genebujold

I don't know if it's the worst reaction I've ever had, but this was certainly one I wouldn't care to repeat: I went to pick up my son from Kindergarten yesterday, and walked into the building like I always do so as to intercept him as he comes out of the classroom. I dislike waiting outside, since there's little protection against a stranger coming along and... I was walking down the hall wearing dark blue jeans, my black leather jacket, and my pair of black, block-heeled (3-1/2 inch) wingtips (my current favorites), when a loud, matronly voice behind me said, "Excuse me!" Since I've walking down that hall more than thirty times in the last four months, I honestly didn't think the voice was meant for me, but it persisted: "EXCUSE ME!!!" I turned and said, "Yes? Are you referring to me?" She didn't answer, but said, in a very loud voice, "You can't come in here unannounced! Get out of this building at once or I'm calling the police!" I'd never seen her before, so I said, "I'm sorry, but I've never seen you before, so I'm going to pick up my son now. Excuse me," and continued towards my son's room along with the other parents. Evidently, she didn't like that one bit, so she marched right after me and got in front of me, blocking my way with her arms. Now everyone was staring at us! I was about to tell her to get out of my way when she said, "We don't allow freaks in this school - leave immediately!" I'd had enough, so I yelled, "Freak! Who're you calling a freak? I'm here to pick up my son, lady! You're the one who needs a straightjacket!" I pushed passed her outstretched arm and she said, "That's it - I'm calling the police right now!" "Go ahead," I countered, "because the moment they get here, I'm pressing charges against you." So, she pulled out her cell phone to dial 911. Just then, one of the school administrators who knows me well hollered the ladies name and said, "Stop that! He's fine - he's ***'s dad. Put down your phone right now and come with me!" The look on her face was classic - flabberghasted. She looked back and forth between myself and the administrator, then looked at my shoes, and gave me a dirty look, to which I responded with a curt, "in your face" smile and said, "good day, madam." The throng disbursed without comment, although one parent did look at my heels for a few seconds. After picking up my son, the school administrator pulled me aside and apologized for the woman's behavior - then had the woman come out and apologize as well. Of course I accepted her apology, then remarked, "You know, fashion changes every decade. At the turn of the century, most men wore full-length coats. Now most men wouldn't think of it. A third of the men around the world wear what we Americans would call a skirt. Some men wear shoes or boots with heels that are higher than what most men wear. Some women wear pants. One's choice of fashion doesn't make one a freak." She said she understood, and apologized again, before I said, "I know you were just thinking of the kids. However, most people who harm kids look quite ordinary." The administrator reassured me it wouldn't happen again, and I left with my wonderful son in tow.

Or middle-school girls! They usually make a lot more noise if they notice me wearing heels...

Shop 'till you drop, buddy!

I've discovered through trial and error that a well-fitting heel has little to do with the price, but much to do with the material. As Bubba suggested, leather is by far the best material for construction. Not only does it breath (unlike synthetics), but it also absorbs moisture and perspiration, conforming to one's foot over time. My favorite pair of shoes arrived a couple weeks ago. They're a pair of black leather, lace-up wing tips with a block heel. Beneath a long pair of pants they're nearly indistinguishable from a men's shoe, despite a 3-1/2 block heel. The thing I like about them the most, however, is their old-school construction, which allows the shoe to conform to its wearer quite readibly, and with minimal fuss. After two weeks of wear, they're by far the most comfortable pair of dress shoes I've ever owned, with, or without, a heel.

Sorry - first-generation heel wearer. Although if the historical fashion plates are accurate, there's a good chance the French passion with high heels (mainly those worn by men) caught on with at least some of my ancestors in the 1700s...

Wow. Is this it? Months of groundbreaking work and this post is sinking rapidly? Is this all people on this website really care about the issues surrounding the psycho-social factors with which they deal every single day? Or are we just content to let things slide gently into the night??? What about fighting for our rights, the right to dress as we see fit without having our governments trying to classify us as mentally ill? If it's worth fighting for, it's certainly worth comment! So, comment. Let's hear your two cents...

Hi, Jimnj3. For many women, social acceptance and the issue of shame (which counters social acceptance) are powerful motivators. I'm glad to hear she's come around a bit now that she's seen your actual wear heels are significantly different than your avatar. Many men who wear heels are into heel heights. One thing you may wish to consider is the the vast majority of the time you're wearing heels, you're not looking at them. Therefore, consider buying higher heels that don't look like higher heels. I've a couple of 3.5 inch heels that, when worn with longer pants, are indistinguishable from a normal pair of men's shoes. If she's at all comfortable with your wearing a woman's shoe, she'll be downright thrilled if you were to buy a pair of jeans an inch or two longer than what you normally wear and hide an even higher heel beneath it - provided the portion that does appear either looks like a man's shoe, or at the very least, doesn't scream, "Yo! I'm just peaking out the front, here, but you should see what's hidden beneath the jeans! I'm talking HIGH, there, how are you?" Know what I mean?

