My liberal wife thinks all TVs are gay

[silkycdresser]

Sometimes I think my wife and I are in a DADT relationship, as I sometimes outwardly include "like the fact I smoke and crossdress" in a sentence, but she never really engages and asks anything.

She's very liberal, thinking everyone should love everyone, no matter who they are, as long as they're not a murderer or something. When we watch shows on TV and any homophobia is expressed, it makes her angry, as she has lots of gay friends and thinks homosexuality is fine and should be respected.

So it's really strange how sometimes when I mention crossdressing, she says "Oh God, I wonder if our kids will end up gay too. All transvestites are gay, you know?" How narrow-minded, in my view! I only have sexual feelings for women and have often thought of myself as a repressed lesbian rather than a homosexual man.

[PaulaQ]

Some talking points, since presumably you are out to her:
1. Why would it matter whether or not our kids were gay?
2. The term "transvestite" is considered insulting now - don't use it. Use "cross dresser" instead.
3. Most crossdressers - the big majority are heterosexual men. They wear women's clothes sometimes, but they are otherwise normal men. There are gay and bisexual crossdressers, but they aren't the majority.
4. I'm a crossdresser - you realize this, right? I wear women's clothes - surely you've noticed this? I'm not gay - if I were, we probably wouldn't have any kids, because I wouldn't have sex with you. But look over there - children. I'm not gay!

Seriously, though, she is probably worried about where your CDing may lead, or what it may mean, and just not know how to ask about it. Fear of your being gay, and ultimately leaving her, is what is probably driving this. She may well deny that, too.

Really she's worried about the wrong thing. The big relationship ending event she should worry about instead is whether or not you are transsexual and will come to her one day telling her that you are a woman. That probably won't happen either, but it is more likely than you being gay. (Ironically enough though, were you to transition, you'd be a gay woman.)

[MisterEgurl]

Is there a term for people like this? I certainly know more than a few where every difference of opinion, lifestyle, choice, culture, and orientation is fine, but only on TV or somewhere that one won't actually interact with those differences on a personal level. Sometimes it's a blanket case, covering all differences, and other times it's just one particular thing; they're fine with everyone and everything "Except if our son/daughter brought home a !$%&* ******!" My sister-in-law is the same way. She spouts a lot of grand talk about tolerance of views and lifestyles, mostly, it seems to me as a show of her superior mind, but in the same breath will bemoan our gay cousins. The cognitive disconnect is so shocking and contradictory. It's like the reverse of those congresspersons who are totally against homosexuality and publicly rail against the "homosexual agenda" until their son or daughter comes out.

The real show of a persons mind is when it becomes personal.

[GeauxStacy]

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? :)

[sandra-leigh]

2. The term "transvestite" is considered insulting now - don't use it. Use "cross dresser" instead.

I gather that depends a lot on where you are; my reading has suggested that transvestite is used more (and considered appropriate) in the UK.

[silkycdresser]

Sanda-Leigh is right about that.

And I guess although my wife SAYS she is liberal and open-minded, she is a NIMBY when it comes to her own family, you're right.

[Nikkilovesdresses]

She's very liberal...

...when it suits her.

It's a bit like champagne socialists sending their kids to expensive private schools. No matter what she professes publicly, the truest test of character is what she says at home.

[Vickie_CDTV]

She says she knows gay people and has gay friends and thinks being gay is fine... perhaps if she got to know some TVs personally and talked to us she'd find out that most of us are not gay.

[kimdl93]

My guess is that her comments are more of an expression of her frustration with you than her knowledge or beliefs about CDing. Maybe you can find another way to engage her in the discussion....and put out the cigarette.

[audreyinalbany]

It seems as though a lot of people who are prejudice are prejudice toward the group as a whole, but manage to find exceptions in their personal lives. I know I guy who thinks that black people are lazy, except for the black people he has known personally, they're "good workers." Go figure. I don't know if this is a result of growing up with a f*&#ed up family or what, but I've noticed it more than once, more so, of course, with the older generation.

[Dianne S]

Why would your wife think that a gay man would be attracted to a crossdressing partner any more than a straight woman would be? If you want a man (whether you're a straight woman or a gay man) you're probably going to be turned off by someone who presents as a woman.

I'm sure there are some gay crossdressers... odds are the same proportion as gay people in general. But the two things are orthogonal.

[Sarasometimes]

Most phobias are a result of poor or incorrect information because by definition it is an unreasonable amount of fear toward something real or perceived. You mention that she has gay friends which may make her more acutely aware of the difficulties they endure and that is why she would prefer her children not have to go through that as well. The CD's are gay falsehood is very deeply seated in society in my neck of the woods.
To gay phobics, if they embraced that idea that being gay is not a choice then the phobia goes away! I have an ignorant co-worker who really doesn't like my slip on shoes because they are in his mind they are "gay". It is difficult when there are still large numbers of society that put labels like this on a piece of clothing! We really are beyond the comprehension level of these type folks.

[Rhonda Jean]

Just about everybody who is not a cd thinks cds are gay.

My wife (ex) used to show her disgust with me by commenting on other cd's or gays. Kind of a passive-aggressive thing. I got the message. Didn't do anything about it, but I got the message.

[Katey888]

This has to be down to the individual... Yes it's NIMBY-like behaviour, and it's hypocritical, but that's a tough one to overcome in people - humans tend to be a bit two-faced about this type of thing... What's surprising is that being exposed to you, she still has this misunderstanding...?

Yes, it may feel strange to us, but it's a very common mode of response - look hard enough and you can see similar things within our community too... It's about education and understanding, but still not everyone will grasp it - let's face it, narrow-minded people are everywhere; it's so easy to be like that. Being broad-minded requires a bit of psychological effort: loosening and stretching those boundaries... few people can be bothered. :)

Katey x

[Carolana]

I always thought that gay had to do with which gender one is sexually attracted to. I think that was the original intention of the word. However, it seems to me that part of the cross-dressing fantasy is to be accepted or to be able to pass as a female (male to female). This would follow that a man would be attracted to me. Although this freaks me out, I do get fantasies about being on the female end of a sexual encounter. I am married and am very attracted to women, so I do not think of myself as gay. But while dressed up, this other part of me emerges from time to time. It might come under the category of bi-curious, although I have no intention of ever going that far....ever. My conclusion is that having gay thoughts in itself is not enough to be categorized as gay. Everyone has those. Just saying. I think it has more to do with gay sexual intentions on a permanent or lifestyle basis.

[Sandra]

I think your wife needs to educate herself before she goes around saying that all are gay.

[CONSUELO]

Some confusion here. Likes and supports the gay community as long as it doesn't happen in your home. Thinks all cross dressers are gay despite a lot of evidence that says that only a small percentage are. Strange!

[donnalee]

"Liberals" are some of the most hidebound people I know. They are in favor of anything happening as long as it isn't around them. I started out as one and I don't think I've changed much, but am now probably referred to as a libertarian.

[NicoleScott]

Transvestite is a perfectly good word.

[Cheryl T]

Well, you can tell her that my wife of 39 years would disagree with her statement.

[LelaK]

You can say most CDs are not gay, if you don't include many of those who are gay.

The pickiness about words like transvestite is something I don't go for either.

[docrobbysherry]

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!"

Heck, when I started dressing out of the blue 17 years ago? I assumed I was suddenly gay because of my fantasies about being a woman with men!:eek: And, I'm not the only straight dresser with that experience!

[Cheryl James]

My wife replaces the word "gay" with "perverts". I object to both characterizations, but my wife is always right, so, arguing with her about it would make as much sense as howling at the moon.

[LelaK]

My wife replaces the word "gay" with "perverts".
Your wife is a pervertophobe.

[StephanieH]

There are a lot of us here who wouldn't describe ourselves as "gay" and quite a few of us here have never been with a guy or done anything with a guy while dressed - but honestly, are there many of us here who haven't thought about it?

Not saying she is justified, just saying a lot of crossdressers do protest a bit too much I think... :2c:

[StephanieinSecret]

Threads like this are always an interesting read for me. I am bisexual. I enjoy sex with both men and women, have feelings for both, and I like to dress no matter which one I am in a relationship with. And you know what? I have met maybe 2 or 3 people outside the TG/CD community who don't marginalize it or get turned off by it, gay men included. Women and gay men want similar things- scruff and muscles and masculinity. Acting girly doesnt work well.

I also don't get to maintain my straightness, like some posters do, yet I doubt I would want to dress female if women were'nt attractive to me.

It's a conundrum whether you are LGBT or not, so straight guys, take heart. :)

[Diane1950]

You don't indicate where you live, but I surmise that you are Americans.

In today's poisonous political climate in the United States, there are far too many people who are willing to accept beliefs, rational or otherwise, that are handed to them, without any thought or critical analysis involved. There are many, and that number is growing, who equate being liberal with being gay. This, of course, is nonsense. If your wife believes in equal rights for gays, that is commendable, but it puts her in a position of being accused and damned, as in the Salem witch trials of 1692.

But if she is liberal enough to accept gays as social peers, there's a disconnect in her thinking that all crossdressers are gay.

[Barbara Dugan]

I always use Gay and transvestite to define myself instead of Gay and Crossdresser, I really don't see the insult part of transvestite

[WandaRae2009]

How wrong she is. I am only attracted to women and have no interest in ever being with a man. I guess when presenting as female I'm attracted to women. Would you consider that a lesbian? If that is the case I would be gay (attracted to women) when dressed as a woman.

[Michaelasfun]

Interesting. My wife makes that same false connection. I like your position of being a "repressed lesbian", fits me as well.

[Tracii G]

This is just me speaking I would call her out on it.
Seems the more liberal a person claims to be they are the least accepting of others if they don't share the same mindset.
I had a very liberal friend who makes claims that he is for equal rights for gays and minorities ( insert your favorite minority) or cause.
Yet when I told him I was TG the first thing he said was I didn't know you were a faggot. WTH?
I stood up and said you know what you are one big hypocrite and you can stuff it where the sun doesn't shine hoss, find your own ride home.
Normally I wouldn't act out like that but he really ticked me off.
We haven't spoken to each other since.

[Taylor Ray]

I always thought that gay had to do with which gender one is sexually attracted to. I think that was the original intention of the word. However, it seems to me that part of the cross-dressing fantasy is to be accepted or to be able to pass as a female (male to female). This would follow that a man would be attracted to me. Although this freaks me out, I do get fantasies about being on the female end of a sexual encounter.

It is so refreshing to hear honest replies! Yes, many of us that participate on this forum agree that labels are at best misleading, and, more often, mean-spirited projections utilized to reinforce unwritten social norms.....
but perhaps I can play the role of "devils advocate" for a moment and acknowledge the somewhat commonplace reaction to transvestism:

"Well now, he must be gay to want to do that kind of stuff!"

