Jump to content
Puffer

Jealous!

Recommended Posts

I was at my elder son's flat for a couple of days, doing some DIY for him (yet again!), which included work in their bedroom.   His partner is a good deal shorter than him and invariably wears heels when out with him.   She has a fair collection of heels, some of which were on open show in the bedroom.   (They included some Office patent courts with a slender 4.5" stiletto, although I have not yet seen her wearing them.)   I could not help noticing a pair of boots very similar to these, with a 3.5" heel and nicely tapered toe, which she wore outside later when we all went out for a curry.   To my mind, a very nice boot for male wear in public, with a minimum of concealment; I was jealous!

1453974993-31715200.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Puffer said:

She has a fair collection of heels, some of which were on open show in the bedroom.   (They included some Office patent courts with a slender 4.5" stiletto, although I have not yet seen her wearing them.)  

You can put me down for whatever is a slight upgrade to "jealous". ;)

Since I don't have a family tie in any form, I can claim a boost from hormones normally associated with lust. Since your know her, I should add I mean a respectful lust of course. ;) :D

 

I don't think I mentioned much of the story (if at all) but I have had something of a frustrating time with the same shoe, but in red. The heel is actually 4.75" if they are a recent purchase. Here is a picture of the ones I have been attempting to buy, in deference to £375 Jimmy Choo's.

 

56c07a6b79e98_Office-OnTops-inred65.jpg.

 

These might have been mentioned in the Big Night Out thread.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I was aware of your unhealthy interest in the Office red courts, Freddy.  :)  

I think that K's black Office courts were the same model but the heel was no more than 4.5" on her size 37 or 38 (I forget which).   I may be in for a long wait to see them worn; K is pregnant with my son's first child and may not venture out in such high heels 'for the duration'.   And she went off to work in ballet flats :o on Friday - but that may have been because she was driving.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Puffer said:

Yes, I was aware of your unhealthy interest in the Office red courts, Freddy.  :)  

 

I say ...... :huh:

 

1 hour ago, Puffer said:

I think that K's black Office courts were the same model but the heel was no more than 4.5" on her size 37 or 38 (I forget which).   I may be in for a long wait to see them worn; K is pregnant with my son's first child and may not venture out in such high heels 'for the duration'.   And she went off to work in ballet flats :o on Friday - but that may have been because she was driving.

 

I wouldn't expect her to wear them much at all now, unless she a determined women or genetically lucky, and who manages to get back to her original pre-baby weight/size. I've made no secret of my theory that as a persons weight increases, typically it spreads the owners foot dimensions. This is somewhat supported by remarks seen on listings where heels are sold on, because their owners no longer fit or can no longer tolerate high heeled shoes.

I'll be happy to be wrong about my expectation. B)

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some cases I'm sure it's a question of having worn them as marriage bait, but now no longer needing them. As someone once asked, 'If all brides are beautiful, why are there so many ugly married women?' Funnily enough, my elder son doesn't seem to have a high heel gene in him. He's recently married a girl who, like her mother, doesn't seem to possess any heels over an inch high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2016 at 11:54 PM, FastFreddy2 said:

 

I wouldn't expect her to wear them much at all now, unless she a determined women or genetically lucky, and who manages to get back to her original pre-baby weight/size. I've made no secret of my theory that as a persons weight increases, typically it spreads the owners foot dimensions. This is somewhat supported by remarks seen on listings where heels are sold on, because their owners no longer fit or can no longer tolerate high heeled shoes.

I'll be happy to be wrong about my expectation. B)

 

2 hours ago, Russ in boots said:

In some cases I'm sure it's a question of having worn them as marriage bait, but now no longer needing them. As someone once asked, 'If all brides are beautiful, why are there so many ugly married women?' Funnily enough, my elder son doesn't seem to have a high heel gene in him. He's recently married a girl who, like her mother, doesn't seem to possess any heels over an inch high.