At the second christmas day I saw in TV the James Bond movie "You live only twice". An imbecile title, because the simple truth is "You live only once"

I wish you a happy new year

micha

NOTHING about Bond, James Bond, is "imbecilic."

Ever.

Then again, what do I know? I'm just a die-hard fan of Bond since having read Casino Royal in the early 70's... I'll be the first to admit there's a fair number of hokie scenes in the Bond films, most of them involving Roger Moore and JAWS.

...there's a big difference between wearing "women's" clothes (bras, skirts, low necklines, attempting to appear as woman etc) and wearing coordinating heels as a man.

Couldn't agree with you more, Firefox, and I strongly suspect the need behind the deed is vastly different between wearing discrete heels as a man and wearing fetish heels, or attempting to appear as a member of the opposite sex.

OK, sorry if I misunderestood. I apologize. However, I wasn't saying that members shouldn't offer him suggestons. I was merely expressing my view that despite all of the well meaning suggestions, Jeff be allowed to select the best course of action required to fix the problem.

I agree completely!

Isn't it nice when apparent differences of opinion turn out to be nothing more than simple miscommunication?

Those of you who're married probably recognize this quite well! It's so prevalent, in fact, it's the cornerstone concept used by many marriage counselors to help couples "bury the hatchet."

Thanks, Bubba, for taking the high road.

Great titilation, but it'd be greater if they broke with the asinine stereotypical "only women wear heels" bent.

I beg your pardon! If you took my comments as inference that you, or anyone else, were out of line in questioning Jeff's ability as a fourm host, I believe you should read my comment again -- only this time without the built-in defensive attitude. I wasn't insinuating that you or anyone else that offered suggestions to Jeff as to how he should handle the situation were out of line. I was just voicing my support for his ability. Afterall we all have proof positive of his abilities because of what we constantly see and do here. As for the other members technical qualifications, well, we've only their word.

Huh? I wasn't insinuating anything of the kind! Merely that there's a problem, Jeff's doing his job, and so are the members of this board.

If anything, your message indicated no one should help Jeff run his board. While most board/forum monitors/owners do quite well, most also welcome inputs from their members.

I did, during the 9-1/2 years I ran numerous boards.

Jeff - you any different?

While I realize there are a plethora of computer savy and technically qualified internet managers among the members of this forum (I am not one of them), I also believe that Jeff is well qualified to sort out cause and affect of our recent hacking incident. While I am sure he appreciates the advice and counsel he constantly receives from us, I have faith that, since this is his board, he is more acutely aware of the various versions and limitations of the softwear being used than we would like to recognize. Since I have difficulty decerning an Internet server from a IHOP server, I am content to allow him to operate and maintain this forum as he believes is best.

As one who's primary business is networking security, I'm not only able to discern the difference between an Internet sever and an IHOP server, but I'm also qualified to render assistance, not to Jeff (it's his board), but to the other members of this forum who may wish to improve their personal security, but are unsure of which direction to take.

However, I thank those who did post messages concerning this issue. Most online endeavors are fairly collective efforts, involving the owner of the board, a number of moderators and sysops, the ISP, and the board members themselves.

We have a saying in the corporate networking industry: The greatest area of vulnerability is physical security. If someone has physical access to your computer, they own it, regardless of how tightly you may have battened down your hatches. Therefore, the greatest strength with respect to security rests with the individual user.

Despite recent advances in automated security systems, it's still the reports by individual users of the systems that account for more than 90% of all detected intrusions.

I re-read all the posts in this thread, and there wasn't a single one that was out of line. In fact, the posts themselves say a great deal about how much we care that our online community remains intact, free from malicious outsiders.

Actually, I prefer to avoid reactions, good or bad. Even a good reaction, such as "hey, nice heels!" is to me a bit out of place - how often have you seen one woman say that to another when they're both strangers? Me? Never. Therefore, that's as out of place as a negative reaction, and may just be the other person's attempt to break the ice on what to them is an uncomfortable situation. I would prefer it if my heelwearing meant no more to them than seeing another woman in heels.

Hi Genebujold,

I just worked my way through your long treatise. Here my criticism:

1. I don't understand your philosophy of discrete/continous and ordinal/cardinal numbers. Why is this distinction of relevance?

