Self absorbtion and Stereotyping?

[battybattybats]

I posted this in a thread but think it makes sense as a thread topic by itself too (with some minor editing).

A thought on self-absorbtion and stereotyping.

Why do so many CDs seem self absorbed? Ok lets try a hypothetical.

X is 30% female on the inside (well away from the amount needed to be distinctly TS yet a significant feminine amount) so seeking balance let's say X should be female 30% of the time. X finally starts to stop denying this side of him/her-self, comes out to the wife and gets more of a chance to dress and be honest to his/her-self and partner about these needs. X has a lot of lost time to make up for. How much? Lets say X was able to spend all day one whole day a week from the age of 12-23 dressed (very unlikely). Over this time X has managed to give him/her-self around half of what she has needed. So now free to dress more often she has about 570 odd days (according to my calculator) full time dressing needed to catch up.

And that's on top of two days a week full time dressing for her basic need! That is a lot of dressing to make up for lost time! If balance won't be restored till this pent-up need is fully realised that will be years if done full time all year round! At only 3 days a week it's a very long time before that backlog is gone!

Maybe that might explain some of this self-absorbtion. And my next notion might cannect with that...

As for stereotypes...
I think the CDs stereotype of woman is an illusion. I do not believe it is defined by what they think women are. I would think anyone with half a brain should be able to see that real women are not the way they are portrayed on tv, magazines and film.

But is the woman a Cd expresses really about that? I think the woman a Cd expresses is reallly about what men aren't or rather what they are not allowed to be. They aren't trying to be like real women. They are trying to be the parts of themselves that has always been there but was bottled up.

And that, like the dressing itself, is exagerated by necessity! If you only have a 3 hour time in a week to be feminine you have to pack as much femininity you can into that time so it will end up being extreme and exagerated! If it wasn't it wouldn't be nearly enough!
So all those times you wanted to giggle as a teen pours out like some extreme parody of giggling schoolgirls because you have years of giglling to get out.
So all those times you wanted to wear something pretty and sexy ends up with you in a red split side cocktail dress and fishnet stockings or a fetishistic french maid outfit with cut-away panels because you are trying to roll years worth of lingerie wearing, of sexyness, into a few brief hours.

Those heels need to represent and satisfy the need for all those shoes you never got to wear, all those images in clothes catalogues you hid under your bed or in ther bottom of the toolbox that you stared at not as porn but as the closest thing you could get to to what you wanted and needed to wear.

That lipstick is so red because it has to be every glimmer of red that wasn't on your lips. Is it any wonder so many CDs dress '****tily'? If these notions are correct it shouldn't be! That is exactly what should be expected because it is the opposite of what that person was forced to be. It is the feminine sexuality of years compressed into a purer and stronger form undiluted by the need to be subtle, undiluted by the knowledge that you could dress a little racier tomorrow.

The Cd is trying to live years in every hour, trying to capture a lifetime of youths experiences and expressions. And if they are lucky enough to get enough time this settles down as they get enough out of their system and find balance.

Imagine for a moment a set of old fashioned scales. Imagine it has a lot of weight at one end and almost nothing on the other. Expecting someone (the scales) to go straight to the balance by putting just a tiny amount on the other sideis ludicrous. To restore that balance you would add a lot of weight on the light side or take stuff from the heavy side, perhaps putting some of it from the heavy side onto the light side. That self-absorbtion, that excessive spending, those extreme exaggerations of femininity or ****tiness.. that is shifting the old weight, that is balancing the other side. When a balance is achieved then it wont be so extreme, so absorbing, so ****ty all the time. Untill then it is focused, concentrated, exaggerated not from imaturity but from having to balance a great deal of weight on the other side.

So, what do you think? Does that match your own experience? Does it seem plausable? Is there some great flaw in my analogies?

[Amanda Shaft]

Great post Batty, but I’m sure it has a more complex explanation other than simple weights and measures however since each time I get dressed I always go the full hog my SO said to me the other day why do you spend all that time putting make up on just to wonder around the house?
My answer was, “well for me it’s all practise. You’ve had years to perfect what it is you do but I’m playing catch up.” So I guess that sort of falls in line with your theory.
Hug Amanda

PS. As Sundance said to Butch: “You keep on thinking, Batty, that’s what you’re good at!”

[Kate Simmons]

Sounds good to me Batty. Having the time and opportunity to find that balance is the hard part. We all have many responsibilities to discharge, especially those of us with families. Those of us who have actually taken the time to find that balance know it has not been without a struggle and sometimes at great cost. Is it worth it? Only we can answer that for sure and that has to be weighed in the balance as well.:happy:

[Tree GG]

...dressing to make up for lost time! ...
Maybe that might explain some of this self-absorbtion...