This speech utterance may represent, not the ignorance of the masses, but perhaps their inherent, limited understanding. From many perspectives (including non-racist and non-sexist suburbanites), it really is kind of "stupid" and "gay" to dress up like a girl.

So, from a very simplistic perspective (attempting to honor the thought-forms and traditions of those that came before us)... cross dressing is pretty "gay"...at least in terms of the current semantic formulations that are accepted by society "at large". Perhaps we all have encountered, in some form or another, the constant attempt by academic institutions to re-define contemporary cultural concepts.

[Mystery]

I agree with ya'll. I'm a cd who likes women. However, when I dress en femme, I take on that persona. I act and feel very womanly. not silly, but seriously. I think I'd be thrilled if a man treated me as such, but I don't know if I could, for instance, kiss him. It is a quandry in my mind sometimes. Early in life, and for many years, I could not reconcile this. Not until I was in contact with such info as this forum provides. I was ashamed at times, because I could not figure this out. It didn't occur to me that there could actually be category of folk who cd but still favor being with women.

[Tracii G]

The general masses don't really understand that 85-90% of CD's are heterosexual.
The thought is you would HAVE to be gay to even dream of dressing in womens clothes and we all know that is not the reality of it.

[Isabella Ross]

errrr...doesn't sound that liberal to me. For the love of God (I'm sorry to bring her into this), does it really matter? Some of us are gay, some of us are bi, some of us are straight...who cares? It's all good.

[Jenniferathome]

... she says "Oh God, I wonder if our kids will end up gay too. All transvestites are gay, you know?" How narrow-minded, in my view! ...

Really? It seems a like a really reasonable opinion to hold. My wife of 20+ years, with whom I have children and have had sex a million times, asked me if I was gay when I came out to her. Think about it. A man wants to dress like a woman (A). Women like men (B). So a man dressing like a woman likes men (C) A + B = C! All we can do is educate.

[raleighbelle]

"Some of us are gay, some of us are bi, some of us are straight...who cares? It's all good."

..And some of us are ... just us!

[ReineD]

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.

Exactly. I love to hang out with gay men, but I would not want to be married to one. :)

But seriously, if one or more of my sons were gay, I'd welcome him with open arms. I'd encourage a long-term relationship with someone and hopefully, eventually adopting a child if this is what he'd like. I'd hate to think that he might miss out on that. Still, I'd be concerned about living in a world that is not always kind to gay men or their children. The rules are changing and there have been great advances made in recent years legally, but there are still many societal barriers simply because homosexuals represent a small percentage of our population. People can acknowledge gay rights and even champion them, but at the same time see the gay community as separate and distinct from themselves.

[Gretchen_To_Be]

Exactly, Jennifer. Despite being married for 12 years when I came out, and sex thousands of times (I bow down to your millions--I am not worthy), 3 children, and 25+ years in the Army/Army Reserve, it was the first question she asked, and still wonders. She frequently asks me if she is nothing more than an elaborate "beard".

Oh well. I tell her only time will determine what happens. She jokes that once I am a woman we can behave like sisters. Once in a great while I call her bluff and follow that line of thought...then she freaks out and stops talking about it.

I don't think it's narrow minded, I think it's a natural reaction to a man displaying decidedly feminine interests.

Shibumi


Really? It seems a like a really reasonable opinion to hold. My wife of 20+ years, with whom I have children and have had sex a million times, asked me if I was gay when I came out to her. Think about it. A man wants to dress like a woman (A). Women like men (B). So a man dressing like a woman likes men (C) A + B = C! All we can do is educate.

[ReineD]

To Jennifer and Shibumi (and maybe others, I've just skimmed this thread), for the longest time I thought that my SO was attracted to men too. It's difficult to understand the average CDer's motive for dressing the way he does, plus there are too many fantasy stories about wanting to be with men if the wife does any research on the internet. Some wives are perceptive and have sensed the fantasies in their husbands even if it was a phase many years ago and even if the fantasies were not articulated.

My own SO went through a phase of experimentation in between his last long-term relationship and me, so I know that even he had the fantasies and this is not a person who dresses for sexual reasons.

So the thought does bubble up when maybe things aren't going as well as hoped in the bedroom, which happens in just about all long-term relationships occasionally when couples aren't completely outspoken with one another about their sex lives.

A few people in this thread have mentioned that their wives were 'disgusted'. I'd like to suggest that they rather felt worried or afraid. No woman likes the possibility that she has the potential to be supplanted.

[Beverley Sims]

My TV is definitely not gay, you should see some of the stuff that comes out of the screen and these days there is not much room to hide Rock Hudson or dead cowboys and Indians, like in the olden days of big cabinets. :)

[Gretchen_To_Be]

Reine, thank you for your comments. I get the impression that my wife's principal fear is abandonment--that if I were to become a woman, I would drop her for a man--not necessarily that I might become more feminine or ultimately live as a woman--though the embarrassment of that follows as her secondary fear.

That said, the effect of my CD on our sex life has been enormously positive, which balances her view of my--let's face it--obsession. We had been married for 12 years and sex had become routine and infrequent. Thanks to CD we have a far more active sex life, to the point where she appreciates some aspects like smooth skin, lingerie and stockings/hose, and even some...ahem...role reversal with toys--not because I want them, but because she does. She hates when I get "prickly" without shaving my body. She has admitted an attraction to feminine aspects both tactile and visual.

Despite all that, she will routinely wonder aloud what is to become of us. Sometimes it's teasing and good natured; other times it's pure insecurity and once in a while it's downright challenging and to me, worrisome.

In the end I balance her comments and feel highly fortunate...

[Dianne S]

A man wants to dress like a woman (A). Women like men (B). So a man dressing like a woman likes men (C)

I guess the education would proceed as follows: First, (A) means the man wants to dress like a woman. It doesn't necessarily mean he wants to be like one.

Second, while (B) is generally true, it's not universally true. So of course (C) does not follow.

But we all knew that here. Just outlining the educational course for the ignorant. :)

[Michelle789]

Political viewpoints have nothing to do with whether or not someone will accept a CD, or anyone else on the TG spectrum, including a TS. I have come out to 100 people, give or take. Most people have accepted me, and four won't support me. The four who won't support me, and all consequently tried to talk me out of my transition, are liberals. On the other hand, every single conservative I have come out to has been totally accepting of me. In fact, one of my biggest supporters is a staunch conservative Republican who is also an LGBT activist. I had a conservative Republican friend show up to my AA fellowship to support me on the night I came out at AA. He is not a member of AA and I know him through another friend in AA.

I think people, regardless of political views, only care about their own self interests. I think political views are yet another multi-dimensional spectrum. Most of don't fit into the binary conservative or liberal. Many of us may be liberal in some areas, and conservative in others. Regardless of where we stand on the political spectrum, most people just care about their own self interest.

[Teresa]

Silky,
Your wife has a strange double standard ! If she wears thick cord trousers, check shirt and a tweed jacket would she not come over as a possible lesbian ? If so would she accept that as an honest appraisal ? So why does she think CDers are all gay ? I for one couldn't be more opposite to being gay , I would love to share my Cding with my wife !

I guess the media mostly depicts CDers as people who struggle to get into a normal relationship and drift into a bi lifestyle to find some sort of companion ! The times I've seen this happen is becoming annoying, I wonder who writes the scripts sometimes ? Certainly very little research is done before hand !

[ophelia]

If anything hetero crossdressers are more in tune with feelings, both internal and external.

[silkycdresser]

Wow, I didn't expect to receive this many responses.

I am very attracted to women and even when I am dressed I only have eyes for women, so like someone else said, that probably makes me a repressed lesbian who won't ever go the whole way of transgender for various reasons.

Just to add a couple things; First, my wife and her younger sister both dress like men. Even when we go to fancy restaurants, they wear pants, sweaters and chunky men's work boots. I think this is partly what has relit my fire to crossdress, the fact my wife doesn't dress feminine at all, and I'm someone who feels I "need" femininity e.g. feminine clothing in my life.

Second, my wife knows that my grandfather used to crossdress and maybe still does, yet we're given the impression the church made him stop. She has never once thought of him as potentially gay.

Oh and third, I am going through a hell of a lot of stress at the moment with work and stuff, and my wife knows that dressing up calms me down. I have even bought some fairly neutral or androgynous clothes, but she immediately says "no, it looks like a women's. Wear it if you want but people will laugh", so I put it back in the closet. On vacation this summer I talked to her saying I need to be able to wear neutral clothes to be happy. She seemed to digest what I said, at the time, but now doesn't. She's not "anti" but not supportive, as any time I mention crossdressing, she brings the gay thing into it somehow.

[Billie]

This is just me speaking I would call her out on it.
Seems the more liberal a person claims to be they are the least accepting of others if they don't share the same mindset.
I had a very liberal friend who makes claims that he is for equal rights for gays and minorities ( insert your favorite minority) or cause.
Yet when I told him I was TG the first thing he said was I didn't know you were a faggot. WTH?
I stood up and said you know what you are one big hypocrite and you can stuff it where the sun doesn't shine hoss, find your own ride home.
Normally I wouldn't act out like that but he really ticked me off.
We haven't spoken to each other since.

This seems to be very true. Sorry about your friend.

[Lorileah]

she says "Oh God, I wonder if our kids will end up gay too. My answer would be "As long as they grow up happy"



How narrow-minded, in my view! I only have sexual feelings for women and have often thought of myself as a repressed lesbian rather than a homosexual man. somehow that hit me as narrow minded... (and I hate when men say they are lesbian...you don't have the parts)

[NicoleScott]

...somehow that hit me as narrow minded... (and I hate when men say they are lesbian...you don't have the parts)

Is silkycdresser's lesbian thoughts different than a pre-op TS who see herself as a woman but without the parts?

[ReineD]

Just to add a couple things; First, my wife and her younger sister both dress like men. Even when we go to fancy restaurants, they wear pants, sweaters and chunky men's work boots.

You mean like this?

241197

(not the one in the middle, lol)

This image is from the website, "GirlFashionStyleNet (http://www.girlfashionstyle.net/feature/timberlend-fashion-collection-summer-fall-2013/)". Note the word "girl" in the title, and not "boy".

These women are not dressing like men, they dress like casual women. Where did you get the idea that only men can wear pants and work boots?



I think this is partly what has relit my fire to crossdress, the fact my wife doesn't dress feminine at all, and I'm someone who feels I "need" femininity e.g. feminine clothing in my life.


Back to your main point, many before you here have posted that they thought they'd stop CDing once married, or later on they thought they CDed because their wives weren't "feminine" enough. If you stick around long enough, you'll see that the desire to CD is independent of that. CDers crossdress when they're single, married, when they're young, old, when their kids are growing up, after they're gone, when they're in relationships with feminine men, masculine men, feminine women and masculine women. The desire to do this comes from within you because you've derived positive reinforcement from it in the past, and it really has nothing to do with your other circumstances. The proof: there are a great many men who are not crossdressers, but who are also married to women who do not prioritize girly fashions.

