My liberal wife thinks all TVs are gay

[ReineD]

Attachment 241349

This puts hetero and bi respondents at almost equal proportions on this forum. It may be representative of the general population or not. In the absence of better data, I'm guessing this is probably not far from reality.

Some folks seem to be upset by this mix - but I don't understand why? Regardless of anyone else's sexual orientation in any group that I am a member, my own orientation remains mine and is not influenced by others.

Katey x

There's nothing to be upset about, but I'm wondering what 'bi-curious' means. Is it fantasy? Also, the people who said they were bi … do they have ongoing relationships with men and/or women that have an emotional component (do they have relationships with men in guy mode too, where they date in public, meet each other's families, etc), or did they have sex with a guy once or twice while they were dressed. Or, do some people think that because they fantasize about sex with men while dressed, this means they are bi?

Just saying that it's difficult to separate fantasy from real-life experience unless people are given a set of precise, measurable questions. Here's a pretty good guideline for questions if you read through: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.ed...L-Nov-2009.pdf

On your response to me just above … I once saw a compilation of studies done throughout the world and if I recall, the estimates in the US, Canada, Netherlands, Italy, and other countries I cannot remember ranged 3%-5% fairly consistently. I can't remember if these figures included the full range of people who dress regularly and men who wear panties once in a while, or just the people who do this regularly.

If I find it again I'll post it here.

[GenieGirl]

Oh man I face this thing almost every week. Since living as a girl every week I get so many questions of if I like men and the answer is always no! I have come to dislike men even more since being hit on by so many over the past year or so, it is very annoying and totally understand what some women go through. Although I don't mind having male friends I find it hard to make new male friends without most of them wanting to sleep with me or date me. I ONLY like females and I DO NOT want to have a 3some with some chick and her bf (no matter how attractive the lady is). Sorry just letting off some steam here. I just get tired of feeling like a sex object as a woman....guess the ladies know my pain too...Ugghh...Anyways....I think I need to do some therapeutic shopping! All better now....

[Adriana Moretti]

wait.......I thought ALL CD's were GAY ...NO???? ....I am kidding girls.....KIDDING........I see why people think that though........ its kinda ignorant, but you cant expect a vanilla person to understand you, or us, we are a bit more complex than that xoxo all you can do is educate people, most educated people will get "IT" but its our job to do so......

[Katey888]

There's nothing to be upset about, but I'm wondering what 'bi-curious' means. Is it fantasy? Also, the people who said they were bi … do they have ongoing relationships with men and/or women that have an emotional component (do they have relationships with men in guy mode too, where they date in public, meet each other's families, etc), or did they have sex with a guy once or twice while they were dressed. Or, do some people think that because they fantasize about sex with men while dressed, this means they are bi?

Just to clarify this - orientation was extracted from members' answers in the 'How straight...' thread (here: http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...-a-guy-are-you) and I've deliberately selected the most conservative interpretation as:
Bisexual: Has had at least one of each sexual experience (independent of whether dressed or not) AND continues to identify as bi (ie. open to relationships) although may not be actively practicing because they are monogamous.
Bi-curious: Expressed a clear desire and willingness to experiment (independent of whether dressed or not) rather than just an "I wonder what it feels like" comment.

Obviously this data was extracted from sometimes relatively short comments and responses rather than being a set question, but I've tried to keep it as accurate and consistent as I could.

Katey x

[Khora]

There's nothing to be upset about, but I'm wondering what 'bi-curious' means. Is it fantasy? Also, the people who said they were bi … do they have ongoing relationships with men and/or women that have an emotional component (do they have relationships with men in guy mode too, where they date in public, meet each other's families, etc), or did they have sex with a guy once or twice while they were dressed. Or, do some people think that because they fantasize about sex with men while dressed, this means they are bi?

I'm bi because I've had physical encounters with men. I only desire this as a female and never think about it while in guy mode. I don't have any interest in an emotional relationship with a man, only a woman.

