That person was lying. Any person who claims that heels are "comfortable" is lying. Perhaps to herself as well, but lying nevertheless.
I find my shoes with heels to be more comfortable than my completely flat shoes. QED.
Yes, because everything that can be known is known, or is being hidden by a secret cabal. That's how knowledge works, Stanley.
I find my shoes with heels to be more comfortable than my completely flat shoes.
Let us distinguish between "shoes with heels" and the "heels" that commonly refer to footwear worn by women, generally having a less substantial heel and usually (though not always) higher.
I've found that on the few occasions when I've worn women's high heels me feet tend to slip forwards until restrained by the toe strap, crushing my toes and strangling them of blood. I cannot imagine finding them comfortable.
me feet tend to slip forwards
And you talk like a pirate?
5: That specifically probably means your shoes were slightly too big -- at the right size, that shouldn't be the first problem you notice.
A good rule of thumb is clothing that changes your skeletal structure is uncomfortable.
Heels (on men's shoes at least) were developed for walking in the mud, such that the heel-wearer was actually walking flat-footed. But people don't know this secret because a hidden cabal is guarding it, along with all other tidbits of trivia that people don't simply emerge from the womb knowing.
I could imagine the 'no one knows' claim in the original post being true if (a) the claim about really high heels being more comfortable were actually true and (b) people tended to work up to them gradually, starting with medium heels and assuming that really high heels would be worse. But I don't think (a) is the case.
10: Really? I thought they were partially a riding boots/stirrups thing, and partially to compensate for shortness.
Maybe this is the thread to confess my curiosity re: Beatle boots.
That specifically probably means your shoes were slightly too big -- at the right size, that shouldn't be the first problem you notice.
With properly fitted high heels the first problem you notice is the agonizing pain in your Metatartarsophalalangeal joints.
High heels are to help aerate the lawn when you go to fancy outdoor events.
12: This got a lot of circulation, recently.
12: The stirrup thing was a secondary advantage. But they had those two functions and weren't entirely decorative, like wigs.
14 was me. There might be an extra "tar" in there.
In the muddy, rutted streets of 17th Century Europe, these new shoes had no utility value whatsoever - but that was the point.
I've often thought of getting a pair of high-heel shoes and naming one Metatartar and the other Sophalalangeal.
17: There were pattens -- thick-soled clog thingies to stay out of the mud. But they were high front and and back, not just heels. High heels, in mud, I'd think they'd just get stuck.
Perhaps -- I haven't tried it, though it sounds very fun -- but brogues, which we think of as fancy shoes, and which have heels, were supposedly developed for mud walking.
LB, is there any chance you'll review my new Christian erotica? It's available here, and is free today. And I'd really love a review.
Let us distinguish between "shoes with heels" and the "heels" that commonly refer to footwear worn by women
I know what you mean, but it gets fuzzy. I have multiple pairs of shoes with 3" heels that are really very comfortable. None of them are the canonical stiletto pump but I imagine you'd still call them "heels". I do prefer a 2" heel for distance walking.
13. Wikipedia will tell you what there is to know re Beatle boots - not much.
LB, is there any chance you'll review my new Christian erotica?
You know, even without how little fun I had reviewing the last thing of yours, "Christian erotica" really isn't my wheelhouse. IOW, good lord no.
The Wikipedia article in 23 includes this awesome sidenote:
Longwing brogues (also known in the US as "English" brogues, and also known in the UK as "American" brogues)
Do you think the others would review another one?
I do prefer a 2" heel for distance walking.
Huh. I could imagine this with, say, 1" rather than dead flat, but at 2" I find it surprising. Although I agree that if the heel is broad and stable enough, anything below 3" or so can be not that bad.
I'd read your Christian erotica, text, but I don't have a kindle.
29: Depending on who you're referring to, possibly!
26: I meant that I was curious about wearing them myself. I'm Beatle boot–curious the way others might be bi-curious.
Yeah, I probably should have said I prefer a one-to-two inch heel for walking. I don't think I find two inches better than one, but anywhere in there is fine by me (depending on the shape and placement of the heel).
But nosflow, you can buy a paperback right here!
Also, the kindle app can be downloaded onto your phone, tablet device, computer, or similar for free.
2: That's pretty common, I think. A slight or moderate (up to about 2") heel is often more comfortable, and in some cases recommended for low back pain. Over 3" is where I draw the line, personally.
While I believe the 'low heels are more comfortable' people, I don't feel it myself. What hurts barefoot or in flat shoes, that a low heel fixes?
I suppose I could have read 36, in which case the answer is "lower back".
I prefer flats, but I'm 5'8 and I don't care enough about making my calves look better to suffer heels usually.
37: I also find that my heeled shoes are generally nicer on my tendonitis-inflicted right foot and have better arch support.
To quench your curiosity, I prefer flat shoes in all regards, but it's hard to find good flat fancy shoes, and I like wearing fancy shoes when appropriate. I'm thinking that when I wear out the soles of my current loafers I will get them re-shod in totally flat leather, about 3/4 inches thick.
Somebody, I think Cala, told me that shoes with a sensible heel would make my back feel somewhat better. She (assuming it was Cala) was right.
Stanley knows the answer to #2.
The IMPs, of course.
I have mysteriously discovered that as of the last year or so, a slight heel (.5 - 1 inch) is more comfortable to me in the long run then true flats, which leave my arches aching. This absolutely does not extrapolate to more comfort for even higher heels.
I have two sorta-colleagues, on in her 40s one in her 60s, latter was hospitalized for a foot infection resulting from a blister and the former had to have her foot surgically broken and rescrewed together b/c it had healed badly after a car accident. They both absolutely refused to give up their fancy tight high heels. Considering they live and work in hilly San Francisco in science, it seems to me they get zero and probably negative status from the people who actually see them every day for their designer footwear. Self-image really is everything.
Self-image really is everything.
I think, particularly, minimum grooming standards. If you've really internalized that you're not professionally dressed without the heels (or makeup, or stockings, or whatever) it feels like going out naked if you're without them.
Self-image really is everything.
I think, particularly, minimum grooming standards. If you've really internalized that you're not professionally dressed without the heels (or makeup, or stockings, or whatever) it feels like going out naked if you're without them.
Damn Halford anyway.
This thread moved me to buy a new pair of heeled shoe-boot things.
A shoe accessory or a funny way of saying a new pair of heeled boot? If it's the latter you should link a photo so we can all appreciate your fine taste.