Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

You should move to Fiji. 

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. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiji is lovely. I have travelled quite a bit through the various islands there. My favourite is Ovelau, Taveuni is up there too. And the Yasawas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Me and a skirt, it's exactly so. 20 minutes a year, if I've been a good boy! B)

...

... and for much longer if you've been a bad boy, naturally!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just caught up with the recent posts - some interesting stuff there and much material for detailed academic debate - which I will not attempt.   

Suffice it to say that, as always with definitions, the devil lies in the detail.   I agree with the categorisation that Freddy has suggested, i.e. that CD = wearing one or more items of clothing/footwear traditionally/conventionally not worn by one's own gender, but without any serious attempt to pass as the other gender; TV = a conscious effort (clothes, make-up, overall appearance/conduct) to pass as the other gender.   I do think that the confusion between these distinct categories (especially in the US) clouds the issue significantly.   As to 'androgeny', this seems to me a somewhat unnecessary further term, as it merely describes a CD who mixes and matches clothes for both (all?) genders - which is surely what most CDs do anyway?   And we need not concern ourselves further with anything TS; that is concerned primarily with the physiological change of gender, independently of clothing etc.

As Freddy says, I have seen (historic) photos of him dressed 'en femme' - and very attractive and passable he looked too!   In essence, clear TV activity - but, by his own admission, he went out thus primarily because he wanted to wear heels and felt (then) that his only recourse was to go the whole hog and become, in overall appearance, a passable woman who could legitimately wear heels in public.   So, in my book he was really an 'advanced CD' in that his agenda was really to wear female shoes and some other items because he liked the items, and not to masquerade as a woman, although of course he achieved that incidentally.   No doubt he will correct me if I have misunderstood his motivation.

I agree too with the general analysis of HHP and its clientele.   Adopting my definitions above, I suggest that, although HHP isn't - and shouldn't be - a TV forum, it does of necessity embrace the activity of a significant number of male CDs - ranging from those who simply like to wear women's footwear, perhaps only in private and occasionally (the great majority of the members), to those who add selected stockings, skirts, make-up etc and thereby achieve a more uniformly female look without consciously attempting to 'pass' as female, i.e. they are not truly TVs.   If I am right, then HHP cannot exclude CD discussion but can (and should) draw the line at anything overtly TV.   The problem comes back to the CD/TV confusion, if only in terminology, and perhaps this should be addressed, given that HHP is based in the UK and ought to adopt UK rather than US conventions.   

I for one find interesting posts on HHP but have no personal interest or desire to go further down the CD road than some women's footwear might take me!   And H4M caters well for that, or would do if it was better supported.     

Edited by Puffer
formatting
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the rules of HHP make the important distinction  that the wearing of heels by men is not in any way cross-dressing but a liberated fashion choice - indeed one that reclaims what was once a masculine style anyway. For the overwhelming majority of people cross-dressing entails something far more flamboyant than an exchange of footwear - for men, it would include pantyhose, skirts, painted nails, blouse, make up etc. And for women it would be something much more in line with that photo of Tilda Swinton posted elsewhere, in the male dinner suit.  Had she been wearing skinny jeans, a jumper and a pair of men's Caterpillar workbooks the notion of crossdressing would never even have occurred. Neither would it occur to most people that a schoolgirl wearing a necktie would be cross-dressing, yet she would be wearing an iconic masculine article of clothing, tied in the iconic masculine way.

A man in heels is unusual, yes, and right be looked at oddly, but if heels are the only things he is wearing from the other side of the shop - especially if they are block heels - the term 'crossdressing' would not flash up in many minds; cross-dressing is something flamboyant in the minds of most, something that takes more effort, is more overt. People expect more from their crossdressers than a mere change of footwear. Mention the term and they are far more likely to think of The Rocky Horror Picture show than a chap in jeans and flannel shirt who happens to be wearing a pair of ankle boots with two-inch block heels that he bought at Topshop.    

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Puffer said:

I agree with the categorisation that Freddy has suggested, i.e. that CD = wearing one or more items of clothing/footwear traditionally/conventionally not worn by one's own gender, but without any serious attempt to pass as the other gender; TV = a conscious effort (clothes, make-up, overall appearance/conduct) to pass as the other gender.   I do think that the confusion between these distinct categories (especially in the US) clouds the issue significantly.   As to 'androgeny', this seems to me a somewhat unnecessary further term, as it merely describes a CD who mixes and matches clothes for both (all?) genders - which is surely what most CDs do anyway?   And we need not concern ourselves further with anything TS; that is concerned primarily with the physiological change of gender, independently of clothing etc.

