Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/17/2018 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Hardy? Yes - as in 'Laurel & Hardy' - but stupid rather than plain funny.
  2. 1 point
    Not at all - I went out without my woolly hat yesterday.
  3. 1 point
    I can certainly see your point - both as to the extra work it would take to clean up threads that had strayed too far and for too log, and for not wanting the forums to pop up on search results for CD/TV topics. I shall bear that in mind and act accordingly! Better safe than sorry Cheers!
  4. 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.
  5. 1 point
    Wearing those heels would certainly knock you over!
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 1 point
    ... and for much longer if you've been a bad boy, naturally!
  9. 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.
  10. 1 point
    Welcome! I've enjoyed your posts from HHP. Looking forward to your joining in!
  11. 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!
  12. 1 point
    Careful, my friends. What happens in the bedroom should STAY in the bedroom. ;-)
  13. 1 point
    Ditto, Pointyboot. I like high heeled boots too and would similarity like a pair of those. Alas I am quite sure they do not make them in my size, although of course if I had the kind of money she had I would simply have them made and be done with it. But those are very stylish boots. I covet...
  14. 1 point
    First of all, these legs belong to Victoria Beckham, who always seems to tip around in the highest heels possible. Pretty sure these are Louboutins, and once again, if they would make them in my size, I would make it my goal to own a pair. You all have probably figured out by now that I LOVE high heeled boots. Guilty pleasure....
  15. 1 point
    Furtiveness is never a good look...
  16. 1 point
    She does indeed sound like a keeper. Everybody would like to have the body they had in their twenties (although I would much rather have the maturity and wisdom I have now!) We all age...alas We bring our memories and experiences - and how nice its is to have someone there who knew just how it was way back when...
  17. 1 point
    With Office copies of Hot Chick (on left) called Hampton. (Now out of stock.)
  18. 1 point
    The sometimes anarchic kid's programme 'Tiswas' (on ITV 1977 - 82) was hosted by one Sally James, who quite often wore OTK boots on it. I believe she (and her boots) gained quite a following, and postbag, from randy adolescents. (No - I wasn't one of them; she is only a year younger than me.) Here she is - and there is at least one video online too at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joWDBSNButM
  19. 1 point
    I completely understand. If I owned a pair like these, they'd never be off my feet, unless I was bathing or under the shower. Sadly, no longer available, which is just as well at £1100 a pair.
  20. 1 point
    Haha! So now find me some elegant block heels if you can't come up with wedges! These are the only others I have, but my wife doesn't like these either. The heels are 4 inches, but you can see they're narrower.
  21. 1 point
    I think I have seen this seller on an auction site. At the time, he/she was selling some Loubies with 130mm heels. I might have kept a picture of them, though I can't remember the name of the style. I also remember the price being in the £600 range too. I thought they would never sell, but I think they did, maybe off auction perhaps? I have tried the Pigalle in a 41.5 before the 'designer' brands got their own caves at Selfridges. (I might have mentioned it on HHp). I had watched someone walk along and video the shoes there, and thought, 'no-one cares', so I just walked over and slipped the shoe on. To my surprise, my foot fitted the shoe-ish. When I went to move my foot, the shoe fell off! Not that there was much room in the toe box for toes .... Looking for the image above, I find I was mistaken about the price, it was £800. The style is called Hot Chick. The shoes in the picture are supposed to be an EU40. I would have put them at higher than 130mm, unless this is a stock photo of a smaller size? They look to be almost impossible to walk in, and certainly unlikely of anyone over say ... 28 years, 30 at a push? Past that, you'd have to be a gymnast or ballerina to be supple enough to walk in them. If you like pink .....
  22. 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?
  23. 1 point
    Well a week ago I sorta came out to an old girlfriend of many years ago. I was sitting on the floor and when I got up he saw the heel and said am I wearing cowboy boots and are they for line dancing? I pulled up my jeans and showed her these oxfords from payless US. She said that I don’t have to roll up my pants warring those. So that night I sent her this in an e mail. Did I freak you out with my Heels? I like them there fun and look good. Why should girls have all the fun? I always liked when you wore them looked fun So I decided a while ago why not so under jeans ok Your weird friend Her response was this They are cool and different. Like you say why not?!?! Oh and don't start wearing them with a dress, kilt, skirt, etc. because then I WILL disown you. My response was Ok no skirts I don’t think this is a problem our friendship is a funny one and different These are the shoes she saw
  24. 1 point
    These are my great Cole Haan poppy bit boots Haven't been out with the skinny jeans but nice with boot cut jeans also with just enough showing and not dragging the jeans on the ground .
  25. 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.