Jump to content
euchrid

recent article

Recommended Posts

Puffer    206
6 hours ago, euchrid said:

Interesting, even though (as Shyheels says) somewhat forthright and a tad defensive.   It includes a link to pics of his shoe collection - worth a look - and also one to some rather nice-looking over-the-knee belted boots from Public Desire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FastFreddy2    216

That is a cracking link, another gem. B)

For, many many years, I believed my interest in wearing a heeled shoe, was weird/unusual. Potentially unique, and certainly was amongst my (then) extended social circle. It helped to train me to be secretive, and guarded. Certainly I kept my secret from anyone else for well over 20 years. That's a long time to someone approaching their 30th year...

Today, as I approach retirement (and worse) I know my interest is shared by thousands of others, and have just read an article that should have been about my own exploits some 30 years ago. (When I was young, slim and had a full head of curly hair.) Had that been the case, my life would not be what it is, and I'm sure I would not be alive today given I would certainly have succumbed to a more 'rock and roll' (terminal) lifestyle. Meaning, my life might have been brighter (more adventurous) but shorter, rather than longer and often dull. Given some recent purchases, I seem to be intent on doing some catching up while I still can.

I admire John Benge, and am a little green-eyed he is young enough to get away with his heels as a pseudo fashion statement, (though actually a style statement). rather than being considered an "old person who has lost their marbles". I am deeply into an androgynous look, but living where I do, (rural town) it's just not something I could get involved in. Maybe in the next life? :mellow: 

 

 

Edited by FastFreddy2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Puffer    206
FastFreddy2    216

Errrr, nope.

In  fact they were on my 'list' of items to add to the "Oddities" thread. That said .... I took receipt of some long boots the other day, very long - to the point of being called "crotch" boots in old parlance. As usual, the ankles and calves were loose, so the things would NOT stay up on my legs. At the time, I considered a suspender belt or girdle type affair to hold them up, and realised the practical benefit of this (ridiculous) design. 

I was some time ago, 'gifted' some boots, which sadly were waaay too big for me. They were a large UK9 or US11. They were sold on by me some 5 years ago.

59ccddcc942d1_Makerspromoimage.jpg.9cece448aeb3e0c9fe002ef2ca9b47db.jpg

 

Brand was Ellie. 

The boots I tried recently, were returned the next day. A shame because they had the mandatory 5" heel, and were suitably long.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shyheels    129
3 hours ago, Puffer said:

Nope. Way too high for me. Chap boots are not my thing at all. Knee boots or slightly over the knee, no more than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Puffer    206

This article makes what I consider a fair and reasoned case for men wearing heels in 'real life':   http://www.konbini.com/us/lifestyle/john-benge-man-in-heels-fashion-gender-fluidity/

I knew nothing of John Benge before reading this but I gather he is an Englishman and primarily an artist's life-model.   I very much like his boots in the pic below (although the contrasting brown heels are perhaps not ideal) - surely any man should be able to wear these without censure or ridicule?

tumblr_ox8uns17e41w7efwgo1_1280.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shyheels    129

One would think so - but alas, we live in a very censorious society and, in terms of fashion and the freedom to adopt new looks and styles, a society that is tipped heavily in favour of the distaff side of things. Men are expected just to shut up and wear the most utilitarian of clothes and footwear, and in the most basic of colours, forswearing all flamboyance, theatre or personal expression. It's not allowed.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FastFreddy2    216
40 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

Men are expected just to shut up and wear the most utilitarian of clothes and footwear, and in the most basic of colours, forswearing all flamboyance, theatre or personal expression. It's not allowed.   

A 'joke' proverb I use from time to time, when teasing someone who isn't keen on sharing; "What's yours is mine and what's mine is my own." This clearly summarises the female take on fashion too.

I've left it too late to make any headway in changing that myself, but I have a hope that something that get gets written by one of us, stimulates the beginning of a change in attitude. Like John Benge, our prose could well be the seed to an already fertile mind set on making changes. Someone like Boy George perhaps (but who doesn't succumb to drugs), or another dandy group like the 1980's New Romantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shyheels    129

Boy George and  the New Romantics came and went and left nothing in their wake but dated memories now thirty years old. I don’t see a new version of them - Mark II - making any genuine permanent change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Puffer    206
12 hours ago, Shyheels said:

One would think so - but alas, we live in a very censorious society and, in terms of fashion and the freedom to adopt new looks and styles, a society that is tipped heavily in favour of the distaff side of things. Men are expected just to shut up and wear the most utilitarian of clothes and footwear, and in the most basic of colours, forswearing all flamboyance, theatre or personal expression. It's not allowed.   

