Bucket list - stilettos

[Shyheels]

My whole thing here has been tall boots, not necessarily with heels. Indeed of my three pair of otk boots, two - and my two favourites at that - are flats, and the third has a chunky two and three-quarter inch heel. All well and good. Quite happy.

I am curious though about what it would be like to try stilettos - and thought I might put it on my bucket list: learning to walk really well in a pair of 5" stilettos (boots of course, no interest whatever ladies shoes) The idea is driven by a combination of curiosity, the athletic challenge, my own natural contrariness in wanting to do what one 'shouldn't', and the allure of the forbidden (but the not genuinely bad) 

My question is - would the difference in walking in stilettos be that noticeable enough to be a worthwhile challenge? Are they really hard to master? I have strong and flexble ankles. 

Other problem is finding 'nice' stiletto boots in my size - 44-45 would be the smallest I could go down to, I think.

Maybe a silly thing for a bucket list, being able to walk really well in 5" stilettos, but I kind of like the idea of having a hidden talent nobody would imagine I had.

[hh4evr1]

You can already walk in heels, but you have to be more careful with where you walk or the heel may get stuck in gaps and get damaged. You also have to walk evenly so your foot lands flat (often people walk more on the inside or outside edge of the foot).

I'm not sure what height heels you wear, but you will have to practice to get used to walking in a stiletto heel and also to get used to the extra height.

[Shyheels]

Thanks! My tallest is two and three quarters inch chunky heels on a pair of otk boots, so this will be rather a different thing. I am guessng balance as well as height will be issues...bound to be interesting!

 

 

[FastFreddy2]

On 03/05/2016 at 7:34 AM, Shyheels said:

I am curious though about what it would be like to try stilettos - and thought I might put it on my bucket list: learning to walk really well in a pair of 5" stilettos (boots of course, no interest whatever ladies shoes) The idea is driven by a combination of curiosity, the athletic challenge, my own natural contrariness in wanting to do what one 'shouldn't', and the allure of the forbidden (but the not genuinely bad) 

My question is - would the difference in walking in stilettos be that noticeable enough to be a worthwhile challenge? Are they really hard to master? I have strong and flexble ankles. 

Well done.

Yes.

When I first read about 5" heels, I thought that starting off in a stiletto that high would be counter-productive, until I saw the shoe size of 44/45. (Counter-productive as in 'too hard' and might encourage failure.) With a size 10 foot, a 5" heel should might well be a challenge, but achievable for a determined wearer.

What to buy, and what not to buy?

Firstly, what not ....

Only yesterday I was in TKMaxx, trying on an attractive pair of Diesel strappy ankle boots. (Sorry, no piccies at the moment.) They were a size EU40/UK7 and had a zipper up the back. I don't usually get on with this position of fastener, so I was surprised I got the shoes on, but I did. While I have regular sized 8 feet in length, they are slender (ish) so I sometimes manage a large 7, which these were. They had (have) a 5" metal heel, which is what drew me to them. Mrs Freddy had tried them on first, and didn't want to try to walk in them, so despite me being a bit close to home, I tried them too.

They looked great on, had the upper end of my wearable heel height, but .... They were lethal. So unstable, I would reasonably expect to have a broken ankle on my first outing with them. I can only liken it to wearing a high heeled slipper and the heel tip was machined to a point. If I didn't move, the 'heel wobble' wasn't so bad, but even breathing induced movement. I've been wearing a heel for some time, and I couldn't wear them. 

 

I would recommend Pleaser. They are stable, being designed for men to wear, and their range is quite large. They are no longer as inexpensive to buy in the UK as they used to be, and few outlets carry stock. (The exception might be Banana Shoes, who I also recommend.) The newer Pleaser style with the vertical heel are hard to walk in, so I would suggest one of the older (classic) styles with the curved (inclined) heel. There is some discussion on this board about heel-tip position that is pertinent regarding these styles, that might bear some reading if you are unfamiliar with it.

While you are into boots, getting the right size might take some work, so I suggest getting the sizing using shoes. Either ordering 2 or 3 sizes at a time, or hoping to get lucky and ordering what might seem like the right one will almost certainly involve returning products, and returning shoes is cheaper than returning boots. I am thinking (aloud) that faffing about with shoes to get the right size, could be easier/cheaper than faffing around with boots. Once you have the size, then you can order new or buy 'unused/unwanted' at a better price - possibly, in a style you prefer. Boots and shoes from the defunct Little Shoe Box (aka LSB), now "Leatherworks" or Burlesque Blue, will all be strong enough to support a 6ft man. I believe Burlesque Blue (and maybe Leatherworks) still offer a made-to-measure service if you have that sort of inclination. There are other people offshore who might do the same or similar thing for a bit less money, but the makers I mentioned are in the UK where you might get the benefit of some face-to-face advice if your interest progresses.

