Membership numbers?

[FastFreddy2]

Bit of query I'm sure everyone is wondering about .....

The membership is growing, I think. I've noticed a pattern of growth, then reduction. For example; there looked to be 420 members the last time I looked, but today; 375.

That's quite a drop. Is it possible to indicate why so many new members are removed? I'm sure they need to be (or it wouldn't be done) but it's quite an enigma. :-P

[euchrid]

Another oddity:-

The Members List just returned a total of 34.

At the bottom of the home page, the "members" figure is given as 378.

They can't both be right.

In view of the paucity of posters, i'm tempted to believe 34 is the more accurate figure.

[Tech]

They are 2 different figures.

Active members, and "Total members"

Active members are simply those who are around regularly, almost daily.

[euchrid]

They are 2 different figures.

Active members, and "Total members"

Active members are simply those who are around regularly, almost daily.

OK - thanks for the heads-up.

The 'Active members' figure is obviously the most important one

- it really doesn't matter how high the other figure gets - we could have 10,000+ passive/inactive/uninterested/non-visiting members yet the "liveliness" of the H4M forum wouldn't be improved.

It's probably not worth monitoring that 'total members' figure at all, Freddy.

BTW, the current "active members" figure at HHP is 1800. I guess we need to get a serious recruitment drive underway here somehow if we're to catch them up.

[FastFreddy2]

there looked to be 420 members the last time I looked, but today; 375.

That's quite a drop. Is it possible to indicate why so many new members are removed? I'm sure they need to be (or it wouldn't be done) but it's quite an enigma.

They are 2 different figures.

Active members, and "Total members"

Any chance of some movement on the answer to the query? :-P

It's probably not worth monitoring that 'total members' figure at all, Freddy.

BTW, the current "active members" figure at HHP is 1800. I guess we need to get a serious recruitment drive underway here somehow if we're to catch them up.

1800 people regularly posting on HHp? Seems unlikely. :-)

Regardless, people become members here for a reason, and every member is an opportunity. [A contribution opportunity.]

On another Forum where I'm a member, there are 13,000 members worldwide. [One of the most active forums on the planet.] But there's probably fewer than 300 regular posters....

This place could never be as busy as HHp. Either forum has a predominently male membership. The HHp if fairly diverse compared to HH4M, even so, it's a niche interest group.

With interest in shoes/heels even amongst men being small a fraction of the whole populace ..... We could be talking about a hundredth, a thousandth, a hundred thousandth of a percentage of the populace? Bulletin Board Forum membership for any interest group is going to be a small percentage of the whole group. Already you could be talking of a thousandth of a thousandth percent of the whole UK/US population.

No surprise then that across the English speaking world, HHp has managed to get less than 'active' 2000 members....

Reduce the interest opportunity even further, by allowing only discussion on men wearing heels, 3 or 400 members becomes a big number.

From the little feedback we get here and from the experiences I've heard elsewhere, I'm not at all surprised members here feel disinclined to discuss their personal life or interests in what could become a public place, if they got careless or who were subject to hacking. More likely though, those used to hiding their interest, just carry on hiding ..... :-)

.....

[euchrid]

1800 people regularly posting on HHp? Seems unlikely. :-P.

That isn't an 'active posters' figure, rather it's the 'active members' - basically it's the number of people who have been regularly logging on & visiting the HHP site. Unfortunately the term 'regular' is also relative since many of them haven't actually visited it this year!

The figure for visitors during 2009 is roughly 800.

In the case of our 34 "active members", 4 of them havent visited H4M this year yet (at least they haven't bothered to log-in when visiting)!

Why someone would register on the site, make a handful of posts and then "disappear" is a mystery to me but there are presumably many people out there doing just that.

Yes, this is a niche interest site, but since there are so few of them around (for our particular peccadillo), I would have expected people to gravitate to them like wasps towards a very jammy jam-jar.

You are probably right in that many fellow heel-admiring/wearing males are still very much 'in the closet' and wary of leaving too many internet footprints (stiletto-heeled ones :-)).

