Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 01/25/2018 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    I always much prefer natural light. If you’ve got a reflector you ought to be fine. Won’t be much you can’t do.
  2. 1 point
    Wearing those heels would certainly knock you over!
  3. 1 point
    Shyheels: I regret to say that I consider your response concerning my 'CD rules' inappropriate and borderline offensive. I really do not understand why you should apparently take such exception to my attempts to state a reasoned case concerning what constitutes CD conduct. I and another have already said that we consider a man wearing female footwear to be a CD. (I do not like that label, but have to accept that Joe Public would probably apply it, assuming that he had a reasonable understanding of what a CD is.) You refute that but have neither offered any definition of CD conduct nor suggested at what point, if any, a man wearing 'high heels' does become a CD. I should be interested to know your views. I fully accept that the examples I provided of footwear that is 'acceptably masculine' are necessarily subjective and indicative, not absolute, but here again they are what I feel reasonably represent public perception, however bigoted. And I agree that a bloke in full Western gear which includes cowboy boots in a men's style but with a (very) high heel is not ipso facto a CD - as you or I would understand it - but he would still likely raise eyebrows (and speculative comment) on account of his footwear. Change the heels to stilettos and there is then arguably a CD, however tough and rugged he otherwise appears. As to 'ties', I also accept that, in the workplace clothing scenarios, wearing a tie is commonly held to be a key requirement for men just as wearing high heels may be for women - and the comparison is often made accordingly. But those issues do not concern the gender-specificity of either item and in any event they do not have opposing polarities for all purposes as you seem to suggest. Ties are sometimes worn by women in the workplace (in a non-uniform context) and attract little or no adverse comment, and not just because women can get away with wearing almost anything. (I used to have a very attractive female colleague who quite often wore a tie, and looked good in it too!) The same is not true of high heels on men - I really don't need to suggest the likely reaction if a man goes into work in any footwear with other than a very modest and masculine-styled heel, do I? Ties are not specifically masculine, any more than trousers have been for a century or so - and there are many workplaces/schools which dictate that women either must or must not wear trousers, whilst men are very rarely allowed or expected to wear anything else. I have no wish to continue fruitless debate, and certainly not in any acrimonious manner. But I do think there is room for further reasoned and positive comment on what is an interesting and pretty fundamental issue.
  4. 1 point
    (Very well put sir!) This is my fundamental point. The other being, I do not make the "labelling" rules, the rest of the world does. If THEY call it green, it's green. If THEY called it TV, it's TV. No intellectualization of (what amounts to) self-delusion on my part, (denial) or on the part of anyone else is going to change that. The only way change will be brought in their mindset is by a regime of wider education to the desires of those who might be interested in the change of their views on pigeon-holing men wearing a heel. My belief is this has to be done under the umbrella of diversification. a.k.a. An increase in potential categorisation, which might include 'freestyle', 'cross-dressing' (neither of which ought to be considered having a sexual context) as well as the large current single pigeon hole of transvestism, which isn't without (justified or otherwise) a sexual connotation. But if I can't convince, if "we" can't convince one of our own members there is differentiation, I, "we" have no chance whatsoever of changing the mindset of those who have no experience (of us) and no interest in changing their mindset. We condemn ourselves to the status quo: men who wear heels are "transvestites". I will not respond further either.
  5. 1 point
    We exchanged cards on Valentines Day, and my wife said she hadn't bought me chocolate because she knew I wasn't eating it at the moment (dieting!). I said I hadn't bought her flowers because I knew she wasn't eating them at the moment. For some reason she put that up on Facebook.
