Why do we like/want to wear heels?

[Tacchi Alti 39]

Thanks. They were awaiting me when I got home an hour ago. I'm now wearing them and they are quite comfortable. One big plus is that the heels are not at all loud, so at least I won't be drawing attention to myself in that way. The heel is just right for me. High enough to remember I'm wearing them when I try to run, but not too high that I can't walk naturally in them.

I was wrong about my wife's reaction: it was 'MORE boots???' Anyway, she's now out so I'll have them on when she gets back. I'll be interested to find out her reaction to them. Apart from them having a block rather than a wedge heel they're ideal.

[FastFreddy2 282]

4 hours ago, Puffer said:

Yes, and no.  Again, I must clarify.   I am not suggesting that I should now stick two fingers up at my wife (and much of the world) and wear heels etc with few inhibitions, or indeed carry on any other activity that might be deemed to impact adversely upon my marriage, household or family.   But I don't rule out some mild 'putting my interests first' activity if the constraints imposed by others appear unduly intrusive.

I'm pretty sure no-one envisages you walking around in high heels just to annoy your wife. Conversely, I think several here are disappointed for you, that you live under such a repressive regime. Not quite North Korea, but ....

 

Quote

So, I reluctantly recognise that my situation is unlikely to change materially.   I am not by nature a 'dabbler' as I like to do things properly or not at all.   So, maybe the activities that are becoming more impracticable should be quietly abandoned before they involve even more disappointment and frustration - or disharmony.   That has already effectively happened with one of my entrenched lifetime hobbies and is likely to happen with another pastime within a year or two.   No, I am not throwing in the towel and sitting idle until my 'call-up papers' arrive, simply recognising that some pies in the sky are likely to remain unbaked (or should that be half-baked?). 

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned to you I used to be a shop steward while on the shop floor, and a staff rep when I got myself office bound. (I've also worked the other side of the table too, which was much more unpleasant. Making 8 people redundant in Christmas week while the company owner was known to be holidaying in Florida was pretty bad.)

Bottom line, I've some negotiating experience at (upto) company board level. Given what you want, and what you get, "we" would class your position as 'complete capitulation'. My (repeated) suggestion about third party involvement is no different to going to arbitration (in trade union terms). In either scenario, someone who is not directly involved, sits and takes into account the needs of both parties, and usually identifies some middle ground (if there is any to be found). It's their job to then persuade both parties to accept compromise for the 'greater good'. Where no compromise can be found, then industrial action usually arrives (or divorce in your case). Nobody wins.  

If you are unhappy enough in your circumstances to voice this unhappiness, and these things are much better out than repressed, you have an unresolved problem. This isn't just about shoes/heels (as you are very well aware), but your relationship in general. 

I'm sure that during a negotiated deal, you too would have to make compromises - doing something you don't want to do - and maybe you've already decided any compromise on your part would not be worth the benefits of any compromise on the part of your wife. In which case you've already reached a place of "balanced disharmony".

 

4 hours ago, Shyheels said:

The anger and the personal jabs - pervert etc - would be something that I would have a very hard time dealing with and which would make me start looking for the exit; I don't see how one changes that. It is bullying. And while  you can pursue you own 'me time' and do the things you want to do in the face of this hostility, I can't see much enjoyment or fulfilment coming from it in an atmosphere like that, which will only grown more heated the more independently you behave.  

Bullying, disrespectful, and for me would qualify at 'notice of termination' for the relationship.

During the course of my life I've met no end of women who have been badly treated by their male partners. I don't believe I've met one who gave up on the relationship, preferring to stay thinking things would only get worse for them if they left ..... Those who parted because HE left, always found a better life.  Mrs F's two close friends went on to meet men they fell deeply in love with, enjoy(ed) every moment with their new partners. (Sadly, one of the two men got terminal cancer at quite a young age.)

This isn't a personal thing, I think it's a people thing. A lot of people don't recognise being alone, is better than living with a bully. They acclimatise,  and learn to live a second class life.  

Edited January 18, 2018 by FastFreddy2
Typo.

[Tacchi Alti 39]

My wife and I went for sex counselling (not relationship counselling) a few years ago to see if we could get more enjoyment (things had gone downhill after my wife had a serious illness and for some reason she found it very difficult to orgasm), or whether we'd just have to accept things as they are.