The ability to properly categorize one's data must be driven by the data itself. It follows the principle that "data is self-describing." All too often psychologists and other non-math scientists attempt to develop tests without first understanding the information with which they're working, thereby invalidating their tests before they begin.

The difference between ordinal and cardinal numbers plays only a role in pure mathematics but not in real life. I would be glad if social scientists had at least a profound education in statistics. The big majority has not.

Actually, the difference between ordinal and cardinal numbers plays a huge role in real life. When's the last time the bank gave you a check for $103.045324595773 after one year of 3% interest on $100, compounded daily?

More to the point with respect to my treatise, some variables, such as genetic sex, have a limited number of responses, while others, such as how one feels about their own psychological gender, has an unlimited number of responses. In order to best handle the data, however, we statisticians allow it to be represented on scales of either 1-5 (median 3), or 0-10 (median 5). Since most people work better with a 1-5 scale, that's suitable for most subjective situations.

2. In Section VI ('treatment' - already conspicious) you are talking permanently about "patients" and "therapy". In section VII you are speaking about your "self therapy". We can't help being what we are - even psychotherapists I don't need any therapy and I'm no patient.I "simply" like wearing heels and other "female" outfit.

Good for you! You're far better adapted to nonconformal living than most of my patients!

Seriously - the reason there's a need for my services is because most people aren't there, yet, and that's a result of the internal discord they experience between the way they are and the way they believe they should be or the way they feel society expects them to be.

An extreme example would be the 5'5", 120-lb female who thinks she's "too fat" because some model she's seen on TV weighs just 109 lbs. She's not too fat - but she's experiencing a lot of inner turmoil because she believes others might think she's too fat.

Result - liposuction (this is a true story) to remove what little fat she had left around her abdomen and thighs.

It didn't work - she was still unhappy, and would have spent another $50,000 that she didn't have trying to make her body look like what her brain was telling her that she believed society expected her to look like, which was a model who was 5 pounds below the minimum recommended weight for her height and bone structure.

When you're at the lower end of the healthy weight scale already, and in very good shape, both physically and visually, liposuction is the wrong answer because it's based on an out-of-focus internal viewpoint of one's self with respect to the world.

The right answer is twofold:

1. See one's self as the world truly sees you (shapely, sexy).

2. Take the world's viewpoint with a large block of salt - you're still entitled to be who you are, in all your varied splendor.

A human being is infinitely more complicated than any physical system.

Even a planeria is more complicated than any human-created physical system.

I don't know any serious physicist proclaiming to have understood quantum physics really.

I do - and they do understand it.

In my opinion the psychologists and psychiatrists should become more modest. You know nearly nothing.

Hmmm... Well, I'll take your opinion with that large block of salt I mentioned earlier.

Please, don't be angry about me. That's my conviction.

micha

Fair enough! And not angry at all. Although I believe I know a *bit* more than "nearly nothing," particularly with respect to statistical analysis and gender identity issues.

Please remember that my primary focus was to address the shortcomings in the DSM-IV and propose an alternative, and I believe signficantly improved approach, not to claim that my approach is the end-all, be-all on this issue!

I hear what you say Gene and agree with it.

Then we get some maniac saying stuff like this.

"Tsunami? No, you have just witnessed the Mighty Arm of God and his Glorious Justice.

(the remainder is paraphrased as "etc., blah blah, ad nauseum")

Jeff

You're absolutely right - it does sound manic, which only proves that zealotry (if not idiocy) knows no bounds of age, race, religion, sex, or creed!

While I can't help but ponder possibilies of a supernatural (God) cause, particularly given the region, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look back on historical disasters to see that they are also no respector of age, race, religion, sex, or creed. These would include the Titanic (mostly Christians on board), the great San Francisco Earthquake in the early 1900s (mostly Christians), 9/11 (mostly Christians), Galveston, TX dockside explosion (mostly Christians), etc. I recall a few others than wiped out thousands, including a LPG explosion on a river barge many years ago that decimated the city on both sides of the river.

Bottom line, it can happen to anyone, and this isn't the first time geological activity has killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people in that region. When Krakatoa blew in August 27, 1883, the sound was heard more than 3,000 miles away - a record that stands to this day. Barograph readings confirm the pressure travelled 7 times around the world before finally dissipating. More than 30,000 people lost their lives, but those regions were far more sparsely populated back then. One expert estimates that if Krakatoa were to blow today, more than a million people would have lost their lives, compared to the 155,000 being reported for this event. The tsunamis were so powerful, in fact, that they were recorded in France!

And when a tsunami hit Hawaii shortly after it began to adopt Western practices, the Hawaians blamed it on their own gods, for leaving their old ways.

Naturaly disasters aren't the cause of any one god - they're just natural disasters, hence the term "natural," instead of "supernatural."

