Wife Rights

[switcheralso]

I was wondering what are normal rights for C/D and their partners. I would like to hear from people on this subject..

PS: I think this attitude has allowed me to explore my female side with the support of my wife.

ME:
I have the right to expect my wife to accept that my crossgendered side is an integral part of me that cannot be "cured" or "wished away."

MY WIFE:
Has the right to know about my cross-dressing, preferably it should have been before marriage, but certainly now that cross-dressing is a significant factor in my life.

ME:
I have the right to honest and open communication with my wife, with negotiation and compromise on both sides, particularly in regard to acceptable outlets for crossgender expression.

MY WIFE:
Has a right to a husband as a man, the man she married, a man who maintain a positive, healthy masculinity while "exploring their femininity" and seek neither to evade responsibilities nor to appropriate my wifes feminine roles.

Adapted from C/D bill of rights

[Tree GG]

For those that remember.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvH7ySQi37E

:D

[KandisTX]

I was wondering what are normal rights for C/D and their partners. I would like to hear from people on this subject..

PS: I think this attitude has allowed me to explore my female side with the support of my wife.

ME:
I have the right to expect my wife to accept that my crossgendered side is an integral part of me that cannot be "cured" or "wished away."

MY WIFE:
Has the right to know about my cross-dressing, preferably it should have been before marriage, but certainly now that cross-dressing is a significant factor in my life.

ME:
I have the right to honest and open communication with my wife, with negotiation and compromise on both sides, particularly in regard to acceptable outlets for crossgender expression.

MY WIFE:
Has a right to a husband as a man, the man she married, a man who maintain a positive, healthy masculinity while "exploring their femininity" and seek neither to evade responsibilities nor to appropriate my wifes feminine roles.

Adapted from C/D bill of rights

While I agree with some of what you said, I must disagree with the "Right to expect my wife to accept my crossdressing".

Do we really have the right to EXPECT acceptance? I don't personally think so. While acceptance from our wives is a blessing for those of us that have it, it is never a guarantee that it will last. I know this from my own experiences. Three ex-wives all who claimed they accepted and understood my dressing and yet when it came down to leaving/breaking up, their excuse "I can't handle your crossdressing". (While it was never the main reason used, it was always in the top three).

You are correct that a wife should know before marriage, however for many of us living in secret is all we know and the thought of coming out to someone terrifies the bejeezus out of us.

Communication is key to the survival of ANY relationship, without it you are doomed to fail. ;)

Kandis:love:

[Karren H]

Just read the marriage vows... Love Honor and Cherish.. No one said anything about "Rights" in a Union of Equals.. More along the lines of expectations IMHO... Guidelines??

Ok there is one right I just thought of... I have the right to do what ever she tells me to do!! Lol

Rights..... Jeeeezzzz

I thought the C/D Bill of rights was - You have the right to ramain silent (because your fem voice sucks), you have the right to wear a pretty dress... If you do not have a pretty dress one will be appointed to you.....

No wait... The Moranda CD Rights....

Karren

Karren

[Carin's Wife GG]

we each have the expectation to be loved completely by the other. We each have the expectation that the other person will listen to us with care and respect. We each have the expectation that negotiation can be a piece of our relationship. We each have the expectation of ongoing communication even when that communication needs extra help from a trained professional. We each have the expectation than no serious desicions will be made by either one of us that may impact the emothoinal or physical health of any member of of our family.

Thats about it!



Louise.

[Marla S]

Rights have a tiny problem.

Sometimes they don't help you, because others have rights too and those rights can collide.

Given you have the right to expect your wife to accept that your crossgendered side is an integral part of you that cannot be "cured" or "wished away."

Your SO has the right not to like it, not support it, not wanting to see it ... and she has the right to leave you.

So what's your right worth ?

[Kerry Owens]

What it's worth is the love you share, and the teamwork that makes working together as a team that changes everyone's life for the better.
I don't insist on rights per se....but, I do respect Lawren's needs, and he respects my needs. He puts up with a lot of nuttiness of mine, and understands that I can't walk past a book sale if my life ddepended on it...umm....sure seems to me that I at the very least can return that same acceptance!

[hunny67]

I agree we are allowed to some rights but i agree with karren Hutten, Where & when does HAVE THE RIGHT come into marriage??????

[Hippy Chic's Chick]

While I agree with some of what you said, I must disagree with the "Right to expect my wife to accept my crossdressing".

Do we really have the right to EXPECT acceptance?

Yes, you do. It's a basic human right to be accepted for the person you are. No other cross-section of society is expected to change their ways, attitudes and desires in order to conform.

Does an SO have the 'right' to expect you to be someone you're not?

An SO may not like CDing, I guess, but she doesn't have to be a part of it to accept it. You can't pick and choose the parts of a person you like and fully expect them to completely deny the parts of them you don't like.




But to answer the OP - rights.

We both have the right to do as we please as long as we're not hurting the other, I suppose. And that really has nothing to do with CDing, but is pretty much what a relationship should be about. :)

[SusanMarie]

I agree that 'rights' is probably not the best word in a relationship.
However, there is a document in www.tri-ess.net/wives that lays out a reasonable set of 'understandings' that can help a couple.

[sissystephanie]

I was wondering what are normal rights for C/D and their partners. I would like to hear from people on this subject..

PS: I think this attitude has allowed me to explore my female side with the support of my wife.

ME:
I have the right to expect my wife to accept that my crossgendered side is an integral part of me that cannot be "cured" or "wished away."

MY WIFE:
Has the right to know about my cross-dressing, preferably it should have been before marriage, but certainly now that cross-dressing is a significant factor in my life.

ME:
I have the right to honest and open communication with my wife, with negotiation and compromise on both sides, particularly in regard to acceptable outlets for crossgender expression.

MY WIFE:
Has a right to a husband as a man, the man she married, a man who maintain a positive, healthy masculinity while "exploring their femininity" and seek neither to evade responsibilities nor to appropriate my wifes feminine roles.

Adapted from C/D bill of rights

Stand tall and stretch your arm out straight with your hand level with the floor. The end of your fingers is the marker for the end of "your" rights. Beyond that point is someone else's territory!

You have no right to expect your wife to accept your crossdressing on your terms since you did not tell her before you were married! I did, my fiance accepted it and we had a very happy 49 1/2 years together. She actively participated in my CD activities.

If your wife now does accept your crossdressing, although maybe not the way you would like her to, then there should be some negotiation and compromise. But only if she is willing, remember you put her in that position by not being honest at the very beginning!

Likewise, your wife does have every right to expect you to be a man for her. She married you as a man, not a woman or a *******!

Work with her, and you may be surprised!

Sissy

More Girl than man sometimes

[SherriePall]

SusanMarie -- That link didn't work, but I followed it to the Tri-Ess homepage where I found what you were posting about under: "Of Interest to Wives.'
There it gives the Fairfaxes "Bill of Rights" for CD's and their SO's.
They are as close to being absolutely fair for both as can be.

