Talk:Stiletto heel

Views on article

I think whomever wrote this has a foot fetish. It should be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.136.216 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the comment above - the article should clearly mention the fetish, but the article should mainly be about the non-sexual aspects - its history, fashion, etc, etc. Most of the fetish stuff that is here, if it can be verified, belongs in the foot fetishism and/or shoe fetishism articles. Thryduulf 01:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>>Technically, it's not a foot fetish, but a shoe fetish.

I deleted the references to fetishism, as stiletto heels are simply a fashion norm these days. Dr1819 13:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your removal of the fetish section. While they are primarily just a fashion norm, there is a fetish associated with them and the article should deal with both. Thryduulf 21:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a replacement photo taken by me, instead of the one with unclear lisence. I hope it's a stiletto heel too. * Shansov.net ^Talk 03:18, 26 May 2006 (+3:00 GMT)

Stilettoes mimick the shape of the miltary weapon of the same name. And were named thus. It was probably meant as a macho joke in the first place since they are a hazard to our poor feet and back. --Accharlotte 10:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would add a reference tag

But there really isn't enough info to warrant that on the page. More like, it needs to be expanded, and references should be added as new info is brought in.Lotusduck 23:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense accharlotte writes; stiletto heels are called thus because of their penetrative nature. A woman of only eight stones (112 lbs or 1cwt) creates a pressure of one ton per square inch at the tip of her heel. There was an article in last years UK Sunday Times in which the female author talked about the thrill of wearing shoes that could actually kill! Not all women are so 'fluffy' madam!

I have a few problems with the tone of this article, as well as a few specifics. First, the use of "stone" as a unit of measurement in an American encyclopedia seems out of place. I'm not familiar with the style guidelines but I imagine it would be more appropriate to use pounds or kilograms.

- - who said wikipedia was an 'american encyclopedia'? It isn't. Saccerzd 11:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My second gripe is with the use of exclamation points in that last section. It's not appropriate style for an encyclopedia article. Also, that whole section seems to be solely the author's opinion, with no references to sources.

Finally, I'd like to address the "one ton" number. I have several points related to this.

A. 1 ton is equal to 2000 pounds in the United States. This is also known as the short ton. See Ton.

B. 1/2-inch diameter is greater than one centimeter. 1/2-inch equals 1.27 cm.

C. The proper unit for pressure is pounds per square inch, not just pounds. No matter the size of what she's standing on, a 112 pound woman will exert 112 pounds of weight, not pressure.

D. 112 pounds, if perched on a half-inch diameter support, would exert about 570 pounds per square inch of pressure. On a one centimeter support it would exert about 920 pounds of pressure.

E. Even so, I find it unlikely that anyone would ever balance all their weight on a single heel of a stiletto shoe. Maybe I'm getting a little pedantic, but she would also be puting weight on the toes (which I would estimate at around two square inches, significantly decreasing the overall pressure) as well as the other shoe. Now I'll grant that it would be possible to exert that huge pressure, but it's very unlikely unless the wearer is actively trying.

--Animatorgeek 06:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Animatorgeek old chap, you just don't know enough! Stiletto heel pressure was much talked about in the press, engineering and trade journals back in the mid 50's to early 60's; at school around 1960 our Physics Master did the calculation on the board to explain why the Headmaster's secretary's heels were leaving little dents in the parquet floor. A circular cross section stiletto heel having a diameter as small as 0.25 inches (quite common in the early 60's and still found on modern shoes) has an area of approximately 3.1416 x 0.125 x 0.125 square inches = 0.049 square inches. Thus a 112 lb woman running for a bus (something I see regularly from my office at my University in the UK) will concentrate all her weight into that tiny area when her heel tip momentarily strikes the floor before the sole of her shoe or boot does and as the toe of her other shoe or boot leaves it. This therefore produces a pressure of 112/0.049 lbs per sq in = 2,286 lbs per sq in, i.e.: - 1.02 Tons (Imperial tons) per sq in. For emphasis it is still quite common in the UK to describe pressures in Tons per sq in, though of course it gives problems when Tons have different definitions on each side of the 'pond'. An Imperial Ton is 20 cwt (hundredweight) and 1 cwt is 112 lbs (or 8 stones at 14 lbs each - the usual measurement for human weight), this is 2240 lbs. The reason why your American Ton is called a Short Ton is because it is 240 lbs short of a true Ton. The Metric Tonne is 1,000 kg and since there are approximately 2.2 lbs in a Kilogram this is nearer to the Imperial Ton at 2,200 lbs.

