Teds Place?

[Tosser]

Just moved to London and saw Ted's place listed as a TV bar on Sundays but checked out the web site and......not sure as it looked like a bunch of guys in wigs....Anyone been? I couldn't find any review when I searched. Apologies in advance if I missed a review

[Jericho]

Probably tvchix is a better place to ask about Teds Place.

[carl essex]

not good on a sunday. better on a thurs. lots of ladyboys in there on a thurs

[Tosser]

yeesh .....that looks like a site for blokes in wigs!
Obviously Ted's place isnt really what I was thinking

[carl essex]

u need to accept that within the trans world in the uk that this side of the scene exists. ues there are still some gorgeous girls in the clubs and teds has some hotties but there are also some tv's and cd's. this is fine..... get over it

[Prospero]

u need to accept that within the trans world in the uk that this side of the scene exists. ues there are still some gorgeous girls in the clubs and teds has some hotties but there are also some tv's and cd's. this is fine..... get over it

Exactly.... Be more accepting. Just because there will be people you find in attractive is no reason to be mean

[Tosser]

Easy guys
I wasn't judging anyone. I was simply avoiding something I wasn't interested in. Simple as that. No more no less

[rodinuk]

Reading back you're saying in post #1 you think it's a bunch of... then in post #4 you think the site is for same but it wasn't what you were thinking. It's exactly what you were thinking!


Has anyone been to Ted's Place?
I checked out the web site and it looked a bit grim. As its Sunday its listed as TV night tonight. Is it worth a shot?

but not what you're wanting... which is possibly more along the lines of a Thai-style bar dripping with drop-dead gorgeous ladyboys available for short-time?

Listen to what Carl's telling you ;)

[Tosser]

For Goodness sake!
I am not meaning to offend anyone.
I was simply asking for info.
It seems a bit touchy given the huge number of vitriolic comments on this site and inflammatory judgmental posts.
I'm relatively new to the scene and didn't realise the differences between TV and TS in terms of those labels.
So now I know.
I also realize that there seems to be a tendency to examine in minute detail anything people write.
Be a bit more generous in your interpretation of things.
Not everyone is coming from a judgmental, insulting position. Reading back what I wrote, I honestly don't believe I was being insulting or mean. If you are a TV or CD ( just figured out what that means) and you found my comments hurtful then...sorry.
No offence was meant.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar but if you're ultra sensitive and looking for ill intent you will find it in the most innocent of comments.
Not saying that's the situation here...but still.....this feels like a tempest in the:confused: proverbial teacup.

[Prospero]

Don't sweat it Tosser.... (That name invites rude remarks)

CD = cross dresser
TV = transvestite (similar to cross dresser but tries harder - and usually shaves etc which a CD often doesn't)
TS - well that's someone on the spectrum of a journey from a male body to a female (with a female persona embodied all the way)

You'll meet all three at Teds, the Way out and Stunners (though the latter is a place to go have sex primarily - pretty hardcore)

[jennylicious]

Don't sweat it Tosser.... (That name invites rude remarks)

CD = cross dresser
TV = transvestite (similar to cross dresser but tries harder - and usually shaves etc which a CD often doesn't)
TS - well that's someone on the spectrum of a journey from a male body to a female (with a female persona embodied all the way)

You'll meet all three at Teds, the Way out and Stunners (though the latter is a place to go have sex primarily - pretty hardcore)

Straight into that minefield you go.

Cross dresser has been adopted in recent times to encompass every time of cross-gender dressing. It's supposed to be a more politically correct term than transvestite, but since in the UK a cross dresser was often used to describe men who do little more than wear their wife's knickers to masturbate in. Although the American term is becoming more standardly adopted, it's best to avoid it.

Transvestite is another example of the most stupid of terms. It's based on an understanding of sex from about 1930, and while it's been known since the late 80s that Gender dysphoria was a common cause of transvestism, and as far as I'm aware, it's more prevalent than someone dressing out of fetishism, it is still the antiquated belief of many. Many "transvestites" have their own long hair. Some take hormones. Some have facial surgery. Some have breast augmentation. It's a complex condition.

So while TS has a very specific application, the terms used alongside it are all encompassing terms without any framed meaning. Either CD or TV could be taken offensively.

Not that it can't be used in the board, but if you're addressing someone in one of these clubs, it's best to wait to hear how they describe themselves.