[Patty]

I agree with Karen!! :2c:

[Satrana]

ME:
I have the right to honest and open communication with my wife, with negotiation and compromise on both sides...
Errr....I have a right to communication? You mean I am allowed to speak, Gosh! Thanks! And since i have been granted the right to speak, I also have the right to negotiate. This is marvelous. I never knew I had so many rights.:happy:



MY WIFE:
Has a right to a husband as a man, the man she married, a man who maintain a positive, healthy masculinity....

Why does my wife have a right to "positive healthy masculinity" Many non-cd men are not masculine. Are they also placed under this requirement? And if my masculine side is just a facade, a pretense, does that mean my wife has a right to make me pretend to be something I am not? That means I don't have the right to be the real me:sad:

How come this right in not replicated with my wife - do I not have a right to "positive healthy femininity" from her as well. Can I now expect her to be girly most of the time?:tongueout

[Hippy Chic's Chick]

Errr....I have a right to communication? You mean I am allowed to speak, Gosh! Thanks! And since i have been granted the right to speak, I also have the right to negotiate. This is marvelous. I never knew I had so many rights.:happy:


Why does my wife have a right to "positive healthy masculinity" Many non-cd men are not masculine. Are they also placed under this requirement? And if my masculine side is just a facade, a pretense, does that mean my wife has a right to make me pretend to be something I am not? That means I don't have the right to be the real me:sad:

How come this right in not replicated with my wife - do I not have a right to "positive healthy femininity" from her as well. Can I now expect her to be girly most of the time?:tongueout

I don't get this either. I have a right to positive healthy masculinity - as to opposed to what? A negative, ill, masculinity?? Maybe it's just me, but I think it takes a real man to be comfortable with his gender/sexuality/self.

If this were reversed so that the man had a right to girly, sexually attractive women, I'd never be out of a basque and stockings!!!! ;)

I dunno, the only rights any of us have are to live our lives as we choose to. If I suddenly decide I hate HC's CDing, I can choose to not have that in my life and walk out. To try and change him would be totally wrong.

[KandisTX]

Yes, you do. It's a basic human right to be accepted for the person you are. No other cross-section of society is expected to change their ways, attitudes and desires in order to conform.

Does an SO have the 'right' to expect you to be someone you're not?

An SO may not like CDing, I guess, but she doesn't have to be a part of it to accept it. You can't pick and choose the parts of a person you like and fully expect them to completely deny the parts of them you don't like.



What I meant about the "you don't have the right to EXPECT anything" is this:

When you use a word lik EXPECT, it often carries the connotations that it MUST BE that way. While we can all have expectations (or hopes) that we will be accepted by our SO's, the odds are stacked against many of us CDs when it comes to acceptance. I can verify that 75% do NOT usually accept it forever, even if they say they do. This is based on three of my four marriages and my ex-wives responses and changes in their "acceptance".

This would be like me saying "I expect my wife to have dinner on the table waiting for me every night when I come home from work". Sure it would be nice, but stuff happens and that is not always going to be the way of things. Expectations are Hopes, how we desire things to be, though they are not always that way, it is nice to hope and dream.

Now, I'm not saying that everything listed in the OP was wrong or incorrect. Just because I don't agree with it does not invalidate the thought process. I simply stated my opinion on the matter.

Kandis:love:

[Hippy Chic's Chick]

What I meant about the "you don't have the right to EXPECT anything" is this:

When you use a word lik EXPECT, it often carries the connotations that it MUST BE that way. While we can all have expectations (or hopes) that we will be accepted by our SO's, the odds are stacked against many of us CDs when it comes to acceptance. I can verify that 75% do NOT usually accept it forever, even if they say they do. This is based on three of my four marriages and my ex-wives responses and changes in their "acceptance".

This would be like me saying "I expect my wife to have dinner on the table waiting for me every night when I come home from work". Sure it would be nice, but stuff happens and that is not always going to be the way of things. Expectations are Hopes, how we desire things to be, though they are not always that way, it is nice to hope and dream.

Now, I'm not saying that everything listed in the OP was wrong or incorrect. Just because I don't agree with it does not invalidate the thought process. I simply stated my opinion on the matter.

Kandis:love:

Hi :)

I sort of appreciate where you are coming from - and this is hard for me to understand. For instance, I cannot understand women who simply cannot accept it or try to 'change' their SO (not allowing them to dress). Though, trying to understand the issues behind this is my reason for being here, previously I was shrugging it off and really not understanding what on earth my SO was worrying about.

I suppose where I'm coming from is that you have a right to be accepted within a marriage/relationship for who you are. Those who are being denied the right to dress are being denied something very important to them - an expression of the self. I've said before now to my SO that as a woman, if I called my family and said he won't let me wear short skirts or tops showing my cleavage, the advice would be "Leave him now!", because it's a form of control and all GGs will tell you that no man has the right to tell her how to dress. (The same would apply if my SO insisted I wear certain types of underwear that made him more sexually attracted to me.)

In reality, the buck stops with the CDer. You DO have that right, if your SO can't accept it, you have the choice to live unfulfilled or find someone who will accept it.

I honestly can't believe that the amount of women who have a real problem with it is as high as 75%. HC is the first partner I've had who likes to make a 'deal' of dressing and actually owns his own clothes (One bloke did have the clothes but chose not to wear them with me, he modelled his shoes once in a while - again I never gave it a second thought and possibly that attitude is why he chose to keep it private.), but recently I've been trying to think of men I've dated who haven't asked me to do their make-up or try my clothes or underwear on for a 'laugh'. I can't think of a single one! For instance, I even know my brother-in-law wears my sister's knickers and has her shave his legs and do his make-up from time to time - I know nothing more than that, and don't want to, but there's always more under the surface eh? ;)

You can expect your dinner on the table when you get home, but you don't have a 'right' to it - if that makes sense?

I can only imagine that your CDing being cited as reasons during divorce are just one of those divorce things that happen. When getting divorced the things that really don't matter suddenly bug you, and many times you find excuses to not be with the other person so that it appears to all and to yourself that it's the totally right decision to be making. None of your ex-wives divorced you because of your CDing and it seems (I may be wrong, I have a couple of posts on a forum to guess from, so be gentle with me if I'm way off the mark) that while you were together, your CDing was accepted as a part of the relationship and of you. The CDing being stated as a reason stings because of what it means to you. I'm pretty sure that if HC ever left me, he'd tell me a few things I've heard from my ex-husband too - but while we're together and in love he's happy to live with my quirks (which are probably a lot worse and darn site annoying than CDing). :)

I thought long and hard before making the reply you quoted above because I didn't want to come across as patronising. I'm aware that I can't even begin to understand the issues. It did though upset me that anyone can believe that they don't have a basic right to express themselves within a relationship and the right to choose whether or not this is 'allowed' lies with the SO. You have a right to be happy and do as you want to do as long as you're not hurting anyone else.

Lots of love and the utmost of respect. xx

[KandisTX]

Hi :)

I sort of appreciate where you are coming from - and this is hard for me to understand. For instance, I cannot understand women who simply cannot accept it or try to 'change' their SO (not allowing them to dress). Though, trying to understand the issues behind this is my reason for being here, previously I was shrugging it off and really not understanding what on earth my SO was worrying about.