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.

 

Quote

As Freddy says, I have seen (historic) photos of him dressed 'en femme' - and very attractive and passable he looked too!   In essence, clear TV activity - but, by his own admission, he went out thus primarily because he wanted to wear heels and felt (then) that his only recourse was to go the whole hog and become, in overall appearance, a passable woman who could legitimately wear heels in public.   So, in my book he was really an 'advanced CD' in that his agenda was really to wear female shoes and some other items because he liked the items, and not to masquerade as a woman, although of course he achieved that incidentally.   No doubt he will correct me if I have misunderstood his motivation.

Oh, you! ;)

 

Quote

I agree too with the general analysis of HHP and its clientele.   Adopting my definitions above, I suggest that, although HHP isn't - and shouldn't be - a TV forum, it does of necessity embrace the activity of a significant number of male CDs - ranging from those who simply like to wear women's footwear, perhaps only in private and occasionally (the great majority of the members), to those who add selected stockings, skirts, make-up etc and thereby achieve a more uniformly female look without consciously attempting to 'pass' as female, i.e. they are not truly TVs.   If I am right, then HHP cannot exclude CD discussion but can (and should) draw the line at anything overtly TV.   The problem comes back to the CD/TV confusion, if only in terminology, and perhaps this should be addressed, given that HHP is based in the UK and ought to adopt UK rather than US conventions.   

I for one find interesting posts on HHP but have no personal interest or desire to go further down the CD road than some women's footwear might take me!   And H4M caters well for that, or would do if it was better supported.     

It's time we got our language back on track... ;)  :D

 

4 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I think the rules of HHP make the important distinction  that the wearing of heels by men is not in any way cross-dressing but a liberated fashion choice - indeed one that reclaims what was once a masculine style anyway. For the overwhelming majority of people cross-dressing entails something far more flamboyant than an exchange of footwear - for men, it would include pantyhose, skirts, painted nails, blouse, make up etc. And for women it would be something much more in line with that photo of Tilda Swinton posted elsewhere, in the male dinner suit.  Had she been wearing skinny jeans, a jumper and a pair of men's Caterpillar workbooks the notion of crossdressing would never even have occurred. Neither would it occur to most people that a schoolgirl wearing a necktie would be cross-dressing, yet she would be wearing an iconic masculine article of clothing, tied in the iconic masculine way.

Mean wearing heels, not cross-dressing? Blue trees! Blue trees! :rolleyes:

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.

 

Quote

A man in heels is unusual, yes, and right be looked at oddly, but if heels are the only things he is wearing from the other side of the shop - especially if they are block heels - the term 'crossdressing' would not flash up in many minds; cross-dressing is something flamboyant in the minds of most, something that takes more effort, is more overt. People expect more from their crossdressers than a mere change of footwear. Mention the term and they are far more likely to think of The Rocky Horror Picture show than a chap in jeans and flannel shirt who happens to be wearing a pair of ankle boots with two-inch block heels that he bought at Topshop.    

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.   

 

Edited by FastFreddy2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transvestism is totally different to cross-dressing in every book but yours, I'm afraid.

And cross-dressing is far more flamboyant and more involved than a man putting on a different pair of shoes or a woman wearing a man's hat or tie. Simple as.

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear!   Things are getting a little frantic, albeit still polite.   

I cannot agree with Shyheels that a crossdresser has to do something more than just wear footwear that relates to the opposite gender; as a matter of semantics, wearing any 'alien' item is by definition crossdressing, however mild and innocuous the act and resultant appearance.   And when it goes further to include a thorough attempt to pass as a woman, it becomes transvestism - in my glossary anyway.   (Are any of us actually disagreeing that CD and TV are not synonymous - however much the public thinks otherwise?)

Although it might be debated, this Wiki entry is interesting:   'The word [transvestism] has undergone several changes of meaning since it was first coined and is still used in a variety of senses. Today, the term transvestite is commonly considered outdated and derogatory, with the term cross-dresser used as a more appropriate replacement. This is because the term transvestite was historically used to diagnose medical disorders, including mental health disorders, and transvestism was viewed as a disorder, but the term cross-dresser was coined by the transgender community. In some cases, however, the term transvestite is seen as more appropriate for use by members of the transgender community instead of by those outside of the transgender community, and some have reclaimed the word.'   To my mind, this indicates that sensitivity (almost certainly US-driven) has encouraged the use of 'crossdresser' (which term already existed in much the same sense as I have been using it) to embrace what is more correctly 'transvestite' behaviour, because of the alleged medical connotation of being a TV.   Perhaps a dose of reality is needed here - it could be argued that dressing and attempting to pass as a woman is a medical disorder, however mild, (no criticism implied) and therefore the TV label is entirely correct, however discomforting that may feel to some, leaving the CD label for those who simply wear some female items.