Often resellers/retailers will recommend going up a size if wearing a heel. I have never found this good advice for myself. In fact with a court shoe, I've found the opposite to be true. When I put on a size 8 court, it fits. When I've been wearing it for 10 minutes (and my feet have reshaped themselves) my foot falls out of the shoe. Wide feet might get some benefit from a larger shoe, but I don't have wide feet (thankfully).  

 

All that said, there is at least one 'local' heel enthusiast around your size who is a member here. It may be you could meet up for a 'trial' that would be no more expensive than the cost of travel to a mutually convenient venue. There are more active members on HHP, and maybe you've already had a similar offer from one or two there? 

[Shyheels]

Firstly, many thanks for the very considered and helpful response! As to shoe/boot size, I am actually a UK11 or better, depending on make. I put 44-45 down as something I might be able to squeeze into, so I think 5" might even be slightly more achievable still - with care and patience, of course, or maybe that should be tenacity. I have quite narrow feet which may or may not complicate things. My foot would more likely be able to fit a woman's last - possibly?

Funny you mention Banana - i stumbled across them and was wondering if they were any good or reliable. Your recommendation counts with me. They do seem to have quite a lot of boots, although an awful lot of them have platforms. (I may have been a child of the 60s-70s, but I hate platforms) They did have some knee boots with 5" heels and no platforms, and while they are not exactly designer fare, as long as they are stable they should do the trick, not cost the earth, and help me to achieve my Bucket list ambition!

This shoukd be interesting and, I expect, instil n me plenty of respect for women with relatively small feet who rock such heels casually and on a daily basis.

Those ankle boots you tried on sounded like great things to avoid. I can do without a broken ankle - I came near enough to doing that last August stumbling on a broken bit of curb in London while wearing very sturdy hiking boots. 

 

[Puffer]

Shyheels:   I've only just seen your posts and the helpful responses.   Your wish to try 5" non-platform stilettos is understandable; something I share with you in addition to also being a UK11.   A 5" heel in that size is not too difficult to wear and walk in but, as mentioned, a stiletto is not as easy as a thicker heel.   Sizing can be an issue as the higher-heeled (women's) shoes may need to be a little larger to fit comfortably on a male foot, but that much depends on the shape of one's foot as well as the shoe style and make.   I may be able to help in a more specific way and will PM you shortly.  

[Shyheels]

Many thanks!

I am hoping my narrow foot will help with fitting.

I expect walking well in 5" stilettos to be a challenge, but a fun one (hopefully) and something I can master with practice.   I kind of like the notion of having a secret talent...

 

[FastFreddy2]

On 05/05/2016 at 10:14 AM, Shyheels said:

I kind of like the notion of having a secret talent...

 

That remark begs for a banter-style (slightly abusive but well-meant) response..... Sadly I don't have the intellect or wit to take up the challenge.   

 

Anything on order yet?  

[Shyheels]

Working on it! 

Yes, I guess the secret talent remark does beg a wise-ass response, but I do like the idea of having an off-beat talent that nobody knowing me or seeing me on the streets would guess that I had

[Puffer]

7 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

That remark begs for a banter-style (slightly abusive but well-meant) response..... Sadly I don't have the intellect or wit to take up the challenge.   

 

Anything on order yet?  

And there's me thinking that these were your (well-hidden) secret talents, Freddy!

 

2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Working on it! 

Yes, I guess the secret talent remark does beg a wise-ass response, but I do like the idea of having an off-beat talent that nobody knowing me or seeing me on the streets would guess that I had

Yes, it does have appeal.   Without being big-headed, it is always gratifying to have some special knowledge or skill that most others either do not have or would not recognise.   Perhaps proficiency with a musical instrument that few know you have, let alone play.   Even trivial things can be satisfying - like knowing exactly how to get from A to B by some devious road route or transport link that would leave anyone else floundering.

[Shyheels]

Exactly.

Those quirky little things that liven ones existence and sense of self.

 

[FastFreddy2]

 

4 hours ago, Puffer said:

12 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

That remark begs for a banter-style (slightly abusive but well-meant) response..... Sadly I don't have the intellect or wit to take up the challenge.   

 

Anything on order yet?  

And there's me thinking that these were your (well-hidden) secret talents, Freddy!

 

 

And obviously I'm doing a great job of keeping them secret.   

[FastFreddy2]

2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Those quirky little things that liven ones existence ....

 

And might even be the motivation to do extraordinary things ... 

Would I have driven to Covent Garden yesterday evening (primarily to walk amongst people in high heels) and enjoy the hustle and bustle of several landmarks known throughout the world, enjoying a meal with my nearest and dearest in the heart of the capitals theatre-land? I think not.  

 

Nor would I have had the pleasure of watching an attractive lady walk around in some Carvela courts I know to have a 5 inch heel. 

