I was given a compliment that was definitely intended as a compliment and that I'm taking as a compliment and that, even though it includes a comparison, was definitely not intended to insult the person it was comparing, but nevertheless the compliment shouldn't actually need to exist and I'm using as a metaphor for a larger conversation on gender.

I have decided that there is actually a partner dance that I don't like: country swing.  There are no patterns for the feet, it's literally a dance all about how fast and how frequently the lead can spin his partner (because gender norms).   Now, dance involves the body so a dance style that doesn't focus on memorized step patterns can still be a legitimate dance style.  But this is a dance style that is all about sequences of tricks with no concern for steps or musicality and relies on the strength of the lead to make the follow go where she is supposed to go.

And don't get me wrong but the really good country swing dancers do use step patterns and have musicality and the follows do as much work as the leads.  But that's not the social dance experience.  Usually it's a dude spinning the fuck out of some thin, young woman with no regard to how well it matches the music that's playing or whether she even knows how to do what he's making her do.  Brute force will spin her and stop her without dropping her whether she knows what to do or not.

So, there was a guy at the wedding I went to recently who claimed to be able to two-step and swing dance.  My sister grabbed him for a two-step and he was all over the place with her - no control, no musicality, just "slow-slow-quick-quick-spin-slow-slow-quick-quick-spin-spin-another spin-slow-slow-quick-quick".

When they sat down, he said that he was really rusty with the two-step and that he was better with swing.  I would rather have danced a two-step with him, but since he said he was better at swing, I asked him to swing dance with me.  So we got up and did a country swing exactly as described above - spin, spin, spin, who the fuck cares about beats and music?

I was told later that the dance with my sister looked pretty out of control and my mom was worried that he was actually going to hurt my sister, but she was amazed at how well I kept up with him.  And I kind of downplayed it because 1) my sister was never as into partner dancing as she was into line dancing; 2) she hasn't danced in a while and I try to keep up with my dancing; and 3) I know exactly what "country swing" is and I know how to handle guys who dance like that.

So I've been feeling a little pleased that I impressed people by dancing with someone who had very little control and making it look like we were less out-of-control than we really were, mainly because *I* kept control of *me*.  And it's legitimately not an insult to my sister, because he was the lead, so all problems were his fault.  She's not even a poorer dancer than I am, necessarily, he was just that bad of a lead.  I am, after all, a better follow than a dancer.

Here's the metaphor part:  Too many cishet dudes are allowed to move through life like these country boys move across the dance floor - full tilt, without regard for their surroundings, who is around them, how they impact others on the floor, how out of control they are, dominating their partner, and with no regard to the mood of the music.  And I have spent a lifetime developing the coping skills for how to keep my own feet underneath me when one of these guys swoops by and spins me around.  And that's a compliment because it is, indeed, a skill that I've worked hard at and I am a good dancer (and "dancer") because of it.

BUT I SHOULD NEVER HAVE NEEDED THAT SKILL IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I should not ever be complimented for how well I can compensate for men's failings and flailings.  Because men should not be allowed to stomp all over the floor and through life the way they do.  But so many of them do so, that we just gave it its own dance style name and genre and said "yep, that's legit, that's how you do that!"

And we have done the social equivalent of tolerating and accepting men who do that in life.

Country swing is actually a really fun style to both watch and dance, *when done well*.  But what *I* (and competition judges) think counts as "done well" and what social dancers think counts as "done well" are two very different things.  It is, and should be, a legitimate style.  But the way it's executed on a social floor is just fucking dangerous.  It may be athletic, but it's not artistic, and it's not considerate. It's performative without being connective.

So don't be one of these country swing dudes.  Pay attention to how you move through life, how you impact those around you, the space you take up, whether your partner is (or is able to) contribute equally to your partnership or are you just flinging them around with you, and for fuck's sake at least try to learn something about musicality because musicality is just emotional connection manifest physically.  With a little math.

I watched a Korean movie on Netflix called Love & Leashes, about a submissive guy who transfers to another department at work and meets a woman in that department who he wants to be his Master. Although she is ... "intimidating", she has never heard of BDSM before, but she finds the idea intriguing.