[ReineD]

I'm bi because I've had physical encounters with men. I only desire this as a female and never think about it while in guy mode. I don't have any interest in an emotional relationship with a man, only a woman.

Khora, that's one of my points. Our definitions differ. If it's just sex because being dressed and wanting to be taken as a woman is arousing to you, is this truly being bisexual or is it fetish?

I take it that an inherent sexual orientation (the partner that someone is ultimately attracted to and can form relationships with) fundamentally manifests itself when someone is in his or her most natural state, which is naked. Are you attracted to men in your default male mode? You say no and further, you are not capable of having emotional relationships with men.

If you need to have the appearance of being a woman in order to experience a sexual attraction to men, then I'm suggesting that the source of your attraction or arousal is in the fact that you are dressed. You get off on the idea of being a woman (or more precisely, a sexually desirable woman … not just the average plain Jane) more than on the person who is in bed with you … and what better way is there to emphasize the fantasy by providing yourself with the ultimate prop, which is a male, most of whom do desire women? I suppose you could test this theory by dressing without having anyone in the room with you. If you are in the mood and still aroused, then it's an indication that the true attraction is not a male that you have a crush on, but the fact that your mirror reflects a sexually attractive woman.

[GenieGirl]

I agree with everything ReineD said here. If the attraction is only in girl mode it could be more of a fetish role like she said in those cases vs really being bisexual.

[Suzie Petersen]

Well said Reine. That makes sense and I agree.

- Suzie

[Khora]

Khora, that's one of my points. Our definitions differ. If it's just sex because being dressed and wanting to be taken as a woman is arousing to you, is this truly being bisexual or is it fetish?

I guess maybe I just don't see what the big deal is with trying to define and each and every label that's out there. It's just so much easier for me to say I'm bi than saying I'm heterosexual with an asterisk or something. I'm a TG because I like looking and feeling like a woman sometimes just like I'm bi because I like having sex with men sometimes. It's just that simple to me.

[flatlander_48]

In terms of sexual orientation, I would have to say that I am close to being 50/50 or 60/40 indicating a slight bias toward women. I am currently married to my 2nd wife, have 2 grown children and 2 grandchildren. I have had physical relationships with men and enjoyed the experience. It was almost like I had done this in a past like; such was the degree of relaxed familiarity. However, thse relationships were suspended before I started dressing.

Bi-curious was never a thought; gay-curious, perhaps. It felt like something had shifted for me and I considered myself to be gay. Wanting and having physical relationships with men seemed to be confirmation of what I thought. However, eventually I realized that my attraction to women never went away. It just appears it was temporarily clouded for a while. I realized I was bisexual and nothing has happened in the last 15-18 years to warrent changing my opinion.

I never entered into an emotional relationship with another man; basically didn't want to. What put me off is the understanding of how I function/functioned as a male. I was not a very good husband for my 1st wife. We were very good friends who perhaps should not have married. At any rate, there was a lot of strife and resentment on both of our parts. My 2nd marriage has been much better. I've been able to apply a lot of what I learned previously, but was unmotivated to do. However, what I realize is that as males, reversion is always a distinct possibility. I did not find the idea of dating myself (ie, another male of similar characteristics) appealing, therefore I have chosen not to seek an emotional relationship with another male. I would not say never, but it would probably be unlikely.

I say suspended mostly due to circumstances. I spent several years working in Taiwan working on major construction projects. I was very fearful of doing something wrong in a foreign country and having that be known to the construction crews that I was working with. At best, I would never hear the end of it. At worst, it would be unbearable. By that time I had become seriously involved with the woman who would eventually be my 2nd wife. So, it has been a long time since I went purposefully seeking male companionship. I think suspended is a good term because who knows what factors might come together to present an interesting situation. But, there are no plans to seek that out.

Anyway, in my estimation, none of this for me has anything to do with dressing...