[flatlander_48]

I don't see a political connection as liberals, conservatives and moderates can all be welcoming or homophobic. It just happens.

However, one thing about sexuality in general is that there are very few, if any, absolutes. There are gay men who lead perfectly regular lives married to women, have children, etc. Same for women, also. They are not in great numbers, but they do exist. Saying that all crossdressers are gay reflects a lack of information. It's like going from 1 to 2 to 4 to 5... Because of that lack of information, people jump to erroneous conclusions.

By the way, I try to avoid the term Normal. As we all here exist outside of the usual expected behaviors, the word Normal does not apply to us. If we use the term, it's like saying that there is something wrong with us because our behaviors are different.

[devida]

There really is an awful muddle over sex, sexuality and gender. I know one non binary defined male at birth who says that they are lesbian. I really do think that if we just allowed everyone to own the words that define them we wouldn't have these arguments. If you say that you identify as, as a recent example I know did, as a transgender horse, do I really have to argue with you? And why should I? I'm not a gender, sex or sexuality policeman. And please, anybody who is, hand in your badge!

[sometimes_miss]

While I certainly don't agree, I believe it's a natural assumption for people to make; if we go through a lot of effort to look like attractive females, it makes sense to the outside world that we're trying to sexually attract males. Which then makes it appear that we are gay, or TS. I mean it's easy to read this forum and see all the things done to appear more feminine; the discussions about how to sit, move, walk, talk, use make up, do our hair, etc. make it clear that it's not just about the clothes.
While it's not correct, it's pretty easy to understand why people see it that way.

[Que-cera-cera girl]

I agree with vickie_cdtv. If your wife would join this site she would see that you all arent gay. I know this from experience cuz Im a wife of a cd and I just didnt know. So my fiance (who is a cd n as straight as can be) found this site. We both use the site for help and to help others understand. If your wife will join tell her to look me up (Que-cera-cera girl) id be happy to try to help her.
P. S. That goes for anyone who needs to talk, vent, advice, or just chit chat, feel free to look me up.

[Jeninus]

While I certainly don't agree, I believe it's a natural assumption for people to make; if we go through a lot of effort to look like attractive females, it makes sense to the outside world that we're trying to sexually attract males. Which then makes it appear that we are gay, or TS. I mean it's easy to read this forum and see all the things done to appear more feminine; the discussions about how to sit, move, walk, talk, use make up, do our hair, etc. make it clear that it's not just about the clothes.
While it's not correct, it's pretty easy to understand why people see it that way.

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. It's to try to blend into the background as a woman who - as I believe is true of most GGs - has absolutely no intention of trying to hook a man 99.9% of the time, but is merely minding her own business while navigating through the world. The more accurately we can present as a woman, the less likelihood we will be outed and subjected to embarrassment, or worse.

[AshleyScott]

Mes amis, bonjour...

Thank you to all who have contributed to this thread - it demonstrates one of the fine attributes that bring me back to this forum, i.e. reasoned discussion.

A long story, that I'll try to keep brief. Sitting outside a café in my local market during the summer, chatting with locals and sipping coffee, I was approached nervously by a young lady in her early 40's. She asked if she could sit with me and proceeded to ask me about the "community" here in France, explaining that she and her girl friend didn't know there was a gay community in this part of the country.

Now the inference didn't phase me, she (Amanda) was genuinely friendly and we chatted for quite some time - eventually exchanging mobile numbers, with the promise to keep in touch. :brolleyes:

Two days later she phoned me and asked if I would like to dine with her and extended visiting family at her mother's holiday home, which is close by, adding that I should dress as I please. I accepted and did (dress to please me) :)

The family (3 generations) made me feel very welcome and we spent a long and comfortable evening together - mostly they inquired about every-day living in France, but with the occasional reference to my taste in clothes (nothing too nosey and quite a lot of laughter).

We met up on a couple of subsequent occasions before their return to the UK... and have kept in touch since.

In November I had reason to go to London and Amanda & Gemma (now fiancée) invited me to stay for a couple of nights - specifically so that we could "play". Playing meant Amanda taking me shopping followed by an evening trip into Soho to a "gay" club (Freedom - for those of you who might like to know). We had a good evening and my look and taste in clothes was complimented on several occasions - by both males and females and never once in a "sexual" way.

All in all, a very pleasant experience (for those of you who have yet to venture "out) :drink:

I don't try to pass... no wig, no make up... just a man who likes a particular "feminine" style of clothing.

I'm married to my First Wife for 42 years and have 9 grand-children. I've had sex with a few men in my life, but for the most part, prefer sex with a woman

I dress the way I do because I like the look. I think it looks good on me and it makes me feel good (why else would people dress in the way that they do?).

But I ask "Have YOU been asked THE question yet?"?.

Has anyone (apart from on this forum) ever asked YOU why YOU like to "cross dress"? Apologies if I've highjacked the thread :devil:

[Greenie]

From the wife girlfriend perspective.

Don't be too harsh on her. The first thing that all wives ask when their CDer husband comes out is what "Are you gay?". It comes from a place a fear and misunderstanding of what a cross-dresser is. Our world and most people in it have been raised to believe in the gender binary. There are men, and women restrooms. Men and women hair products. Men and women's ETC ETC ETC. Even the idea of who can be attracted to another human being has been "Dumbed down" to only 3 possible options. (Whilst we know isn't true) Man man, man woman, woman woman. Since the CDer wants to portray as a woman our brains can jumble this up to think that our SO is either gay and likes men, or wants to become a woman.

Even the most liberal of people can have a hard time wrapping their mind around the idea. The fear and misunderstanding sets in. If you transition to a woman, or want to be seen as a woman, are you attracted to men? (Many a hetero cross-dresser here has said yes). But when the CDer answers no.... This confuses the whole foundation of what the wife has been normalized to believe. Through experience and mainstream education. Suddenly their heterosexual cisgendered partner, wants to change the cisgendered part, I think its a normal question to assume that they want to change the Heterosexual part too.

While incorrect, where in mainstream media or education are people taught about other genders and sexuality. I am only 24, and even in my recent college experience, our cultural anthropology classes do not discuss the stray from what is "gender norm"

I myself and very open minded, but had a very hard time with this concept when my SO came out to me. And like most women the first question I asked was "Are you gay?" How could my cisgendered Heterosexual boyfriend, like to watch trans porn and dress like a woman? HE MUST not follow the conventional idea of what is means to "be a man"

I see a lot of judgement of your wife on this thread. Probably the way you posted the OP. We have no idea of her real tone or intention because she is not here. But often I joke with Luca to break the tension but also sometimes out of fear. Fear of what is not inevitable, but still possible and scary. Now, you do need to sit down with her and have a conversation about how she speaks about people like you and how it hurts your feelings. But this seems like more of a communication problem that can be overcome.

[CarlaWestin]

How narrow-minded, in my view! I only have sexual feelings for women and have often thought of myself as a repressed lesbian rather than a homosexual man.
Does your repressed lesbian think of things you would like done to you physically with your man equipment or more like real women where it's more cerebral and emotional than it is physical.

My guess is that her comments are more of an expression of her frustration with you than her knowledge or beliefs about CDing. Maybe you can find another way to engage her in the discussion....and put out the cigarette.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!! No more calls folks. We have a winner!
Tell you what, Silk. Why don't you quit smoking and take the healthy high road. I know my wife sees that I'm healthy and successful in everything I do. And, I celebrate in my crossdressing, which just grates on her view that it's a deleterious activity.

[Rosaliy Lynne]

alas many wives have similar views. I am lucky in that I have a very dear friend whose wife is very supportive.
3 times divorced though so I have no interesting in more than friendship now.

[Brenn]

Political viewpoints have nothing to do with whether or not someone will accept a CD, or anyone else on the TG spectrum, including a TS. I have come out to 100 people, give or take. Most people have accepted me, and four won't support me. The four who won't support me, and all consequently tried to talk me out of my transition, are liberals. On the other hand, every single conservative I have come out to has been totally accepting of me. In fact, one of my biggest supporters is a staunch conservative Republican who is also an LGBT activist. I had a conservative Republican friend show up to my AA fellowship to support me on the night I came out at AA. He is not a member of AA and I know him through another friend in AA.

I think people, regardless of political views, only care about their own self interests. I think political views are yet another multi-dimensional spectrum. Most of don't fit into the binary conservative or liberal. Many of us may be liberal in some areas, and conservative in others. Regardless of where we stand on the political spectrum, most people just care about their own self interest.

Well said. "Liberal" does not equal "tolerant" anymore than "conservative" equals "intolerant."

[Mink]

hey quit telling them to stop smoking siggies!

it's a free country you can do what you want!

nobody has that right!

[BillieAnneJean]

HA! My wife thought I was gay.

Disclaimer:
This is not a statement against any sexual orientation. Those that are gay are just like anyone else and deserve the am respect and compassion as all humans. I enjoy their company and friendship. Diversity is a blessing for the population.

[missmars]

If she knew transvestism and sexual orientation are unrelated, She would say "Oh God, I wonder if our kids will end up transvestite too."

[pamela7]

public perception fed by the media leads those not in the know to assume a man dressed as a woman is interested in men. It's not true, but ... if there are 5% homosexuals among men, then might there be 5% homosexuals among CD'ers, and bisexuals, so we are a demographic like any other, with infinite variations, with a spectrum of TS/TG to also consider.

i believe what most people say has not been thought through, it just comes out, its not meant harmfully (mostly), and once proper time or consideration is given, one must conclude we're all difference and the same. What matters the clothing? What happens in the bedroom clearly shows the orientation.

[JustineFallow]

I once had a girlfriend whose favourite member of our mutually favourite band was the most heavily made-up. She loved Eddie Izzard. She liked men in eyeliner. What was her reaction when I screwed up the courage to tell her about my CDing? Take a guess: NIMBY.

[Jason+]

I'll go with the wisdom of my wife who has told me the worst I could be is bi. We have also discussed that deviations off a given norm are a lot easier to rationally accept across the fence than they are emotionally and/or visually on your own side. I was a Nuclear Submariner for literally 10 years of my Naval career. The opportunity was there but maybe I just never met "the right guy." "He" might still be out there but it's a lot like the lottery, you have to play to win.

[Katey888]

studies show that most cross dressers are straight married men.


What studies...? :) I'm all for learning of anything mildly scientific or rigorous that has been conducted on this but it would be great if we could have some sources...

For the benefit of newcomers here we closed a long-running thread in November last year that polled members for their orientation (here: http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?208133-So-Just-how-straight-of-a-guy-are-you) - and while respondents were self-selected (not everyone had to respond) and self-identified, it did represent the best poll that I've seen here. The analysis might be surprising, but is far from definitive. I've updated the data since the thread was closed...