I suppose where I'm coming from is that you have a right to be accepted within a marriage/relationship for who you are. Those who are being denied the right to dress are being denied something very important to them - an expression of the self. I've said before now to my SO that as a woman, if I called my family and said he won't let me wear short skirts or tops showing my cleavage, the advice would be "Leave him now!", because it's a form of control and all GGs will tell you that no man has the right to tell her how to dress. (The same would apply if my SO insisted I wear certain types of underwear that made him more sexually attracted to me.)

In reality, the buck stops with the CDer. You DO have that right, if your SO can't accept it, you have the choice to live unfulfilled or find someone who will accept it.

I honestly can't believe that the amount of women who have a real problem with it is as high as 75%. HC is the first partner I've had who likes to make a 'deal' of dressing and actually owns his own clothes (One bloke did have the clothes but chose not to wear them with me, he modelled his shoes once in a while - again I never gave it a second thought and possibly that attitude is why he chose to keep it private.), but recently I've been trying to think of men I've dated who haven't asked me to do their make-up or try my clothes or underwear on for a 'laugh'. I can't think of a single one! For instance, I even know my brother-in-law wears my sister's knickers and has her shave his legs and do his make-up from time to time - I know nothing more than that, and don't want to, but there's always more under the surface eh? ;)

You can expect your dinner on the table when you get home, but you don't have a 'right' to it - if that makes sense?

I can only imagine that your CDing being cited as reasons during divorce are just one of those divorce things that happen. When getting divorced the things that really don't matter suddenly bug you, and many times you find excuses to not be with the other person so that it appears to all and to yourself that it's the totally right decision to be making. None of your ex-wives divorced you because of your CDing and it seems (I may be wrong, I have a couple of posts on a forum to guess from, so be gentle with me if I'm way off the mark) that while you were together, your CDing was accepted as a part of the relationship and of you. The CDing being stated as a reason stings because of what it means to you. I'm pretty sure that if HC ever left me, he'd tell me a few things I've heard from my ex-husband too - but while we're together and in love he's happy to live with my quirks (which are probably a lot worse and darn site annoying than CDing). :)

I thought long and hard before making the reply you quoted above because I didn't want to come across as patronising. I'm aware that I can't even begin to understand the issues. It did though upset me that anyone can believe that they don't have a basic right to express themselves within a relationship and the right to choose whether or not this is 'allowed' lies with the SO. You have a right to be happy and do as you want to do as long as you're not hurting anyone else.

Lots of love and the utmost of respect. xx


I think you hit it right on the head with your comment "You can expect your dinner on the table when you get home, but you don't have a 'right' to it - if that makes sense?" That can be applied to the CDing aspect of things as well.. just replace dinner on the table when you get home with "Accepting my CDing". ;)

As to the 75% I was speaking only of my wives, those I was married to, that does not include the limited number of girlfriends I have had in the past whom were accepting of my dressing, but then we were not living together so there isn't really any basis for evidence confirming my percentage. That was as I said only those I was legally married to. Yes, my first wife used it as one of the main reasons to gain custody of our son (whom I have not seen in 17 years), my second thought she could change me, the ironic thing with her was SHE was the one to fully dress me the first time, prior to that I was only wearing lingerie, and my third wife was jealous because Kandis got more attention than she did when we went out together. Current wife (GlitterGG on this forum), has known since we met and she accepts, understands, and participates in my dressing.

Kandis:love:

[Melinda G]

I don't know much about rights. But if a woman marries you as a man, I think she has the right to expect you remain a man, at least in her presence.

I've seen very little discussion of how we would react, if wives suddenly stopped shaving their legs and underarms, and got a butch haircut, and began dressing and acting like a man. Personally, I would be repelled. For the most part, crossdressing and marriage don't mix. The first thing it says to the little woman, is that you have other interests and sexual outlets, than her! Most women see it as competition, and have no idea how to compete with it, or deal with it. Most women want sex with a man. And Cding would seem to work out best, with wives who have lost interest in sex, and basically don't care anymore what you do.
Your hour is up. That'll be $50 please.:D

[Stephenie S]

I think you are treading on pretty thin ice when you talk about "rights" in the marrital situation.

I even think you are treading on thin ice with that expectation stuff. I know I had better not "expect" my dinner to be on the table when I get home. I am fortunate enough when my dear partner has had the time or energy to prepare a meal in the evening, but she works just as hard as do, and I would be foolish to expect any such thing. I am an adult, thank you very much, and I am perfectly capable (and happy) to prepare my own food (and enough for my wife) when and if I am hungry.

Marriage has few "rights", and a whole LOT of co-operation.

Lovies,
Stephenie

[Hippy Chic's Chick]

I think you hit it right on the head with your comment "You can expect your dinner on the table when you get home, but you don't have a 'right' to it - if that makes sense?" That can be applied to the CDing aspect of things as well.. just replace dinner on the table when you get home with "Accepting my CDing". ;)

Kandis:love:

But dinner on the table isn't an expression of self, lol. You are who you are and in my book you have every right to that. I also know what you're saying and now I'm confused. ;)

**wonders off scratching head and muttering to self.**

[Satrana]

Those who are being denied the right to dress are being denied something very important to them - an expression of the self. I've said before now to my SO that as a woman, if I called my family and said he won't let me wear short skirts or tops showing my cleavage, the advice would be "Leave him now!", because it's a form of control and all GGs will tell you that no man has the right to tell her how to dress.

In reality, the buck stops with the CDer. You DO have that right, if your SO can't accept it, you have the choice to live unfulfilled or find someone who will accept it.

It did though upset me that anyone can believe that they don't have a basic right to express themselves within a relationship and the right to choose whether or not this is 'allowed' lies with the SO.

Bullseye! I am often shocked to read comments either from CDs or GGs saying that one partner has the right to control another, or the SO has a right to a "real man" etc. Control, restrictions, abdications of self-worth have no place in a relationship period. No wonder there is so much unhappiness and broken relationships if these are commonly held views.

The usual excuse to back up this position is "relationships are about compromises" Yes they are, but you have to understand what is being compromised. The compromises are about finding the best solution where both parties are happy and fulfilled, not just one side. Compromises are based on maximizing the happiness of your partner without trespassing on unacceptable behavior that jeopardizes the sanctity of the relationship. Compromises should begin from the best possible solution, not the worst.

Relationships are supposed to be about bringing out the best in your partner and yourself. Relationships are supposed to allow you to grow into a better person within the safety and security of another person's love. Acceptance, trust and respect are key cornerstones of worthwhile relationships, they are not optional.

It saddens me that crossdressing seems so often to bring out the worst in people, it manages somehow to subvert the meaning of a loving relationship and people end up behaving in a manner that would not be accepted in a non-cd relationship. Crossdressing seems to pull the proverbial wool over people's eyes simply because of its taboo status.

[Fab Karen]

Ok there is one right I just thought of... I have the right to do what ever she tells me to do!! Lol

Rights..... Jeeeezzzz

I thought the C/D Bill of rights was - You have the right to ramain silent (because your fem voice sucks), you have the right to wear a pretty dress... If you do not have a pretty dress one will be appointed to you.....