Korean culture is very different from USian culture, and how they conduct relationships is different. Going into this movie, I didn't know if what I was watching is actually how BDSM relationships are done in Korea or if it's more "the writers know nothing of this subject but thought it would sell a movie script", because it's definitely not how I would recommend conducting a D/s relationship here. But a USian friend of mine who has been living and teaching in Korea for the last several years chimed in to give some background:

It's based off a webtoon by an anonymous author. And the style in the movie is pretty spot on with Korean bdsm forums and the lingo in Korean is super accurate and could only be known by pretty extensive research or experience.

Even the word for fake Dom -- 변바 is in it. It's super niche bdsm slang. Same with 연디 date d/s.

When it shows twitter handles those are a few letters off from real people I know irl in Korea. The background info is... eerily exact to the real bdsm scene here.

Even not knowing if it was a culture difference or uninformed writing, 20 minutes in and it was already 50 shades more charming than the piece of shit I've been choking down lately.

The characters' motivations are clear and their behaviour is consistent with both their personalities / histories, and also with what is known about BDSM, kink culture, and kink psychology. There's no abuse happening at all - it's being led by the sub with negotiation and boundaries from the dom, there was discussion and concern about unfair power imbalances due to the work connection, and it was established that the "newbie" to BDSM had personality tendencies in this direction already and does not find kink to be disgusting or that it must be the result of some childhood trauma.

In other words, everything that is happening so far makes sense, in context.

It's very rom-comy, not erotica, and I think that helps. Trying to make her dark and foreboding as a dom would, I think, remove a lot of its charm.

It does make me miss having a puppy, though.

Some of my notes while watching it:

---

OTG they're so awkward! It's very endearing.

---

OK, her digging her red heel into his fully clothed back is so far way more erotic than every sex scene in 50 Shades combined.

---

Puppy play, verbal humiliation, pain, service submission, nurturing dom ... someone here has actually at the very least read about D/s and not just attended a public dungeon with play restrictions.

---

AFTERCARE!!!

---

[discussing how his last girlfriend dumped him for being into BDSM]

"Do you really enjoy all this pain and suffering?"
"It hurts ... but I still feel so alive, you know?"
"I don't get it"
[crestfallen] "It's understandable."
"I mean, if it makes the person you like feel more alive, why can't you do it for them, you know? It's not like it's anything bad."
[slow hope]

#SoMuchBetterThan50ShadesOfShit

---

The movie version feels very manga, without being cartoony, if that makes sense.

---

They are so adorkable

---

By the end, I felt it had remained charming the whole way through. It was very much a rom-com complete with confusion arising from not communicating and a ridiculous happy ending, but it was so very pro-kink and the leads were sweet and adorkable and endearing.

Note to all writers: this is how you write "quirky" and "relatable" characters, not by making them Hollywood pretty but having everyone else describe them as "plain" while giving them no personality but making them clumsy.  Also, don't soften a "hard" edged woman.  Not everyone who has a strong personality is using it as a wall to hide behind and keep people from getting too close, and making a woman softer and smaller is not how she finds someone to love her.  Plus, it's totally possible to be "strong" and even "hard" without being a bitch.

Also, a submissive man is not "weak".  We see the male lead here standing up to his bosses and taking control of situations when necessary but also never stepping over the women around him when he needs to be aggressive.  He supports them and uses his privileged position to make them heard, within the cultural context.

Anyone wanting to write about kink in an erotic setting where there is a conflict to overcome needs to address the idea of shame.  And unlike the current most popular example, the goal is not to reinforce the shame of the kink tendencies, but to either overcome it or to find a way to deal with social shaming in an appropriate cultural context without internalizing it.  This is a good example of one way to address shame well.

*Sigh*  Normally I have no problem blocking people who are becoming a pain in the ass, but when it's a *friend* who says *several times* that he will back out of an argument and then refuses to do so, sometimes I have to hang up the phone for him.  But I'd rather not, and it hurts to do it.

