The Psychology of Cross-Dressing

[Brandi Christine]

Any thoughts on this article?

It seems to make sense to me as to one of the reasons I do what I do.

brandi


The Psychology of Cross-Dressing

Cross-dressing (and here we refer particularly to men dressing up as women) could hardly have a worse reputation. The concept of a man taking pleasure in putting on a pair of stockings seems laughable, pitiful ? and plain sinister. We assume a marriage would almost certainly break up the day a wife found her husband in her underwear; and that a manager would lose all authority if his colleagues knew about his enthusiasm for mascara and lipstick. Cross-dressing seems like an admission of failure. Instead of living up to an ideal of strength, ruggedness and sheer ?normality?, a man keen to slip on a dress is taken to be a deviant of a particularly alarming sort.

But in truth, cross-dressing is grounded in a highly logical and universal desire: the wish to be, for a time, the gender one admires, is excited by ? and perhaps loves. Dressing like a woman is merely a dramatic, yet essentially reasonable, way of getting closer to the experiences of the sex*one is profoundly curious about ? and yet has been (somewhat arbitrarily) barred from. We know cross-dressing well enough in other areas of life and there think nothing of it. A five-year-old boy living in a suburb of Copenhagen who develops an interest in the lifestyle and attitudes of the cow herders of the Arizona plains would be heartily encouraged to dress up in a hat, jeans and waistcoat and aim his pistol at an imaginary Indian chief ? so as to assuage his desire to get a little closer to the subject of his fascination.

We should accept that the adult cross-dresser is no different. He too wants to inhabit the experiences of a group of people he is keen on. He seeks to know what it would be like to cross his legs in a tight cocktail dress, to walk across a marble floor in a pair of heels, to feel a grey cotton bra strap encasing his back, to put a little silver bracelet around his wrist, to feel the breeze on his bare waxed arms and to stroke his smooth long legs in the bath. He might extend to imagining what it would be like to kiss a man as a woman, to feel bristles that are normally his on lips as soft as those of the lovers he has known. Admiring himself in the mirror in a pair of black tights, the cross dresser samples the intense, fascinating satisfaction of being simultaneously himself and the object of his desire.

Edit10/11/20 I did not realize I missed the paragraph below when originally copying & pasting the article, I have added it back in

Though it may sound peculiar, in all this, the transvestite is only guided by the sort of questions that we otherwise admire greatly in the writing ? and reading ? of fiction. What makes Anna Karenina moving is the intensity with which Tolstoy was able to imagine the experiences of a glamorous married woman in love with a handsome army officer. To write Mansfield Park, Jane Austen had to learn how to dress up not only in the grey simple frocks of an impoverished sixteen-year-old schoolgirl (her heroine Fanny Price) but also the braided jackets of a middle-aged swaggering member of the aristocracy (Sir Thomas Bertram) and the black waistcoat of a sensitive would-be clergyman (Edmund Bertram). The balding, heavily mustachioed Flaubert famously explained to his girlfriend Louise Colet that his heroine Emma Bovary had become for him more than a woman he was describing as a dispassionate observer of a fictional landscape: his identification with her was so total, he felt he had quite literally become her. It was understandable, therefore, that he should have added to Louise that he had just masturbated at the idea of being Emma, lying back with her arms above her head, on a bed in a little hotel in Rouen, being powerfully penetrated by the local landowner Rodolphe.

/edit

Transvestism is a way of tapping into our birthright of universal citizenship: it?s the most dramatic protest against being imaginatively bounded by the particular gender-province we happen to have been born into. Crossdressing enacts the great philosophical principle expressed by the Roman playwright, Terence: Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto: I am human, nothing human (including mini skirts or a hair band) is alien to me.

It may of course be a bit disturbing to sense that one is really not so firmly anchored to the gender one was born into. It may be bewildering to have to accept that one is at heart, in the semi-conscious mind, always going to be something far more diverse, multi-faceted but also perhaps interesting than a mere ?man? or a ?woman?.