No wait... The Miranda CD Rights....

Karren

Karren
And: Any outfit you wear can and will be judged for fashion sense. :D

[Fab Karen]

I don't get this either. I have a right to positive healthy masculinity - as to opposed to what? A negative, ill, masculinity?? Maybe it's just me, but I think it takes a real man to be comfortable with his gender/sexuality/self.



Yes! A woman who GETS IT. Thanks for your comment.

"I turn on the tv, to hear a man tell me how white my shirts could be
but he can't be a man because he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me" -the Rolling Stones

[ReineD]

Here's the link to the Tri Ess BoR page that Susan Marie and Sherrie referred to earlier:

Wives' and Crossdressers' Bill of Rights (http://www.tri-ess.org/Wives_CDs_BofR.html)

Reine

[noname]

I've said before now to my SO that as a woman, if I called my family and said he won't let me wear short skirts or tops showing my cleavage, the advice would be "Leave him now!", because it's a form of control and all GGs will tell you that no man has the right to tell her how to dress.

To really reverse this imagine how most women would react if their husband told them they are not permitted to wear pants. Imagine if a husband told his wife he refused to be seen with her in public if she wore pants. In more extreem cases, throw out any pants she buys or threaten to leave her if she doesn't stop wearing pants.

If that were to happen today the women would be told her spouse is controlling and manipulative. I hear the gossip train "Did you know he even tells her what to wear!?!" I'm pretty certain most womens friends would tell her she has right and that he is abusive.

Though I am guilty on one occasion. My wife bought a dark blue pasley vest covered with blue sequins. It looked hideous and I insisted she return it.

[Marcie Sexton]

Personally speaking, I have the responsibility to be a good husband, to love and care for her...

she has the right to accept or reject what I do...

We both have the right to a loving relationship...

While I write this in tounge and cheek, there is a lot of truth to what I say...Thankfully my wife accepts me and we have found peace and strength in our love for who and what we are in our relationship.

[Hippy Chic's Chick]

To really reverse this imagine how most women would react if their husband told them they are not permitted to wear pants. Imagine if a husband told his wife he refused to be seen with her in public if she wore pants. In more extreem cases, throw out any pants she buys or threaten to leave her if she doesn't stop wearing pants.

If that were to happen today the women would be told her spouse is controlling and manipulative. I hear the gossip train "Did you know he even tells her what to wear!?!" I'm pretty certain most womens friends would tell her she has right and that he is abusive.

Though I am guilty on one occasion. My wife bought a dark blue pasley vest covered with blue sequins. It looked hideous and I insisted she return it.

Absolutely!

That's similar to a conversation I was having with HC the other day.

I suggested that CDers who are not 'allowed' (I detest that - we're talking about 2 adults here, who is ever in the right to 'allow' anything?) to dress or have clothing should do the following:

Check out her underwear drawer and throw away anything she feels good or confident in, leaving her with just plain, cotton pants and maybe the odd bra that really does nothing for her figure.

Proceed to the wardrobe and again, remove anything that makes her feel sexy, confident or 'nice'.

After all, if she believes that clothes can't make you feel happier with yourself or good in any shape or form, she won't mind walking around in clothes that make her feel totally invisible will she? ;)

It seems fair to me, lol!

[Satrana]

Though I am guilty on one occasion. My wife bought a dark blue pasley vest covered with blue sequins. It looked hideous and I insisted she return it.

Actually no, you are not guilty because you were voicing a preference over a specific item of clothing. Preference and prejudice are two different things - ie not allowing your wife to wear anything you deem masculine because you believe women should only display femininity is a prejudice not a preference.

So "I hate that particular top" does not equate to "I will only allow you to wear stereotypical clothing appropriate for your physical gender"

[Rikkicn]

When I look back on that time with my ex when I had first come out I was grateful that she didn’t run away screaming. I was even more grateful when she seems to accept it and participate in social events.
We had just a few rules and one was I couldn’t never go out dressed in the town we lived in. Not bad, I could live with that.
There was also a rule about no sex while dressed. Hmmm, that was getting harder but I agreed. Our sex life wasn’t very good anyway.
I went to support groups out of town so I was getting out once a month or so and getting better in my presentation.
One night while reading a book I had asked her to read I heard her moan and asked what she had just read and she told me that a cross dresser wanted to have sex while dressed and the thought made her sick.
That comment was like an arrow in my heart and I knew then that If I wanted to be really and truly happy I would have to make up my rules for myself. My rules for me!
It’s been 9 years and a world of changes. I like my rules.

[Eugenie]

Here's the link to the Tri Ess BoR page that Susan Marie and Sherrie referred to earlier:

Wives' and Crossdressers' Bill of Rights (http://www.tri-ess.org/Wives_CDs_BofR.html)

Reine

Reine, I knew this X-dresser's Bill of Rights and I must admit that it makes me feel guilty that I don't respect it very well... I am not doing my part of the contract...

I complain that my SO doesn't do her's but how could I ask her to do her's if I don't do mine...

Yet I can't find the strength to even start doing my part... I just do tiny bits of it...

I think many here don't do much more than me about following the Bill of Rights... Just look at how many plainly hide all about their X-dressing to their wives?

I'm not placing myself out of the group, I'm guilty too... For example, I changed my body appearance (epilation and breasts growing musculation) without consulting with my wife.

A few years ago, I was dressing carelessly and was seen by her "en femme" without having discussed it with her before. I don't anymore, but I realize how hurtful this must have been to her...

I told my daughter last year ( she was 36 years old) without consulting before with my wife. It turns out that in the end it was positive, but that's not in the Bill of Rights and it did cause initial pain to my wife...

But sticking to that bill of rights requires often levels of strength that I don't have...
:hugs:
Eugenie

[battybattybats]

That particular 'bill of rights' has some points that violate the human rights of each side.

It's better than nothing but it's way from perfect.

For starters it confuses intrinsic rights with 'decent' behaviour and with 'practical and effective' behaviour.

And my rights don't extend only as far as my fingertip.. they extend to every single possession that I own bought with my own money. They also extend to a right to a say in everything 'we' own that was bought with a share of my money. If we both disagree on what happens with shared space or shared possessions then we are stuck.. some things require mutual consent. These mutual consent things do not involve my body or my own possessions or even my private behaviour. Those are mine and are not shared even in marriage if I were married.

Just as I don't have a say in my girlfriends wardrobe beyond sugestions advice or voicing my opinion the decision is hers and I must respect that. Same with her body. If she wants surgery, to undergo medical treatment or cosmetic, it's up to her! If she wants another tattoo I can say what I'd rather she have done or not done but ultimately the choice is hers.

I suspect that many people want security and stability in reltionships that is incompatable with properly respecting somone else and by extension their freedom of choice.

Spouses or partners are not possessions. You can't have a right over them without overturning the philosophical underpinings and advances of everything from the overthrow of feudalism and 'birthright' to the civil and womens rights movement. Wives are not a husbands goods and chattel and neither are husbands.

