An iteresting article on heels

[crfriend]

Here's an interesting article from the Beeb on the rise and fall of heels on men's shoes. It also provides other insight on the demise of the "male peacock" and how we've gotten to the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in now.

Note that I am not going to critique the article for grammar.

[Uncle Al]

An interesting read I remember wearing some dress shoes, while
in college, that had 2.5 inch heels. They were comfortable and were
great to wear when playing foot pedals on the organ. I have a pair
of Organ Master shoes which have a suede sole under the front half
of the shoe and 1.5" stacked leather heels. Great for music but not
for extended walking. They're designed to slide across the pedals
like your fingers on the keyboards. No grip on the floor.

Uncle Al

[r.m.anderson]

Uncle Al:

Maybe that is how the performers "Trip the Light Fantastic" !

Oh well another stab in the dark - No that should have been "A Shot in the Dark" !

Mr. Malaprop at work again !

"Skirt-Kilt-ON"
rma

[Uncle Al]

r.m. - Was that a dare and not Fred Astaire
(Where's Ginger when you need her.... )

A portion of the song Ol' Man River comes to mind....
"Nobody knows the trouble I've seen...." (or been into either )

Uncle Al

[crfriend]

(Where's Ginger when you need her.... )

Ah, but recall that Ginger did everything Fred did -- backwards and in heels!

I recall my last set of heeled shoes in the very early 1980s, just before heels became unobtanium, which had 2.5-inchers or so (high enough that I could bridge an IBM bus&tag cable without touching it). I rather miss the style. One more dratted reason to hate the effing '80s.

[skirtyscot]

Thanks Carl, very interesting article. Reading it from the perspective of a man in a skirt (though right now I am wearing trousers ) I noticed a couple of things.

Louis Quatorze is not wearing trousers in that picture (and he is clearly proud of his legs). That was in 1701, which seems quite late for tights to be fashionable for men (or is it knee length hosiery with very tight-fitting knee breeches - there seems to be a join at the knee). Unless I am just displaying my ignorance of the history of fashion!

After high heels had become fashionable for women, they stopped being fashionable or even acceptable for men. Sounds familiar!

And a thought: "And this is why women adopted the heel - it was in an effort to masculinise their outfits" - following which heels became women's wear only. So how long until trousers become unfashionable for men?

[crfriend]

And a thought: "And this is why women adopted the heel - it was in an effort to masculinise their outfits" - following which heels became women's wear only. So how long until trousers become unfashionable for men?

Probably never -- it's the last vestige; once that's gone we'll be trotting around buck-naked and I don't see that happening.

[crfriend]

Louis Quatorze is not wearing trousers in that picture (and he is clearly proud of his legs). That was in 1701, which seems quite late for tights to be fashionable for men (or is it knee length hosiery with very tight-fitting knee breeches - there seems to be a join at the knee). Unless I am just displaying my ignorance of the history of fashion!

It rather looks like hose with garters just below the knee, doesn't it. I don't have any other references on hand, but a look at the image with a magnifier identifies nothing that would indicate knee-breeches. It looks more like he is wearing the older style of pantaloon under his robe and is rather deliberately showing off (the brazen hussy!).

Recall that the hose of the day were not the sorts of things we have now (contemplate, for a moment if you will, the horrors of Mercutio and Tybalt in pantyhose and codpieces) but rather more baggy and opaque affairs (even for the Sun King) that required expert stitching to make them conform to the line of the leg. In that context, a ribbon just below the knee makes sense from an aesthetic perspective even if it does seem a bit forced to the modern eye.

[Tor]

And a thought: "And this is why women adopted the heel - it was in an effort to masculinise their outfits" - following which heels became women's wear only. So how long until trousers become unfashionable for men?

Probably never -- it's the last vestige; once that's gone we'll be trotting around buck-naked and I don't see that happening.

Unless, of course, we are successful, in which case some idiots in the high and mighty of fashion will take it into their heads that men must wear skirts and never trousers.

Hmmm... I wouldn't support such a situation, and I would at least hope it couldn't happen, though I fear it may be less far fetched than one might like.