Puffer

I quite agree. The sandals are positively orthopaedic.

I assume you will require a full refund - or open a dispute?

That would be rather extreme - this is more restrained:

In your previous post, you referred to No. 1 grandson and (later) No. 2 grandson. Presumably the latter was a typo! I only have one grandson (so far) and he is 15 months! So, a little young to be interested in shoes of any type, but his mum does have a few pairs of heels so he may grow up in the right way ...! His dad (my son) is not so inclined and as, like me, he is a UK11 or 12, he has a disadvantage there anyway.

Nice boots, Russ. I suggest that, to invite conversation, you also wear a red nose, or a revolving bow-tie - or anything else unusual.

How old are the grandsons, Freddy? And does either of them actually know of (or suspect) your 'wearing activity/interest'?

And I thought it was 'acute' comment. Sulk ...

No it isn’t – my head is 7 1/8". (If the cap fits ...)

Don't you mean 'sighs'? In which case, my response would be 'number 10 - or 5mm'.

... if the countersink wasn't deep enough for his whole head.

Not on my part; the info came from Martin Lewis on TV last night. He was announcing (or predicting) all the pre-Christmas discounts and sales; this was just one of many. (Does one buy KG shoes across a Geiger Counter??)

For what it is worth, it seems likely that Kurt Geiger will be offering worthwhile discounts from 14 December or thereabouts. Happy hunting!

The answer rather depends on the identity of 'that person'. But I can say is that this person has an affinity with a saint closely connected with the festive season.

Alas, the opposite is often not true, e.g. when hubby takes a cake or biscuit from a crowded plate in a deserted room and the missus spots this discrepancy immediately she enters. And if a 50p coin is 'borrowed' from her unattended purse ...

Oh dear! Those Office shoes look as though someone has attached a plank to the toe of a loafer and then bent it up at the heel to force in a mis-matching wedge. I like loafers but these are too fussy in front and too ugly and clumpy from the side - almost orthopaedic.

I believe that Americans generally refer to one-cent coins as 'pennies' - but where did that come from if it wasn't good ole England?

I have little interest in US politics or the circus that surrounds the election process but today's news of Donald J. Trump as President-elect is, at the very least, a worrying development. And, speaking of 'circus', the following seems apt (with apologies to 'Nellie the Elephant'): Hill’ry the Candidate packed her trunk And said goodbye to the voters Off she went - with a new President: Trump, Trump, Trump.

Patently obvious!

Nice boots. Would you wear them (with or without spousal approval) exposed under trousers like that, or more concealed by longer leg?

More precisely (but without going into enormous detail), 'transvestism' is a word invented (in Germany) c1910 to mean the practice of dressing and behaving as if of the opposite sex for fetishistic or sexual reasons. It does indeed come from Latin and has the literal meaning of 'across dressing' (i.e. dressing across the division between the sexes) - or, more simply, 'cross-dressing' (as we would commonly understand that concept). And from this is derived 'transvestite' - a person who engages in transvestism. As the literal meaning of transvestism did not, perhaps unfortunately, mention the implicit sexual/fetishistic element, the more precise 'transvestic fetishism' became preferred by some for that reason. This in turn produced all sorts of confusion and prejudice over the years regarding the correct or acceptable use of transvestism/transvestite etc, particularly when conduct was (in my words) at the more extreme ends of the spectrum, i.e. involving either (a) the additional desire to change sex; or (b) little more than the wearing of some opposite-sex clothing (without the associated behavioural or sexual element). Those in (a) became more usually identified as being 'transgender' or 'transexual' - terms and concepts with which we are not further concerned in this discussion. Those in (b), wishing to dissociate themselves from the essentially sexual overtones of transvestism, coined the straightforward English term 'cross-dressing' to describe their milder conduct. The fact that it has the same English wording as the literal meaning of 'transvestism' is unfortunate and the cause of much of our current confusion, but it has a different derivation and meaning, intentionally so. Why 'transvestite' should be considered by some a derogatory term, I do not know (or care). It has its place if properly used to mean a cross-dresser whose conduct has sexual/fetishistic overtones, as distinct from the 'plain' cross-dresser who merely wears opposite-sex clothing. And I consider that distinction useful, with or without the even lower-level concept of 'free-styling' (or the more precise 'freestyle-dressing' if preferred). Let's just remember that 'transvestism' is the original and potentially all-embracing term but which is now considered too extreme for those preferring to engage in activity that less intense and has little or no sexual element.

Oh dear! And I thought that FF and I were 'debating' ('arguing') these issues perfectly rationally and politely - which I know he agrees is so. The word 'argument' does not in itself imply belligerence, antagonism or rudeness; it is simply the advancing of views and, if necessary, the rebuttal of others' views. A debate is an 'argument' - as is the reasoned case put forward in legal proceedings (in court or otherwise) by which one tries to convince an opponent, or judge. Colloquially, an 'argument' often means a heated disagreement, possibly with physical violence, but that is not the primary meaning. I should be interested to know from Russ the etymology of both 'transvestite' and 'crossdresser'. I don't think he means 'etymology', i.e. the derivation of a word and its possibly changing meanings over time. Clearly, both words have a very different root. ('Crimson' and 'carmine' are very similar shades of red - identical to many people - but have totally different etymologies.) Yes, in common perception TV and CD mean more or less the same (or indeed exactly the same) but that is a view born out of ignorance (rather than proven by reasoned 'argument'), as both FF and I have been trying to demonstrate, uphill task though it may be. To repeat (briefly) in terms of the male gender: a TV aspires to be a woman in clothing, appearance and behaviour (whilst remaining a genetic male); the CD merely wears (some) female clothing but without trying actively to 'pass'. A useful and valid distinction, surely, even if a believer may be accused of seeing his leaves as blue ... or maybe as crimson ...?