As for stereotypes...
I think the CDs stereotype of woman is an illusion.

In reverse order, I agree w/ the stereotypes point. Most CDs (not TS) aren't trying to be "real" women. They're portraying an internal image fantasy that may or may not translate to the outside presentation well. It's almost like the 3rd option. In relationships and interaction w/ society or the 95% of population that is NOT transgendered, I believe this causes the bulk of conflict. The CD believes/feels his presentation and expression is to be labelled as female as he believes it certainly is not what male is. It's perfectly natural and reasonable to him that the "over the top" clothing/makeup is as it should be for him to be female. The non-TG populace just stands in bewilderment. His insistance that he's just crossing the gender line and becoming female for a bit illicits responses from ridiculous to anger, depending on the individual's perception of female and the CDs comments or behaviors. And the obvious fetish, or overtly sexual, presentations just offend most. I'd say it's the prudish western cultures, but it's that way to some extent everywhere in the world. Only a small percentage of people want sexuality on public display. Maybe it's because the predominantly male person views female as sex objects (in varying degrees, of course) so they can't imagine a female presentation that isn't somewhat based on sex appeal.

As far as self-absorbtion to make up for lost time, your points are probably very valid. However I think that that rationale for the behavior is unhealthy. Denying oneself anything is not like a savings account. Time spent is spent and cannot be spent again. Admittedly there is a regret factor....I should've, had I only known. The CD may regret not having spent more of his life dressed, but he chose to fight the urge. To bury it as much as possible for whatever reason. Dressing more (say 24/7) will not recapture the youth or missed experiences. A 50 yr old man trying to be a 21 yr old woman is just as sad as a 50 yr old woman trying to be 21 again.

I believe it's healthier to acknowledge the regret, say a few swear words, and start enjoying what you still have left. I can only say that I've truly "lived in the moment" a handful of times in my life - but when it happens it is what life is about. I don't think you can make those times. You can put yourself in positions where it is possible, but there are many variables (responsibilities, practicality and survival considerations) that may or may not prevent "the moment". Those moments cannot be recaptured or relived. They are unique to the infinite variables and circumstance. Chasing the missed moment is obsession that will prevent experiencing the now or future moments.

Plus, and this is a biggie IMO, for the late-blooming CD a family and career life has been built. Self-absorbtion before the kids are raised or retirement financial position is obtained can destroy it all. That is just plain inconsiderate of the peeps who love you, have loved you, and trusted you to finish what you started. Modification is certainly reasonable....integrating the CD expression is possible, but allowing yourself to obsess and focus primarily on the gender expression cannot foster a continuation of mutually fulfilling relationships. The CD says they want to be able to more freely express love, gentility and all the stereotype female personality attributes, but self-absorbtion is the antithesis of those qualities. One negates the other and vice versa.

Now it is possible that the CD will think, I've spent most my life hiding it, I want to spend the rest of my life expressing it. That is certainly their right as an individual to choose that path. But there again, it is inconsiderate of those he has connected to his life and is the ultimate anti-nuturing act. That logic is based on the "savings plan" theory and assumes that the loved ones knew they were accumulating some sort of debt. We were given person A on a deferred payment plan and now the balloon payment we didn't know was coming is due. We end up broke.

You make very valid points that I am sure are accurate in many instances. No one is ever wrong for feeling how they feel, but how they deal with those feelings and what they do about them defines the person whether TG or not.

[Jocelyn Quivers]

I often live by the "making up for lost time" belief. The first 30 years of my life were spent 100% male and doing everything possible to outright destroy and permanently get rid of my femme side.

The second 30 years essentially is the reign of my femme side, where almost every minute of my life goes towards thoughts and actions of being en-feme.

Whether it be permanent hair removal, dieting and working out for a more feminne body etc. Basicaly I feel as if I'm making up for lost time.

Excellent thread it seems to have really hit home with me.

[docrobbysherry]

Hmm, "self absorbed and stereotypical" describes my dressing. Also
" Fantasy". That part applies to me, I believe.
All of Sherry's looks have to be sexy for me. School girl, grand dame, hooker, classy lady, etc. They r all ladies I find attractive. Some more, some less. I guess all of Shery's looks r stereotypical of what men my age think of as "attractive". I think only an extremely self absorbed 60 y/o would work so hard to create a personal, young, fantasy sex partner!
RS

[AngGG]

Wow, I haven't come over to this side of the boards in quite a while, but for some reason today I did.

Batty,

What a well written and thoughtful post. While I don't think that self absorption and selfishness can be justified, I do see how it can happen. You gave me much to ponder.

Tree,

Great response, I think you wrote some words to live by.