A week ago, I was at my son's (temporary) abode and he and K were packing stuff ready to move out.   There was a large box of K's shoes and boots which I had a good view of; it included several pairs of non-plat stilettos of around 4.5".   I complimented K on her collection (singling out a pair of red suede Carvella courts with a very thin metal 4.5" heel as being 'very nice') and she smiled at me and said I could wear them if I wished!   (Fat chance: she is a 37/38 and I am a 45!)   I don't think it was anything more than a jokey comment; she has no idea of my interests.   And, expecting or not, I am sure that she intends to keep and wear most or all of her collection; I hope so.   I don't think my son has any special interest in heels, but as he is about a foot taller than K, they both probably appreciate their merits.   And it will be interesting to see if their daughter will develop into a heel wearer in 15 years or so (If I'm still on the planet) ...

Edited by Puffer
correcting typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Russ in boots said:

In some cases I'm sure it's a question of having worn them as marriage bait, but now no longer needing them. As someone once asked, 'If all brides are beautiful, why are there so many ugly married women?' Funnily enough, my elder son doesn't seem to have a high heel gene in him. He's recently married a girl who, like her mother, doesn't seem to possess any heels over an inch high.

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. :D.) But I'm not taking photographs of anyone too ashamed to share them - in case they are mistaken for 'soft porn'. :rolleyes:

 

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? :huh:

Edited by FastFreddy2
Spelling/typo.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very thoughtful treatise, Freddy, which I am still digesting with a view to making my own observations in due course.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can identify with much of what Freddy says above about the behaviour of (potential) marriage partners, before and after the event.   Certainly, it is natural to be on 'best behaviour' during the dating phase and the period immediately following marriage or co-habitation - and this includes indulging the partner in ways that might not always be acceptable and are, in many cases, unlikely to last.   Obvious examples (aside from choosing clothing or personal appearance to maximise visual appeal) are being generous with personal gifts, eating-out, entertainment of all types, transport, practical tasks (such as DIY or needlework, tax returns), helping or caring for needy relatives (children, old people, potential in-laws).   We can all think of things we cheerfully gave or gratefully received and which may not now be forthcoming, at least with the same degree of generosity.

I don't think that sex and other aspects of an intimate physical relationship necessarily go hand-in-hand with the above.   Such favours may be given or received regardless of the other 'gifts' and are more likely to be affected in the longer term by age or infirmity, i.e. the spirit may still be willing but the flesh becomes weaker.   Conversely, as outside demands (job, children, mortgage) lessen or indeed disappear, the ability (availability of time, money) to provide more material tokens will normally improve - at least until the unfortunate time when poverty in retirement may limit one's resources, especially if health-care has to take priority.

In my case, neither my first nor my current wife has proved to be the person I wanted to marry, thought I was actually marrying or did indeed marry; both changed in behaviour, outlook and attitude towards me in a way which has significantly eroded my self-esteem as well as my respect for them and my day-to-day enjoyment of life.   But, that said, both marriages were 'right at the time', as they were evenly matched and showed great promise.   I cannot honestly say that, if it history were to repeat itself, I would not take the same action again.   The saving grace has been that my first marriage produced two fine sons and my second 'included' three fine stepsons.   In both cases, my wife's willingness (and apparent pleasure) in, amongst other things, 'dressing to please' soon evaporated - and not directly as a result of childbirth or age - and any hints or requests for a resumption were treated with derision and, often, suggestions that I was a pervert.   (And I'm not talking here of anything extreme such as bondage or fetish wear - merely stilettos, stockings and other essentially feminine and elegant or glamorous wear on the right occasion.   Has the concept of 'dressing up' for an occasion really gone out of date; I generally do - she rarely does?)

My wives would certainly agree with Freddy's closing remark that men are at least as much at fault as women.   Whatever I do in terms of personal conduct, bodily hygiene and clothing/appearance, I am subject to criticism and in some cases ridicule.   Fortunately, my health is good and I am neither hideous nor overweight nor lacking hair in the right place - but some loss of teeth and hearing is treated with little sympathy.        

