FastFreddy2

These combined images are (so far) the largest available.... Clad head to toe in PVC, with high heel stiletto boots no less, you might be tempted to question the likely 'morality' or the wearer? This outfit more in keeping with that seen in fetish clubs (I frequented) 30 years ago .... Her 'day job' ....... divorce lawyer to the worlds richest people. Oh the irony.

The whole film ....

Jeez .... The whole film! Lifelong enigma solved.... 29:00 "Besides, what's the matter with work? A little hard work never killed anybody." 33:51 "A little hard work never killed anybody." [Falls backwards, dead.]

Of how many respondents? You are right that it's a good figure, especially since some the "nay's" were against anyone wearing a heel....

Shirley Maclaine's legs .... Enough said....

Given that gin is almost the polar opposite to the drinks I usually enjoy, neither should I. My 'get out', is that the Sloe version of it, can be quite pleasant. "London gin" is after all, juniper flavoured vodka. (Yeuk.) I suppose I might try some different types of brandy given the chance. The sound of rum is attractive, but like whisk(e)y, I got very ill in my younger years on both, and not been able to tolerate the smell of either since. Not that I'm a drinker either. I was once given 3 or 4 bottles of the stuff as a 'thank you' for computer work I did for a family friend. After about 5 or 6 years, I passed them on to someone else.

I vaguely remember Dick van Dyke in a film where he played all the central characters, and one of their strap lines was; "hard work never killed anyone" but it did to his character in the film. I sometimes wonder what that film was called. Quite amusing as I remember. I may have recalled that slightly in error. I think this might be it: The whole trailer is a distraction with those legs, but one of her outfits ..... Red PVC. (1m 20 sec in.)

They are a bloody hazard to people with fairly good eyesight, so I expect the answer to be yes. If you wanted to unbalance someone, or introduce a slip hazard in the wet, just reduce the contact area their shoes have with the pavement....

Like most medicines, it has an unpleasant taste. I don't drink it, and I don't drink soda water either. It's either lemonade, or my fave, Cream Soda. My sweet tooth rules. I've spent a couple of hours tonight (while I should have been something else) reading up on gins and genevers. Got to the stage where I realise being in America has some benefits if you want to sample some cane based gins.... Ho-hum. Worse, "London" gin or "Dry" gin, pretty much excludes sugar 'sweeteners', and Sloe Gin isn't really a gin because it doesn't have a high enough ABV (alc/vol) content. Suits me. The Cherry Brandy I raved about earlier, is only 24% alc/vol too. I don't even have a palate for alcohol when it comes to spirit based drinks....

If you drink enough of it, you probably don't care.

And rum of course, synonymous with warm weather.

The religion, or those who espouse to promote it? (To their own agenda.) King James Bible And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. Has doubtless been used by religious cults to justify having as much sex as was possible, with as many partners as possible (in the commune). It may also be leverage for having more than one 'wife', in some versions of the religion. Given enough time (ie hundreds of years) I would suggest almost anything can be drawn from innocuous statements, which leads to the fanaticism we read about so often in the newspapers. And similar levels of fanaticism we might have experienced ourselves, not so long ago. I had a friend (ex copper) who used to reunite children taken from their unmarried mothers, who had been sent to Australia with the church intending the babies should never meet their mothers again. A cruel practice that often ruined both lives. While there can be no doubt the church has done much for many, I sometimes wonder at what cost. These days we read about abuse being rife, babies dying in orphanages with no record of their existence, demise or burial .... All done -we are told- in the name of "God". Not being done in the name of any divine being I care to recognise.