DeeAnn

[ReineD]

I guess maybe I just don't see what the big deal is with trying to define and each and every label that's out there. It's just so much easier for me to say I'm bi than saying I'm heterosexual with an asterisk or something.

Don't get me wrong Khora, I'm not suggesting that you should stop defining yourself as bi, if this explanation is simpler to you. You can do what you want and what feels best.

But, the people who gather data to determine the percentage of the CD/TG/TS population who are hetero vs. bi or gay (also to be thorough, asexual or attracted to self under certain conditions) need to know the differences I describe above, else the results will not be meaningful. And the way to determine the real differences in sexual orientation is to ask precise, measurable questions as defined in this document (posted above).

I guess a simple example is color-blindness. There is a difference in the color spectrum between blue and green but some people cannot differentiate between the two. So if you are to take a survey that starts out with one blue square and one green square at top, and of 100 people, 50 identify them properly and the other 50 say there is no difference between them, you would find a way to explain that although there are indeed two separate colors on top of the page, 50% of people are color-blind and cannot tell the difference between both colors. You would NOT say there are three colors up there, one blue, one green, and one in between. But, the people who don't see any difference between the two colors are perfectly welcome to continue seeing blues and greens as they see them, no one is trying to change this.

[sometimes_miss]

Why wouldn't your SO think all CD's r gay, Silky? Their reasoning goes something like this: "Why would a man dress up to look like a woman? Oh wait. A gay guy mite!"

And more importantly, it's almost always in female clothing that emphasizes that we are dressing up intentionally to look pretty and feminine. After all, we could just as easily wear plain women's sweat pants and shirts; we'd technically still be crossdressing. But we go way to the opposite end of that, to the point where a woman rightly poses the question as to why we're trying to look like sexually attractive females. and to them, there's only one reason: To attract men. It's a natural assumption for the general public to make, especially since so many people right here don't know why they feel the need to crossdress. After all, if you don't know why, why do you think anyone else could? The rest of our lives often goes by the concept that the simplist answer is usually the correct one. Until we can offer evidence to the contrary, the world will continue to assume we're all gay, based on what they know, and what they see. We can stand up in our wigs, make up, pretty dresses and heels and shout that we're straight, but until you've got a better more believable answer as to why you go to all the trouble to dress (and talk, and behave, and move) like a girl, the rest of the world's going to keep believing what they already feel is correct.

[Katey888]

I suppose you could test this theory by dressing without having anyone in the room with you. If you are in the mood and still aroused, then it's an indication that the true attraction is not a male that you have a crush on, but the fact that your mirror reflects a sexually attractive woman.

Reine - I think your test is flawed.

Many men can be 'in the mood and still aroused' without any sort of material or physical interaction... it's a male thing, I believe..

Also - are you seriously saying that someone who physically has sexual relations with both male and females is not defined as bisexual? Because of what they might have been wearing minutes before being 'in flagrante' with a (presumably) naked person of whatever gender..??? That doesn't make any sense to me, or am I missing some subtlety in that?

The document you posted a link to intimates that if there is any uncertainty in respondents who self-define their sexuality it is more likely to be from those that define as hetero or gay rather than bi, which is not what we have here. If we're talking sexuality I'm also not convinced about the need to demonstrate an emotional component that extends to a relationship - that is surely about people and personas and not a physical, sexual act? I just don't see why you're questioning people that quite happily and comfortably accept their attraction and willingness to engage in a physical relationship with either gender. The possibility that everyone here has something screwy going on with their gender identity (else why are we here?) is enough for me to allow the possibility that that gender short circuit could facilitate a happy co-existence of two types of sexual behaviour in the same person but under different circumstances of mood, brought about by presentation... Possibly????

Katey x

[sometimes_miss]

This is an interesting point. Yes, especially if it is our intention to leave the comforting confines of our homes and venture out into the world - and the malls - en femme, we may very well go to a great deal of effort to dress, do our makeup, wear a really fine human hair wig, walk and otherwise comport ourselves as women. But are we doing this in order to attract men? I think the answer is definitely not for the great majority of us.

