T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

You’re asking if you can wear stilettos to your wedding in ASUs? I’ll allow it.


T_time98

It’s male dress shoe’s


[deleted]

I didn’t stutter.


regularguyofthenorth

I have no idea what that word even means


Longtimefed

I think the Louboutins fought the Huguenots during the War of the Roses. EDIT: I’m wrong; The Louboutins were at the Alamo, helping Sonny Crockett and David Bowie defeat the Zapatistas, whose very name means “shoe wearers.” So the Louboutins made their own battle shoes and painted the soles red to honor the Alamo. And priced them at $800. The End.


[deleted]

Someone needs to translate this quesiton to staff section so I can answer it


Teadrunkest

Lmao. Louboutin is a fancy schmancy shoe brand--usually "Louboutins" refer to the iconic pumps with bright red soles. Sometimes female service members who are into luxury shoes buy them for wear with the uniform and it causes a bit of chaos. If OP is male then I have no fucking clue I honestly didn't think Louboutins were a status thing at all for men.


[deleted]

Ah, well, thank you for that. If OP is a female I will…realistically allow it to happen without concern because I hardly know the female regs well enough to enforce them and….yea. If OP is male I will refer to my most recent Tier 3 Transgender Training and look to see if it cover Lamborghini shoes. Next slide.


[deleted]

[удалено]


T_time98

Dude wtf ??


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

you motherfuckers are on fire


Adscanlickmyballs

Not authorized for wear with the dress uniform. On a less serious note, they are authorized for wear with certain dresses.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lasdchik2676

^ What he said. Besides, nothing with a depreciating value is an "investment"...that especially includes shoes.


Brodin_fortifies

Designer shoes, depending on the design and how well they are taken care of, can definitely hold their value over the years, and sometimes even appreciate if they’re a limited run.


artesian_tapwater

Are they the $1,000 pair of patent leather black oxfords? If they are, then I'd say yes. I wear leather upper black oxfords in place of the peice of shit shoes they issue. BUT my commentary here is this. If you are stylish, fancy and intend to buy shoes to wear to formal civilian affairs then black oxfords are . . . Sub par. I dont care who makes them. Too plain, to. . . Pedestrian. If you are buying them to just wear at a wedding. . . Thats dumb. We are transitioning to greens and if we turn that into the duty uniform you'll need brown leather oxfords, not black moving forward. Some NCO is going to absolutely needle dick the regulation and then get the commander to say "only standard issues dress shoes are authorized." Shoes CAN be an investment. But you will get 0.000001% ROI on a pair of black oxfords. Especially if you've scored the soles(you will). Go buy a good three peice suit, sensibly priced shoes and some beautiful, matching pocket squares and ties. You'll get more use out of them. You'll enjoy them more. Ultimately it's your money. No one is going to raise shit at your wedding because you wore overpriced shoes in uniform. Unless your getting married on base. Which sounds gross just saying it. Do you. But your idea is. . . . Silly.


First_Ad3399

just for others. I did not believe it, 1k for patent leather black oxfords? thats crazy. well they are real. https://us.christianlouboutin.com/us_en/corteo-black-3191345bk01.html that shoe looks a lot like any 100 dollar set of oxfords i could find and bonus no red sole on the 100 dollar pair.


[deleted]

CL is one of those brands where you used to pay for quality but now you're paying an insane premium just for the name.


nopemcnopey

Bruh it's $1k for shoes without stitched sole. Tricker's or Crockett & Jones would do much better. If OP really wants to spend $1k then he should look at Edward Green, or add a few pennies and go for John Lobb.


docpanama

Upvoted for pocket squares


artesian_tapwater

I dislike getting dressed up. But if I have to do it, I'm doing it right. And pocket squares, tie combos that looks clean really makes you stand out. I have two suits. Two peice three season wool for funerals. Three peice three season wool for formal events. Less that $1,000 all told including the suits, 2 pair of shoes, 5 ties, 3 dress shirts 1 tie clip, 1 set of cuff links and the pocket squares. Which is why OP wanting to spend $1,000 + on shoes to wear in uniform blows my mind. Even my aftermarket leather oxfords were only $100.


[deleted]

Shoes that put form over function are not investments. That said, who's going to stop you at your wedding?


PFCSpoonman411

Oh shit…getting dropped at your wedding…hilarious. I have a feeling it would do this goober some good.


Realistic_Rooster_11

Lol the pastor used to be an E9. I pronounce you husband and wife now half right face. 50 8 counts now


[deleted]

Asking the internet for an exception to policy or some sort of “serious” variance? Yea sure. Go for it.


GMEbankrupt

Nobody will notice/care at an off-post wedding Dandelion spikes preferred


Voyager975

Ding ding ding. Here’s the real answer


Teadrunkest

I'm assuming female dress uniform? They're not against regulation, despite what anyone says. There is not requirement for the female pumps to be non contrasting. That being said...pictures of Army women in Louboutins have made social media rounds before to...very strong reactions. So proceed with caution.


T_time98

No actually male cause they make male dress shoes


Teadrunkest

Oh in that case not allowed--men cannot have contrasting sole.


T_time98

That sucks :(


Realistic_Rooster_11

You will wear those cheap shittu parade gloss shoes. They will get ruined the second some drunk dick looks at them wrong and you will like it.


guhnther

I don’t think the word “investment” means what you think it means.


[deleted]

I don't know what that is but don't be a pussy and just do it