FastFreddy2

20 years ago, pretty much everyone used the same operating system, same type of network protocol, same browser, problem solving like this wasn't that hard. "These days", that isn't the case. Windows isn't the product it used to be since Win7. Apple is more prevalent than it ever used to be, and then there's multiple version of Android. (I have experience of 5 and 6, and a glimpse at 4. They don't 'work' the same way, especially 6 vs 4.) So problem solving is more difficult unless you specialise in that particular aspect. Being told you get 'kicked off' after a few minutes is reminiscent of the old dial-up days, where being connected (potentially paying by the minute) had software (browser) settings that disconnected after a pre-set period if there was no data traffic either way. Chrome doesn't work that way, as far as I can tell. I've not found anything in the H4M settings that should log you out after a fixed period (say 5 minutes) either. Without a lot more detail, (or someone with a similar experience that knows how to resolve it) putting more hands on the keyboard to help, won't get far.

Troublemaker.

If that was true, wouldn't we all have the same problem? Are there any other applications on your phone or computer that do the same thing? Does your computer browser do it when you leave a Chrome or IE session left open while browsing Daily Mail Online for example? Does your HHP account also get logged off?

Some may not believe this, but I like to socialise with like-minded people. I'm willing/able to put some energy into help produce a meeting of those who might like to put faces to 'names', including mine. In meeting other people, I am aware they won't have my background (rough), might be better educated. Might have less education (hard to imagine). They might have views I don't agree with, some I might not even like. A bit like going to a wedding, you are going to meet people from all walks, but for the sake of the nuptial couple, a respectable situation is usually observed. I think high-heel meetings should be held under the same auspices. Like any new relationship, you have to give it a chance. If you don't like it, there are appropriate ways to deal with that, just like you would at a wedding. If you find you dislike everyone there, you can leave early, once the marriage vows have been exchanged. Getting people together always seems to be too much work. There is little desire to meet others. People have to travel. People have to make accommodations for their absence. The latter is okay for some, but probably a minority. These things maybe have a better chance of success (people attend) if there is some secondary reason for the meeting. That could be the attendance of a stage show (ie Kinky Boots or The Rock Horror Picture Show) or something like a Shoe Fair, Shoe Exhibition, or Fetish Market (where larger sizes might be available to try on.) I'm not a big enthusiast of West End shows as they are frighteningly expensive, but I would be happy to attend a meet pre/post a show, or at some other do.