Please bear in mind that the Internet belongs to no single nation; Wikipedia is for all of us!

From Mike Martlet, BSc in Applied Physics, 18th August 2006 (the writer of the longer version!)

There are a great many problems with the longer version of the article that some anonymous editor keeps putting here, the units being only a very small part of it. It is by no means encyclopaedically written (exclamation marks everywhere!) and contains a great deal of unverifiable POV ("perhaps a vaginal symbol"?). The solution, as I see it, is to revert to the short version whenever the bad text reappears. That's not to say that the article couldn't (and shouldn't) be expanded, just that that's not the way. --Hogtied 07:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the reference to high-heels being symbolic of the sex organs has been discussed quite recently on British Television. There is also much historical fact in my longer version and the social comment is also born out by many magazine articles in the UK.

---

First, it would be nice if you signed your comments. It's not a huge deal but it's hard to differentiate between what you wrote and what you were responding to. Also, it would be nice to know when you made the comment.

Second, I agree with everything you wrote about the ton of force. It doesn't, however, address my complain: the article was written without mentioning any of those numbers. The only diameter mentioned for the tip of a heel was 1/2 inch and 1 cm, which doesn't work to produce the "1 ton" number you referenced (I assume it was you who wrote that, though I haven't checked the change log). If you're going to throw around numbers like that, there has to be a foundation for it -- even if it's as much as saying "with a heel tip as small as a quarter inch...."

Third, on the question of units, I'll refer you to the Wikipedia manual of style Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement. The suggestion there is:

If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses.

As for your assertion that stones are "the usual measurement for human weight," that may be true where you're from, but not where I live. I would guess that if you took a hundred random US citizens, fewer than five of them would know how many pounds are in a stone. And no, it's not because of bad education. It's the same reason we don't know how many pecks are in a bushel. Those units just aren't used here. I can't comment on whether they're used in other countries, but I have a hard time imagining anyone in a non-commonwealth country using "stone" as a unit of weight.

Fourth: I don't appreciate the tone I heard in your comment. Saying that I just don't know enough isn't productive. I think we're both aiming for the betterment of the article and of Wikipedia, so let's not act like enemies.

Finally, you're right, Wikipedia is for everyone. That's my bad. I've always thought of it as an American encyclopedia since most of the articles I encounter are written with American spellings, but I guess I had the wrong impression. That said, I think it's important to keep in mind the international audience and to avoid location-specific things like (possibly obscure) Imperial units -- at least in non-location-specific articles like this one. --Animatorgeek 19:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about pressure was a bit muddled with the imprecise term "force" interchanged for "pressure". Since this is talking about the physics of the pressure under heels versus the pressure under an elephant's feet I made a slight edit to use the correct term. Units aren't needed, but if they are added they should be in Pascals primarily and pounds per square inch secondarily. I also removed the word "allegedly" because this difference in pressure is factual, not subject to adjudication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.59.92 (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Spike heel"

What's up with the parenthetical aside that spike heel is the American English term? I'm American, and I've never even heard the term spike heel before; they've always been stiletto heels any time I've heard anyone talk about them. RyokoMocha (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Was just coming onto the talk page to see if anyone else had mentioned this. It seems obvious from Google that the term "spike heel" is in use, but whether it's only an American thing I'm not sure, and we definitely use the term "stiletto" in the U.S. --Galaxiaad (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you guys change it? Sheesh. 66.68.100.242 (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferragamo

Did Salvatore Ferragamo invent (or popularize) the stilleto heel? I know nothing of this subject, but maybe someone can shed light on it. --Rajah (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stiletto heel versus elephant

This example is oft-repeated, but are any of those sources reliable? The problem is that no woman is ever going to put all her weight on her heel (and in fact stilettos make that rather difficult to do). Adpete (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

White stiletto high-heels.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Benefits" section needs serious work

Repetitive.

Full of subjective assertions ("When paired with a pantyhose, tights or stockings, it improves style and makes the wearer look more fashionable," "They also express your style and make you feel good") and unsupported statements ("In addition it boosts women's self-confidence and that in turn makes them more likely to be promoted at work," "It also helps the wearer tone and if worn frequently, it often helps to shed some fat").

And this last puzzles me: Every few sentences there's a number inside brackets that references nothing currently on the page. ("These all prove that there are many benefits to wearing high heels.[27]")

I don't want to work on the article myself since, being in favor of healthy footwear, I might not manage to sound unbiased. Alianoraree (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly sexist "History" section

What's up with the history section? Did ALL women "stubbornly refuse" to give up stiletto heels? Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.226.231 (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]