Angela

[Lucy Bright]

Thanks to Batty and TreeGG for your very interesting posts.

I can see the 'making up for lost time' argument, but TreeGG's answer to that is surely the right one: time gone is gone, life is full of regrets and "call back yesterday" moments - but while the impulse to dwell on this is very natural it's also illusory and possibly destructive of the present, which is where we actually all live.

I think there are other reasons for self-absorption, too, and one of these is the habit of secrecy. Many of us have lived a long time with secrecy being a daily part of our lives: in my case, I lived with a secret for 33 years out of my 44, throughout my teenage years and into (early!) middle age. Suddenly, we may find that we no longer have to keep the secret with one individual - say an SO to whom we have come out. For them, it may well be a shock: at the very least it's a piece of information that's going to take some getting used to, with a lot of mental furniture being rearranged. The CD/TG person, however, may find that once that stopper's been blown there's a different kind of lost time to be made up - with decades worth of feelings, experiences, fears and doubts to be expressed, and suddenly there's someone there to share it with. How is this not going to look like self-absorption to the hapless SO, even if it's of the talking rather than the preening kind? The test I suppose may be whether it settles down with time, or just gets worse.

I've been away for a while, incidentally - for fear of becoming self-absorbed. :heehee:

Kisses,

Lucy

[melissacd]

Many good points have been made here. I am impressed.

From my experience I can see that:

- I am making up for lost time and I have a sense of urgency because I now see that time is running out, I am not twenty, I have to learn the skills of a lifetime. For me the heat really turned up when my father died and I saw my mortality staring me in the face and realized that we do not live forever so why do we act as though we do.

- I admit that for me this has become a very obsessive, self absorbed, selfish thing. It has been very destructive to loved ones around me, old and new. I have to get better at bringing this into a proper context but it is difficult being that I have a very obsessive compulsive personality and there is just so much that I want to explore and understand. I justify it, rightfully or wrongfully, because I felt that I was denied this self expression through most of my life.

- while during my earlier experiments I probably dressed in more stereotypical ways, over time I have developed a better sense of style, so while I still enjoy the edgy things I am also okay with things that are considered very tasteful and appropraite - that is part of the maturing process that many CDs go through and is analogous to the same thing that women go through from little girls to adulthood

So there is merit to Batty's proposition and yet each of us has so much more complexity to add to all of this. Some of us handle it badly, some of us handle it well, some of us handle it badly and learn to handle it well. It is an evolution that starts very inwardly directed and very driven by fantasy and fancy, but hopefully as we mature with this other things start to get better. There is a lot of pent up frustration from years of denial and when the gates are finally opened there is bound to be what one looking from the outside might consider to be an extreme form of behaviour. I suppose that if you took the same process that any female goes through and compressed it into a few months or years it might seem extreme as well.

I consider myself a reasonably intelligent and logical person. I had also believed myself to be responsible, considerate, respectful, full of integrity, honesty and so much more that is considered positive. What I have discovered though is that when all of this bottled up denial, anger, frustration etc...finally gets released as has happened since my separation back in Feb of last year that we can do things and behave in ways that are in fact the antithesis of all of these things and I for one am not proud of my behaviours of late. I have much to atone for and I guess that speaks to Trees comments about how we can get so self absorbed in our needs that we hurt the ones that connect to us. I certainly know that that has been a big part of my experience in 2007 and I am trying my darndest to start to reverse that behaviour in 2008.

Cross dressing can be a very beautiful form of self expression and it can also be a terrible and destructive form of self absorption.

[battybattybats]

The CD believes/feels his presentation and expression is to be labelled as female as he believes it certainly is not what male is. It's perfectly natural and reasonable to him that the "over the top" clothing/makeup is as it should be for him to be female. The non-TG populace just stands in bewilderment. His insistance that he's just crossing the gender line and becoming female for a bit illicits responses from ridiculous to anger, depending on the individual's perception of female and the CDs comments or behaviors..

I don't think that many CDs are so naiive as to think that, when expressing themselves in an exagerated manner they are passing as female.


And the obvious fetish, or overtly sexual, presentations just offend most. I'd say it's the prudish western cultures, but it's that way to some extent everywhere in the world. Only a small percentage of people want sexuality on public display. Maybe it's because the predominantly male person views female as sex objects (in varying degrees, of course) so they can't imagine a female presentation that isn't somewhat based on sex appeal.

Not all the world through all of history has fit in with your description. There have been plenty of cultures that, to use the term most often used in femininsm are 'sex-positive'. As for what percentage want sexuality on public display.. where does your figure come from? Is it relative? For example most people I know have no problem with mild kissing in public from straight people, less are comfortable with it from gay people, some arn't comfortable with any noticable 'gay' expression at all in public. For some people holding hands is an excessive sexual public display.