Argument? How is voicing different views an argument? Or is a debate also an argument? Please don't assume that viewpoints expressed by two motivated (opinionated) pedants, is a row or argument. At least it isn't from me. I have been involved in 'dressing up' one way or another since my early teens. I like to feel that puts me in a position of active experience. A man or woman who sees a man wearing heels would say (999 times out of 1000) he's a transvestite. I don't happen to agree. You do. That's fine, but does that mean we must agree you are right? No. I don't agree the etymologically either. Do a Google search on "red". The last time I did it, there were at least 6 different hues (if not 9) and none of them were directly comparable. Same with CD vs TV. Largely assumed to be the same, (as I have said) and the video's largely support that notion. In my understanding (experience) TV means to cross-over, to completely re-assign gender via clothing, demeanour, and overall look. (Meaning make-up, hair, adornments. This is ALSO true when a women to man cross-over is made and 'fake' beard is added or drawn.) Conversely, cross-dressing, by implication, involves no gender re-assignment or re-alignment. My viewpoint is that simple. I can't see why anyone would assume they are the same thing. Unless you live in the Americas, where TV has entirely (non-dressing) associations. In Thailand for example, they are known as Lady-boys. Still TV's, men/boys dressed to pass as women/girls. (Often for the purpose of paid-sex.) In this scenario, those wearing female attire would (obviously) prefer to disenfranchise themselves from the TV label, although they fall under it. They use the (in my view - incorrect label) of cross-dressing, despite wanting to pass as females (or males if women by birth gender). So cross-dressing has replaced the TV label, because by default, there is no sex industry secondary labelling. (Doesn't mean there isn't one available: it's often known as "sissifying".) As Puffer rightly says, there are many views, with few agreeing. So much so, it could take a years full-time study to produce a thesis (PhD paper) that still caused disagreement. A while back I had some debate with No.1 grandson. I suggested to him, if he had a completely unique view on something, would it change anything. The example I gave was: "If everyone says the leaves on trees are green, but you think they are blue, does that make them green or blue?" The answer I gave was that; "while everyone else thinks they are green, they are green, but to you they are blue. You are allowed to see them as blue, as long as you understand everyone else sees them as green." Not unlike here really. As long as I understand some/many/all don't agree my views, it doesn't matter to anyone. As long as I adjust my labelling to suit others so a reasonable exchange of ideas can occur. Same true of others. Oddly, (if I remember correctly) you don't like being referred to as a cross-dresser. Understandable if you believe that a CD is a TV, as I don't think wearing make-up and wigs is an interest to you. (Meaning you have no interest in being seen as a woman.) But where does that put you? Do you prefer FreeStyler? Do you, like Puffer prefer (or see yourself) as a FreeStyler? I'm happy with the label, though prefer the more definitive F/S dresser. But the bad news is; that it makes you, Puffer, and me, people who see leaves as blue, not green. The other 60M people in this country save perhaps 1-5000, see us as TV's. THAT's why our women folk (and their friends/family) don't encourage men in heels. THOSE people are ignorant to the difference, THOSE people have no need or desire to discover there is a difference. We won't change that, in our (late) lifetimes, we can't hope to ever change that. The important thing for us, is that we know that. In my view, the best I could ever hope for, is that people (the general populace) are able to realise there is a difference between gender changing through clothing and overall appearance, to cross-dressing. (Or some other term that clearly infers some middle-ground in wearing gender-assigned clothing.) If I can't convince you that cross-dressing isn't being a TV, I have no hope of that ever. And we have no hope of changing 60M minds either. We are stuck with being labelled transvestites. Here endeth the crusade.

You don't need to concern yourself about any of these things ... Never going to happen.

At your age, perhaps you should. (Boom! Boom! - As Basil Brush would say.) Regarding backward compatibility .... A TV isn't a FreeStyler in the sense mentioned here. In that respect, the journey is like a snowboarder sliding down a mountain. You can start as a F/S and work your way downward toward TV, but once there, you are there - no sliding back up hill. I doubt you'll meet anyone calling themselves Mr TV (Retired) . Same must be true of a CD, though with the inclusion of a F/S as a category, it adds more ammunition to the CD=TV standpoint. As far as being a TV is concerned, you've either been there (are there) or you ain't. I pretty much don't care if someone wants to refer to me as a TV, since I have done the whole bit. I see my tastes as being more androgynous perhaps, with a taste for tight clothing beyond even that of younger women. And 'heels with everything'. of course. Did I get that 'tight' bit from watching too much Buck Rogers, or Space 1999?

For a 'special occasion' I will travel 100 miles, as one member here is aware. If you are in London, I might only need to travel 30. Even a stopover at Heathrow or Gatwick en route away from Europe would be do-able. Better much sums up my circumstances too. We are lucky. Many here (and elsewhere) aren't so fortunate.

