Puffer

On re-reading all the above, I can't see where Freddy and I are in fundamental disagreement. He originally stated that there is a difference between a CD and a TV (which is my view too) but is now apparently suggesting that the distinction between them (if any) is too fine to describe. Or am I misunderstanding something in this admittedly complex area? To answer the questions now posed: 1 is a CD (as the beard etc hardly allows representation as a true woman); 2 is a TV (assuming a true attempt to pass as female and not merely a 'drag' caricature); 3 could be anything, depending again on attempt to 'pass' and its realism, but if the 'female' items are effectively hidden and the presentation is otherwise male then he is a 'stealthy' CD. Perhaps the reality is that a TV is always a CD (by definition) but the reverse is not so. The 'Freestyler' concept and term is not my invention but seems to be widely adopted and understood by those (male or female) who wear whatever clothes they like, regardless of the manufacturer's gender intentions, with no intention of passing as anything other than their true gender. (I have no interest in or knowledge of sport but I realise that the term is used in that context, e.g. in swimming, but that doesn't make it exclusive to sport; but 'Freestyle-dresser' would be equally good.) So, a real mix-and-match situation for many - a man wearing a pair of women's jeans (for whatever reason, quite possibly 'better fit') with otherwise normal male clothing/appearance is 'Freestyling' at its simplest, but would become a CD if most or all of his clothing was female and (in my view), his preference was to wear mostly women's clothes in a co-ordinated manner because they were women's rather than men's. The logical conclusion is therefore that a TV is always a CD (as above) and a CD is always a Freestyler - it is only degrees of conduct and appearance that distinguish them, and such distinction (which is essentially subjective) may be problematic in specific cases. No doubt I will be told if this doesn't make sense!

I too have waxed lyrical on this subject elsewhere and my views as then expounded (and which did not get demolished by others) are very much in line with what Freddy went on to say above. The only point I would mildly disagree with is that, in my experience, Americans do not totally equate CDs with TVs - and they dislike the TV term and try to avoid using it (except perhaps in a truly medical/academic context), which is something of a cop-out - see below. My own take on all this difficult topic is as follows - as always with definitions, the devil lies in the detail: Freestyler: someone who wears whatever mix of clothes he/she feels appropriate to the occasion, regardless of the alleged gender allegiance of those clothes; Crossdresser: someone who is wearing wholly or mainly clothes normally associated with the opposite gender, for whatever reason, but without trying to appear to be of that other gender; Transvestite: someone who is wearing wholly or mainly clothes normally associated with the opposite gender and endeavouring to present as that other gender (with make-up, wig, 'body enhancers' etc if necessary). In none of these categories does the reason for wearing 'other' clothing have to be driven by some form of sexual desire or gratification - although of course it may well be. It is as valid for a man to wear an item of female clothing on purely aesthetic grounds (appearance, fit, comfort etc) as it is because it sexually arouses him (and/or his partner). I accept that a true TV is trying to 'be' a woman and accepted as such (without being able to act sexually in a truly female manner) - anything less is really the drag artist who is presenting a caricature, however convincing. The above seems to me to provide useful distinctions, but I agree the boundaries may be blurred - and the progression from freestyler to crossdresser may be a subtle one, although moving on to transvestite involves a deliberate shift in behaviour and lifestyle, whether or not permanent. On that basis, I would suggest that most of us here are 'freestylers' (however mildly) and some will be (occasional) crossdressers and/or transvestites (as was Freddy in the past). All these activities are independent of sexuality and I will say nothing about actual or intending transsexuals - that takes things into another realm entirely, but necessarily involves transvestism as part of the process. Therefore, the distinction between CD and TV is and remains important. Although transvestism is a recognised medical condition and the term is rightly used accordingly, there seems to be a movement towards preferring 'crossdresser' for anyone who wears clothing of the opposite gender (and who therefore literally 'cross-dresses') and also indicates a desire to present as of the opposite gender and be accepted as such. I accept that labels can be divisive, too specific or not specific enough, and stereotypes can be pejorative (often unintentionally) or threatening. The reality, however harsh the effects may be on some, is that stereotypes are convenient and readily understandable by the masses, who might otherwise struggle to visualise the subject at all. When used broadly and with consideration, stereotypes are useful if not definitive; objections to them seem to arise as much if not more from PC supporters and do-gooders as from the alleged 'victims' themselves. And, diverting slightly, the same is true of other 'categorisation', such as by colour, ethnic origin or religion, where we are expected to use weasel-words rather than those which are simple, direct and unequivocal. So the established and innocuous word 'gay' has been hijacked and made to describe a whole raft of lifestyle that has nothing to do with its original meaning - and I for one (being certainly old enough to remember it pre-hijack) feel uncomfortable (mis)using it thus. Such is the stuff of a PhD thesis - but I'll pass on that (and not as a woman, either!).

Proceed with caution.

I think we have the measure of you now. Watch your step.