As for sex-objects.. I think a lot of males, esp but not just CDs, wish they could be sexually objectified. Lots of straight guys I know have made comments of jeolousy of womens sexual objectification, as they see it as being idolised, worshipped and to have sexual power. Rather than demeaning most straight guys I know find the sexual objectification of women as something to be very jeolous of.


As far as self-absorbtion to make up for lost time, your points are probably very valid. However I think that that rationale for the behavior is unhealthy. Denying oneself anything is not like a savings account. Time spent is spent and cannot be spent again. Admittedly there is a regret factor....I should've, had I only known. The CD may regret not having spent more of his life dressed, but he chose to fight the urge. To bury it as much as possible for whatever reason. Dressing more (say 24/7) will not recapture the youth or missed experiences. A 50 yr old man trying to be a 21 yr old woman is just as sad as a 50 yr old woman trying to be 21 again.

I don't think this is that concious a process, nor like ordinary regrets. This is about repression, something long understood to build powerfully in the unconcious till it can no longer be denied and must be expressed often resulting in spectacularly self-destructive acting out if repressed for too long or kept down through self destructive behaviour like alcohol and drug abuse.


I believe it's healthier to acknowledge the regret, say a few swear words, and start enjoying what you still have left. I can only say that I've truly "lived in the moment" a handful of times in my life - but when it happens it is what life is about. I don't think you can make those times. You can put yourself in positions where it is possible, but there are many variables (responsibilities, practicality and survival considerations) that may or may not prevent "the moment". Those moments cannot be recaptured or relived. They are unique to the infinite variables and circumstance. Chasing the missed moment is obsession that will prevent experiencing the now or future moments.

But when dealing with powerfully repressed needs that is not necessarily what will work. Sure you can't actually get that time back, but there can be a lot to be said, a lot of theraputic value in getting some of that experience you missed out on. That's one of the components of several forms of psychological therapy after all.


Plus, and this is a biggie IMO, for the late-blooming CD a family and career life has been built. Self-absorbtion before the kids are raised or retirement financial position is obtained can destroy it all. That is just plain inconsiderate of the peeps who love you, have loved you, and trusted you to finish what you started. Modification is certainly reasonable....integrating the CD expression is possible, but allowing yourself to obsess and focus primarily on the gender expression cannot foster a continuation of mutually fulfilling relationships. The CD says they want to be able to more freely express love, gentility and all the stereotype female personality attributes, but self-absorbtion is the antithesis of those qualities. One negates the other and vice versa.

But if dealing with a wellspring of repressed needs under pressure such a measured response may not be possible or worse could be counter productive letting off not nearly enough steam and causing further acting-out or inner conflict leading to self destructive coping methods. Certainly the CD will need to try and prevent their expression from going overboard but such a limited and controlled release just might not be possible for many.


Now it is possible that the CD will think, I've spent most my life hiding it, I want to spend the rest of my life expressing it. That is certainly their right as an individual to choose that path. But there again, it is inconsiderate of those he has connected to his life and is the ultimate anti-nuturing act. That logic is based on the "savings plan" theory and assumes that the loved ones knew they were accumulating some sort of debt. We were given person A on a deferred payment plan and now the balloon payment we didn't know was coming is due. We end up in broke.

Whether the loved ones knew about the debt or not has no bearing as to whether the debt exists or not. If repressing or holding back the CDing too much culd lead to mental health probs, mood swings, addiction and breakdowns it is in fact considerate of the CD to try and ensure they have a healthy amount of outlet and that is really hard to do maintaining control of anything under pressure is messy difficult and often dangerous after all.


You make very valid points that I am sure are accurate in many instances. No one is ever wrong for feeling how they feel, but how they deal with those feelings and what they do about them defines the person whether TG or not.

Sure, and we all agree that a TG must try and minimise the negative impact on their family. But judging them can only be done fairly based on the difficulty of the task. And we are all humans after all, we can't be perfect nor succeed at everything everytime either. Recrimination or being taken to task for failing to live up to an extreme ideal under difficult circumstances isn't very productive. It only breeds resentment and resistance. Whereas encouragement and a recognition of struggle can do a world of wonders.

[Lucy Bright]

Whether the loved ones knew about the debt or not has no bearing as to whether the debt exists or not. If repressing or holding back the CDing too much culd lead to mental health probs, mood swings, addiction and breakdowns it is in fact considerate of the CD to try and ensure they have a healthy amount of outlet and that is really hard to do maintaining control of anything under pressure is messy difficult and often dangerous after all.