[Tech]

The number of "actual members" displayed, is only how many have actually registered, but doesnt take into account those who never bother to validate their email, and so, complete their registrations.

Every month or so, I go through and wipe out all members who have not verified their email address, as 99.9% of them are just spammers, or time wasters anyway, thus, the number drops back down, and every 6 months or so, I might even go and delete all members who have not logged in for 6 months and have never posted.

Same applies for both websites.

[FastFreddy2]

Every month or so, I go through and wipe out all members who have not verified their email address, as 99.9% of them are just spammers ....

Ahhhhh. :-)

That explains that then..... Thank you. :-P

Why someone would register on the site, make a handful of posts and then "disappear" is a mystery to me but there are presumably many people out there doing just that.

Yes, this is a niche interest site, but since there are so few of them around (for our particular peccadillo), I would have expected people to gravitate to them like wasps towards a very jammy jam-jar.

You are probably right in that many fellow heel-admiring/wearing males are still very much 'in the closet' and wary of leaving too many internet footprints (stiletto-heeled ones :-)).

Very well put.

....

[dww]

In answer to the coment make a few posts and disappear, Yes I do visit the site and have a look around, not very often I will admit.

But until I find something I can comment on and add my two pence worth I will carry on looking (sorry guys). As for HH Place it appears to be going in a what dress will I wear with these shoes sort of direction, nail varnish shaving etc is not me. So there you can have my two pennies worth, and yes I am more than happy to meet up with like minded people and have a good time, no problems so far.

All the very best David.

[HFMROK]

DWW,

I see your statement and that sums it up for me too.

Personally I can't get my head round what I can best describe as obsession with stiletto heels that most seem to have. I get an overwhelming image in my mide that for the majority the wearing of heels is for sexual reasons rather than style reasons. I suppose that is why the stiletto has such a following. Cuban heels, my favorite for guys, just don't have that "sexual" connotation that the stiletto has regardless of their height. I guess that is why I wear cubans without giving it a second thought.

Simon.

[dww]

Hi, I'am glad I am not the only one with such veiws. All I need is a nice pair of jeans black ankle boots with a heel up to four inches, 2-3 inch is my normal heel height and I am happy. If you had asked me twenty years ago if it was a sexual thing I would have most probs said yes, but not now its just a style of things I like to wear, I'am just a man in heels thats it. There are many styles of shoes etc that I like but would never attempt to wear them, not outside anyway. But at the end of the day (sorry for the pun) good luck to all that do and just go ahead and wear what makes you happy.

David.

[FastFreddy2]

I notice one or two have joined recently. I'm guessing to access what are now empty Galleries. :smile:

I also notice that even the Admin team don't visit. Why should they, no posts, and the bulk of the past year filled with posts from a member who continually fails to adhere to the site rules. [i've just read.]

I thought sparking up interest 18 months ago was difficult, but at least people came to the Forum to read new posts from time to time. Has it gone too far this time, and is a completely lost cause? :smile:

[BobHH]

I look in often to see if there is anything new, but generally there is not. It's all over in HHPlace, whereas much of it could be here just as well. Not being a prolific poster, I don't help much.

[FastFreddy2]

I look in often to see if there is anything new, but generally there is not. It's all over in HHPlace, whereas much of it could be here just as well. Not being a prolific poster, I don't help much.

If I'm honest, I might be over there too because it's busier, but apparently got banned with no appeal after getting into a spat with a protagonist who made some very inflammatory remarks to me via PM after I tried to make things good between us. Sadly the Mods there decided I wasn't welcome, and that was it.

I suppose I could re-join with another 'handle', but deception isn't really me. I try to live by Christian values, and am happy to be measured by these, so no deceit if it can be avoided.

I tried a 18 months ago to raise some interest here, and it felt like it was working. But again, the Mods (same ones who banned me at HHp) decided I had two heads ..... :smile: Around the same time life (real life) gave me a bit of a kick in the teeth (some of which you know) then life kicked me some more while I was down.

