Can you quit?

[Sammy777]

Even if we can quit, we hurt others by quitting!

This may quite possibly be the most illogical comment I've ever seen on this forum.

Really??? And how do you explain the quote below?

Even if I wanted/needed to quit I wouldn't be able to,

I tried several years ago and what followed was years of depression, unhappiness and lying to myself.

Are you telling me that the feelings above only affect that person and nobody around them?

I may not wholeheartedly agree with Batty's activist angle, but I do have to agree with the general statement.

Anger, Depression, Withdrawal, ect, ect ALL of those things not only hurt that person but do have an effect on the people around them.

[kateyliz]

Can I quit? I don't know, I don't want to. Hugs, Kathy

[battybattybats]

My question is: Is telling someone they have a moral or ethical obligation to do something you want them to do ANY different when it's applied to say, "not quitting cross-dressing" than it is when applied to "not cross-dresing?"

Well yes. The difference is in defining which is the greater harm (for utilitarian ethics and the like) or most virtuous (for idealism etc).

My suggestion is that it is a very greater harm to try and quit and most virtuous to not try but instead change the situation for future CDs. I'd be interested in any counterpoints if any, reasoned rather than rhetoric of course, that dont rely on ad-hominems or just disregard for the whole field of ethical study.

[Princess Chantal]

I could see myself retiring from my crossdressing tendencies, someday.

[Amy]

I did

[Ralph]

It has been proven by psychologists that it is very difficult if not impossible to quit.

Proven by which psychologists? Cite the study, date, and researcher names so we can read this proof you are so familiar with.

Also, are you talking specifically about quitting crossdressing, or any addictive behavior such as smoking, heroin, whatever?

[JulieC]

If it were possible to quit, then there'd be stories of people quitting for good, but they don't exist. There's no support groups for 'former' CDers. There's no self-help books on how to quit CDing. There's no research papers discussing hormonal cures to crossdressing.

The absence of these things is very telling. I long for the day when someone decides to actually do some research in this area. For now, we're treated like Caster Semenya.

[Amy]

It can and has been done. It's not fun. It's not easy and it takes constant determination and commitment. The truth is that for some the plusses of dressing up just don't add up to the minuses it can have on your life. For those that really feel that they don't want to have this you absolutely can stop. But that doesn't mean that the urges go away right away or probably ever.

I've not dressed in well over a year and for me I don't think it's likely I ever will again but that doesn't mean I don't still struggle with the urge to. I'm not saying this to be like neener neener you can to but just to say that there are people who choose not to because they feel that's what will be best for them in their life.

The important thing is not to rely on others to tell you what you can or can not do you do what you feel is best for you in your circumstances.

[Sammy777]

To answer the OP's question. "Can I quit?"

I have been thinking about doing just that for some time now.

Some days it's crystal clear to me, like it's time to move on.
Other days I still see the need to keeping doing it for now.

It's an ingrained part of me that I truly wish was never there to begin with.
I feel like it is something that was unduly forced upon me at an early age.
I had no say in the matter, no way to fight it or be rid of it.

It quickly became a part of me, part of who I am and it seems like that will never change, no matter how badly I want it too. No matter how much I want to wish it away it will always be there, somewhere. It is just something I have to deal with.

I have been doing it for so long now and it seemed natural, almost automatic, but not anymore! I feel less and less like the person I see staring back at me in the mirror, the feeling is gone and Elvis has left the building.

For a time I fooled myself, thinking it was OK, even liking it, but not anymore, it feels fake, a thin film, a charade, something to get me by on most days.

Well I for one say - Yes you can quit.
You can be done with it, and that is exactly what I am going to do in the near future.

I will soon be done with it all, the clothes, the walk, the talk all of it will soon be a thing of the past once and for all. It is not something I want to do, but feel it is something I need to do so I can finally live my life the way it was meant to be lived.

I will no longer be shackled to the "grab and trappings".
Soon all of it will be gone and I'll never go back to being a "man".

What?? Did you think I was turning my back on being the woman I was meant to be?
Because that would be funny!