Sometime between 2016 and the Autumn 2017, I sank another bottle of Gordon Sloe Gin. I remember the second bottle loitering for some months, and two summers (two small ones) helped me get through a second bottle. I know how to live it up! Christmas 2017 saw me receive what is supposed to be an upmarket (own brand) version of Sloe Gin, care of Tesco. Marginally higher alcohol content, but not so much I would notice. . But the taste .... Absolutely awful! I'm guessing this stuff is made with very dry gin, and unless swamped in lemonade and Dubonnet, is almost undrinkable. I am surprised that two seemingly identical (budget) products could be so different? Were it not a present from a close family member, I would be using it for what I expect was it's original purpose: drain cleaner. It's currently being used to colour lemonade with my din-dins. If I remember, the Gordons comes in at circa 26% alc/vol, and this own brand stuff around 29% alc/vol. Browsing at the supermarket, there were higher priced versions of flavoured gin that went up to 44% alc/vol. I can only assume NASA is selling this stuff off as they have some excess. On a more pleasant note, I was given a half bottle of Cherry Brandy a couple of months ago. I tried that with lemonade expecting to be disappointed, but it's absolutely lovely. That bottle was around too late in the year to sip while dodging mozzies sat in the garden, but I've been gifted a second half bottle that I will save for warmer weather. I am thinking of making cocktails with blended black cherries, cream and the liqueur. Making me hungry just thinking about it. Quite looking forward to warmer weather.

When Marx penned his often quoted prose "Religion is the opium of the people", I suspect it would have read better in modern times if 'opium' was replaced with 'sedative', or a brand name folk might be familiar with. Taken from Wiki >> here << Opium of the people From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about Karl Marx's statement. For Slipknot's song, see Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses). "Religion is the opium of the people" is one of the most frequently paraphrased statements of German philosopher and economist Karl Marx. It was translated from the German original, "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" and is often rendered as "religion... is the opiate of the masses." ....... The full quote from Karl Marx translates as: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". Often quoted only in part, the interpretation of the metaphor in its context has received much less attention. Meaning[edit] Marx was making a structural functionalism argument about religion, and particularly about organized religion.[3][4] Marx believed that religion had certain practical functions in society that were similar to the function of opium in a sick or injured person: it reduced people's immediate suffering and provided them with pleasant illusions, but it also reduced their energy and their willingness to confront the oppressive, heartless, and soulless reality that capitalism had forced them into. At the time, Marx would not have had a socialism model to compare capitalism to, and over a hundred years later we do. They both fail in isolation. The conclusion is unavoidable. Religion has calmed the masses through the ages, helping to keep us all from becoming murderous thieves, having multiple partners with multiple families. Kept us on the 'straight and narrow' in many, many ways.

I don't doubt it at all. I can't recall where exactly I mentioned it (and it was to do with women wearing trousers so on the same sort of theme), but I intimated that some Christian organisations in the US don't hire/employ women who wear trousers, because of their 'unofficial' (illegal) dress code. "Christianity", and other religions created 1400-4000 years ago are the perfect medium for controlling the mindset of people. Often written in almost forgotten languages in terms (dialects, syntax) completely forgotten. Open to translation and interpretation by many layers of (fallible) humans, often with their own agendas. Conditioning used before many can (if ever) read and write, and carried out for many years, what chance those minds could be 'free' enough to accept something not part of their conditioning? These, together with uneducated/unworldly groups are the very reason we were/are repressed into conformity.

Of course. Neither you nor I would be bothered by seeing a man wearing a heel in public, but that's simply because we have been 'normalised' to it. That isn't true of the other 60M people on these islands. In fact some newcomers from the Middle East and Africa, would have some very unpleasant views on what we consider acceptable, not least because they have no positive experience of it. What makes people more accepting of style nouveau is probably quite a deep question. In general perhaps, a good education away from strong political views, and likely within a working democracy. An environment that isn't repressive. A place where religion is optional. Someone who has knowledge of the world, not just their little bit of it. Someone not exposed to bigotry in any form or sexual predation. Someone who is allowed to (if they chose) work in a creative environment even if the didn't work in one. So basically, "middle-class living in London". Oh, and probably with no 'bad experience of life' yet. (aka someone without baggage.) Under 25, and middle class Londoner.

Annie was the first woman to be named chief photographer at Rolling Stone and the last person to take a portrait of John Lennon. In her first online class, Annie shows us that what makes a picture stunning isn’t the gear or technology—it’s the story. Annie teaches you her philosophy on photography—how to develop concepts, work with subjects, shoot with natural light, and bring images to life in post-production. See the world through her eyes. Bit poor when the most recent claim to fame must have taken place more than 37 years ago. "Bring images to life" - by growing extra limbs?