A guarded welcome, Lillith. I say that because members here will be wary of the concept of 'social engineering' as explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security) Is social engineering your occupation or primarily a personal philosophy? Maybe you should tell us more about what you actually do and your true intentions here. Persuasion is one thing, manipulation quite another.

Thank you, gjogj - but I have been a member for 2.5 years now! As you are a newcomer, let me welcome you - and are you going to introduce yourself properly?

Some interesting ideas for 'field trials' here! ('Excuse me, madam, I need to assess your ability to wear high heels; I have a tape measure ...' ) The suggestion that, regardless of flexibility, a 3" heel is as high as one should go defeats the object of the exercise somewhat. But I can see that the warning of bad posture, back pain etc is well meant - although many people find wearing heels alleviates lower back pain. But I do agree with this comment: "Heel position is also vital. The heel of the shoe ought to be directly under the heel bone for maximum stability. ‘Lots of designers mess around and put it too far back on the shoe,’ says Emma. ‘This means you’re striking down too far back on the heel every time you walk. It’s one way to break the heel of the shoe and send you tumbling.’" Very few of the readers' comments (230+ so far) have any substance; the majority are the usual anti-heels condemnations from those who lack either experience or tolerance.

I sympathise, Bertus - my feet are a little larger than yours! 'Special prices' indeed; most of those shoes in the shop you use are very expensive. It is not easy to find good large-size shoes in the UK but you might be interested in this source: http://www.evans.co.uk/en/evuk/category/shoes-250471/home

Yes, it is likely that some (younger) women will not remember or be aware that pointed toes were very much a unisex fashion (late-50s - mid-60s) and, whilst they have never really disappeared on female shoes, have again been fashionable (but not nearly so universal) on men's shoes during the last 10 years or so. My wife is well aware of their history and her firm association of men's 'winklepickers' with the 1960s makes them, in her view, both old-fashioned (and therefore unacceptable currently) for a man, especially one of my 'mature years'. She finds it hard to understand my nostalgic appreciation of anything that is not recent or current (fashion; black and white films; steam railways; lead-based paint ...) and tries to avoid same.

Why is it that some women (my wife included) dislike men in pointed shoes/boots, even though they have often been a male fashion, and are still available for men? They are certainly not an 'exclusively-female' fashion (as some will argue high heels are, or should be), yet seem to rankle.

My goodness! Those look suspiciously like a pair of shoes with the stiletto heels properly shaped and positioned. Presumably a museum piece!

Can you be more specific about the pain in your big toes, hoborob? Is it caused by ill-fitting shoes or simply because your feet are sliding downhill into the toebox and being compressed? Or, as the pain apparently kicks in after a couple of hours, perhaps it is indeed some joint rebelling at being bent in what has become an unnatural position for a fair time, as your doctor implies. If the latter, I guess you will need to address the cause (with exercise or whatever) and I can't see that wearing lower heels and then moving up will necessarily help, as distinct from being less uncomfortable. But good luck anyway.

Each to his own, Freddy, and I can see why you were attracted to these elegant courts. But that heel shape and 'afterthought' position ...

Nice! Are you bidding or have you bought them already?

As would Mrs Puffer - along with greater tidiness, less swearing and no job ever left only 95% finished.

I don't think you do yourself justice! 'Thoroughness' is surely your middle name?

Again understood; it just seemed wasteful to me, even if a month or two elapses, particularly during a period when heating use will be minimal (we hope). Personally, I would have filled with plain water and, on completion of the rad changes, flushed everything thoroughly before refilling with inhibitor added.

All understood, Freddy - and good luck with the replacements. I had assumed that you were not needing to (or intending to) alter the rad pipework, implied by you putting new inhibitor into the system - why bother for a short time if you have to drain down and alter?

Presumably the washer inside the draincock had failed - by no means uncommon. (It happened to me once doing work at my son's flat - and that was on the second floor so those below knew about it!). I hope you will re-use the draincock (with a new washer) elsewhere! I assume that the new draincock was the usual glanded type A with a plain spigot to fit into a coupling - and that your sub-assembly therefore included a coupling soldered between pipe and draincock. The non-glanded type B are useless in this situation as they leak water when opened. It is tempting to fit the draincock spigot directly into a push-fit connector - it will of course 'go' but will not hold securely; similar draincocks with a longer spigot intended for push fit are available but expensive (although I got a bag of them dirt cheap at a boot sale). I hope your replacement rads are of an equivalent length so the valves connect without the need for adaptors. Would it not have been better, after wall repairs etc, to mount and fit the new rads with the system all drained down, altering pipework if necessary? You probably aren't using the heating in this warm(ish) weather.

