Interesting article and BTL comments:
BTL comment:
"There are 2 definitions of fetish - one is about sexual gratification and the other is worship or adoration. The description here suggests the latter, but it's not entirely clear if the stated pleasure in handling results in sexual gratification.
If no sexual pleasure is required, then it's a matter of 'gender drag'. Being that, lots of ordinary blokes have fetishes which aren't considered fetish. eg. Cars, fishing, pigeon handling, specific antique collecting, potting shed tools, caps, hunting gear and so on. In this context collecting and appreciating women's shoes by a straight partnered male is therefore only classified a fetish by way of it's gender conformity variation, not because of the fact they are coveted objects alone. Any shame, insecurity or embarrassment is simply fear of a behaviour not assigned to the gender conformity, not the fact of the collecting and coveting.
If sexual pleasure forms part of the activity of handling the shoes, then it sounds more like a case of a long term under-developed and basic reflexive sexual fetish, where obsession resides in the viewing and touching alone, rather than in any contextual use of the object. It's unclear if the partner actively enjoyed or approved of the interest, if it would encourage his relationship to these shoes to evolve into other areas of pleasure or acting out. Whatever the kind of pleasure attained, the writer seems adjusted to his interest and happy with it's boundaries, even if the partner is less keen."
I guess the 'gender conformity variation' that is also the problem with crossdressing.
Katie x
No idea I'm just me when dressed maybe more relaxed I'm not embarrassed but think all us men who cross dress even when accepted wonder what's going through our wives minds.. Esme has said to me in the past you think too much. Not elaborating on the teasing..