[StephanieH]

I think just about everybody "could" quit something, regardless of whatever it was. Yes, I could quit, but as others have said, I wouldn't be very happy about it.

[Jenny Brown]

I don't. Ethical responsibilities don't apply only to 'activists'. They are a part of every persons every action.
My suggestion is we are accountable to the damage we do to others by not acting. That we all share the responsibility to other CDs. You'll find Utilitarian Ethicist Peter Singer makes much the same argument relating to a series of things (despite my disagreements with him on several issues). If we suggest morality and ethics only apply to activists doesnt that remove any responsibility a CD has to anyone? Now that would be illogical wouldn't it?
So the question is, does quitting or attempting to effectively result in passing the buck and shirking responsibility to family and to future generations of CDs and to all society? Now that may be true or untrue regardless of whether an activist or not.

Ethical responsibilities?
Let me get this straight...
You're insinuating that if someone cd's, they have an "ethical responsibility" to NOT stop cd-ing even if they desire to stop?
That's deep, even for you Batty.
It's not only deep, it's so far out in left field, I think very few people will agree with you. Look...if you want to crusade for Trans-Rights or whatever you want to call it, I say more power to you.
But, I can just about guarantee you that 95% (maybe more) of the members here won't be jumping on your Trans-Activist bandwagon anytime soon.
It's simply not going to happen. And the ones who aren't volunteering have no "ethical responsibility" to anyone. The majority of people here just want to wear girl's clothes now and then...it really is as simple as that.

[baby beluga]

Society deems clothing to be a necessity, so no I cannot quit wearing any.

[Wen4cd]

Well yes. The difference is in defining which is the greater harm (for utilitarian ethics and the like) or most virtuous (for idealism etc).

My suggestion is that it is a very greater harm to try and quit and most virtuous to not try but instead change the situation for future CDs. I'd be interested in any counterpoints if any, reasoned rather than rhetoric of course, that dont rely on ad-hominems or just disregard for the whole field of ethical study.

Actually I think there is no essential difference between telling people they should not quit dressing, and saying 'nobody should ever dress.' One generalizing opinion is as useless and bullyish as another.

Your suggestion is flawed, I feel, because it presupposes quite a lot of statements that aren't necessarily valid. It assumes:

a) that CDs have some undefined external 'goal' that must be achieved before any of us should be allowed to be happy with ourselves.

b) that there is an undefined but universal 'situation' that needs to be changed.

c) that some individual quitting dressing is going to somehow hinder this change from this undefined situation to this undefined goal.

d) that quitting cross-dressing is never in the best interests of any individual's mental health.

e) that even if quitting cross-dressing was in the best interests of someone's mental health, that particular individual should still sacrifice his health in the name of your agenda to move from the the undefined situation to the undefined goal, whether or not it's also his goal, or was ever his goal.

f) that because you have one thing in common with this individual, he should adopt your agenda, alter his entire life around achieving your goal, and do harm to himself to satisfy your worldview.

g) that the motivation for cross-dressing is always, universally, based in the physical body rather than the psyche, because it can never be in the best interest of someone's mental health to stop doing it.

h) that if someone disagrees with any of these assumptions, they are immoral and are guilty of hurting others in the vague future.

Not all of us accept these presuppositions. I'd be surprised if anyone accepts more than one or two.

I could counter-suggest that the harm of asking real, actual people in the here and now, to potentially damage themselves in the name of validating your suggestion's worldview far outweighs any imagined harm to these ethereal 'future CD's,' and that there is no reason whatsoever to believe it would help them in the first place, that in fact it would hurt their personal development by process of having bad examples to follow; damaged role-models with strained, put-on smiles, merely recruited and recruiting only to speak and repeat the worldview's terms over and over again in an endless looping cycle.

I'm also hearing a few things from the tone that suggest ideas that sound like: "two wrongs DO make a right" and "it's acceptable to impose your will on others if you think you know what's better for them more than they do."

Are these the sort of ethics one learns from Peter "it's acceptable to have sex with animals but wrong to eat them" Singer? If so, I'll do without those ethics.

