View Full Version : Would you (part1)
Lorileah
08-03-2016, 03:11 PM
There are a lot of rules to this thread, please follow them as best you can. First, the main rule is if you decide to dress as a woman, you can NEVER switch back to being a male. You choose one or the other. The other rule is you can be a man in a dress. You don't have to be a woman. Third, assume that for some strange reason (parallel universe whatever) that current surgical procedures would be available to you in this era but nothing more. It would be, if you wanted, possible to get safe and cosmetically pleasing GRS, FFS, BA.
Now for the game:
People here say they dress for many reasons and often have fantasy ideals of an time in the past. What I want to try here is seeing who would actually live in that era, the reality of the era not the fantasy, as a crossdresser (no plans on changing anything, no hormones, no surgery but wearing the clothing 24/7 for the rest of their lives) or transitioning into being a woman. Limits shall be set. Like for the first era (and we may revisit other eras later if this goes well, you would be middle class. Not the extreme poor nor the upper crust. Middle working class.
Would you choose to live as a transgender person (assume also that you would be safe and society wouldn't care about your being trans but you get all the good and bad of being a woman at that time) 100 years ago? 1916.
Or would that not fit your perspective of being a crossdresser or emulating femininity?
It's my party so I may (like a dungeon master) clarify details of each response. Others may chip in too. Open to everyone (GGs included if they would live in that era as a woman). Now, fully understand the gender division at that time.
OK...go
Tina_gm
08-03-2016, 03:53 PM
No. Not ready for endgame when it comes to gender crossing. I am not sure I wouldn't have serious buyers remorse on this one. I can fantasize till pigs fly. I will have to keep it at that for now.
Lana Mae
08-03-2016, 06:21 PM
Lorileah, an interesting game!! Crossdresser-female dress 24/7 with all the problems of 1916!! hugs Lana Mae
2B Natasha
08-03-2016, 07:38 PM
Hi lorileah
That does not fit my perspective of being a crossdresser or emulating femininity. Sorry. I like the era I live in and have never really longed for living in another era as a boy or a girl. Perhaps the future. But that is and can be whatever we make of it now can't it. So I don't think any other era then now will work for me. Guess I'm thrown out of the dungeon.
Cheers
Ressie
08-03-2016, 08:44 PM
It might depend on the location, but I believe women weren't treated too well 100 years ago. So I think I'll pass on this one.
franlee
08-03-2016, 08:55 PM
Not me, there was no Air Conditioning or central Heat. Clothes were all high maintenance too. Washing by hand and ironing are not part of a Good experience to me. Plus money was tight for the middle class and that would put a damper on everything.
BLUE ORCHID
08-03-2016, 09:03 PM
Hi Lorileah:hugs:I will stay where is /as is, I'm happy having the best of both worlds...:daydreaming:..
Dree Yer Ane Weird
08-03-2016, 11:11 PM
1916?! If not being shot for cowardice is included, i would transition in a heartbeat if it meant I wouldn't have to end up a bloody smear across a field in France!
Lorileah
08-04-2016, 08:56 AM
:thinking: so is this an insight to crossdressing....and transsexualism? Is it really more convenience than need or desire? In a recent thread a member stated that anyone could quit. I guess it was easier in 1916 to walk away or stay away. I find this fascinating. No responses from TSs either. Does that mean transition now is more based on ease of life? That you couldn't "hang" back then? After all I gave the caveat that the surgery was safe and available and just as functional in the scenario.
Dree, interesting perspective. But now you have a higher risk of cholera and influenza staying home and caring for the soldiers
Andrea Evadne
08-04-2016, 10:21 AM
well given that women are better treated now, than at any time in the past, I would have to choose this era. And yes, if life allowed (which it most certainly doesn't) I would put the male clothes away forever
docrobbysherry
08-04-2016, 10:53 AM
I've seen plenty of "what if" games here, Lorileah, but yours has more rules
But, playing along? I'd say I WOULD do it. If u change the year to 2116.:devil:
Desiree2bababe
08-04-2016, 11:15 AM
At my age, I'd have to pass..........