Now I've wandered back .... it's a ghost town. And no surprise either. I've noticed I'm not the only member treated with irreverence/discourtesy.

I am a prolific poster, sadly. I love to write and explore ideas. It wouldn't take much for me to be responsible for half the content here. :smile: And this site has been here, 6 years? :smile:

Given how many men want to explore or indulge themselves wearing heels, it's almost a tragedy this place isn't busier. But I've said many times, it needs to get some 'critical mass' going.

Anyone got some firelighters?

....

[shyguy]

As part of the admin team, I do come here regularly a few times a week and check the posts, others also appear regularly but I know I personally don't have too much of interest to say at the moment. It has got a little too quiet though and would be nice to see the site pick up and become a bit more active. 2011 is on its way, who knows, that maybe the year for H4M.

[FastFreddy2]

When I first returned there was no apparent interest from search engines, nor anyone else I could see. A few members are making some effort, and the water is stirring.

I doubt this place could compete in any way with HHp, because it's almost anti-women. "4men" geddit?

Just been over for a browse, and the men around the women posters there is quite a shock given I haven't had any exposure to it for some time. [My problem with at least one of the girls there, was her posts seemed too much like a man pretending to be a girl. I was never convinced.]

But people posting (maybe literally) hundreds of HH pictures of girls, is going to be too much of a draw to allow them to wander over here. I think it might be prudent to add some pictures .... maybe not of men wearing heels.

Opinions?

...

[hh4evr1]

I think most people join the high heel meeting place as it is more popular so when searching the net it shows up near the top and people see it and join like I did. It wasn't until quite a bit later that I found this site.

[BobHH]

Yes, there is lots of activity at HHPlace, and usually enough to read. Over the years, I have noticed a trend among a number of heel wearers to gradually move into more articles of women's clothing - jeans, pants, tops, and then skirts. The latter bothers me, as it is something I would never do.* HHPlace states it does not host TS/TV people, but when is that line crossed? Some of the regulars make no secret of dressing as women at least some of the time.

If you look at the blog High Heels for Men, "http://highheelspassion.blogspot.com/", many or most of the pictures posted are of men in dresses and heels, hardly distinguishable from women since the heads are usually cut off or blotted out in the posts. Others are androgynous, many looking like girls with their long hair and makeup and feminine outfits. And another group are sort of way-out show biz types. Many fewer just guys in heels.

Good looking girls with nice legs, pretty feet, and high heels are sexy, and I guess we want to experience some of what it feels like to wear heels, which we generally like. But most of us don't look very sexy dressed as a girl. When you see pictures of models or celebrity couples, the men are generally covered up except for the head/face and hands. The girls, in contrast, are mostly exposed, with bare arms, legs, and feet in high heels. Their emphasis with hair, makeup, polish, etc. is to emphasize their sexual attractiveness, which seems to be the way Western culture has evolved today.

Sure, we can go a ways with neat clothes and nice feet with pedicures and polish and heels, but for many of us, especially older ones, even that will look out of place compared to society's expectations. But to go farther is really opening us up to more ridicule/rejection, I'm afraid.

So, heels4men, how far can a man go in attire and still be considered a man?

*I must say that I do like leggings, though, at least for private wear. They are warm and tight against the legs, and I have always liked slim denims. They look good with heels, and they don't get caught between the heels and the shoes when wearing slides or mules.

[FastFreddy2]

The latter bothers me, as it is something I would never do.* HHPlace states it does not host TS/TV people, but when is that line crossed? Some of the regulars make no secret of dressing as women at least some of the time.

...........

So, heels4men, how far can a man go in attire and still be considered a man?

*I must say that I do like leggings, though, at least for private wear. They are warm and tight against the legs, and I have always liked slim denims. They look good with heels, and they don't get caught between the heels and the shoes when wearing slides or mules.