[The Gas Man Cometh]

Give up facials? Give up neat eyebrows? Give up moisturizing? Give up well-cared for nails? Why or how could I do that? I enjoy have a better body and enjoy that my wife thinks it's terrific as well.

Personally, I don't consider looking after yourself particularly masculine or feminine. I see it as self preservation irrespective of gender or sex.

Thinks like neat eyebrows, nail care and well moisturised skin are genderless. My brother uses a lot of moisturiser for practical reasons. He's a chef and so needs to look after the skin on his hands. He always has neat and tidy hair, well kept nails that are clean and trimmed. All sorts of things just to be neat and tidy and smelling good.

Even if one were to quit specifically cross DRESSING, why would they quit self preservation?

[Stephanie Miller]

Of course I can quit. Heck it's got to be the easiest thing in the world. Watch..... I quit!

[Stephanie Miller]

Shoot. First time in my life I've been wrong. O.K. So I can't.
(Drat, that was a long time )

[Sammy777]

Yaaaaaaaa, OK, We get it.
I think it is time to stop and Batty.

And stop already.

Soooooo, what was this thread about again?

[battybattybats]

Sorry for the length but long questions posed to me result in it.

Ethical responsibilities?
Let me get this straight...
You're insinuating that if someone cd's, they have an "ethical responsibility" to NOT stop cd-ing even if they desire to stop?
That's deep, even for you Batty.

If we pass the buck someone else will have to suffer. We are the ones whose choices will determine the next generation of CDs number of suicides, murders and successful happy lives. We must consider the harm of attempting to quit and failing on our families and friends. We also have to look at what will be the lot of the next generation of CDs if we don't do our individual part to change that.

It's not only deep, it's so far out in left field, I think very few people will agree with you.

That is because it directly challenges the assumption that CDing is the cause of the problem. I suggest that it is the recent transphobia that is the cause of the problem. Something only 200 odd years old in Australia, a smidge more in the USA and the same is true over much of the world. There are cultures still alive where this issue is not the case. That shows us the answer not just to our imediate problem but to generations of it.

Look...if you want to crusade for Trans-Rights or whatever you want to call it, I say more power to you.
But, I can just about guarantee you that 95% (maybe more) of the members here won't be jumping on your Trans-Activist bandwagon anytime soon.
It's simply not going to happen.

That has no bearing on whether i'm right or not though. Try considering what would make my argument right or wrong. Often massive social changes come from a small number of people considering such statements.

And the ones who aren't volunteering have no "ethical responsibility" to anyone.

How do you figure that? When driving a car we have an ethical responsibility to pedestrians, to other drivers right?

Just because people don't think about it doesn't mean its not there!

Actually I think there is no essential difference between telling people they should not quit dressing, and saying 'nobody should ever dress.' One generalizing opinion is as useless and bullyish as another.

Thats not what i said, i gave a why. If the why is wrong the further conclusion is, if not then not. Basic ethical and moral philosophy.

Your suggestion is flawed, I feel, because it presupposes quite a lot of statements that aren't necessarily valid. It assumes:

a) that CDs have some undefined external 'goal' that must be achieved before any of us should be allowed to be happy with ourselves.

Nope. There exists a recent in most of the world transphobia causing CDs and their families to suffer. If that is reversed then CDs and their families will not suffer from that. Pretty simple really.

b) that there is an undefined but universal 'situation' that needs to be changed.

Nope, it assumes there is a common one that needs to be changed and a 37%-40% attempted suicide rate accross the western world wherever TG figures are obtained shows that is so.

c) that some individual quitting dressing is going to somehow hinder this change from this undefined situation to this undefined goal.

It's a matter of passively adding to inertia versus active eroding of a killing-people problem. A relatively binary situation with degrees.

d) that quitting cross-dressing is never in the best interests of any individual's mental health.