We will have to agree to disagree. I have given adequate representative examples to explain myself, and where I think borders/limitations might exist. I have personal experience to lean on too. I'm not afraid of any labels. "Freestyler" to me, would be a snowboarder. I'm happy with cross-dresser because I like bits of both gender aligned clothing and (currently) make no attempt at feminisation. In my analogy, (as I repeat for the third time) someone born to black clothing that likes or prefers white clothing, is TV. Someone who mixes black and white, is CD. There are no two bites of the cherry. A TV isn't a CD too, unless you agree CD=TV and TV=CD. One mixes a gender orientated clothing style, one doesn't. That said (and throwing support at my perception "there is a generally accepted misnomer; CD=TV" remarks) spell checking "feminisation", brought these up as examples: I haven't watched every minute of these, but I know they ARE NOT OFFICE SAFE. These are all TV transitions (or the ones I watched), but are considered cross-dressing. The 4 'dressing' groups debated are: FreeStyler + CD + TV and 'drag'. Given that in American circles at least CD=TV, then I might be considered a FreeStyle dresser. A bit like shoe and clothing sizes, there might need to be a slight shift in naming conventions for correct alignment. Measured on a US scale then, I would be considered F/S. I live in the UK, so would consider myself a CD. Androgynous in clothing style, and "non-binary" (not completely male, not completely female). To some parts of the world I'm a F/S dresser. I can understand the need for a new group, since (going back to my original comments) CD = TV and in the Americas, TV's are best known for membership of the sex industry so it's an extremely unflattering association. In that respect: F/S - someone who wears mixed gender associated clothing. CD - (usually) a man who dresses/acts/looks like a woman or feminised man. TV - possibly pre-TS, and often associated with worker in sex industry. Drag - (usually) male dressed as caricature of woman. I begin to understand why Americans might get so upset at being called CD's.

I have you some 70 miles from the centre of the universe (London) so that doesn't help you much. That said, I know of 3 others (members here) that if they too travelled up to your maximum of 50 miles, could all find a common location for a meet up together. Will never happen. (Although I have met two of them.) As you well know, I am happy to meet up with anyone. Sadly, even people I have met in the past (sometimes regularly) have other demands that push their interest of a meet into a very low place on their list of priorities. Even when I have known for sure the people buying womens shoes off me are men, and they are buying for themselves, they are reluctant to get into a dialogue over their interest. I was going to write; "I've no idea why", but then thought: wives. If your wife/girlfriend does not know or doesn't approve of your secret, social activity isn't going to happen. We are our own jailer. (My last philosophical remark today. )

I introduce the notion of 'intent'. A "cross-dresser in stealth mode", who is actually a TV. Perhaps I take the debate a step too far? The intention was to show that there is a much wider gap between CD and TV. That determination is mindset. For my own intent, do I want to appear or seem feminine, in placing myself into the CD sector? I do not intentionally wear women associated (so gender orientated) clothing because I want to feminise myself (as would a TV) or as I might have done (as mentioned) for sporadic social occasions in the past. I wear, or prefer to wear clothing that culturally has cross gender associations, because I enjoy wearing it. Heels (obviously), and hose/leggings (pleasant and keep me warm). Even at the height of my activity, I never owned or wanted to own ladies undies. I had to wear a foundation (obviously) but that was (and still would be) for practical reasons. Technically, 200 years ago, both heels and hose were parts of male attire. Am I a reborn Georgian? As to not wanting to address any points 'missed' it may well be because I don't feel there is anything to challenge. The two "issues" I have I have tried to address, and one apparently rather badly. At this time, I'm happy if there is a consensus (not just between you and I) that there is some differentiation between CD and TV. My experience suggests these are widely seen as the same, and even on this thread there was mention they were. I tried to explain that away. A TV is someone born to wear black clothes, that wants to wear white clothes, or feels 'better' wearing white clothes. What they want from their sex life may (or may not) have a bearing. In this example, it does not. A cross-dresser born to wear black clothes, might also like the occasional white item, or several white items, but fully recognises his black alignment in all other things. At a guess, a FreeStyle (dresser) might like coloured clothing? "Freestyle", I would normally associate with winter sports BTW, and maybe surfing. It's also a catch-all for a type of bicycle. The point really is that in general conversation, without the definer it could mean 'any of the above'. You hit the nail on the head before, when you said these definitions could be subject to a PhD thesis. I have no intention of digging myself into a hole over this, I'm happy if folk don't agree. As long as they have a reason to. Unlike Russ (and many many others) I'm happy to be labelled a cross-dresser. Why? Because that's the nicer version of the label the rest of the world would refer to me as. That's the world I actually live in, not the world I would like to live in. Outside of a fashion college, I doubt most (if not all) the folk I might know and meet, would even recognise the concept of "FreeStyle", much less associate it with a dressing style. (Unfortunately for us all.) Bottom line is this: Wear ANY female attire, you will get labelled TV. If I can work toward a third concept (ie cross dresser), I will consider myself very lucky. The simple analogy of that, would be anything other than a single sex dress style. Which is back to ... non-binary. As I understood your stance, you'd prefer not only a 3rd group, but a 4th too? I don't agree a man in a dress could be called a CD. I don't agree a TV is also a CD. In my example, a TV (black) wants white. A CD (black) wants white and black. There is the difference.