We shouldn?t be scared. Across a range of important fields of life, we can accept that our original identity and status shouldn?t be regarded as decisive; and know the value of extending our sympathies through art, travel and the work of the imagination. The transvestite is doing nothing more than practicing some basic empathetic moves with which we are already very comfortable in many areas. Although we haven?t fully recognised it yet, cross-dressing is a very normal thing to do.

[SheriM]

Wow Brandi - good read.

[MonicaPVD]

I think the article is entertaining and can be helpful in enlightening non-crossdressers. However, it offers just one of the myriad of theories that attempt to explain what we do. Of course, there are as many "whys" as there are crossdressers. Most people like simple, straightforward explanations to things they don't really understand. To that end, the article is a success.

[Aunt Kelly]

While, sadly, I can offer little in the way of definitive explanation of why cross-dressers do what they do, I have to take issue with the article's explanation that they "...wish to be, for a time, the gender one admires, is excited by..." While that certainly covers some CD's, it is woefully inadequate as an explanation of what drives all of them. This fact can be made plain by a simple perusal of the list of thread titles on this part of the forum.

The fact is that the CD community has not been seriously studied by those best equipped to do so. There is a still nascent study going on at Rice University, and if it ever gains traction, I'm sure that they will find the etiology to be somewhat more complex than a temporary desire to "be a woman". I know... That sounds snarky as hell. I don't mean for it to be, but that's the plain truth.

[Di]

. Of course, there are as many "whys" as there are crossdressers. Most people like simple, straightforward explanations to things they don't really understand. To that end, the article is a success.

I agree it might try to explain to someone that like simple explanations for things they do not understand.
But especially agree there are many whys and do
not like the generalizing, cookie cutter explanation as we know it is not a one size fits all.
It is Offensive also how wives are generalized especially dislike the following

We assume a marriage would almost certainly break up the day a wife found her husband in her underwear; and that a manager would lose all authority if his colleagues knew about his enthusiasm for mascara and lipstick. Cross-dressing seems like an admission of failure. Instead of living up to an ideal of strength, ruggedness and sheer normality a man keen to slip on a dress is taken to be a deviant of a particularly alarming sort.

So basically I do not think much of the article. The subject is not cut and dried.
If it speaks to you that is great.
This is a personal journey.

[NancySue]

First, I?d like to know if the author of this article is a CDer. Why? I believe it takes one, to know one. Each of us has a similar trait...to wear women?s clothes. However, there are several different psychological motivations. Which category? Straight, Bi,
Gay, TG, Or TS. Each has its own arena for which only others in each category can understand or relate to. Regardless of orientation, the thing we share is this inexplicable, psychological need, desire and compulsion to wear women?s clothes, commonly called the Pink Fog. How many of us have tried to stop? It may be days, weeks, months or years, but we mostly all come back having experienced anxiety, frustration, depression, etc. I?ve fought it, but have lost every time. Dressing affords me so much comfort, pleasure and anticipation. I knew long ago, I could never give it up, yet I have no desire to become a woman...others do...which is my point. To some degree, we?re all similar yet different. Oh yeah, I didn?t like the article. Surprise?

[Robertacd]

Once I accepted myself, the need to know "why" went away.

[Heather2die4]

Right Monica. Many reasons. For me, it's all about play and getting outside my 'normal' experience. In my teens and 20s, there was a sexual element as well but still playful. Now, having the best of both worlds is just a fun way to live. Moving through the world as a woman gives me a very different experience. New, exciting, and a bit naughty. Okay, more than a bit. Then there's the whole breaking the rules thing. I also feel it gives voice to something deep inside me that can't be expressed in male mode. As Cindy Lauper said, "Girls just wanna have fun."

[Ginni]

I don't believe the author understands crossdressing. Gives a simple explanation for a very complex condition. I 've been crossdressing since childhood, I have different beliefs and unsure if any are true. I know it is an obsession and compulsion that I can not control. When dressed after the initial excitement and exhilaration a relaxation takes over and I feel like , it is hard to define. Like I am normal. It feels good. That is why I crossdress, it feels good..