And to draw a fine line, we don't have the right to do anything so long as it doesn't 'hurt' anyone else, hurt can be a vague and nebulous thing. People can feel hurt about literally anything!
In actuality we have the right to do anything at all so long as it doesn't hurt the rights of anyone else. This slight change of definition is crucial to create fairness, to protect minorities and to understand the key moral/ethical issues and subtleties.

Examples. If someone feels hurt by my wearing goth clothes in public or not being in their church on sunday it's none of their business. However If I attack them with a knife I'm most certainly interfering with their right to consent to whatever occurs directly with their own body! If they spit on me they have assaulted my rights. If they wear a t-shirt with a logo that offends me they have not affected my rights and I must allow their fair and free use of their rights. If I don't like it I can look away! If someone publicly express a view I don't agree with, even if it's about me, that's their right. However if they get in my path and shout it repeatedly so that I cannot hear anything else, cannot pass nor effectively reply then they have interfered with my rights, this way the difference between expression of opinion and harrassment can clearly be illustrated.

It seems to me (on reading many posts here) that for an effective and productive relationship involving a crossdresser the crossdresser must be prepared to temporarily restrict their free expression while the SO must be prepared to work on coming to terms with the way the CD wants to express themselves and their right to do so and that any restriction is temporary.
The capacity for the CD to endure this restriction and the speed at which the SO can come to terms with the forms of expression of the CD seem to be the effective variables in this. If the SO can't proceed swiftly enough to match the endurance of the CD or if the CD can't restrain themselves long enough for the SO to make sufficient progress then tensions, conflicts and schizms occur between them.
The balance then is between these two factors. So long as they are in some degree of harmony then things work.

That is about effectiveness though and not rights.

But either has the right to say, at any time, that's enough, I can't handle this. They can't tell the other to stop, slow down or to hurry up, they can ask though (and the other can answer I can't or even no!) and they can also leave.

Important Philosophical questions though are 'Does someone have the right to choose not to accept? Is there a moral imperative to endeavor to accept?'

A basic precept of truth (once you accept the notion of equality this becomes absolutely true) is that you can fairly claim no right for yourself that you do not freely allow (in it's basic form and not simply the way you choose to use it) to others. If you want others to accept your right to free expression (of absolutely any sort!) then you have an obligation to accept the same right of others. Not just the right to dress as you do or to think as you do but to also do as you do not want them to just as you might do as they do not want you to.

That is an empowering and liberating truth that is true through politics, religion, feminism, work, relationships.. everything in life. There is nothing to which this does not apply.

[Stephenie S]

Nicely put, Batty, nicely put.

A little long-winded, but even Thomas Jefferson had trouble with that. I wish your post had come far sooner in this thread.

Many here on this forum have complained bitterly about not having the "right" to CD while in the same breath stating that they would NEVER accept similar behavior from their wife. Interesting.

Stephie

[chatnat GG]

personaly i dont accept my bf crossdressing but im trying to deal with it the best i can. I do ave a say when my partner dresses as i deal with the funds and everytime he dresses he wants the works. Full body waxed, Nails put on, makeup done and a new outfit. If u add that up thats alot of money.. We do ave an agreement that if he works overtime he gets to keep that money for him which suits us both fine

[sterling12]

All "Rights" are subject to negotiation. Your Rights and her Rights.

In order to have a negotiation, you have to have a dialog. If you don't, then neither of you has any idea what the other one wants. Sometimes, when we have that dialog, we get pleasantly surprised. It often turns out to be a case where the other party wants a lot less, or will permit a lot more than we ever imagined.

So, what do you have to lose? Just make sure it's not your self control.....then the dialog fails!

Peace and Love, Joanie

[Satrana]

A basic precept of truth (once you accept the notion of equality this becomes absolutely true) is that you can fairly claim no right for yourself that you do not freely allow to others.

Such a simple principle, you would think it would be applied by everyone all the time as a self-check but many people seem to think they are exempted. As far as "CD/SO rights" go, the application of this principle means the two lists should be identical instead they are clearly lopsided and unfair.

If I reversely imposed the SO rights on my wife she would laugh in my face and tell me to get lost. :tongueout And she would be correct to do so. Many of these so called rights undermine simple human dignity and respect and I could never use them on anyone, least of all my own partner.

[battybattybats]

All "Rights" are subject to negotiation. Your Rights and her Rights.


Nope. No rights are subject to negotiation. At all, ever.

That is why we condemn the actions of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mugabe etc. Human rights, civil rights, relationship rights. They are all the same rights just in different situations. They all come from principles of philosophy determined in the enlightenment when rationalist logic which itself was descended and evolved from the works of ancient greek thinkers like Plato, Socrates (who was executed for teaching young people ideas like thinking for themselves, determining truth rather than accepting authority, the nobility of honesty and the greater death of hypocrasy) and Aristotle was then applied more properly to notions such as the value of individual people. No longer could it be considered right that peasants were property of their feudal lords, that people were better than others on account of the circumstance of their birth. People had inalienable basic rights.

That's why America has it's bill of rights and constitutional amendmants.. that's where they come from. The U.N. Charter on human rights too that enshrined in international law these basic principles and rights.

Still many have argued that these rights should only apply to certain people. In ancient greece it was only land owning men of a certain age that could vote, untill recently only white men had full access to these rights.. the struggle down through the centuries has been to have these rights applied universally as they clearly, logically, belong. That is why women get the vote, that is why black people get the vote, that is why jews cannot have their property seized and marched off to camps, that is why homosexuals no longer are locked away or sent to the gas chamber side by side with the jew and the gypsy. In the West that is... in many countries these crimes continue with state sanction. Internationally that is decried because it violates human rights.

These rights are considered inalienable for several reasons. Because they are inherantly associated with consciousness and reason and so long as those faculties exist then those rights concur with them. Because no one is considered, no matter their power, capability, position, influence or prowess to be so greater than their fellow as to be greater than that individuals rights. Because the notion of inviolable rights are unequivocally essential to protecting minorities or those with less power or influence from the tyranny of the majority or the empowered minority. This is absolutely true in microcosm as macrocosm. The rights that protect racial minorities are the same rights that protect spouses from more powerful partners. Domestic violence (physical, emotional, psychological financial etc) is wrong as it violates the individuals rights.

The rights themselves are inalienable, but of course how a person chooses to use them can be negotiated. Forcing them or coercing them to comply with a loss, restriction or compromise of those rights is wrong on any level but bargaining, offering something in return and negotiating fairly and in good faith is not. In that case the right is still intact but the person may agree to limit the way they choose to use that right.

However, one of the other fundamental rights is the right to change your mind.

Once men prevented women full access to their rights. They restricted their right to make their own choices. They dissallowed their right to work without their husbands or fathers consent so that they were financially dependant on their husbands income and his financial decisions. They limited their education so that they could not be exposed to dangerous ideas like philosophy or large parts of history (heard of the great female mathemetician who was literally torn apart by a mob? What about the copious number of warrior queens of history? Even to this day most will have encounterd only a watered down account of boadiccea or joan of arc).