Here is my reasoning behind TV vs CD. (And I haven't checked my prose for complete conformity) but here it is. Clothing is always "a-sexual" unless it is designed for the benefit of a gender assignment. Jeans and shoes, ALWAYS a-sexual. Dresses: I'm leaning toward feminine for minor practical reasons (access) and majorly aesthetic appeal. (Showing off shape). Teddy: Might be some practical feminine benefit, but there is not, nor has there ever been a male equivalent, so largely aesthetic for the benefit of women. Stockings (which used to have to include suspenders) practical (access again) and in more recent years, aesthetic. In the examples above, the 'trick' was No.3. That is someone who wants to be or feels feminine, but has to look like a male in a public situation. No.1 was borderline 'drag' but ... who can say. I have worn ski-pants, (womans) knitted top (womans) high heels (guess!) And the only thing that made me "femme" was lipstick and ear rings, though this outfit was worn during the height of Boy George/Marilyn hysteria. If it hadn't been for the lipstick, I would not have been dressed much different to George Michael at the time. (Who probably used more make-up than me back then.) What I mean by this is: If a writer were describing my clothing (without ear rings and lippy) no-one would know I was dressed to appear androgynous - save the heels of course. Though there is no requirement for them to have gender assignment and we all know heels started off as menswear anyway. There was significantly more freestyle dressing in the 80's than there is now. The 80's - Age of the Dandy? (aka New Romantic).

I like the FreeStyler idea, but it is too easily associated with sport. It might be better as FreeStyle dresser, which then becomes a little less tidy, but more definitive. We are going to have to agree to disagree on the cross-dresser bit though. I have witnessed the association with Transvestites, and received some heavy criticism myself when trying to disengage the two. The line between TV and cross-dressing as stated is potentially too fine for an obvious differentiation too. Some 'test' situations? Man wears a dress, heels, got full beard, no make-up. Which category? Man wears a dress, heels, clean shaven, make-up. =ditto= Man wears suit, flat shoes (mens with lifts), silk teddy, stocking and suspenders, clean shaven. =ditto= I have them all as Transvestites.

Bit of a 'statement' shoe .... Loving the leggings.

Wow! Do you have pictures and details?

Not sure I understand the question really .... To me, a high heel (anything 4" ~ 10cm and over) is a high heel whatever the shape of the heel?

Do you have any with high heels, perhaps worn only at home?

Still logged in despite PC going into 'sleep' mode.

Been doing other stuff (email) for 44/45 minutes, still logged in? The H4M site hasn't kicked me off.

Looking forward to seeing them being worn ... Very good choice. (I would have bought too. ) From the auction site:

Okay. I only use MS Win7 on a computer, so that's all I can test here. I don't recall ever being logged out, but then I don't leave anything open when I walk away from the computer, and it'll shut itself down after 20-30 minutes anyway. I don't recall having to log back in at any time though. To see if I get 'logged out' automatically, I'll leave this window open while I get on with some packing work. I'll play some music in the background to stop the computer shutting itself down. My browser is set to remember my logon details. Once I click an icon, I'm in.