I already know that when I lose my temper, I'll say things that I will later regret.  So when I back out of an argument, I back out.  I know that I can't be trusted to have a productive conversation when I'm too emotionally invested in my position to really hear the other side.   If you have the foresight to know that about yourself too, then seriously, back out when you say you're going to.  Because I guarantee, no matter what the person on the other side of the argument is like, you will only make things worse if you stay in an argument past the point that even you recognize that you need to take a break from it.

The other person could be the best, most calm and collected arguer ever, or they could be a total douchebag, and either way, if you're not in the right emotional space for the argument, anything you say is going to make things worse.  Which is why I back out when I'm getting pissed off.  Unfortunately, though, online spaces don't offer very good ways to "back out" and they rely on the other person's cooperation or nuking them.

I wish FB had an option to just, say, put someone in a time-out.  I mean, I know that you can unblock people later, but it's so ... final, so harsh.  Maybe I just want to stop someone from talking at me for a while.  It's like, if you're in an argument with someone in person, you can leave the room.  But if you're in an argument with someone at a *party*, then you have to either leave the party to prevent them from following you around the party to continue arguing or kick them out of the party.

Sometimes, neither is an acceptable option for the circumstances.  Sometimes, I just want someone to stop talking at me while I go into the "quiet room" at the party, or go talk with someone else on the other side of the room.  I can turn off FB for a while and let them rant and rave at an empty inbox, but then I can't wander around FB.  That's me leaving the party.  Besides, then they're still ranting and raving and those messages will be there when I get back.  Leaving might prevent *me* from saying something I don't want to say, but it doesn't make someone else take the space they need but won't take.  And obviously I can't kick *them* off FB (nor would I want to).

Unfriending & unfollowing aren't always the right options either.  When the problem is that someone I know posts shit that I don't want to see, then those are two reasonable options.  But when the problem is that someone keeps talking at me, unfriending and unfollowing don't prevent that.  I don't necessarily want to stop seeing *them*, nor do I necessarily want them to stop seeing *me*.  I want them to lose the ability to contact me for the moment, either DM or comments or tagging me.

And, maybe I don't *want* to actually unfriend someone.   I grew up understanding that friends and family argue sometimes, and it's not the end of the relationship.  Sometimes those arguments are some pretty ugly fights, even, and it still doesn't mean that the relationship *has* to end over it.

I've been reading some stuff (citations not at hand atm, but check out The Gottman Institute for more on that) that suggests that there is a point in an argument at which nothing productive is happening because the participants are "flooded", meaning too emotional, and taking a break at that point significantly increases the chances of a resolution post-break.  My family did this intuitively.  I think it's one of the reasons why I maintain such strong emotional ties to members of my family who have such different worldviews from me.

Sometimes I just don't want to be in *this* argument right *now* and the other person doesn't seem to have the self-control to stop arguing.  But, for whatever reason, I don't want to nuke the relationship.  It would be nice to have, like, a 24-hour Wall of Silence, where neither of us can message each other or comment on each other's posts, until we've both had some space and time to calm down.   But, y'know, you're still friends, and maybe you can even still see each other's posts and still interact in groups or mutual friends' comment threads.  You just can't PM them or talk *in their space*.

But as long as people can't seem to help themselves and continue talking at others past the point where even they recognize that they are not in the right frame of mind to be continuing the conversation, I have to resort to blocking.

And I don't like that.   There's not enough nuance in our online responses, and I think that hurts us individually and as communities.

Just FYI: I have a "user manual" for myself. The long, in-depth version is a tag in my blog for all the blog posts that are about me at https://joreth.dreamwidth.org/tag/me%20manual and a shorthand "cliff notes" version is built from a template created by Cunning Minx and can be found in its own blog entry at https://joreth.dreamwidth.org/301768.html.