[Taylor186]

A narrow and misleading take. The author at one point equates crossdressing to a, "A five-year-old boy living in a suburb of Copenhagen who develops an interest in the lifestyle and attitudes of the cow herders of the Arizona plains would be heartily encouraged to dress up in a hat, jeans and waistcoat and aim his pistol at an imaginary Indian chief." Clearly the author does not understand the broad spectrum of reasons crossdresser's crossdress.

[Visitor]

Seeing the title of the thread I was excited to see what was on offer... then as I read the article I found myself apprehensive about how this audience would take the premise. I'm heartened that others are as skeptical as I am that this offers anything other than a fig leaf over a much more complex subject... one which I've been trying to explore a bit during my time here.

On my way to this website I've visited a few websites where men are sharing their excitement about wearing brassieres, and another where men are talking about the herbal supplements they are taking to increase the size of their breasts. As NancySue notes there is great variety in the motivation of folks who crossdress. The needs we satisfy with whatever form of crossdressing we pursue areceptance are also very personal. I'm trained in psychology so for me it holds great interest. I appreciate that simply arriving at acceptance after a lifetime that has included confusion and shame mixed with fear, is a significant achievement. That is what this website seems to be about... which makes it a wonderful place for someone drawn to wearing women's clothes.

I appreciate comments on this thread. I think we all know this is a complex matter with which we'll each come to terms as our journeys unfold.

[Teresa]

Brandi,
The piece appears to be written by someone who dresses for the sheer enjoyment of the first time , I sense they are still on a high and feel that is the end of the story . I don't deny I felt those feelings but wen the high has passed over the need is still there , so what drives that ? How we look is very important but I also accept it's not all about the clothes but the piece partly suggests the attraction is and remains a sexual one and in that context we should feel guilty and ashamed and don't deserve recognition .

OK it does go on to suggest crossdressing is a need we have from berth but makes very little mention of gender and associated dysphoria , I feel articles like this should make a clearer distinction between a tranvestite person and a transgender person .

I do feel the one point often missed are the feelings we have at times about nice clothes and perhaps even sexy ones is no different from how women feel on occasions , to look attractive and even sexy is a natural human feeling not necessarily to do with gender .

[DianeT]

Taylor if you Google the title it will pop immediately.
In my opinion that paper was written by a crossdresser and is more a sharing of experience than anything else (not a scientific study at any rate). There are some silly statements but the motivations it gives for crossdressing happen to be very close to my own (looking and dressing like a gender I love and admire) so I shared it with my wife a while back. But otherwise it is a broad generalization from a particular experience, so, it speaks to Brandi and me, maybe to a few here as well, but probably not to the crossdressing audience at large.

[MsEva]

Excellent perception of our lifestyle. Thank you for sharing.

[Sissy_Michelle]

Thank-you Brandi,

I agree with and understand a lot of what you’ve written. I hope to read more of what you’re discussing here.

@—}——-
Michelle

[Paulie Birmingham]

As a miad, i dont agree with it either.

[tooshytogoout]

...

But in truth, cross-dressing is grounded in a highly logical and universal desire: the wish to be, for a time, the gender one admires, is excited by ? and perhaps loves. Dressing like a woman is merely a dramatic, yet essentially reasonable, way of getting closer to the experiences of the sex*one is profoundly curious about ? ...

This reads, and the quoted section in particular, like a justification by a crossdresser who wants "it" to be socially acceptable. Aside from a genetic component that I believe drives crossdressing, just like it does blue eyes or homosexuality or transness, of all those, crossdressing makes the LEAST sense. Crossdressing is internal and not driven by outside desire. I think all of that is a cop out. We are what we are. Period.

[DianeT]

Disagree. This was the main driver when I started it as a child and was intensely curious of everything feminine. Maybe it doesn't apply to you, but don't discard it for others to whom it may. I too am who I am.