BrendaPDX
08-04-2016, 12:04 PM
I was waiting for others to respond first, I'm coward, or atlest very cautious. All my worrie points have been brought out: Women wern' treated very well back then, no feminine hygiene products, not being able to express my own opinion. Did they still tar and feather back then? No, I would rather be in the closet now than a woman back then. Thank you for asking. Can't wait for the next game, hopefully I will be more playful☺️😂 Brenda
Dree Yer Ane Weird
08-04-2016, 12:14 PM
caring for the soldiers? didn't know that was mandatory lol. cholera and influenza were more survivable than being under the orders of the British Officer class at that time.
On a side note, I walked away from crossdressing for 13 years and was, according to my family, not the nicest person to be around for that time (and thats me being polite). Now, everyone that matters knows i crossdress, have accepted its part of who I am, so they no longer go out of their way to avoid me lol. Therefore, its safe to say for me it's a definate need, for whatever reason.
Teresa
08-04-2016, 01:25 PM
Lorileah,
Before I participate may I ask you the question why you chose that particular date ? Maybe a second question , how would you answer ?
It is a difficult one because we have very little to relate to historically . Naturally it's far easier to reply in our current time frame because we know how society would react.
Aside from the legalities of appearing dressed as a woman in 1916, I would say it was possibly easier to pass or convince others you were female because of the style of the clothes and the more austere look women had then. Even being middle class life was harder for both genders, the treatment and respect women received then was probably worse than it is now.
Taking all this on balance if I had the same need to dress I would probably be on the same road I'm on now, OK it's trying to get the best of both Worlds , but that's the choice a CDer has .
Sorry I've just read the rules again and you say society wouldn't care, in that case I would be TG 24/7. Which given the opportunity today I would still do , if I had separated from my wife.
Meghan4now
08-04-2016, 02:23 PM
Heck no!
1916 was a little more progressive than the late 19th century, but not like today. Here's a historic perspective:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqq5a2vajOAhXF2SYKHQ0LA98QFggbMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBoul ton_and_Park&usg=AFQjCNGG7D6_qPe3nzJe2wqQQCSugZ_nLw
Lorileah
08-04-2016, 03:49 PM
Actually, maybe I phrased the question wrong. This isn't given a choice of then vs now. This was if you were alive at that time and you feel like you do today, would you pursue it? As noted, in 2116 things SHOULD be better than now. But no one here is likely to be around to see it.
What don't we have to relate to historically? There are volumes and libraries that discuss life at that time. But to answer your questions (because I still see this for the members here as "Yeah, because 2016 has rights and a higher quality of living, I like playing a woman.") I chose the date just because it was 100 years ago. It could have worked with 1910 or 1915. 100 years was a round date.
Now the important question, would I? Being TS, I would. The interesting thing here is you all jumped on the women's lives sucked then but NOW train. But you're not totally right. Women are treated as second class STILL in the US. Yeah, they can vote, Yeah they can hold jobs (at lower wages). Things are better, but IF you lived as a woman you had no rights, You were property or chattel first to your father then after to your husband (unless you were the two "sisters" or "Cousins" who were spinsters in the house down the road).
I sort of got my answer though. I think CDs are "convenient dressers". Fair weather dressers who want the perks and not the barricades and downside to being a woman. So I say that most GGs are right when they question your motives. Two people above said they would do it (and I gave you great "outs" that should have been incentives...excellent surgical options and society would treat you like any other woman). The rest opted out. So, again I ask, why do you dress? It's not the clothes; women had "sexy (at the time) clothes. It's not an overwhelming desire, otherwise this would have been a resounding "Hell Yeah!" IF I gave you the same options for this era I would expect a large majority would have jumped the train....and far more of you would have even proclaimed the TS label.
OK, let's shift gears now. Same rules, same options.
It's 1940. War looms again on the horizon. You don't have the crystal ball about women in wartime jobs, you only know what women knew at the time. You are still in the middle class. Now are you more likely to live as a woman (maintaining your male anatomy if you wish or transitioning)? This isn't a red pill blue pill question. This is IF you lived then and your inner feelings are as they are now. (I chose 1940 as a tipping point, those in Great Britain are already in the war so that would skew their perspective towards that....Go with it)
Dree Yer Ane Weird
08-04-2016, 04:12 PM
how come i always get stuck in a feckin war?