As to the 'challenge', it could be interesting and I am prepared to act as honest broker, stakeholder and referee if you both wish!   But I have to say that I think it likely that Freddy will win, as the TV label is the better known (at least in the UK) and the more likely to be applied off the cuff by vox populi, however wrongly.   That said, I do think that if the difference between CD and TV was explained in simple terms to Joe/Joanne Public, he or she (or it!) would then tend to apply the CD label to Freddy (in thigh boots), Eddie Izzard (who wrongly styles himself as a TV), etc.   (But quite possibly not to Grayson Perry, who although he looks like a clown, gives the distinct impression of wanting to pass as a woman, however outlandish, and is therefore a TV.)    Perhaps the challenge should be in two parts: (i) an immediate reaction; (ii) a second chance after a brief explanation.

As a post-script, when Mrs P tackled me a few months ago about my women's boots, she accused me of being a 'crossdresser'.   In the strictest sense, I was one when wearing the boots, but I had to deny it because she clearly had the notion that a CD indulged in much more than that, by dressing more thoroughly in female clothing - and cited Eddie Izzard as an example (who 'disgusts' her).   But, interestingly, she seemed to recognise that a TV did more than just dress, and I wasn't accused of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

Transvestism is totally different to cross-dressing in every book but yours, I'm afraid.

And cross-dressing is far more flamboyant and more involved than a man putting on a different pair of shoes or a woman wearing a man's hat or tie. Simple as.

 

 

  

Mine?

Maybe, but then I've been inside the environment ... not just a distant spectator.

So, the challenge is on then? B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then millions of school girls head off to school cross dressing each day, is that right? Wearing their men’s ties. You can’t have it both ways. 

Your wife’s response, that CDs do more than wear shoes, is exactly the response most would give.

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

Then millions of school girls head off to school cross dressing each day, is that right? Wearing their men’s ties. You can’t have it both ways. 

(At Puffer) Your wife’s response, that CDs do more than wear shoes, is exactly the response most would give.

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.

Edited by FastFreddy2
SPELLING!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Shyheels said:

You should move to Fiji. Skirts - called sulus there - are the norm for men and women. And for precisely the reason you say - comfort and ease of movement. 

And heels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do appear to be going round in circles to some extent.   I emphasise these points:

1.   There is a difference (already outlined) between CD and TV - essentially an intention (or not) to 'pass'.   

2.   Any wearing of another gender's clothing is crossdressing, however innocuous.   The fact that it may pass without notice or condemnation is irrelevant.

3.   Ties were once commonly worn by women and have never become wholly male wear; they are often still part of 'uniform'.   Contrariwise, trousers, work boots etc (once wholly male wear) have become unisex.   I cannot consider wearing of any of these to be CD - but a man in a skirt (outside Scotland, Fiji etc) or a woman in a DJ would be.

4.   The 'stigma' attached to the TV category (esp in US) may well have a fetish/sex origin as well as a specific medico-legal one.   The term's connotations may be understandably unpleasant to those whose dressing (or dressing and passing attempts) do not involve third parties, deviant exhibitionism etc, hence the preference for the weasel-term CD, despite its (to my mind) distinction - see 1 above.

5.   I understand the 'blue trees' argument in this or any other debate.  But the fact that 99% of a group may see something in a particular, if incorrect or misunderstood, light does NOT per se make them definitively 'right' - only popularly right.   If a tree truly (scientifically/optically) is clearly green, then it doesn't matter how many people think it is blue - they are wrong, however numerous and exalted may be their company.   There are far too many people in this world who, through ignorance (which is likely to be nothing more than limited knowledge, not a matter of a lack of intellect) firmly believe in concepts, facts, values and words that are demonstrably dubious, if not totally wrong.   (The many IS supporters believe passionately in their cause - but few others would consider it 'right'.)   We need to educate, not simply to accept the results of it lacking amongst the great unwashed. 

