But here's the link:
http://allheelsformen.com/Merchant2/mer ... y_Code=SSS
Check it out if you are interested.
High hees ARE NOT for everyone and also not for 24/7 wear in my oppinion. But that is up to each individual.
DALederle

All I can say is that I'm glad I have feet that are small and narrow enough that I can get high heeled shoes from normal sources - i.e., women's catalogs, websites, and stores. I don't have to go to crossdresser stores to get them.DALederle wrote:High heels for men can be found on various sites throughout the web. But my personal favorite, where I have bought two pair of heels, is "All Heels For Men." It has a wide variety of heel styles in sizes big enough for most men to wear. It also links to other colthing for men, but note of caution, most MIS-MIK won't want to go there. Too much CD stuff which we don't need.
But here's the link:
http://allheelsformen.com/Merchant2/mer ... y_Code=SSS
With memories of being very uncomfortable on horse- and mule-back years ago when trousers were very tight, I have always thought this must be a myth with little evidence. Probably invented by some macho historian incapable of imagining real men wearing anything but leg-tubes. The kind of mindset we saw when Mel Gibson had his Roman soldeirs wearing trousers under their kilts!JohnH wrote: My personal opinion of riding bicycles with skirts or dresses - to me that it makes no sense. Pants were invented in part so one could easily ride horseback, and so they would be a natural choice for riding a bike.
I see you date from the "Urban Cowboy" years. You have my condolences.couyalair wrote:With memories of being very uncomfortable on horse- and mule-back years ago when trousers were very tight, I have always thought [trousers for horseback riding] must be a myth with little evidence.
From personal experience, there's an abrasion problem there. Horses look wonderfully shiny and sleek on camera, but in person their hair is rather like a unidirectional abrasive. I'd rather wear sandpaper skivvies than ride bareback on a horse without "protection". Mules may be different, so I cannot comment on those, but if faced with the proposition of having to ride I'll go for trousers.[...] I fail to see why our ancestors could not ride bare-back too.
Even back in Roman times, there were mechanical bits and leather in saddles and both needed oiling, so there would definitely be more oil on/in a saddle than anywhere in an automobile's cab. Plus the oil of ancient times was mostly fish/whale oil, which was sticky and smelly if it got on you.B&B said: At least on a horse there is little chance of getting one's skirt caught in the mechanical bits! or getting it oily.
I'm not sure if you disagree with the many millions of women who have done so over the past 100 years or so, or are just unaware of them.JohnH wrote:My personal opinion of riding bicycles with skirts or dresses - to me that it makes no sense. Pants were invented in part so one could easily ride horseback, and so they would be a natural choice for riding a bike.
The Wall Street Journal did an article on city/commuter bicycles several months ago. One of the ones shown was as AMM describes and was specifically mentioned as being for skirt friendly. (Of course, no mention on men wearing the skirtsAMM wrote: Of course, their bicycles were designed for skirt-wearers -- with a dropped top bar, a real chain guard, real fenders, and a covering over the rear wheel to keep skirts from getting caught.