Puffer

Frozen fingers on the keyboard, Freddy? I'm glad that my south coat is securely zipped in this weather. Perhaps I need a sou'wester too? That'll do for now ...

Deep snow built up here yesterday - about 5" originally but a bit more on top overnight. (Ideal weather for thigh boots with 5"+ heels!) Bright sun this morning and not quite such a low temperature, so a partial thaw seems to be under way - but with high risk of re-freezing and more snow later. I doubt if I will venture out by car before Friday; local shopping etc quite easy on foot. Fingers crossed for milder weather from the weekend. In fact, an hour after writing the above, the thaw had progressed sufficiently for me to make a necessary car journey within the town - a little slippery in my own road but fine on the main roads. But I'm expecting more snow etc overnight.

I believe your skin looks green to most people!

Indeed. I was familiar with the song, which is well-known, but as the use of the word 'tramp' as a somewhat pejorative female label is (or was) quite widespread - think 1940s/50s 'gangster' films - I am still a little surprised that it should convey a good image for a perfume, at least in the US. Tell an American woman that she looks (or smells) like a tramp and wait for the reaction!

I'm sure you're right about the 'Tramp' derivation - but, applied to a woman, the term surely has sleazy undertones in the US? If so, I suppose the implied naughtiness provides the attraction - but I can't see a UK equivalent (e.g. 'Tart', 'Slut') being too popular!

Likewise. I can never identify particular perfumes, and some I find to be unpleasant. I've no idea what perfume my wife favours (possibly Eau de Lidl?) but my ex-wife used to like one called 'Tramp'. To my surprise, it was quite sniffable - and did not smell like a mixture of vomit and meths as the name suggests. (I suppose the US version would be called 'Bum' - suggesting other scents entirely.)

Wearing those heels would certainly knock you over!

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.

Shyheels: I'm not quite sure why you need to make that point to me; I haven't suggested otherwise and agree that 'heels' (simpliciter) are not exclusive to any one gender, and never have been. Of course, we all understand that most footwear has a heel of some sort, and that some men's footwear has a higher-than-usual heel and is quite acceptable, if not always liked. But when a man wears footwear of a style or construction that is intended for, or most usually worn by, women - regardless of the heel type or height - he is imho 'crossdressing'. A three-inch cuban or cowboy heel is acceptably masculine; its four-inch equivalent is arguably not. A two-inch kitten/stiletto is not masculine either. And history, although providing some useful precedent, is not relevant as we are really discussing and promoting what is currently (or recently) acceptable for men to wear - or may/should become so in the foreseeable future. Heels are not the issue here - high heels (however one defines them) are. They are not in the same league as ties, which have never ceased to be unisex and are in any event scarcely controversial as items of clothing or adornment. Having recently embraced 'proper' high heels within your wardrobe, are you now going to start a well-overdue tie collection?

I think you state the position well. I have occasionally seen threads or posts on HHP that I'm uncomfortable with, but very rarely to a degree that I consider merit a 'report'. I guess that there are some others that I miss or which are removed before I ever see them, so no harm done there. I hope however that Tech (if he sees this) will consider carefully what 'CD/TV/TG' matters really do need to be restricted or banned (on HHP or H4M) as I must again emphasise that, if men wearing or discussing female footwear is considered to be (mild) crossdressing (as I firmly believe it is), then any attempt to ban 'crossdressing' as a whole must lead to the boards becoming almost totally sterile - which is clearly not intended! It is clearly very difficult to put forward a workable rule that admits with certainty what is truly acceptable and prohibits what is not - but let us hope that a warning about overt exhibitionism and deviancy will suffice.