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

[PaulaQ]

One of the things the poll shows, and I think this is true, is that very few cross dressers self-identify as gay men. I know a few, here and in real life, but the vast majority I know are either straight or bisexual. And even for the self-identified bisexuals, most of them I know are in relationships with women. (Although to be sure I know some CDs who aren't gay, but are in same sex relationships.)

Anyway, the bottom line is very few CDs are gay.

Oh, one more point about liberals. You'd think they'd be more open minded about these things - but really a lot of them get just as hung up on gender issues as conservative people. And mostly neither side gets it, really. For spouses or family members, other stuff besides their political views plays a bigger role in their acceptance / rejection of a gender variant family member.

[Pat]

If you're into percentages, etc. there's an interesting book/paper on a small-scale study you can download from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IQYD20M/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title

It's a summary of results from an anonymous newspaper poll, so it's not definitive, but it is interesting.

[Hannah Adams]

A liberal who needs to categorize and label ? Interesting.

[ReineD]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IQYD20M/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title

I wouldn't put much credence into the author Dr. Vernon Coleman. He is a rather prolific writer in several, unrelated yet culturally "popular" fields. He thinks that vaccines are not safe, that people can use their minds to heal their bodies, there are several books about how doctors and nurses kill us and how to avoid this, etc. He seems to mostly mistrust the medical profession and this is the only book that touches on cross-gender expression, out of several hundred books and articles he has written:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=series_rw_dp_labf?_encoding=UTF8&field-collection=European%20Medical%20Journal&url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text
http://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm

In the Amazon preview, it says that he surveyed just over 1,000 British males, but it is unclear how he did this (from the preview). Did he seek participants in some of the tabloids that he contributes to which would then provide him with a self-assessed cohort? This would not be a random study and it would be impossible to estimate any percentages of men who crossdress to the general population.

There are close to 30,000 people who've joined this forum since its inception according to the numbers on the index page, possibly more if the numbers were culled at one point. This does not mean that 10% or 50% of the population crossdresses.

[Katey888]

I wouldn't put much credence into the author Dr. Vernon Coleman....

In the Amazon preview, it says that he surveyed just over 1,000 British males, but it is unclear how he did this (from the preview).

Reine - I agree with you from what I've read about Dr Coleman... Seems like he qualified as a GP in 1970 (from which his medical credibility stems) but since 1973 he has been primarily a columnist and author on anything and everything... I've been trying to find more info about the survey but can't recover the details (damn Google!) but I do recall reading that it was a voluntary survey through one of the tabloids he worked for.. so yes, self-selecting and thus totally without any good statistical foundation.

I think I may have posted this somewhere before but I have it as a table now so it's clearer - this is the most complete compilation of surveys that I've found to date (from G.G. Bolich, Today's Transgender Realities, 2008) although personally I think Coleman's should be excluded - one would normally drop the highest and lowest outliers in surveys anyway.




Study (arranged by year)
Results


J.L. McCary (1978)
Less than 1%


W.B. Arndt (1991)
Less than 0.5%


S. Janus & C.L. Janus (1993)
3% of women; 6% of men


Vernon Coleman (1996)
10% of men


Lynn Conway (2001-2002)
2%-5% of adult males


N. Langstrom & K.J. Zucker (2005)
0.4% of women; 2.8% of men



I'd suggest that our membership and participation here represents a distinct subset of the CD world... Other sites out on the interwebs that heavily outnumber our splendid little forum :battingeyelashes: are much more into the fetish, sex and dating side of CDing. My extrapolation from this is that we here represent a higher proportion of TG/trans* than fetish CDers and that other sites would likely see the reverse. To me, this means that the 'fetish' CD population is a bigger part of the whole than the CD/TG/TS element and because these surveys encompass ALL CDers, we are thus a smaller part of the whole. Rationally, we'd be more vocal as well because we do go out and have a need to express this aspect that fetish CDers don't. Possibly why we're hard to spot in the wild... :)

I realise why we might want to believe we are more numerous, but I still don't see the evidence for it. :thinking:

If anyone has any different referenceable material I'd love to hear from them...

Katey x

[marilyn m]

both my previous wifes had gay fantasys,
saying they would go with the likes of madonna or beyonce,
surely the bi curious is in all of us, to a degree,esp if we were totally convincing as women,?

[Suzie Petersen]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I can say that I have absolutely no, and have never had any, interest in males. Nor do I have any so called bi curiosity etc.
So, nothing "surely" about that at all.

- Suzie

[ReineD]

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.edu/wp-content/uploads/SMART-FINAL-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/showthread.php?208133-So-Just-how-straight-of-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. :idontknow:

[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 (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/SMART-FINAL-Nov-2009.pdf) (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 . :2c::2c:

[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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqMxEBFfIHI&feature=youtu.be), 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqMxEBFfIHI&feature=youtu.be), 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=xInWMRzEan8&feature=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.

[LilSissyStevie]

Yes the emotional connection is necessary for me too. But I recognize that's it's still separate from sexual arousal. The emotional connection for me is necessary but not sufficient. I love my cat but he doesn't turn me on. People are generally sexually attracted to others long before there is any kind of emotional connection. In fact they would most likely avoid any kind of romantic involvement if there were no chance of being sexually attracted.

If a woman is turned on by symbols of masculinity (like hairy chest, etc.) then it stands to reason she might be turned off when those symbols are obliterated by the things crossdressers do.

The word fetish just means "that which is sexually arousing" when you strip away all the cultural BS that privileges some types of sexual arousal over others.

[Katey888]

This has been quite an interesting excursion for me - I think there's something about the fetishistic aspects of this that highlight why muggles seem to automatically associate crossdressing with something sexual and explains why so many other sites major in that aspect. I think what Stevie is saying holds a lot of credence for me and what I've observed.

Couple of things that I'm not so sure about though...


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.

On the first point - no. I think that qualifies as bi-curious if they've indicated that the fantasy may go beyond just fantasy - but it doesn't mean that everyone will act on that fantasy.
On the second point - this is exactly the same as if you ask a question, however carefully worded it may be. At some point you have to trust the answer that's given. You make it sound like there's a trend here to over-play bisexuality but I don't see that at all - if anything it's the hetero-lobby here that's more vocal...

I do take issue with the following:


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?

This sounds like bisexual CDs are being accused of objectifying men? Which is ironic when you consider how often men are (rightly) accused of objectifying women... but especially so as a CD - so now some of us objectify men too? And purely as a fetishistic sex accessory? No - I'm sorry - I think that whole explanation of "if you just have sex of a particular type it doesn't define your sexuality" doesn't hold true for most people. There may be a few that it's true of but I somehow doubt that most people would be able to undertake a consensual sexual act without some degree of fundamental attraction to the gender they're doing it with. And just because they are not habitually in relationships with the opposite sex means little - most folk here seem to follow monogamous relationships and given that we still predominantly see married/ SO relationships on this forum, in the same way that hetero folk have regular affairs outside their main relationship, I think it's perfectly reasonable to accept that bisexual folk with an SO do not necessarily demonstrate any romantic, habitual relationships even if they were having a physical one.

One thing this debate has served to highlight again... just why the muggles might think we're all gay, or bisexual, or at least very, very confused as to what our motivations are for doing this and how much more complex they become when you do throw sex and relationships into the mix. :thinking:

Katey x

[PaulaQ]

@Katey888 - bisexual people are simply people who can feel attraction to either gender. They are perfectly capable of monogamous relationships. Sure, some don't adhere to monogamy, but then neither do all straight, gay, or lesbian people.

The idea that bisexuals are inherently polyamorous is one of the more vile examples of biphobia. ReineD's claim that only people who habitually have sex with people of both genders is another common example of biphobia, and it is an attempt to erase bisexual people from existence. I've heard similar remarks from gay and lesbian people. Yeah, if up you want to know the least supported group in the LGBT alliance, it's bisexuals. Sure, trans people are frequently second class in such organizations, but literally in many bisexuals may as well not exist at all.

[flatlander_48]

PQ:

What you said is painfully true. The historical reality is that when people wanted to add B to LG, there was GREAT resistance, related to what you touched on. Sadly, in many ways, the fundamental question is one of existence. Ls and Gs didn't want to believe that it is possible to be attracted to both sexes.

RD & K:

Regarding differences in behavior for people as a function of how they are dressed, here's my take. I think dressing is a great enabler. Not unlike the process of acting, it allows different perspectives to arise. We can consider ourselves differently. We can behave differently. How many people here have said that dressing changes them into a calmer, less aggressive and kinder person? These traits were ALWAYS present, but may get suppressed or minimized as a function of our conditioning and socialization as males.

In this context, I have to view any M2F crossdresser who becomes attracted to men only while dressed as bisexual. Dressing serves as an enabler to hold the conditioning and socialization at bay. The feeling was there all the time; they just needed the right circumstances to allow permission.

As it relates to me in particular, my chronology is this. I thought I was gay at 42-43. I realized that I was actually bisexual at around 47-48. I started dressing at 54. In my case, dressing doesn't act as an enabler regarding the idea of seeking men.

What I've said is in no way intended to cast aspersions on anyone. I think as transgender people we all have a lot of things to sort through and hopefully reconcile.

DeeAnn

[ReineD]

I think there's something about the fetishistic aspects of this that highlight why muggles seem to automatically associate crossdressing with something sexual and explains why so many other sites major in that aspect.

There are lots of fetish sites out there, precisely because the CDing is fetish for so many CDers.


On the first point - no. I think that qualifies as bi-curious if they've indicated that the fantasy may go beyond just fantasy - but it doesn't mean that everyone will act on that fantasy.

First, not "everyone", and second, what does "bi-curious" mean? … Is it, "Gee, I really like fantasizing about this stuff, so I guess I'll just label it bi-curious". Honestly Katey, what do most people do when they are curious about something? They investigate and eventually determine what it means for them. If they persist in being "curious", then might it be that the fantasy aspect isn't something they are not willing to give up, because it is too much fun?



This sounds like bisexual CDs are being accused of objectifying men?

No, of course being bi does not mean that one objectifies their partner. There are bisexual men and bisexual women who have rewarding relationships with both sexes.

But we also have another type of CDer … who says that he doesn't like men in male mode. This does not sound bisexual to me. Also, of the CDers who only fantasize about sex with men, do you pay attention to the wording of some of these fantasies, (faceless men, the only part they are attracted to is the penis, they are not interested in kissing them, not interested in an emotional relationship, etc).

And again, I'm not saying that EVERY CDer is like this, just a number of them. My point earlier was not there is no such thing as a bisexual CDer, but that people who produce statistics need to take into account all factors, and not include fantasy in the results.



Which is ironic when you consider how often men are (rightly) accused of objectifying women... but especially so as a CD - so now some of us objectify men too?