I'm not going into that (!) but obviously our relationship was explored and my desire for heels and - to a lesser extent - stockings etc was mentioned. I was gratified in that the counsellor took my side, in that I wasn't doing anyone any harm. As I said, and she agreed, it's not as though I'm going about mugging old ladies. My wife reluctantly had to agree, but I haven't pressed the dressing side as I know that's something she really dislikes. I'm just really grateful that this helped with my heel wearing.

My reason in writing this is that counselling, with a disinterested third party, can be very good, as someone who is emotionally detached can see things objectively and has a certain authority as the counsellor. I know it can be a problem, though, getting the other partner to admit to it being a good idea.

[Shyheels 183]

It would still take some acquiescence on the part of one partner to acknowledge or concede that the counsellor has a point, and recognise therefore at least the concept that a viewpoint other han their own could have some validity. 

 

[Tacchi Alti 39]

3 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

It would still take some acquiescence on the part of one partner to acknowledge or concede that the counsellor has a point, and recognise therefore at least the concept that a viewpoint other han their own could have some validity. 

 

That's the big problem! A lot of people who would benefit from it can't be persuaded to go. It needs a plea from the other party at least to try it to humour him/her, but then the whole nature of failing/difficult relationships is disagreement as a default. We need counselling on how to get the other party to agree to it...

[Shyheels 183]

7 minutes ago, Tacchi Alti said:

That's the big problem! A lot of people who would benefit from it can't be persuaded to go. It needs a plea from the other party at least to try it to humour him/her, but then the whole nature of failing/difficult relationships is disagreement as a default. We need counselling on how to get the other party to agree to it...

And then both parties need to attend the counselling to discuss the need for both parties to attend counselling. No doubt is a great idea to have a neutral trained person offering advice, but it requires at least a modicum of goodwill on both sides just to get the show on the road. 

I am very glad I am not facing those issues. 

[FastFreddy2 282]

I think without putting your (respective) finger(s) on it, the benefits and qualifiers have both been mentioned.

Both parties need to agree there is some benefit, and then agree to at least try to go along with the suggested compromise.

When both parties are completely intransigent, it makes clear at what stage the relationship is at, and worse, the personalities in it.

 

1 hour ago, Tacchi Alti said:

I'm not going into that (!) but obviously our relationship was explored and my desire for heels and - to a lesser extent - stockings etc was mentioned. I was gratified in that the counsellor took my side, in that I wasn't doing anyone any harm. As I said, and she agreed, it's not as though I'm going about mugging old ladies. My wife reluctantly had to agree, but I haven't pressed the dressing side as I know that's something she really dislikes. I'm just really grateful that this helped with my heel wearing.

 I don't know a mediator would appreciate that terminology, since there's not supposed to be winners and losers, but winners and winners. 

What you probably mean is the thing you wanted to introduce to the relationship wasn't completely unreasonable, and could your wife try to accommodate this interest? Was there a 'barter' for this change? Were you asked to do something new that improved the situation for your wife, or restart something you'd stopped doing?

[Puffer 258]

You have all given me food for thought - for which I sincerely thank you.   At the moment, I don't think there is any solution that is both beneficial and acceptable.   I am not opposed to counselling in some form, although I very much doubt my wife would be willing as she would regard it as intrusive and, quite possibly, merely a formal precursor to a permanent split.   She would balk at any inevitable discussion of our (non-existent) sex life too.   My main objection is that I am not too happy at discussing heel-wearing etc with any counsellor - a view my wife is also sure to have - especially as, although it is clearly one contentious sticking-point,  it is not really the focus of our marital discord but would, I think, become a very prominent factor in any counselling and could cloud the issue.   

I am never very comfortable in any 'negotiating' situation, as I approach most issues on the basis of being reasonable in my demands at the outset and unwilling to concede much, if anything, unless a very strong case is made by my opponent.   (My experience, alas, is that most opponents are merely trying it on when they have a poor case.)   I well recall that, in my last job (where there were strong elements of opposition to certain of my ideas from people who were, frankly, both ignorant and unbending), it was suggested that I should go on a 'negotiating course'.   I managed, however, to talk my way out of that, rather proving its irrelevance! 

At the end of the day, I would give up heels completely and dispose of my small collection if I really thought it would improve my position.   Alas, that would make little difference given the steady decline in my marital relationship overall.   It was suggested earlier that I must love my wife very much to put up with her 'bullying'.   I really don't know what to say about my true feelings as love takes many forms; I certainly respect and admire her for most of her qualities aside from being a wife.   Conversely, I am told quite often that she does not love me -  nor even 'like' me any more.   