I can identify with much of what Freddy says above about the behaviour of (potential) marriage partners, before and after the event. Certainly, it is natural to be on 'best behaviour' during the dating phase and the period immediately following marriage or co-habitation - and this includes indulging the partner in ways that might not always be acceptable and are, in many cases, unlikely to last. Obvious examples (aside from choosing clothing or personal appearance to maximise visual appeal) are being generous with personal gifts, eating-out, entertainment of all types, transport, practical tasks (such as DIY or needlework, tax returns), helping or caring for needy relatives (children, old people, potential in-laws). We can all think of things we cheerfully gave or gratefully received and which may not now be forthcoming, at least with the same degree of generosity. I don't think that sex and other aspects of an intimate physical relationship necessarily go hand-in-hand with the above. Such favours may be given or received regardless of the other 'gifts' and are more likely to be affected in the longer term by age or infirmity, i.e. the spirit may still be willing but the flesh becomes weaker. Conversely, as outside demands (job, children, mortgage) lessen or indeed disappear, the ability (availability of time, money) to provide more material tokens will normally improve - at least until the unfortunate time when poverty in retirement may limit one's resources, especially if health-care has to take priority. In my case, neither my first nor my current wife has proved to be the person I wanted to marry, thought I was actually marrying or did indeed marry; both changed in behaviour, outlook and attitude towards me in a way which has significantly eroded my self-esteem as well as my respect for them and my day-to-day enjoyment of life. But, that said, both marriages were 'right at the time', as they were evenly matched and showed great promise. I cannot honestly say that, if it history were to repeat itself, I would not take the same action again. The saving grace has been that my first marriage produced two fine sons and my second 'included' three fine stepsons. In both cases, my wife's willingness (and apparent pleasure) in, amongst other things, 'dressing to please' soon evaporated - and not directly as a result of childbirth or age - and any hints or requests for a resumption were treated with derision and, often, suggestions that I was a pervert. (And I'm not talking here of anything extreme such as bondage or fetish wear - merely stilettos, stockings and other essentially feminine and elegant or glamorous wear on the right occasion. Has the concept of 'dressing up' for an occasion really gone out of date; I generally do - she rarely does?) My wives would certainly agree with Freddy's closing remark that men are at least as much at fault as women. Whatever I do in terms of personal conduct, bodily hygiene and clothing/appearance, I am subject to criticism and in some cases ridicule. Fortunately, my health is good and I am neither hideous nor overweight nor lacking hair in the right place - but some loss of teeth and hearing is treated with little sympathy.

I am obliged for the learned explanation, Freddy. I am familiar with 'twat' (pronounced to rhyme with 'that') in its several usages. However, I do not really accept that it is synonymous with 'twot' simply because it may be (mis)pronounced as such (to rhyme with 'hot'). The two words should be kept distinct in both pronunciation and usage. By extension, the concept of someone being a 'twot' (= 'total waste of time') could be applied to an object that is useless as a result of damage or some other form of deterioration. So, alien to me as it is, I can just about see how the peasantry in your part of the realm might regard a ruined gearbox as being 'twotted'. (Contrariwise, ladies in my area do not 'come' as a result of a stimulating sexual experience - they prefer to 'arrive'.) I would add that I believe your last sentence contains a solecism; the use was 'implied',rather than 'inferred'. (But, as the reader infers what the writer implies, either may be understood here and I will not award a detention on this occasion.)

A very thoughtful treatise, Freddy, which I am still digesting with a view to making my own observations in due course.

I am obliged for the info, Freddy. Again I admire your bravado, and suppleness. But I was at a complete loss when you spoke of a gearbox being 'twotted' (and thence of 'twotting'); terms which have not permeated the protective lughole barriers installed in my corner of the Empire. And you may imagine my surprise (and indeed horror) when I Googled said terms and found that they appear to relate to another activity altogether. Is this a change of meaning due to some cunning linguistic shift, or what?

Interesting and informative, Freddy - but I don't relish attempting to drive and change gear clutchless. My first car was a 1960 model and had syncro, but I believe that quite a few family saloons in the 1950s still lacked it and required double-declutching - a Rover belonging to a colleague comes to mind. Did you drive (on that or other occasions) whilst wearing the 5.5" stilettos? Presumably you did or you would have had some other footwear to change into whilst publicly inspecting the clutch cable. If one is tall and in heels, it can be quite tricky to wriggle into position for driving with knees fouling the steering wheel.

A week ago, I was at my son's (temporary) abode and he and K were packing stuff ready to move out. There was a large box of K's shoes and boots which I had a good view of; it included several pairs of non-plat stilettos of around 4.5". I complimented K on her collection (singling out a pair of red suede Carvella courts with a very thin metal 4.5" heel as being 'very nice') and she smiled at me and said I could wear them if I wished! (Fat chance: she is a 37/38 and I am a 45!) I don't think it was anything more than a jokey comment; she has no idea of my interests. And, expecting or not, I am sure that she intends to keep and wear most or all of her collection; I hope so. I don't think my son has any special interest in heels, but as he is about a foot taller than K, they both probably appreciate their merits. And it will be interesting to see if their daughter will develop into a heel wearer in 15 years or so (If I'm still on the planet) ...