  6. 1 point
    I've just caught up with the recent posts - some interesting stuff there and much material for detailed academic debate - which I will not attempt. Suffice it to say that, as always with definitions, the devil lies in the detail. I agree with the categorisation that Freddy has suggested, i.e. that CD = wearing one or more items of clothing/footwear traditionally/conventionally not worn by one's own gender, but without any serious attempt to pass as the other gender; TV = a conscious effort (clothes, make-up, overall appearance/conduct) to pass as the other gender. I do think that the confusion between these distinct categories (especially in the US) clouds the issue significantly. As to 'androgeny', this seems to me a somewhat unnecessary further term, as it merely describes a CD who mixes and matches clothes for both (all?) genders - which is surely what most CDs do anyway? And we need not concern ourselves further with anything TS; that is concerned primarily with the physiological change of gender, independently of clothing etc. As Freddy says, I have seen (historic) photos of him dressed 'en femme' - and very attractive and passable he looked too! In essence, clear TV activity - but, by his own admission, he went out thus primarily because he wanted to wear heels and felt (then) that his only recourse was to go the whole hog and become, in overall appearance, a passable woman who could legitimately wear heels in public. So, in my book he was really an 'advanced CD' in that his agenda was really to wear female shoes and some other items because he liked the items, and not to masquerade as a woman, although of course he achieved that incidentally. No doubt he will correct me if I have misunderstood his motivation. I agree too with the general analysis of HHP and its clientele. Adopting my definitions above, I suggest that, although HHP isn't - and shouldn't be - a TV forum, it does of necessity embrace the activity of a significant number of male CDs - ranging from those who simply like to wear women's footwear, perhaps only in private and occasionally (the great majority of the members), to those who add selected stockings, skirts, make-up etc and thereby achieve a more uniformly female look without consciously attempting to 'pass' as female, i.e. they are not truly TVs. If I am right, then HHP cannot exclude CD discussion but can (and should) draw the line at anything overtly TV. The problem comes back to the CD/TV confusion, if only in terminology, and perhaps this should be addressed, given that HHP is based in the UK and ought to adopt UK rather than US conventions. I for one find interesting posts on HHP but have no personal interest or desire to go further down the CD road than some women's footwear might take me! And H4M caters well for that, or would do if it was better supported.
  7. 1 point
    ... and for much longer if you've been a bad boy, naturally!
  8. 1 point
    Well, Jeremy, I hope you've enjoyed the welcome and the plethora of posts your entrance has generated! It is quieter in here simply because there are fewer members. There are just a handful of regular contributors here, but of course the site only thrives if we contribute! So please continue to post. I've never understood the perceived difference between transvestite and cross-dresser, as etymologically they mean exactly the same thing. However, according to those differences, I see myself very definitely as a cross-dresser - I've never been into the pretend female look although I experimented with it simply as seeing it as a means of wearing heels publicly with no stigma so long as I wasn't 'read'. I'm with Freddy on this! The cross-dressing desire has receded with me, as it was always the shoes that were the attraction, and I now wear them regularly in public, under long trousers. Also, my wife accepts that, while she hates me dressing in stockings, skirt, etc. The heels can fulfil some medical requirement (backache in flat shoes, no backache in heels), but other things are just feminising in her view, and I certainly wouldn't wear them in public unless it was to a specific event like a drag do, but then we're not party animals anyway.
  9. 1 point
    Indeed it is, I'm afraid. One tries to generate conversation but there are only a couple of us here who could be said to be active posters. Others come and go at great intervals. It would be great to get this forum up and going. it has a nice premise - guys who like to wear heels, as guys. Please do stay and post!
  10. 1 point
    Hello and welcome! Any help keeping the place 'lively', always a great addition.
  11. 1 point
    Welcome! I've enjoyed your posts from HHP. Looking forward to your joining in!
  12. 1 point
    Yes, women are allowed a great deal of theatricality in dress, men are allowed precisely none.
  13. 1 point
    I have the subscription based Lightroom and resent it. I do not like the whole concept at all, and on many fronts. Unfortunately, in my circumstances, I need it - I will happily drop it when something as good comes along. Adobe has made no friends with me with its move to the subscription based marketing platform. Gla to hear you found your files!