Enough said, I think.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Puffer
typo

[Shyheels 183]

Obviously we can form only the most general views of things and even to that extent we are likely to be miles off base as regards the nuances and history and personalities - you know the situation as we never could. But the arms length and stylised imagery that forms in my mind is not promising. And your quotes from you wife about a lack of love or even fondness also does not sound proomiding for any future together.

Obviously my wife and I are not seeing something the rest of the world sees. For the life of me I can’t see the earth shattering implications of a guy wearing a heeled shoe or boot...

[FastFreddy2 282]

5 hours ago, Puffer said:

You have all given me food for thought - for which I sincerely thank you.

Hopefully you are taking any/all responses with the "good heart" they are intended. I doubt anyone here has anything in mind but your best interests, and (possibly to a lesser extent because we don't know her) those of your wife too. 

 

5 hours ago, Puffer said:

 At the moment, I don't think there is any solution that is both beneficial and acceptable.   I am not opposed to counselling in some form, although I very much doubt my wife would be willing as she would regard it as intrusive and, quite possibly, merely a formal precursor to a permanent split.   She would balk at any inevitable discussion of our (non-existent) sex life too.   My main objection is that I am not too happy at discussing heel-wearing etc with any counsellor - a view my wife is also sure to have - especially as, although it is clearly one contentious sticking-point,  it is not really the focus of our marital discord but would, I think, become a very prominent factor in any counselling and could cloud the issue. 

I would agree. While neither of you feel there is mutual ground, counselling would be a waste of time for at least three people.

I'm pretty sure a mediator will quickly understand the difference between a symptom of disharmony, and a cause. Even those reading your posts from today alone, will understand your interest in heels is not the cause, it's just a convenient target to be aimed at. Your 'soft underbelly' as it were. (Achilles heel.) 

 

5 hours ago, Puffer said:

I am never very comfortable in any 'negotiating' situation, as I approach most issues on the basis of being reasonable in my demands at the outset and unwilling to concede much, if anything, unless a very strong case is made by my opponent.   (My experience, alas, is that most opponents are merely trying it on when they have a poor case.)   I well recall that, in my last job (where there were strong elements of opposition to certain of my ideas from people who were, frankly, both ignorant and unbending), it was suggested that I should go on a 'negotiating course'.   I managed, however, to talk my way out of that, rather proving its irrelevance! 

I would disagree. It shows you are overly confident at winning an argument, and see relationships as adversarial.

The 'art' (skill) of a negotiator, is seeing and understanding both sides of a confrontational situation, and winning both sides over to a mutually agreeable path. Of course a thug can win any argument in principle, at least in their mind. The 'art' (skill) of a negotiator, is to bring someone to consensus.  

 

5 hours ago, Puffer said:

At the end of the day, I would give up heels completely and dispose of my small collection if I really thought it would improve my position.   Alas, that would make little difference given the steady decline in my marital relationship overall.

Even if you did this, you would still be subject to "reminders/threats" of your past indulgence. I have yet to meet the woman who could not recite immediately if asked, every misdemeanour she had knowledge of over a period of at least 30 years. Most people in a happy relationship know better than to revisit hurt or trauma experienced during past times. Those looking to hurt others, will not hold their own counsel, but use the unhappy times of the past to their advantage when it suits them. Which of these scenario's sound more familiar?     

 

 

4 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Obviously we can form only the most general views of things and even to that extent we are likely to be miles off base as regards the nuances and history and personalities - you know the situation as we never could. But the arms length and stylised imagery that forms in my mind is not promising. And your quotes from you wife about a lack of love or even fondness also does not sound promising for any future together.

Does rather look that way. 

 

4 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Obviously my wife and I are not seeing something the rest of the world sees. For the life of me I can’t see the earth shattering implications of a guy wearing a heeled shoe or boot...

My take on all this (and any behaviour that doesn't stick rigidly to accepted social norms) is: Does it affect me adversely? Does it affect anyone adversely? Is it unattractive or does it make me feel ill or awkward. If all these produce "no's" then carry on with impunity. 

On another thread I mentioned (with pictures) the two men wearing woman's clothing/footwear in public. It was mentioned because it's pertinent to this forum. Mrs Freddy was with me when I spotted the fella in London. She wasn't with me when I saw the other chap, and the thing I talked about most when I met her minutes later, wasn't his attire. (Nor was anyone else much interested either. I didn't see one person do a double take.) The feminisation was full to the point of bright sparkly bangles being worn. He's either a well known figure in these parts, or no-one much cared. Either way, he went about his business without hindrance or bother. 