[Prospero]

Thanks Jenny. I stand corrected. I'd always assumed that TS girls were the "real Mcoy" (albeit a wide spectrum in itself) and that TV was an equally wide spectrum stopping short of transexuality (though I guess many older TVs may not be able to exercise the options a younger girl can - and thus may well be transexual but labelled as TV).

CD in popular parlance generally means a guy who likes to cross dress - and may be gay or may be heterosexual. The main thrill or motivation being the donning of female clothes. I had no idea there was any political dimension to it. Of course the tabloid press will call any human who still has their original sexual organs a cross dresser if they don the garb of the opposite gender. But that isn't what you are discussing, is it?)

In British theatre - y Shakespeare is the most classic example - crossdressing has long played a huge role. Men took all parts for centuries before women were allowed to appear on stage. It's also long been a key component of British comedy as well - Dick Emery and Monty Python, for instance, both featuring cross dressing for comedic effect.

They may be stupid terms but they re used all the time - here and in the wider world.

Perhaps in terms of a sense of identity the only people who should be allowed to label themselves are the individuals involved?

But then I do know it is a minefield. Thanks for reminding me.

[jennylicious]

GD is just very complicated. Many people with it are not recommended for gender reassignment. Without wanting to lessen their experience, is it fair to label them with people who have a fetish?

The ICD 10 was enlightened enough identify two types of transvestism, with one being a gender issue and the other being a fetish. The DSM has a number of Gender dysphoria categories outside of Transsexual.

There really is still quite a lot of ignorance on the subject of transvestites in the Medical community, with no genuine desire or perceived need to research further. There is certainly no breakthrough soon, as the ICD 11 is planning on simplifying their diagnosis to be similar to the DSM.

Not to say it doesn't need sorting out. One of the DSM entries, it has been suggested, was added in the early 80s as a political reaction to removing homosexuality from the DSM in the 70s.

Of course, that's not the biggest issue I can see in the transgender world. If the changes they are proposing are made, there is going to be real problem for transsexuals. The suggestion to remove GD from the Diagnostic criteria altogether will ultimately lead to problems with diagnosis, and therefore, probably medical insurance. The suggestion made by people contributing being "Well if that process is messed up, then they will have to sort it out, it shouldn't affect us".

I have to say, if it happens, I'm worried it will be the transsexuals themselves that have to "sort it out".

In short, transgenderism isn't just complicated, the medical community are so far away from understanding what to make of it all, that it's best to accept every member is an individual.

(It's not such a bad philosophy for anyone...)

[Prospero]

....it's best to accept every member is an individual.

(It's not such a bad philosophy for anyone...)

A pretty good starting point in relating to anyone actually

[Tosser]

What about the term "shemale"
Is that considered OK?

[carl essex]

if u call a shemale a shamale in london u may get a slap. it usually refers to the porn side of things imo

[Jericho]

What about the term "shemale"
Is that considered OK?

No matter who/what they look like, if someone's presenting as female, address them as such...And you can't go wrong! :shrug

[Jericho]

Unless they're fucknuts crazy...But that's only 90%, so...... :hide-1:

[kuteguy]

been in the scene for a decade in London. meaning to check out ted's forever. finally went this thursday and was sorely disappointed. hardly any attractive transsexuals. whoever was there was more interested in servicing men in the toilets for money. lots of guys .. was told by some of them that it is usually better but it's unusually quiet ( weather was great so no excuses there) :-$

[Females+Shemales]

The best part about Ted's place was that Sam Jones was there!

[slave2u]

Is Ted's worth a visit on a Sunday night?

[bi-smooth]

any reviews on Thursday and Sunday nights there?

[Boomerang Man]

I have been there on a few Thursday nights which is the TS ladies night. I've had a lot of fun. Nothing beats going with an open mind & a big smile. You do see some of the escorts there. One night Alexandra, Jenny & a couple of other Earls Court girls were there dancing & having fun. I banged one of their friends (tall Amazonina black girl) in the toilets. I know I'm such a classy guy lol!!!!

Another time I saw TS Lauren there (beautiful Russian girl with very bad reviews on here) but we had a nice open chat and she is beautiful! These girls are girls. And if you are not a creep, approach them right and look to have fun and engage with them you can have a really great night.

[kuteguy]

In the spirit of full disclosure.. Did you pay or was it a freebie?