These are the most common questions/comments I get when someone finds out I crossdress:
1) Are you gay?
2) Do you want to be a woman?
3) Dude, I'm not interested in you. I want a real woman.
4) Why?
5) We should go shopping!
6) Oooh, my gay friend should meet you!
Seriously, more people assume I'm gay because I like women's clothing than anything else. Even friends who have only ever seen me with girlfriends or knew me when I was married have thought that. When I get my pedicure, the ladies who paint my toes wonder if I'm gay or dating one of the women who goes with me. If I went alone, they would simply assume that I'm gay.
|
As long as those are genuine questions, 1, 2 and 4 really shouldn't be a problem - curiosity helps to understand. 3 sounds like the common simpleton who probably has a thing or two to say about 'heavier' women, men with long hair, academics and asian/black/indian 'chicks'... 5...well, perhaps they admire your style, 6 as dumb as it gets, even if you were gay.
Still, if those are the most common reactions: We are makeing progress, even if it's slow and sometimes leads to strange places.
These are the most common questions/comments I get when someone finds out I crossdress:
1) Are you gay?
2) Do you want to be a woman?
3) Dude, I'm not interested in you. I want a real woman.
4) Why?
5) We should go shopping!
6) Oooh, my gay friend should meet you!Seriously, more people assume I'm gay because I like women's clothing than anything else. Even friends who have only ever seen me with girlfriends or knew me when I was married have thought that. When I get my pedicure, the ladies who paint my toes wonder if I'm gay or dating one of the women who goes with me. If I went alone, they would simply assume that I'm gay.
interesting.....very interesting.
I didn't say that most of the questions were wrong. I'm just saying that my experience has mostly been people who think I'm gay and not someone with a fetish.
|
I get that too when I make an outing. Years ago, I would've been offended at a gay slur (in drab or CD) ie fighting words. Nowadays, just recognize it is not offensive word to me. It reveals far more about the utterer than to take it personally in a hurtful way.
So when I am presenting as "normal", calling me a girl/ma'am/lady/gay or any other slights against my masculinity, the response is to continue as if it were a compliment. Ahhh if they only knew. Confuses the hell out them. And really, I see nothing offensive in being called a girl.
As for when I present as the opposite gender, it becomes an ambassadorial opportunity, or not depending on circumstances.
If they think it is a fetish and am getting off in their presence, I really have never been accused of that. And the CDs, drag queens and Transexuals I've met, don't come across that way either.
Exception: Although tranny chasers (so far always men dressed as males) certainly give off that creepy vibe. Pardon the term but what else do you call them?
Again, I find it strange that someone being attracted to a very specific someone else that they can legally be with is seen as creepy. I see this in trans society as well as others, and it worries me as well as intrigues.
I am certainly not putting any stigmatism on fetishism. I think that any sexual activity between consenting adults is joyful and good. I don't personally consent to participate in sexual or fetish activity with strangers, but I will wish them well and sincerely hope they have a wonderful time with each other. And I will be happy to game with them after they are done making their sexytimes. Not during, though. Everyone is allowed to set personal sexual boundaries, and those are mine. They don't come with any negative judgments on other people just because I don't personally want to make sexytimes with them.
I'm just confused then because you seemed to imply that to you cross-dressing implied a sexual fetish. Which is why you wouldn't feel comfortable e.g. gaming with someone who was cross-dressing as you would feel like they were doing their "sexytime" with you.
It might be a miscommunication, though.This is the quote I'm thinking of and the context my earlier comments should be seen in:
I don't actually know that this person experiences or defines his cross dressing as a sexual fetish, but if he does not identify as trans* in any way and does identify as a crossdresser, my understanding of that identification term as it is commonly used is that it refers to a sexual fetish. I am not okay with a stranger acting out a sex fetish at my dinner table. Respecting someone's gender identity has nothing to do with consenting to participate in activities that are sexual to them.
Again, I find it strange that someone being attracted to a very specific someone else that they can legally be with is seen as creepy. I see this in trans society as well as others, and it worries me as well as intrigues.
I'm guessing this is in response to the "tranny chasers" situation.
From what I've gathered (and this is without asking any direct questions) the term and the person usually tagged with it has to do with some of the following characteristics:The person (I've only heard it used about men) is only interested in trans* women for purely sexual reasons. They are not interested in any type of romantic relationship and would never be seen in public with a trans* woman.
They seem to be pursuing a lot of trans* women (often at the same time) - notches in the belt/sexual conquest type of pursuit.
Even an unhealthy obsession with trans* women (to the point of stalker-like in some cases).