I absolutely agree with everything after the first sentence, but a debt is something that has to be entered into freely and consciously on both sides, and this doesn't meet that criterion. It's perhaps natural that a CD who is struggling hard to keep things "normal" for his loved ones may begin to resent their blithe unawareness of what he's going through "for them",* but it's not their fault that they don't make allowances for something he's been at pains to keep secret from them! They don't owe him a debt for that.

What they should ideally be able to give, once they know, is the understanding that any person who loves another will give when they're aware that that other person has been suffering. Of course, at that point (having discovered that their SO is a CD) they may well be suffering themselves, which complicates matters! Anyway, there's plenty of scope for vulnerability and resentment there without bringing in retrospective charges of ingratitude.

* Not that most CDs' motives are quite so exclusively altruistic. Fear of ridicule, and not wanting to lose the benefits they currently enjoy (family, friends, job) must be as big a factor for many as wanting to protect their loved ones.

[battybattybats]

I absolutely agree with everything after the first sentence, but a debt is something that has to be entered into freely and consciously on both sides, and this doesn't meet that criterion. It's perhaps natural that a CD who is struggling hard to keep things "normal" for his loved ones may begin to resent their blithe unawareness of what he's going through "for them",* but it's not their fault that they don't make allowances for something he's been at pains to keep secret from them! They don't owe him a debt for that.


Hmm.. but the partner isn't in debt in this anology, only the CD. And no amount of lack of knowledge of the CDs debt will make that debt go away. Absolutely it's not the partners fault in the slightest, but that doesn't neccessarily put blame on the CD or in any way reduce the debt their in.

If a someone had a personal credit card in their own name that their partner knew nothing about, not knowing about it wouldn't make that debt go away either.

Also this debt isn't entered into freely, it's like finding there was a loophole in a contract you didn't see. It's like the blood suger/insulin debt of someone with diabetes or hyperglycolosis. You don't have to choose it or even know it's there to end up seriously in deficit.

[Lucy Bright]

Hmm.. but the partner isn't in debt in this anology, only the CD. And no amount of lack of knowledge of the CDs debt will make that debt go away. Absolutely it's not the partners fault in the slightest, but that doesn't neccessarily put blame on the CD or in any way reduce the debt their in.

If a someone had a personal credit card in their own name that their partner knew nothing about, not knowing about it wouldn't make that debt go away either.

Also this debt isn't entered into freely, it's like finding there was a loophole in a contract you didn't see. It's like the blood suger/insulin debt of someone with diabetes or hyperglycolosis. You don't have to choose it or even know it's there to end up seriously in deficit.

Okay, I see what you mean now. I think that in TreeGG's original analogy, though, it was the SOs and the rest of the family that had acquired the 'debt' unknowingly:


"That logic is based on the "savings plan" theory and assumes that the loved ones knew they were accumulating some sort of debt. We were given person A on a deferred payment plan and now the balloon payment we didn't know was coming is due. We end up in broke."

Kisses,

Lucy

[Pamela Julie]

You can't make up for lack of crossdressing in the past. You can only act on it now for current satisfaction and the future. With age comes knowledge, both cognitive, and an understanding of one's self. You are able to make more judgments without the fear of making a mistake, so you are more bold about your decisions. Making the correct choices for yourself makes you feel better about yourself. I know I am a woman, even though my physical body differs from my mind. I can do things to alter my looks to coincide, that's called crossdressing.

[heidi99]

Maybe it's because the predominantly male person views female as sex objects (in varying degrees, of course) so they can't imagine a female presentation that isn't somewhat based on sex appeal.

If by objectification you mean taking the traits that are attractive, and getting rid of the traits that are unattractive (vindictiveness, etc.) and merging them into a notion of an ideal, then perhaps you are correct. And so GG's don't do the same thing? Actually maybe even worse by trying to mold/change an actual being into that ideal? And I do realize, that the molding/changing might be stereotypical as well. Based on my sampling of the female population, it seems to be out there.


The CD says they want to be able to more freely express love, gentility and all the stereotype female personality attributes, but self-absorbtion is the antithesis of those qualities. One negates the other and vice versa.

Let's be fair. I think self-absorbtion is a product of society's culture, and one's experiences in life. To assign it as a gender trait (GG, GM, CD, whatever) doesn't really work, as one can find self-absorbed people in every category.

My points may be a little off topic, and for that I apologize. Just kind of hit a nerve. I hope that we all can reach a better place in which we TRULY accept others as we would have them accept us (warts and all)!

[Tree GG]

...Cross dressing can be a very beautiful form of self expression and it can also be a terrible and destructive form of self absorption.

Very true in my experience as well.



Okay, I see what you mean now. I think that in TreeGG's original analogy, though, it was the SOs and the rest of the family that had acquired the 'debt' unknowingly:

Lucy

Thank you, Lucy. You understood my meaning.