-- EDIT --
As for the genetics theory, it is just that, a theory. I don't buy it, as it gives much too little credit to the plasticity and versatility of the human mind, which has been repeatedly demonstrated, and is in my opinion sufficient to explain our complexity as living beings. Genetics may have a play in it, but until that is actually proven, I will stick to Occam's razor, and to Laplace's famous word: "I had no need for this hypothesis".

[SaraLin]

Ummm.
I think that the article is trying to describe (again, I use analogies) one section of one stripe on the rainbow that is human expression.

It may be possible to explain "yellow", but it says little to nothing about red, orange, etc.
Too tight a focus on one "color" makes one miss the beauty of the spectrum.

[Brandi Christine]

For me I have always been curious to know what it feels like to be a woman, I just assumed all guys feel that to a degree, I just feel it more, and I have always admired women, perhaps to the point of emulating them.

The article has helped me to maybe understand one part of why I do what I do, is it the only reason, I don't think so... Our minds are complex and for the most part unknown, as are some of our reasons for crossdressing. This is just one more theory to help unravel why I feel what I feel.

On the other hand part of me just wants to accept it and be happy...

[Teresa]

Brandi ,
I'm sure may of us say we admire women and possibly emulate them but we must take a step back from that and consider what actually a CDer does want from appearing as a woman . Pehaps the child's rhyme " Sugar and spice and all things nice , are what little girls are made of " , so consider if it's in the mind or reality , are you stuck with the stereotype of a woman ?

I've had heated comments telling me I can't possibly know what it's like to be a woman , I finally see the sense in that , so I now accept I appear like a woman 24/7 but I can only say what it feels like as ME ! At some point you also have to consider when the CDing label is no longer applicable and be prepared to drop it , I feel Eddie Izzard got in right by saying , " There're not women's clothes but mine !" I really do feel very uncomfortable and awkward in male clothes , to a point I now consider that CDing .

[Cheryl T]

Psychology of Crossdressing.

For decades I tried to analyze this. I have a close friend who is a Psychologist and we have spent many hours on the subject and have yet to come to a definite conclusion.
I was once asked by the girlfriend of another CD "why do you do it?". My answer was that if I had the TRUE answer to that question that was applicable to all of us I'd make millions with my books. Sorry, but I just don't believe there is ONE answer and honestly I don't feel it has anything to do with psychology. I am a firm believer that this is all genetic.
We, as humans, are a spectrum, not a type. Just as genetics determines our height and hair color, physique and eye color I believe it also directs us towards being CD, TG and all the variants in between. As an example I must say that in my own family there were 3 brothers, all who had sons. Of the 4 sons 3 are gay and I am (at a minimum) CD. We all had different experiences being different ages and yet here we are. I can't explain it any other way. That's just how I feel.

[Stephanie47]

I found this article on the internet at "The School of Life." There is no author attributed to the article. Hence, credentials.

As someone else posted it sounds as if the author is equating cross dressing to going to a "dude ranch" on vacation for the experience of roping steers. Cross dressing is more than "playing dress up" as a little kid. Or on Halloween. I am not under the illusion that I am a woman when I am attired as a woman. I really do not dwell on how I feel as a man either.

I found the article rather shallow.

[Lacey New]

I think the article makes a certain degree of sense to perhaps a certain variant of crossdressers such as myself. I was fascinated with what might be under those pretty panties, bras and slips when I was a young teenager and I so much wanted to explore - for sexual reasons obviously - the female anatomy even though at some level I knew that any real opportunity was several years away. Putting on a pair of my mother?s or sisters panties was in some ways a surrogate for actually being with a female. So, on that point, I share some personal agreement with the author of the article. However, what the author perhaps ignores was the addictive quality of wearing women?s clothing. A pair of panties excited me and resulted in the good feeling of sexual release. But then I found out that I wanted more, like the heroine addict. I wanted to wear a bra with panties, then a slip, then stockings, etc, etc. Then, like many of us, the sexual rush is not what it used to be but instead, it is simply the comfort of wearing women?s clothing. So,while I agree that in its early stages, cross dressing might start as a substitution for sex with a woman, through a somewhat addictive process as well as aging, it morphs into simply a comfortable behavior that becomes a lifestyle.