Perhaps not intentionally or consciously, but that is the normal result of wearing sexually stimulating feminine clothing; attracting sexual desire in men. To pretend that we don't know that result, well that would be like ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. BEsides, a lot of women go to great lengths to say that they don't dress to be attractive to men. They put on make up to look younger, wear skin tight clothing to emphasize their curves, wear short skirts to show their legs, wear high heels to alter the shape of their legs and butt, wear push up bras and other foundation garments in order to change their figures to resemble a younger sexier female. And then deny that they want to look attractive. I don't believe that, either.

[ReineD]

Also - are you seriously saying that someone who physically has sexual relations with both male and females is not defined as bisexual? Because of what they might have been wearing minutes before being 'in flagrante' with a (presumably) naked person of whatever gender..??? That doesn't make any sense to me, or am I missing some subtlety in that?

Katey, shoe-fetishists have sex involving shoes. Does this mean there is a new sexual preference for them? Shoe-o-sexual? (lol)

When I hear the word heterosexual, I think of a person who has relationships with members of the opposite sex. Homosexual means same-sex relationships, and bi-sexual means both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships.

So how do we count people who use men as props to heighten their fantasy of being a sexually desirable woman, since there is no attraction to men when they are in male mode? I have a difficult time defining this as bi-sexual. Are they having sex with men? Yes. Are they fundamentally attracted to men? No. And how often have they tried having sex with men ... once or twice over the course of a lifetime? Are they habitually in relationships with the opposite-sex?

I had a threesome once in my 20s with another couple. Does this make me bi?

Do we also count someone bisexual who merely fantasizes about men when dressed but again who has been and is in a relationship with a woman. If they say they are bisexual, then do we count them as such for the purpose of defining statistics. What about someone who has had same-sex once or twice, but who talks about it as if it happens all the time when participating in threads here to sort of get into the spirit of things.

The document you posted a link to intimates that if there is any uncertainty in respondents who self-define their sexuality it is more likely to be from those that define as hetero or gay rather than bi, which is not what we have here.

The questionnaire is an example taken from an .edu website for general research. I don't think these questions are designed for people, many of whom enjoy the fantasy of being a sexually desirable woman without experiencing a core identity change. I posted it to demonstrate the types of questions needed to determine if someone really is bi or homosexual or if they think or like to think they are under certain circumstances. The questions need to be measurable: how many partners, how often, over the course of how long. In other words, is this habitual or not? Fetish or not? Also in the case of CDers I'd ask how often they become as sexually aroused when dressed when there is no man present, to try to determine the source of the arousal. I would ask these questions specifically to people who are NOT interested in men while in guy mode, and people who cannot see themselves in any emotional relationship with a man. Obviously, if a person is attracted to men while in male mode and can have sex male-on-male, then they are bi (if also attracted to women) or homosexual (if not).

For most people, sex does have the potential to lead to an emotional relationship if the chemistry is right.

If we're talking sexuality I'm also not convinced about the need to demonstrate an emotional component that extends to a relationship - that is surely about people and personas and not a physical, sexual act?

Then we get back to wondering, if it's just sex with no possibility of any emotional component, then what differentiates it from fetish with shoes.

[PaulaQ]

Obviously, if a person is attracted to men while in male mode and can have sex male-on-male, then they are bi (if also attracted to women) or homosexual (if not).

Or straight, if they are TS...

Who you sleep with says a lot about your sexual orientation, but it doesn't say everything. Is a closeted gay or lesbian who's married, and presumably having sex with someone of the opposite sex bisexual? What if their marriage is a cover for their homosexuality, as used to happen quite frequently?

Can we be certain a person is not bisexual simply because they've only been in straight relationships? There is a large incentive to lie, both to others and to one's self about bisexuality.

I had a threesome once in my 20s with another couple. Does this make me bi?

