Whose decision is it? [Archive] - Crossdressers.com - #1 Community & Forum for Crossdressers, Family and Friends

GaleWarning

01-25-2009, 01:52 PM

Good question! I will try to deal with it on a number of levels.

The urge to CD never goes away ... so in that sense, I do not think any decision is involved. You and you wife can choose, however, how accepting of it you ought to be.

Read the threads here, and you will notice that for a great many of us, personal acceptance is/was a long journey, involving much guilt ansd many instances where we purged (threw out all our feminine stuff). Also, some speak of the level of their desire to CD waxing and waning, that it only comes out when they are stressed, or triggered by something else. For the majority of us, the problem boils down to learning to control our need to CD, to finding out how often, and to what extent we need to CD in order to satisfy the urge. If we live alone, I would suggest, we have more freedom and so will tend to spend more time en-femme and dress more fully, than if we know we might have to change hurriedly back into drab. The same is true, if we are fortunate to have family or friends who accept and support us. Again, then, I think any "decision" to CD, or to choose a level of CDing is limited by factors outside of us.

So ,in your instance, I would guess that you have to assess the degree to which your present marital situation meets the level of CDing you feel is needed to satify your urge to CD. The possibilities are:
1. Your wife and you can agree to set boundaries which enable you to dress frequently and fully enough to make you happy for awhile, and keep her happy the rest of the time. You stay together.
2. The two of you cannot agree. Then you and she might have to choose between
a) you go into the closet and dress only when she is not around. You and she are comfortable with this and decide that your marriage is worth it. You stay together. If this doesn't work, your marriage is doomed.
b) you decide never again to crossdress. You and she are comfortable with this and decide that your marriage is worth it. You stay together. Later, when the kids are grown and both of you are older, wiser and more mellow, you discuss the issue and you start CDing again.
c) You or she decides that you cannot reach a mutually-acceptable compromise over the issue, and you split.

Let me digress at this point, to say that, in my experience, the husband's CDing is never the sole issue in any such marital failure. Always, there are other issues, and in many instances, the other issues are bigger factors than the CDing in causing the marriage to break up. But CDing tends to be used as the excuse! CDing can, however, be the major issue.

On another level, still within marriage, your work situation may limit your ability to CD. Some here speak of their job being too high-profile to come out of the closet. Other occupations, especially if you work with children, are not very tolerant of CDers (although, curiously enough, they do seem to be more tolerant of openly gay people, but not if they CD!).

Underdressing, it seems to me, is one way in which you might be able to reach a high enough level of CDing to match your needs, while at the same time meeting the needs of your wife.

Ok - back to the main issue ...

Suppose you decide to split. There is life afterwards!
You will be free to choose a new living environment where you can CD to your heart's content; to choose friends who either do not know that you CD or are comfortable with it, or even support it; to find a new partner who loves you enough to accept you just the way you are, and you, them.

A word of caution, though ... in my experience, too many women start out by saying they accept your CDing, and then, when they feel the relationship is firmly established, slowly begin to "change their minds" ... and the whole cycle will begin again.

Or perhaps, it is your own individual karma that leads you into the same type of situation again, with the same type of woman as before, and the whole cycle will begin again.

If you are fortunate enough to find that rare being, a truly supportive SO, cherish her forever. Realise that she is a precious gift, a result of pure chance or destiny, certainly not a conscious decision on your part.

Or you could decide to remain single.

JamieDP

01-25-2009, 02:47 PM

I had to think about this for a second, being a divorcee myself, remarried, etc. and having to make a lot of choices myself. I think the choices made are not so clear cut of us or theirs.

Initially I think the choice begins before the relationship, or as the relationship even begins. In the beginning the choice is made to tell your perspective partner before or as the relationship commences or wait until after the relationship has commenced or really gone beyond a so called “initial courtship or introduction”. If the choice is to wait, then what follows can only be determined to be a result of that initial choice as the other person was already deprived of the chance to make a choice for themselves as to continue in this relationship with someone I know has an alternate gender tendency or to terminate the relationship there. In this situation if the information is divulged both people equally have the choice to determine where this goes or continues and although one persons choice may halt the relationship both parties were privy to making an adequate choice or decision for themselves directly impacting the progression of the relationship with perspective wife or SO. I believe this also applies to friends and/or other important people in your life with the exception of parents, or people who may already be involved in your life prior to you discovering your own gender issues (again parents, they brought you in this world with no way of knowing that you may be predisposed to an alternate gender or gender identity issue).

Now assuming a wife and friends and family are already in the picture, the choice again can not be solely one persons or the others. Again it is more in my opinion the denial of the chance for one or both people to make a fair choice. And as with most relationships, failure or success depends on the both parties involved in the relationship not necessarily one person. Even in the event of an affair or extramarital relationship this will reign to be true. Many folks will not agree with me here, but often a person seeks a relationship outside of the marriage for the lack of something they are not getting in their current relationship whatever that may be, emotional, physical, mental, etc. Where the tables turns and becomes more one persons fault is in the choice the person seeking the extra marital relationship made to actually pursue and act upon their thoughts, whims desires, etc. In that situation one person actively has the choice to NOT act upon those desires and communicate with their SO that something is lacking, giving their SO the fair opportunity or choice at that time to work with the partner or to ignore what the partner is saying. In which case brings me back to my original point, by not doing so denies both parties from making a fair and equal choice.

So therefore, if one has not conveyed their true selves initially upon discovery of their need to CD, or to be honest upfront about their past CDing or Transgender needs even if on hiatus, or even if they think it may not comeback, the person not divulging the information has already made the choice themselves that they are willing to sacrifice their friends, family, etc by denying them the opportunity to examine, explore and manage their issues or perspectives of the issue at hand.

If I may add one more, in my last relationship with my exwife, I dealt with a partner who had an STD (Herpes to be specific). Thankfully I did not contract this during the early part of the relationship, however she neglected to tell me from the start. Therefore I was denied the chance of even determining if I wanted to pursue a relationship with someone who was not willing to address this issue for themselves nor notify me of any outbreaks, etc. That person made the choice that it was ok to endanger my health, my feelings, my trust, from the start and hence denied me the free choice to say even ok I will accept you as are, but we must have protected sex or see a doctor. Instead I had to deal with ultimately finding out in an awkward way when she was pregnant and therefore also risking the health of our unborn child. Thank goodness those tests are done during pregnancy. All I can say is I may have been able to accept such a situation with some joint determined guidelines as opposed to years later, I feel by denying me that choice up front and information, she already made the choice that she was willing to sacrifice our relation by sacrificing the trust, the emotional layers and even physical endangerment of her partner (me) from day one. She also chooses to do that to friends who during an outbreak she may share clothing with, drink after her, etc.

I hope that made sense.

-JDP

Kelli Michelle

01-25-2009, 02:50 PM

GaleWarning

01-25-2009, 03:20 PM

OK Kelli - again, my two cents' worth ...

In this case, you will have made a decision to take up an uncompromising stance on the issue, and as a result your wife will have made a decision to ask you to leave.

The rest is silence ...

Nicki B

01-25-2009, 03:36 PM

Who's decision is it, to leave?

Surely the person who leaves (unless they get thrown out).. :strugglin

But the basis for that decision has to be where is the suffering worst? And that varies as much as the people do, who are in each relationship - no situation is ever the same.

Tha answer to you're wife's question, Kelli, is that some people certainly are - but only you can answer if it's true in your case?

But there is a counter question for her - is she prepared to see you trapped in astate of misery, getting more and more difficult to live with? You can't just turn the feelings off..

You both need to find a compromise - but either of you moving out should, in any marriage, be a last resort?

curse within

01-25-2009, 03:48 PM

My question is : Are we actually choosing cding over wife and family if we leave, or is it that the wife or family or friends are making choices themselves that require us to leave? For instance, if your wife says, " I can't handle this...don't want the kids involved with your cding... you need to move out..." , is leaving/divorcing really our decision? Wouldn't we be willing to stay if the wife and family were ok with it? Or not? Do some of us need to split (even with family acceptance) from the wife/family?

That is a good question, without understand that could turn in to the circumstance... Some of us left our CDing in the closet and allowed others to only know our male side. Only to release the feminine side of our selves at a later point of our life.

Now it depends your answer that is on what lead up to who is making the decission... Have you always be open and up front with your desires? Long before you have made any comittment to a relationship?.. If so then yes it's their decission because they should know that CDing is a part of you.

If you never where up front hid your CDing and was caught or felt over whelming to revel your secret , maybe from quilt ..Then it's you unconcious decission that created the circumstance that you have found yourself in..

Katrina red nails

01-25-2009, 03:50 PM

Ok Kelli here's my stab at it.
Your last post section 1) In my case boundaries were agreed, i dressed often enough, stayed indoors and kept out of her way - everybody happy. Then, as women often do, she did a U turn and it was "carry on cding and i leave."
2a) was not an option she never goes out without me
2b) was equally not an option because I made the decision that i was not going to stop (there have been other issues in the past where i have abided by her wishes and stopped things but not this time)
2c) splitting could still happen but that will be her decision.
All I ask of her is that we turn back the clock to the previously agreed boundaries which again will be her decision but the overriding decision to carry on dressing has been made by me. It is a big gamble but i still hope she will come round and she hasn't left - yet.

Kelli Michelle

01-25-2009, 05:12 PM

Clearly, if we left totally because we wanted out to live the life we wanted, then, as I said previously, that WOULD be us making a choice---cding over wife/family. That's obvious. I am speaking about other circumstances, where we are asked to leave, or thrown out, whatever. I usually hear, that in either case, it was ALL our decision. Not that simple, in that case, IMHO.