Simply put, yes some CDers do objectify sex. It's not about men or women for a number of CDers. It's about the CDing and the highs derived from it. Maybe you don't feel that way for yourself, Katey, but not everyone is like you. Also, it is unrealistic to say there is not an element of fantasy on any CDer forum.

And again, to be clear, I am not saying that ALL CDers are fetishistic or fanciful. But I cannot say that NONE are either, hence the need to examine answers in poll threads carefully.



just why the muggles might think we're all gay, or bisexual, or at least very, very confused

Again, I am not thinking "all" anything. The variety in this forum proves there is no such thing as "none" or "all". :)

[Pat]

I wouldn't put much credence into the author Dr. Vernon Coleman.

Sorry, didn't mean to light the fuse and walk away on that one.

As I said it was a summary of the results of a newspaper poll. So, yes, the respondents were self-selecting and limited to those who cared enough to pick up a pen, fill in the form, address it, stamp it and walk it to a mailbox. All of these things would invalidate it as a study, but that's not what it was. To underscore it was a popular quiz and not a scientific survey, there were exactly 20 questions.

In his paper he publishes the questionnaire and question by question reports the results. He did not try to estimate the number of crossdressers in the general population or anything. What he did was give results that would be interesting, I think, to someone trying to understand something about crossdressers -- would they have a sex change if they could? 77% said no. Do they go out of the house dressed? 47% said yes. (Seems high to me, but as you pointed out the sample was self-selected.) He fills in with his personal commentary and with quotes from the respondents.

The value of the paper, to me, is not its scientific rigor but the information it gives to people who are just being confronted by a partner's crossdressing or a crossdresser just coming to terms with his own. Yes, you can be a crossdresser and still be straight. No, being a crossdresser is not a greased slide to a full-on transition. You don't have to like Coleman's credentials to get the benefit from this -- the fact that he's a prima face quack doesn't change his numbers. ;) But it's accessible information and the results seem in line with more scholarly papers.

[Kimonogirl]

TV is gay because it does not support our crusade against bigotry

[Pat]

If anyone has any different referenceable material I'd love to hear from them...


Have you seen Gates (2011): http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf ?
And Conway (and Winter) has a 2011 update: http://web.hku.hk/~sjwinter/TransgenderASIA/paper-how-many-trans-people-are-there.htm

[Greenie]

The idea that bisexuals are inherently polyamorous is one of the more vile examples of biphobia. .

I thought I would just chime in on this. I am a bisexual female, in a committed relationship with a heterosexual CDer. We have been together 8 years. I have not had the opportunity to have sex with a woman or any intimacy with a woman for 8 years. That doesn't make me any less of a bisexual just because I haven't acted on it. I have been a victim of bi-phobia many times. Not "lesbian enough, but not Straight." Lesbians in particular, do not seem to like bi-women.

Lucas thinks he is bi-curious since he has had fantasies about men. However, since we are in a commuted relationship, he will remain "curious" as ot if this is actually a sexuality component or something just a part of the fantasy. He likes thinking he is the woman in sexual encounters. I do believe bi-curiosity exists. However, after the initial act of sex with the same sex, I think that curiosity turns into actual bi-sexuality, or a denial of that identity.

[ReineD]

Sorry, didn't mean to light the fuse and walk away on that one.
No worries! Was just pointing out that his estimate is out of whack with everyone else's.


Have you seen Gates (2011): http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf ?
And Conway (and Winter) has a 2011 update: http://web.hku.hk/~sjwinter/TransgenderASIA/paper-how-many-trans-people-are-there.htm

Right. These numbers agree with the studies I have come across over the years, which is 1:300, or .0033 (.3%) Trans. I think the numbers for all GLBT are between 1.5% to 5% of the population, depending on countries and size of cohort.

The trans figures cited in post #73 (McCary less than 1%, Arndt less than .5%, and Langstrom/Zucker less than .4%-women) seem to agree with the above, but the others seem very high (Janus 3%-women 6%-men, Coleman 10%, Conway 2%-5% men, Langstrom/Zucker 2.8% men).

-----------

Greenie, my bi friends are like you, monogamous when in relationships. The belief that bi equates to polyamory is maddening. As to being bi-curious, what do you make of unattached CD males (single, divorced, or widowed), who profess their bi-curiosity without actually ever determining if they are bi or not? I don't think that fantasizing about it means that someone would be male-attracted if given the chance to be in a relationship with a male, or that they could even be in a relationship with a male.

[Greenie]

I think fantasies are fantasies. Often a corner of the mind or imagination that we would never dare to reach in real life. I think that you can determine you are bi sexual without acting on it, as long as if given the opportunity you would. So if say, a CDer has never had sex with a man, because he has been married or whatever, and says he is bi-sexual or curious, that would mean to me, that not in a monogamous relationship they would pursue men as well as women for companions. If you would never approach a man in "real life" given all the right circumstances, then I do not think it would be right to say you were "bi" just because you had the occasional fantasy. The fantasy could be situational, like wanting to be dominated, not necessarily wanting to be with a man, but the brain makes it a man, since you are female presenting in the fantasy. Unless you would act like that outside of fantasy land, I would not assume fantasy's= bisexuality. Did that make any sense?

[Pat]

I always thought bi-curious meant exactly what it sounds like on the face of it: they're curious. They aren't committing, they understand that they might suddenly have a resounding "NO" as a reaction, but they're not repulsed by the idea as many men are. So they're curious to find out if they're bi, though they might not want to take any special effort to answer the question. That's fair.

There's a whole wide range of behavior that falls between the tidy boxes of SLGB. A guy who's attracted to men but only if he's dressed as a woman? There isn't a word for it, so if he wants to use bisexual, why not? I had a friend who was "straight." He was attracted to women when he was presenting male and to men when he was presenting female. There isn't a word for that, so if he wants to use straight, who am i to contradict? What about guys who are only attracted to guys when those guys are presenting as women? No word for it. Pick straight, pick bi, pick gay -- they all fail to describe the situation equally well -- you might as well say you're pineapple. ;)

[ReineD]

Did that make any sense?

It did, except when I apply it to my SO and others like my SO. My SO also had same-sex attraction for some years, while he was in his past relationship. The CDing was just beginning then (with her blessing) but at the time it was mostly a bedroom thing. Needless to say my SO is also monogamous so he didn't act out on it when he was with her. But then years later they broke up (nothing to do with the CDing), and my SO was single for about 10 years, save for several relationships with women that lasted from 4-8 months each. Interestingly, he was not willing to date men like he did women, for the sake of forming a relationship. Anyway, throughout those 10 years he had ample time to experiment with male-sex, and he took advantage of it. It turns out that when he actually was with other males (he experimented more than once just to make sure), it was a complete turn off! My SO is not TS, yet in his fantasy he was a sexually attractive woman. But the reality of same-sex sex shattered the illusion. So now my SO knows that he is not bi even though I'm sure he still has the fantasies, which we all know can be manipulated any way we like. We can all add the details we want, and omit the details we don't want in any fantasy and it doesn't make the fantasy any less intense.

Given the above, it is not a stretch for me to deduce that the members here who do persist in being bi-curious (but only when dressed) without ever acting out on it (even when single), suspect deep-down that the reality of the experience would shatter their fantasy? I would not count these people in the "bi" camp for the purpose of coming up with statistics about how many CDers are hetero vs. not hetero. I would definitely count the people who do have relationships with same-sex and opposite-sex, regardless of what they are wearing, but they would have to do more than "try" it once or twice and then revert back to fantasies.

[Katey888]

I always thought bi-curious meant exactly what it sounds like on the face of it: they're curious. They aren't committing, they understand that they might suddenly have a resounding "NO" as a reaction, but they're not repulsed by the idea as many men are. So they're curious to find out if they're bi, though they might not want to take any special effort to answer the question. That's fair.

There's a whole wide range of behavior that falls between the tidy boxes of SLGB. A guy who's attracted to men but only if he's dressed as a woman? There isn't a word for it, so if he wants to use bisexual, why not?

^^^ This.
You ask someone a question about this and it doesn't matter how many carefully cross-referenced, double-negative check questions you add in, if they BELIEVE in their mind that they are either Bi or Bi-curious, then that is what they are self identifying as.


Given the above, it is not a stretch for me to deduce that the members here who do persist in being bi-curious (but only when dressed) without ever acting out on it (even when single), suspect deep-down that the reality of the experience would shatter their fantasy?

It's a stretch for me - you can't deduce anything about another individual's behaviour from any sample, and certainly not just because your SO exhibited one pattern of behaviour. I obviously don't know your SO, but from what you described it would be just as valid for me to deduce that repeated experimentation and fantasy is just repression at work, and that ultimately someone will experiment again, perhaps hoping that they'll eventually find the right person that will make it a turn on? (Note that I'm not saying this is the case, just that it would still be as valid to project... it's all just projection... :))


I think fantasies are fantasies. ... I would not assume fantasy's= bisexuality. Did that make any sense?

Yes - it did to me. And describes one variation again.

Look - whatever causes us do the things we do is related to gender. Whether one accepts we're TG or not, even CDers must accept that they are dressing in what society recognises as opposite gender clothing. Given that gender is involved (for most people) in sexual attraction, whatever orientation you are (except bi- see later..), it's not a stretch for me that muggles would first of all expect that this condition for MtF CDers is somehow related to attracting men (ie. thinking we're all gay), but that secondly some CDers would have this internal conflict or question going on (either due to societal mores or their own feelings) about why they do this and what ultimately validates these feelings? I don't think it's a big leap to imagine that the gender presentation 'mix up' that goes on can be related to sexuality.

In fact, it might just be that the bi- and bi-curious identifying folk amongst CDers are being more honest about this confusion than others asserting their sexual polarisation (either hetero or gay). Because isn't it the case that bisexual folk are the only ones who can truly say they are attracted to the person rather than the plumbing - whereas hetero and gay are locked into a gender preselection for partners?

:2c:

Katey x

[PaulaQ]

I think fantasies are fantasies. ... Unless you would act like that outside of fantasy land, I would not assume fantasy's= bisexuality. Did that make any sense?

First of all Greenie, kudos for having the courage to come out as bisexual. I've heard horrible things said about bisexuals, and witnessed some really heartbreaking examples of just how hard it is to be bisexual.

I don't think most of the labels about sexual orientation work very well with transgender people.

I'll talk about my own history, to show you what I mean.

I was assigned male at birth, a horrible medical error that I still struggle to overcome to this day, nearly 52 years later.

I was always attracted to other boys. The problem was that I kept this to myself. Why? Well, for one thing, at an early age I figured out that showing attraction to other boys tended to end our friendship, instantly. It was Texas, in the 70's after all, and hey, these kids were straight. There were a few kids I knew who were gay. I wasn't attracted to them, at all. Perhaps I feared the stigma of being gay, as the one really openly gay kid in my highschool was later murdered because he was gay. Like I said - Texas in the 70's.