If I'm honest, the cross-dressing aspect of this doesn't bother me at all. [i try not to be a hypocrite.] Though as you might suggest, a man dressed in woman's clothes, usually (but not always) is going to seem like a manly figure dressed in womans clothes. [Woman have much more attractive basic shape?] And age can't be any kinder to a man in woman clothes, than it would be to the older woman.

That said, the HHp declares it doesn't support the cross-dressing aspect of the site, but plainly much goes on. If it were all removed, I wonder how successful the site would remain?

Conversely, as my wife has just mentioned [reading over my shoulder .... ] even wearing high heels is cross-dressing. Perhaps the thinnest point of a quite steep wedge? It's as you say, where does cross-dressing become tranvestite-ism. ie. Feeling, and or looking like a woman. I think that line is defined a lot more clearly here, [H4M] 'men with heels', men looking and feeling like men - wearing heels?

Like you Bob, I enjoy wearing leggings in winter though under my trousers? [As Long Johns, though I'm not just wearing them for the warmth.] I do sometimes wear hold ups for similar reasons in Autumn and Spring. Some of my boots demand I wear hose, as socks would be too thick, and this would be a time I might also choose to wear hose on my legs under trousers or jeans. [Never bare legged with hose in the house or outside.] Having something close to the skin on your legs is a quite pleasant feeling, but I'm pleased to say there is a practical reason for it too. And looking or feeling 'girly' isn't the reason.

Had a look at the blogspot site. I take your point.

....

[BobHH]

I'm afraid I don't like the term "crossdresser." It has come to imply something derogatory, or is that just me? It seems to me that dressing as a woman except for some occasion like costume parties, Halloween, etc., implies a desire to be a woman or at least to live as one. That isn't upholding the stud image very well! High heels are such a small part of the total costume, that it doesn't seem to be in the same league as skirts/dresses. (Heels are sort of radically different, though.) Although I have known at least one person who changed clothes, name, makeup, etc. to live as a woman, it seems awkward, at least for a while.

I wish shoes would just be referred to as shoes, not women's shoes or men's shoes. I always wonder at the ads which almost always label high heels as women's shoes. Egads, is their doubt in anyone's mind today as to whether they are women's or men's? Now, if they were just labeled "Shoes" and sold in a single department instead of separate men's and women's departments or areas, we might have more men in heels, not to mention more styles and colors.

[FastFreddy2]

I'm afraid I don't like the term "crossdresser." It has come to imply something derogatory, or is that just me? It seems to me that dressing as a woman except for some occasion like costume parties, Halloween, etc., implies a desire to be a woman or at least to live as one.

My wife is an easy going woman. God knows she needs to be.

She'll not upset anyone, even when they deserve it. About as gentle a person you could meet. No vices except a burning desire to retire early.... [Tomorrow wouldn't be too soon. ]

Grammar school education, and smart enough to be a doctor or lawyer. She is as liberal and liberalist as anyone you could wish to meet.

If she says men wearing heels is cross-dressing .... as undesirable as that notion might be, it's a truth from someone who doesn't care - one way or the other. [No agenda or need to take one side or other.] As I wrote the other day, cross-dressing isn't as black and white as it keeps being portrayed. It's a wedge. With full blown TV at the thick end [24/7 'as woman' for a man]; with (just) stockings under trousers - or (just) heels - or (just) womans undies are the very thin end of that wedge.

Sadly, I'm aware this upsets people, and seemingly Americans more than Brits. I guess we are deviant by reputation, and by deed. Being a cross-dresser is no more a slur to me, than being called 'spotty' when I get a spot on my face, or being called 'ginge', had I ginger hair.

As I've gone to some pains to point out, wearing clothes of another gender, does not infer/mean/assume/confirm the wearer to be a transvestite. ie. someone wanting to feel and be seen as someone of the opposite sex to what they actually are. [This remark cuts both ways and is inclusive of both genders.]

I'm not aware of one nation anywhere in the world, where it is common or traditional for men to wear heels. I wish it wasn't so. I've wished it wasn't so since I was about 7, and believe me, that's a fair chunk of time.