Clayfish, the comment you made, "In this case, you will have made a decision to take up an uncompromising stance on the issue, and as a result your wife will have made a decision to ask you to leave", is true to a degree. Yes the cder's decision is uncompromising , further the wife's "decision" is an uncompromising stance as well, no? It wouldn't be your decision to leave them over this. It would be (being fair) at least yours and hers.

While it's true the CDing is the catalyst for this, I would venture to say, especially if you are "further along the path" it's not all your choice. I suppose , in the long run, it doesn't really matter, though. I just get annoyed, again, when people claim that it's all about us, and not about anyone, or anything else.

BTW, my brain is getting tired, lol. This is serious, complicated stuff, isn't it?

Thanks, all.

Karen564

01-25-2009, 05:48 PM

Ok, let's sort this. Of course my questions have to do with me. But, my questions are not meant to be primarily about me. Rather, I know these questions come up for a lot of people, so I am interested primarily in their thoughts and experiences. I was using my situation to sorta get the ball rolling, so to speak. BTW I was crossdressing long before I met my wife. You can view my other threads for the full story. The situation about not telling my wife doesn't really apply to me either.

As an aside, the choices (in a nutshell) that clayfish lays out look pretty correct to me,
1. Your wife and you can agree to set boundaries which enable you to dress frequently and fully enough to make you happy for awhile, and keep her happy the rest of the time. You stay together.
2. The two of you cannot agree. Then you and she might have to choose between
a) you go into the closet and dress only when she is not around. You and she are comfortable with this and decide that your marriage is worth it. You stay together. If this doesn't work, your marriage is doomed.
b) you decide never again to crossdress. You and she are comfortable with this and decide that your marriage is worth it. You stay together. Later, when the kids are grown and both of you are older, wiser and more mellow, you discuss the issue and you start CDing again.
c) You or she decides that you cannot reach a mutually-acceptable compromise over the issue, and you split."

To put it in perspective, let's use an example. Assume I am somewhere between CD and TS. This is who I am, no going away, and I may want more cding than I am getting now, or even perhaps to transition. Wife says "no...move out..." The questions are, again, "Are we actually choosing cding over wife and family if we leave, or is it that the wife or family or friends are making choices, as well, that require us to leave? Is leaving/divorcing really ALL our decision? Wouldn't we be willing to stay if the wife and family were ok with it? Or not? Do some of us need to split (even with family acceptance) from the wife/family?

The title of the thread says it all: Whose decision is it? My reason for asking these rhetorical (sort of) questions is that I have heard others say that these decisions are only our decisions, with little comment on the other factors and decisions by others that cause us to leave.

As usual thank you for your thoughts, insights, and input.

As I read this, I feel very sad for all involved with this relationship, I really do.

And what I'm about to say can go for Any relationship.

If I'm reading this right, which can get pretty confusing the way your asking it and your making it out to be more complicated than it really is, IMO.

In a nutshell, since you were not honest with your wife from the beginning before you took a vow of marriage, and she accepted this vow of marriage based on Love, honesty & trust from you, thinking that what she knew & saw in you was what she wanted based on how you presented yourself to her.

SOOO,,,, based on that, The decision IS and always was Your Choice to Stay OR leave.

In other words, if you say NO, I will not stop, and the whole CD thing is very upsetting to her because had she of known from the beginning, from the sounds of it, She would have never married you, because she doesn't like guy's that dress up as girl....and that is her right to feel that way... period.
and by you saying NO, Then that leaves her NO CHOICE but to say LEAVE then, because this is not what she wanted to be married to & never did, and that is her right.
If you say YES, I will stop, then, you have made the choice to Stay.

So either way, the Choice is ONLY yours on weather you want to stay or leave, you can't put the blame on them for making you leave because you gave them no choice to do otherwise if they strongly disapprove of CDing.

It's called Freewill, you can't make someone approve of something if they don't want to, just because you want it that way.

There will be no one to blame either way but Yourself for not being Honest & Truthful with Yourself #1, And #2 Most importantly, Your Wife.

It would be great if everyone in this world could be so understanding about the problems we all face, but I also believe that everyone has the same right as we do to express there beliefs, even if it's based on ignorance, but when one enters an relationship based on Love & Trust, and a person breaks that Trust, who's to blame here.... the answer is the obvious.....yes or no..

Sorry, Just my :2c:

Karen

jenn25wnycd

01-25-2009, 07:02 PM

Kellie,

Lets pretend that you're not a crossdresser for a second and just your average strapping man's man, that takes care of his family, does his job to the best of his ability, and tries to be the best father he can be.....
Your wife comes up to you one day and says... hey hun... i really want to be a man... will you stay with me? Weird huh... You didn't marry a man... and she didn't marry a woman... the fine line is compromise.. if she has altered her compromise stance, it is her right to do so, but that would make it her decision. You know how some cd's say... well I didn't know WHO I WAS till i was 50!! So THATS WHY I am doing this now... well.... does it not seem fit that a spouse didn't know what she wanted out of her life till 50? and possibly change her mind on the whole ' i can deal with it' thing?
Just because she was young and possibly naive when she found out about your dressing, and though it was something she could deal with, does NOT mean that it is set in stone.... it just DOESN'T... Just like cd'ers that are always pushing the boundaries that were set to see if they can stretch them a little with their spouse... it's the same thing.. just for a second, think about what SHE is feeling and thinking about, then ask yourself if you would react the same way.

ReineD

01-25-2009, 09:29 PM

You are transgendered. You cannot change this. It is not a option.

Either you both decide you can live with the CDing (hopefully with healthy compromises), or you both decide you cannot. When a marriage breaks up, it is never just one person's responsibility.

IMO the issue is not whether Kelli knew or didn't know before she married, or chose to tell her wife or not, especially if earlier in their relationship Kelli wanted to and thought she could live without it. Desires and levels of CDing change as individuals age and reach more profound degrees of self-acceptance, or as other barriers to the CDing are removed. Also, even if an SO knew from the onset, her own definitions might have been superficial. She might have decided she could live with her husband wearing lingerie in the bedroom for example, and it might have taken years for her or even for both of them to discover the CDing was more deeply rooted than anyone thought. Then who's fault is it if they cannot agree on the degree of expression, if the CDer's needs increase to the point of full body shaving and wishing an active social life en femme?

Everything always changes and it is up to both the partners in a relationship to decide whether or not they can weather these changes. So the solution is for both of you to communicate and compromise. Or divorce, in which case you will both lose something you each consider to be essential to your existence. As will your children.

I wish your wife could come to understand this.

And Kelli, if you do not think you are TS at the current time, I would consider stopping to mention this to your wife. No one knows what the future holds, and it is true that everything is possible, but to present a picture that may not be accurate IMO is not the best thing to do in your situation right now. A personal example: there is always the possibility I will lapse back into old addictions, but I do not remind my family of this on a regular basis.

Might also your outlook on the possibility of being TS change for you if you and your wife decide you can get past this and you stay together? Meaning, don't TSs know from very early on they are women born in the wrong body? Please forgive me if my question is naive or if it offends.
:hugs:

JoAnne Wheeler

01-26-2009, 09:41 AM

KELLI - I have been confronted with this decision for the last 6 months - I still do not know what to do - my Spouse is accepting uo to a point (she wants boundaries - I do not)

The PINK FOG wants me to leave so I can CD all I want and to the EXTENT I want.

I have to weigh this against the loss of a wife of 38 years - my family, my friends, my job, my church

It makes sense to try to keep my CDing under control so I don't lose everything

But that dammed PINK FOG is so powerful - it causes me to take chances, disregard risks, and otherwise not think straight

Does this sound like you ?

JoAnne Wheeler

Kelli Michelle

01-26-2009, 09:41 AM

Wow, great comments, and ideas.

I keep hearing people say, "you didn't tell your wife...before you were married..." She did know I crossdressed. She even bought me a nightgown. Let's close the case on that, ok?
Even if I hadn't told her, I don't see what that would have to do with my questions, but let's get past that too. What she knew, is what I knew.

I didn't know if I was further along the path ( I always thought I was simply a cder) until later, when I I discovered things about myself, in going out dressed. At the time we were separated while I was trying to secure a job while she was with the kids in another country. I told her as soon as I saw her (you don't discuss things like this over the phone).

Even though I didn't want this thread to be about me, it looks like it IS gonna be about me, so I will just go with it.

As far as what constitutes a TS or not, contradict me if you will, but I have done not considerable research on lots of aspects of CDing and TS, etc. While, I suppose, the primary model for a TS is one where they felt like a woman in a man's body from early years, it's not the only model. I remember when I was around 2-3 yrs. Old (I know what age I was now), I tried on some little girl pantaloons (my sister's) and confidently waked out into the front yard. My mom was screaming at me, as was my dad. That part of me went into the closet until about 12 when I discovered my mom's lingerie. It has gone on since then. Having been heavily immersed in all things male (heavy sports, 3 brothers, etc) and not having the time or opportunity it has taken some time to discover what I am. My thought is that I am not a "true" TS, but somewhere in between. I don't want ALL of what goes with being as TS, but would like breast implants and would like to live as a woman 24/7.

Reine, as far as whether my thoughts on this might change at some point in the future, I suppose that is possible, since I am not a true TS.

I am not blaming my wife for whatever her stance is. I suppose it's natural to assume that I am simply pushing boundaries, or that I am failing to take her feelings into account. I am actually very sympathetic and empathetic. IT would be difficult for anyone. That doesn't preclude me from being what I believe I am, or her from trying to understand my situation, even if she doesn't like it. Should we say, " well, this isn't fair to my wife (or she doesn't like it), so I will just let it go and go back to my old self, even though it would be a lie, and cause us both incredible stress and depression ..." ?