Oh dear - but thanks for telling us!   I'll have to throw away anything I've got that wouldn't appeal to the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg then.   (He reputedly wears double-breasted pyjamas, probably with a wing collar too.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FastFreddy2    216
4 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Boy George and  the New Romantics came and went and left nothing in their wake but dated memories now thirty years old. I don’t see a new version of them - Mark II - making any genuine permanent change

Artistic creativity, gave way to greed and the love of money. Not necessarily by the people who we know, but the producers and distributors of the creativity. The big movers: Steve Strange (promoter, producer, singer) Boy George, possibly Marilyn, all succumbed to drugs. Spandau Ballet were only ever in it for the fame. Duran Duran, middle class boys making some money and enjoying some limelight. Vivienne Westwood could have made a difference, but I suspect her interests were (eventually) with women, not with the emancipation of men. I haven't been an avid follower of her career, but most of it has had her as a member of the fashion establishment, not as the provocative outsider that had her (possibly) at her best. 

You are right about the absence of a Mark II, or a renaissance of New Romantics, or any impending return to androgynous Dandyism. 

The driver for this change might be money. The fashion/clothing industry is and has been missing a trick for some considerable time. Women, as a consumer, do more than the very minimum when it comes to spending money on clothing. I would suspect, women spend more than 3 time the amount men do on shoes. Probably 5 times more on skirts than trousers ... Probably 10 times more on dresses, than men do on suits .... Why? Could it be choice, and seasonal changes? This is almost completely absent for men. Were men drawn into the same fashion spending habits as women, surely any Western economy would surge by billions. But this could only be possible if styles were shared or crossed gender. All heel heights, shoe shapes for men too. The same with boots, trouser shapes, jacket shapes, with men free to wear whatever materials they wanted too. True androgyny. I don't expect to live long enough to see this, but what a dream! :D 

 

Time for my meds, then off for a lie down. ;)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shyheels    129
8 hours ago, Puffer said:

Oh dear - but thanks for telling us!   I'll have to throw away anything I've got that wouldn't appeal to the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg then.   (He reputedly wears double-breasted pyjamas, probably with a wing collar too.)

And sleeps in a bow tie, no doubt, and in carefully pressed underwear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shyheels    129

No one - or very few, at best - is interested in the emancipation of men in the fashion sense (or indeed any other) For the most part men do not care themselves, and/or are conditioned not to care. I can’t see that changing. As you say, people will chase money and while one might argue that if men could be induced to follow fashion with the assiduousnee women do, there would be lots of money to be made, the fundamental building blocks of society suggest they never will. Our society is just not structured that way and never has been. You get the odd outliers and brief flashy trendy, that appeal purely for the sake of daring and novelty, but that soon fades and the pendulum swings back towards the middle. It never strays far for long, and always swings back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FastFreddy2    216
15 hours ago, Shyheels said:

No one - or very few, at best - is interested in the emancipation of men in the fashion sense (or indeed any other) For the most part men do not care themselves, and/or are conditioned not to care. I can’t see that changing. As you say, people will chase money and while one might argue that if men could be induced to follow fashion with the assiduousnee women do, there would be lots of money to be made, the fundamental building blocks of society suggest they never will. Our society is just not structured that way and never has been. You get the odd outliers and brief flashy trendy, that appeal purely for the sake of daring and novelty, but that soon fades and the pendulum swings back towards the middle. It never strays far for long, and always swings back.

I don't know the 'never' bit is true, especially in pre-revolution France. But overall I'm inclined to agree, especially since aristocrats showing off wealth through extravagant/opulent garb, is hardly mainstream. Would it be fair to suggest modern man,  is basically too lazy? Or worn out by work, though modern women work just as long and hard as men of course. 

Shopping for clothes takes time, even with the benefit of the internet. Keeping legs clean of hair, nails coloured, hair cut/coloured, figure trim (for some) all takes time and effort I suspect most men can't be bothered with. Then there's the demands of make-up, and the two halves of the race become completely different.  Yeah, looking at the potential Job List, I can see why the status quo remains.... :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shyheels    129

It’s really unfair on both sexes. Women labour under the apprehension that they must do all these things, while men are taught to believe that they can’t or shouldn’t. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Puffer    206

I agree with most of the comments on male versus female fashion.   Whilst women clearly follow a very different agenda in terms of their appearance (whether through choice or in response to outside influences), they seem to be in a different league when it comes to expenditure on clothes, make-up etc.

As I see it, women buy a significant (indeed usually dominant) part of their wardrobes and cosmetics in response to:

1.   changing fashion and fad, whether or not it really suits them

2.   changing season and perceived need to follow it

3.   peer and partner pressure (including sometimes a wish to compete)

4.   an inbuilt desire to engage in retail therapy as a panacea for all ills

5.   a need to replace worn-out or unsuitable items (often barely necessary when wardrobe is still bulging)

6.   a genuine need for something extra for a specific purpose (such as enhanced protection or weather-proofing).