I have yet another sort of Me Manual in the form of a YouTube playlist of songs that I feel represent me or some aspect of me.  I call this Joreth's Theme Music and it can be found at www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMySpg8nvA5OSIHTfi6XwgQdbEQSyLjoq

Watch on YouTube

I also have a playlist of songs that represent my biggest frustrations and topics that are very personal to me.  I call this playlist my Killing Spree Playlist, as I jokingly refer to the playlist I would have on my iPod if I some day finally snapped and decided to climb a water tower with a sniper rifle.  This can be found at www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMySpg8nvA5Ml3lMWhzUJMc78UVwnd8gM

Watch on YouTube

I highly recommend creating your own Me Manual or User Manual.  You can use the very convenient form that Minx offers or you can create your own.  Sharing yourself through song or other forms of art is an interesting and creative way to supplement a more plain-speaking sort of Me Manual like the text-based Q&A template that Minx offers.

I then also encourage everyone to share them with prospective partners, current partners, and friends, and I encourage everyone to *read* the user manuals of their lovers and friends.

https://qz.com/920561/conscious-consumerism-is-a-lie-heres-a-better-way-to-help-save-the-world

"Conscious consumerism is a lie. Small steps taken by thoughtful consumers—to recycle, to eat locally, to buy a blouse made of organic cotton instead of polyester—will not change the world."

"Making series of small, ethical purchasing decisions while ignoring the structural incentives for companies’ unsustainable business models won’t change the world as quickly as we want. It just makes us feel better about ourselves."

"There’s also the issue of privilege. The sustainability movement has been charged with being elitist—and it most certainly is. You need a fair amount of disposable income to afford ethical and sustainable consumption options, the leisure time to research the purchasing decisions you make, the luxury to turn up your nose at 95% of what you’re offered, and, arguably, a post-graduate degree in chemistry to understand the true meaning behind ingredient labels."

"Choosing fashion made from hemp, grilling the waiter about how your fish was caught, and researching whether your city can recycle bottle caps might make you feel good, reward a few social entrepreneurs, and perhaps protect you from charges of hypocrisy. But it’s no substitute for systematic change."

"But when it comes to combating climate change, pollution, and habitat destruction, what we need to do is take the money, time, and effort we spend making these ultimately inconsequential choices and put it toward something that really matters."

"So if you really care about the environment, climb on out of your upcycled wooden chair and get yourself to a town hall meeting." And I would add to support science education and bone up on some heavy science yourself so that when you do go to a town hall meeting, you'll know what you're talking about and can propose solutions that are based in reality and more likely to work, like supporting gmo food, vaccinations, geologically relevant climate change policies, and functional education.

www.quora.com/What-can-I-do-if-my-wife-teaches-my-daughter-piano-but-I-want-her-to-do-gymnastics/answer/Joreth-Innkeeper

Q. What can I do if my wife teaches my daughter piano but I want her to do gymnastics?

A. What does your daughter want?

She’s a human being.  Her desires for her body, time, emotions, etc. are the only ones that matter here.  If you’re funding her activities, you can technically be allowed to place limitations on them based on what you're willing to pay for, but as for encouraging her what TO do (as opposed to what not to do)? That’s all her.

Your interest in your daughter pursuing gymnastics is completely irrelevant.  So is your wife’s interest in teaching her piano.

Find out what YOUR DAUGHTER wants to do and stop treating her like an extension of yourself that you get to force into doing whatever it is you’d rather be doing but, for whatever reason, aren’t doing yourself.

If she wants to learn piano, then that’s what she should learn.  If she wants to do gymnastics, then that’s what she should do.  If she wants to do both, then find a way to allow her to do both If she wants to do neither, then suck it up and treat her like the human person she is, and encourage her in her endeavors like a responsible, loving parent.

She is not your doll, to dress up in the profession and hobby you want her to do.  She is a person.  She gets to make the decisions about how she spends her time and what she puts her body through.

Honestly, these parents who think their children are extensions of themselves instead of human beings in their own right!  This is how you get adult children who stop talking to their parents.

Respect her autonomy.  She’ll be a much more loving daughter if you respect her.

www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a19598317/men-cant-get-a-date-because-of-feminism-metoo-movement/

"But if you are a man who can't get a date with someone who actually likes you, it's not because of feminism. It's because you are someone people do not want to date. Possibly because you spend a lot of time whining about how women having rights has made dating impossible for you."

"Basically, this means that men have to be someone who people want to date. They can not simply exist, as a man."