Madilyn A.
08-04-2016, 04:13 PM
If I understand the game my choices were transition in 1940 or CD in 2016.
I would make the transition in 1940. Life in the US was still pretty good, and women's lives were much better than in 1916 although not as good as now.
Lorileah
08-04-2016, 04:14 PM
Dree, Could be where ya live? :) OK, next time no war for Europe.
If I understand the game my choices were transition in 1940 or CD in 2016.
nope, has nothing to do with 2016. You are alive in 1940 and your feelings are just like now
Madilyn A.
08-04-2016, 04:30 PM
Assuming I were much younger...I would transition.
sometimes_miss
08-04-2016, 05:11 PM
In a recent thread a member stated that anyone could quit.
Absolutely! I've done it many times! :laughing:
And I will again!
That said, erm....no. I don't want to live in 1916. No WW1, depression, and WW2 for me. I really wouldn't want to go through that no matter who or what I was (unless maybe I get to keep all my knowledge of history, then it would be quite interesting!). Not to mention all the diseases that we had no treatment for. Ugh.
Laura912
08-04-2016, 05:27 PM
It is difficult to transfer the things that drive me now to the historical periods you suggest. Assuming that my drive is not different, then the answers are yes to both time periods, and any others you create. But then a lot of angels can dance on the head of a pin.
LelaK
08-04-2016, 06:03 PM
I would want to dress full time in any era, as long as the clothes are feminine enough. I like short frilly dresses, so I would've been making a big fashion statement in 1916 etc. I don't know if I'll ever "reproduce", but I'd prefer not to get surgery in case I got the urge some day to do that, i.e. reproduce.
By the way, if I could dress like that back then, crossdressing would have been accepted and the world would have been and become a very different place, I think.
OCCarly
08-04-2016, 06:19 PM
I am already transitioning, so that part is a no brainer for me. Now as far as the two eras, I am guessing that this assumes I am living where I am now -- inland Southern California. Middle class means I live in a bungalow of some kind in both eras. In 1916 that means phone, electricity and car are maybe there and maybe not. But for a middle class woman in 1916 inland Southern California, other than farm chores, it would have been a pretty idyllic existence. Entertainment would have been library books and conversation. I am kind of torn on that one. Summers can get pretty hot here, and without at least a sleeping porch, the nights would be very uncomfortable, particularly having to wear a long nightgown.
I would do it in 1940, because by then at least you have electric fans or a swamp cooler. (Air conditioning existed but was for the wealthy). And in 1940 there would be at least one car in my family. At that time, when my dad was a small child in Arkansas, his dad had a 1926 Dodge. So at least I could beg a ride to the nearest library and get some reading material. And I could have gone to secretarial school. And rode the Red Cars to the beach and wore a modest two piece swimsuit. (Not a bikini, they had not been invented yet).
Nikki.
08-04-2016, 06:41 PM
Your sample size of respondents is way too low to draw any inferences to the overall cd population. It's an interesting question and I had an idea where you were going with it, but the hypothesis is written a bit kludgey(not that I could write it better), so it may be a bit confusing for some (it was for me the first couple reads).
as for me my GD comes and goes. 3 weeks ago I would have jumped inside the TARDIS for a one way trip to 1916 ladyland. Today, nope.
Rhian
08-04-2016, 06:45 PM
I'd transition as it would be much more preferable to facing a German machine gun. My lesbianism would cause me many problems though.
Meghan4now
08-04-2016, 09:50 PM
I sort of got my answer though. I think CDs are "convenient dressers". Fair weather dressers who want the perks and not the barricades and downside to being a woman. So I say that most GGs are right when they question your motives. Two people above said they would do it (and I gave you great "outs" that should have been incentives...excellent surgical options and society would treat you like any other woman). The rest opted out. So, again I ask, why do you dress? It's not the clothes; women had "sexy (at the time) clothes. It's not an overwhelming desire, otherwise this would have been a resounding "Hell Yeah!" IF I gave you the same options for this era I would expect a large majority would have jumped the train....and far more of you would have even proclaimed the TS
So you were courting controversy? Frankly, the way you asked it was poor. I wouldn't want to go back to 1916 as a man either, so does that then make me a fair weather man, a fraud?