I tried dating girls in high school. I thought women were attractive, because, I realize now, I wanted to be one. I had very little success with women until I met my first wife. She needed someone to take care of her, she really did. I fell for it, even though we were terribly unsuited for one another. But hey, I was in a straight relationship, so I must be straight, right? I hated our sex life. During our relationship, I had a string of crushes on various straight guy friends.I denied these were real. Everyone has fantasies like that, right?

After our divorce, I had a couple of opportunities to be with gay men. One, in particular, was a friend, and really just one hell of a nice guy. He very politely made his interest in me known, and while part of me thought "I should really want this," the truth is, I just didn't. There was just something about these men that didn't do it for me, though I was desperately lonely.

I re-married, this time to a girl I knew from high school. She was actually the first woman I'd successfully been able to date in the years following my divorce. Women just didn't like something about me. I won't say much about that relationship, because I've talked about it a lot here. But there are two things I'd note about it:
1. Our sex life was, again, to my surprise, profoundly unsatisfying. I spent a lot of time trying not to involve my penis in all that, which I'm sure was frustrating to her at times.
2. I still had crushes on guys. I'd form friendships with straight guys, and spend a LOT of time with them. So much that my wife would make "boyfriend" jokes. I never did anything, or revealed anything other than friendship towards these men, although I often would sit with them, talking, and thinking to myself, "why in the hell can't he just shut up and kiss me?"

In all those years, I identified well with the straight world. I didn't really know many gay people, nor did I spend any time in the gay world. I'd never even been to a gay bar, for example, although I'd sometimes drive through the part of Dallas where the bars were, sort of terrified about how I felt about the whole thing. Was I gay? (Turns out, ironically enough, I'd end up living in that very neighborhood that both fascinated and terrified me, and that it would be absolutely nothing like what I'd expect. For one thing, I didn't end up having sex with any of the guys here, either, although I'd make a whole bunch of friends...)

So I come out as trans, my marriage ends, again, and I just assume "Well, I've always been with women, so I must be a lesbian!", just like 2/3rds of the other trans women I came to know. Well, ok then. So I meet some actual lesbians, both cis and trans. I'm not much like them. I try relationships with a couple of different trans women, and figure - " yep, here I go, I'm just another trans lesbian."

Except I still hated my sex life. I realized, after a time, that I got NOTHING out of having sex with either of these women. I cared about them, but I was not attracted to them that way, and lonely or not (and I was very lonely - I don't do "single" well), I just did not have those types of feelings about them. In fact, being with them really upset me, a lot.

So I started looking for guys. I finally met my boyfriend last year. It is the first relationship I've ever been in where my role in the relationship made sense to me, and the first one where my sex life has actually been enjoyable. (Before I met him, I seriously considered giving up on sex altogether until after I had GCS.) He is the only man I've ever been with. He's trans. We have this wonderful, so far anyway, straight relationship. It feels just like all the other straight relationships I've ever witnessed during my life, except my part in it just makes sense now. He's a man, I'm a woman, and what follows from that ends up being very natural feeling. It just happens - and it makes sense to us both on all levels.

So I've been with cis women. I've been with trans women. I've been with a trans man. I've been with people assigned female at birth, and with people assigned male at birth. I really have no interest in women, either cis or trans, at this point.

"Straight" seems like the best term to fit me - it is certainly the world I am comfortable in. I love my little condo in the gayborhood here in Dallas, but I don't fit in here, really. But looking back over my history, if someone pressed me on that, citing the history above, I'd have to conclude that I have no goddamned idea what I am then.

As a joke - because I never do these things - I took a quiz on Facebook this week that purports to rate you on the Kinsey scale. The result surprised me. I expected some variant of bisexual as the result, given my history. I got 0 - arrow straight. I guess that decides the matter, lol.

[flatlander_48]

PQ:

It's not unusual for the Truth to be relatively easy and uncomplicated to find. The hard part is often the agreement and acceptance of said Truth...

DeeAnn

[BLUE ORCHID]

Hi Silky, I wonder why so many people think that way.:daydreaming:

[LilSissyStevie]

I think it's perfectly natural to think CDs are gay. It's what I thought about myself. Here's my story:

When I was about 12 I tried masturbation a few times. I didn't really know what masturbation was or what orgasms were but it felt good. I didn't have orgasms, I would just get tired after a while and lose interest. One day I came across a porn novel that was essentially gay porn but it involved one of the characters crossdressing and servicing males in various ways as a "girl." This was highly arousing to me. I had fantasized about being a girl throughout my childhood but never in an overtly sexual way. Now all of a sudden I could fantasize about being a girl sexually and the next time I masturbated I had my first orgasm. It was traumatic. In fact I was suicidal afterwords because it meant that on top of all my other troubles (I was in a mental hospital at the time - long story) I was a "queer", too.

To top it off, a few months later I had my first real sexual experience (coitus) with a girl. Me and an older girl sneaked off into an empty room in the hospital to have sex. She was going to show me the ropes, as it were. It was very awkward and we were nervous about getting caught, but somehow the deed got done. It was not a very pleasant experience and added to my suspicion that I wasn't cut out for sex with women. To top it off, she felt so guilty about the incident she confessed all to the staff and I got in big trouble.

After that my sexual fantasies revolved around specific themes: Having sex as a female with men, having sex as a submissive male with dominant females, having sex as a lesbian, having sex with dominant men as an effeminate gay bottom and various combinations of these. Within the context of my own experience idioms like "bi curious," "bi when dressed," "male lesbian" make perfect sense. What was common to these themes was that my penis was never involved in the sex and masochism. My interpretation of this was that I was gay but in denial. The idea of being "transgender" never occurred to me. A psychiatrist flat out told me when I was 16 or so, even though I never disclosed any of my sexual fantasies to him, that I was a "latent homosexual." I believed him and thought I needed to get on with it. The problem was that in "real life," as opposed to fantasy, I only seemed to be attracted to women and never to men. Once I decided to be gay, I realized that there wasn't a single guy in the world I found attractive. I didn't have any idea what an attractive male even looked like. They all looked equally unappealing to me.

I eventually gave up on the idea that I was gay or even bisexual. I just didn't have any explanation for my weird fantasies, crossdressing, kinky sexual proclivities (mostly femdom), or the fact that I didn't care to use my penis in real sex. That is until I came across the transgender angle. I spent some time wondering if I were transsexual. But that's not really it either. I don't really care if people see me as a "gender." I don't think of myself as a gender either. I'm not particularly attached to my "male identity." I just happen to be a male because I have a penis and have no real desire to get rid of it. I think that whatever transgenderism I experience stems from my fetish rather than the fetish stemming from my transgenderism. I say that even though I had cross gender fantasies long before they were recognizably sexual in nature. I had cross gender fantasies because of the constant emasculation and emasculation anxiety I experienced a kid. If I were a girl, I reasoned, no one would criticize me for being a sissy. When I reached puberty, I naturally sexualized my emasculation anxiety by imagining myself in emasculated/feminized situations.

So that's all there is to it. It comes down to arousal by association to symbols of femininity/emasculation. I wasn't aroused by men, I was aroused by the idea of being aroused by men. I wasn't a gay bottom, I was aroused by the idea of being a gay bottom. I wasn't a woman, I was aroused by the idea of being a woman. The idea is the fetish. Notice this is different from autogynephila since AGP only attempts to explain "arousal by the idea of being a woman" by "erotic target location error." ETLE as an explanation for AGP is a mistake, IMO. It's not just a mistake for explaining transsexuality, it doesn't explain the fetish either.

[ophelia]

Beware of blanket statements. I await imperical evidence

[ReineD]

It's a stretch for me - you can't deduce anything about another individual's behaviour from any sample, and certainly not just because your SO exhibited one pattern of behaviour.

OK, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You can label people who fantasize about same-sex as "bi", and I'll only label them bi when they have actually been out there doing it regularly (not once or twice ... that's called experimentation). And they're even more bi for me, when they can have same-sex sex while they're completely naked. :)



it would be just as valid for me to deduce that repeated experimentation and fantasy is just repression at work, and that ultimately someone will experiment again, perhaps hoping that they'll eventually find the right person that will make it a turn on?

Except that it's hard to find "the right person" when they're turned off of guys in guy mode, when they don't even want to kiss them, hold their hands, let alone have an emotional relationship with them. And why would someone want to experiment again if the actual experience didn't measure up and was a turn off (meaning a turn off, not "not the right person").

So again, we'll just need to agree to disagree.

Hope we're still friends! :)

[flatlander_48]

LSS:

Fascinating! Thanks for sharing. While you have been able to sum up your journey here, I'm sure that it represents a lot of time, thought and pain in getting to this point. Glad you stuck with it as it was certainly not a simple endeavor. Sadly, I think, many would have given up somewhere along the way. But further, it also speaks to the various paths that we take to arrive at this place.

One point: I would suggest that you state what I highlighted a bit differently. Clearly folks here will understand it within the context of what you have written. However, there are those who will see "decided to be gay" and it will reinforce their misinformed notion that "it IS a choice!!".


A psychiatrist flat out told me when I was 16 or so, even though I never disclosed any of my sexual fantasies to him, that I was a "latent homosexual." I believed him and thought I needed to get on with it. The problem was that in "real life," as opposed to fantasy, I only seemed to be attracted to women and never to men. Once I decided to be gay, I realized that there wasn't a single guy in the world I found attractive. I didn't have any idea what an attractive male even looked like. They all looked equally unappealing to me.

[LilSissyStevie]

rephrasing, I would say that I decided to accept and allow it.


I have some questions for those in the "when is one bi" debate. My wife had a friend whose husband announced one day after many years of marriage that he was gay, wanted a divorce, and was moving to Palm Springs to live with is new boy friend. He'd been living a lie his whole life and now he was going to be true to himself. She was completely blindsided. She had no clue. She thought their sex life, while not perfect, was pretty good. If there was a problem, it was that he wanted sex more than her. So was this guy really gay as he believed himself to be? Was he bi since he seemed to enjoy sex with women before he "discovered" he was gay? Was he always gay/bi or did he only become gay/bi the moment he acted on his same sex impulses?

[Stephanie47]

I'm a child of the 1950's and 1960's when gays, lesbians and cross dressers were scorned. As a teen I understood who a gay man or lesbian woman felt attraction to. To be outwardly gay or lesbian was hazardous to one's health, well being, employment, societal interactions, etc. With hindsight I can clearly understand why a gay or lesbian would hide in the closet.