"This is one of the first eras where men have to bring something to the dating and flirting table beyond the very fact of their being a male who is willing to date a women. Which means that they have to actually respond to women's cues. They have to learn how to read women."

"Women have accepted, from birth, the notion that dating is about bringing qualities to the table. ...Maybe it's about time men started doing the same."

And no, men, "bringing home the bacon", "being a provider", and "doesn't beat her" are not sufficient qualities you can bring to the table. For some women they might be *necessary* qualities, but they're not sufficient.

Like being "nice", it's a *baseline*. It's the bare minimum required for us to not automatically disqualify you, but it's not enough to put you in the running. You still have to be an interesting person and you still have to pay attention to your partner.

www.quora.com/How-do-I-keep-from-falling-in-love-with-my-fwb/answer/Joreth-Innkeeper

Q. How do you handle a casual sex relationship without developing feelings?

A. You don't. You can't control your feelings. Your feelings will do what they will. When I have casual sex, it's *because I don't have a strong emotional connection*, not the other way around. I don't get into a sexual relationship and then try to keep my emotions casual. I have a low emotional connection to someone with a high sexual connection, so I structure the relationship to be a casual sex one because *those ARE my feelings for them*.

Some people just seem to be wired to have their emotional connections and their sexual attractions linked in some way - either having sex causes an emotional attachment or they can't have sexual attraction without that emotional connection first (see: demisexual).

I am not one of those people. I can have sex with or without emotional attachment and I can have emotional attachment with or without sex. If I start a relationship under one premise and then discover that my feelings about the relationship fall under another premise, I discuss with my partner what our options are. If they are open to renegotiating the relationship to match, then great!

If not, I decide if it's possible for me to just have my feelings while in a relationship that doesn't match. My feelings are my own. They are not the responsibility of the other person to manage, and I do not have to act upon them. I can have whatever feelings I have, I can feel them, experience them, lean into them, and my behaviour is whatever I believe is most appropriate for the situation.

I have had romantic feelings for a number of people who did not return my feelings, so we maintained a platonic friendship for a long time. I did not pressure them to get into a different sort of relationship with me, I did not remind them of my feelings for them (thereby making them uncomfortable), I did not behave in any way other than platonically, I did not pine away for them, I did not plot or scheme to use our friendship as a vehicle to steer, convince, or "trick" them into another kind of relationship, I just felt what I felt, and I appreciated the friendship for being what it was.

Sometimes I have romantic feelings for a casual sex partner that are not compatible with remaining in a casual sex relationship, for some reason. Wanting something different from them makes what I *do* have with them feel hollow or inappropriate. When that happens, I have to end the casual relationship for my own well-being. I do not stay in a casual relationship hoping that, if I just stick around long enough and am good enough in bed, he'll eventually come around and give me the kind of relationship I'm really hoping for.

You can't control your feelings, you can only control your behaviour. You can't stop yourself from "catching" feelings, if that's just what your feelings want to be. You can reduce exposure to certain activities that might encourage emotional bonding, such as not having any in-depth conversations, not going out in public together in ways that feel like "a date", meeting at neutral locations, not meeting their parents or friends, etc.

But if your feelings are going to develop through sexual activity, there's nothing you can do about that. Have a conversation with them to see if they'd be amenable to a more emotionally intimate relationship with you if that happens.

If they are not, you choose - continue to have a sexual relationship without a reciprocal emotional attachment from them and enjoy it for what it is without pressuring, cajoling, convincing, coercing, or hoping for something "more"; or end the sexual relationship if you are not happy having one with them where they don't reciprocate your emotional attachment.

But the best way to minimize the odds of developing an emotional attachment to a casual sex partner is to not get into casual sex relationships when you have an emotional attachment to them in the first place. Get into casual sex relationships *because the feelings you have for them are casual sex feelings*. Those are legitimate feelings to have for a person.

It's not a "lack" of feelings, it's a particular type of feeling. You may still catch teh feelingz, but, for most of us, if we're capable of having that particular kind of feeling in the first place, we are less likely to be the sorts of people who develop emotional connections just because we're having sex with someone. Our sexual-attachment-without-emotional-connection-feelings are real, valid, legitimate feelings in their own right.