If by objectification you mean taking the traits that are attractive, and getting rid of the traits that are unattractive (vindictiveness, etc.) ....

Attractive is a relative and subjective state of being. What I find attractive, you may not. And what you find attractive, John or Jane Doe may not.

Batty, I'm a bit confused by your two posts. I believe we are saying the same thing, just differently. The common "overly sexual or feminine" CD presentation is not representative of "real" women nor necessarily the CD's goal. But I don't agree with the public displays of sexuality rebuttal. I'm not talking about holding hands, hugging or brief kisses. I'm talking about fishnet hose, skirts that don't fully cover the groin area and/or chests padded to escape the 3' bubble personal space. I will admit those CD presentations are the minority....probably along the same percentile as in population at large when in mainstream venues. In cyberspace, however, there tends to be more exhibitionism. (Is that a word? :happy:)

You also speak of repression frequently in your 2nd post. My husband and I had a similar conversation recently about "being not male" or what was expected of him and why CDing went from a closeted, personal experience to needing the "full femme and out" experience. He felt the bulk of male definition came from his father and as I did not witness these exchanges, I cannot say if it was an intended message or just a perceived message. Which doesn't really matter, it was a message that was internalized.

And if this male definition message did not hold true for my husband's hard wiring (personality and expression desires), why did he continue to put himself in environments with peers who appeared to also live by that definition when it made him uncomfortable? I understand he felt pressure to conform, but he chose to conform to the extent he did by his own reasoning at the time. I see that as subtle repression that could've been subtly fought. As Eleanor Roosevelt said, "No one can make you a victim without your consent."

Also, the CDing was fine and satisfying the way it was for so many years - closeted and personal experience. Yes, the thought of full femme and out was there, but never strong enough to be acted upon. Until he found out there were others doing it. I see that as another conformity to a different stereotype - all the other CDs are doing it! :happy:

I fully understand and appreciate there is a "need" there. I would not suggest denying the need nor ignoring it. But satisfying the need should never jeopardize others. My husband, and many others, have said dressing is a release from the "male" responsibilities and liberating. OK, fair enough if their internalized definition of male is so restrictive of anything female. However, it should never release them from their existing adult responsibilities, no matter how repressed they feel they have been. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Ashley Williams]

However I think that that rationale for the behavior is unhealthy. Denying oneself anything is not like a savings account.

I believe it's healthier to acknowledge the regret, say a few swear words, and start enjoying what you still have left. I can only say that I've truly "lived in the moment" a handful of times in my life - but when it happens it is what life is about.

Plus, and this is a biggie IMO, for the late-blooming CD a family and career life has been built.

Now it is possible that the CD will think, I've spent most my life hiding it, I want to spend the rest of my life expressing it. That is certainly their right as an individual to choose that path. But there again, it is inconsiderate of those he has connected to his life and is the ultimate anti-nuturing act. That logic is based on the "savings plan" theory and assumes that the loved ones knew they were accumulating some sort of debt.


Some very thought-provoking points, particularly pertinent for me in my current situation where I have recently told my wife of almost ten years that I have been cross-dressing again.

This post merits more study than I can give justice to at the moment - but certainly the most thorough response to the selfishness/right to expression dilemma I have seen.

Thanks.

Lesley

[MsJanessa]

Me?? Self absorbed and sterotyping??? Whatever do you mean?? Fetish wear??? GOL(giggling out loud)

[Melissa A.]

I don't think you can devise a mathematical formula for making up for lost time. I really think there is not much to that, at least to the extent that you described it. There may be a sense of urgency in the older cd, sure. But I think that has more to do with the future than the past.

I have never exaggerated my femininity, and rarely wear red lipstick! My point is, many of us are happy expressing our feminine side in a normal, realistic fashion. Fashion being the operative word. I have become something of a student of style, and am proud of my wardobe, which is predominantly filled with casual or proffessional attire. Is there some sexy stuff? Sure. Just like any real girl. But I do not own a maid outfit, or even fishnet stockings!!

I agree with the stuff about being self-absorbed, but from a different angle. Crossdressing is INHERENTLY selfish, because it is about YOU. And for many, it can be auto-erotic. I think as we become older, however, the sexual component of our female side begins to wane, a bit. It becomes something we need to do to be ourselves. Is it realistic? Well, literally, no. Unless you transition, you're not a girl. But I am slowly getting to the point where Melissa is becoming a strong part of who I am, whether I am dressed or not. And she is real. It's not all about the "look". My look is important, to an extent. But it isn't all Melissa is about, I've learned. There are a few girls here who have achieved that state of balance, I'm not saying that I am one of them yet. But I am getting closer.