The woman who fought for and won their human rights did not always do so with the kind permission of a handful of the initially small minority of accepting husbands and fathers. They would never have succeeded if that were the case, though their were a number of champions for womens rights amongst men (including H.G.Wells who wrote most of what became the U.N. charter of human rights). It was men who voted to allow women to vote. Just as it was whites who voted to allow blacks the vote. This was because the womens arguments of equality, rights and freedom were logical, congruent and rationally unassailable.

Would it really be better if we went back to where husbands could own their wives, lords own their serfs, kings own their lords? Where pople were prevented from speaking out against injustice? Where jews gypsies and homosexuals were shipped in their millions by train to their destruction? To where governments could forcibly steralise 'undesirables'?

Surely it is every rational persons duty to understand, respect and defend these principles and rights? To ensure they apply to everyone in every way?

The beginning of such things, of the defence or the errosion of rights, occurs in your own home. Surely then it is wrong to use any force or coersion to restrict an individuals freedom to express themselves in any way? Only letting someone do, say or wear things that you like or do not hate is not ok. Was it ok for only some of the people to be able to learn, work, vote, speak out?

It's the difference between asking with the acceptance of the possibility of no as an answer without punishment and saying 'no' to anothers freedom. A moral issue of the purest, simplest and most profound sort.

[sissystephanie]

[quote from BattyBatty Bats]These mutual consent things do not involve my body or my own possessions or even my private behaviour. Those are mine and are not shared even in marriage if I were married.[quote]

Batty,

IHO, you would have a very poor marriage if you carried this idea into an actual marriage. When you marry you do, or least should, become one with your spouse. This means that your body, possessions, and private behavior affect her also. Therefore, using your own analogies, she has "rights" also. Now, as an example, if you have told her that you are a CD before the marriage and she has accepted it then she should live with it! But, if you have not told her beforehand, and then try to force it on her, you are really trampling on her rights. In that case you married under false pretenses. There is still the chance of getting "mutual consent," but she definitely will have the upper hand.

My earlier post mentioned that my wife knew before we were married. I told her because I believe very strongly in open and honest communication. It worked well in my case. BTW, my reference to rights ending at your fingertips involved only "human" rights, not those for possessions which are an entirely different kind!

Sissy

More Girl than man sometimes

[battybattybats]

[quote from BattyBatty Bats]These mutual consent things do not involve my body or my own possessions or even my private behaviour. Those are mine and are not shared even in marriage if I were married.[quote]

Batty,

IHO, you would have a very poor marriage if you carried this idea into an actual marriage. When you marry you do, or least should, become one with your spouse.

Why? Why do you and why should you? And if so doesn't that invalidate many of the arguments used by feminists to gain their rights, especially those of independance including financial independance inside marriage? And if we become 'one' how does any decision get made? Do we both require mutual consent on every single issue? I doubt many women would let their men have an equal say in every single thing they do and rightly so. What woman these days, having tasted individual rights and self-determination would be happy to have someone else have an equal say over their hair style, their clothing, what they can and cannot buy, on every minutia of their lives? What if one partner has no taste in fashion? What if one is smarter than the other? Should for example the smarter partner who is good with money allow the less so partner to drive them both into financial ruin? Wouldn't it be better for them both to have seperate finances and to each meet their joint obligations requiring mutual consent and then doing whatever they want with their own money? The smarter one just accepting the frivolous spending of their partner knowing that at least they won't be out of house and home on account of it?


This means that your body, possessions, and private behavior affect her also.

My body, possessions, and private behavior affect her anyway, married or not. They also affect everybody I interact with too. Every persons action or inaction effects everybody else directly and indirectly. The closer the person the greater the likely impact. As anybody could possibly feel upset by any possible action then how can we act if this upset is the highest priority? How can anyone act? But inaction is likewise loaded with consequences.. so then rightous action cannot be measured by the amount it upsets people! Emotion clearly is not the greatest indicator of harm. If an act is right but it upsets others (like giving black people the vote upsets racists substantially) it is no less right. If an act is wrong but is popular (like denying an unpopular minority their rights) it is no less wrong. That said, being considerate of others feelings in the way things are done is virtuous. To quote my grandmother 'I will still be polite to my worst enemy, but I wont hold my tongue in speaking out against thier wrongs, I'll just do so in a polite way." That was her, and is my own, choice. There certainly are good, practical and moral reasons to be considerate of how your actions may effect others but not to the point that you lose your rights on account of them.


Therefore, using your own analogies, she has "rights" also.

Absolutely! The central point I was trying to make is that everybody has the same rights. That you can't apply those rights only to those that agree with you and that you can't claim rights that you don't allow to others.


Now, as an example, if you have told her that you are a CD before the marriage and she has accepted it then she should live with it! But, if you have not told her beforehand, and then try to force it on her, you are really trampling on her rights.

How? I agree that it is morally wrong, unwise as well. But which right have I trampled on?


In that case you married under false pretenses. There is still the chance of getting "mutual consent," but she definitely will have the upper hand.

She might have a good complaint about the stupidity and unfairness of such an action but it doesn't effect eithers rights at all.


My earlier post mentioned that my wife knew before we were married. I told her because I believe very strongly in open and honest communication.

Good on you. I agree. It also is the wisest and most decent action which is why I told my girlfriend about my past dressing and possible recurrance of desire to dress in the future only about a week into my relationship. 6 months into the relationship when the desire returned she was not very accepting.


It worked well in my case. BTW, my reference to rights ending at your fingertips involved only "human" rights, not those for possessions which are an entirely different kind!

I'm pretty sure most philosophers consider that owning individual possessions is a human right. Certainly some soviet philosophers (and a few post-soviet) did not but they were starting under an understanding of collective rather than individual rights and responsibilities which disregarded the notion of individual human rights from the outset.

[Satrana]

When you marry you do, or least should, become one with your spouse. This means that your body, possessions, and private behavior affect her also. Therefore, using your own analogies, she has "rights" also.

Sissy your argument that husbands and wives have rights over each other's bodies has already been tested in the court and has been deemed unlawful.

I am speaking of the matter of rape within marriage. Men claimed that they had rights over their wife's bodies. They had a right to sex and therefore could not be charged with rape. The courts decided otherwise. Husbands and wives keep their own individual rights within a marriage, they do not dissolve into one, neither can one express a right over the other.

A husband never has a right to demand or coerce sex from his wife or control her behavior, and in a similar vein, a wife has no rights to demand or coerce her husband to behave or dress in a manner which pleases her.

The word "rights" is commonly abused by people to justify their own personal prejudices and preferences. Using the word "rights" means others are more likely to be submissive to your needs because it makes others believe they have no option but to oblige you.

This is why the "CD/SO Bill of Rights" is a load of nonsense. It is more a "Bill of Wishes, Desperation and Subjectation"

[sissystephanie]

Quote:
Now, as an example, if you have told her that you are a CD before the marriage and she has accepted it then she should live with it! But, if you have not told her beforehand, and then try to force it on her, you are really trampling on her rights.

How? I agree that it is morally wrong, unwise as well. But which right have I trampled on?

