FastFreddy2

Can I come? That said, you often travel all over the country, but if it's in London.

I don't know if it's me, or the "ladies" I'm smelling it on, but some perfumes are wasted on my nose. These work for me: Going waaay back, Yves Saint Laurent's Opium Eau de Parfum, let itself be known it was being worn close to me. Next up Estée Lauder White Linen Eau de Parfum. Dolce & Gabbana Light Blue Eau de Parfum. Paco Rabanne Black XS for Women Eau de Parfum Marc Jacobs Daisy deluxe Eau de Parfum Some are these are so strong, even those wearing them find them a bit on the heavy side, but not me. My nose is more 'in tune' with offensive smells, unfortunately. I'm the first to smell a fart. First to smell dog poo on someone's shoe.... Blocked drain, gas leak, the list is endless. But a subtle perfume? No chance.

Well..... Managed to make a quick visit to Brent X en route, for coffee and half a scone, then on to Westfield. Not much going on in either place. Sensible people stayed home in the warm. I got some (much needed) exercise, so all good for me. In Debenhams, finally found some of this on sale ..... Carolina Herrera 'Good Girl' Eau De Parfum £50, £72-50 and £94-50. Quite a pleasant smell, but nothing that would knock you over.

I got to a minute 54 seconds before I had to give up. This fella obviously spends his weekend wearing white robes, a pointy white hat and sets fire to huge wooden crosses. I like to think I'm not an abusive person, but in a debate (heated argument) I'm sure he would draw it out of me. Brought up a Christian, I doubt I'm an atheist, but this fella could make me one. His view of the world sounds as likely as someone who claims to have been kidnapped and taken away in a UFO, and for that reason has to wear a tin-foil hat all the time. The Middle East, plainly not the only place that breeds religious fanatics.

Well, that was straightforward. (Makes a change.) Used the Ebay provided "Returns" label, which gave me something of a 'moment' when the tracking number failed to show on RM Tracking (resolved the day after), but the package got delivered this morning as confirmed by RM Tracking with full refund about an hour later. While I could be here thinking "good for me", I'm not feeling as satisfied about the whole thing as I should. Firstly, I didn't get what I expected, so I'm a bit disappointed about that. I'm not (now) at all bothered about the argy-bargy with the seller, about sending it back. In taht respect, I got what I wanted. What I am perhaps a bit miffed at, is should I have tried to negotiate a reduction in purchase price to cover a repair, or contribution to a repair? The boots fitted perfectly. They felt high despite having a small hidden platform. (Honestly, you would not know it was there.) Or am I mourning the loss of another pair of ankle boots I might never wear out? Probably. My only consolation is that while packing the boots for the return journey, I found a cut in the upper I hadn't noticed before, and a blemish that had been professionally covered. While the boots were offered as new, they were plainly used. I might concede I got them at a used price, but I didn't want to buy used.

(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.

Yep, second that!!

As I said, the condition of women being transvestite, does not in reality exist. You have no point of reference for it post 1918 when it became widely socially acceptable for women to wear trousers. Other cultures might recognise it, but not in Western Europe where we live. The point Puffer made, was that even in the mind of someone critical of our practice, there is recognition of some differentiation between CD and TV. Puffer: I can fully see how transvestism, (and homosexuality) were historically seen as "illnesses" to be cured in times when medicine was doing miracles. I can almost understand why the term might have attracted some bad-press. However, my understanding of why the term became so unpopular was its association (in the America's) of men dressing as women to sell themselves for sex. Ergo transvestites were male sex workers portraying themselves as women sex workers. (Known as Lady-boys in some parts of Asia.) From that, I can also see how/why some in the America's would come up with the alternative, less harsh term of cross-dresser. Someone who for them would be typically a male, who might indulge in a bit of dress wearing for example. Shoes too, though this is usually done for mocking purposes.(reference to young people on YT.) The "typical" CD wouldn't necessarily be homosexual, but straight and into a little role-playing at home. (Meaning sex with other men would NOT be on the cards.) We in the UK have not had the same amount of exposure to men dressing as women and selling themselves for sex. We still see TV as quite a harsh label, but few (including Eddie Izzard) care for anything other than black or white situations. Even you consider Grayson a TV (which he also might agree with) but neither of these two celebs expects to 'pass'. Like some here, they have 'borrowed' attire designed and made for women, to 'freestyle' their own look. They, along with the great bulk of the British (and world) populace, know only the one term or at least only recognise the one term. I have tried in the same way the North American cross-dressing community has, to mitigate the perception of men wearing women's attire. While not completely unexpected, the North American presence here insists that CD=TV. Okay, it does. But then wearing women's thigh boots makes you a transvestite. Why? because 99.9% of the worlds population - including other transvestites (above) say you are. Suggesting the rest of the world is wrong is no different to insisting that trees have blue leaves. I do not want to be mislabelled any more than anyone else would. But men wearing women's attire puts them on the cross-dressing spectrum, whether they like it or not. And that's a fact. Unpalatable it may be, but fact none-the-less.