[CynthiaD]

To the OP: I’m sure your analysis is right on target for some people, but as others have noted there are many reasons for crossdressing, and the why isn’t really important. As for myself, I started crossdressing long before puberty. It wasn’t until I was 10 or 11 that I began to realize that most boys didn’t want to look like girls. They didn’t want to sneak into their mother's closet and try on her clothes. Until that time, I thought it was something everybody did. It wasn’t until I got into high school that I came to accept it. I never understood it, but I did learn to accept it.

It's true that I admired the women in my life, much more than the men. To me, the women were "the real people." The men were just there. It took me a long time to realize I Was one of them. The women, that is.

[_Abby_]

Thanks for posting Brandi.

It's not very relatable (for me), but it's always good to get someone else's point of view.

For an already small subset of society, we're a remarkably diverse bunch.

Like, NancySue says, there's more than just straight chaps trying to get an insight into the female condition.

[Marianne S]

I enjoyed the article, Brandi, though I have the same criticisms as many of our members here.

Unfortunate as it is, the writer's first paragraph is only too true about why ordinary people at large have so often looked down on male crossdressers or seen them as absurd; even possibly "sinister" as he says. Anything sufficiently "out of the ordinary" can be perceived as a threat.

Of course, people do see certain kinds of clothing as "appropriate" or "inappropriate" to a particular place or occasion, quite apart from matters of sex and gender. The little Danish boy would be entirely normal in his cowboy outfit, because it's only play-acting, a child's natural exploration of different roles. As an adult he might still enjoy acting the same role for his local town drama society in Hvidovre or wherever. But I doubt he'd feel a compulsion to dress like that around the house in the same way that crossdressers do, or to go out in public in that guise. If he walked into his office job with Ericsson, say, as casual dress no doubt he could get away with the hat, waistcoat and jeans--even the Western shirt, bolo tie and boots, which the author failed to mention. (I see you live in Arizona too.) But what Marty Robbins called the "big iron on his hip" might well send the Danes diving under their desks at this costume accessory so "inappropriate" to their environment! To drive home this point more forcibly, while cowboy fashions might pass muster in Denmark, what if his obsession were with astronauts instead? What if he habitually went out in public dressed in a spacesuit? It might not be "threatening," but it certainly is weird. We know exactly what he'd be labeled: a "space cadet"!

So what people see as "weird" or "absurd" is not necessarily all about "gender." Still, the author seemed to perceive from the viewpoint of many ordinary people why crossdressers seem "strange," and initially I thought he might be a non-crossdresser himself. That's because the article is not an informed explanation of why some males crossdress while most others don't. So at first blush it seemed more like an attempt by a non-crossdresser to comprehend, in "universal human terms" (the wish to "play a part," the little boy's cowboy outfit and so on), why males who are actually different from himself might wish to explore the experience of being a woman.

In this vein I must say I've always liked that quote from Terence. I was even moved to ask myself how to translate into Latin the phrase the writer interpolated, "including mini skirts or a hairband." Since my Latin is nothing to write home about, I gave it a shot with Google Translate, which came up with "inter mini lacinias aut fascia"--showing that Google isn't so hot at Latin either!

I was also interested to learn, from the paragraph you didn't reproduce here, about Jane Austen for instance:


To write Mansfield Park, Jane Austen had to learn how to dress up not only in the grey simple frocks of an impoverished sixteen-year-old schoolgirl (her heroine Fanny Price) but also the braided jackets of a middle-aged swaggering member of the aristocracy (Sir Thomas Bertram) and the black waistcoat of a sensitive would-be clergyman (Edmund Bertram).

I'm guessing you omitted this paragraph because it contains some rather raunchy stuff about Gustave Flaubert later on!

