Skirt Chaser wrote:Interesting photo choice. While guys certainly look good in heels that inclusion had noting to do with the article other than attempt to link the wearing of tights to dressing like a woman (or at least the general public's perception of it).
I recall seeing the article a couple of months ago, likely soon after it was published, and the thoughts I took from the photograph varied from the "Hey, that looks good!" (the bright purple) to the visceral need to physically recoil from the image (the "footless tights"). Now, I admit to an aesthetic that really demands continuity of line (and brighter minds than mine have suggested architecture instead of computers to me) which is the main reason I don't like "footless tights", but the wrinkled bare feet just made me want to hit the back button in utter and abject disgust.
Tights are great things -- for those who embrace them -- and they are wonderful tools for enhancing one's looks. But, for crying out loud, if you're going for a polished look, bare trotters sticking out underneath leggings is not the way to do it (in my opinion, of course). Gack!
As far as heels go, I'm OK with the notion; heck, I recall wearing 2.5"-3" heels during the late 1970s -- and really liking them! And I mourn the fact that guys can't get anything that doesn't look like clod-hopper (or worse!) shoes these days. At a US size 12 (read, "bigfoot") there's also no hope for "crossing the aisle" in an attempt to find something refined, so I just have to "deal with it". I really feel for the statistically tiny number of women who stretch to 6' plus in vertical dimension with a concominant stretch in foot size.... As a bloke I'm
expected to look boring; really tall gals aren't. But, market forces rule, so there's no market. I also think I'd come in for some flak from my dear wife if I decided to shove on 3" heels; she'd never get close to my face for the occasional nuzzle, and that'd be a decidedly bad thing.