Look, if she doesn't want what I want, it's no sin on her to say, "honey, I just can't live that way..." That is a fair statement, and I would understand.

Kelli Michelle

01-26-2009, 09:51 AM

Joanne, your situation sounds a bit like me. How far does yours go? Would like any type of body modification?

Here is what i would submit: if you love your wife but, she wants you to leave (should you continue to cd more) and you decide I will stay, than I would submit that you do indeed have the pink fog. However, if you decide to leave, than you don't have the pink fog---it's something more.

If, in the above case, you weren't deeply in love with your wife and the same exact situation occurred, and you left, it could be EITHER the pink fog or something more. If you stayed, then it definitely is the pink fog.

Hope I am being sufficiently confusing, lol.

Thanks for the input.

JamieDP

01-26-2009, 02:28 PM

I did not mean my reply to suggest that you didn't tell before hand. As I read your post I actually thought about you stating that she knew up front and was thinking how fustrating this must be for you especially having been up front.

I guess in answer to the original question "who's decision is it?" I could've been much more brief in my answer...but you know as a girl at heary I have a tendency to go on and on...oops i did it again...

anyway my thoughts...and just my thoughts is i do think it is the decision or choice of both people in the relationship and the choices are but not limited to...choosing to accept each others feelings coupled with choosing to find a comprimise and a peaceful life together where both can feel free and fulfilled in life or choosing to not accept something of the other person leaving that person possibly unhappy and resentful, thus possibly leading to a wedge or gap in the relationship ultimately.

again just my thoughts...

Kelli Michelle

01-26-2009, 02:42 PM

Well Jamie, you had lots to say, so say it girl. I agreed with a lot what you had to say btw. All this discussion is good, even the parts that didn't sound right to me. It all helps one look at all the angles. If I just wanted one side versus all, I never would have posted.

battybattybats

01-26-2009, 10:42 PM

Let she who has never lied cast the first stone.

Cause studies have shown that even in anonymous surveys many poeple lie. For example men exaggerate upwards their number of sexual partners in their sexual history and women exaggerate the same thing downwards. Both lying. Plenty of people, almost a third, both men and women equally, cheat on their partners. Liars.

And in day to day life most people lie plenty every single day.

Also and even more importantly people retain a right to privacy even in marriage from their spouse!

Now that makes a lot of people uncomfortable but it is so. It was something womens-rights campainers fought for!

Almost everyone has secrets they wish to keep. Secret attractions, secret fantasies.

People often dont tell their partner that they find other people attractive, or that they fantasise about other people.

About 1/3rd of the audience of pornography is female and that proportion is swiftly growing. I'm sure plenty are not being open about that.

Heck the amount of American women who have had voluntary sex with a dog is said to be more than 1% which if so would make them more common than some estimates of TSs!

Do you think the bestialist GGs have confessed their past unethical and illegal abusive sex with an unable-to-give-informed-consent animal to their husbands?

When many have not disclosed their true number of past sexual partners to their husbands I'm certain many GGs have skeletons in their closet too.

And such secrets are often not of being guilty of crimes or of having fetishes or fantasies. Most victims of abuse, physical and/or sexual, as adults or children do not tell their partners. Men and women both. For fear of what people will think of them, of their judgement or because they just dont want to or dont feel able to talk about it! 1 in 3 women and 1 in 7 men are the current estimate figures for being victims of sexual abuse.

The kind of honesty people are expecting of others is in fact extraordinarily rare. That all CDs spouses, every single one, are so completely 100% honest beggars belief. It's likely less probable than the loch ness monster falling through my ceiling while singing yankee doodle dandee in the next 5 minutes.

People also have a right to change their mind. They have a right to change as a person. They have a right to total and final say over their own bodies even in relationships no matter the circumstances. They have a right to their own private property.

Even were CDing to be a hobby it is unethical and emotional blackmail for one partner to make such a conditional demand on their spouse. To bargain is one thing, request too is fine. To decide that one cannot handle something and leave is all fine. But to demand a person become responsible for your own decision to leave or not, to use the threat of leaving in order to obtain a desired result is unethical pure and simple.

But the choice to leave (or end the relationship), if it is a choice, belongs to the person who chooses to leave (or end the relationship).

If we extend the responsibility for the decision from the chooser to the person whose circumstances/actions/words prompted that choice then logically the choice to hide being a CD for example is no longer the CDs responsibility but that of all those whose statements and actions led them to believe that was a good course of action or something they should hide.

And with the existence of GID a currently recognised condition and with CDing thouroughly under-studied the presumption that CDing is a choice that can easilly be discarded is an unfair one.

Logically both the CD and GG should be more worried about the nearly 1 in 3 chance their partner is cheating, risking bringing STDs into their marital bed.

But if the CD needs to be a CD and/or the GG needs them not to be a CD regardless of whether there was honesty or acceptance about it from the start and/or a need or circumstance or feelling about it that changes or is discovered to be different and they cannot change that need then that is their need and the other cannot and should not be made responsible for what decisions they make if they cannot have that need met. If both have that need then neither is responsible for the failure of the realtionship!

And thus far, in most cases and maybe all CDs cannot quit being a CD and cannot try without risk to long-term mental health. I'm certain that some GGs cannot remain in a relationship with a CD.

Now consider that the people who create a climate of fear and shame and hiding around CDing might be able to be considered culpable in the CDs who hide that fact from their SOs,...

In which case if we look at the big picture then creating a situation of such increased acceptance of CDs that most feel able to be open and honest about being Cd without fear of reprisal or negative consequence for it so that CDs can be open from the start and find accepting SOs from the outset and all GGs can know full well that CDs exist and their partner may be one is a serious necessity and obligation for everyone.

sissystephanie

01-26-2009, 11:45 PM

Also and even more importantly people retain a right to privacy even in marriage from their spouse!

Batty, are you now or have you ever been married? That statement of yours that I quoted sounds as though it comes from a person who has never experienced "true" married love. If two people really truly love each other and are completely honest with each other, privacy is not an issue! If you have read my other posts, you know that I was married over 49 years to the same wonderful lady. She supported my CD activities for the entire time, always knowing that I was still her Man underneath the dress, skirt, etc! We never had a problem with "privacy!"

Kelli, your wife married a man!! Now you want to live as a woman! Not what she expected you to do. Sure, she knew you were a CD before you were married! But it is fairly obvious you never told her about your very strong feminine desires. IMHO, you are the only one who has any blame! If you had told her the whole truth back when your marriage started, you probably would not be in the position you are in right now. Yes, you might not even be married. But that might be the best route for you, given what you want to do with your life.

I have been a CD, off and on, for over 60 years. I had been a CD for about 16years when I got married. Never once did I think about becoming a woman, only about dressing like one!, My dear late wife asked me, more then once, if I felt like actually becoming a woman! I told he, "No, I want to be your husband but I do like to dress like a woman!" She told me that she was fine with that as long as I did remember that I was a man. See my tag line!! BTW, I said I had been a CD, off and on! That is because I did stop completely for a 5 year period, and only started dressing again because my dear wife begged me to! She liked having Stephanie as a girl friend!!

If you haven't already discussed this with your wife, I suggest you two see a Therapist who specializes in Gender problems as soon as possible. Crossdressing itself is not necessarily being Transgendered, but wanting to have breast implants and live 24/7 as a woman certainly qualifies one as being Transgendered, or maybe even Transsexual.

battybattybats

01-27-2009, 07:52 AM

Batty, are you now or have you ever been married?

No, my longest relationship was cohabiting for almost 6 years though. But I have seen enough abusive marriages around me to know just how vital for womens (and mens) rights it was to ensure that the right to privacy legally counted even in marriage.

The right to privacy exists at all levels, between parents and children, husband and wife, and of course citizens have a right to privacy from the state but not so much vice versa on the last in a democracy.

That statement of yours that I quoted sounds as though it comes from a person who has never experienced "true" married love. If two people really truly love each other and are completely honest with each other, privacy is not an issue!

Two people being so completely honest with each other is rare indeed. And not so much as common as you seem to think. Despite the depth of love, and often very much because of it people on a daily basis deceive in small and large ways those around them. As the statistics on cheating and deception on a host of issues shows. Few are so principled as to be able to bear the consequences of extreme honesty or are fortunate enough to not have such consequences to suffer.

If you have read my other posts, you know that I was married over 49 years to the same wonderful lady. She supported my CD activities for the entire time, always knowing that I was still her Man underneath the dress, skirt, etc! We never had a problem with "privacy!"

And your good fortune is no yardstick to measure by when many will not be so fortunate (please see Rawls Veil Of Ignorance test of justice). Rights exist to protect those whose fortunes are not so great or who may be abused by power.

Kelli, your wife married a man!! Now you want to live as a woman! Not what she expected you to do. Sure, she knew you were a CD before you were married! But it is fairly obvious you never told her about your very strong feminine desires. IMHO, you are the only one who has any blame! If you had told her the whole truth back when your marriage started, you probably would not be in the position you are in right now. Yes, you might not even be married. But that might be the best route for you, given what you want to do with your life.

See now this is where ignorance, just lack of knowledge or worse willfull ignorance, of the psychological reality of repression and the results of fear gets you. Should we condemn the victims of child abuse for not informing their spouses prior to marriage? After all most do not! And most tend to suffer ongoing mental health issues from that trauma that manifests years into the marriage affecting the entire family!

