Etoile's Corner

[Etoile]

Isn't everyone? It's a well known phenomenon -- the camera adds 20 pounds and 6 inches.

Well, I knew about the weight, but not the height! I am about 5'3" and she was at least two inches shorter than me. I think they consciously compensate for her height when she's in front of the camera.

 

[esclave_PP]

Where did you find those shoes? Those were amazing! How does one walk in them?

 

[Etoile]

Where did you find those shoes? Those were amazing! How does one walk in them?

They are from www.punitiveshoes.com

If you mean "how does one walk in ballet boots/shoes in general" then the main answer is "you're not supposed to!" Ballet boots are largely for show and for immobilization. Ballet boots + hobble skirt = you ain't goin nowhere! It's very damaging to the foot to attempt to stand or walk for a long time in ballet boots, they don't have the proper support (and most of us don't have the intense ballet background) for it. That said, though, it is possible for a sub to be trained to walk in these shoes if that's what the dom desires. I still say it causes major damage, though. Unless you're a professional ballerina who started this type of exercise while the bones were still soft, it's going to do damage.

However, it is possible to take a few steps in ballet boots/shoes; I've done it. Which leads me to think that maybe you mean "how does one walk in those mules in particular" which I think is a very good question! First, it seems to me that those ballet mules are too easily kicked off. But also they provide zero support for the person wearing them; the vamp is very low and you'd be likely to bend your foot in horrible ways if you tried any weight-bearing in those. Here's a similar shoe from the same maker with a higher vamp:
http://www.punitiveshoes.com/database/ballets/img_catalogo/alto2_penelope.gif

See how it goes higher up the foot? That makes it infinitely more walkable.

My personal favorite style of ballet shoe is the oxford:
http://www.exoticfashionmall.com/images/fetish/lballet18.gif http://us.st8.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/pierresilber_1825_16053742

PunitiveShoes.com has one kind of like that, the Wanda, but it's much chunkier than I like.

I like these too, but they're not ballet:
http://us.st8.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/pierresilber_1822_50384133

 

[TNRkitect2b]

Thanks for the heads up Etoile! I like the same ones you do above, and agree the other oxfords on that site aren't as attractive as the ones you pointed out.

 

[Etoile]

Thanks for the heads up Etoile! I like the same ones you do above, and agree the other oxfords on that site aren't as attractive as the ones you pointed out.

You're quite welcome! I'm always happy to share.

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[Etoile]

Ok- does anyone else think of the mom in Dextor's Labratory when they see ballet boots?

HA! I never thought of that before, but you're right!

 

[FungiUg]

Hey Etoile, a question for you.

Years ago when I wandered into a woman's bookshop (gay ex-wife... long story) I ran into Ursula Le Guin (not the person, just her books).

Now, aside from being a damned good author and one of the first women SF authors, none of which I argue... do you find her a particularly feminist author? Because that's how they were billing her, and I wouldn't have said it was entirely true myself.

 

[Etoile]

Hmmm...I'm not actually sure. I would say that Katherine V. Forrest is definitely feminist in many of her writings, but Ursula K. LeGuin is a much more gray area. I think that if a person wants to see her as a feminist writer - if the reader is a feminist and wants to find feminism in the book(s) - then she will come across as feminist. But to someone who isn't looking for that, I don't know that I'd automatically say it's there.

Interesting question, thank you!

 

[FungiUg]

I know she has written some very... er, interesting literature in terms of sexuality. But yes, I think I agree with you -- if you see her through feminist-coloured glasses, she could potentially possibly come across as feminist.

I haven't read any Katherine V. Forrest -- but I will keep an eye open for her.

I think the two authors I have read who are mind bending in terms of sexuality are Sherri S Tepper (The Revenants has a character that wakes up as either a boy or a girl at random) and Samuel R Delany (who is as gay as they come.) But they're very black and white. And I think there's a difference between "gay" or even "metrosexual" authors and "feminist" authors.

 

[Etoile]

I haven't read any Katherine V. Forrest -- but I will keep an eye open for her.