 

Edited May 7, 2016 by FastFreddy2

[Shyheels]

Nice shot of Trafalgar Square.

[FastFreddy2]

11 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Nice shot of Trafalgar Square.

Thank you. 

The equally 'candid snap' of the lady in heels, is much more interesting though. To me at least.   She was lovely. 

[Shyheels]

Not too sure about the wisdom of doing that sort of thing... Those kind of candid snaps are not always welcome and can land you in hot water

Edited May 8, 2016 by Shyheels

[FastFreddy2]

8 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Not too sure about the wisdom of doing that sort of thing... Those kind of candid snaps are not always welcome and can land you in hot water

 

I tend not to do anything illegal. I'm unobtrusive, and very discreet. My camera looks like a bit like a phone, and I hold it next to my body. I think it has been spotted, once or twice (in several thousand snaps) but even then, why would anyone think I'm using it when it's held in such a way? 

Conversely, walking across the open space of Trafalgar, I must have had my photo taken AT LEAST 10 times. It was unavoidable with people 'snapping' away. These days it's harder to keep away from having your picture taken, than getting your picture taken. We had the same problem when we arrived at Covent Garden. People with phones taking pictures, people with cameras, video equipment ...

Anyone overly paranoid about having their photo taken in these places, need to either wear a paper-bag over their head, or stay home. It's completely unrealistic to expect to walk around these places and not get included in someone's digital image. Even for me, and I'm about as paranoid about it as anyone could be....

 

"Publishing" can be a little more fraught of course. I go to some lengths to make sure the subject isn't identifiable, and I seldom make unfavourable comments. (I can only think of one, over many many years.) I'm generally promoting someone's good taste, so it would be hard for anyone to suggest I was trying to 'defame' them. I don't do this to upset people. 

[Shyheels]

True - being in a public place means you can be photographed, no question about it, but there is a huge difference between crowd scenes, someone walking across Trafalgar Square and into frame, and furtively taken photos that zero in and single out someone or, more particularly, their footwear. Risky these days, even if you were technically withn the letter of the law.

[Heels]

That photo is one of the best I,ve seen you post up on here. It show a bit of class and in a nice location.

[Puffer]

5 hours ago, Shyheels said:

True - being in a public place means you can be photographed, no question about it, but there is a huge difference between crowd scenes, someone walking across Trafalgar Square and into frame, and furtively taken photos that zero in and single out someone or, more particularly, their footwear. Risky these days, even if you were technically withn the letter of the law.

As you say, there is no illegality.   And I cannot really see how someone would be in a position to bring any civil action, e.g. for defamation or invasion of privacy.   A person going out in public effectively licenses all onlookers (or photographers) to observe, record and comment - again assuming that nothing defamatory results.   And publishing a picture of someone in particular clothing together with a critical comment is not defamatory if 'fair', particularly if the person remains essentially unidentifiable or is so well-known (such as a celebrity) that he or she has effectively given up most rights to privacy in the absence of harassment.

[FastFreddy2]

16 hours ago, Shyheels said:

True - being in a public place means you can be photographed, no question about it, but there is a huge difference between crowd scenes, someone walking across Trafalgar Square and into frame, and furtively taken photos that zero in and single out someone or, more particularly, their footwear. Risky these days, even if you were technically withn the letter of the law.

 

I don't know what you've been reading, but we don't live in 1933 Germany (at the moment at least). For my part, I'm happy to use the few freedoms "we" have left. Using a camera in public is still one of them. Being "furtive" also guarantees I can't be accused of harassment, or bothering anyone due to my proximity or overt actions. 

There is no 'ill-will' nor malice attached to my taking photographs of people walking around in public. The original photo shows two people standing in a busy street and the photo shown further up the thread is a small cropped portion of the original. I'd be surprised if at least 3 CCTV cameras weren't recording every detail of their (and my) journey too. People living in the UK are the most watched/recorded anywhere in the world. It comes with 'the territory' ....

There is no expectation of privacy on public land. And even in shops and malls, at least 2 and usually more cameras, will be recording your every movement.

 

 

 

These signs were everywhere.

As were people with cameras pointing them at other people, including me, many times.

The only way to avoid it, would be staying home. (Or a paper-bag over my head, which would likely get me noticed even more.)

 

Edited May 9, 2016 by FastFreddy2
Photo 'lightened'.

[FastFreddy2]

5 hours ago, Heels said:

That photo is one of the best I,ve seen you post up on here. It show a bit of class and in a nice location.

Thank you. 

