewhere already.) Would have been circa 1985 and the heyday of my wearing heels at clubs and balls. I didn't always go out dressed 'en femme' but it was more usual than unusual. My girlfriend and I got approached (in every sense) when I dressed up, not a whisper from anyone else when I went dressed as a man. So we had left a club just off Charing Cross Road called Maitresse around 2am. I'd driven my car across Oxford Street, and the clutch cable snapped. I had to get out of the car and look under the bonnet at the bulkhead, and sure enough, the outer cable was lying loose. I would have been wearing a short PVC skirt and top, fishnet stockings, and 5½ heels. While looking under the bonnet, I got quite a few beep's, and one loud shout of 'oyh-oyh' from passing traffic. No offers of help though. I'd learned how to drive without a clutch years before, having experienced it with a 1972 3.0 Capri. Not so easy starting off in gear with a smaller 4 cylinder, but it was a bit under-geared in first and second, so we got home. It's taken 31 years for me to wonder how I might have made it home, with no car and dressed as I was. I suppose an expensive cab ride, (£25 back then) and returning the following day with a new clutch cable.... In recent years when I used to go out in heels, I would be rather daring by taking no other shoes, once finding myself in the wrong place at the right time. I'd pulled into a disused road to have a pee. Unknown to me, a group of young people had arrived a bit earlier to start smoking an odd smelling tobacco. It seems someone who lived close by had called the police, who subsequently arrived, just as I was leaving having discovered I wasn't alone. I was told to stay put. Thinking I was likely going to be ordered out of the car at some stage, I carefully got myself de-shod. At the time, thinking it better to get out the car in socks, than get out wearing 4 inch heels. As it turned out, once a vehicle/name check was made, I was dismissed. (Pheww.) I'd like to say I still have that 'devil-may-care' attitude.... But 'work duties' means I have to go into homes occasionally where outdoor shoes aren't allowed, so I now carry a pair of black soft 'slipper' type shoes in the car at all times. At a push, dual purpose. Not that anyone would know, but they too are a girls (slipper) shoe.

So close ...... Listing #121097228681 UK 6. and has a platform,

Surely, as long as you can walk unaided, this is still an opportunity? Possibly shaped my feet, yes. Or at least one of my large toes seems to moving in a direction that favours a pointed toe. (Always been a favourite, even in mens styles.) Thankfully, no sign of bunions; though I don't know of anyone in my family with them either so that might be down to genes. My skinny legs are again a family trait. Unfortunately, both my parents had shocking varicose veins, and that concerns me. I believe an estranged (younger) brother has had some stripped already. I've several times over the last couple of years promised myself I would keep my legs hair-free. There are no complications from this, as a "cyclist" who might be prone to grazes, hairless legs offer better sites for plasters. And for their removal. Making time, or suitable time, seems to be a challenge. This weekend .....