If the tsunamis had been generated without having been caused by geological or other activity - THEN I'd be thinking, "ok, God - what are you trying to tell us, here?"

A time has come to recognize all people, regardless of background, as human beings.

To that end I propose the following, that it be seriously considered for, and adopted into the DSM-IV, so as to cause serious and immediate reconsiderations within the appropriate bodies with respect to the issue of transgenderism at large.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/genebujold/23253.html

For many years most of you have asked this question.

Finally, some answers: http://www.livejournal.com/users/genebujold/23253.html

Ahhh... DHW.... The quinessential drama surrounding reality as we would like it to be but it really isn't, except as provided for on TV... There's a key word, here: GULLIBLE. If you watch this crap and more like it, the rest goes without saying. Life, including human life, is FAR more infinite than is imagined within the ranks of the corporate networks. It's high time everyone reading this post take a walk on the wild side and sidle down to their local bar while wearing their heels and FIND OUT what you've been missing!

I've nothing against Gina. So I will refrain from the numerous indications contained within her facial expressions that pertain to her... Aw, I shall not go further. Those truly interested, please PM me.

For some, the idea of others knowing you're wearing a pair of heels has become a point of fetish. For others who enjoy reveling in heel-wearing more than exhibitionism, it's a point of contention. I, for one, enjoy wearing heels, and do not revel in whether anyone else around me knows, or cares, whether I'm wearing heels or not!!!

Thanks to Jeff, phpBB is safe. However, if you haven't taken the steps I outlined above, your computers are still vulnerable to spreading voluminous crap around the internet! Thanks in advance for taking the appropriate steps to secure yourselves. - Gene'

GBJ, that "kinda" reminds me about the guy that when asked why he kept slamming his head into the brick wall, replied because it felt so good when he stopped.

Yeah, well, I offered to go second, which meant that he was under pressure to give a really good first whack. Unfortunately, I was SO bad I missed my hand entirely...

It was back in high school, and worth the six pack I lost just to see the look on the guy's face when he realized he'd "won."

It is my belief that if you're going to wear women's high heels, then your other clothing should also be made for women. That's why I subscribe to the "All or nothing" theory.

Good on 'ya, if that's your thing.

As a marriage and family counselor, I've worked with several couples who struggled with the issue of transgenderism in its various forms, including transexualism, crossdressing, transvestism, gender dysphoria, etc., and have come across some fascinating concepts, not the least of which the DSM-IV is pathetic when it comes to addressing the multi-faceted issue of transgenderism.

Seeing as how men wore heels for 30 years before women were caught up in the fashion, and how men continued wearing heels for another 200 years, at heights up to 5 inches before the French Revolutionary War, and how men enjoyed a brief resurgance in the 70's, I do not view my wearing heels as "crossdressing," unless they were have a decidedly feminine appearance.

As you can see from my avatar to the left (the pair I enjoy wearing the most), they're rather indescript with respect to gender.

What I have gathered from various sessions is that many males who wear articles of feminine apparel, including heels, do so because in some way they internally identify with the opposite gender. Those who feel compelled to go "whole hog," however, usually do so to reduced internal discord they would experience if they were slightly crossdress, such as wearing a pair of heels while still appearing as a man. When we get down to brass tacks, however, their main motivation isn't to appear as a women, but to wear heels while avoiding what they fear will be societal backlash.

As such, my approach with them is the same as it is with with any phobia - systematic desnsitization. Assuming their spouse is ameniable (some are not), I host a session where they bring their heels and their spouse encourages them to wear a pair during the session.

My underlying goal is to preserve the marriage / family while fostering an environment of understanding and acceptance - often what that individual was really looking for in the first place - just the freedom to be themselves without criticism, either from the spouse or society. When they discover that's possible, their behavior usually diminishes, and ancillary behavior such as drug use and alcohol abuse, diminishes as well.

In a day or two you'll be able to read more on my LiveJournal blog, when I post a preliminary copy of a paper I'll soon be submitting to the National Institute of Mental Health in hopes they drastically revise the DSM-IV with respect to gender issues.

Wow - is my writing that transparent? I'll take that as a compliment! You're quite perceptive - it was very difficult to tell whether she was inquisitive because she felt, but was hiding animosity, or whether she was geninuinely interested in learning more about something that was definately out of her realm of experience. You know, like when a four-year-old keeps asking his dad why he's different down there than mom. To be honest, I felt about as uncomfortable answering her questions as I did my son's, and not because of any animosity, but because I'm just not used to such an openly inquisitive conversation about something that I do that's indeed different than what most men do! Not quite "scary as hell, but more satisfying," but it was headed in that general direction.