She's a dual-genre author: she's done sci fi and also mysteries. I've read her "Daughters of a Coral Dawn" (terraforming SF) and "Daughters of an Amber Noon" (sequel about the women who stayed behind) and I'm working on Amateur City (mystery, first in the Delafield series).

I think the two authors I have read who are mind bending in terms of sexuality are Sherri S Tepper (The Revenants has a character that wakes up as either a boy or a girl at random) and Samuel R Delany (who is as gay as they come.) But they're very black and white. And I think there's a difference between "gay" or even "metrosexual" authors and "feminist" authors.

My wife counts Sherri Tepper among her favorite authors, but she can't remember if she's read The Revenants - we'll have to check it out! And I do like Delany's Dhalgren, just because postapocalyptic is one of my favorite SF genres. Hmm, I should maybe read that one again.

 

[FungiUg]

The truly mind-bending SF from Delany is "Stars In My Pocket Like Grains Of Sand." You might enjoy reading it for the language -- but I found it frustrating. By the end of the book I'd read all the way through it and discovered... nothing had happened! Grrrr!

It's more of an expository novel than one with a plot. And I'm afraid I like plots over explorations of human sexuality with a lean towards homosexuality. And it's not erotica... (not sure if gay sex would do it for me anyway, but even so!)

The Revenants is one of Tepper's earlier ones -- a one off. My favourites of hers are probably True Game and Raising The Stones. Sideshow is kinda cool (but kinda nasty too). The thing I love about Sherri is her ability to start you out in a fantasy novel, and by the end of it you are reading SF. (My lover got sprung on that one with Family Tree, which has a BRILLIANT twist.)

 

[esclave_PP]

Originally posted by Etoile
HA! I never thought of that before, but you're right!

Wow -- she does walk in those...I love Dextor...

 

[Etoile]

Wow, Fungi, thank you for the recommendations! Where were you when I was looking for tips for what to bring on vacation?

I will have to get those from the library post haste.

 

[FungiUg]

Where were you when I was looking for tips for what to bring on vacation?

Er, that'd be on the other side of the world?

 

[Netzach]

Oh hell, I just drool over Ian McKellen.

\

I think most queers want him for our Daddy.

M and I both do. We want to peel him grapes. It won't make sense to anyone unless it makes sense to them.

Jenny Shimizu is very hot.

 

[Netzach]

That's true. In fact, from a lesbian's point of view, I don't see how gay men manage to have relationships at all! Many men are hard to handle. (Okay, I'm being really sexist, but it's my damn thread!)

I am jealous of how readily the Daddy culture is understood, though.

You know, I feel like I'm the opposite of you in that regard.

Boys = easy. Girls=hard.

I've always thought myself lazy, my attachments with women are sexual, quick and I keep an arm's length there. Gay men are hard to handle, less bent ones are usually cake. Gay men *do* seem to have the sex/love thing less ass-backwards than everyone else though. Fucking is not loving the two things *grow* together, and they have figured that out better in general. You hook up, fuck, then maybe fall in love and your fucking takes on that quality of union *then.*

To me it's less of a forced march attitude towards intimacy.

 

[FungiUg]

Along those lines, my ex-wife had a joke about what lesbians bring to a second date: a moving truck.

 

[Etoile]

You know, I feel like I'm the opposite of you in that regard.

Boys = easy. Girls=hard.

I've always thought myself lazy, my attachments with women are sexual, quick and I keep an arm's length there. Gay men are hard to handle, less bent ones are usually cake. Gay men *do* seem to have the sex/love thing less ass-backwards than everyone else though. Fucking is not loving the two things *grow* together, and they have figured that out better in general. You hook up, fuck, then maybe fall in love and your fucking takes on that quality of union *then.*

To me it's less of a forced march attitude towards intimacy.

Ah, I think I can understand that perspective. I envision gay male relationships as much less manipulative and neurotic than relationships involving women. Now granted we're overgeneralizing in all kinds of ways, but I can see it.