Cross-dressing, isn't in my world (and unlike you, I've been there) trying to pass. I have shown Puffer some 'selfie' pictures taken some 30 years ago, I'm sure he will vouch for my honesty in this matter. For me cross-dressing refers to attire, not lifestyle or intent (to pass). That would be the domain of a transvestite, and usually involve underwear and/or partially living as a woman (if a man) or living as a man (if a woman). And the colours I'm seeing in the trees are green, because that's the colour everyone I've ever met says is the colour. You are the person who sees them differently. I say 100 of 100 people (or 99 of 100) would say you were a cross-dresser, a TV or gay. You deny this. Okay, deny away, but they would. You trying to make your point with me, won't change a single opinion. Not my assessment, not those of people you might meet in the street, not those on any media, not the spouses/girlfriends to most of the respondents here either. I wish it were different, but it isn't. I accept this, and is why I call the leaves on the trees green.

No, several of you had been critical of platforms, but 'hidden' platforms come in the sizes I've mentioned. Just like the pair I own. They provide some comfort over thin soled shoes where walking on less than flat surfaces in high heels that put most of the body weight on the ball of the foot. Something you may never experience. As for stating the obvious, perhaps I was following your lead?

The leaves on trees are blue for you then. What the heck has wearing a high heel got to do with being gay? While I haven't met hundreds of gay men, only one of the 20/30 I have met, was anything like effeminate, and he went on to be TS anyway. As for CD's and TV's, the ones I've met have for the most part (if not entirely) been heterosexual men. Go out and do a survey. When you come back with over half your respondents saying men in high heels isn't CD or TV, I'll change my assessment. Until that happens (and it's extremely unlikely it will in my lifetime) trees have green leaves because everyone I've ever met says they are green. Just to be clear here .... I'm not saying you or anyone else (apart from me) is a cross-dresser or transvestite. I don't mind the label because I'm doing what pleases me and labels don't affect me in any way. BUT .... What men wearing womens attire have to expect, is they WILL be labelled as CD or TV because society perceives this to be the case. Even those close to us, perceive it to be the case. Telling me (or anyone else) that isn't true, is disingenuous. Getting back to my concept, I would rather all clothing/footwear was asexual. If a man wants to wear a skirt, (and as long as it doesn't look ridiculous) I'm happy for them to wear it. Heels, thigh boots, knock yourself out. But this isn't what society says is anything like 'normal', and that is an undeniable truth.

Thanks for stating the obvious. My remark referred to the potential comfort from a thicker sole, nothing more.

Although many of you will not be walking in the same places I might, there are times when a thicker sole is useful. I don't mean a platform, but a good 5mm-8mm of sole. I have worn thin soled (more élégant shoes) everywhere, and there are some places where they can be made very painful: Perhaps you've seen them? Lumpy pavement texture to warn those with sight impairment, they are at a junction. Very very unpleasant under thin soled shoes.

Well said. This 'discussion' over CD is ridiculous unrealistic. As I first wrote, I could ask 100 people ..... Anyone of us could ask 100 people for their views. Do any of you REALLY think trying to intellectualise 'men wearing womens shoes' here will change the attitude of one single person in the real world? And more importantly, one we might ask in the street while doing out 100 person survey? How many of you have told your social group you are a member here? Many don't even tell their nearest-and-dearest. (I know two as fact haven't shared.) Why is this? Because you will be viewed in exactly the terms I suggest you will be seen in. If I told people I wore stockings, they'd consider me a cross-dresser or a transvestite. If I told people I wore lacy undies (panties), they'd consider me a CD or TV. Yet both of these have been worn by men. About the only item of clothing never worn by men is a bra. History is irrelevant. Many people don't even know about the social history of recent times, much less hundreds of years ago, and even if they did know (were educated) it would change nothing. As I have already said, this isn't about where we choose to draw boundaries, it's where others do, where our society does. And at present, those boundaries don't coincide, by a long way. I'm not happy with that. I'd be happier if people could wear whatever they wanted without censure from anyone. But that's not what we have today. Getting seen wearing high heels, expect to be thought of as a CD or TV - in the British sense of the words.

The trees are not blue. What is cross-dressing? Wearing attire designed/made for the opposite sex of whoever wears it. You could write a book declaring it isn't so, but it is. You don't make this decision, nor do I. The community, the society we live in does.

Seen at tonights Grammy awards ...... "Make-up artist Patrick Starr is known for his bold beauty looks....."