[Shyheels 183]

It was St Augustine (I think) who encapsulated a wonderful philosophy with the simple phrase: Love God and do as you will. The premise being that if you love God (or adhere to similar respectful values if you're not religious) there is nothing that you are going to want to do that is going to be bad or harmful. And so, surely, it must be with wearing heels...Harmful to no one. 

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Shyheels

[Tacchi Alti 39]

Puffer, what you say about tolerating the position with your wife, and the way you have been able to confront issues in a professional sphere, is rather conflicting, and a conundrum to me! I'm sure others here will rush in with an explanation to help me understand. I admire your willingness to ditch all your heels if it would help your relationship, but believe me, it won't! It's true what Freddy said about women remembering every little detail of misdemeanours. My wife does that, while I've generally forgotten all about them - and hers - and we have a very good relationship!

[Shyheels 183]

I agree - ditching your high heels won't save the relationship. It'll only breed resentment on your part and by the sounds of things there would soon be some other failing or perceived failing on your part that would supplant heels in her book. Appeasement does not work. Never will. Negotiation does, but for that you need to have two parties approaching the table in a spirit of good will.   

Edited January 19, 2018 by Shyheels

[Tacchi Alti 39]

My wife seemed to understand better when I told her my heels were a hobby, which explained why I had so many! She realised that if I got rid of them I'd only end up buying more, which would be a waste of money. We went through that one 15 years ago. She still resents anything I spend on shoes, though, although she can spend far more herself on other things! She gets a bit annoyed when I remind her she's paying quite a bit every month for gym membership... However, she goes along with them and will be seen out with me while I'm wearing them, so a lot of progress has been made. Think of that in the context of a 31-year marriage and you can see how long it took, and why I'm grateful for the state of things now!

[FastFreddy2 282]

7 hours ago, Shyheels said:

It was St Augustine (I think) who encapsulated a wonderful philosophy with the simple phrase: Love God and do as you will. The premise being that if you love God (or adhere to similar respectful values if you're not religious) there is nothing that you are going to want to do that is going to be bad or harmful. And so, surely, it must be with wearing heels...Harmful to no one. 

 

Prompted by the notion of the phrase, I checked and your quote is correct (although abbreviated). You are spot on with the premise though.  

Sadly, the the 'heart-felt-good-intent' isn't always seen as such. "No good deed goes unpunished" is the 20th Century riposte to St Augustine's teachings. Not pertinent here though. With Christian values in your heart, it's hard to understand that person being unkind. Though it obviously goes on.   

[Puffer 258]

I'm not going to enter into any further discussion here about the merits or mechanism of 'negotiation' as the whole subject appears to be a minefield.   Suffice it to say that I draw a distinction between acceptance/tolerance (or not) of a poor situation, however grudging, and entering into some form of discussion/debate/negotiation in an attempt to change or compromise that situation.   I accept that we do not usually inhabit a black and white world - but some intermediate shade of grey can so often be totally useless to all concerned.

I entirely agree that my wife (as with women generally) has an elephantine memory for (alleged) misdeeds and will trawl them up and use them against me with monotonous regularity - hours, days, months or years after the event.   Yet another example of the Sword of Damocles that hangs over much of my life.   I accept that my abandonment of heels is unlikely to make much if any difference to the relationship when 'history' cannot be erased, or forgotten - but I meant what I said about willingness to do it if it would produce a worthwhile result.   (Blimey - have I just suggested a 'compromise'?   Next thing is I will be actively 'negotiating'!)

[FastFreddy2 282]

15 minutes ago, Puffer said:

but I meant what I said about willingness to do it if it would produce a worthwhile result.   (Blimey - have I just suggested a 'compromise'?   Next thing is I will be actively 'negotiating'!)

And who said you can't teach an old dog new tricks?    

[Tacchi Alti 39]

18 minutes ago, Puffer said:

I'm not going to enter into any further discussion here about the merits or mechanism of 'negotiation' as the whole subject appears to be a minefield.   Suffice it to say that I draw a distinction between acceptance/tolerance (or not) of a poor situation, however grudging, and entering into some form of discussion/debate/negotiation in an attempt to change or compromise that situation.   I accept that we do not usually inhabit a black and white world - but some intermediate shade of grey can so often be totally useless to all concerned.