Because us CDs are traumatised into repression. Just like the closeted homosexuals of past decades were. Thats why there are those comorbidities of depression, anxiety etc and that horribly high suicide rate.

Even when a CD, or a victim of rape as while far from the same the process is similar, informs their partner well before such a commitment as marriage the healling process takes time and its path cannot easilly be predicted. So if someone thinks they are merely a CD but their growing self acceptance in the safe space of a seemingly secure relationship leads them to discover they are TS there is no betrayel by the CD there, merely a best guess from a position of ordinary ignorance. That is blameless no matter how in error it can be!

Crossdressing itself is not necessarily being Transgendered, but wanting to have breast implants and live 24/7 as a woman certainly qualifies one as being Transgendered, or maybe even Transsexual.

A tomboy is transgender. By definition every crossdresser is transgender.

Certainly informing a prospective spouse beforehand of being a CD, of the small but real possibility one could turn out to be a TS is the ethical, the clearly right thing to do. But the assumption that everyone is just plain capable of easilly doing so is unfair in just the same way as assuming everyone is capable of confessing to their suffering sexual assault. In reality only a minority have the strength and courage to do so!

Its oh so easy for those of us like you and me who were so capable of such a confession to sit in judgement on others, to blame the victims of a pattern of psychological repression seen in every major stygmatised minority group in history for their own suffering. But the trouble is that such a pattern of repression does exist. It's darn obvious once you look at other similar populations of oppressed and stygmatised people who go through the exact same pattern!

LisaElizabeth

01-27-2009, 09:06 AM

Batty,
I have to side with Stephanie here..... I can see your point and I agree that there are many marriages that last a long time without the partners knowing all of each other's secrets.
However.. (You just KNEW there was a however, didn't you?) My lovely wife and I have been married for 33 years. She knew about my dressing before we married. It took a lot of years and a lot of 'self-discovery' for both of us before she became comfortable going out with me for a 'girl's night out'.
Basically society had to change!! From the look of your pic, if that is current, we are in two different generations, having grown up under different sets of social rules as it were.
I grew up pretty much under the same rules as Stephanie. And believe me, if you were a CD, and left your house, you were most likely going to get your buttocks kicked before you returned home. It was an era of 'McCarthy-ism' and the Cold war. If you weren't as GOD made you, then you were a Communist, or worse... A homo!!!!
That made you a fifth class person, were the dog had more rights than you did.
At that time 'gay' meant you were happy. Sex was something nice girls didn't talk about or do until they were married. And being a CD was a mental disorder that got you committed to an asylum for Electro-shock therapy.
This attitude contiued through much of the 1970's. By that time, stephanie and I were both already married!!! I think it is actually miraculous that we both found spouses open minded enough in that time period to have loved us anyway.
Today? Life is dramatically different. Living with someone for 6 years? My god, you would have been stoned to death!! Today both of my kids have lived with prospective mates. One is getting married this June!!
The other left broken hearted after 4 years.
Is it better than what Stephanie and I grew up with? I do not know, it's just different.
It also now allows us to go out and have a night out en femme and not worry as much for our safety. As long as you take all the precautions any woman would take, you are relatively safe. THAT is a totally different scenario.
Just my take on things.
ALL comments are welcome.
Lisa E

Kelli Michelle

01-27-2009, 10:35 AM

It's amazing how these threads have a life of their own. What started out as X, often ends with a discussion of Y. Even though this thread isn't about lying to spouses and assessing "blame" per se, that is apparently where it's at now. Incredible!!!

I have made it clear that I, pretty quickly, told my wife, WHEN I knew things, and was upfront when we got married. I have also made it clear, that I don't blame her for not wanting to be in a relationship with a woman. I can repeat this as many times as you want, and you can keep posting that I didn't do all this as many times as you want. Enjoy!

I don't think Batty is saying that one SHOULD keep secrets , but that people do keep secrets from each other, even loving, secure spouses. If you feel that you can and want to tell your spouse or SO everything, by all means do. I do try to do that as well. But my experiences aren't the same as someone else's. I am not going to try to assess blame, or criticize what a person has done, without having walked in their exact shoes.

Thanks again for the input. It is much appreciated

Karen564

01-27-2009, 06:21 PM

Kelli,

Is it really all that amazing it turned out this way??

On my 1st post to you I had asked a direct question to you if your wife knew if you were a CDer before you got married, because I believe it matters.
But you never answered it.

I had also mentioned to you on my 2nd post here that your thread was rather confusing in the way you worded it.

So for anyone to give you an answer your question here correctly, it seems it takes some kind of super interpretation skills at the very least to figure out what your really asking.

And far as I was aware of, you never stated anything about what you told your wife and made nothing clear here, not on this thread anyways, so what is everyone supposed to do, go back and read all your past threads so we know what was said or not said??

Maybe it's just me, but I find you very confusing..but I was never to good at mind reading, so that's my fault.

And what batty is saying, sounds like a recipe for a disastrous relationship, and a highly dysfunctional one at best, all I can say is, good luck to her with that.

I personally find it much easier to give a direct answer to a direct question, that's all I'm saying..I'm just a dumb twit simpleton I guess.IDK, lol

Good luck to you,
I do wish you well,
Karen

battybattybats

01-27-2009, 10:09 PM

Kel
And what batty is saying, sounds like a recipe for a disastrous relationship, and a highly dysfunctional one at best, all I can say is, good luck to her with that.

When about 1 in 3 people cheat and more than 1 in 3 marriages does not end in divorce (it's about 60% divorce rate in most western countries iirc) then there are seemingly successful marriages where nonetheless that cheating is occurring.

The average person lies several times a day. Those who dont are mostly mentally ill, brain-damaged or otherwise congnitively challenged or are differently cognitively wired like Aspergers. Then there are a microscopic minority of idealists. But even those idealists often regularly manipulate the truth in order to be more polite, like quietly suggesting a different brand of deoderant rather than telling someone outright that they stink.

Once you consider omission a lie then it is an essential part of human interaction, from neccessary politeness to Ethical requirements for patient confidentiality!

Now while I personally disagree with deception the need to respect confidance is clear. And when someone needs to escape an abusive spouse then the need of having the legal right to privacy is absolutely clear.

Someone can love their wife or husband dearly yet know their spouse is a gossip unable to keep juicy rumours to themselves in which case keeping things told to them by others in confidance from the gossipy spouse is absolute. Right there is another perfect example of the right to privacy in a relationship.

And once again I point out that 1/3rd of women have been raped as adults or children and at least and likely more than 1/7th of men have been raped as adults or boys. There are plenty of things people do not share. Often for good reasons. Often because they cannot bring themselves to talk about it!

So sometimes, such as with confidance or if the spouse is abusive, then omission or even deception can be the right thing to do. And othertimes such as with trauma like sexual abuse it is too difficult for people to bring up till often after years of marriage if ever!

If say for example the spouse is suffering from a severe psychological illness where some things could easilly trigger a crisis, self-harm or violence towards others then to an extent keeping them from such triggers may be vital.

How often do people, especially women, leave telling their loved ones about health problems untill after they have had a confirming or clearing diagnosis so as to save loved ones from unneccessary stress and worry?

Many many many women upon finding a lump in their breast for example will wait till after the mammogram or ultrasound etc before telling their family that they have cancer or dont once they know either way or only when they have to go into surgery for a biopsy to be sure.

Now me personally, I'm honest to the extreme. I'm polite about it (such as the deoderant Vs stink point above) and I will respect things said in confidance by omitting information unless there is an ethical obligation to tell (so I'm a bad person to confess a murder to). But I realise I'm an exception and not the norm.

But when considering right and wrong in relationships, when considering rights, you have to look at all permutations of relationships, all possible occurances and influencing factors not just ideal situations and relationships!

epsxyblkm

01-27-2009, 10:32 PM

I don't feel that dressing is a condition. I can also say that my wife was not fully aware about my feelings about dressing. Nothing was ever hidden from her. I just think that it took some time for me to actually be able to afford this side of my person. And knowing just who I decided to spend the rest of my life with, I know that she would never have me choose one or the other.

I do know that she is upset that I took her skirt for my profile photo.

Shannen

01-27-2009, 10:51 PM

I'm sorry to say I didn't read through every post in this thread...yet...

But it occurred to me that every single choice we make in life causes others to evaluate how they fit into that choice.... you know what I mean?

If you have a wife, at some point you chose her, and therefore excluded others from having that relationship with you.

If you consume adult beverages, you probably include/exclude others from your social life based on that. (same for smoking)

The style of dress you chose will cause people to form a first impression of you that usually lasts a lifetime... for good or bad.

No matter how idealistic we are in our view of the world, every move we make is evaluated by those that observe our actions.

So the bottom line? What is accomplished by denying yourself and living a lie? Is that the proper way to live in a relationship? I don't consider crossdressing to be morally corrupt. Cheating on a spouse is in my book though...

:hugs:

Madame George

01-28-2009, 01:06 AM

She did know I crossdressed. ... What she knew, is what I knew.

I didn't know if I was further along the path ( I always thought I was simply a cder) until later, when I discovered things about myself, in going out dressed. This is not uncommon at all. You found something that satisfied your need at first, but the farther it went the more you needed.

As far as what constitutes a TS or not, contradict me if you will, ... My thought is that I am not a "true" TS, but somewhere in between. I don't want ALL of what goes with being as TS, but would like breast implants and would like to live as a woman 24/7. There is no such thing as a "true" TS. Yes, I've heard the argument many times, but it really is a crock of shit. If you have the need to live the rest of your life as a woman you're most likely a transexual. Breast implants or not.