6.   My wife considers (rightly) that a man wearing just women's footwear is crossdressing (and, in her view, quite possibly indicative of homosexual desires) - but she also recognises that more (i.e. an attempt at passing) is necessary to become a TV.   She considers Izzard as a CD, as he clearly is, although he (wrongly) calls himself a TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/02/2018 at 6:46 AM, Shyheels said:

Don’t get me wrong, I like HHP but aspects of it make me feel quite uncomfortable too. 

I wish you guys would speak up more often and tell me this stuff, rather than me having to stumble upon it long after it has been your observations.

Not sure how many of you are aware of it, but the last lot of moderators all had to be kicked out as they were pretty much all into the heavy TV/CD/TG scene, and were backstabbers too, nasty ones at that. So its just me left now, and I really dont want any members feeling like this at all, so if you see something, report it.

If it makes you feel uncomfortable, then chances are it doesnt belong and many others also feel uncomfortable about it and just leave, or as said, women are probably readingt it and thinking that guys + heels = weirdo, when it doesnt.

Why are people so reluctant to use that "Report post" button?

Heck I have banned many a new member for signing up and putting "dressing" or "Crossdressing" in their profiles and regularly search profile fields in the DB to weed out the innappropriate profiles who think HHPlace is for CD/TV content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tech said:

I wish you guys would speak up more often and tell me this stuff, rather than me having to stumble upon it long after it has been your observations.

Not sure how many of you are aware of it, but the last lot of moderators all had to be kicked out as they were pretty much all into the heavy TV/CD/TG scene, and were backstabbers too, nasty ones at that. So its just me left now, and I really dont want any members feeling like this at all, so if you see something, report it.

If it makes you feel uncomfortable, then chances are it doesnt belong and many others also feel uncomfortable about it and just leave, or as said, women are probably readingt it and thinking that guys + heels = weirdo, when it doesnt.

Why are people so reluctant to use that "Report post" button?

Heck I have banned many a new member for signing up and putting "dressing" or "Crossdressing" in their profiles and regularly search profile fields in the DB to weed out the innappropriate profiles who think HHPlace is for CD/TV content.

The truth is I think you do a really good job. The reason I don’t say anything is because I think you are faced with an almost impossible task juggling (fairly) so many different people’s approaches and styles while being tolerant and running a tight ship at the same time. In fact, I think it would be hard to improve on the job you do and so my feeling uncomfortable with some of the tones that are set in certain threads seems like presenting you with an unnecessary quibble. 

I have used the report post button on several occasions in the past - and recently too - but unless it is really bad - and some posts were - I don’t want to bother you. As I say, I think you do a splendid job, and while I might on occasion feel uncomfortable with tones and directions of certain threads, it is not enough to make me want to leave. I am still there and have nearly 7000 posts. I do wish some of the people were more fashion oriented than they seem to be, and less obsessed, fewer skirts etc,  but that’s just the great difference in people I guess. I just skip those threads.

I remember well the moderators you mention and they were everything you say. I was very glad when they left.

But again I am happy with the way you run it!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puffer - regarding your third point. Heels were once masculine - exclusively masculine, in fact - and have never become wholly female. Nearly all male shoes today have a heel of some sort even if it is only three-quarters of an inch, or five-eighths, while cowboy boots have heels that can be fairly high. So have equestrian boots and motorcycle boots. And Chelsea boots, and desert boots, and chukkas. 

So if ties are not cross dressing, neither are heels. Consistency. You can’t pick and choose and have it both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shyheels said:

The truth is I think you do a really good job. The reason I don’t say anything is because I think you are faced with an almost impossible task juggling (fairly) so many different people’s approaches and styles while being tolerant and running a tight ship at the same time. In fact, I think it would be hard to improve on the job you do and so my feeling uncomfortable with some of the tones that are set in certain threads seems like presenting you with an unnecessary quibble. 

I have used the report post button on several occasions in the past - and recently too - but unless it is really bad - and some posts were - I don’t want to bother you. As I say, I think you do a splendid job, and while I might on occasion feel uncomfortable with tones and directions of certain threads, it is not enough to make me want to leave. I am still there and have nearly 7000 posts. I do wish some of the people were more fashion oriented than they seem to be, and less obsessed, fewer skirts etc,  but that’s just the great difference in people I guess. I just skip those threads.

I remember well the moderators you mention and they were everything you say. I was very glad when they left.

But again I am happy with the way you run it!

 

I think you state the position well.   I have occasionally seen threads or posts on HHP that I'm uncomfortable with, but very rarely to a degree that I consider merit a 'report'.   I guess that there are some others that I miss or which are removed before I ever see them, so no harm done there.