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Puffer said:

I don't think that sex and other aspects of an intimate physical relationship necessarily go hand-in-hand with the above.   Such favours may be given or received regardless of the other 'gifts' and are more likely to be affected in the longer term by age or infirmity, i.e. the spirit may still be willing but the flesh becomes weaker.   Conversely, as outside demands (job, children, mortgage) lessen or indeed disappear, the ability (availability of time, money) to provide more material tokens will normally improve - at least until the unfortunate time when poverty in retirement may limit one's resources, especially if health-care has to take priority.

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. B)

 

4 hours ago, Puffer said:

In both cases, my wife's willingness (and apparent pleasure) in, amongst other things, 'dressing to please' soon evaporated - and not directly as a result of childbirth or age - and any hints or requests for a resumption were treated with derision and, often, suggestions that I was a pervert.   (And I'm not talking here of anything extreme such as bondage or fetish wear - merely stilettos, stockings and other essentially feminine and elegant or glamorous wear on the right occasion.   Has the concept of 'dressing up' for an occasion really gone out of date; I generally do - she rarely does?)

My wives would certainly agree with Freddy's closing remark that men are at least as much at fault as women.   Whatever I do in terms of personal conduct, bodily hygiene and clothing/appearance, I am subject to criticism and in some cases ridicule.   Fortunately, my health is good and I am neither hideous nor overweight nor lacking hair in the right place - but some loss of teeth and hearing is treated with little sympathy.        

 

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. B) 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. :huh: 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? ;) :P :D

 

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". ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who likes (most) of the Royal Windsor family .... This seems pertinent regarding mothers-back-in-heels.

It does however, rather support my notion that staying slim might be a factor in going back to a high heel. "Queen in waiting", Kate Duchess of Cambridge, is seldom out of a heel, I am pleased to say. 

3605798C00000578-3677602-image-a-81_1467

3603AB4800000578-3677602-image-a-32_1467

 

She's just sooooooo elegant. :wub:

 

More >> here <<

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/06/2016 at 11:41 PM, FastFreddy2 said:

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.

 

On 21/06/2016 at 11:41 PM, FastFreddy2 said:

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. 

 

I saw (briefly) an exception today.

Having just walked into an Office shoe store, I saw a middle-aged woman (already with ALDO bag and probable recent purchase) buy the shoes shown below. They looked like a size 6, they could have been smaller, but were certainly not much larger - if they were larger. She was about 5'5" in a 2 or 3 inch heeled boot. Around a large size 10 to small 12. I would have put her in her early 40's. While the Walter Mitty in me would have had me talking to her if I had been alone, I doubt even someone as socially inept as me, would be foolhardy enough to approach a complete (lady) stranger to talk about 'tastes in high heels'. :huh: I have done it with men twice, with the second event very successful. (Encounter not written up yet.)

Things might have been different if I had arrived 10 minutes earlier, while she was trying on the shoes, as I could have sat next to her and started an 'innocent' conversation on "how could you possibly walk in those?" ;) Flattery, can sometime be very effective. :P

What made the situation doubly frustrating, is that these shoes are on my "must have" list, though my size is sold out. :rolleyes: Not all Office styles get put into 'sale', (I now know) so I missed my chance while I waited for an event that never came. Ho-hum.

Not sure about the suede of course, but those heels are a whisper over 5 inches and have no platform. :wub:

 

Office Totter - £72 - SS2016.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2016 at 2:12 AM, FastFreddy2 said:

As someone who likes (most) of the Royal Windsor family .... This seems pertinent regarding mothers-back-in-heels.

It does however, rather support my notion that staying slim might be a factor in going back to a high heel. "Queen in waiting", Kate Duchess of Cambridge, is seldom out of a heel, I am pleased to say. 

3605798C00000578-3677602-image-a-81_1467

3603AB4800000578-3677602-image-a-32_1467

 

She's just sooooooo elegant. :wub:

 

More >> here <<

 

 

She wears amazing heels!

So feminine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...