Yet another flaw.

Well that’s where the study fails. I thought that’s what you were saying.

“Yes that is gynocentric, but if you are trying to find out why women do something, why would you ask men about it?

It’s called a double blind test.”

Men’s answers still won’t tell you what the woemn are thinking, if in fact that’s what you are investigating. That would be a diffenrent study though.

Back to this point, of women being asked about thier actual attractiveness – this is the gynocentrism at its core. It’s one more example of women presuming to speak for men. Men are attracted to women in heels because these women say so.

That JSS about enhanced fertility is the next necessary step.

Women wearing high heels says nothing directly about how attractive they actually are, just how attractive women believe they make them.

The gist of the study wasn’t that women believe themselves to be attractive in heels, but that they literally are more attractive. Something about the motion in the ocean of the pear in a man’s eye, lol…

Yes that is gynocentric, but if you are trying to find out why women do something, why would you ask men about it?

It’s called a double blind test. They’re jumping right from “exaggerated hip motion” to “subconscious signs of female fertility,” a theory which would be blown right out of the water if women found the same exact thing more attractive in men, knowing them to be men but not knowing they were wearing heels. This was a low hanging fruit (no pun intended) that they should have looked at. There are other theories that might sufficiently describe the results they saw – for instance, hurdles (the type of running) or the butterfly (type of swimming) are tests of fitness that both men and women find attractive because they showcase power and energy rather than pure efficiency. An elegant but inefficient gait might work on that principal and just as easily describe why women wear heels. It doesn’t matter… point is they didn’t do their homework on this one.

“Heels were fashionable for high-class men at one point.”

Yes and for a related reason. High heels are like Mandarin finger nails – they are dysfunctional, and that can signal either an alluring form of toxic femininity (Yes, it’s degrading, but at least the money is good, and better if you can get legal guarantees enacted, such as alimony laws.) or of high status. That’s why aristos wore them, and more extreme footwear of the kind Hiding refers to.

“Guys in my platoon would be able to tell each other apart by just by the gait.”

Yes, humans can do that kind of thing too.

“Women found the “heeled condition” more attractive.
What really ticks me off about these studies is how continually gynocentric they are, to the detriment of science.”

Yes that is gynocentric, but if you are trying to find out why women do something, why would you ask men about it? Women wearing high heels says nothing directly about how attractive they actually are, just how attractive women believe they make them.

That makes sense. The main purpose of shoes like that is to keep you out of the mud. They used to have that kind of thing in Europe too. Rich people would not need them; they would have had people to carry them over all that.

Valerie nails it in one sentence!
“Frankly, to me, they feel like a display stand.”

One thing that confounded me during a discussion was the idea of going after the “Johns” and not the prostitutes that were selling sex. It’s the “no buyers, no sellers/ no sellers no buyers” argument that I’m sure we’ve all had at some point. After deviating away from it we ended up at a new discussion which my partner calls “fishing”. ‘Fishing’ is what some ‘attractive’ women on facebook do; they post self taken photographs using a cell phone wearing tight clothing or revealing clothes that accentuate their bodies specifically the T&A, flatness of the stomach and tone of the muscles. It’s vanity in all its uncontained glory. This picture is usually taken in a BATHROOM where a 5ft mirror is located.

I asked her why women tend to be more vocal when it comes to criticisms of men who admire these ‘raunchy’ photos and why the breath-taking silence towards the women who take them. She sort of explained that “it’s the path of least resistance”. It’s “easy to criticize men for it because women will be supported by both men and women when it comes to scrutiny, however men will be less likely to have support”. Women are supposed to show solidarity and keep the ruse of ‘freedom of choice’ in order to not rock that boat, however it is open season on the choices of men because it is again, the path of least resistance”.

How are males supposed to navigate safely through such a maze? Which brings us back to this current topic. How can we safely have an opinion on high heels when you get people saying how uncomfortable they are. Us liking them can be then turned into an argument for us to ‘hurt’ women or make them live up to “impossible” standards (whatever the flying fuck that means).

Frankly, to me, they feel like a display stand. I will take comfortable over striking any day… frankly, If I’m doing wardrobe, I want the woman of my dreams to have bloodshot eyes, ruffled hair, a rumpled blouse, and scotch breath… but really, only if she was drinking last night and didn’t iron her shirt or comb her hair. If she puts effort into that look, it’s also a turnoff… frankly, I dislike mandatory presentation generally, and the more restrictive the worse.