Look, if she doesn't want what I want, it's no sin on her to say, "honey, I just can't live that way..." That is a fair statement, and I would understand. I wish I could say it was that easy for her. It's just not and a lot of factors play into that. The way she was raised, her views on marriage and commitment, her love for you, and her relationship history as a woman. And that's just a few. There are A LOT more.

As a wife of a TS, I can only tell you what helped me. Tell her how you feel. Not what you want to do or plan to do, but how you feel. Then give her time and listen to her. She will, and most likely already is, going through the stages of grief. If she isn't already seeing a counselor, suggest that she get one. Later, if she's interested, there are a few books that might help her. PM me and I'll give you a short list. Be kind to yourself and her right now. She's probably not talking from a rational place right now, but one born from fear and pain.

jennifer easton

01-28-2009, 01:44 AM

Cheryl T, you so took the words out of my mouth, hit it on the head, My girl kathie is my best girl friend, and me hers, like you and yours we do and compliment each other, I love her for letting me be me!! if it would have come down to it , rather than lose her I would have put Jennifer away, but it turned out there was no need she loves both of us, I'm so lucky!!!! Jennifer

Madame George

01-28-2009, 02:22 AM

Also and even more importantly people retain a right to privacy even in marriage from their spouse!

Now that makes a lot of people uncomfortable but it is so. It was something womens-rights campainers fought for! Really, this is a right the feminists fought for? When? Honestly, in ALL of my gender and womens studies classes, this is the first I've heard of it. Oh, and as a stickler for the details, I would appreciate citation/documentation.

The right to privacy exists at all levels, between parents and children, husband and wife, and of course citizens have a right to privacy from the state but not so much vice versa on the last in a democracy.Are you really sure about this? I noticed your location was Australia, so are you speaking as an Aussie? Just so you know, this is not true in The States. Children, under the age of 18 living with their parents do not have a right to privacy under the law. Spouses also do not have a right to privacy under the law. The state thing used to be true, but then we had this lovely little thing called the Patriot Act happen and that blew that right to hell and back.

Heck the amount of American women who have had voluntary sex with a dog is said to be more than 1% which if so would make them more common than some estimates of TSs!
Again, citation/documentation.

The kind of honesty people are expecting of others is in fact extraordinarily rare. That all CDs spouses, every single one, are so completely 100% honest beggars belief. It's likely less probable than the loch ness monster falling through my ceiling while singing yankee doodle dandee in the next 5 minutes.Did anyone here, CD, TS, or partner say that they were *ALWAYS* honest to everyone about everything? Here's the rub. Communication and honesty are IMHO two of the most important aspects needed in a trans relationship. A CD or TS has issues with their gender and, believe it or not, that has effects on their partner's gender as well. If we're not willing to talk about how we feel to each other, then how are we to be able to empathize with someone we profess to love?

People also have a right to change their mind. They have a right to change as a person. They have a right to total and final say over their own bodies even in relationships no matter the circumstances. They have a right to their own private property.You're absolutely right. I would add, if we're talking about someone doing body modifications or something that would effect their spouse or relationship, they also have the right to expect a very abrupt ending to their relationship.

No matter how you rationalize it, people don't exist in vacuums. When we get into relationships we open our lives up to someone else, and they to us. When that relationship becomes long-term, such as in the case of marriage, major changes have a powerful rippling effect.

A tomboy is transgender. By definition every crossdresser is transgender. No. A tomboy is not necessarily transgender. A tomboy is most often a girl or woman who exhibits qualities that are associated with boys. She is, in most cases, not trying to "be" a boy. Just herself.

From Susan Stryker, "In any case, it is the movement across a socially-imposed boundary away from an unchosen starting place - rather than any particular destination or mode of transition."

It is my understanding that being trans is an identity. So just because someone transgresses gender norms doesn't mean they're transgender. Unless they see themselves as being so. YMMV.

Madame George

01-28-2009, 02:33 AM

As to your original question.

My question is : Are we actually choosing cding over wife and family if we leave, or is it that the wife or family or friends are making choices themselves that require us to leave? I don't see either as a choice. It just sounds like both of your needs have changed and so the choices you made in the past are no longer applicable.

Does blame really need to be assigned? Is that going to help either of you?

Is absolving either of you of any wrongdoing going to make the decisions you are facing as a couple any easier?

Satrana

01-28-2009, 02:54 AM

Look, if she doesn't want what I want, it's no sin on her to say, "honey, I just can't live that way..." That is a fair statement, and I would understand.

Kelli, I congratulate you on seeing through the blame game that your wife is playing. Everyone likes to think that they are a good person so when there is a point of dispute the natural reaction is to organize the argument to place the blame and responsibility onto the shoulders of the other party. We all do this, so this is not a criticism of your wife per se, rather it is a recognition of human psychology. Her positioning is designed to relieve her of the stress that she is the one who has the problem over accepting your needs and she is thinking about breaking up the relationship.

As you point out she has a right to think this way but she is not able to state the truth and chooses to dodge the bullet. Avoiding the shame of being the initiator/oppressor is a favorite game and you can see examples of the silly excuses conjured up in this very thread.

Also congratulations for not buying into the guilt trap that many members here exhibit. This notion that a wife has a right to a manly man, the notion that who you are is frozen in time from the day of your marriage....it is all hogwash. There is absolutely nothing wrong or harmful about dressing in clothes to reflect your feelings. Some people cannot accept this simple fact and so insist on punishing themselves and others in the same situation by saying it is the CD's duty to sacrifice their own happiness for that of their partners. That is not marriage, that is servitude.

People change constantly and it is up to others to decide if they want to stay on the same train as you or jump off. They have the right to that choice even if it is based on ignorance and prejudice. Unfortunately there is no way to force enlightenment onto others so they right thing to do is accept your partner's decision if that is what makes them happy. Ideally they should be truthful enough to state their issues and give you the freedom to decide whether you want to change course. It is hard but it is fair.

Satrana

01-28-2009, 03:25 AM

No. A tomboy is not necessarily transgender. A tomboy is most often a girl or woman who exhibits qualities that are associated with boys. She is, in most cases, not trying to "be" a boy. Just herself.

If you stick with your description then most CDs are not transgendered either. Indeed only a small percentage of the members here could call themselves transgendered. Yet clearly their feelings would be labeled as transgenderness.

The word transgendered means to exhibit characteristics associated with the opposite sex. Hence tomboys most certainly do fall under that description except they generally behave differently from MTF CDS by not engaging in closet induced fantasies and emulations. But then many CDs dont do that either.

It is more accurate to say that tomboys are the female equivalent to MTF CDs except that in their case tomboy behavior is widely tolerated by society and carries no terrible stigma hence tomboys do not enter into a closeted mode with all its side effects. The result is that most people never consider tomboys to be transgendered because it is known that it is not an indicator of transsexuality or homosexuality precisely because it is not closeted. It is also a consideration of the fact that women gain status by developing their masculine side unlike MTF CDS who lose status.

These days most women openly admit to being a "bit of a tomboy" because they acknowledge they expend little effort to live up to traditional definitions of femininity and instead choose androgyny. This means at the most basic level women wearing pants are reacting to the same idea that CDs do, namely escaping the confines of their assigned gender roles and absorbing the good parts of the other sex.

ReineD

01-28-2009, 05:51 AM

Avoiding the shame of being the initiator/oppressor is a favorite game and you can see examples of the silly excuses conjured up in this very thread.

Transition is a fundamental change in identity. Grieving the loss of the husband you fell in love with is not a game or a silly excuse. And denial is a stage of grief.

People change constantly and it is up to others to decide if they want to stay on the same train as you or jump off. They have the right to that choice even if it is based on ignorance and prejudice. Unfortunately there is no way to force enlightenment onto others so they right thing to do is accept your partner's decision if that is what makes them happy. Ideally they should be truthful enough to state their issues and give you the freedom to decide whether you want to change course. It is hard but it is fair.

I agree that a partner has a choice as to whether she wants to stay in the relationship after her husband informs her he intends to transition, and if not immediately, eventually she will come to realize it is also her choice to leave the marriage, but to accuse her of being ignorant, prejudiced and not enlightened discounts her heterosexuality. Not every woman is able to alter her sexuality or live in a platonic marriage to accommodate a transsexual partner.

These days most women openly admit to being a "bit of a tomboy" because they acknowledge they expend little effort to live up to traditional definitions of femininity and instead choose androgyny. This means at the most basic level women wearing pants are reacting to the same idea that CDs do, namely escaping the confines of their assigned gender roles and absorbing the good parts of the other sex.

There are many women who wear pants for convenience. They do not think of themselves as being androgynous or a tomboy. Also, there are many fathers today who also go outside their assigned gender roles by sharing in the household chores and who care for and nurture their children as actively as their wives. Some couples even decide he should stay home while she develops her career. Would you also compare these men to CDs and consider them to be transgendered?

Madame George

01-28-2009, 11:59 AM

If you stick with your description then most CDs are not transgendered either. Indeed only a small percentage of the members here could call themselves transgendered. Yet clearly their feelings would be labeled as transgenderness. No, a CD who is dressing as the opposite sex in an attempt to be perceived/treated/experienced as that sex is the very essence of the definition. Women who are labeled or identify as a tomboy are most often not trying to be perceived/treated/experienced as a male. Instead, it is an expression of their own unique femininity. Again, being trans is an identity.

Also, transgenderness is not a word.

The word transgendered means to exhibit characteristics associated with the opposite sex. Um... no. See above.