In this scenario, she married thinking she married a "man." Not that a CD (MTF) is not a man, but I believe, and studies back this up, most of us have a very strong feminine streak. Maybe she didn't want that. By not telling her in advance, and then expecting her to agree to it, you took away her choice! And her choice is her right!!

Satrana, you are talking about legal rights. I was speaking of moral rights, some of which are also legal. As a 75 y/o who was married for 49 + years, I do know something about marriage! If there is not a very strong element of both love and trust in both spouses, the marriage probably will not last. Ask any marriage counselor! If one spouse takes the position that he, or she, can do pretty much what they want, the marriage is doomed to failure. As Batty said, everythings affects someone. So think before you act. Will what I do hurt my spouse, or partner? If so, should I still do it just because it makes me happy? Just use a little logical common sense, that is all I am saying.

Sissy

More Girl than man sometimes

[Satrana]

Satrana, you are talking about legal rights. I was speaking of moral rights, some of which are also legal.
True enough, but our laws are based upon our understanding of morality, which of course does change over time. The judges deciding the issue of rape within marriage did not just fall back on legalities since there was no law that rape within marriage could exist. Rather their judgment relied mostly on their own views of morality; what was right and what was wrong.




Just use a little logical common sense, that is all I am saying.
Absolutely, which is why we should avoid using terms like "rights" as relationships are not built upon rights but upon love, respect and trust. This is why I am so against the whole concept of CD/SO Bill of Rights. The intent may have been good but in reality it is a step backwards in relationships when men and women begin declaring rights over each other. To me, that is a clear signal of a relationship in trouble.

[sissystephanie]

Satrana,

I agree totally with you on the CD/SO Bill of Rights. Who needs it? No one, if they just use common sense.


Sissy

More Girl than man sometimes

[Zee]

The thought here is respect and honour. Respect the feelings of those around you. Respect your SO and yourself. Honour those around you and honour your SO and yourself.

If you do these things, life is good. Always be forthright and truethful the woman you vowed to respect and honour. Of course, tact is also a great skill to master. (Especially commenting on your SO's appearance...)

[battybattybats]

Hmm.. not sure I concur there.

Especially about 'common sense' which is often only one or neither.

I think the notion of rights in a relationship is important. Very important in fact.
Because power dynamics are a fact of life in a large proportion of relationships especially dysfunctional or abusive ones. Any situation where one human may have power over another requires the recognition of rights.
The love one person has for another gives that other more than a small amount of power over them making an acceptance and recognition of mutual rights a fundamental moral issue in relationships.

While a husbands privilidge to sex with his wife without consent was considered a right at the time it can be swiftly measured with moral reasoning. The argument in favour: Particular interpretations of certain 'sacred' texts (bible, koran etc). The notion that the man had a ight over the woman. The notian that man is superior to woman. The notion that men owned their wives (goods and chattel). The notion that mens superiority to women obliged them to be responsible for women and to make their decisions for them.

I shall now annihilate those arguments.

Firstly in a pluralistic society where freedom of religion exists no particular (or group) of religious texts can be used for a moral argument outside of an individuals personal beliefs and decisions and therefore such arguments can only effect what the husband chooses for himself and not for his wife. Secondly, if we suppose that each person, of varying strength, constitution, intelligence, skill and capability still has a mind capable of independant thought then we must accept that all reasoned persons have the capacity to make up their own minds make their own choices and exercise their own freedoms based upon thier own reasoning thusly all reasoned minds (irrespective of circumstance of birth or any other sort) must be given equal opportunity to do so. Now for this to be possible it is inherantly morally wrong for anyone to make a choice for someone else who is capable of making their own rational choice! This is strengthened by the argument of reciprocity, as people wouldn't like others making their choices for them or restricting their freedoms then neither should they do to others... if others are there equals they should be then given the same freedom to make the same (or different) choices... christians and confucionists would recall this as the 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' moral argument. Accepting these moral and ethical precepts totally destroys the argument.

That makes the notion of individual rights an essential moral argument. In fact, the acceptance of freedoms, of these human rights is the simplest and clearest and therefore most important set of moral measures currently in existence that can be applied cross culturally and irrespective of religion.

Now, when it comes to your example of the CD who married before coming out to his wife.
Idealistically: Yes each partner should be totally honest and forthright about everything.
Pragmatically: Most people lie directly or by omission every day to protect the feelings of others. The existence of psychological denial and social pressures means that often people are practically unable to divulge some information.

Now from an idealistic perspective it is clearly morally wrong for the CD to withold that information from a pragmatic one accepting human fallibility it is clearly morally wrong to expect human beings to only behave in a manner that reaches the ideal.

Choice: Now yes it is important for people to have all the appropriate information to make an informed decision when making choices. The choice is a right... but so is privacy! Even in a relationship some people keep some things private. It is often years into a marriage when people find out that their partner was sexually abused by a parent for example. (though this is changing as the subject becomes more publicly acknowledged.. just as it is with CDing).
Now the choice does not go away... people can, and should be always free to, choose to leave a relationship. They should be able to for their own reasons, for whatever reasons are important to them. If someone chooses not to, or is unable to, tell their partner before marriage that they have a secret that might change that persons mind about the marriage decision and then this information comes out at some point in the future they have no right to expect that the partner will stay.. or leave for that matter! Presupposing another persons choice is clearly not respecting their free right to make up their own minds, one way or the other.

If something like this occurs though neither has the right to expect certain choices from the other, in fact neither ever has the right to expect certain choices from the other. Even if the CD was up front and told from the very begining the SO doesn't have to remain happy with the fact. People change and recognising that people change and not forcing them to remain the same is an essential part of respecting them as people rather than objects.

Now if one of the most important realisations for any moral reasoning is that people are the same- in that they have the same rights as yourself, and that they are different- in that they may use those rights differently and in ways that you wouldn't wouldn't want to and may not understand, then an essential for loving someone purely and not selfishly, as a person and not a possession, is to respect thir choices that you do not agree with.

Certainly compromise is absolutely neccessary in a relationship.. there is all the shared time, shared activities, shared space and likely a number of shared possessions to negotiate as these things require mutual consent. But that is no reason that the exercise of individual rights need be compromised excessively or unduly.

I think learning to recognise a partners right and capacity and rightness to make choices for themselves and their own possessions that you do not agree with is an essential form of love, of respect and of maturity as a human being. Alas many can't even handle their neighbours having these rights.

If we use our own judgements and feelings about choices as a way of measuring others we do an injustice to ourselves and to them. We fail to accord them the respect of their right to choose and the choices they make that we ourselves would want of our choices. Because we think our own personal choices are the correct ones it is all to easy to mistake a subjective truth- what is true and right for us -with an objective truth- what is true and right outside of us.

