Hello from Amsterdam

[bertus]

Hello,

I am the new guy from Amsterdam.

I have created a collection of women shoes of 31 pieces.

All shoes I have come from www.bigshoes24.com

I have all kinds of shoes from ballerinas to pumps with heels upto 10 cm.

Bertus

[Heels]

Hello from England. The more you join in the more you get of from this site.

 

[bertus]

Hello,

Did you also see this thread posted by me?

Bertus

[FastFreddy2]

Hello Bertus, and welcome. 

 

Yes the new thread can be seen, thank you. 

I have size UK8/EU41 feet so can buy shoes in most UK shops. 

Having 31 pairs is quite a good collection.

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by FastFreddy2
Spelling+grammar.

[bertus]

Hello,

I do have size UK10/EU44, so I will have to go to special shops, with special prices.

Bertus

[hh4evr1]

Welcome. Once you have posted a certain number of posts you can set up a gallery to show your collection or you could upload photos to a post.

 

[Puffer]

On 9/16/2016 at 6:58 AM, bertus said:

Hello,

I do have size UK10/EU44, so I will have to go to special shops, with special prices.

Bertus

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

[gjogj]

Hello,

Me being size 44/UK10 most go to special shops like Bertus does. Althoug I find Ebay also a good source. Usualy I use the german site as it gives more results.

Welcome to the board Puffer.

GJ

[Puffer]

8 hours ago, gjogj said:

Hello,

Me being size 44/UK10 most go to special shops like Bertus does. Althoug I find Ebay also a good source. Usualy I use the german site as it gives more results.

Welcome to the board Puffer.

GJ

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?

Edited October 19, 2016 by Puffer
typo

[gjogj]

Hi Puffer,

I seem a new commer however, I am a dormant member of this board. Sti ou are right I have not introduced myself propprly.

i will make it up to you and do so in a separate post.

GJ

[bertus]

Hello all,

@Puffer , the shop where I buy my ladies shoes also has an international webshop: https://www.bigshoes24.com/

You could ask them if the send the shoes abroad.

@gjogj , Also welcome to the forum.

How long are you using the ladies shoes?

Bertus

Edited October 22, 2016 by bertus

[gjogj]

@bertus I am using ladies shoes for about 15 years now. I have been active on these fora on and off. mostly for the same reasn as you have . There is more versalility in ladies shoes compared to mens.

[Tacchi Alti]

1 hour ago, gjogj said:

@bertus I am using ladies shoes for about 15 years now. I have been active on these fora on and off. mostly for the same reasn as you have . There is more versalility in ladies shoes compared to mens.

I don't like the expression 'ladies shoes'! They're not ladies' shoes - they're mine! They just happen to have come from the other side of the store. They come from the side with almost infinite variety of style and colour rather than the side with the choice of black or brown, heavy or very heavy, flat or flat, styleless or styleless...

[gjogj]

@Russ in boots I had no intention to offend you. When I reffered to ladies shoes, I was reffering to the shoes you described as "shoeh which come from the other side of the store". Lets not start a discusion about onthology here. We share a similar taste, that is important. For effenicency "ladies shoes" was used, it is shorter than "shoes from the other side of the store". In the latter case the discussion might go about the refference point to determine the other side of the store.

To summarise, @Russ in boots I was not aware off your dislike in the expression, and I will refer to "ladies shoes" in a more generic way.

 

[Tacchi Alti]

Don't worry - no offence taken! It's certainly a concise expression. It also annoys me when people speak of a six inch heel increasing their height by six inches. It would do that only of there were also a six inch platform. My pedantic mind - don't let it worry you!

What gets to me is that women can wear what clothes they want, from either 'side of the store', and no one says a word. If a man does the same, he is 'gay', a 'pervert', etc. She can raid a man's wardrobe, but feels threatened if a man does the same to her.

I'm not a crossdresser as such - I like fashion freedom. To me a crossdresser is generally someone trying to look like a woman, while I'm comfortable with being male but just wearing what clothes I like, which incidentally is mainly shoes.

[gjogj]

Hi @Russ in boots We share the same view here. People tend to be narrow minded. I often do pick some stuff from 'the other side' and I even wear it. The funny thing is ... I get compliments. I wore a 'female' skinny jeans the other day and got a few compliments. Not a single person looked at the zip which is facing the other direction compared to the 'male' version.
Being in NL and in the western part, I notice people being more laid back. Thanks for your responce by the way.

When I wear this to work (photo) I will get comments. However I think it looks fine.

[FastFreddy2]

13 hours ago, Russ in boots said:

I'm not a crossdresser as such - I like fashion freedom. To me a crossdresser is generally someone trying to look like a woman, while I'm comfortable with being male but just wearing what clothes I like, which incidentally is mainly shoes.

 

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!  

 

 

 

[Tacchi Alti]

I remember asking the question about the difference on another site, and getting several different answers. The silly thing is that the words mean exactly the same. By your definition, then, I'm a partial crossdresser, but I don't like being tagged as one, as I'm not wanting to look androgynous - I'm a man who happens to like some of the clothing generally understood to be the domain of women. A woman who wears some men's clothes in her outfit is not seen as a crossdresser, so why should I be seen as one if I return the compliment?

[FastFreddy2]

35 minutes ago, Russ in boots said:

I remember asking the question about the difference on another site, and getting several different answers. The silly thing is that the words mean exactly the same. By your definition, then, I'm a partial crossdresser, but I don't like being tagged as one, as I'm not wanting to look androgynous - I'm a man who happens to like some of the clothing generally understood to be the domain of women. A woman who wears some men's clothes in her outfit is not seen as a crossdresser, so why should I be seen as one if I return the compliment?

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.   

 

[Puffer]

21 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

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.

...

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!). 

[FastFreddy2]

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.

[Puffer]

1 hour ago, FastFreddy2 said:

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.

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!

[FastFreddy2]

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). 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2016 by FastFreddy2
Removed repetition (of phrase).

[Puffer]

Freddy - I don't want to get into a lengthy debate (let alone any noisy argument) about something that is primarily of academic interest here!   But you started the discussion and, although I agreed with almost all you originally said (if expressed by you and understood by me as you intended), you now seem to be changing your stance and not answering my points.

Please say whether you do (now) in fact regard CD and TV conduct as effectively the same thing.   And, if so, why the distinctions I drew are of little substance, or indeed wrong.

As to a teddy, stockings, suspenders etc, surely these have (or had) male near-equivalents?   Men did once wear various forms of corsetry, for supposedly practical rather than decorative reasons.   And of course hosiery and its accessories were also once unisex.   Very few garments (even including the bra) or cosmetics etc have ever been totally single-sex and that is not the issue here; we are (in the contemporary world) concerned with items aimed at and normally (i.e. usually/conventionally) worn by one gender.   It is only when they are worn by 'the other gender' (or by those who profess not to have a fixed gender) that we even need to consider the wearer's status as a CD, TV or whatever - and that is without considering other physical or behavioural aspects that move the person towards another gender, intentionally or not. 

[FastFreddy2]

2 hours ago, Puffer said:

Please say whether you do (now) in fact regard CD and TV conduct as effectively the same thing.   And, if so, why the distinctions I drew are of little substance, or indeed wrong.

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.