 

1 hour ago, Puffer said:

As you say, there is no illegality.   And I cannot really see how someone would be in a position to bring any civil action, e.g. for defamation or invasion of privacy.   A person going out in public effectively licenses all onlookers (or photographers) to observe, record and comment - again assuming that nothing defamatory results.   And publishing a picture of someone in particular clothing together with a critical comment is not defamatory if 'fair', particularly if the person remains essentially unidentifiable or is so well-known (such as a celebrity) that he or she has effectively given up most rights to privacy in the absence of harassment.

Bit 'technical' (I expect nothing less) but completely correct. 

I'm aware I put myself in exactly the same position when I go out in a heel.

If I suspect my footwear has been observed (as I believed it was in the restaurant) I take evasive procedures to avoid my footwear being recorded with me. Often this amounts to no more than tucking the shoes away from a 'line-of-sight'. People holding up a phone to read something, look the same as someone using a phone to take a picture, so I've no-way of knowing which of the two they might be doing. What I can't do, is make an unsubstantiated assumptions and 'kick-off' because I'm paranoid to the point of needing medical treatment. And nor can/should anyone else. 

[Shyheels]

I was not talking about anyone bringing any civil action, but about calling the cops and denouncing you as an intrusive masher or fetishist, or having their significant other run you off or even give you a thumping. While you may see heels as an art form and your thoughts and motivations may be innocent and as pure as the driven snow, there are enough weirdos out there that your actions in furtively taking images of a woman's high heels could quite easily be misconstrued. 

I am guessing you did not seek your subject's permission. As I say, there is (broadly) no legal requirement for doing so in most public places for non commercial uses but there are quite valid artistic, social and compositional reasons for doing so. You can simply get a better shot if you have a willing subject. I give you an example. I was in a picturesque fishing village not long ago where boats were being unloaded with much colourful bustle. It was a public waterfront and there were several photographers working the scene. I was the only one to go up to the fishermen, engage them in conversation, ask if they minded my taking images (yes, I know I was under no legal requirement - these were not for corporate or advertising use) And of the half dozen photographers milling about, guess who got the best access? Guess who scored invitations to go out on their boats? I reciprocated by gettng their enail addresses and sending them a few good imagee. They gave me some fish. The whole thng was friendly and engaging and I learned much which added to the value if the images I took. It was a really great shoot. 

Nobody objected to the other photographers, who kept their distance and shot impersonally, but they never got anything immediate and engaging.

the thing with going up and asking a woman you don't know if you can take pictures of her high heels - and pretty much just her high heels - is that you can be pretty damned sure what the response is going to be. I would imagine you would be aware of that, hence the oblique approach. Legal, but...

As a counterpoint, it is interesting to read on HHP the oft cited irritation of male heel wearers who find themselves furtively being snapped. There are whole threads denouncing this sort if actvity.

Yes, it's legal...but...

Edited May 9, 2016 by Shyheels

[FastFreddy2]

I've not read all of your long 'anti' response, and as I'm banned from HHp anything written there is of no concern to me.

I get you don't think it's a very 'honourable' thing to do. I don't think being videoed in every public place, shop and mall I visit is very pleasant either. But we all have to 'suck it up'.

As for someone calling the police, I'm not unhappy for that to happen if it does. In fact once outside a nightclub, a doorman said he would call them if I didn't leave. I told him to call them, and I waited 15 minutes in the cold for them to arrive. They didn't. Exercising my freedom is more important to me than being 'scared' into obeying a law that doesn't exist. I'm not a vigilante, but I'm no shy wallflower either.

I was once 'challenged' by someone half my age for looking at his girlfriends boots as she walked past while I sat eating. He wasn't expecting me to get up and follow him up on the challenge..... Nothing else happened, but his girlfriend must have realised his jealousy made him more of a knob than I was for noticing her as she walked past. I'm sure he became a wife-beater due to his unacceptable behaviour in public. As before, if you don't want people to look, or (increasingly these days - record), stay at home.

That advice goes out to anyone and everyone, regardless to their interest in footwear.

 

 

As for asking everyone in this photo for their "permission" to photograph them, I'm going to be polite and say it would be "unrealistic". Just as it would be if all those taking my photograph wouldn't be asking, nor expect me to keep clear of their camera lens. 

Edited May 9, 2016 by FastFreddy2
Grammar.

[Puffer]

The experiences and advice recounted by Shyheels make a great deal of sense.   It is certainly better to seek the consent and co-operation of an intended 'subject' before openly taking film or photos.   It can pay dividends, as he demonstrated.

However, that is not very practicable (and may well be inadvisable or pointless) when a candid, arguably intrusive or spur-of-the-moment shot is needed - and I guess that most street shots of footwear fall into that category.   A discreet (OK - arguably furtive) approach is needed in most such situations - the subject will probably have neither knowledge nor concerns about being photographed and will move on, none the wiser.   Let's face it - if one wants that particular pic, it is going to get taken regardless of the subject's possible (indeed, probable) objections, based on an an assumption of a pervy interest.