However, I swiftly concluded that my initial guess was wrong; that the writer was indeed a crossdresser himself (or "herself"). Never mind fussing about pronouns; his writing was interesting to analyze. In his final paragraph he wrote that "we shouldn't be scared"--but who is this "we" he's talking about? It's very ambiguous. In that paragraph he could be writing from the viewpoint of ordinary people, saying they have no need to fear crossdressers as some kind of "threat" to normal society. That's an entirely valid and praiseworthy plea for understanding and tolerance. But that's not necessarily who he meant by "we." And in his penultimate paragraph he was surely writing from the viewpoint of a crossdresser instead: "It may of course be a bit disturbing to sense that one is really not so firmly anchored to the gender one was born into."

His identification with the pleasures of crossdressing seemed too intimate for him to be otherwise. I particularly noted his appreciation of the tactile delights of dressing in female clothing: the feeling of bra straps, walking in heels and so forth. He seemed far too well acquainted with these to be a non-crossdresser. He verged on matters of sexuality too when he wrote of what it might feel like to kiss an unshaven man.

It's even possible to discern one of his motives for crossdressing: "the cross dresser samples the intense, fascinating satisfaction of being simultaneously himself and the object of his desire." This fits all too well with the phenomenon postulated as "autogynephilia," and sounds like something he personally experiences. I do acknowledge that this is not every crossdresser's experience, and furthermore, that for many, crossdressing is impelled by a mixture of motives. But this one is clearly significant to the writer himself.

So I was initially looking at this article backwards! As if the author were saying, on behalf of ordinary people at large: "Aren't crossdressers really just like the rest of us? Why can't we see that?" When in fact what he was trying to say, from the viewpoint of a crossdresser, was the converse: "Aren't you ordinary people really just like us? Why can't you see that?"

But the fact is, we are not "just like" one another. Not at all! Even we crossdressers ourselves can be very different from one another.

So how well does the article fulfill the promise of its title? In trying to describe the subjective experience of a crossdresser, it does well enough. From the viewpoint of a certain type of crossdresser, that is. It still falls short with respect to males who crossdress for other reasons, and that's one criticism I agree with.

Apart from that, it is not an explanation of crossdressing in terms that most ordinary people--males in particular--will necessarily identify with. It's all very well to talk about the wish to play a role--to be a cowboy hero, or an astronaut as I said, or a swashbuckling pirate: all "popular" fantasies. But how many "ordinary" males have a burning wish to feel bra straps around their shoulders, or a skirt swishing around their nylon-clad legs--let alone kiss another man with bristles on his chin? They won't "get it."

How do we explain how and why we're different? When I speak of "explanations," I don't necessarily mean ultimate explanations, like the genetic factors that make us all different--or for gender-linked traits, most likely the hormonal anomalies affecting brain development in utero that lead us to be "born different" after gestation. (And "different" in different ways too, regardless of genetics.) But at least the differences of mind seem to me to need further emphasis in an article on "psychology."

Speaking of "mind," Brandi, a trivial point, but one that left me curious: is there any significance to the asterisk following the word "sex" in your post that was not in the original? I didn't see anything remarkable about it in the original article. Admittedly it's often arbitrary or unclear whether we're referring to someone's "sex" or their "gender." And some people have an unthinking tendency to replace the word "sex" with "gender" across the board, regardless of meaning. There is of course a distinction: that someone's "sex" is genetic and anatomical, while their "gender" is psychological. "Sex" is in the body; "gender" is in the mind. Nevertheless the author, in referring to "the sex one has been profoundly curious about," was no doubt writing about women seen as physical creatures--how could he know what's in women's minds, after all?--so the term "sex" seemed appropriate.

But in terms of "mind," it's the differences in thinking and in motivations that need highlighting in order to help anyone "different" to comprehend why others act the way they do. It reminds me a little--a dreadful example, I know--of how people scratch their heads over a terrible crime and ask "how could anyone do such a thing"? They're trying
to "understand" it in terms of how most of us think and feel--a futile exercise--not of the differences in the mind of the perpetrator, which need explaining.

The irony of this article is that while many ordinary people don't comprehend why others want to crossdress, the author doesn't seem to comprehend why so many don't want to!

