But women have played their part here, too, by going along with the myth that heels are, in all contexts, in all respects "sexier". Yes, they elongate your legs. Break out the flipping bunting.

But unless you are trying to catch the eye of a woofing Sloane or a garrumphing oaf, surely most men would be more taken with a lady whose legs might be a few inches shorter but is able to dance, as you promise, "a lot" to one who has the limbs of Elle MacPherson but spends the whole of the long-planned night looking sulky because she can't find a chair. Maybe I'm a bit of a kinky pervert, but I find an ability to talk and smile, perhaps even simultaneously, a little attractive. I know - wild.

As for the trainers and minidress question, I heartily approve. You get the sexiness factor from the short dress but cancel out potential Wag-ishness with the trainers. I'm a bit unsure about all the matchy-matchiness you'll have going on, though.

Does one really need to coordinate one's trainers with one's dress, post 1953? I recommend either a different-coloured pair of trainers or any other flats. Either option will give you a nice bounce on the dance floor.

And they will be ever so useful for kicking folk out of the way en route to another watermelon-flavoured Bacardi Breezer. Classy, in other words. My sister, 31, likes to wear pink cardigans with poodle skirts.

She says she is being "original" and "ironic". Is she right?