Would you (part1)

[Lorileah]

There are a lot of rules to this thread, please follow them as best you can. First, the main rule is if you decide to dress as a woman, you can NEVER switch back to being a male. You choose one or the other. The other rule is you can be a man in a dress. You don't have to be a woman. Third, assume that for some strange reason (parallel universe whatever) that current surgical procedures would be available to you in this era but nothing more. It would be, if you wanted, possible to get safe and cosmetically pleasing GRS, FFS, BA.

Now for the game:

People here say they dress for many reasons and often have fantasy ideals of an time in the past. What I want to try here is seeing who would actually live in that era, the reality of the era not the fantasy, as a crossdresser (no plans on changing anything, no hormones, no surgery but wearing the clothing 24/7 for the rest of their lives) or transitioning into being a woman. Limits shall be set. Like for the first era (and we may revisit other eras later if this goes well, you would be middle class. Not the extreme poor nor the upper crust. Middle working class.

Would you choose to live as a transgender person (assume also that you would be safe and society wouldn't care about your being trans but you get all the good and bad of being a woman at that time) 100 years ago? 1916.

Or would that not fit your perspective of being a crossdresser or emulating femininity?

It's my party so I may (like a dungeon master) clarify details of each response. Others may chip in too. Open to everyone (GGs included if they would live in that era as a woman). Now, fully understand the gender division at that time.

OK...go

[Tina_gm]

No. Not ready for endgame when it comes to gender crossing. I am not sure I wouldn't have serious buyers remorse on this one. I can fantasize till pigs fly. I will have to keep it at that for now.

[Lana Mae]

Lorileah, an interesting game!! Crossdresser-female dress 24/7 with all the problems of 1916!! hugs Lana Mae

[2B Natasha]

Hi lorileah

That does not fit my perspective of being a crossdresser or emulating femininity. Sorry. I like the era I live in and have never really longed for living in another era as a boy or a girl. Perhaps the future. But that is and can be whatever we make of it now can't it. So I don't think any other era then now will work for me. Guess I'm thrown out of the dungeon.

Cheers

[Ressie]

It might depend on the location, but I believe women weren't treated too well 100 years ago. So I think I'll pass on this one.

[franlee]

Not me, there was no Air Conditioning or central Heat. Clothes were all high maintenance too. Washing by hand and ironing are not part of a Good experience to me. Plus money was tight for the middle class and that would put a damper on everything.

[BLUE ORCHID]

Hi LorileahI will stay where is /as is, I'm happy having the best of both worlds.....

[Dree Yer Ane Weird]

1916?! If not being shot for cowardice is included, i would transition in a heartbeat if it meant I wouldn't have to end up a bloody smear across a field in France!

[Lorileah]

so is this an insight to crossdressing....and transsexualism? Is it really more convenience than need or desire? In a recent thread a member stated that anyone could quit. I guess it was easier in 1916 to walk away or stay away. I find this fascinating. No responses from TSs either. Does that mean transition now is more based on ease of life? That you couldn't "hang" back then? After all I gave the caveat that the surgery was safe and available and just as functional in the scenario.

Dree, interesting perspective. But now you have a higher risk of cholera and influenza staying home and caring for the soldiers

[Andrea Evadne]

well given that women are better treated now, than at any time in the past, I would have to choose this era. And yes, if life allowed (which it most certainly doesn't) I would put the male clothes away forever

[docrobbysherry]

I've seen plenty of "what if" games here, Lorileah, but yours has more rules

But, playing along? I'd say I WOULD do it. If u change the year to 2116.

[Desiree2bababe]

At my age, I'd have to pass..........

[BrendaPDX]

I was waiting for others to respond first, I'm coward, or atlest very cautious. All my worrie points have been brought out: Women wern' treated very well back then, no feminine hygiene products, not being able to express my own opinion. Did they still tar and feather back then? No, I would rather be in the closet now than a woman back then. Thank you for asking. Can't wait for the next game, hopefully I will be more playful☺️😂 Brenda

[Dree Yer Ane Weird]

caring for the soldiers? didn't know that was mandatory lol. cholera and influenza were more survivable than being under the orders of the British Officer class at that time.

On a side note, I walked away from crossdressing for 13 years and was, according to my family, not the nicest person to be around for that time (and thats me being polite). Now, everyone that matters knows i crossdress, have accepted its part of who I am, so they no longer go out of their way to avoid me lol. Therefore, its safe to say for me it's a definate need, for whatever reason.

[Teresa]

Lorileah,
Before I participate may I ask you the question why you chose that particular date ? Maybe a second question , how would you answer ?

It is a difficult one because we have very little to relate to historically . Naturally it's far easier to reply in our current time frame because we know how society would react.

Aside from the legalities of appearing dressed as a woman in 1916, I would say it was possibly easier to pass or convince others you were female because of the style of the clothes and the more austere look women had then. Even being middle class life was harder for both genders, the treatment and respect women received then was probably worse than it is now.

Taking all this on balance if I had the same need to dress I would probably be on the same road I'm on now, OK it's trying to get the best of both Worlds , but that's the choice a CDer has .