Quite frankly you already had your opinion, and used this "game" to insult those horrible cds who aren't TS or woman enough to be respected. On a site called crossdressers.com, in a section for crossdressers.
Beside, how many feminist would want to back to a time before sufferage. Are they fair weather fakes too?
Lorileah
08-04-2016, 10:04 PM
Hypothesis? It was a question. There was no hypothesis. Or are you referring to the fact that I questioned people's reason to dress?
In today's world, it's easy to flip flop. When things get tough, most CDs disappear and reappear as men. When I see someone say "I dress because it makes me feel like me." I have to wonder, if you had the chance to be you 24/7 and live like a woman in the REAL world (not your fantasy world of being a high fashion lusted after rich devil may care sex object) would you take it? I think that maybe 25% would in today's era if the social stigma was gone. But things aren't unicorns and rainbows. And I don't think it's about the clothes unless we say that it is a new phenomena or a new social construct. Then that would kill the argument that transpeople, specifically, have been around forever. We actually have historical proof that female to male transpeople existed...but there's the rub. You see they moved into a social construct that elevated them. They gained privilege. The few MtF crossdressers we find in history tend to be upper leisure class. I would "hypothesize" that there were MtF transsexuals in history. I can imagine that somewhere MtF TSs were married to men who were asexual or gay and presented in daily life as women (barren women). WE know this happened in certain Native American tribes (and just as a historical note many tribes did NOT accept transpeople). But such accounts, if they did occur, outside Native culture, have been buried or destroyed.
The main purpose I started this exercise was to see if people would THINK about if they dress now more because they have the convenience: clothes are readily available, people have more free time, the media and internet have let you know you aren't alone. But if you didn't have any of those WOULD you still dress and wish to live as a woman?
Thanks for the honest answers so far. Some would some wouldn't. I would have never thought that some would use it to avoid military though. A wrinkle I didn't see.
So not to drag the thread out too far, final tipping point. Now it's 1966- 50 years from the first: 50 years behind now. Same question. Medicine/surgery is comparable to now and NO social stigma. Now do you live 24/7? (let's assume your spouse is OK or you have not married yet...or you won't marry)
For those who haven't answered yet lets number them scenario 1 2 and 3. Choosing to not live in any is alright. Let's see if/when you would find it something you could live through.
Addendum:
So you were courting controversy? Frankly, the way you asked it was poor. I wouldn't want to go back to 1916 as a man either, so does that then make me a fair weather man, a fraud? Of course I had an opinion. I have been on this site for enough years to see the hypocrisy some have. And yes I was wanting controversy. By the way what color are your panties and have you ever gone out? Those type of questions don't make you think. I didn't make anyone choose to be TS. Honestly, TSs would probably transition no matter what the era if there was no social danger and the procedure was safe (thus why you don't see many TS answers here). I allowed crossdressers to stay "male" but you couldn't have the "out" of escaping when things got hot. The original didn't ask you to go back in time but was based on the idea you were in that era anyway. No one said "go back". Now how did I insult "horrible CDs"? No where did I say that being a CD was an incorrect answer or bad answer. I just said you couldn't flip flop. How many times here have you seen a CD say "If I could I would dress 24/7"?
You seem to be the only one insulted. No where in this thread was it said you have to be TS or you aren't real.
Dree Yer Ane Weird
08-04-2016, 10:43 PM
You didn't qualify if the person had to be the age they are now, i assumed i would be younger. given that i would be younger than i am now but older than i actually was at the time. as long as i didn't have to wear miniskirts would probably transition. I should also mention that as an ugly bloke i fully expected to be an ugly woman. I don't crossdress for the reasons you seem to assume and I would be transitioning only cos I never want to be a guy in a dress except in the privacy of my own home. It was only a game and to presume you can reach any kind of meaningful insight from the answers is farcical.
Mirya
08-05-2016, 12:31 AM
This was a confusing game. :) There are so many rules and stipulations that I had to read them over several times to fully understand the nature of the hypothetical situation, hehe.