Abstract notion: [and bit of a soapbox moment]

If everyone in the world says the colour you see is red, and you think it's blue ... What colour is it? Well to you, it's blue. But if you want to live in the same world everyone else lives in, you have to call it red. Only if you live in a separate world, can the colour be called blue.

So with heels. As individuals here, (HHp and thousands of homes in the Western World), men wearing heels is normal/usual/expected/desirable/attractive. But it's not how the rest of the worlds sees it.

If everyone in the world I want to be part of insists I'm a cross-dresser, how can I refute this apparent reality? Even if I disagree with every fibre of my body? The world wants to label me ... so what? I'm happy wanting what I want, being who I am. My only real gripe is that it took me so long to understand what I (really) wanted, and who I really am.

And I hope you and any other reader won't see these comments as personal, mean, inciteful, or disrespectful. I'm in the same boat as everyone else with this interest/desire. There is no benefit to me in punching holes in that boat. But part of getting the rest of the world to accept me, is me accepting how the world sees and labels me. [Even if I don't agree with their labelling system.] So I work a compromise. I do what I can and enjoy what I can.

There may be time left for me to see that labelling system change, but I doubt it will. Western society has grown increasingly conservative since the 1980's. So maybe in the next life ....

....

[FastFreddy2]

What do I know?

Searching Flickr for HH piccies (sad man) I came across a member there who describes themselves as a cross-dresser.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alice_uk_cd/

Very definitely isn't. Very definitely is a transvestite. I've checked to about Page 12. All 'safe' images. Some nice shoes, but no indication of source.

....

Edited January 14, 2011 by FastFreddy2

[BobHH]

When I see CD, I think of a computer disc, not a crossdresser!

I suppose that is all literally correct, but to me a crossdresser is one who dresses as a woman or to look like a woman. Wearing one article of woman's clothing such as shoes, or even a skirt, but looking very like a man is not crossdressing to me. I never see the term applied to women who wear flats, or pants, or even suits and ties, as long as they are not trying to pass as a man, and even then the term doesn't seem to be used.

It's another one-sided, unfair bit of labeling against men. Women can do whatever they want, but one little step out of line, buddy, and you're tarred with the label. What it really says is that society (generalization) is so insecure about males' masculinity that they can't tolerate any deviation from some largely fictional standard.

Side Issue:

I do see the term "high heels" used quite often in the press, such as the headline "Hoops and High Heels" on an article about a female basketball coach (and ex-WNBA player) who coaches a men's team. Don't tell me men writers aren't attracted to heels!

[FastFreddy2]

It's another one-sided, unfair bit of labeling against men. Women can do whatever they want, but one little step out of line, buddy, and you're tarred with the label. What it really says is that society (generalization) is so insecure about males' masculinity that they can't tolerate any deviation from some largely fictional standard.

I agree 100%.

I also accept the term "cross-dresser" is seldom meant as a term of endearment. [No more than 'queer' 'leftie' 'fascist' could be seen as terms of endearment either.]

There is no doubt in my mind we men are conditioned to conform lest we acquire a bigots label in the same genre of those listed above.

Side Issue:

I do see the term "high heels" used quite often in the press, such as the headline "Hoops and High Heels" on an article about a female basketball coach (and ex-WNBA player) who coaches a men's team. Don't tell me men writers aren't attracted to heels!

I would worry about any man not attracted to high heels. Obviously a non-conformist ....

....

[heelman500]

I found both these sites about the same time and joined up to both.

I personaly am interested in wearing heels because I like heels and have been fascinated in them from an early age, for some reason the higher the heel the more I am fascinated by them, be they on a man or a woman. I dont think that wearing heels is crossdressing, though I can see it being the thin end of the wedge as previously mentioned in this thread. As for getting numbers up and climbing, well this is a niche fascination, though there are undoubtedly thousands more men secretly interested than will ever admit to it, perhaps a monthly meet (With a rotating venue e.g. Jan in London, Feb in Manchester, Mar - London) in a private venue. Whatever happens I will still be wearing my heels as and when I can.....