On crossdressing
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2015 6:41 am
I posted this in the "London" thread originally, however despite the small section on page one of the London thread that touched on the issue of crossdressing, by page two, the thread had turned back onto it's original topic. Then what to I do? Haul off and hijack the thread AGAIN!
So anyway, I thought.... why not make a fresh thread to share this thought..... so I cut the comment (control X), deleted the old one, and now will repost it here....so here goes (hope it's still in my copy clipboard, otherwise I'm going to bed)..... control......V:
On crossdressing:
Amber and I had this discussion yesterday, and I shared my opinion on the matter with her, I will now repeat the jist of my position with you all on this everlasting subject.
Men who wear women's clothes are crossdressing. Women who wear men's clothes are crossdressing.
Now before you fire up the flare gun, hear me out.....
My skirts, belong to ME. I am a man. Thus they are not "women's skirts", they do not belong to the female gender. They belonged to the store who sold them, until I purchased them, then they became my skirt, thus I am wearing a MAN'S SKIRT.... because I AM A MAN. If my wife should wear one of MY SKIRTS, then I'm of the opinion that she is the crossdresser. I feel the question of crossdressing comes down to ownership of the garment, verses who is actually wearing it. A man, or a woman for that matter who simply dons a piece of fabric, cut and stitched in such a way to resemble a socially familiar garment, like a pair of pants, or a skirt, then by him or her cladding the garment in question simply does NOT change the definition of who this individual is! It's just clothing for God's sake!
I used the example of a unisex common t-shirt. I pointed to Amber's shirt and explained to her, "that shirt, it is for men or women, yet you are wearing it, it is YOUR shirt". Although it is designed for either men or women, it currently belongs to a woman. If I should wear that shirt, then I would be a man wearing a shirt that belongs to a woman, thus I would be a crossdresser. If you give the shirt to me to keep, then I am not a crossdresser.
Look at the Macabi skirt. A skirt marketed towards men and women. If a man wears a Macabi does that make him a crossdresser? No? It's a skirt isn't it? Long before I was wearing skirts I was wearing t-shirts with fairy drawings on them. These fairies are very feminine (and quite sexy too I might add), but I think they were more marketed towards women... was I crossdressing when I wore the shirts simply because of the drawing on the front? What makes a skirt a crossdressing skirt anyway.... lace? Ruffles? an inner slip? No pockets? Or is it simply the dreaded "WOMENS" tag on the back.... a tag, is the same as a label. "Man maketh no rule than canst be bent" The only LAWS that are ABSOLUTE are the laws of NATURE. And nature doesn't care what we wear or what we call our selves.
I realize that my opinion on this may fall in the minority, and is contrary to virtually ALL standard definitions of "crossdresser", however I do maintain that the argument DOES HOLD WATER. After all, women can wear clothes from either side of the isle and they are not considered crossdressers, and I believe it is for THIS VERY REASON. Why should men have to play by different fashion rules than women? Why are we so restricted, and labeled in so many different ways simply because we have a penis?
Now, to move into the stereotypical "crossdresser" as in, the man who actually wants to resemble a woman, and perhaps even go so far as the feel like a woman, well that's a whole different ball of wax. These are men who are actively trying to look and pass as a woman, and there does appear to be somewhat of a sexual fetish to it. Are they truly crossdressers? Well that's a different debate, and I don't have a horse in that race so I won't take it up. I also feel as though it really doesn't pertain to most of us here on this site.
The bottom line is, regardless of the fact that some of us wear dresses, feminine skirts, hose, shoes from the woman's isle, paint our finger nails and toe nails, I maintain that as long as we still IDENTIFY as a man, then we are simply a "man wearing a skirt, dress, hose, shoes, painted nails, etc". We are NOT crossdressers. If for no other reason than the simple fact (I reiterate) that women can dress as men and THEY are not considered crossdressers! What is the difference?
There is none, aside from the fact that in western society, women simply have more social freedom than men do. It's just that simple.
So anyway, I thought.... why not make a fresh thread to share this thought..... so I cut the comment (control X), deleted the old one, and now will repost it here....so here goes (hope it's still in my copy clipboard, otherwise I'm going to bed)..... control......V:
On crossdressing:
Amber and I had this discussion yesterday, and I shared my opinion on the matter with her, I will now repeat the jist of my position with you all on this everlasting subject.
Men who wear women's clothes are crossdressing. Women who wear men's clothes are crossdressing.
Now before you fire up the flare gun, hear me out.....
My skirts, belong to ME. I am a man. Thus they are not "women's skirts", they do not belong to the female gender. They belonged to the store who sold them, until I purchased them, then they became my skirt, thus I am wearing a MAN'S SKIRT.... because I AM A MAN. If my wife should wear one of MY SKIRTS, then I'm of the opinion that she is the crossdresser. I feel the question of crossdressing comes down to ownership of the garment, verses who is actually wearing it. A man, or a woman for that matter who simply dons a piece of fabric, cut and stitched in such a way to resemble a socially familiar garment, like a pair of pants, or a skirt, then by him or her cladding the garment in question simply does NOT change the definition of who this individual is! It's just clothing for God's sake!
I used the example of a unisex common t-shirt. I pointed to Amber's shirt and explained to her, "that shirt, it is for men or women, yet you are wearing it, it is YOUR shirt". Although it is designed for either men or women, it currently belongs to a woman. If I should wear that shirt, then I would be a man wearing a shirt that belongs to a woman, thus I would be a crossdresser. If you give the shirt to me to keep, then I am not a crossdresser.
Look at the Macabi skirt. A skirt marketed towards men and women. If a man wears a Macabi does that make him a crossdresser? No? It's a skirt isn't it? Long before I was wearing skirts I was wearing t-shirts with fairy drawings on them. These fairies are very feminine (and quite sexy too I might add), but I think they were more marketed towards women... was I crossdressing when I wore the shirts simply because of the drawing on the front? What makes a skirt a crossdressing skirt anyway.... lace? Ruffles? an inner slip? No pockets? Or is it simply the dreaded "WOMENS" tag on the back.... a tag, is the same as a label. "Man maketh no rule than canst be bent" The only LAWS that are ABSOLUTE are the laws of NATURE. And nature doesn't care what we wear or what we call our selves.
I realize that my opinion on this may fall in the minority, and is contrary to virtually ALL standard definitions of "crossdresser", however I do maintain that the argument DOES HOLD WATER. After all, women can wear clothes from either side of the isle and they are not considered crossdressers, and I believe it is for THIS VERY REASON. Why should men have to play by different fashion rules than women? Why are we so restricted, and labeled in so many different ways simply because we have a penis?
Now, to move into the stereotypical "crossdresser" as in, the man who actually wants to resemble a woman, and perhaps even go so far as the feel like a woman, well that's a whole different ball of wax. These are men who are actively trying to look and pass as a woman, and there does appear to be somewhat of a sexual fetish to it. Are they truly crossdressers? Well that's a different debate, and I don't have a horse in that race so I won't take it up. I also feel as though it really doesn't pertain to most of us here on this site.
The bottom line is, regardless of the fact that some of us wear dresses, feminine skirts, hose, shoes from the woman's isle, paint our finger nails and toe nails, I maintain that as long as we still IDENTIFY as a man, then we are simply a "man wearing a skirt, dress, hose, shoes, painted nails, etc". We are NOT crossdressers. If for no other reason than the simple fact (I reiterate) that women can dress as men and THEY are not considered crossdressers! What is the difference?
There is none, aside from the fact that in western society, women simply have more social freedom than men do. It's just that simple.