We do appear to be going round in circles to some extent. I emphasise these points: 1. There is a difference (already outlined) between CD and TV - essentially an intention (or not) to 'pass'. 2. Any wearing of another gender's clothing is crossdressing, however innocuous. The fact that it may pass without notice or condemnation is irrelevant. 3. Ties were once commonly worn by women and have never become wholly male wear; they are often still part of 'uniform'. Contrariwise, trousers, work boots etc (once wholly male wear) have become unisex. I cannot consider wearing of any of these to be CD - but a man in a skirt (outside Scotland, Fiji etc) or a woman in a DJ would be. 4. The 'stigma' attached to the TV category (esp in US) may well have a fetish/sex origin as well as a specific medico-legal one. The term's connotations may be understandably unpleasant to those whose dressing (or dressing and passing attempts) do not involve third parties, deviant exhibitionism etc, hence the preference for the weasel-term CD, despite its (to my mind) distinction - see 1 above. 5. I understand the 'blue trees' argument in this or any other debate. But the fact that 99% of a group may see something in a particular, if incorrect or misunderstood, light does NOT per se make them definitively 'right' - only popularly right. If a tree truly (scientifically/optically) is clearly green, then it doesn't matter how many people think it is blue - they are wrong, however numerous and exalted may be their company. There are far too many people in this world who, through ignorance (which is likely to be nothing more than limited knowledge, not a matter of a lack of intellect) firmly believe in concepts, facts, values and words that are demonstrably dubious, if not totally wrong. (The many IS supporters believe passionately in their cause - but few others would consider it 'right'.) We need to educate, not simply to accept the results of it lacking amongst the great unwashed. 6. My wife considers (rightly) that a man wearing just women's footwear is crossdressing (and, in her view, quite possibly indicative of homosexual desires) - but she also recognises that more (i.e. an attempt at passing) is necessary to become a TV. She considers Izzard as a CD, as he clearly is, although he (wrongly) calls himself a TV.

Oh dear! Things are getting a little frantic, albeit still polite. I cannot agree with Shyheels that a crossdresser has to do something more than just wear footwear that relates to the opposite gender; as a matter of semantics, wearing any 'alien' item is by definition crossdressing, however mild and innocuous the act and resultant appearance. And when it goes further to include a thorough attempt to pass as a woman, it becomes transvestism - in my glossary anyway. (Are any of us actually disagreeing that CD and TV are not synonymous - however much the public thinks otherwise?) Although it might be debated, this Wiki entry is interesting: 'The word [transvestism] has undergone several changes of meaning since it was first coined and is still used in a variety of senses. Today, the term transvestite is commonly considered outdated and derogatory, with the term cross-dresser used as a more appropriate replacement. This is because the term transvestite was historically used to diagnose medical disorders, including mental health disorders, and transvestism was viewed as a disorder, but the term cross-dresser was coined by the transgender community. In some cases, however, the term transvestite is seen as more appropriate for use by members of the transgender community instead of by those outside of the transgender community, and some have reclaimed the word.' To my mind, this indicates that sensitivity (almost certainly US-driven) has encouraged the use of 'crossdresser' (which term already existed in much the same sense as I have been using it) to embrace what is more correctly 'transvestite' behaviour, because of the alleged medical connotation of being a TV. Perhaps a dose of reality is needed here - it could be argued that dressing and attempting to pass as a woman is a medical disorder, however mild, (no criticism implied) and therefore the TV label is entirely correct, however discomforting that may feel to some, leaving the CD label for those who simply wear some female items. As to the 'challenge', it could be interesting and I am prepared to act as honest broker, stakeholder and referee if you both wish! But I have to say that I think it likely that Freddy will win, as the TV label is the better known (at least in the UK) and the more likely to be applied off the cuff by vox populi, however wrongly. That said, I do think that if the difference between CD and TV was explained in simple terms to Joe/Joanne Public, he or she (or it!) would then tend to apply the CD label to Freddy (in thigh boots), Eddie Izzard (who wrongly styles himself as a TV), etc. (But quite possibly not to Grayson Perry, who although he looks like a clown, gives the distinct impression of wanting to pass as a woman, however outlandish, and is therefore a TV.) Perhaps the challenge should be in two parts: (i) an immediate reaction; (ii) a second chance after a brief explanation. As a post-script, when Mrs P tackled me a few months ago about my women's boots, she accused me of being a 'crossdresser'. In the strictest sense, I was one when wearing the boots, but I had to deny it because she clearly had the notion that a CD indulged in much more than that, by dressing more thoroughly in female clothing - and cited Eddie Izzard as an example (who 'disgusts' her). But, interestingly, she seemed to recognise that a TV did more than just dress, and I wasn't accused of that.

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.

... and for much longer if you've been a bad boy, naturally!