It is more accurate to say that tomboys are the female equivalent to MTF CDs except that in their case tomboy behavior is widely tolerated by society and carries no terrible stigma hence tomboys do not enter into a closeted mode with all its side effects. The result is that most people never consider tomboys to be transgendered because it is known that it is not an indicator of transsexuality or homosexuality precisely because it is not closeted. It is also a consideration of the fact that women gain status by developing their masculine side unlike MTF CDS who lose status. As a former long-term tomboy I can attest that there are certainly social repercussions for tomboys. Also, it is not known that being a tomboy is not an indicator of being transgendered. They are separate identities, but AFAIK any correlations between them have never been tested.

These days most women openly admit to being a "bit of a tomboy" because they acknowledge they expend little effort to live up to traditional definitions of femininity and instead choose androgyny. This means at the most basic level women wearing pants are reacting to the same idea that CDs do, namely escaping the confines of their assigned gender roles and absorbing the good parts of the other sex. The scary thing is you are completely serious about this. Women being able to wear pants had nothing to do with wanting to be men. Wearing pants wasn't the good part of being a man. It was, rather, symbolic of the "good parts". You know, like voting, owning property, and you know having rights beyond what hat to wear.

Kelli Michelle

01-28-2009, 01:15 PM

Karen, as I had said, this thread was never meant to be about me per se. I was just starting the ball rolling, so to speak, by relating how my thought process got started, in a conversation with my wife. I thought I was pretty clear from the get-go on that and repeated it. Once it transformed into a lot about me, I went ahead and gave out my situation.

I am sorry you are upset that I didn't respond directly to your post. By the time I was next online, there were several posts. To respond to every point, in every single post would have taken me forever.

And, yes, I was amazed at the direction the thread had gone. Of course, this happens all the time, in almost every thread---still it was interesting. I don't think it takes a super intelligence to figure out what my questions were asking, really. Sorry to disagree. It sorta seemed that a lot of people got it, at least mostly. Frankly, it didn't even matter if they did. There were valid discussions about lots of things that matter to TGs.

Anyway, sorry not to respond to all those that posted her. I have read every post and appreciate the comments.

Peace!!!!! :beatup:

Karen564

01-28-2009, 06:20 PM

Kelli,
No problem, I have no hard feelings towards you or anyone else, were all sisters here one way or the other, and you don't need to be sorry either, because I wasn't really wasn't all that upset.
And I Did understand that this wasn't just about You per say, as you clearly stated in post #16, but that's about the only part I did get..LOL..

The way I saw your thread was, you are in a situation with your spouse about TG issues, and were looking for other members take on how they felt or would handle if they were put into that situation with their spouse or family members.

I said the questions you asked were confusing to me because of the way you worded it, and the reason I say that, is because it's rather too vague for me, in other words, to answer those questions would depend on many, many different circumstances, so know one can really give a cut & dry answer to it, and can only answer it based on their own particular circumstances,
which most likely will differ from yours or another persons.

This why I was asking you in particular about Your circumstances, because without that, I otherwise viewed you questions pointless and too vague.

So I gave an somewhat generic view in my post, and based it on what I was interpreting(obviously wrong) from what you did write, so used that as an example only. but could apply to anyone that's younger knowing they have TG issues now and contemplating going into a marriage for their 1st time, and thought this may help someone avoid a situation later on down the road.

But Overall, I think it turned out as a wonderful thread though, because it shows how we view what a relationship is all about, and how relationships can evolve in time, some grow into stronger & better ones, and some not so good, and that goes for any relationship, and to introduce an issue such as CD'g or anything not considered the norm into it, is certainly a true test for any relationship.

As far as my own relationship with the same woman for 25 years, 20 of those married and with 2 children, I wish I could turn the clock Way back, because I know I would of handled my own life completely differently based on what I have learned and finally come to terms with today. So it is very true that with age comes wisdom but only because we have lots of experience and have mad lots of mistakes in our past. I sure know I have.

Bats, when you grow up and actually have some more time under your belt, you will see your very wrong about relationships and marriage, because you sound like some college bookworm that just reads stats all day, but has no true experience what a real relationship is all about.

And where did you read that 1 in 3 women get raped?? some 3rd world nation maybe, but not here in USA.

I'm just a dumb blond, LOL..
Karen

Emily Anderson

01-28-2009, 06:45 PM

Kelli,

I think the problem here is that is is not a choice, at least not one which one could take easily. For most CD's, at least those who started at an early age, it is an integral part of their personality, and therefore to stop CD'ing would be severely limiting their personal development.

One could of course stop CD'ing for the sake of keeping the peace, or making an altruistic sacrifice for the benefit of others, but "at the end of the day" it's your life too, and you need to decide want you want most.

battybattybats

01-29-2009, 01:17 AM

Really, this is a right the feminists fought for? When? Honestly, in ALL of my gender and womens studies classes, this is the first I've heard of it. Oh, and as a stickler for the details, I would appreciate citation/documentation.

It was involved in the broad reforms of marriage, amongst the right to own seperate property the right to control over reproduction and consent to sex, the right to a doctors confidentiallity so that a husband was not informed of their every medical decision nor could contravene their medical choices especially regarding contraception and other reproduction issues.

Sorry I cant give you sources but I no longer own the books on the subject. Nevertheless it was very much involved in self-determination, in legal confidentiality from that of lawyers including divorce lawyers, doctors etc.

As when a husband was legally able to access all information about their wives then all manner of inequities occured and women were unable often to protect their own personal assets etc. So defending a right to personal privacy was vital for property and reproductive and health issues of womens rights.

Are you really sure about this? I noticed your location was Australia, so are you speaking as an Aussie? Just so you know, this is not true in The States. Children, under the age of 18 living with their parents do not have a right to privacy under the law. Spouses also do not have a right to privacy under the law. The state thing used to be true, but then we had this lovely little thing called the Patriot Act happen and that blew that right to hell and back.

The right exists as a matter of philosophical principle as well as codified in many professional ethics obligations irrespective of legal recognition of said. For example a child of an abusive parent will usually get confidentiality from a doctor or lawyer so that the parent is not informed that the child has sought help untill they have been able to get out of the parents control. You may like to read up on things like the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Children etc.

Again, citation/documentation.

Iirc I put the link on the forum once before, from a comment by a sexologist. But I didn't keep the link beyond that. As for numbers of TSs which is neccessary for said comparison I was going by Lynn Conway's figures on TS prevalance.

Did anyone here, CD, TS, or partner say that they were *ALWAYS* honest to everyone about everything? Here's the rub. Communication and honesty are IMHO two of the most important aspects needed in a trans relationship. A CD or TS has issues with their gender and, believe it or not, that has effects on their partner's gender as well. If we're not willing to talk about how we feel to each other, then how are we to be able to empathize with someone we profess to love?

Oh I agree that in general that is the best course of action and in all things communication is vital to a fiar and healthy relationship. However, the expectation that everyone is capable emotionally, psychologically to be so brave, so vulnerable, so trusting is just not valid! As the many examples of the victims of rape shows! People who go through life being forced by public scorn and condemnation or the fear of same to hide part of themselves are just not always so capable!

A rape-survivor may have sexual and intimacy and mental-health issues of a profound nature that very often does have serious impacts on the marriage and on the family! Butit is just not fair to expect them to be capable of overcoming the fear and shame and guilt and pain they feel to confess that from the outset! Sure some can. But many cannot! For many it takes years of growing trust and feellings of safety within a relationship for them to feel capable of disclosing such information!

And the same phenomenon can be found in other oppressed/traumatised groups and other relationships. Whether it's someone confessing they are gay/lesbian/bi to parents, people confessing they have become athiest to wives/parents/children etc there are many many issues where such things are not easy to reveal. The more stigmatised the thing and the closer the relationship, the more traumatised and scared the person and the more expectations they feel to others the harder it is to confess such a thing!

Being a CD does not suddenly become an exception to this.

You're absolutely right. I would add, if we're talking about someone doing body modifications or something that would effect their spouse or relationship, they also have the right to expect a very abrupt ending to their relationship.

Absolutely not! One never has a right to expect any fair and free choice of another, merely respect it! Gaining weight is body modification that can effect a relationship. Getting plastic surgery, tattoos, piercings, haircuts, gastric bypasses, hair transplants etc etc... all body-modifictions that can effect a relationship. And just as no-one has the right to demand a spouse get a boob-job, an abortion, have a child, lose weight etc then the opposite is also true and they have no right to demand they do not!

Yes a person may state what they would rather their spouse do. But the final say is the person whose body it is from a haircut to childbirth! And sure the spouse may decide that they do not love their partner enough to respect their choice/need and is free to leave as any spouse should always be free to leave for any reason at any time to make staying conditional on getting their own way over their partner is emotional blackmail and direct clear abuse!

So sure, if someones partner decides to leave because they have not obeyed their wishes of course that choice must be respected. But it needs to always be respected as an option for both partners in the first place. Someone may choose to fit in with a partners wishes and its often good for both to do that to a point. But the final say over the individuals body is that of the individual. And using threats of leaving is controlling, it is coercive, it is abuse.

No matter how you rationalize it, people don't exist in vacuums. When we get into relationships we open our lives up to someone else, and they to us. When that relationship becomes long-term, such as in the case of marriage, major changes have a powerful rippling effect.

Of course. But that does not give others a right of veto or control over others.

No. A tomboy is not necessarily transgender. A tomboy is most often a girl or woman who exhibits qualities that are associated with boys. She is, in most cases, not trying to "be" a boy. Just herself.

From Susan Stryker, "In any case, it is the movement across a socially-imposed boundary away from an unchosen starting place - rather than any particular destination or mode of transition."

