Crossdressing

[Maren]

How come not a single female has answered so far? Gee, so many liberal free thinking women around here. It's pretty obvious that even liberal women are as uncomfortable with this topic as conservative religous ones.

Interesting.

Sorry, I did not respond because the first 10 responses all basically said they did not have a problem with it. I typically post only when I have something different to add to a discussion.

Not to mention, perhaps part of the reason women have not contributed is because we "do it." From the view of 50 years ago, all women today crossdress by merely wearing pants, not to mention all the women's clothing cut to look like mens. And even more to the point, look at how many women include men's clothing in their wardrobes; there are many women that prefer men's jeans to those cut for women; not to mention the number of women that, at one time or another, wear a man's shirt or shoes.

As for transvestism, I really don't know the cause (nature or nurture) and suspect it may depend on the individual (in some it may be biologically influenced). OTOH, there is a fair amount of evidence that transgender/transsexualism is caused by biology.

As for not liking men who crossdress, that appears to be completely cultural; otherwise we would not have different standards for men and women.

 

[BlackSabb]

Sorry, I did not respond because the first 10 responses all basically said they did not have a problem with it. I typically post only when I have something different to add to a discussion.

Not to mention, perhaps part of the reason women have not contributed is because we "do it." From the view of 50 years ago, all women today crossdress by merely wearing pants, not to mention all the women's clothing cut to look like mens. And even more to the point, look at how many women include men's clothing in their wardrobes; there are many women that prefer men's jeans to those cut for women; not to mention the number of women that, at one time or another, wear a man's shirt or shoes.

As for transvestism, I really don't know the cause (nature or nurture) and suspect it may depend on the individual (in some it may be biologically influenced). OTOH, there is a fair amount of evidence that transgender/transsexualism is caused by biology.

As for not liking men who crossdress, that appears to be completely cultural; otherwise we would not have different standards for men and women.

Hey, thanks for the response. I need to clarify something though. When I refer to crossdressing, specifically men, I'm not necessarily referring to men that want to actually look like women and go the whole hog.

This thread can of course include that, but it can also include just an article or two of clothing where a man may wear for other than being like a woman. As you say yourself, many women wear actual men's clothing for comfort, affordability, fit etc. Reasons other than looking like men. So I'm talking the same for men.

It could be Scottish men and kilts, Greek men in their national costumes with their skirts and leggings, etc. I know that some men like to wear skirts not to emulate women, but just because they say it's freer, cooler and more comfortable.

Just so that this thread can be broadened.

You also raised an intersting point about women "crossdressing". When I was at uni, this girl once happened to tell me and a group of students how the pants she was wearing were actual men's pants. She said that they were a lot cheaper than women's and fit better for her.

My other question is when is something actually crossdressing? So wearing pants for a woman is not crossdressing if they're women's pants I take it by your reasoning. But if society accepts women wearing men's' actual shoes, shirts, pants etc, is it still "crossdressing?" Is it the mere action of a female wearing a male garment that deems it crossdressing, or is it if it depends on the acceptance of society?

And what about other articles of clothing that are unconventional for a particular gender, but still in existance? A man can hop on a bicycle, as I said before, wearing lycra pants/leggings and society says that's not "crossdressing". Is it still not crossdressing if that same man wears them under his pants when not cycling anymore?

My own wife often wears my pyjamas, track pants and other things. Of course I don't raid her wardrobe, lol. Is that crossdressing?

 

[Psudopod]

I don't have any problem with it. I can't see why it is an issue.

People judge far to much on appeance.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I think its nature.

 

[Adam007]

Nature or nurture? I just call it cray and silly.

 

[OllieFranz]

Throughout history, a person's status in his society was indicated by the clothing he wore. There were strict laws about who could wear what kind of clothing, and severe punishment for those who wore clothing reserved for those of a higher station in life. This persisted in law until very recent centuries, and in tradition even continues to this day.

We depict the Pilgrims wearing black outfits. This is incorrect. For the Puritans, distinctive colors like black were reserved only for the community leaders, who would often also sport a bright red waistcoat or other small item of clothing to further set them apart from the ordinary citizens, who wore "somber" colors: navy, dark brown, "crimson" (which to the Puritans meant a deep maroon, not another name for scarlet), etc.

We still tend to judge a person by what he wears. Thus the proverb "clothes make the man." A person interviewing for a job, or appearing in court (or until recently -- within living memory -- going to church) was expected to wear his "Sunday Best."