Possibly. Or maybe it was just an experiment. You don't really say for yourself who you are attracted to, and being in a successful long term relationship with a MtF trans really doesn't shed that much light on the matter.

[jessica33]

I find that most folks like your wife fall into the NIMB (Not In My Backyard) crowd. They are fine when it is everyone else, but not if it is in their house or close to them. And that can be with anything being how they feel about CDs, minorities, going green, gun control, or anything really. I do not like that way of thinking because they are saying what they think other people want to hear, rather than expressing how they really feel. To me that means no integrity. Who you are in public should be the same way you are at home. Just my two cents or maybe a penny?

You took the words right out of my mouth .

[NicoleScott]

Katey, shoe-fetishists have sex involving shoes. Does this mean there is a new sexual preference for them? Shoe-o-sexual? (lol)


So how do we count people who use men as props to heighten their fantasy of being a sexually desirable woman, since there is no attraction to men when they are in male mode? I have a difficult time defining this as bi-sexual. Are they having sex with men? Yes. Are they fundamentally attracted to men? No. And how often have they tried having sex with men ... once or twice over the course of a lifetime? Are they habitually in relationships with the opposite-sex?

Shoe-o-sexual? That doesn't sound right. I prefer stiletto-sexual, even if not all-inclusive.

I used to chat with men in AOL CDer chatrooms, and share my photos. There's something intoxicating, even for a straight male-identified CDer, about the attraction of a man to my crossdressed image. But the men are always faceless and generic. Any fantasies I ever had about men were about me, not them. I just liked the attention. I was attracted not to them, but to their attraction to me. Just props. On the other hand, any fantasies I ever had about women were detailed, with very clear images about their faces and bodies, nice legs, hair, makeup, clothes, and (oh yes) shoes. Different, but in both cases just fantasies. Never had a sexual encounter with a man, and never strayed from my wife. I know there are members who believe that of you fantasize about men, you're gay or bi. I don't think so.

A similar argument (about definitions): what is a crossdresser? By definition, if you wear the clothes of the opposite....blah blah.... But many definitions add "for sexual or emotional reasons". If a man wears women's clothes for entertainment or costume (external reasons) but not driven from within, that's not crossdressing, or at least he's not a crossdresser. How about the man who IS driven from within but for any of several reasons has NEVER actually put on the clothes? He's not a crossdresser (yet). Both the desire and the act are necessary to be called a CDer. I see Reine's discussion (men as props) in a similar way.

Fantasies notwithstanding, I know I'm not gay/bi because: I never did the act, and when my fantasies start to drift into sex with a man, they break down immediately. What a buzz-kill.

[LilSissyStevie]

if it's just sex with no possibility of any emotional component, then what differentiates it from fetish with shoes.

The answer is that there is no essential difference. All sexual arousal is fetishistic. It works the same way whether you are aroused by shoes, balloons, a man or woman, or the idea of yourself as a woman. That which turns you on is your fetish. The straight/bi/gay construct exists to privilege some sexual attractions over others. The problem is that no one can even adequately define what it means to be straight/bi/gay as this thread has shown. They are essentially identities. You're gay if you feel like you're gay. If someone here identifies as a woman we just accept that as their identity, we don't come up with a list of reasons why they aren't really women although it wouldn't be hard to come up with arbitrary criteria that they can't match. Why do we need to question anybody's sexual identity? If someone says they are gay despite never having had same sex relations, how do I know whether or not it is a fact?

Another problem here is the conflation of romantic and sexual attraction. One can be romantically attracted to one kind of woman and sexually attracted to another kind (e.g., Madonna/Wh*re complex.) Can one be romantically attracted to women but sexually attracted to men? Sure! Does that make them straight or gay? My observation is that the situation where romantic and sexual attractions are exactly the same is rare.

[ReineD]

The answer is that there is no essential difference. All sexual arousal is fetishistic. It works the same way whether you are aroused by shoes, balloons, a man or woman, or the idea of yourself as a woman. That which turns you on is your fetish.