Mine? Maybe, but then I've been inside the environment ... not just a distant spectator. So, the challenge is on then?

Make, style? Link? We don't expect pictures of you wearing them, but 'viewers' (readers) would probably like to see what you're buying.

I'm available for coffee anytime after 1pm?

I'll will repeat this remark in this post, but I would go so far as to say "cross-dresser" isn't even in the British vocabulary unless you have some direct contact with it. And those who might be asked, would come up with the likes of Tilda Swinton (possibly) and more likely Eddie Izzard and/or Grayson Perry. None of which would be classed as transvestite, since none of them want to pass as someone of the opposite sex. When Grayson is out and 'dressed' his look isn't androgynous either.... I'm pretty sure Eddy even refers to himself as a transvestite. Sometimes his only contribution to that is to wear high heels while on stage. He, along with most others considers only two states. Normal (dress to gender) or transvestite - no other steps involved. Oh, you! It's time we got our language back on track... Mean wearing heels, not cross-dressing? Blue trees! Blue trees! Apart from anything else, there is no such thing as women cross-dressing or being transvestite. "Technically" the condition exists, but at street level - it's as real as Greek mythology. You and all the other North American high heel wearers, some of whom wear tights, stockings, and skirts, can call it what you like in your own enclave if it lets you sleep better at night, but the rest of the world - THE WHOLE rest of the world calls it transvestite. Thinking anything else is just plain delusional. Further, the great bulk (of that) great bulk will also associate men wearing ANY feminine attire with being gay. And the great bulk of the great bulk of the great bulk believe these people should be medicated back to normality, or imprisoned or worse. You ought to, (but simply refuse) to consider cross-dressing is less than wanting to be seen as a feminine persona. Okay, you are a transvestite because that's what the rest of the world sees you as. No, cross-dressing isn't more flamboyant in the minds of most, unless you live in North American, and no-one who posts here more than twice a year does. In the minds of most, a man wearing ANY feminine attire - especially footwear because it's so visible - is considered a transvestite. I'll issue you a challenge, in the business/financial world something known as an acid test. I will wear a pair of thigh high, high heeled boots in Trafalgar Square sometime in Spring. I will give you £10 for every person I challenge that says they think I'm a cross-dresser, provided you give me £10 for every person I challenge that says I'm a transvestite. I will give £2000 to Puffer, as will you, and he will act as escrow until the outcome is known. I will get video of the answers for him to validate. I'm not a gambler, but I'm fairly certain after such an event, I'll be able to afford a trip to Fiji I never thought I'd make. The phrase "cross-dresser" just isn't in the British vocabulary, unless you have direct contact with someone into feminisation, or are into it yourself. The other 99% of the world's population know it as transvestite. In a room with 101 people in it, and the 100 other people there see you as a tranny because it fits their social background and personal history, then you are a transvestite. You are NOT a freestyler (and I will give £25 for every person in Trafalgar Square that comes up with that moniker) but whatever label they understand you as.

If I could, I would. The weather would be enough. Weather and water..... I would have to grow gills because I'd never be out of the water.

Temperature is taking a nose dive during the next week. Maybe a little drier which will be a welcome change. Proper sub-zero temperatures in the offing next week, care of Siberian air. Am hoping to get out somewhere this coming Thursday, maybe in London, maybe not. My tendons need some action, and I don't own a treadmill.