The cross-dressing law (which is part of the "holiness code" like the dietary laws and mixed-fibers laws) may have referred to a specific item of Canaanite clothing that both men and women wore that was similar to an Israelite item that only men wore. Or it may refer to Canaanite priestesses who wore robes similar to priests robes (There were no YHWHist priestesses). Or any of several other possibilities none of which have anything to do with either transvestism (fetish cross-dressing) or women in pants. As to the latter, no one in ancient Palestine wore trousers. They were not invented until the late medieval period, and their precursors were worn by the barbarian northerners (both male and female) to protect them from the cold.

"Cross-dressing" for reasons other than transvestism or transgender, and in particular, "cross-dressing" for practical purposes and/or comfort should be a non-issue. In fact, I put "cross-dressing" in quotes when referring to alternative clothing choices for non-sex-or-gender-related purposes because it is not done for the purpose of emulating one sex or the other. But a mis-understanding of the Biblical passage, a need to express superiority, and tradition have combined obscure the fact that fashions and styles in clothing change rapidly, and no style is set in stone as belonging only to one gender.

Whether or not fetish cross-dressing is a sin is an issue between the transvestite and his God, and should be of no concern to anyone else. It is covered entirel by the principles that Paul laid down in his letters, especially Romans and Galatians. All things are legal, but not all things are profitable. And if you believe something may be a sin, and do it anyway, you are sinning whether or not the action is inherently sinful. Others should not be a stumbling block to those trying to avoid such "sinful" actions, but neither should others judge those who come to believe it is not sinful.

Transgenders, on the other hand, while wearing the clothing because it "belongs" to one sex are not cross-dressing but dressing in what they believe is an appropriate way for the gender that they truly were meant to be.

 

[wanderingone]

cross dressing does not = transgender

Personally I'll never understand anyone having a preference for most clothing that is considered "women's" clothing, particularly pantyhose.

But I really don't care if someone wants to wear clothing that is considered to belong to the opposite gender.

 

[BlackSabb]

Throughout history, a person's status in his society was indicated by the clothing he wore. There were strict laws about who could wear what kind of clothing, and severe punishment for those who wore clothing reserved for those of a higher station in life. This persisted in law until very recent centuries, and in tradition even continues to this day.

We depict the Pilgrims wearing black outfits. This is incorrect. For the Puritans, distinctive colors like black were reserved only for the community leaders, who would often also sport a bright red waistcoat or other small item of clothing to further set them apart from the ordinary citizens, who wore "somber" colors: navy, dark brown, "crimson" (which to the Puritans meant a deep maroon, not another name for scarlet), etc.

We still tend to judge a person by what he wears. Thus the proverb "clothes make the man." A person interviewing for a job, or appearing in court (or until recently -- within living memory -- going to church) was expected to wear his "Sunday Best."

The cross-dressing law (which is part of the "holiness code" like the dietary laws and mixed-fibers laws) may have referred to a specific item of Canaanite clothing that both men and women wore that was similar to an Israelite item that only men wore. Or it may refer to Canaanite priestesses who wore robes similar to priests robes (There were no YHWHist priestesses). Or any of several other possibilities none of which have anything to do with either transvestism (fetish cross-dressing) or women in pants. As to the latter, no one in ancient Palestine wore trousers. They were not invented until the late medieval period, and their precursors were worn by the barbarian northerners (both male and female) to protect them from the cold.

"Cross-dressing" for reasons other than transvestism or transgender, and in particular, "cross-dressing" for practical purposes and/or comfort should be a non-issue. In fact, I put "cross-dressing" in quotes when referring to alternative clothing choices for non-sex-or-gender-related purposes because it is not done for the purpose of emulating one sex or the other. But a mis-understanding of the Biblical passage, a need to express superiority, and tradition have combined obscure the fact that fashions and styles in clothing change rapidly, and no style is set in stone as belonging only to one gender.

Whether or not fetish cross-dressing is a sin is an issue between the transvestite and his God, and should be of no concern to anyone else. It is covered entirel by the principles that Paul laid down in his letters, especially Romans and Galatians. All things are legal, but not all things are profitable. And if you believe something may be a sin, and do it anyway, you are sinning whether or not the action is inherently sinful. Others should not be a stumbling block to those trying to avoid such "sinful" actions, but neither should others judge those who come to believe it is not sinful.

Transgenders, on the other hand, while wearing the clothing because it "belongs" to one sex are not cross-dressing but dressing in what they believe is an appropriate way for the gender that they truly were meant to be.

Interesting post. Very informative, so thanks.

Personally I'll never understand anyone having a preference for most clothing that is considered "women's" clothing, particularly pantyhose.

Hahaha. You and my wife. She hates hosiery with a passion.

 

[SallyNow]

How come not a single female has answered so far? Gee, so many liberal free thinking women around here. It's pretty obvious that even liberal women are as uncomfortable with this topic as conservative religous ones.

Interesting.

Or because I wanted to see where the thread went before I jumped in

I think its nature.