I expect there are other reasons too - but very few of them, 5 and 6 excepted, apply regularly to men.   And what about total expenditure - some of the figures I see are horrifying, even ignoring the over-hyped and extravagant 'designer' items?   I find it hard to understand the justification for a woman spending £100+ on a pair of shoes or a dress when so much stuff of style and fair quality (given its likely lifespan and usage) is available for often much less.   Do labels and price tags really matter that much?   Very few men get sucked-in in this way, surely?   The typical fashion-conscious woman must not only buy three or four times as many items as her male counterpart in a period but probably spends six or seven times as much as him in doing so.   And the relative weight and simplicity of many female items (ornate gowns excepted) must mean that the production costs of most female items are a smaller proportion of their selling price.   This disparity is already obvious when such mundane things as underwear and razors are considered, both being broadly unisex in construction (and function!).

I freely admit to having a limited interest in clothes - but I know what I like and what I think suits me with little need to follow the slowly-changing trends in male fashion, most of which are entirely irrelevant to my age and lifestyle.  And I find I can increase or replace my wardrobe almost entirely by judicious purchases in the 'sales' and/or from major high street chains, at  very modest cost.   My wife is not extravagant, but still finds the 'need' to buy things regularly that merely triplicate what she already has, and possibly rarely wears.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shyheels    129

There are expectations that women seem obliged to live up to - certainly if they are in the public eye. I thought it was revealing that, after they left the White House, Michelle Obama said that her husband wore the same dinner suit for eight years at state functions and formal dinners and nobody noticed (and frankly wouldn't have given a damn if they had) while she was obliged to showcase new looks and colours and fashion designers at every turn.  Obviously the Obamas can afford it, but the point is valid right across the board. Women are expected to be peacocks to some extent, while men are expected to be the plain but dignified backdrop that allows their wives or partners to shine.  

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Puffer    206
13 hours ago, Shyheels said:

There are expectations that women seem obliged to live up to - certainly if they are in the public eye. I thought it was revealing that, after they left the White House, Michelle Obama said that her husband wore the same dinner suit for eight years at state functions and formal dinners and nobody noticed (and frankly wouldn't have given a damn if they had) while she was obliged to showcase new looks and colours and fashion designers at every turn.  Obviously the Obamas can afford it, but the point is valid right across the board. Women are expected to be peacocks to some extent, while men are expected to be the plain but dignified backdrop that allows their wives or partners to shine.  

Indeed so, and isn't it ironic that in fact the 'peacock' is the gaudy male bird whilst his mate, the peahen, is positively drab!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shyheels    129

Yes, I have noted the irony in all that. Indeed throughout nature it is the Male of the species that is the gaudy one, humans - for the past three centuries at any rate - being the notable exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've taken to wearing formal shoes with 2 inch cuban heels for church etc where there are likely to be people who would be genuinely offended by what they would perceive as feminine shoes. They don't do a great deal for my back problems but at least they get people used to me being taller, so higher ones wouldn't be so obvious if they saw me in them. I've been wearing the concealed heel boots (discussed elsewhere here) a lot with family around. At least they're not immediately feminine and they are getting the family used to what they MUST have noticed without causing any offence or embarrassment, particularly with children around. We went to my wife's sister's last weekend, and I wore them all the time when I wasn't wearing the cuban heels. One of our nephews (16) is staying with us at present, which limits me for style but I'm in the boots all the time. Yesterday we went to Brighton Marina and walked about two miles. My back would have been quite painful in flat shoes but was absolutely fine in the boots. I think they'd be good footwear to have on if family or close friends asked why I was wearing them, which they haven't yet. I bought another pair (as per discussion elsewhere) so my wife knows I have them. Actually, she likes the buckles so I won't bother cutting them off this time. I also have another pair tucked away, that I bought soon after the first ones in case they disappeared from the market, so I should be well supplied for a while. The original ones are still in very good shape despite the mileage I've done in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shyheels    129

If you find something you really like (long term) or which fits well it's always worth while buying a spare or two if you  can.  

Boots - unless they are stilettos - are generally seen as more masculine anyway and can be worn quite easily and casually 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife told me my nephew definitely saw my boots were built up inside, as I knelt down to open a cupboard and the back of the boots was clearly visible. He looked at her and then looked away. No doubt the rest of the family will also be informed, although it's quite possible they already know, seeing I wore them at their house last weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shyheels    129

One would hope that would be no more than a tempest in a teapot, if that.

it really is astounding that, for some socially impoverished people, the least breaking of the fashion mound can be a big deal. 

I’d put it right out of my mind if I were you. If their lives and world are that small, it’s their issue not yours. Move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×