It is my understanding that being trans is an identity. So just because someone transgresses gender norms doesn't mean they're transgender. Unless they see themselves as being so. YMMV.

A Genderqueer person is just being themselves too. One could use that statement for all of TG. A transsexual is beung themselves, it is just that to do so they must modify their anatomy to be in accordance with their self-identity.

There is indeed Transgender Identity but that is not all there is to the term transgender. Plenty of words have an academic meaning seperate from their social one! People could be catagorised as Transgender before the term came into usage. So it is more than an identity but also a descriptive catagory. It easilly can be both and used as either or both. Transgender can mean beyond gender as well as changing that which pertains to, and is catagorised by relation to, the sexes.

And a thing can be defined by what it is opposite to too, so that all people who face discrimination because of gender expectation non-conformity very much are alike and as tomboys often face this as they enter their teens so too do they face gender-expression-bias. Which then makes them catagorisable as Trans-Gender regardless of self-identity.

Regarding women and pants:

C'mon folks, this is history we are talking about here! Both are right and plenty of examples can be found! Yes there was the practicality arguments! Women demanded the right to wear pants to be more able to flee attackers and rapists. They demanded them so they could ride bicycles and thus have independant mobility and not be dependant on men for their transportation too. But there were also many who wore mens clothes as fashion! There were famous women who dressed in mens clothes as political statements or because they liked to do so. The French Lesbian scene which had a profound part to play on the emerging womens rights movement involved a lot of crossdressing!

So many of the pioneers of womens pants wearing were crossdresing women and many were not! And one can see fashions being advertised even today as 'menswear for women' so it is clearly the case that plenty of women like wearing masculine clothes partly because they are masculine. And I have butch lesbian friends who love wearing pinstripe suits and having male haircuts who very much fit that bill as well as a Straight Cis GG friend who loves wearing mens clothes and even playing a male sexual role with her partner!

Bats, when you grow up and actually have some more time under your belt, you will see your very wrong about relationships and marriage, because you sound like some college bookworm that just reads stats all day, but has no true experience what a real relationship is all about.

I'm almost 33, my last relationship lasted almost 6 years and involved mental health issues (hers, much of which involved only-partially-disclosed childhood trauma) was abusive (on her part, mostly as a consequence of her mental health issues). Just because I have gained objective knowledge does not mean I have no subjective experiential knowledge. And most importantly the latter is always less valid than the former because it is filled with subjective bias!

And where did you read that 1 in 3 women get raped?? some 3rd world nation maybe, but not here in USA.

Its the current (last I heard) often-reported-in-the-media stat for Australia! And I'd be surprised if America is really that beter. Got the stats for the USA?

There is plenty of evidence that the number of males is actually much higher because while both rarely report their abuse males are much less likely to do so especially if the perpetrator was female! I know several men who'd been raped or suffered attempted rape by women.

Much more than the men i know had been raped by men, which numbers just one and the perpetrator was a priest. I also know a woman in her late 50's who was raped by a nun at a catholic boarding school. Another female friend has been raped three times in her life and isn't quite 30. And i learned this week that one friend had been raped by 7 people at different occassions, one repeatedly over several years.. and she's not even 20!

The point is most of these people do not tell others about this! So even those I've been told about are likely the tip of the iceberg!

LA CINDY LOVE

01-29-2009, 04:05 AM

As to your original question.

I don't see either as a choice. It just sounds like both of your needs have changed and so the choices you made in the past are no longer applicable.

Does blame really need to be assigned? Is that going to help either of you?

Is absolving either of you of any wrongdoing going to make the decisions you are facing as a couple any easier?
As a married CD I always know that I would never put my cross dressing before my wife, kids or family, you see when I got married I was not a cross dresser that came 4yrs later, most Cd's do not leave there family the family leaves them but not because of there cross dressing it is because they value cross dressing more then there wife, kids and family

They sit back and only think of them self they let there wife decide the family future that way it lets them off the hook so they can tell all that my wife left me because of my cross dressing, but some Cd's go to far and really put a big strain on there marriage, when every a CD talk about body modification, they had this in them since they were a little kid and it just came out as they got older.

A cross dresser who at a very younger age felt they were in the wrong body or just could not under stand why they like to look like a woman really should really get professional help before they get married.

LA CINDY LOVE

Satrana

01-29-2009, 04:50 AM

Transition is a fundamental change in identity. Grieving the loss of the husband you fell in love with is not a game or a silly excuse. And denial is a stage of grief. ReineD, my comments were directed at CDs not at transsexuals, same point for your second statement.

Would you also compare these men to CDs and consider them to be transgendered? No I would not because I do not consider TG to be based on the jobs that you do. I do not consider a woman who joins the army to be TG. Transgenderness is about displaying the thoughts, emotions, feelings and behavioral characteristics normally associated with the other gender. It is a state of being. And while I agree that women wearing pants is not tomboyish behavior in itself, it is the overall transformation of women's behavior and role in society that is largely becoming androgynous and which is symbolized by the disappearance of traditional feminine clothing from everyday use.

I have seen surveys of women asked this question about their gender and high numbers ~75% reported they considered themselves to be tomboyish.

Satrana

01-29-2009, 05:09 AM

No, a CD who is dressing as the opposite sex in an attempt to be perceived/treated/experienced as that sex is the very essence of the definition. Women who are labeled or identify as a tomboy are most often not trying to be perceived/treated/experienced as a male. Sorry have to disagree because here you are defining CDs as being those who emulate women. There are plenty of CDS who are not trying to be perceived/treated/experienced as a female. I am one of them. Emulation is far more than crossdressing. So MTF CDs who do not emulate are the same as tomboys. Lets not compare apples to oranges.

As a former long-term tomboy I can attest that there are certainly social repercussions for tomboys. I never said there were no repercussions, just not normally on the same scale as MTF CDs.

Also, it is not known that being a tomboy is not an indicator of being transgendered. I disagree, tomboy behavior is fairly common amongst girls and it is assumed that they will grow out of it as they mature into adults. There are of course differing degrees of tomboyish behavior so the more extreme cases will no doubt stand out especially if continues into adulthood.

The scary thing is you are completely serious about this. Women being able to wear pants had nothing to do with wanting to be men. I never said it had anything to do with women wanting to be men rather it is symbolic of women escaping the constrict confines of traditional femininity which is also a theme of MTF crossdressing.

You seem to want to read lots of messages into my words that just are not there.

Satrana

01-29-2009, 05:31 AM

most Cd's do not leave there family the family leaves them but not because of there cross dressing it is because they value cross dressing more then there wife, kids and family If there was even the slightest resemblance of truth in that notion then CDs would be crossdressing all the time and would disregard their families. In reality CDs either remain firmly locked in the closet or have to agree to restrictive compromises which prevents or limits others seeing their crossdressing. This indicates CDs place family before dressing.

A cross dresser who at a very younger age felt they were in the wrong body or just could not under stand why they like to look like a woman really should really get professional help before they get married.
Why are CDs sick? How about those who are transphobic getting professional help instead.

NikkiSimpson

01-29-2009, 06:16 AM

Gotta say, I had no choice. after 10 years of marriage, early on my wife found my happy desires to CD, many years later she still couldn't come to terms with it, SO walked away & took my kids. After fighting major depression, & attempt to leave earth. lost job & blown apart financially. I had faith to always work things out, if ya not hurting anyone else. But she made a choice for both of us. I lost the most important things in my life FAMILY. I still got my kids 5 years on, days are tuff, but I still luv CDing & this community. I'd rather share xdressing with SO than seperate. but it takes 2 to stick together. Nikki

jenn25wnycd

01-29-2009, 08:41 AM

As a married CD I always know that I would never put my cross dressing before my wife, kids or family, you see when I got married I was not a cross dresser that came 4yrs later, most Cd's do not leave there family the family leaves them but not because of there cross dressing it is because they value cross dressing more then there wife, kids and family

They sit back and only think of them self they let there wife decide the family future that way it lets them off the hook so they can tell all that my wife left me because of my cross dressing, but some Cd's go to far and really put a big strain on there marriage, when every a CD talk about body modification, they had this in them since they were a little kid and it just came out as they got older.

LA CINDY LOVE

WOW.... FINALLY someone who speaks truth!! Sort of goes along with the thread I started a week ago. Bravo Cindy!! Pink Fog = selfishness defined. Prioritize people. We all can't be Karen! Put the boobs away and take care of your family! People love you and count on you... stop being selfish... and if i hear one more time.." I just want to be ME"...... Bull SHIT... There's a happy medium out there somewhere. If you really want to have boobs and be a woman, by all means... go for it, but don't look for sympathy from your loved ones that you DECEIVED because.. you didn't know who you were 5,10, 15 years ago... If YOU don't know who you are, who DOES? And don't give me the psycho-babble repressed crap. We're all human with a brain, if you don't know who you are as a person, and can't rationally make decisions... crossdressing is the LEAST of your worries...

If there was even the slightest resemblance of truth in that notion then CDs would be crossdressing all the time and would disregard their families. In reality CDs either remain firmly locked in the closet or have to agree to restrictive compromises which prevents or limits others seeing their crossdressing. This indicates CDs place family before dressing.

Satrana,

Your right, we all do usually stay in the closet under 'self imposed, or compromised boundaries'.... I will 100% agree to this statement. It's just the % of us that do this and then cry cry cry about it. Everyone want's their cake and eat it too...

battybattybats

01-29-2009, 09:35 AM

WOW.... FINALLY someone who speaks truth!! Sort of goes along with the thread I started a week ago. Bravo Cindy!! Pink Fog = selfishness defined.