Those are some of the main characteristics I've come across from various sources.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I find it strange that someone being attracted to a very specific someone else that they can legally be with is seen as creepy. I see this in trans society as well as others, and it worries me as well as intrigues.
GentleGiant has made some good points.
To expound on their comments a little bit, I think a lot of it has to do with objectification. They don't see trans women as people, but rather as objects to please their sexual desires. Men who think all women exist to please them sexually are creepy. Confining that to just one group of women doesn't make it less creepy. The problem isn't that these men are attracted to trans women---I think most would agree that being attracted to trans women is not a problem. The problem how this sort of fetishization removes the agency of trans women turns the focus of their existence onto the desires of men.
You see a similar thing elsewhere in the queer community. Think of how lesbians and bisexual women are so often talked about as if their sole purpose was to fulfill the fantasies of straight men. Hell, there's a whole genre of porn devoted to this kind of objectification. (There's also a whole genre of porn devoted to objectifying trans women in this way.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not entirely sold. I'll certainly buy into not wanting to be seen as a non person, and I'm all for wanting to be in a relationship as opposed to something purely carnal(and turning someone down with that as a reason), but I'm a bit skeptical of the push towards grand amour as the standard. Its not a bad thing to know who or what you are into per se, and if one is interested in someone for a brief coupling, it doesn't mean that they are out to take advantage f someone or think that the only reason they are around is to please them. I don't think I'm putting it the right way, mind, but I remain skeptical. My own experiences just point in a less nefarious direction. Blargh. I don't know and that is frustrating and rejuvenating at the same time.
^ Indeed.
You see the same with people who fetishise Asians as well. Although that has additional awkwardness with borderline racism and misogyny as well (assuming Asians are all 'submissive', etc.)
Basically fetishisation of people is kind of gross overall. :(
except that the asian/non asian couple I know are into each other exactly for stereotypical reasons and moreso do not date(though they are engaged now) within their respective cultures because they really don't like the stereotypes there, which they have found to be true.
|
I'm white, and my girlfriend is Asian, and uhh, I'm not gonna lie - I really dig Asians. Both guys and girls. There's nothing wrong with having a preference like that, kind of like saying "I really dig red-heads" or "I love guys with broad chests" or whatever.
The problem is when you start to objectify people based on a trait like "Asian" or "transgendered" or "lesbian" or whatever. If your preference for Asians is because "the women are submissive and feminine", you're doing it wrong.
You have to be careful of confusing a fetish and attraction to. Because you end up labelling undeservedly. I have two friends that are of Anglo Celtic background married to Asian women, both of them get very angry when people assume its because of the submissive stereotype (neither woman is submissive in any way and a both are full and equal partners in the relationships).
I am more of a world movies kind of guy, I melt for French, Irish and Scottish accents, I dated an Indian/Australian woman in Uni and she had a voice like honey and sung like Macy Gray....
I'm not entirely sold. I'll certainly buy into not wanting to be seen as a non person, and I'm all for wanting to be in a relationship as opposed to something purely carnal(and turning someone down with that as a reason), but I'm a bit skeptical of the push towards grand amour as the standard. Its not a bad thing to know who or what you are into per se, and if one is interested in someone for a brief coupling, it doesn't mean that they are out to take advantage f someone or think that the only reason they are around is to please them. I don't think I'm putting it the right way, mind, but I remain skeptical. My own experiences just point in a less nefarious direction. Blargh. I don't know and that is frustrating and rejuvenating at the same time.
I don't think it's the "one night stand" or "friends with benefits" situation that's the problem, lots of people don't mind that or even prefer that (maybe only for a period of time). Two adults agreeing on the terms of their "relationship" shouldn't bother anyone else.
It's the part where a trans* woman might be "good enough" for a sexual encounter, but not as anything else. Whereas a cisgendered woman might be fine to enter into a longer romantic relationship with too - heck, a trans* woman might not even be "good enough" to be seen with socially, without implying any kind of relationship.So there's a kind of discrimination going on (which might have several causes, from a kind of fetichism over guilt tripping over being attracted to trans* women to it being seen as wrong/not masculine/gay, by the man himself and/or his peers - often by ignorant people who don't know that it has nothing to do with being gay).
A man who objectifies cisgendered women to the same degree would probably be seen as creepy too.
|
|
All good points. Let me clarify the creepiness. One encounter: I clearly have my wife with me. She is not included in the convo. He had eyes only for me. Not sure if he even saw her. Plowing through the crowd on a beeline. He came looking for a bedmate. It was assumed I only dressed and arrived at event looking for same and clearly only for him. Urgent convo* on his part, casual dismissal on my part. Touching my person to restate his overture*.