Me and a skirt, it's exactly so. 20 minutes a year, if I've been a good boy! And men have been wearing skirts and dresses for thousands of years, longer than they've been wearing a heel. It's 'theatre' to me, dress up for a short while. I'm comfortable in almost any clothing. I don't perceive it to be sexed or sexualised. It's all about comfort and movement.

The alternative, is that any man wearing a woman's shoe or boot is a transvestite. That term wouldn't sit well with me, since I don't wear women's underclothing which would be considered typical or expected under, such a label. I vaguely remember this being discussed previously, and a third category was mentioned. (I'll try to find it.) P.S. Might have been described as a 'freestyle' dresser. (A term I recall mentioning more usually associated with snowboarding. Quite apt given the 2018 Winter Olympics are currently underway.) I'm pretty sure most women, especially those past the "curious" stage in their lives (if there was one) would find men in skirts and stockings quite a turn off. But the games couples play never ceases to amaze (and sometimes worry) me. One of the shockers of recent times was a revelation from K.a.t.i.e. P.r.i.c.e. (glamour model of some notoriety) about the times when she was married to A.l.e.x. R.e.i.d. (mixed martial arts and cage fighter). It seems her spouse had a feminine persona and Ms P.r.i.c.e. would use a sex toy on him. She is reported to have said on daytime television, the marriage ended "because she didn't want to play the man." Now most people would be astounded to find a multi-millionairess glamour model and published author of some 20 years standing, married a man about as tough as they get, yet in the bedroom their roles were reversed. When two high profile media personalities come out with something like this, a man wearing high heels becomes insignificant. Twice a year, for about 10 minutes each time, I try on a very tight knee length pencil skirt. I do it because I can. I'd like to wear this sort of thing in the street, not to feminise myself, but because I like the sensation on my hips and legs. I might wear holdups (in summer instead of leggings under my jeans) for the same reason - touch rather than look. It's the sensation against a shaved leg. I think I wore a pair once during the whole of 2017, and really pushed the boat out in 2016 by wearing them 3 times. It would be hard to describe myself as a transvestite under these rather limited circumstances, but would accept I have a limited interest in cross-dressing. I actually prefer androgynous, with me having a big foot in the male camp, and a much smaller foot in the female camp as it were.

And there's me thinking you were man of the world, used to seeing any number of peculiarities and taking them all in your stride? Unless you mean there are some things seen that don't go any further than being in bad taste..... Wholly unattractive. A couple of my pet hates are hairy legs seen through hose (dark tights perhaps). Or stocking'd legs and the hose is too short for the legs, with the tops ending not much above the knee. Another unattractive image is a big hairy belly poking out of the top of a skirt waistline. Hairy arms with tattoo's wearing a dress. (Male or female. ) In fact anyone that has feminine attire on, and has hair anywhere other than the top of their head. Just doesn't work for me. (I really dislike body hair. Given the chance, I'd have all mine permanently removed.) I haven't looked, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing that goes into the sexually offensive territory, or people would complain surely.

