Nous protégeons ceux qui ne peuvent pas se protéger eux-mêmes
You’re wrong about me.
I’ve seen this image going around, and I feel compelled to point out that it’s only half-right. It’s true that high heels were originally a masculine fashion, but they weren’t originally worn by butchers - nor for any other utilitarian purpose, for that matter.
High heels were worn by men for exactly the same reason they’re worn by women today: to display one’s legs to best effect. Until quite recently, shapely, well-toned calves and thighs were regarded as an absolute prerequisite for male attractiveness. That’s why you see so many paintings of famous men framed to show off their legs - like this one of George Washington displaying his fantastic calves:
… or this one of Louis XIV of France rocking a fabulous pair of red platform heels (check out those thighs!):
… or even this one of Charles I of England showing off his high-heeled riding boots - note, again, the visual emphasis on his well-formed calves:
In summary: were high heels originally worn by men? Yes. Were they worn to keep blood off their feet? No at all - they were worn for the same reason they’re worn today: to look fabulous.
so then how did they become a solo feminine item of attire?
A variety of reasons. In France, for example, high heels fell out out of favour in the court of Napoleon due to their association with aristocratic decadence, while in England, the more conservative fashions of the Victorian era regarded it as indecent for a man to openly display his calves.
But then, fashions come and go. The real question is why heels never came back into fashion for men - and that can be laid squarely at the feet of institutionalised homophobia. Essentially, heels for men were never revived because, by the early 20th Century, sexually provocative attire for men had come to be associated with homosexuality; the resulting moral panic ushered in an era of drab, blocky, fully concealing menswear in which a well-turned calf simply had no place - a setback from which men’s fashion has yet to fully recover.
FASHION HISTORY IS HUMAN HISTORY OK
Thank you, history side of tumblr. That “stay out of blood” thing has been driving me mad.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, or That One Time Fourteen Year Old Ron Weasley Stood On His Broken Leg To Tell A Convicted Murderer He Would Go Down Fighting For His Best Friend’s Life. (via ronweasley)
#SOMETHING FLICKERED IN BLACK’S SHADOWED EYES #YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WAS?#THE KNOWLEDGE THAT SIRIUS WOULD HAVE SAID THE SAME FOR JAMES AND VICE VERSA #AND THAT HARRY HAD FOUND EQUALLY LOYAL FRIENDS AS HE HAD IN JAMES AND REMUS #I will fling myself from a cliff (via dearprongs)
♕ 5/50 pictures of Chris Evans.
- Sebastian Stan, discussing his infamous jeans at Philly Wizard Con
We’ve all seen soooo many pics of Sebastian in these pants:
Every once in a while, a post wanders across my dash making fun of him for wearing them, usually accompanied by this pic:
But in spite of his protests at the Con (and how embarrassing for the fandom that he knows what got said about those pants!), what people seem to have missed is this pic:
That’s right, boys and girls. The jeans were marketed by the designer to both men and women. They were sold as unisex jeans. Need more?
Let’s also take note that the jeans looked good enough on him that Glamour magazine just…let him wear his own stuff for this shoot:
The best part, though? The name of the jeans style, by designer Bess:
Yep. Those are the Bess “Dirty Boy” Crinkle Jeans.
Sebastian Stan: rocking unisex hipster style like it’s nobody’s business.
Steve Rogers + Bangs