  14. 1 point
    I'm not sure what sort of image quality you are after but as far as resolution goes, 16MB should be ample. Other characteristics - eg: shadow details, noise - will depend upon sensor technology, quality and size - both of the pixels and of the sensor itself. RAW simply gives you an opportunity to, essentially, retake the shot since it stores all of the data collected at the instant of shutter release and gives it to you to manipulate at your leisure. And no, your 15 year old software will most certainly not recognise RAW files from modern cameras. RAW files vary not only from camera maker to camera maker but between models as well which is why there are constant updates to Lightroom so it can recognise the latest RAW files from the latest model cameras. Taking pictures in RAW is just sensible. Why discard all that lovely usable data just to save space on your card? Gigabytes are cheap. Keep the data and use it if you need to 'retake' the shot to get light, shadow, white balance correct. Your Nikkor 1.4 portrait lens should do the job nicely.
  15. 1 point
    I vaguely remember Dick van Dyke in a film where he played all the central characters, and one of their strap lines was; "hard work never killed anyone" but it did to his character in the film. I sometimes wonder what that film was called. Quite amusing as I remember. I may have recalled that slightly in error. I think this might be it: The whole trailer is a distraction with those legs, but one of her outfits ..... Red PVC. (1m 20 sec in.)
  16. 1 point
    I agree entirely! Platforms (or even just a thick sole) do nothing to improve the look of any footwear, especially when the platform is clearly an 'add-on', often of a different size/shape to the 'normal' sole and upper. The fastest way to destroy the elegance of what would otherwise be a stylish shoe is to add a platform, regardless of heel height.
  17. 1 point
    Don’t I know it! It has been a wonderful, companionable week.
  18. 1 point
  19. 1 point
    When the two closest members of our family visit, I have to be a bit careful about what shoes I leave lying around. I don't always find every pair, but so far, no-one has asked any potentially awkward questions .... It's even worse when the grandson stays, because like most young people, he wants to know everything about everything... Not only do all my shoes/boots have to be hidden, some stacks have to be disguised too. It's a PITA. Today, we three went to London to take a look at the Christmas lights in the West End. It might have been 'four of us' but his mum had things to do at home. I had already decided I would wear my very passable cowboy boots. They have a 4 inch heel, fairly slim shaft, and come up to just under my knee. There is decorative stitching over the toe box, and they are a bit 'pointy'. They look like a mans boot, right up until you see how high and slim the shaft is. While preparing to go out, I walked past everyone several times wearing the boots. This afternoon/evening, I spent 5 hours walking around with my grandson and Mrs Freddy. So far, not a single comment. I'm hoping there might be some remark, to draw out any feelings about them (good or bad) but I wouldn't be surprised if no-one noticed or dismissed my choice of footwear as "me being me". (ie. Eccentric.) I'm not expecting to be judged, nor do I want to encourage false enthusiasm, but it would be nice if I didn't feel so compelled to 'hide' my interest from those so close to me. I'm probably not alone with that sentiment?
  20. 1 point
    Did a screen-grab in case the original disappears. Loved the comment; "What I seen in tesco Aylesbury an the fact he walked better in them heels then most girls made me laugh more." She's not going to win any literacy awards with spelling and grammar of a 7 year old, but the message is clear enough.
  21. 1 point
    Spotted him again today. 4:30pm, there he was queuing at the checkout in Morrisons. Same black/dark clothing as before. This time the heels were black suede platform boots. Slim heel & very high. I wouldn't mind a pair of those myself. :-D Heels openly on show to everyone and the bloke was clearly enjoying wearing them, strutting about, as he was on the hard flooring. I stood right next to him at the next checkout. Did I speak to him? Nope, this is my hometown & some decorum needed to be kept, which wouldn't have been easy were I to start discussing a mutual interest in heeling with a large Asian bloke in a supermarket in the middle of the afternoon. I need to encounter him in the pub to have any sort of conversation with him. I'm expecting him to become a frequent sight around town anyway.