I shed the female persona in an instant and shut him down with implied physical response if unable to comply. Going through my mind was Fortunately I have the wherewithal defend myself. Is this what women have to deal with all the time? At no time did I feel threatened mostly due to the wherewithal mentioned but it did put a damper on my mood and renewed sympathy/understanding for girls' night out. FYI: Clothes were female evening wear not clubbing/bar hopping nor fetish wear. Hell, I wasn't even showing cleavage and the dress was knee length.
That my good friend is the creepy factor.
*Does that language and those pickup lines ever work?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eddie Izzard also reinforced that it wasn't a fetish for me.
As to Eddie Izzard, he's a good example of someone who confuses a lot of people. Though he used to do his act in drag, the clothes he chose to wear weren't what most people associate with the term.
Instead of a 'Pantomime Dame', like Lily Savage, Danny LaRue, or a Vegas showgirl, all ostrich feathers and tiaras, he wore trousers and shirt. They simply happened to be from the other side of the store.
It begs the question, "When does a 'shirt' become a 'blouse'?". At what point does the cut of the material cause the garment to transcend some arbitary designation?
Contrast that to a performer such as Liberace (in the public eye again, since the Michael Douglas film). He was the dictionary definition of a flamboyant dresser, to the point that everyone believed him to be as gay as a person could be.
Yet the clothes he wore were male clothing. They just happened to follow the designs of an earlier age, when aristocratic men's clothing had frills and bows and furs, when it was in your face, loud and proud.
At some point, someone decided men should cease this tomfoolery, and grey or black, unadorned uniformity was the respectable thing.
Anything that attempted to break up the monochrome set was deemed a bit 'suspect'.
Who makes these decisions, and why do we let them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eddie Izzard also reinforced that it wasn't a fetish for me.As to Eddie Izzard, he's a good example of someone who confuses a lot of people. Though he used to do his act in drag, the clothes he chose to wear weren't what most people associate with the term.
Instead of a 'Pantomime Dame', like Lily Savage, Danny LaRue, or a Vegas showgirl, all ostrich feathers and tiaras, he wore trousers and shirt. They simply happened to be from the other side of the store.
It begs the question, "When does a 'shirt' become a 'blouse'?". At what point does the cut of the material cause the garment to transcend some arbitary designation?
Contrast that to a performer such as Liberace (in the public eye again, since the Michael Douglas film). He was the dictionary definition of a flamboyant dresser, to the point that everyone believed him to be as gay as a person could be.
Yet the clothes he wore were male clothing. They just happened to follow the designs of an earlier age, when aristocratic men's clothing had frills and bows and furs, when it was in your face, loud and proud.
At some point, someone decided men should cease this tomfoolery, and grey or black, unadorned uniformity was the respectable thing.
Anything that attempted to break up the monochrome set was deemed a bit 'suspect'.Who makes these decisions, and why do we let them?
damn good question and THANK GOD someone else understands liberace wasn't in drag, he dressed like an aristocrat from another time period!
damn good question and THANK GOD someone else understands liberace wasn't in drag, he dressed like an aristocrat from another time period!Eddie Izzard also reinforced that it wasn't a fetish for me.As to Eddie Izzard, he's a good example of someone who confuses a lot of people. Though he used to do his act in drag, the clothes he chose to wear weren't what most people associate with the term.
Instead of a 'Pantomime Dame', like Lily Savage, Danny LaRue, or a Vegas showgirl, all ostrich feathers and tiaras, he wore trousers and shirt. They simply happened to be from the other side of the store.
It begs the question, "When does a 'shirt' become a 'blouse'?". At what point does the cut of the material cause the garment to transcend some arbitary designation?
Contrast that to a performer such as Liberace (in the public eye again, since the Michael Douglas film). He was the dictionary definition of a flamboyant dresser, to the point that everyone believed him to be as gay as a person could be.
Yet the clothes he wore were male clothing. They just happened to follow the designs of an earlier age, when aristocratic men's clothing had frills and bows and furs, when it was in your face, loud and proud.
At some point, someone decided men should cease this tomfoolery, and grey or black, unadorned uniformity was the respectable thing.
Anything that attempted to break up the monochrome set was deemed a bit 'suspect'.Who makes these decisions, and why do we let them?
Men stopped wearing wigs and tights and high heals during the Enlightenment. It's got its own name it's called The Great Male Renunciation.
I always thought of Liberace as a Dandy like Wilde.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It makes me really sad that guys get tonnes of crap for wearing girls' clothes, but girls can mostly wear guys' clothes without issue.
Half of that is because, like, why do you even care?
Half of that is because I feel like it's because the view is that a guy is demeaning himself by appearing as a woman, while the opposite is not true as a girl. Cue feminist rant here.
