Referring to your Fem persona in the third person.

[Julie Hall]

I have been thinking about this question for awhile. I have always thought referring to oneself in third person was more than a bit creepy. Be that person someone famous such or a member of this community.

I now understood where it is being used for identification purposes only - just to make life and writing posts a little simpler. It is disconcerting when a member refers to having different desires and feelings when dressed than when in drab. I can't fathom that. I usually refer to me, as me or some other pronoun. I don't use my first name in communication - except to sign off.

Whether dressed or in drab, what I do, how I feel or what I think is from me, not the personification of a feminine name "Julie". Now I am pretty new to this and the feelings engendered - without having to be closeted (except work). Perhaps this makes me unsuitable to venture an opinion on the subject, but I have to agree with SweetPea - it's a little like multiple personality or dissociative identity disorder. I don't think referring to oneself in the third person would qualify as being indicative of the disorder (comes from having a SO as a psychology major).

Just thought I'd add my two cents worth.

[Diana Bain]

just my opinion...could it be that their are two parts to us...no matter how we refer to ourselves?

[Ashley S]

I brought this up in SweetPea's thread yesterday. I have referenced my SO's femme presentation by her feminine name just to differentiate between both modes of presentation ... (although I do my best now to say to him, "when you're in femme mode" instead of referring to her femme name as the third person who isn't even in the room).

But I DON'T understand CDers who say about themselves, "She likes to dance more than I do", or "She's a lot more outgoing than I am", or "She loves to do housework in a sexy maid's outfit", instead of "I like to dance more when I am dressed, or I feel more outgoing when I am dressed, or I find housework more palatable when I fantasize that I'm a sexy French maid". And the most worrisome of all, "She fantasizes about men but only when dressed".

But even if a CDer learns to stop referring to himself dressed as a third person, although I think I understand why a division in some personality attributes or preferences (sexual or otherwise) might come about, why would anyone be happy with a non-integrated life? Either someone likes to dance or they don't. Either they are outgoing, or they're not. Either they are bi or they're not.

Is is a question of enjoying the fantasy? Would it then stop being so special (hence the pink fog might disappear) ... if a CDer in guy mode felt he could do everything in guy mode that he has thus far not given himself permission to do, such as dance, flirt, be sexy, bake a cake, or whatever.

Or, is it safer somehow to keep things at the fantasy level, as if it might progress farther than feels comfortable if all these preferences and attributes are integrated into the male self?

Does anyone have any insight?

This is pretty much exactly what I was driving at with my original post, with a little added food for thought.

just my opinion...could it be that their are two parts to us...no matter how we refer to ourselves?

Just to clarify, the point of my original post was nothing to do with the number of parts that make up a whole. I was speaking of the people who seem to view their personae as belonging to totally separate people, as ReineD also stated. We all contain many more than two parts, there's literally hundreds of parts, physically and mentally, that work together to make up who we are as individuals. The point I was trying to make is how to some people, it seems that these aren't parts of ONE person, their viewed as parts of TWO different people.

ReineD reiterated my point perfectly with this. (Two separate entities, not just parts of a whole.)

But I DON'T understand CDers who say about themselves, "She likes to dance more than I do", or "She's a lot more outgoing than I am", or "She loves to do housework in a sexy maid's outfit", instead of "I like to dance more when I am dressed, or I feel more outgoing when I am dressed, or I find housework more palatable when I fantasize that I'm a sexy French maid".

[Acastina]

I think it is more often a convenient way of describing something that doesn't have normal nouns in every day language. It is easier to refer to your female self by name than any other method of description of yourself in different modes of dress and expression.

Bingo! It's shorthand for what would otherwise be a somewhat convoluted way of referring to oneself.

[PretzelGirl]

Sue says that it is just literary license so Sue can get across what part of Sue Sue is talking about. (Sally sells seashells by the seashore).

[Karren H]

Karren thinks she doesn't do that.. I think she lies a lot!

[stacycoral]

Agree. We lack the language to readily describe the situation otherwise. Referring to ourselves in a manner consistent with society's conventions, two names and references to "her" and "him," provides the most convenient hook upon which to hang their understanding and expectations. It makes things simple.

Hugs,
Persephone.

I think it is more often a convenient way of describing something that doesn't have normal nouns in every day language. It is easier to refer to your female self by name than any other method of description of yourself in different modes of dress and expression.

there has been so great answers to this question, i would agree with these ladies, Makes it simple your right, i can be Stacy and my maleself, It is easier when talking to my SO About i need to be female tonight.