I entirely agree that my wife (as with women generally) has an elephantine memory for (alleged) misdeeds and will trawl them up and use them against me with monotonous regularity - hours, days, months or years after the event.   Yet another example of the Sword of Damocles that hangs over much of my life.   I accept that my abandonment of heels is unlikely to make much if any difference to the relationship when 'history' cannot be erased, or forgotten - but I meant what I said about willingness to do it if it would produce a worthwhile result.   (Blimey - have I just suggested a 'compromise'?   Next thing is I will be actively 'negotiating'!)

Well, I congratulate you on your reluctance to separate as I hate marriage splits. I suppose such a thing would also involve split of assets etc... No, I don't want to know about that situation but it was just something that comes to mind which could well be a strong factor. It would be with me!

[Puffer 258]

1 minute ago, Tacchi Alti said:

Well, I congratulate you on your reluctance to separate as I hate marriage splits. I suppose such a thing would also involve split of assets etc... No, I don't want to know about that situation but it was just something that comes to mind which could well be a strong factor. It would be with me!

You are right, and I think I have mentioned this before.   The financial aspects of any marital break-up are likely to be daunting, to say the least.   There are no true 'winners' (however much of Freddy's negotiating skills are employed!).   I am certainly not exempt from such heartache, although both parties would emerge with sufficient assets to maintain a reasonable lifestyle.   But what is more daunting, and certainly more stressful, is the whole range of logistical and physical processes that would come into play - especially the potential sale of property and house-moving.   (I dread the thought of a house-move regardless of its trigger; my workshop alone would take a week to sort out and pack up!)   All in all, 'staying put' is the current intention.

[Tacchi Alti 39]

5 minutes ago, Puffer said:

You are right, and I think I have mentioned this before.   The financial aspects of any marital break-up are likely to be daunting, to say the least.   There are no true 'winners' (however much of Freddy's negotiating skills are employed!).   I am certainly not exempt from such heartache, although both parties would emerge with sufficient assets to maintain a reasonable lifestyle.   But what is more daunting, and certainly more stressful, is the whole range of logistical and physical processes that would come into play - especially the potential sale of property and house-moving.   (I dread the thought of a house-move regardless of its trigger; my workshop alone would take a week to sort out and pack up!)   All in all, 'staying put' is the current intention.

An extremely good reason, and one likely to bring this conversation to an end!

[Shyheels 183]

But speaking of why we like to wear heels, on the other hand, the nominal topic this thread, I am finding yet another excellent reason: the quite vigorous exercises y calf muscles receive while I am wearing them. Even while sitting, with my feet and ankles poised , the muscles receive quite a worthwhile isometric workout which feels quite good at the end of the day. Indeed I should have worked four-inch stilettos into my workout regime years ago!

 

[FastFreddy2 282]

4 hours ago, Shyheels said:

 the quite vigorous exercises y calf muscles receive while I am wearing them. Even while sitting, with my feet and ankles poised , the muscles receive quite a worthwhile isometric workout which feels quite good at the end of the day. Indeed I should have worked four-inch stilettos into my workout regime years ago!

 

I have mentioned this before, likely when I was doing my inter-town walks. Walking in heels is (IMO) a significantly greater muscular task than walking the same distance in flat shoes. There must be more effort expelled in keeping the upper torso in-line too. Certainly the slimmest I've been for a while, was when I walked in heels more regularly than I do now.  

Edited January 19, 2018 by FastFreddy2

[Shyheels 183]

What astounds me is the workout in my calf muscles - easily the best workout those muscles have ever had. Even if I am sitting most if the day in my four inch heels, by the end I feel as though I have been out walking hills - in a good way. The muscles feel pleasantly worked. 

Shoukd have done this long ago...

[pointyboot 10]

22 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

I have mentioned this before, likely when I was doing my inter-town walks. Walking in heels is (IMO) a significantly greater muscular task than walking the same distance in flat shoes. There must be more effort expelled in keeping the upper torso in-line too. Certainly the slimmest I've been for a while, was when I walked in heels more regularly than I do now.  

You definitely work different muscles when you walk in high heels. Your posture changes, and balance even comes into play. You literally have to train yourself to walk in heels, and if you're out of practice, it's a workout to get back into shape.

[Shyheels 183]

It certainly employs different muscles and in particular requires much more of one’s calf muscles. It is certainly no bad thing. And as I train for my cycling goals this year, I can’t help but think that heels will be good thing.