I have to say, I have never seen it as such, and I would even go as far as to say there is more (real) fashion interest here? I would tend to agree, especially with the North American mindset. Over here I would suggest CD and androgynous are seen as a pair, rather than CD/TV as a pair as it might be in North America. In many minds and often female ones, any man wearing women's shoes, would be considered a TV - full stop. But TV is and always should be, given to mean "pass" as or intended to pass as the opposite sex (trans - to crossover). Anything less, ie man wearing skirt, ought to be considered cross-dressing. I think the merging in the North American mindset of CD and TV has brought a lot of bad press to people, men especially, because there is some automatic merging of men wearing feminine attire to being a sex worker. This seems to be especially true in South America, the home of cheap (bad) implants and men making money dressed as women. Whether the person becoming feminised to that degree would see themselves as such, I'm sure everyone else would perceive that as participating in transvestite activity, whether the person doing it liked that label or not. I have had some light experience of girls not being adverse to their otherwise straight boyfriends dressing up as women. I have pictures taken over 30 years ago of an actor dressed as a girl, that was so convincing I would have gladly found out the hard way she was a he. "She" was gorgeous. In fact better looking than his (her) girlfriend who wasn't exactly shabby herself. As a couple, they took care of me (dressed) and my girlfriend on our first outing as "two girls". Neither the actor nor his girlfriend were afraid of the camera. I sometimes wonder if I've seen him since on television or in films. I would have no idea. While I don't ever remember having sex with my then girlfriend with me dressed as a girl, I got plenty of encouragement to dress up from her. And she actually bought me the 6" Covergirl shoes I've mentioned before, as a surprise present to get the ball rolling. I don't ever remember asking about them, she just produced them one day. My next girlfriend was interested in doing the deed with me dressed up, and was disappointed it only happened the once. I suppose for girls/women, it could be like sleeping with someone of the same sex, without actually sleeping with someone of the same sex? The excitement without the guilt? Who knows, and it certainly isn't for everyone (every girl). I suppose a lot depends on what your exposed to, what is 'normal' or not unusual in your social environment. In my time, Boy George and Marilyn were in the newspapers and magazines of the day. New Romantics were about, with members of Duran Duran wearing full feminine face make-up. Me going out dressed as a girl wasn't that weird, and the other two couples we used to hang around with knew all about it. One couple even told us to pop around in the early hours, so they could have a look-see, which we did. But other than these special nights out, I never wore feminine clothing, nor high heels. (Though I used to do the ironing in heels - which I still do?) The whole raison d'être of the TV thing for me, was to go out socially in high heels and not have people pointing fingers .... Seems contradictory now, but seemed a completely obvious solution to my high heel needs 30 years ago. The environment lent itself to the situation, as did my hairline, figure, long fingernails and clear skin. Back then my full head of long hair, wrinkle free skin, full lips, long fingernails and a figure most young women these days can only dream about, made my conversion fairly easy. And being honest, I've always enjoyed wearing tight clothing so wearing a foundation (to feminise my shape a bit) and wearing a skirt was not at all uncomfortable. So Mrs Freddy having to endure a 50-60 minute car journey so I can spend some time out in heels, is a significantly easier situation than the work I used to put into going out 30 years ago. Though me being out in a heel does happen a lot more frequently these days than it did back then.

Regardless to how other here feel about it, let me first state how I understand how the CD/TV/TS scene works, speaking as someone who has touched it all... CD.... Cross dresser. Starting somewhere that might be called androgynous, right up to just short of TV. So, a man wearing clothing or any attire designed and made for a woman. A woman wearing clothing or attire designed and made for a man. Probably less ambiguous if written as cross-sex dressing. (Wearing clothing designed and made of the opposite sex.) There is no intent on the part of a male (for example) to pass, or be seen as a female. This would currently be me. T.V.... This is essential someone (almost always male) who dresses and applies other feminine specific attire (make-up/wigs/breast forms) to seem like a woman or to pass as a woman. A cross dresser would never have the need to wear a bra, breast forms, or a silky camisole. These would only be worn as part of the 'to pass' regime, where playing a female was the intent and/or being seen as a female was the intent. I have done this, and Puffer has seen photo's of me 'en femme' indicating I'm not a fantasist when I write this stuff. T.S.... This is where wearing clothing of the opposite sex and looking like someone of the opposite sex isn't enough and BEING someone of the opposite sex is so necessary, that gender re-assignment becomes the single most important goal of the person who needs it. Unlike the previous two groups which seem to contain an unequal quantity of men over women. the TS category seems to be much more equally balanced if not tilted in the other direct. (More women wanting it than men.) So with this in mind .... I would suggest there is a wide range of CD/TV enthusiasts on HHP (and good luck to them) starting with men only wearing a heel right up to men wearing everything to make themselves as feminine as possible. If all this additional activity was stopped, the site would in fact become a Men in Heels II. Would that be a good thing?