As a young teen I dabbled in my mother's lingerie draw: bra, panty, girdle, hosiery, dress. I was totally confused. Society in the 1950's and 1960's clearly espoused the belief that men who wore women's clothing were gays. Now gay back then was to be happy and carefree. Back then society said I was a "queer, a faggot, a fruit" and other unpleasant terms. Of course violence was also rampant. I was convinced I must have been a "queer, a faggot, a fruit" because society said so. How could I be all those when I was "excited" by cute girls and hot movie actresses? Fortunately, Uncle Sam decided I should be in an all male environment for several years. Well, with all those men who were in great physical shape around, and, not at all interested it seemed something was askew. Heck, I met my wife while in the army. Back then a lot of people thought ALL women in the military was lesbians. Maybe that's a topic for another thread.

I wonder how many cross dressing heterosexual men were "pushed" into homosexual relationships because society had branded them as "queers, faggot and fruits."

Too many times people make their opinions based on a lack of knowledge, erroneous assumptions and prejudice.

[flatlander_48]

rephrasing, I would say that I decided to accept and allow it.


I have some questions for those in the "when is one bi" debate. My wife had a friend whose husband announced one day after many years of marriage that he was gay, wanted a divorce, and was moving to Palm Springs to live with is new boy friend. He'd been living a lie his whole life and now he was going to be true to himself. She was completely blindsided. She had no clue. She thought their sex life, while not perfect, was pretty good. If there was a problem, it was that he wanted sex more than her. So was this guy really gay as he believed himself to be? Was he bi since he seemed to enjoy sex with women before he "discovered" he was gay? Was he always gay/bi or did he only become gay/bi the moment he acted on his same sex impulses?

Regarding being gay or bisexual:
It isn't just about sex. There's a whole bunch of things that go into the mix. Definitely sex is part of it, but it's also who you from intimate (in the broadest sense) with, how you align yourself politically, etc. The only difference for bisexual people is that gender isn't the first gating factor. It's somewhere down the list; maybe 3rd, 4th or who knows?

When I first considered having physical intimacy with men, a fascinating thought occured to me. That was I could choose to be the active partner or the passive partner or move back and forth as I saw fit. I chose to be the passive partner and that opened up a distinctly new train of thought. It was a very different way of looking at sexual dynamics and it fascinated me. It was completely unlike the rigid behaviors that I had assumed were appropriate. That new freedom can be intoxicating. Further, if approached correctly, there is no reason that a gay relationship has to look like an opposite sex reltionship. You don't necessarily have the preset expectations (wife does this, husband does that) that you would see in many opposite sex couples. So, perhaps the husband of the friend was just responding to this new sense of freedom.

In any event, I believe ones sexuality is predetermined. And, that is independent of whether you know it or respond to it. Experiences play an important part as they help us understand what we are.



I wonder how many cross dressing heterosexual men were "pushed" into homosexual relationships because society had branded them as "queers, faggot and fruits."

No, people can't be pushed, convinced or turned. Whatever your native sexuality is, that's what it is. This ties in with the concept that homophobes erroneously believe: gay people Recruit. No way that you're going to turn someone who does not have a predisposition.

[Katey888]

Seems like we have a need for some deeper definitions to identify the sub-segments - like: you can be hetero or gay to begin with, but if you've had physical relations with both genders can you ever not be bi? If you decide it's not for you - presumably you just made a mistake, like folk that try smoking but never continue - does that always make you a smoker? No. I don't think so - I agree with Reine on this one (see - still friends :)) But how about folk that start off gay, then get married, have a family, then decide they become true to themselves and go back to full-time gay? (Stevie's example) We have some high profile ex-politicos here that have been in that camp (pardon the pun)... It's complex isn't it? :)

And I still think that's one of the educational aspects of this discussion - I'm sure there was a time when I was 'worried' about my sexuality because of my CDing. I am sure that losing my virginity in a 'normal' hetero way and finding that I had no feelings I should be trying something different from a gender perspective was ultimately a great relief for me as a young man. (Note that I say this from an earlier, pressured perspective when there was less tolerance for being anything other than hetero) I still find it totally mind-blowing that we all do the gender-bending, dressing thing (to some extent) but we can still have all the complexity of sexuality overlaid as well. This is why muggles dismiss attempts to explain it - it's too much to grasp and much easier (especially for those with closed minds) just to think of us all as gay drag queens.

We still also adhere to stereotypes here, I find, particularly gender ones. Stephanie's point about how some see all military women as lesbians is a classic; my wife always trots out the "one butch; one effeminate" in every gay relationship (I try to educate her but.... ). The world is rife with misunderstanding and a lack of willingness to be open-minded... it's just too much effort for some.

BTW - DeeAnn:

When I first considered having physical intimacy with men, a fascinating thought occured to me. That was I could choose to be the active partner or the passive partner or move back and forth as I saw fit.

Perhaps stereotypes have got the better of you too? It's also possible for that in an opposite sex relationship... ;)

And thanks to you and Stevie for being willing to speak so openly about your feelings and sexuality - for those that want to listen I think it helps understanding how others feel and perceive their relationships. :)

Katey x

[Stephanie Julianna]

My family says that I am a "Shirley McLean wannabe". Not because of my crossdressing but because I believe in multiple lives with our coming back over and over again. That being said, I sometimes theorize that maybe my proclivity to be dressed and act female is an overlapping of a previous life as a woman into this life. So if I was a straight woman in the last life and a straight man in this life, am I two straight people sharing the same body of just plan old "Bi"? Who cares? I'm very happy the way I turned out.

[ReineD]

When I first considered having physical intimacy with men, a fascinating thought occured to me. That was I could choose to be the active partner or the passive partner or move back and forth as I saw fit. I chose to be the passive partner and that opened up a distinctly new train of thought. It was a very different way of looking at sexual dynamics and it fascinated me. It was completely unlike the rigid behaviors that I had assumed were appropriate. That new freedom can be intoxicating. Further, if approached correctly, there is no reason that a gay relationship has to look like an opposite sex reltionship. You don't necessarily have the preset expectations (wife does this, husband does that) that you would see in many opposite sex couples.

At the risk of beginning another debate in this thread, why do you think that a hetero sexual relationship necessarily involves one passive and one active partner? Aren't both partners effectively active? Without becoming too graphic, couples do things mutually, they take turns doing things, and there are lots of different positions to do them in plus couples can add spice by using a variety of things purchased in stores for sexual enhancement?

Also, doesn't the intoxication come with the person that you are with? For me, great sex happens when I'm very much into the person in all levels: physically, emotionally, and intellectually. Adequate sex happens when only one of the three is present. Generally, I think that GGs feel a holistic attraction to a person is more intense than just being attracted to one thing. I don't think we compartmentalize sex like men do. This might be why I defined bisexuality differently than Katey888 earlier.

I know this is not a proper study and of course there are exceptions, but this article expresses my point in more detail:
http://www.netnanny.com/learn_center/article/165/

[flatlander_48]

BTW - DeeAnn:

Perhaps stereotypes have got the better of you too? It's also possible for that in an opposite sex relationship... ;)

Katey x

No, I don't think so. It didn't feel like that anyway. The way in which we have been indoctrinated by society comes into play. And yes, that part is stereotypical, but the dynamic is this. As we have been taught, unfortunately, females are less than. So, giving up control and being passive has a very different sense about about it compared to another male. The sense is that giving up control to a female seems like establishing equality. With another male, it feels like giving the notion of dominance away. It is hard to explain, but my sense is that it seemed to be very unique experiences.

But, there is also an interesting thing that takes place, speaking in more of an academic sense. In a male/female couple, the female can often use the male's desires against him and get him to jump through hoops on demand. Sometimes this has a playful intent to increase arousal and sometimes it has a more sinister purpose. What occurred to me was that I had could (and did) have the same influence over another male in a very similar way. And that is a complete, and fascinating, role reversal.


At the risk of beginning another debate in this thread, why do you think that a hetero sexual relationship necessarily involves one passive and one active partner? Aren't both partners effectively active?

Not necessarily. Active in the sense of participation, but not necessarily in terms of energy flow; complementary in the sense of Ying and Yang. To me, there is often a fluidity in terms of what happens, but sometimes there may be more conscious events that occur. The conscious part is what I was speaking to above.


Without becoming too graphic, couples do things mutually, they take turns doing things, and there are lots of different positions to do them in plus couples can add spice by using a variety of things purchased in stores for sexual enhancement?

Trust me that these are not foreign concepts! Between 2 wives, I've been married for a total of abut 40 years. Ain't my first trip to the rodeo...

DeeAnn

[ReineD]

Not necessarily. Active in the sense of participation, but not necessarily in terms of energy flow; complementary in the sense of Ying and Yang. To me, there is often a fluidity in terms of what happens, but sometimes there may be more conscious events that occur. The conscious part is what I was speaking to above.

I do understand the Yin/Yang as being a necessary component of a complementary sexual relationship in that two parts fit well together to form a whole no matter the position, but I don't understand what you mean by conscious events, or the conscious part. Would you elaborate?

[flatlander_48]

If one decides to be dominant or passive as opposed to letting events take their course...

[ReineD]

OK, thanks. :)

It's difficult to imagine these things from a different perspective than one's own because obviously we just only ever experience our own sex lives. But I can say that the fluidity that I have encountered among my sexual partners was not something decided on. It always simply happened, as a natural result of being sexually creative and sensual ... and aroused. lol. I also need to add that my current SO is the only partner I've had who crosses the gender boundaries, and there has been no difference in terms of fluidity between my SO and my other partners. In all my sexual relationships, the dominance vs. submissiveness ebbed and flowed, naturally I thought.

It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall and listen to a conversation about this between several GGs, just to determine if my experience is unique.

[flatlander_48]

Discussions like this often seem to be a Your Mileage May Vary sort of things because, in spite of studies and scientific probabilities, it comes down to our experience and perceptions; rightly and wrongly. Personally, I have a hard time believing anyone that says they are a straight crossdresser. Certainly I won't challenge anyone directly unless they are really being an ass, but I have a different perception about it. I think between the lines, it may be the sort of thing where a safe choice was made in order to live a relatively calm life or it may be that people are comfortable in their male roles such that dressing only adds and does not replace the usual activities or desires, etc. So, when I hear Straight Crossdresser" what I think is one of the alternatives I mentioned above or perhaps something else.

Anyway, it is a fascinating question that may be very difficult to sort.

DeeAnn

[ReineD]

Personally, I have a hard time believing anyone that says they are a straight crossdresser.

Ahhh ... but then we get back to defining sexual preference. Is it defined by fantasy or the things that we actually DO on a regular basis?

People do fantasize about situations they would not like in real life. Read this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/10268770/Top-5-womens-sexual-fantasies-in-2013.html). In one example, they say that some women fantasize about cheating on their husbands. Does this mean they are not monogamous? No. They do not want to hurt their husbands. In another example, women say they fantasize about rape. Does this mean they actually want to be raped? No. The reality of rape is far too harsh.