A heel meet is something of an unknown quantity, regardless of location. Unless each member has a fairly good idea of who else will be there, and their characteristics, there may be at best some awkwardness and at worst significant embarrassment when they get together. OK, there may be safety in numbers (and anyone 'shocked' could slip away fairly easily) but I for one will not travel far on a purely speculative venture unless I feel fairly happy with what I expect to find. I'm not really looking for active public socialisation with a group of heel-wearing men (let alone obvious CDs/TVs) although quite happy to meet individuals 'by arrangement' at a suitable venue if I feel we have enough in common for a pleasant chat, not necessarily just about heels but not excluding that (or wearing same) either. For the record, I am south of but within 40 miles of central London but don't consider that to be the ideal venue - too crowded, too expensive and not always welcoming.

We are really singing from the same hymn sheet, albeit with slightly different words! I had hoped that my attempts to address things logically would not lead to any misunderstanding, apparently they have. I emphasise that I am tackling things from what I believe to be a British medical/academic stance; I'm not concerned with perceived PC or American prejudices, sensitivities or connotations - we can well do without them. I accept that transvestism is the preferred all-embracing term - we can all use it if we wish whenever we adopt one or more other-gender garments. But, for most purposes, it is too wide (or too extreme) in its generally understood form and both of us have identified useful sub-divisions. They do not amount to (full) transvestism but are on the road towards it, if desired. So, someone may start as a 'Freestyler' (the exact term itself doesn't matter), move on to being a crossdresser and thence to a TV - or of course either stay put or directly adopt a 'higher' activity from the outset. As an analogy, if I have a Grade 3 piano certificate, I have already been through Grades 1 and 2. The reverse is not true (in my terminology): a FS is not a CD and a CD is not a TV. And the difference between a FS and a CD may well be slight and purely in the subject's own mind - I wear this garment primarily because I like it (FS) or I wear it primarily because it is 'other gender' (CD). Only if I wear it as part of an intentional and co-ordinated attempt to pass as the other gender am I a TV. You decide. I don't accept 'Drag' as a necessary separate category; I stick at the three above. I consider Drag to be transvestism - but where (intentionally or not), the subject is a caricature or at least unconvincing. The late Danny La Rue, for example, could quite easily have been accepted in public as a convincing transvestite but (with rare exceptions) chose to be a drag entertainer, albeit still of very convincing appearance. Conversely, the Two Ronnies often dressed/acted as women but, although clearly then transvestites, never attempted to 'pass' as it was again drag entertainment. And we can all think of other examples of Freestylers or CDs who fall short of being true TVs. I rest my case.

We are agreed that a CD is not the same as a TV, despite crude public perception that they are one and the same. We may differ on the degree of separation or that they are not mutually exclusive; that doesn't matter too much. But I maintain that a TV, in wearing the other gender's clothing, is necessarily a crossdresser who takes the idea further in a co-ordinated overall look and presenting as a woman. And a man wearing a dress (but otherwise in male clothing and of male appearance) is a Freestyler who is only a degree or two away from being a CD, but not a TV. (I'm not sure where I am supposed to have identified a fourth group, or what it is. Unless you count 'conventional male (or female)' as being the first of four.) By my definitions, you are currently an admitted Freestyler, possibly verging on being a crossdresser. You have been, historically and temporarily, an admitted TV. Your own definitions may label you otherwise. I accept that the Freestyler label may be open to some misunderstanding but it is simple and carries no dubious overtones. I did not invent it and its origin and usage seems to be seated in the US - which is not a country known for the precision and clarity of its thought or language. As you say, we can agree to disagree on any or all of this for the good reasons we have respectively advanced.

Freddy - I don't want to get into a lengthy debate (let alone any noisy argument) about something that is primarily of academic interest here! But you started the discussion and, although I agreed with almost all you originally said (if expressed by you and understood by me as you intended), you now seem to be changing your stance and not answering my points. Please say whether you do (now) in fact regard CD and TV conduct as effectively the same thing. And, if so, why the distinctions I drew are of little substance, or indeed wrong. As to a teddy, stockings, suspenders etc, surely these have (or had) male near-equivalents? Men did once wear various forms of corsetry, for supposedly practical rather than decorative reasons. And of course hosiery and its accessories were also once unisex. Very few garments (even including the bra) or cosmetics etc have ever been totally single-sex and that is not the issue here; we are (in the contemporary world) concerned with items aimed at and normally (i.e. usually/conventionally) worn by one gender. It is only when they are worn by 'the other gender' (or by those who profess not to have a fixed gender) that we even need to consider the wearer's status as a CD, TV or whatever - and that is without considering other physical or behavioural aspects that move the person towards another gender, intentionally or not.