You think what is nature? The fact that some boys are born with the inclination to want to wear what the culture dictates are girl's clothing, and vice versa?

Or the cultural dictates themselves about what is masculine and what is feminine are natural?

Have any of the following trends transended history?

Boys wearing blue and girls wearing pink? Nope.
Men wearing hardy fabrics and women wearing lace? Nope.
Men wearing flat shoes and women wearing high heels? Nope.
Men wearing pants and women wearing skirts? Nope.

They're cultural constructs of what are masculine and feminine.

If your opinion is the former, that some are born with the inclination to be like the opposite gender, and participate in the cultural trappings as such, then I agree. If it's the latter, then history disagrees.

 

[Pliny the Elder]

Yes. Exactly. Show me another thread with the first 12 replies without any female posters. My point is that a lot of liberals aren't really "liberal". Deep down inside, you're as conservative as most people.

Like I say. Prove me wrong and go around town in a dress. And get back to me.

I know that my wife does not own a single dress or a skirt or high heels and generally wears jeans and t-shirts, which I suppose could be considered masculine clothes and I do not have a problem with it nor have I met anyone that does.

I also do not have any problem with cross dressers of any kind.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Or because I wanted to see where the thread went before I jumped in



You think what is nature? The fact that some boys are born with the inclination to want to wear what the culture dictates are girl's clothing, and vice versa?

Or the cultural dictates themselves about what is masculine and what is feminine are natural?

Have any of the following trends transended history?

Boys wearing blue and girls wearing pink? Nope.
Men wearing hardy fabrics and women wearing lace? Nope.
Men wearing flat shoes and women wearing high heels? Nope.
Men wearing pants and women wearing skirts? Nope.

They're cultural constructs of what are masculine and feminine.

If your opinion is the former, that some are born with the inclination to be like the opposite gender, and participate in the cultural trappings as such, then I agree. If it's the latter, then history disagrees.

In short, I think that people have a natural preference for certain things that society may see as fit for the opposite sex. How hard is that to grasp?

 

[BlackSabb]

Or because I wanted to see where the thread went before I jumped in



You think what is nature? The fact that some boys are born with the inclination to want to wear what the culture dictates are girl's clothing, and vice versa?

Or the cultural dictates themselves about what is masculine and what is feminine are natural?

Have any of the following trends transended history?

Boys wearing blue and girls wearing pink? Nope.
Men wearing hardy fabrics and women wearing lace? Nope.
Men wearing flat shoes and women wearing high heels? Nope.
Men wearing pants and women wearing skirts? Nope.

They're cultural constructs of what are masculine and feminine.

If your opinion is the former, that some are born with the inclination to be like the opposite gender, and participate in the cultural trappings as such, then I agree. If it's the latter, then history disagrees.

Good post, and so true too. You're right on the money.

In short, I think that people have a natural preference for certain things that society may see as fit for the opposite sex. How hard is that to grasp?

Well, "grasping" something and putting it into reality is a totally different thing, because of societal, parental etc conditioning. It's very difficult in our society to stand up and be different from the others or the "norm".

My own wife is a real girly girl. Lots of make up always, hair always done in product, lots of jewellery, skirts, dresses etc. But she hates hosiery.

Me? I've been raised up in a very strict, conservative religious home where it's been drummed into me to be a "real man". No real problems there, I'm not a dandy and quite happily fit into this mould most of the time.

But my own wife who despises hosiery suggested I try tights for winter/circulation after years of cramping due to a rheumalogical condition. And I can tell you something. It is very nerve racking going against the flow of what you've been taught all your life. You know, being a "sissy" or the like.

It's one thing to say, and this pertains to everything not just clothing, that you have a mental grasp of a situation. But standing up for yourself and going against the flow of those around you is a completely different thing. It depends on 2 things: your upbringing and your personal nature. So like me, if you've had a very strong indoctrinated upbringing and you're not the "free spirit" person, well that's not the best combination for trying new things, experiences etc and being generally yourself.

At uni, there were heaps of guys that were happy to go in drag for pub crawl night. That is the last type of thing I would go as. But the funny thing as I was watching these guys, I was thinking "I could never do that" for simply fear of other people's opinions.

The point of this is that for some of us, our upbringing and the society around us is very strong and not easily broken. I know it is for me, and I freely admit that I'm not very brave for "being myself".

But whatcha gonna do??

 

[Pliny the Elder]

My own wife is a real girly girl. Lots of make up always, hair always done in product, lots of jewellery, skirts, dresses etc. But she hates hosiery.

Your wife and mine are polar opposites except for the hosiery thing which she also hates.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

You are all welcome to your opinion, try not to poop all over mine.

 

[Virginia87106]

I have dated guys who crossdressed, and they are just like everyone else. Normal guys who are just looking to embrace the feminine within them. I find then=m very refreshing and exciting.