People who tend to develop emotional attachment through sexual relationships tend not to really feel that low-emotional-attachment-high-sexual-connection in the first place, so they are always fighting the development of what's more natural for them to feel. I don't have to fight that because I am already feeling the feelings that are appropriate for the relationship style that I'm in.

So, have the feelings first (or at least, recognize the potential of what your feelings might want to become), and then structure the relationship to accommodate. Have casual sex relationships *because you have casual sex feelings*. Trying to structure the relationship first and then force your feelings to fit the structure is often a recipe for disaster.

Look, I get it ... the shoe industry and in particular *women's* shoe industry is bullshit. I could go on a rant for days about the history of shoes, of women's shoes, the patriarchy, and the predatory fashion industry. And, on top of that, both "comfortable" and "attractive" are subjective. No matter what any individual person says about any individual shoe, there will be someone who disagrees on either it's comfort or its style or both.

So I am going to share some shoes that *I* find both attractive and comfortable, and within what *I* consider a "reasonable" price range. Any, all, or none of this may apply to you, but if you're looking for feminine style shoes that are not painful to wear and won't break your bank, here is one place from where you can begin your own investigation. I've shared several of these options before, but I'm revisiting the topic.

I just finished documenting all of my shoes for my Wardrobe Database and I thought y'all could benefit from my having pictures to reference. Let's start with shoes as close to "typical feminine shoes" as possible - dance shoes.

Dance shoes are, for all intents and purposes, regular dressy shoes, but with 2 very important differences: construction and sole. Dance shoes are constructed slightly differently to accommodate the unique stresses that dancing puts on shoes. Usually this means "higher quality", but it definitely means "more durable" and sometimes "longer lasting", depending on how you wear them. I have a whole page about the quality and purpose of dance shoe construction located at https://sites.google.com/site/orlandoballroomdance/FAQ/danceshoes.

The other issue is the sole. With dance shoes, you have to pay attention to what the soles are made of. If they’re hard leather or vegan plastic/resin type stuff, you can wear them anywhere but if they have suede on the bottom, they can only be worn on hardwood floors. I try to buy my dance shoes with leather or vegan soles, and if necessary, I can take my shoes into any cobbler (shoe repair place) and ask to have leather put on. I just have to be clear and make sure they understand that I do not want suede (also called "chromed").

So, with that in mind, dance shoes tend to be way more comfortable than comparable dress shoes.  I would put them in the "expensive" category, but people who typically buy designer shoes might classify them as "mid-range" at around $80-$200. All of mine have been in the $80-$120 range. But they last for years and I treat them like sporting equipment - if you want to play the sport, you need to invest in quality safety gear.

In addition to that, there are places where you can pick a base style, and then custom choose the strap style, fabric options, and heel height, and if you get the vegan soles you can wear them on any surface including outdoors. What makes this so important is that heel height and strap style. I grew up in the '80s, in the era of the slender, delicate, stiletto heel pump.

So I really like the look of the delicate pumps with skinny heels, but I really don't like wearing *tall* heels. Being able to specify a short (like, 1.5-inch) heel in a slender flare has been terrific for someone with my aesthetic taste but preference for flatter shoes. I used one of these vendors for my wedding shoes. I found a base model of shoe on the website that had the look I was going for and then I picked the heel height and style, all the fabrics and where to put them, and I also added an extra strap (the base model only comes with one, either an ankle strap or a criss-cross strap and I requested both).

I requested a fabric sample before ordering any shoes and I matched everything to my wedding dress. Despite being different fabrics (the dress is made of stretch performance fabric and these are all satins), these shoes are a nearly perfect match and I couldn't be happier with them.

The brand of shoe is Very Fine Dance Shoes, and you can get stock, other customer's custom designs, or design you own direct from www.veryfineshoes.com/customladiesdanceshoes or from one of several retailers that sell them.