I miss dandyism!
Would you consider an old school pimp to be a dandy?
If we're talking classical definition of a dandy... then no, a cane holding, top hat wearing, fur coat stylin old skool pimp would be a bit too overt for my interpretation anyway.
Modern swenkas on the other hand... they've got some style. (do a google image surf - it's safe for work)
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It makes me really sad that guys get tonnes of crap for wearing girls' clothes, but girls can mostly wear guys' clothes without issue.
Made even more annoying when there's no reason for a garment to be designated 'men-only' or 'women-only'.
David Beckham once got grief for wearing a wraparound skirt, when he was on holiday in a place where that was common male wear. And who, among the knuckle-dragging tabloid readers who gave him that grief, can say they've never wrapped a towel round their waist? Total hypocrisy.
At their most basic definition, most clothes are unisex. A shirt is a shirt, a vest is a vest, trousers are two tubes connected at one end. Most of the differences appear to be arbitary designations based on proportion and material.
If I choose to throw on a robe, to answer the door, I get a free pass if it's made of 'manly' towelling material. God help me if it's silk, unless it has a line of kanji on the breast, in which case, I'm allowed to brazen it out as being a 'kimono', and therefore an exceedingly badass piece of clothing that marks me out as a testosterone-pumping alpha male.
o_0?
These are some of the reasons I'm a proponent of legal clothing-optional nudism. Don't want to deal with social stigma associated with costume? Don't have to. Want to dress up anyway? Go for it.
|
In the last episode (episode 11?), according to the "internetted webs" Mulan tells Aurora that she is in love with her. let me try to find a link to the story.
That's a beautiful scene! One that I've never seen before.
The reason I've never seen this before is that we've only had the first two seasons over here in Britain! I didn't even know that the third season had started in America!
Anyone know when Channel 5 will show season 3 in Britain?
^ Indeed.
You see the same with people who fetishise Asians as well. Although that has additional awkwardness with borderline racism and misogyny as well (assuming Asians are all 'submissive', etc.)
Basically fetishisation of people is kind of gross overall. :(
it could also be that I have no problem with the fetishization aimed at my people. None at all. :D
If we're talking classical definition of a dandy... then no, a cane holding, top hat wearing, fur coat stylin old skool pimp would be a bit too overt for my interpretation anyway.
Modern swenkas on the other hand... they've got some style. (do a google image surf - it's safe for work)
Swenkas! I'd forgotten about them. Saw a documentary on them once. Here's the trailer
If we're talking classical definition of a dandy... then no, a cane holding, top hat wearing, fur coat stylin old skool pimp would be a bit too overt for my interpretation anyway.
Modern swenkas on the other hand... they've got some style. (do a google image surf - it's safe for work)
Swenkas! I'd forgotten about them. Saw a documentary on them once. Here's the trailer
Let me know if anyone would like the subtitles translated to English.
Ugh, just came across this article in my FB newsfeed:
GOP Politician Tweets That Transgender People Should Go To Concentration Camps.
What an absolutey vile and despicable opinion of other people.
Yup - I didn't think it would be that bad though, somehow.
It seems I should stay out of South Carolina for the time being.
(Apologies if there are any South Carolina folk on here.)
I've never exactly understood what a trigger warning is. I've heard the term used in joking manners but never quite understood what it's supposed to mean.
Isn't the very phrase "trigger warning" itself a trigger? I mean, if you're reading it, and actually have experienced trauma, your mind will immediately go to, "oh, don't think about..."
It's kind of a negative suggestion, if you know what I mean.
Isn't the very phrase "trigger warning" itself a trigger? I mean, if you're reading it, and actually have experienced trauma, your mind will immediately go to, "oh, don't think about..."
It's kind of a negative suggestion, if you know what I mean.
I think it can be, but it's a lesser trigger than running into the thing being warned against.
I probably should have included a warning in my post. On the other hand, as thejeff pointed out, the title of the article and my following opinion of it should be a clear indicator that it's not a fun read.
|
|
Wow...just wow...I certainly know such opinions do exist (I am unfortunate enough to have met people who share it), but knowing that a member of a major political party of a western country does not only hold that opinon but willingly makes it public...that is indeed enraging and dissappointing - and I am stuck in a mental low ATM anyway...
What an a!*~$%*! He is an embarrassment to the state!
What an a%*%*@*! He is an embarrassment to the state!
Uh, this is the same state that flew a Confederate flag atop the state house dome until 2000, and still has a Confederate flag on a 30-foot pole in the front lawn. The same state that was supposed to be the designated Eden for the "Christian Exodus" from the rest of America. The same state that is dead last in K-12 education ranking.
They're hard to embarrass.