 

[TeddyKGB]

You are all welcome to your opinion, try not to poop all over mine.

Unavailable for comment.

 

[BlackSabb]

You are all welcome to your opinion, try not to poop all over mine.

*slowly speaking*

O.... k....a.... y. Right then.

I'm also surprised no one laughed at me. Where is the laughing people?

I don't hear laughing.

 

[gwenmead]

Well - spouse wears jewelry, spends more time styling his hair than I do (and sometimes grows it out all pretty), sometimes wears makeup, and looks mighty fine in his Utilikilt. Can't say I object in the least. In fact I think more men should wear makeup, for the same reason women do: it flatters one's features and makes a face nicer to look at.

I'm a fan of Eddie Izzard's attitude about personal style. He has noted that women have total clothing freedom - that is, women can wear masculine styles (short hair, male clothing, no makeup, etc.) as acceptably as we can wear feminine ones. But men do not have the same freedom when it comes to wearing feminine styles, and he would like to see that change. His ventures into cross-dressing over the years have reflected his opinion on the matter.

I always find myself wondering why it is that it's okay for women to be androgynous or masculine in some way (clothing, hair, mannerisms, etc.), but it's still not okay for men to veer towards the feminine. I suppose a lot of it might be a matter of personal preference. I've also heard the possibility that it's because being being male is socially still more okay than being female. Hence, a girl or woman adopting a masculine style or attitude is okay because it's an improvement, whereas a boy or man adopting a feminine style or attitude is not okay because it's degrading.

I really have no clue, though. Dunno if it's nature, nuture, or what.

How come not a single female has answered so far? Gee, so many liberal free thinking women around here. It's pretty obvious that even liberal women are as uncomfortable with this topic as conservative religous ones.

Nah, that's not it. There was a hosiery-burning feminist rally yesterday, so we were all busy.

 

[BlackSabb]

I always find myself wondering why it is that it's okay for women to be androgynous or masculine in some way (clothing, hair, mannerisms, etc.), but it's still not okay for men to veer towards the feminine. I suppose a lot of it might be a matter of personal preference. I've also heard the possibility that it's because being being male is socially still more okay than being female. Hence, a girl or woman adopting a masculine style or attitude is okay because it's an improvement, whereas a boy or man adopting a feminine style or attitude is not okay because it's degrading.

I think that is spot on! Being a "man" in our culture is still regarded as the superior and being a "girl" or a "woman" is inferior. Just look at all the expressions, such as "be a man" and "having balls" etc. And what about the expression "the man", as in "working for the man?" That again implies authority from the male perspective. There's no such equivalent expressions of strength/authority from the feminine aspect. And when you want to put someone down, they're a "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" or they're "like a girl/woman". That says it all I think.

So when women do masculine things, that's an upgrade or an improvement. But when men do feminine things, that's a downgrade.

Nah, that's not it. There was a hosiery-burning feminist rally yesterday, so we were all busy.

I'm surprised my wife wasn't there, lol.

 

[sk8Joyful]

re "cross-dressing" being nurture:

How come not a single female has answered so far?
Gee, so many liberal free thinking women around here. It's pretty obvious that even liberal women are as uncomfortable with this topic as conservative religous ones.

Interesting.

I just now saw this thread.
Also the last time I posted in this group, the 'regulars' around her acted too rude, so I left. I'll give this one more try. -
Also please don't 'peg' people, by saying that conservative religious people aren't, living as liberated as some of us do.

The subject is both nurtured, & context-dependent:
Scottish-men proudly wear/display kilts, as they play their bagpipes, as part of their lifestyle.
&
CPR, ICU, & other such medically-intense Care-situations: Let me tell you, of course I'm gonna wear pants, as I wanna get to the person , before they're in rigor-mortis.
&
Building-projects, plus Car-maintenance: for sure I'm in over-alls then.
&
Gardening: again, I'm in my Levi's; never in pantyhose & a dress.
&
Sleeping: I used to wear pj's, but my Sweetie's T-shirts I like best.
&
Carrying babe around: again in Levi's, with kiddo in *Snugli carrier*
&
church: considering the last time I attended church, was singing in last years Christmas-choir, well I wore a dress; but
I'm sure JESUS would accept any singer in pants too.
&
Skating: yes, I've ice-skated in jeans before, but Skating-dresses serve us skaters much better.

Now, as a liberated-woman I rarely wear make-up, or jewelry for that matter, & leave my beautiful hair flying in the breezes. - otoh, for Halloween & other relevant occasions, Sweetie wears wigs, make-up, jewelry, complete with ear-studs. Like I said, the conditions are imprinted/nurtured plus context-dependent.