They're as comfortable as any dance shoe, which means that they're still heels but they're made for hard wear with padding and properly constructed soles and shanks. They're not going to feel like sneakers because they're not sneakers, but if I'm going to wear dress shoes, those made for dancing are about as comfortable as they get, with one exception...

These are the most comfortable pair of dress shoes I own. They're Crocs and I have them in black and oat (kind of a light khaki / tan). Even when I have hard leather soles on my dance shoes that allow me to wear them off the floor, I still bring these shoes to change into afterwards. Because no matter how comfortable the dance shoes are, dancing for 4 hours in heels is still hard. When I put these on, I add another several hours worth of walking to my evening while still looking dressed up. Honestly, the only reason I don't wear only these for dressing up is because they're open-toe and I prefer the closed-toe look.  That, and I rarely get dressed up if I'm not dancing.

It looks like Crocs has discontinued this model and changed to a criss-cross strap over the toes (which I love) and is about to discontinue that model too. They have other styles of shoes, but you might be able to get these from another retailer that still carries some old stock. The model I have is called the Leigh and the criss-cross version is the Leigh II.

I've probably had them for more than a decade now, and since I don't wear them very often because I don't dress up often, they still look brand new and I expect to continue wearing them for years more.

These are also Crocs, and also a model that has been discontinued. I know most people would never have thought to hear anyone say this, but keep an eye on Crocs for not-ugly comfortable shoes. They sell more than clogs. These are a simple red wedge with a black patent leather-like toe cap.

Like the Leigh Wedges, they are made from the same Crocs materials and have the same comfortable Crocs sole. They have other wedges available on their website, so keep checking back to see the new models, as they frequently rotate new designs in.

I would put Crocs in the mid-range price category, with shoes usually costing between $25 and $60, plus you can often find sales or clearance items. Once something gets discontinued, though, the third-party retails jack the price up because they become hard to find.

Another place to look for shoes that may be both stylish and comfortable is the recent trend of "foldable" ballet flats. I got these from Payless when they announced they were going out of business and put everything on clearance. I also bought the same pair in this really smart grey flannel-looking fabric with a black toe cap that goes amazingly with my grey suit pencil skirt.

Payless opened back up again as an online-only store, and I'm pretty sure these are available online. Because they're this "foldable" style, meaning that they are intended for you to fold them literally in half and stuff them in a purse, they're not constructed with the same high quality materials as traditional shoes. They might be using high quality materials, but they are of a different type.

They are soft and flexible all over, so there is virtually no arch support or padding. These feel, to me, almost like going barefoot, with no shock absorption whatsoever. This may or may not count as "comfortable" for you. I put foam insoles in mine.

Also, because they are made and stored "folded", you'll notice the shoes are curled up. I would not have thought that I would feel any curling once they were on my feet - that my feet were more solidly straight and would out-compete the tension in the shoes. But I do start to notice a slight pressure on my feet to turn up at the toes over time. Fortunately, they're also easily slipped on and off.

And finally, if someone is fortunate enough to wear an adult woman's size 6 or smaller (sometimes up to an 8), you can also get dressy children's shoes because they go up to a size 4, which is a 6 in Women's. Walmart carries kids shoes up to size 6, which is an 8 in women's.

I got these adorable little white pearl dress shoes at Payless that look every bit like adult heels except they have a child's low heel. As in - they're not *flats*, they're *heels*, just with a very low heel. I had to take a seam ripper to remove some goofy leather flower things on top, but given the price and the heel, it was worth it.

I don't have a picture of them yet, but you can see them in this video of me performing in them: www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmgiGlDIuJw

Watch on YouTube

Kids shoes don't come with fancy arch supports and memory foam padding or whatever, so I still have to add insoles, but the low heel instantly makes them more comfortable than adult heels just for that alone. I wish they made kids shoes in all adult sizes. I mean, what adult wouldn't want low-heeled dress shoes or canvas sneakers with Thor on them or pastel pink & blue boots or something? Kids have some pretty awesome shoes and lots of us are just big kids.

So, there you have it - a few ideas on where to get comfortable (or less UNcomfortable) feminine dress shoes, that will not be applicable to everyone for either aesthetic preferences, finances, or size constraints.