Do we stereotype what a girl is in our fantasies, or what society tells us a girls role should be, then act that out? There may be some truth to that. But it's not a script written in stone. It can be overcome with a little intelligence and effort. If you don't want to act like "the little lady" or some over the top diva, then don't. Leave that to the drag queens.

We are all individuals, with similar experiences, but different as night and day. Be yourself, wherever that takes you.

Hugs,

Melissa:happy:

[heidi99]

We are all individuals, with similar experiences, but different as night and day. Be yourself, wherever that takes you.

Absolutely correct, Melissa!!! :hugs:

[battybattybats]

Batty, I'm a bit confused by your two posts. I believe we are saying the same thing, just differently. The common "overly sexual or feminine" CD presentation is not representative of "real" women nor necessarily the CD's goal. But I don't agree with the public displays of sexuality rebuttal. I'm not talking about holding hands, hugging or brief kisses. I'm talking about fishnet hose, skirts that don't fully cover the groin area and/or chests padded to escape the 3' bubble personal space. I will admit those CD presentations are the minority....probably along the same percentile as in population at large when in mainstream venues. In cyberspace, however, there tends to be more exhibitionism. (Is that a word? :happy:)

My point was that what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in displays of a sexual nature is relative dependant on culture, locality, personal taste and the like. It's a purely subjective and frequently arbitrary thing. Effectively ruled by the most common view amongst any given group but with no real intrinsic measure. The only reasonably argued level of absolute restraint once this relative gradation of taste is factored into account is that which may be harmful to any minors present. My daily clothes as a goth have upset the sensibilities of some folk on occassion. But if they find my being different objectionable they are the ones ethically in error.


And if this male definition message did not hold true for my husband's hard wiring (personality and expression desires), why did he continue to put himself in environments with peers who appeared to also live by that definition when it made him uncomfortable? I understand he felt pressure to conform, but he chose to conform to the extent he did by his own reasoning at the time. I see that as subtle repression that could've been subtly fought. As Eleanor Roosevelt said, "No one can make you a victim without your consent."

I think that could be a little unfair. it takes a lot of effort to shrug off this kind of social programming from the unconcious. It exists for very good survival reasons. From far before this branch of primates developed humans much of ou survival skills became learnt. These problems get in deep using the same process that our hunter-gatherer survival skills get in. You find the same thing with some species of fish where it turns out that younger fish often learn how to survive from older fish so taking only the big fish can cause whole fisheries to collapse as the younger fish have no idea where to migrate to. With humans exceedingly long post-birth development we get most of our instincts and skills from learning and much of that is unconcious learning from our initial language acquisition and walking onwards.

In this case there are two deep unconcious forces in direct conflict, one acquired over time and the other repressed over the same amount of time but intrinsic. The concent in unconcious, the withdrawel of that consent is largely concious and requires rewiring of the unconcious to eliminate the deeply etched acquired yet incorrect knowledge. Like breaking a long held unconcious habit. First you have to become aware you hacve it. Then you have to learn to catch yourself doing it, then you have to challenge yourself every time you do it untill eventually the unconcious gives up the habit. This isn't easy.

In many ways this is exactly the same as the process we use to try and get rid of the crossdressing desires, but that is attached, it won't go away it's intrinsicly part of us.


Also, the CDing was fine and satisfying the way it was for so many years - closeted and personal experience. Yes, the thought of full femme and out was there, but never strong enough to be acted upon. Until he found out there were others doing it. I see that as another conformity to a different stereotype - all the other CDs are doing it! :happy:

In my own case once I realised that I still needed to crossdress fully, just being a feminine male sometimes wasn't enough and I started to accept that and confront my unconcious issues that I hadn't realised existed I started to feel that it needed to be more than a closeted personal experience. For self-honesty, for my obligation to the broader community.


I fully understand and appreciate there is a "need" there. I would not suggest denying the need nor ignoring it. But satisfying the need should never jeopardize others. My husband, and many others, have said dressing is a release from the "male" responsibilities and liberating. OK, fair enough if their internalized definition of male is so restrictive of anything female. However, it should never release them from their existing adult responsibilities, no matter how repressed they feel they have been. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Sometimes standing up for what is right can jeopardise others. Standing up to bigotry in public, fighting for civil rights, fighting tyranny often jeopardises the very lives of ones loved ones. Arguably not doing so does too. However the example you use seems a little different to that, in which case so long as your husband is happy to take up a proportion of "female" responsibilities while dressed then it all seems fair to me. He might also find that 'liberating', as you might too.


I agree with the stuff about being self-absorbed, but from a different angle. Crossdressing is INHERENTLY selfish, because it is about YOU.

It most certainly is about self, but self isn't self-ish. The difference is important. To be selfish it must be unfair, but expecting everyone to be totally self-less is unfair too.