As I've made no secret to the fact I got kicked off HHp for upsetting (literally) one or two people. Both Americans. This despite the fact I had quickly become a major contributor, and had many 'likes' despite the short period of membership. I had been approached via PM by one of the active and what seemed like quite progressive female members there. She had shared some intimate details with me, (long email) of a relationship she had with another member, and it rather looked like a Dom and Sub setup to me. Why I had been contacted and slightly involved, was an enigma. In fact so enigmatic, I challenged her to prove she existed, and wasn't a 20 stone (fantasist) lorry driver. Communication was cut short. Her temporary email address evaporated, and I had neither further contact off the site, nor did I attempt any via PM on the site. I fancy, it rather proved my point. I sometimes wonder if she contributed to getting me kicked off, which arrived without warning and without reason. I would agree. And many were critical of the whole men-in-heels gig. Perhaps it's too large a pigeon hole, but fetish/CD/TV is all the same to me, its dress-up and British men like to play dress-up. (It's in the DNA.) In that respect, I don't fully understand why any woman would post on such a site unless they operated 'in the scene' too. Even so, there are better places (other Forums) that might be more suitable anyway. That said, in an arena where there are 100 (often single) men to every woman member, it's not hard to build up a fan base with some teasing of the (often single) men. Were I in every other respect a fairly unattractive person (male or female) I could have quite a good time, amongst a fairly attentive audience, by adopting the persona of a twenty-something into 5 inch heels. How would anyone know the truth? I've stumbled across a number of more suitable places. As time goes on the prospective membership is attracted to a more diverse range of forums where seemingly every niche interest is addressed. HHp isn't a particularly inviting place anyway. There's way too much testosterone allowed by the "in" crowd who get away with bullying some of the new members. I was obviously disappointed that I got banned, but it was probably a blessing in disguise because I was spending too much time contributing. Plus there were people there who believed themselves to be god-like, and I have never got on well with people who consider themselves "superior". Best I stayed away. I never attempted to re-join, nor join with a new handle/user-name. I know how easy it can be done using a proxy IP address so I could have joined as Phil from Philadelphia, or Jean from Jersey. But why bother?

I see 'things' all the time, women I mean, dressed in such a way that me wearing a heel ought to be completely normal/acceptable/mundane. Very obviously I'm biased .... And it's not like I haven't worn attire that would attract mirth with me labelled as 'fashion victim'... But some of the outfits I see in shopping malls and in media, leads me to believe there are others out there pushing the idea of avant-garde much further than I might care to. Some critics might even describe them as simply bad taste. I couldn't be that unkind, even if I agreed. My wearing heels ought to be considered pedestrian, in comparison.

"Emperors new clothes"? Taking shabby chic waaay too far. I saw a couple of girls wearing not dissimilar jeans a couple of weeks ago, during a period it was really cold. The clever one was wearing leggings underneath, to keep her legs warm. Made the 'style' statement (old looking jeans) seem a bit ridiculous.

I suppose women aren't exempt from getting older, nor from fashion moving on. 'Back then' in 2008 I suppose Louboutin was in the ascendancy and the fashion 'flutter' was the red soles shoes and how elegant they looked. I have met (but don't know her well) a girl who would back then buy a pair of Loubies every time she went on holiday abroad. She would sometimes wear them down the pub, but most pairs were kept as 'investments'. She seldom wears a heel now. I've said it many many times..... Woman wear a heel because they can. Unlike me they will likely be young enough to have an active social life and plenty of places to wear a heel if they choose to wear one. As women age, their feet get more sensitive, suffer long term damage ... Wearing a heel anywhere outside a bedroom isn't something they will find attractive forever. Fashion is moving a little away from a high elegant heel too. To my astonishment, I've noticed platforms have bounced back a little. Why? Possibly to keep girls/women in a heel? I've no doubt the girls who used to post at HHp in 2008 won't currently be enjoying the heels they used to wear back then. Even if they do still wear high heels, it's likely because there's a professional reason for them to continue, like they own a shoe business. I'm suggesting a woman's interest in high heels is transient. Perhaps 1 in 10,000 isn't, but I'm not going to know her. (Actually, I might know someone, but I've had no contact from her for 7 years.) Mrs Freddy knows someone who must be in her 80's, and is a woman never seen in flat shoes. These people are far from common place, and certainly won't be members of HHp. Like here, without new blood and encouraged new blood, eventually the enthusiasm of the core members will also fail. I'm not sure there's an answer for picking up numbers, or attracting them. PICTURES always help. Links to products .... Anyone using the internet is likely used to visual stimulation.

Not shoes ...... But in what world could these ever be considered worth £25? Or these US $38

I haven't been a member there for .... 10 years! Things have changed .... I didn't know. As I remember, the Ladies Only section used to be quite busy with at least 2 commercial members able to provide details on products too. Ho-hum.