Sorry I've just read the rules again and you say society wouldn't care, in that case I would be TG 24/7. Which given the opportunity today I would still do , if I had separated from my wife.

[Meghan4now]

Heck no!

1916 was a little more progressive than the late 19th century, but not like today. Here's a historic perspective:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...2wqQQCSugZ_nLw

[Lorileah]

Actually, maybe I phrased the question wrong. This isn't given a choice of then vs now. This was if you were alive at that time and you feel like you do today, would you pursue it? As noted, in 2116 things SHOULD be better than now. But no one here is likely to be around to see it.

What don't we have to relate to historically? There are volumes and libraries that discuss life at that time. But to answer your questions (because I still see this for the members here as "Yeah, because 2016 has rights and a higher quality of living, I like playing a woman.") I chose the date just because it was 100 years ago. It could have worked with 1910 or 1915. 100 years was a round date.

Now the important question, would I? Being TS, I would. The interesting thing here is you all jumped on the women's lives sucked then but NOW train. But you're not totally right. Women are treated as second class STILL in the US. Yeah, they can vote, Yeah they can hold jobs (at lower wages). Things are better, but IF you lived as a woman you had no rights, You were property or chattel first to your father then after to your husband (unless you were the two "sisters" or "Cousins" who were spinsters in the house down the road).

I sort of got my answer though. I think CDs are "convenient dressers". Fair weather dressers who want the perks and not the barricades and downside to being a woman. So I say that most GGs are right when they question your motives. Two people above said they would do it (and I gave you great "outs" that should have been incentives...excellent surgical options and society would treat you like any other woman). The rest opted out. So, again I ask, why do you dress? It's not the clothes; women had "sexy (at the time) clothes. It's not an overwhelming desire, otherwise this would have been a resounding "Hell Yeah!" IF I gave you the same options for this era I would expect a large majority would have jumped the train....and far more of you would have even proclaimed the TS label.

OK, let's shift gears now. Same rules, same options.

It's 1940. War looms again on the horizon. You don't have the crystal ball about women in wartime jobs, you only know what women knew at the time. You are still in the middle class. Now are you more likely to live as a woman (maintaining your male anatomy if you wish or transitioning)? This isn't a red pill blue pill question. This is IF you lived then and your inner feelings are as they are now. (I chose 1940 as a tipping point, those in Great Britain are already in the war so that would skew their perspective towards that....Go with it)

[Dree Yer Ane Weird]

how come i always get stuck in a feckin war?

[Madilyn A.]

If I understand the game my choices were transition in 1940 or CD in 2016.

I would make the transition in 1940. Life in the US was still pretty good, and women's lives were much better than in 1916 although not as good as now.

[Lorileah]

Dree, Could be where ya live? OK, next time no war for Europe.

If I understand the game my choices were transition in 1940 or CD in 2016.

nope, has nothing to do with 2016. You are alive in 1940 and your feelings are just like now

[Madilyn A.]

Assuming I were much younger...I would transition.

[sometimes_miss]

In a recent thread a member stated that anyone could quit.

Absolutely! I've done it many times!

And I will again!

That said, erm....no. I don't want to live in 1916. No WW1, depression, and WW2 for me. I really wouldn't want to go through that no matter who or what I was (unless maybe I get to keep all my knowledge of history, then it would be quite interesting!). Not to mention all the diseases that we had no treatment for. Ugh.

[Laura912]

It is difficult to transfer the things that drive me now to the historical periods you suggest. Assuming that my drive is not different, then the answers are yes to both time periods, and any others you create. But then a lot of angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[LelaK]

I would want to dress full time in any era, as long as the clothes are feminine enough. I like short frilly dresses, so I would've been making a big fashion statement in 1916 etc. I don't know if I'll ever "reproduce", but I'd prefer not to get surgery in case I got the urge some day to do that, i.e. reproduce.

By the way, if I could dress like that back then, crossdressing would have been accepted and the world would have been and become a very different place, I think.

[OCCarly]

I am already transitioning, so that part is a no brainer for me. Now as far as the two eras, I am guessing that this assumes I am living where I am now -- inland Southern California. Middle class means I live in a bungalow of some kind in both eras. In 1916 that means phone, electricity and car are maybe there and maybe not. But for a middle class woman in 1916 inland Southern California, other than farm chores, it would have been a pretty idyllic existence. Entertainment would have been library books and conversation. I am kind of torn on that one. Summers can get pretty hot here, and without at least a sleeping porch, the nights would be very uncomfortable, particularly having to wear a long nightgown.

I would do it in 1940, because by then at least you have electric fans or a swamp cooler. (Air conditioning existed but was for the wealthy). And in 1940 there would be at least one car in my family. At that time, when my dad was a small child in Arkansas, his dad had a 1926 Dodge. So at least I could beg a ride to the nearest library and get some reading material. And I could have gone to secretarial school. And rode the Red Cars to the beach and wore a modest two piece swimsuit. (Not a bikini, they had not been invented yet).