Now if I want to do something that will make me happy but upset my partner should I? Can I? Do I have the right to? Yes, I have the right to so long as it is something I have a right to what is involved in it.. such as my own person or my possessions. If it involves her person or her possessions then I do not have that right. Can I? Of course, assuming it is physically possible. Ahh... but now there is the Should I! That is my own choice and one to which only I can answer. Now I must accept the free will of my partner in this... if for example I get SRS - it's my body, absolutely my right and mine alone- then my SO must accept that it is my right and my choice to do so.. but it is also her choice if she chooses to leave the relationship because she no longer is attracted to me after such a permanant change! I must respect her choice whatever it is.. now I'm not responsible for her choice, I'm only responsible for my own. If I know she is likely to make that choice it may effect my own.. I weigh up how important the risk is to my personal need.. but I must not make her choice for her or presuppose what her choice would be also that does not mean that I am beholden to make the choice that she wants me to make or to make the choice that is most likely to preserve the relationship. That is up to me to decide. It is a purely subjective choice.

For many it is terrifying to be subject to the consequences of others choices. Nevertheless if we want to make our own choices we must be prepared for the choices of others to effect us!

[TxKimberly]

For those that remember.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvH7ySQi37E

:D

. . . and was also delighted to find them on youtube! :-)

[TxKimberly]

This was a WONDERFUL way to describe the recipe for a good marriage. Forget all about crossdressing - these are good suggestions for ANY marriage if you want it to work.
I am SO glad you two are part of this forum and the TG community.
My wife and I talk about EVERYTHING.
We hide nothing from each other.
When the whole world sucks, I hate everyone and everything, everyone and everything hates me, my wife is the person I talk to, hug, and hold until I feel like a human being again.

Switch,

I think this was good thread to start - maybe it points out a fundamental consideration - In a marraige maybe you don't have any rights, but in a marriage that is going to be happy, you shouldnt need them. For example, our bill of rights and other documents in the US were written and maintained as a way to ensure we receive them and they can't be taken away. If you have to force your husband or wife to give you rights, then you are already behind the power curve. As Louise has pointed out, in a marriage where each honestly and deeply loves the other, you should both want to please the other, take the others dreams, needs, and feelings into consideration - it shouldn't be something that has to be forced.

And on the high and mighty sounding note, I realize I have once again left my wife to get our daughter ready for bed with no help from me. I think it's time to get off my butt and go give her hand. Besides, I have the sudden desire to give her a hug . . .



we each have the expectation to be loved completely by the other. We each have the expectation that the other person will listen to us with care and respect. We each have the expectation that negotiation can be a piece of our relationship. We each have the expectation of ongoing communication even when that communication needs extra help from a trained professional. We each have the expectation than no serious desicions will be made by either one of us that may impact the emothoinal or physical health of any member of of our family.

Thats about it!



Louise.

[battybattybats]

I think this was good thread to start - maybe it points out a fundamental consideration - In a marraige maybe you don't have any rights, but in a marriage that is going to be happy, you shouldnt need them. For example, our bill of rights and other documents in the US were written and maintained as a way to ensure we receive them and they can't be taken away. If you have to force your husband or wife to give you rights, then you are already behind the power curve. As Louise has pointed out, in a marriage where each honestly and deeply loves the other, you should both want to please the other, take the others dreams, needs, and feelings into consideration - it shouldn't be something that has to be forced.


That is a beautiful sentiment. Would that it were often more so. Alas we need rights in many relationships to protect us from intended and unintended abuses. Whenever there is a strong difference of opinion it's neccessary to have a fair and practical understanding of what point one persons decisions give way to the others.

Rather than rake over the coals again and repeat myself though I'd rather concentrate on the rights wives do have and how they apply when crossdressing is involved.

The right of consent to her own body.
As it involves crossdressing this means that she and she alone decides what physical and sexual contact she is involved in. If she doesn't want you to be dressed at the time, well no means no. It goes both ways, if you only want to do it dressed then you can say no too. If she doesn't want to kiss you wearing lipstick or hold hands.. all her right to choose so.

The right to own and control personal possessions.
So don't wear her stuff unless she gives permission. Just as she shouldn't wear yours without your permission.

The right to a say over shared possessions/space.
Not just to voice an opinion but to actively have a 50% control over what occurs with things owned together and what happens in space shared together. Each has this same right and whether its about the monthly budget, rearranging the furniture or what goes on when she is home these things require mutual consent. If either doesn't consent then it's just plain tough.

The right to voice an opinion.
Even if she has no right to make a decision for the husband she can still make suggestions, to voice her opinion. However that is as far as it goes and manipulating, coercing or otherwise forcing her way is totally wrong.

The right to change her mind.
If she says something is ok and then finds its not, if she says she's ok with something and then later she isn't... that's life. She has to have the right to back out of any agreement at any time... so long as she is backing herself out of something and not backing someone else out of something! She can't tell her partner what to do or not do with his body or his possessions or vice versa.

These are the same rights the CD has. It all goes both ways.

[Khriss]

surely "rights" are subjected by a "Society(s)" rules..as in Racial ,Religious, Economic, Territorial , Ethnic,even "Tribal" still and often the most profound .."sexual " issues
or "sexuality" ...perhaps...
I'mjustina-concideration-mode-eh?
the winners write History still ??
while people can transcend such .................

[SatinDoll00]

Wow. There is a lot to digest in this thread.

First, let me say this...

A wife has a right to be with her husband. What does that mean??

Well, I for one have not told my wife about my CDind...why??

I do not think it is something she should have to endure. I love her more than I love me. I can suffer in silence...and have her not know. She did not marry a crossdress...she married a man...in her eyes at least.

Who am I to thrust this upon her?? I am not "out", I have one friend that knows and that is about it. My wife, God bless her, would not deal with this well. Many well say...SHE HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW!!

I say she has a right to not know!

My life is screwed up enough without dragging her down with me. Perhaps one day I can share this with her...but it will need to be on her terms...not mine.

Morgan

[Satrana]

In a marriage maybe you don't have any rights, but in a marriage that is going to be happy, you shouldn't need them.

Absolutely the goal we should all aim for. Over-idealized? Not really, my wife for example has never exerted any control over me including my dressing. We do not have a perfect marriage but we respect each other enough not to impose our will on each other, we respect our differences. Maybe our relationship is this way because we are from different cultures so we automatically understood the need to respect each other to make the relationship work.

I understand why SOs and others think that the best way to proceed is to impose rules and restrictions. But this very act instantly creates a power imbalance that only causes more problems down the line. It is best to avoid this pitfall at the very beginning by not exerting so called rights. After all you have to trust your partner otherwise you no longer have a real worthwhile relationship. Claiming rights over your partner screams a message "I DON'T TRUST YOU SO I MUST CONTROL YOU". For me that would be the death bell for the relationship.

[battybattybats]

If we consider that the function of rights is to codify and protect intrinsic freedoms which are vital in a relationship to prevent abuse..

Then isn't the better question 'how to resolve conflicts that relate to differing needs where crossdressing is involved?'

If the CD has a right to dress whenever they choose and feels the desire or need to do so often but the SO isn't able to cope with the frequency the CD wants or needs and wheras the SO has the right to choose how much or if they will be exposed to the dressing but has a desire/need to be with their partner how can that be resolved without falling into the power struggle/unethical/immoral trap that comes from one imposing their will over the other.