That's where he goes wrong. He claims "We should accept that the adult cross-dresser is no different" in motivation from "ordinary" people. That's simply not true. The reason why Jane Austen, say, donned the attire of the opposite sex was quite different from what motivates most crossdressers. The writer seems to be begging people to ask themselves "Aren't you all just like me? Don't you think and feel just as I do in this universal human wish to play a role? Doesn't that explain why people crossdress?"

Unfortunately most people's answers to these questions will be "No." It needs a far more candid exposition of how some, unlike most, feel a special need to identify with the opposite sex, to experience in imagination or otherwise how it might feel to be that sex, or to be "bi-curious" (as the writer at least seems to be), or to have a stronger than usual tendency toward fetishism, to have an exceptional aesthetic attraction toward feminine clothing (no matter how abstract)--even a wish to defy societal norms--or any such traits that can motivate a compulsion to crossdress.

Without that, the author's article comes across more as an "excuse" for crossdressing, an excuse he's pleading with people to accept, but which proves in the end to be inadequate. Still, it's an interesting article anyway, so thank you, Brandi.

[GretchenM]

Wonderful analysis Marianne. I think you have really covered it - both the good and the not so good. I agree that the author of the article tends to have a bit of a narrow view of the nature of the behavior and, for me, it is a bit too based on a binary concept of gender. If, in fact, everybody is different when it comes to gender then generalizations about gender may not really be very workable except at the superficial level.

And thanks Brandi for introducing the article for others to see and consider.

[Rachelakld]

I really admire Superman and Thor - still don't have their outfits.

[Jenny22]

Brandi, an interesting post in many ways. Has your wife become more accepting of your CDing?? If not, talk with her about the many points you put forth and THE VERY SOUND REMARKS OF OTHERS. You may win her over yet!

[Brandi Christine]

I was also interested to learn, from the paragraph you didn't reproduce here, about Jane Austen for instance:


To write Mansfield Park, Jane Austen had to learn how to dress up not only in the grey simple frocks of an impoverished sixteen-year-old schoolgirl (her heroine Fanny Price) but also the braided jackets of a middle-aged swaggering member of the aristocracy (Sir Thomas Bertram) and the black waistcoat of a sensitive would-be clergyman (Edmund Bertram).

I'm guessing you omitted this paragraph because it contains some rather raunchy stuff about Gustave Flaubert later on!



It appears I had inadvertently left out that paragraph when re-posting the article, I was in a bit of a hurry that morning but have edited the original post and added it back in... And I have no idea how the aforementioned asterisk at "sex" occurred, so no significance here :). Other then that I appreciate your take, there is a lot of thought put into it.

As for the authors viewpoint, I don't know if he (she?) is a crossdresser, but I think for a lot of non-crossdressers out there (meaning everyone else in the world) they most likely simplify the reasons we do what we do to make it easier for them to understand (and hopefully accept?). Truth be told, after two years of therapy (and 30 of me trying to figure it out by myself) I don't know why I started crossdressing. All I really know is there has to be more then one reason/cause, I think part of it is genetic (note my wife strongly disagrees with that) and the rest is most likely a combination of things, things that happened to me, things I feel, things I thought... As to why I currently crossdress it's easy, mostly because I enjoy it, it is part of what makes me me, and I really like being me, all of me...

As to why it makes me me, well, if you figure that one out call me. :battingeyelashes:

- - - Updated - - -


Brandi, an interesting post in many ways. Has your wife become more accepting of your CDing?? If not, talk with her about the many points you put forth and THE VERY SOUND REMARKS OF OTHERS. You may win her over yet!

She is becoming maybe slightly more accepting, but we are having terrible ups and downs, she needs time, but yes hopefully I will win her over in the end.

[Liz Jones]

While trying to find out what self ecceptance was/is &how to achive it i came across the following on a psycholagy site,--
Male--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------femaie
it was stated that EVERY body in the world Had a place on the line be it near one end or other .
Liz