All evidence thus far suggests the only harm to mental health comes from existing in a transphobic society does it not?

e) that even if quitting cross-dressing was in the best interests of someone's mental health, that particular individual should still sacrifice his health in the name of your agenda to move from the the undefined situation to the undefined goal, whether or not it's also his goal, or was ever his goal.

It's not 'my' agenda. The current situation is defined by international statistics a regular pattern of human rights abuses, wrecked families and struggle. This very thread is evidence of the problem. Why would all CDs alive now not be responsible to fixing this real problem?

f) that because you have one thing in common with this individual, he should adopt your agenda, alter his entire life around achieving your goal, and do harm to himself to satisfy your worldview.

Nope. Theres a reason post-modernism isn't used in moral and ethical reasoning.. cause it's bunkum. Either my arguments points are correct and lead to my conclusion or there is an error in them. It's not an argument of rhetoric but of reason you see?

g) that the motivation for cross-dressing is always, universally, based in the physical body rather than the psyche, because it can never be in the best interest of someone's mental health to stop doing it.

The motivation is immaterial. Best interests in a transphobic society must be compared to it in a trans-accepting society and the fact that there will always be new CDs born.

h) that if someone disagrees with any of these assumptions, they are immoral and are guilty of hurting others in the vague future.

Nope. Only if someone agreed with me and then acted contrary anyway would that be so clearly so.

Not all of us accept these presuppositions. I'd be surprised if anyone accepts more than one or two.

But most of them are not crucial to my suggested argument. All thats needed for that is to show that there is not harm to others by attempting to quit or that there is less by attempting to quit. Your overcomplicating unneccessarily the whole notion raising largely immaterial counters that do not disprove the essential provisos and connections. Your not breaking the chain of reasoning that leads to my sggested conclusion.

I could counter-suggest that the harm of asking real, actual people in the here and now, to potentially damage themselves in the name of validating your suggestion's worldview far outweighs any imagined harm to these ethereal 'future CD's,'

Cool point! So you suggest that for some reason exists that there will be no CDs in the future? Really? And that even if they exist just cause we have suffered through societal transphobia and internalised transphobia there is no reason to predict they too will if we are inactive? Really? Cause I really want to see your explanation for the probablity let alone possibility of those! ROFLMAO

and that there is no reason whatsoever to believe it would help them in the first place,

Because of course there's no examples to follow.. oops, women, african americans, australian aboriginals, native americans, gays, every civil rights movement in human history....

I'm also hearing a few things from the tone that suggest ideas that sound like: "two wrongs DO make a right" and "it's acceptable to impose your will on others if you think you know what's better for them more than they do."

Where?

Are these the sort of ethics one learns from Peter "it's acceptable to have sex with animals but wrong to eat them" Singer? If so, I'll do without those ethics.

I did say i disagreed with him on several issues. But Utilitarianism is still a popular school of ethics. What school of Ethics do you prefer? Cause i'm pretty sure whether it's consequentialism to reciprocal ethics to stoicism the same conclusion is going to come from the same provisos.

[Jessica Rabbit]

Sure I can quit. I've quit before, many times, I'm sure I could do it again. LOL

As said before, why would we? Until there is a good reason to quit, I'm not going to be able to stop. I've tried to find the will power in the past, but it keeps drawing me back.

Great question, I love all the responses.

[Kaitlin the cd]

I have tried to quit back when I was 15 but I always ended up doing it again.

[BunnieCashmere]

OMG, I wish this thread would quit.

/drama

PLEASE?!

(Ah crap. I bumped it by begging for it to stop. How stupid is that?!)

[Sammy777]

(Ah crap. I bumped it by begging for it to stop. How stupid is that?!)

Awwww! See what you did! You made it go back to the top again and uh well err ............ c r a p! lol, oh well now we will have to wait some more for it to drift away..


Oh I know! Quick! Someone start a panty thread!

It has been at least... what 4 or 5 hours since I've seen one

[Tamara Croft]

This thread is kaput and those 2 who got it closed, you know who you are... do it again and see what happens next. I will NOT tollerate this crap on this board. You can either take your arguments to PM, or I'll kick you off. Is that clear?