I actually have the book, My Secret Garden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Secret_Garden#Contents). This is where I learned that the world of sexual fantasy is distinct and separate from reality, and it is not because people are repressing themselves.

[flatlander_48]

Ahhh ... but then we get back to defining sexual preference. Is it defined by fantasy or the things that we actually DO on a regular basis?

No, I think what I'm saying is that perhaps the other shoe has not dropped. I wasn't speaking of fanstasy. I was speaking specifically to the identities that people claim regardless of how that came to the conclusion.

For a long time, gay people have told bisexuals "yes, that's what you think; give it time". My problem with that was that it was never universally true as some would have you believe. Sure, it does happen that way, but that in no way should suggest that it is an automatic. And, in my case, is wasn't true and in fact my path was the reverse: gay -> bisexual.

But, at the root of all of this is that opinions and preferences get formed over time. It could very well be that at some point in the future that some of those who currently claim to be straight crossdressers may come to revisit what they thought and they may come to a different conclusion. From my experience and from what I've observed, dressing evolves. How we are now doesn't necessarily mean that we will be the same in one month, one year or 5 years. There are always changes. It is not a static situation...

DeeAnn

[ReineD]

But, at the root of all of this is that opinions and preferences get formed over time. It could very well be that at some point in the future that some of those who currently claim to be straight crossdressers may come to revisit what they thought and they may come to a different conclusion.

This is true, especially after people begin HRT, or if not TS, among people whose relationships with GGs ended because these GGs would not agree to the CDing. It makes sense to seek love where there are possibilities, for example CDers in relationships with one another.

Interestingly, there's a wonderful article in todays New York Times, Better Late Than Never (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/fashion/for-some-in-transgender-community-its-never-too-late-to-make-a-change.html?_r=0) that also mentions changes from being female-attracted to eventually preferring males after HRT and transition.

And there are also heteros here for whom an actual experience with men is not and will not be desired, despite fantasies to the contrary.

I agree that we cannot put people into nice, neat little boxes.

[flatlander_48]

Yes, I saw it online yesterday. Nicely done piece. For me, the thing that was significant is that once people sorted out where things sat, the motivation to align one physical and emotional selves was strong enough to want to transition. Those people are my peers and younger and wish them well and hope that their expectations are met. But at 60's and 70's this is no trivial matter.

[ReineD]

On the NYT news article: the phenomena of late-transitioners I don't think will continue beyond people who were born pre 1970s-60s. I think it's a catch up of all the folks who are TS, but who could not have known or come out until now.

TSs born in the 1980s or after (anyone who is under 30 now), became adult when there was internet and other resources and so they know who they are at the beginning of adulthood and they can make appropriate choices for themselves. These people do not need to keep this a secret from GG partners like their predecessors, they will not need to repress this for 30 years and wait for kids to grow up, parents to die, or retirement before feeling they can express themselves, and they can even find a middle ground right now if they want to, which I think was almost impossible to find before. The idea that in order to express gender fluidity or femininity, one has to try to pass as a female or be ostracized I believe is leaving us.

I was recently talking to someone in her 50s at my SO's gender support group. She identifies as "TG", not "CD" or "TS" and she is hugely involved with the group and newcomers. She quizzically asked why so many young TGs she is meeting don't dress full-on as women like she does (breast forms, wig, traditional makeup, heels, hose, etc), they are happy presenting androgynously or as feminine males and identify as genderqueer or a number of similar labels (agender, bigender, pangender, etc).

It is interesting to witness the face of TG changing among younger people compared to their predecessors. The trend has been there among FtMs for awhile (not all but quite a few), to go ahead and present masculine without giving up a female identity and losing their stature in the lesbian community.

There are most definitely still TSs of both genders, but their parents are beginning to listen to them now and so they are getting on hormone-blockers before onset of puberty. So yes, long-term repression is coming to an end, I believe.

But, will there still be CDers, will there still be men who identify as men but who love to dress as sexually attractive women? Yes. I don't see this going away at all. :)

[Stephanie47]

Reg

No, people can't be pushed, convinced or turned. Whatever your native sexuality is, that's what it is. This ties in with the concept that homophobes erroneously believe: gay people Recruit. No way that you're going to turn someone who does not have a predisposition.

I beg to differ. This has absolutely nothing to do with "recruiting" anybody. Go back and think about what I said the 1950's and 1960's were about when it came to sexuality. You really think a young kid would have the opportunity to read about cross dressing? Would a young kid be able to discuss cross dressing with anyone? Young kids are very impressionable. They are full of doubts about themselves. They can lose their self esteem. I would not judge yesterday's society of forty or fifty years ago by today's standards, etc.

[flatlander_48]

There is the persistent notion that one's sexual orientation, when other than heterosexual, is chosen. There is evidence to suggest that this is not true, but so far it is not conclusive. However, this document is significant I think:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tonymerevick/exclusive-9-former-ex-gay-leaders-join-movement-to-ban-gay-c#.wn4j6AWQ2

Former Ex-Gay Leaders Unite in Opposition to Conversion Therapy

Conversion therapy, also known as “reparative therapy”, “ex-gay therapy,” or “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE), professes to help lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people to change or overcome their sexual orientation or gender identity. The majority of those who practice this “therapy” often do so with little or no formal psychological training, operating instead from a strict religious perspective, believing homosexuality to be a “sin.”

At one time, we were not only deeply involved in these “ex-gay” programs, we were the founders, the leaders, and the promoters. Together we represent more than half a century of experience, so few people are more knowledgeable about the ineffectiveness and harm of conversion therapy. We know first-hand the terrible emotional and spiritual damage it can cause, especially for LGBT youth.

We once believed that there was something morally wrong and psychologically “broken” about being LGBT. We know better now. We once believed that sexual orientation or gender identity were somehow chosen or could be changed. We know better now. We once thought it was impossible to embrace our sexual orientation or sexual identity as an intrinsic, healthy part of who we are and who we were created to be. We know better now.


So, if sexual orientation or gender identity cannot be changed, that strongly suggests that it is an innate characteristic. It isn't something treatable like obsessive-compulsive disorder. Therefore, exposure to LGBT people would not change your orientation or gender identification. However, a possible exception to this may be crossdressing from a fetishistic viewpoint as this may not have anything to do with orientation or gender identification.

DeeAnn

[RachelsMantra]

I just read through this whole thread and I feel like my own sexual preferences weren't represented so I want to make room for a further complication in the heterosexual-bisexual spectrum. I have been into TS porn for some time and have always desired to be with a TS. A near approximation of this fantasy is to be with other CDs. I am attracted to femininity and have been in many long-term relationships with women but I also...enjoy the male anatomy. But beards and hair and muscles? Total turn-off. So am I "straight" because I am only attracted to the female form? Not necessarily - because there is ONE aspect of the male anatomy that I am attracted too (the penis). Accordingly I've recently started labeling myself as bisexual because *technically* I can also be sexually attractive to men (who are dressed as women, the more fem the better). But perhaps my ideal sexual partner would be a pre-op TS. Other CDs satisfy this preference of mine but hints of masculinity in facial structure or demeanor are definitely a turn-off. Where does this put me on the spectrum? Hard to say. All I know is that if there is a spectrum of heterosexual to homosexual I wouldn't be 0%, 50%, or 100%. It's more complicated than that.

I can't be the only CD on here who is sexually attracted to other CDs (but not macho men) but I haven't seen this position represented.

Hope that makes sense.

Sexuality is complicated. I'm still discovering who I am and trying to be comfortable with my preferences. At the end of the day you have to do what makes you happy (and horny).

[Pat]

More numbers:


Nationwide, Gallup says, 3.6 percent of adults consider themselves gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. [...] Gallup’s numbers are based on surveys of 374,325 adults across the 50 largest metropolitan areas, conducted between June 2012 and December 2014. The margin of sampling error for each of the metropolitan areas is no more than plus or minus 1 percentage point.

Note that the numbers roll everyone up in one basket -- they don't distinguish L from G or B or T. I don't know how long the link will stay good, but this is the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/upshot/the-metro-areas-with-the-largest-and-smallest-gay-population.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

[Lollipop]

hi - Everything in life is a spectrum - all colors are involved - nothing defines you except what you feel yourself I expect
Jessie

[VickiTheGamer]

In my opinion, I was gay and just didn't realize it. Let me explain.
I am a Transgender (MtF). My attraction is to women and always has been to women, yet I am becoming a women.
So by definition I am gay. (Gay - adjective, gayer, gayest. | 1. of, relating to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.)
I grew up and lived my life as a male. As such, I always considered myself Straight. Yet, I also considered myself a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Now that I have taken steps towards becoming the women I always wanted to be, I have come to realize I am and have always been gay. I did not become gay, but rather, I have always been Gay and just never had the strength to take the steps necessary to express it properly.
Now that I am taking those steps (hormones, etc.) I am able to express it more properly.

OR.....am I still straight and just confused? heh :P

[ReineD]

LOL, Vicki, it would be so much simpler if we eliminated the terms "gay" and "lesbian" altogether, since in addition to describing the person attracted to, they describe the sex and/or gender of the person who feels the attraction. This is why the terms cannot apply in the same way when someone transitions. Even the meaning of "same-sex attraction" changes if a person changes their sex.

If we just stuck to "male-attracted" (androphile) or "female-attracted" (gynophile), then the terms wouldn't change since they ONLY describe who we are attracted to without describing us in any way.

[Pat]

If we just stuck to "male-attracted" (androphile) or "female-attracted" (gynophile), then the terms wouldn't change since they ONLY describe who we are attracted to without describing us in any way.

It's way messier than that, though. There are males that are attracted to males presenting female (CDs) but not to males presenting male. And CD's who are attracted to other CDs but not males presenting male. No words cover that. No words cover males who are attracted to FtM transsexuals. There IS "pansexual" if you're attracted to pretty much anyone in any presentation. But for the others there are either no words or we deny or discount those attractions. I have no answers to this, by the way, just the observation.

[Mink]

My gay TV thinks Liberals are WIVES!

[ReineD]

It's way messier than that, though. There are males that are attracted to males presenting female (CDs) but not to males presenting male ...

Then we can expand and also include CD-attracted. The point is that if we need to describe who we're attracted to, why do we need a single word that at the same time describes who we are? The two are unrelated.

So if we split it up, it would go like this:

I'm (pick one trans/CD/male/female) and I'm attracted to (pick one trans/CD/male/female/everyone/no-one).

[JesseGirl]

Yup all tvs are gay...joking, yea its a very narrow minded opinion to think that, I for one am married but I am bisexual, guys are great to look at and many are outright yummy but girls are really where I like to be.....you know out of our circle of crossdressing friends I am the only one who bats both sides, many guys who dress are straight and its sad to think that some folk think that just because a guy puts on a dress he's labelled as gay, 9 times out of 10 those opinions are formed through ignorance, to me dressing is a form of expressing your personality and not sexuality.