Straitjacket optional
For some five years now I’ve been puzzling over the mystery of “bondage pants” — there have been, over the years, pants I found rather binding and/or confining, though I’m sure that’s not what they meant — but at least now I’ve seen the shoe that goes with them. Maybe.
Givenchy vends this particular sandal for $1150. It zips up the back, which more or less explains “How the fark do you get these on in the first place?” (Of course, if you routinely have $1150 to spend on sandals, you’ve already long since scienced out this particular question, or you figure you’ll manage, one way or another.) The heel runs 100 cm mm, a shade under four inches. Shoebunny snagged a photo of these being worn by singer Rihanna, and maybe they look better if they’re actually in use. I’d be too busy wondering if that top strap held some sort of electronic tracking device. Still, it could be worse: imagine something like this (1) as an oxford (2) in bismuth-subsalicylate pink. Givenchy already has.
Dick Stanley »
22 September 2009 · 7:35 am
The original F-me shoe. Stirring just to look at by itself.
CGHill »
22 September 2009 · 7:40 am
Me, I’m more shaken than stirred.
unimpressed »
22 September 2009 · 8:12 am
Methinks you meant the heel is 100mm…..In cm, that’s the same as a meter. They wouldn’t be high-heeled sandals then, they’d be stilts. :)
fillyjonk »
22 September 2009 · 8:32 am
10 cm, or 100 mm. THAT’S four inches.
(And there’s a joke I could make there, but won’t.)
I actually know the 10 cm = 4 inches from knitting; the standard size of a test swatch is 4 by 4 inches, or 10 cm by 10 cm for those on metric.
The shoes? They leave me extremely cold. They look uncomfortable and they are not cute at all.
CGHill »
22 September 2009 · 8:48 am
And now you know why I resist the metric system: hectares, liters, the whole 8.23 meters.
Dick Stanley »
22 September 2009 · 9:17 am
The shoes aren’t intended to be cute. They serve a whole ‘nuther function.
fillyjonk »
22 September 2009 · 11:05 am
I’m single and unattached, so “cute” in shoes is more of requirement than that “other” purpose. (I’m not even sure I’d know what that purpose was if I saw it.)
Sheri »
22 September 2009 · 11:52 am
Boy don’t THAT look comfy. *spit*
canadienne »
23 September 2009 · 7:28 pm
I dunno, at least I wouldn’t break an ankle in the flattish hot-pink number (seems a bit brighter pink than Pepto-Bismol) – but then, I’m kind of fond of the ability to walk. I’m ignoring the whole bondage thing. (I’m currently wearing a pair of Merrell shoes that do a pretty good job of disguising the fact that they are very comfortable.)