So people can go on to have emotional relationships with shoes, then?

Sexual attraction to and emotional relationships with people are indeed intertwined and they are infinitely more complex than object or situational fetish. The fetish type relationships are one sided … obviously the object or the situation cannot respond in a human way, except in the initiator's imagination.

While there are indeed people who are only interested in seeking sexual pleasure for pleasure's sake like they might be interested in a shoe, (with no prospect for intimacy or potential for love and emotional connection), it would be interesting to compare their quality of life to someone who is capable of forming emotional bonds with others.

And if you or anyone else has experienced primary relationship(s) where you either chose partners who were not compatible or the two of you were not able to develop relationship skills, or your relationships failed because you did have a fetish and your partners could not compete with it, then please don't make this an excuse for the justification that living life without experiencing intimacy is preferable. Your personal backgrounds do not place you in a position where you can compare, plus you are potentially robbing yourselves of meaningful human connections. You CAN say that experiencing sexual pleasure for pleasure's sake works for you, that sex with men and women is fetish for you, but you cannot say that this applies to most people.

[Julogden]

One can be socially liberal but have issues with one's spouse. How would you feel if your wife wanted to quit removing her body hair, wear fake facial hair, bind her breasts and wear only the most masculine men's clothes? Would that change your opinion regarding your own attitude regarding social issues? It sounds to me like you're making an error of judgement in this matter. You two might want to bring your CD'ing out into the open and do some discussing of what's going on.

[LilSissyStevie]

So people can go on to have emotional relationships with shoes, then?

Not just shoes but all kinds of things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xInW...ature=youtu.be

Sexual attraction to and emotional relationships with people are indeed intertwined and they are infinitely more complex than object or situational fetish.

Like I said, one can be romantically and sexually attracted to the same thing or different things. Of course some people fetishize the the romance so it gets hard to tell them apart. The sexual attraction part is the fetish. It has nothing to do with how complex it is.

[PaulaQ]

How would you feel if your wife wanted to quit removing her body hair, wear fake facial hair, bind her breasts and wear only the most masculine men's clothes? Would that change your opinion regarding your own attitude regarding social issues?

I would have been fine with this. Actually, it would've been a dream come true. Since a lot of these threads involve fantasy, and people who speculate on what they'd like, I'd point out that since I'm dating a FtM TS, that I can speak with some certainty about my own feelings on this matter.

[LilSissyStevie]

One can be socially liberal but have issues with one's spouse. How would you feel if your wife wanted to quit removing her body hair, wear fake facial hair, bind her breasts and wear only the most masculine men's clothes? Would that change your opinion regarding your own attitude regarding social issues? It sounds to me like you're making an error of judgement in this matter. You two might want to bring your CD'ing out into the open and do some discussing of what's going on.

Because I recognize that all sexual arousal is fetishistic, it makes perfect sense why this sort of thing could be a turn off. If it were just about love and being into the other person it wouldn't matter how they presented themselves. I have great sympathy for those GGs that come on the forum and complain how they are squicked by their man shaving their body, wearing wigs and makeup, and wearing dresses. They can't be aroused by that if they aren't wired that way no matter how much in love they are. I'm fortunate in that my wife is WAY more flexible in these matters than I am.

[PaulaQ]

Because I recognize that all sexual arousal is fetishistic, it makes perfect sense why this sort of thing could be a turn off. If it were just about love and being into the other person it wouldn't matter how they presented themselves.

I simply can't agree with this. I require an emotional connection with someone before I can have sex with them. In a lot of ways, that is the most important thing for me - the emotional connection. End of story.

For that matter, a fetish is about what turns a person on - yet what you talk about is what turns a person off. Those have to be different things.

I think defining common things that arouse high percentage of people as fetishes just makes the word meaningless. I don't actually much care for the word fetish though - it simply has too much negative baggage associated with it in our culture.