I hope however that Tech (if he sees this) will consider carefully what 'CD/TV/TG' matters really do need to be restricted or banned (on HHP or H4M) as I must again emphasise that, if men wearing or discussing female footwear is considered to be (mild) crossdressing (as I firmly believe it is), then any attempt to ban 'crossdressing' as a whole must lead to the boards becoming almost totally sterile - which is clearly not intended!   It is clearly very difficult to put forward a workable rule that admits with certainty what is truly acceptable and prohibits what is not - but let us hope that a warning about overt exhibitionism and deviancy will suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shyheels said:

Puffer - regarding your third point. Heels were once masculine - exclusively masculine, in fact - and have never become wholly female. Nearly all male shoes today have a heel of some sort even if it is only three-quarters of an inch, or five-eighths, while cowboy boots have heels that can be fairly high. So have equestrian boots and motorcycle boots. And Chelsea boots, and desert boots, and chukkas. 

So if ties are not cross dressing, neither are heels. Consistency. You can’t pick and choose and have it both ways.

Shyheels:   I'm not quite sure why you need to make that point to me; I haven't suggested otherwise and agree that 'heels' (simpliciter) are not exclusive to any one gender, and never have been.   Of course, we all understand that most footwear has a heel of some sort, and that some men's footwear has a higher-than-usual heel and is quite acceptable, if not always liked.   But when a man wears footwear of a style or construction that is intended for, or most usually worn by, women - regardless of the heel type or height - he is imho 'crossdressing'.   A three-inch cuban or cowboy heel is acceptably masculine; its four-inch equivalent is arguably not.   A two-inch kitten/stiletto is not masculine either.   And history, although providing some useful precedent, is not relevant as we are really discussing and promoting what is currently (or recently) acceptable for men to wear - or may/should become so in the foreseeable future.   Heels are not the issue here - high heels (however one defines them) are.   They are not in the same league as ties, which have never ceased to be unisex and are in any event scarcely controversial as items of clothing or adornment.   

Having recently embraced 'proper' high heels within your wardrobe, are you now going to start a well-overdue tie collection?   ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your highly prescriptive 'rules' of what constitutes cross-dressing sounds a bit like the minutiae so beloved of Talmudic scholars, who can argue for hours, nay, days, over obscure points of religious law and practice. I picture a grey-bearded someone with a tape measure checking the height of a chap's cowboy boot, finding it to be three-and-three-eighths and a day-long debate erupting beneath the olive tree as to whether the man, who is otherwise wearing wrangler jeans a flannel shirt, a Stetson and a silver rodeo belt buckle, is cross-dressing.  And the noisiest of the bearded scholars - the one with the tape measure - jabbing his finger in their air, to inject a note of authority, loudly maintaining than anything above three inches is feminine, declaring that said bull-rider is crossdressing!

One just wants to shrug and walk away...

I mentioned history because you quoted history as being somehow relevant to women's wearing of neckties. Yet you are certainly alone in seeing them as not specifically masculine. Virtually every time debate is raised in the press about women being required to wear heels in the workplace, the requirement for men to wear neckties is raised and debated as well. With equal vehemence, I might add. Ties and heels are very much seen as 'equals' in this debate, the yin and the yang, as it were, both iconic to their specific sexes.

It is this picking and choosing, this inconsistency, with your position that irritates me. 

Aside from which any argument that relies on sweeping generalisations, no exclusions, and is so easily taken apart - reductio ad absurdum - is never a particularly strong one.

But enough. I do not care to persist with this - you're going to believe what you want to believe, and I've no real interest in pursuing it further. I've said my piece.    And so I shall leave you sitting in the shade of your olive tree...

 

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Puffer said:

I think you state the position well.   I have occasionally seen threads or posts on HHP that I'm uncomfortable with, but very rarely to a degree that I consider merit a 'report'.   I guess that there are some others that I miss or which are removed before I ever see them, so no harm done there.

I hope however that Tech (if he sees this) will consider carefully what 'CD/TV/TG' matters really do need to be restricted or banned (on HHP or H4M) as I must again emphasise that, if men wearing or discussing female footwear is considered to be (mild) crossdressing (as I firmly believe it is), then any attempt to ban 'crossdressing' as a whole must lead to the boards becoming almost totally sterile - which is clearly not intended!   It is clearly very difficult to put forward a workable rule that admits with certainty what is truly acceptable and prohibits what is not - but let us hope that a warning about overt exhibitionism and deviancy will suffice.