Let me start by (fully) expressing what I understand by the term "binary". It's a term I would say is stolen from computing where machine (computer) language is spoken in zero's and one's. There is no inbetween state, only the two, hence "binary". When talking about sex and sexuality these days, those 'inbetween' would describe themselves as "non-binary" because the don't completely fit into either camp, they float somewhere between the two - or at least outside of both. To use a not very flattering euphemism: square pegs in round holes. I would suggest in this respect "we" or at least I am not 'binary', since I don't fit wholly into either dress gender. In my younger days, I would go out socially, perhaps 3 or 4 times a year as a "transvestite", since I dressed to look like a woman, to effectively 'pass' as a woman. It wasn't my lifestyle choice though. Other than those social occasions, I wore mens clothing (except my jeans which were girls. Required for an anatomical reason.) While I admit I enjoyed every second of being 'dressed up', it was a means to end: wearing high heels in a social occasion. I am a man, I'm not a man wanting to be seen as a woman, but my tastes still don't fully fit into the male stereotypical gender dressing style, nor will they ever. For example; I've nearly always got legging on, because I enjoy something on my legs. At the very height of summer, my legs might be naked, but that could be one or two days a year. On the days too warm for leggings, I will wear holdups. Not while working, but while out socially. To me, something on my legs is all part of 'getting dressed' for an occasion, as is putting on a heel. No-one gets to see my legs, so this is done for my benefit, part of what makes me, me. Does that make me a transvestite? Am I trying to pass myself off as the alternate gender to my own birth gender? Surely the answer is no? So what am I? If I am to be labelled (because I must have one), what would that be, what could that be, if not cross-dresser? To think 'cross-dressing' is the same as 'transvestite' is a misnomer. They aren't. Lazy, uneducated people with no real-life experience might choose to think they are, but they can't be. As for not wanting to look androgynous ... (From Wiki.) "A person who is androgynous may engage freely in what is seen as masculine or feminine behaviours as well as tasks. They have a balanced identity that includes the virtues of both genders and may disassociate the task with what gender it may be socially assigned to. People who are androgynous disregard what traits are culturally constructed specifically for males and females within a specific society, and rather focus on what behaviour is most effective within the situational circumstance." Welcome to the square peg club.

Mindful we are all pretty much like minded, can I bring up an issue with this, and it not be seen as a soapbox moment? Americans have no distinction between cross-dressers and transvestites. (And too often, TV's are synonymous with the sex trade.) When I check "recognised" publications (ie Wiki) I find some adulterous references that suggest these two are the same thing. No. In my mind, which utilises past experience and some smidgen of logic, I would offer this (and why). Cross-dressers: These are going to be people who use gender related styles or clothing to mark their style participation in neither - or both genders. If a comparison was made with colour; black and white being two extremes, the cross-dresser might have some black clothing, some white clothing (where usually people wore black or white). Almost uniquely, the cross-dresser might wear grey, making them unlike others. (Non-binary.) If compared as a sex, the cross-dresser would be androgynous, sharing an orientation involving attraction to both sexes, or to neither. A woman wearing mans shoes, or other masculine apparel isn't a transvestite. A man wearing a skirt, or a man wearing a heel, isn't a transvestite (as below). If they are not cross-dressing, what are they doing? Transvestite: To cross-over in dress (style) and look, to the point of wanting to be seen as the alternate gender to birth. For a woman to 'appear' as a man, in look and demeanour. For a man to be dressed and styled, so as to be taken for a woman. No halfway measures from either group, in trying to be received as their alternate gender. This definition, I doubt is disputed by anyone. "Drag:" Almost entirely the domain of men wearing an exaggerated version of women's (glamour) apparel, to the point of often being comedic. It's not unusual to see drag 'queens' with facial hair. The intent is not for the man to be seen as a woman, rather a man's (almost) caricature version of a glamorous woman, as played by a man. Tin hat and running shoes at the ready ..... Off we go!

Nearly every active member here is in the UK, so that's quite a drive for a meet. Getting Brits to meet up in the UK is nearly impossible, so a meet on mainland Europe ..... If ever you wander over to here though, I'd be happy to meet you.

Is this with an MS operating system on a laptop/desktop, or an Android phone?