Quite apart from the apparent reluctance of the small number of women members on HHP to post much at all these days, the CD element (such as it ever was) has been suppressed to a large extent in the last couple of years - and the board is supposed to eschew overt CD conduct. Although there are a number of men who dress in women's clothes (not just shoes) and wear make-up etc - to varying effect - they do so (allegedly) as 'men in women's clothing' rather than intentional CDs - and largely get away with it. A couple of long-term members have however been reprimanded or kicked-out, or have 'resigned' because they went too far in the CD activity, i.e. wearing a bra and/or breast-forms. I hold no brief for them either way, but HHP is emphatically not a CD site and, whilst they are free to do their own thing, some of the antics and images are decidedly discomforting to many of us, of whatever gender! Indeed, I find their public lifestyle close to fetishism in many respects - yet, if they are being truly honest, they seem to be accepted with reactions ranging from complete indifference through mild curiosity to positive appreciation, e.g. being complimented by men or women and asked about their clothing/shoes.

I left that one out for you to mention - although a rather 'Hackneyed' comment. Beau Thai runs a takeaway, I'm told.

His modern-day counterpart is 'Beau Nidle'. I've met several who would qualify for that epithet. I do not, but 'Beau Legs' might (alas ) be apt - a slight characteristic of which I only became aware when wearing my highest heels.

I always feel uneasy when I see a woman wearing a man's formal evening suit, or in top hat and tails. It is such an obvious theft of a very male outfit, even if modified - just about the only thing a man can wear to a formal function - yet the 'fair sex' wears it in preference to the sort of very feminine and elegant dress that no man could ever appear in without ridicule! And the suggestion of cross-dressing or lesbian lifestyle that underlies the woman in such an outfit (think Marlene Dietrich) can be discomforting - perhaps the more so when we know that we men cannot reciprocate even if we wish to. OK, I can agree that a woman dressed thus (with or without some contrasting but very feminine footwear) can look attractive as well as elegant - but it is still masquerade if not piracy in my book.

By a 'small gift', I mean something like a modest packet of sweets or chocs, or an item that might be both useful and personal - such as a pen or a tool. If there is an amusing aspect to it (e.g. a wooden spoon! ), so much the better. This year, as it happens, I spied a small framed print in a charity shop window which I knew Mrs P would like so she got that - and she was indeed pleased with it. (She gave me some chocs - I usually get fudge!) Cards are invariably either too soppy or over-priced (or both), but the Card Factory came up with one that was both apposite and just about affordable (99p), so she got that. Who says romance is dead? (Ailing, perhaps, but not yet deceased.)

As I loathe crowded places, pretentious restaurants and being ripped-off, Valentine's Day is a non-event for me as far as going out is concerned. Likewise giving flowers. The event is essentially for the unmarried (or for those enjoying whatever status is a marital substitute in these enlightened times) but generally survives the ceremony and becomes an established, if rather hackneyed, tradition. However, presentation of a small gift, with a card bearing a genuine (and ideally witty) message, is expected and should be appreciated - and reciprocated.

... and the stock market continues to fall ...

But you have long-johns, leggings and hold-ups on underneath your (ancient) work trousers, surely? White stilettos would be ideal if that dust is settling.

I have two or three jumpers and a few shirts that have been valued 'workmates' for well over 30 years and refuse to die completely. Ideal for dirty or rough work where a few more splashes or rips hardly matter. Trousers don't last as long; the left knee in particular is prone to developing holes through kneeling, although Mrs P is a dab hand at sewing on patches. A decent pair of jeans gets relegated to DIY tasks after a decade or so, with its holes or rips progressively darned or patched until, alas, it has to be turned into a pair of shorts - with the cut-off material retained for patching its successors. Zips don't always last either; my current favourite working trousers developed a frontal fault last week and had to go in for emergency zip replacement on Sunday - 96p well spent (especially as it was 20% off day at the haberdashery)! The Irishman's knife comes to mind ...

Indeed. Cold again this morning but bright, clear and no snow. Perhaps the ideal is to stay indoors - in long boots, leggings etc. (And I suspect that Shyheels and Freddy are both conforming already. )

I agree with SH. Any boots or other footwear is a topic to remain firmly in this forum. Anything else has negligible interest for me - but I think it would be unfortunate if jeans, leggings, stockings etc could not be addressed at all here in future, when supplementary to footwear discussion.