A plate of cookies set out for everyone.
A selfish act is eating all the cookies. A selfless act is eating none of the cookies. An act of fairness to the self, of nurturing of the self is to eat an equal share of the cookies.

If everyone was selfless the cookies would go stale. If everyone was selfish there would be a squable over the cookies. If everyone was fair everyone would get a fair share of cookies.

Excessive selflessness is to be the one to bake the cookies and yet to eat none. Excessive selfishness is to eat cookies someone else baked not for everyone but just for themselves.

But if you bake some cookies for yourself, which you made from ingredients you bought for yourself with your own money and you then eat your own cookies you have done something entirely for yourself but you have been fair and have been in no way at all selfish.

[docrobbysherry]

It most certainly is about self, but self isn't self-ish. The difference is important. To be selfish it must be unfair, but expecting everyone to be totally self-less is unfair too.

A plate of cookies set out for everyone.
A selfish act is eating all the cookies. A selfless act is eating none of the cookies. An act of fairness to the self, of nurturing of the self is to eat an equal share of the cookies.

If everyone was selfless the cookies would go stale. If everyone was selfish there would be a squable over the cookies. If everyone was fair everyone would get a fair share of cookies.

Excessive selflessness is to be the one to bake the cookies and yet to eat none. Excessive selfishness is to eat cookies someone else baked not for everyone but just for themselves.

But if you bake some cookies for yourself, which you made from ingredients you bought for yourself with your own money and you then eat your own cookies you have done something entirely for yourself but you have been fair and have been in no way at all selfish.

I'm the type that would have one cookie, wait to see if there r any left over, then eat them all. So much for the "three kinds of cookie people", theory! Batty, I'm NOT saying you've lost your cookies, but the way!
RS

[battybattybats]

I'm the type that would have one cookie, wait to see if there r any left over, then eat them all. So much for the "three kinds of cookie people", theory! Batty, I'm NOT saying you've lost your cookies, but the way!
RS

I didn't mean everyone would just fit into one of those sample catagories, only that those examples showed the difference between fairness to self and selfishness.
:hugs:

[JacquiUKTV]

I could say more, but that would be to waste bandwidth duplicating the opinions of others.

Your premise about "lost time"...about "catching-up"? That is ...or more exactly was just so true of me.

It can be done.... given the opportunity.

Thank you Batty for this intelligent and well-perceived assessment.

:love: Jacqui.

[Nicole Erin]

Me?? Self absorbed and sterotyping??? Whatever do you mean?? Fetish wear??? GOL(giggling out loud)
YEAH leave her out of it! :heehee:

Batty, you are right with what you say about a certain dose of femininity.
Maybe one's particular amount of femme-ness needed is what puts us on whatever part of the gender spectrum. That is why there are everything from "sensitive guys" [so to speak] to Full time post op TS.

So from what I could follow, it looked very good
However, this statement made me "giggle" for a while -

"So all those times you wanted to giggle as a teen pours out like some extreme parody of giggling schoolgirls because you have years of giglling to get out. "
I imagine you had a dead straight face as you wrote that.

[sarahkatie]

But if dealing with a wellspring of repressed needs under pressure such a measured response may not be possible or worse could be counter productive letting off not nearly enough steam and causing further acting-out or inner conflict leading to self destructive coping methods. Certainly the CD will need to try and prevent their expression from going overboard but such a limited and controlled release just might not be possible for many.
Unfortunately, many cder's DONT succeed, or sometimes even try to prevent their expression from going overboard. I love my dh/cd, and I love sharing in the exploration of that part of her personality, but if he had not made the effort to include me, and share in MY life too, there would be no relationship. In the past 8 months, I have learned of many cders who work to limit and controll themselves so to keep their relationships, and I have seem many who seem to throw them away. I will say this, counsoling has really helped every couple that I know of, who had it. Anyway ... that isnt exactly what I want to say, but it is as close as I can get. My 1yr old is taking off for parts unknown ... time to take chase:-P

[battybattybats]

YEAH leave her out of it! :heehee:

Batty, you are right with what you say about a certain dose of femininity.
Maybe one's particular amount of femme-ness needed is what puts us on whatever part of the gender spectrum. That is why there are everything from "sensitive guys" [so to speak] to Full time post op TS.

Good point! It also would explain how someone overwhelmed by the volume of femaleness inside could think themselves TS and needing to be full-time only to get confused when the desire falls away again only to return.


"So all those times you wanted to giggle as a teen pours out like some extreme parody of giggling schoolgirls because you have years of giglling to get out. "
I imagine you had a dead straight face as you wrote that.

Oh yes, though I may have had just a little mischevious twinkle in my eye... perhaps.