I certainly hope Tech maintains the general ban on CD topics on these forums as they really have no place in what is meant to be a family friendly fashion website, and do not really cover the interests of most of the members anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Puffer said:

Shyheels:   I'm not quite sure why you need to make that point to me; I haven't suggested otherwise and agree that 'heels' (simpliciter) are not exclusive to any one gender, and never have been.   Of course, we all understand that most footwear has a heel of some sort, and that some men's footwear has a higher-than-usual heel and is quite acceptable, if not always liked.   But when a man wears footwear of a style or construction that is intended for, or most usually worn by, women - regardless of the heel type or height - he is imho 'crossdressing'.   A three-inch cuban or cowboy heel is acceptably masculine; its four-inch equivalent is arguably not.   A two-inch kitten/stiletto is not masculine either.   And history, although providing some useful precedent, is not relevant as we are really discussing and promoting what is currently (or recently) acceptable for men to wear - or may/should become so in the foreseeable future.   Heels are not the issue here - high heels (however one defines them) are.   They are not in the same league as ties, which have never ceased to be unisex and are in any event scarcely controversial as items of clothing or adornment.   

Having recently embraced 'proper' high heels within your wardrobe, are you now going to start a well-overdue tie collection?   ;) 

(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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shyheels:   I regret to say that I consider your response concerning my 'CD rules' inappropriate and borderline offensive.   I really do not understand why you should apparently take such exception to my attempts to state a reasoned case concerning what constitutes CD conduct.   

I and another have already said that we consider a man wearing female footwear to be a CD.   (I do not like that label, but have to accept that Joe Public would probably apply it, assuming that he had a reasonable understanding of what a CD is.)   You refute that but have neither offered any definition of CD conduct nor suggested at what point, if any, a man wearing 'high heels' does become a CD.   I should be interested to know your views.   I fully accept that the examples I provided of footwear that is 'acceptably masculine' are necessarily subjective and indicative, not absolute, but here again they are what I feel reasonably represent public perception, however bigoted.   And I agree that a bloke in full Western gear which includes cowboy boots in a men's style but with a (very) high heel is not ipso facto a CD - as you or I would understand it - but he would still likely raise eyebrows (and speculative comment) on account of his footwear.   Change the heels to stilettos and there is then arguably a CD, however tough and rugged he otherwise appears.

As to 'ties', I also accept that, in the workplace clothing scenarios, wearing a tie is commonly held to be a  key requirement for men just as wearing high heels may be for women - and the comparison is often made accordingly.   But those issues do not concern the gender-specificity of either item and in any event they do not have opposing polarities for all purposes as you seem to suggest.   Ties are sometimes worn by women in the workplace (in a non-uniform context) and attract little or no adverse comment, and not just because women can get away with wearing almost anything.   (I used to have a very attractive female colleague who quite often wore a tie, and looked good in it too!)   The same is not true of high heels on men - I really don't need to suggest the likely reaction if a man goes into work in any footwear with other than a very modest and masculine-styled heel, do I?   Ties are not specifically masculine, any more than trousers have been for a century or so - and there are many workplaces/schools which dictate that women either must or must not wear trousers, whilst men are very rarely allowed or expected to wear anything else.

I have no wish to continue fruitless debate, and certainly not in any acrimonious manner.   But I do think there is room for further reasoned and positive comment on what is an interesting and pretty fundamental issue.

Edited by Puffer
typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my  - what an active thread this has turned out to be!

And to think that I missed all the action for almost the whole week!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, take a chill pill guys, fist fight scheduled for next week...

Seriously though, dont think of the "Report this post" as some sort of burden. Think of it the other way round, like this...

"Does Tech need the burden of having to clean up 20 threads that went off topic and cost and cost him hours of having to patch things up with Google adsense and, more importantly, we do not want to be showing up in search results for CD/TV topics.

Like I explain to everybody.. I'd rather a quick note (Report) and a quick fix than to uncover a total shitstorm 6 months down the line. Then i get pissed off at "Why the hell didnt anybody report this"

Seriously, if it makes you feel uncomfortable or makes you want to avoid it, tell me, and tell me asap... We're all on the same page here..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can certainly see your point - both as to the extra work it would take to clean up threads that had strayed too far and for too log, and for not wanting the forums to pop up on search results for CD/TV topics.

I shall bear that in mind and act accordingly! Better safe than sorry

Cheers!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×