But yes, as a TS woman I would absolutely transition regardless of the year, whether it's 1916 or 2116 or 1816 or whenever. Provided of course, as was mentioned in the rules, that all the medical procedures for transition that are available today would be safely available in that time period as well. Because it's those procedures, more than the clothes and makeup, that help me be seen and accepted as a woman by society.
I am transitioning because I want to be seen and accepted socially as a woman.
If that means men treat me like crap (and I get that sometimes), so be it. What I really cherish are the friendships I can now have with women, and being able to relate to and interact with other women as a fellow woman myself. Whether that means I'm wearing the clothes of early 20th century women, or the jeans and shorts of modern day women, it doesn't really matter as much to me.
Jeri Ann
08-05-2016, 05:22 AM
Hey Lorileah,
From my earliest recollection I have wanted to be, and felt I should have been, a girl. It was not about the clothes. In fact, I didn't care for the girl clothes then, I thought they were stupid. I would, however, have worn them because they were part of being a girl.
Regardless of the era that I might be in, I would embrace femininity in an attempt to relieve or remove the inner conflict that being TG causes. If any bygone era was more accepting, that would be icing on the cake. The culture that I have lived in all my life has not been TG accepting.
So, in a word, yes. I would always, anytime, anywhere, push the envelope toward womanhood.
Jeri
Keely
08-05-2016, 05:53 AM
I would go for it. Fully female no turning back.:daydreaming:
NicoleScott
08-05-2016, 08:27 AM
No, I like being a guy and crossdressing has always been an occasional part-time pleasure.
I can't imagine getting excited about anything women wore in 1916. Makes me wonder if I would have been a crossdresser in another era absent of the things that excite me now.
Tina_gm
08-05-2016, 10:11 AM
My saying no had nothing to do with era. In fact, to flip the situation a bit, if I HAD to be a woman choosing between 1916 and 1940, I would choose 1916. But, even today, if there was a hypothetical would you, I wouldn't. Today there IS a choice actually, and I am choosing not to live 100% of my time as a woman. If it is a choice because I can make the choice, then so be it.
I recognized immediately what this thread was all about. And no, I was not ever going to even try to play the game. Why do I dress then? Why not just accept that we who are not fully committed to being women, still enjoy being like one for however long, for whatever it does for us.
There are several on this board who now reside in the TS section as to their identity. But, go back years ago when they were new on this board and they were "just a CDer with no plans to transition" What happened? and why now that you (generic) are where you need to be, you (generic) have such a difficult time accepting those who are not ever going to be where you are, or just not ready to be there yet?
I get it that there are those who are hypocritical, who may think or understand wrongly about what being TS really is. But.............. there are those of us who are CDers that are not fake or fraud either. Some may just be somewhere in between a man and a woman. Either because that is just what we are or where we are, either as our actual place in the gender variance spectrum, or simply where we are on our way now to being wherever we end up being.
Teresa
08-05-2016, 02:41 PM
Lorileah,
As for as going for 2 is concerned, it could be a very good time to go 24/7 or transition. Despite the war it was a big evolution for women in the UK, in many respects they became equal to men, they could do most jobs men did and on the whole just as well. With it came the start of sexual equality, men weren't as available so when they got the chance of a little fun and romance they took it. If you chose to dress full time , as long as you weren't trying to dodge fighting in the war, you would certainly be usefully employed no matter how you dressed, the other slight problem was the law on homosexuality and most people thinking you were gay if you dressed as a woman, in actual fact there are records of quite a few MtF CDers during that period who existed fairly comfortably.
An interesting twist on this is the TV documentary on the Spitfire Girls who delivered aircraft to the squadrons, it highlighted attractive young girls fully made up being taken seriously because they made good pilots. Also one told the story of a female pilot in the group who became a FtM TS and went on to fly after the war as a man .
I could happily live 24/7 during that period .
1966, Well it all happened for me around this period anyway , my clothes were very unisex, wide flairs, pink shirts, pink sweaters a tan leather jacket that my GF wore most of the time . I wore her nighties , underwear and skirts. So If I knew then what I know now I may have gone deeper and gone 24/7, ,most parents tried to care and object but most of us weren't listening , it was freedom at last for the young !
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.