Right, and GID is a made-up invention to let people off the hook right?

Prioritize people. We all can't be Karen! Put the boobs away and take care of your family! People love you and count on you... stop being selfish... and if i hear one more time.." I just want to be ME"...... Bull SHIT... There's a happy medium out there somewhere.

And what do you base that happy medium not involving acceptance of CDing? How are you determining where that happy medium rests?

If you really want to have boobs and be a woman, by all means... go for it, but don't look for sympathy from your loved ones that you DECEIVED because.. you didn't know who you were 5,10, 15 years ago... If YOU don't know who you are, who DOES? And don't give me the psycho-babble repressed crap. We're all human with a brain, if you don't know who you are as a person, and can't rationally make decisions... crossdressing is the LEAST of your worries...

Riiiight. So an entire scientific field is wrong? Please write a paper and subject your methodology, argument and conclusions to a respectable peer-reviewed psychology journal. If you're right that repression does not exist you WILL win a nobel prize!

If however you are merely dissmissing something because the data does not fit your ontological and/or ideological framework then your insulting your own intelligence as well as everyone elses. You cant just dissmiss data that you don't like or dont like the implications of! If its wrong you must be able to show how and why it is wrong! If you cannot then untill you can you must cope with the reality that it seems to be the case!

Madame George

01-29-2009, 01:09 PM

It was involved in the broad reforms of marriage, amongst the right to own seperate property the right to control over reproduction and consent to sex, the right to a doctors confidentiallity so that a husband was not informed of their every medical decision nor could contravene their medical choices especially regarding contraception and other reproduction issues.These rights should not be construed as a spouse's overall right to privacy within a marriage. Women weren't fighting for the right to keep secrets, they were fighting for the same rights that their husbands so openly enjoyed. In other words, it wasn't a right to privacy, but one of agency.

As when a husband was legally able to access all information about their wives then all manner of inequities occured and women were unable often to protect their own personal assets etc. So defending a right to personal privacy was vital for property and reproductive and health issues of womens rights.Women did not own personal assets. They were a personal asset.

You are very right that women gained the right to make decisions about their body and the care of it, but equating that with the right to keep secrets from one's spouse is dangerous ground. It infers deviousness.

The right exists as a matter of philosophical principle as well as codified in many professional ethics obligations irrespective of legal recognition of said. For example a child of an abusive parent will usually get confidentiality from a doctor or lawyer so that the parent is not informed that the child has sought help untill they have been able to get out of the parents control. You may like to read up on things like the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Children etc.
This is a victim right extended to children to protect them from their abusers, not an overall privacy right between children and their parent(s).

Iirc I put the link on the forum once before, from a comment by a sexologist. But I didn't keep the link beyond that.I have access to *several* statistical databases and I have yet to find a study that dealt with women in the U.S and the prevalence of bestiality. I don't have a problem with someone quoting a statistic, but if you do you have an obligation to either credit the source or, at the very least, state that it was statistically unsubstantiated if you don't know the source documentation.

Yes, I'm a stickler for such things. Statistical research will do that to you.

Oh I agree that in general that is the best course of action and in all things communication is vital to a fiar and healthy relationship. However, the expectation that everyone is capable emotionally, psychologically to be so brave, so vulnerable, so trusting is just not valid! I never once said that people were. Or that I expected such. We are too complex a species. Our knowledge and experiences shape our perceptions and those perceptions affect our actions greatly. I think we can agree on this at the very least.

Being a CD does not suddenly become an exception to this. Did someone say that being a CD is the exception? I didn't and I feel like you're projecting something personal here. ymmv.

But that does not give others a right of veto or control over others.Did I say it did?

A Genderqueer person is just being themselves too. One could use that statement for all of TG. A transsexual is beung themselves, it is just that to do so they must modify their anatomy to be in accordance with their self-identity. Key term there, self-identity.

Plenty of words have an academic meaning seperate from their social one! We weren't discussing transness in an academic context. We were discussing it in a personal context. The original question posed asked for personal perspectives, not academic debate. If you want to argue academically, about transness, I do know a forum that would more than satisfy your need.

Regarding women and pants:

C'mon folks, this is history we are talking about here! History as with most social sciences is extremely subjective. Your comment here is ridiculing and unnecessary.

And your understanding of how wearing pants became part of the women's rights movement is incorrect. Just so you know, it wasn't until around WWI that wearing pants became a symbol of feminism.

As to women in Europe wearing pants, it had nothing to do with feminism, but rather necessity. It actually was not until WWII that european women began to wear pants en masse. There was a rationing of clothing. This occurrence prompted women to save money by purchasing men's clothing that was much less costly. This gave them "work clothes" and allowed them to preserve their dresses for more social activities.

So while the feminists may have made a dent in the social expectations of how a woman should dress, it wasn't until much later that the barrier was actually broken.

Its the current (last I heard) often-reported-in-the-media stat for Australia! And I'd be surprised if America is really that beter. Got the stats for the USA?17.6 % of women in the United States have survived a completed or attempted rape. Found here (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf).

battybattybats

01-30-2009, 11:49 AM

These rights should not be construed as a spouse's overall right to privacy within a marriage.

Actually the right to privacy remains a universal fundamental one. If its not then the foundation of all rights are nonsense and we can go back to slavery and the rule of kings. You cant undo any of the fundamental rights without undoing the lot. For equality and liberty to be universal all people must be able to decide what they do and dont share of themselves with others. Only when there is a right Vs right conflict does that change. Such as knowing something that another persons survivla depends on!

Women weren't fighting for the right to keep secrets, they were fighting for the same rights that their husbands so openly enjoyed. In other words, it wasn't a right to privacy, but one of agency.

And agency often required privacy! The two are oft intrinsicly bound!

Women did not own personal assets. They were a personal asset.

Some women did, such as by inheritance. And they oft then became the possession of the husband automatically. The right to keep such assets secret as well as to maintain legal sole control over them were indeed feminist issues! In fact its still an issue in many countries!

You are very right that women gained the right to make decisions about their body and the care of it, but equating that with the right to keep secrets from one's spouse is dangerous ground. It infers deviousness.

People have the right to place as much and as little trust in others as they so choose. No matter how prudent or moral to not use that right it remains their right to choose to use! Especially when to be protected from abuse of force from a husband with greater current power or agency the capacity to keep such things private was certainly important!

This is a victim right extended to children to protect them from their abusers, not an overall privacy right between children and their parent(s).

No, it is in fact an overall right to privacy! It might be worth considering where all rights come from (philosophical principles about the individuals freedom to choose whatever they wish to so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others) before determining what rights are valid and what are not.

Rights are not created to solve social problems, laws are created for that purpose. Rights exist as logical consequences of assuming certain principles are correct! Hence equality and liberty = rights.

I have access to *several* statistical databases and I have yet to find a study that dealt with women in the U.S and the prevalence of bestiality. I don't have a problem with someone quoting a statistic, but if you do you have an obligation to either credit the source or, at the very least, state that it was statistically unsubstantiated if you don't know the source documentation.
Yes, I'm a stickler for such things. Statistical research will do that to you.

As i said I dont recall the link. It could have been anyone from Dr Ruth to Dan Savage But its hardly the crux of my point. Most people lie daily. Many of those are GGs. Many people do not confess their darkest secrets even to their spuses even whe they were merely victims. That sufficiently proves the point.

I never once said that people were. Or that I expected such. We are too complex a species. Our knowledge and experiences shape our perceptions and those perceptions affect our actions greatly. I think we can agree on this at the very least.

Indeed, though just cause a view is held does not make it cogent or correct. And I addressed not just your statements but the disscussion in the thread in general, and making statements addressing the notions involved.

Did someone say that being a CD is the exception? I didn't and I feel like you're projecting something personal here. ymmv.

Ah but it must be considered an exception or many of the criticisms against CDs become hypocritical. Not from you perhaps but from others. I'm not just speaking to you nor just addressing your arguments in an attempt to refute them after all but discussing the subject amongst multiple people and in a broader context. No personal projection involved but logical discussion of points that follow on from those mentioned or which clarify them are indeed appropriate and apt. Maybe your not used to the style of discussion structure I'm using? (and BTW what's YMMV?)

Did I say it did?

See you neednt make a point for me to raise a refutation or clarification to one. So it matters not whether you did say such a thing for it to be appropriate for me to say what I said!

Key term there, self-identity.

Your point being what though?

We weren't discussing transness in an academic context. We were discussing it in a personal context. The original question posed asked for personal perspectives, not academic debate. If you want to argue academically, about transness, I do know a forum that would more than satisfy your need.

And yet as both languages co-exist and both notions co-exist and people have personal experiences of academic truths then there can be no absolute wall of seperation, making the discussion of that not just appropriate but neccessary! Especially when all subjective truth, while true to experience, is so utterly flawed metaphysically as to be beyond objectively useless as to be intrinsicly deceptive! Science figured that out with Optical Illusions centuries ago. Maybe a bit more general understanding of the truth that objective and measurable reality universally trumps subjective experience might be beneficial to our species and culture!

History as with most social sciences is extremely subjective. Yet that does not refute my point.

Your comment here is ridiculing and unnecessary.

The polar positions on the subject are ridiculing and unneccessary surely. Expressing exasperation at them seems appropriate without being demeaning.

And your understanding of how wearing pants became part of the women's rights movement is incorrect. Just so you know, it wasn't until around WWI that wearing pants became a symbol of feminism.

Really? Including BATHERS that involved pants/leggings etc instead of skirts?
Got some sources on that?

As to women in Europe wearing pants, it had nothing to do with feminism, but rather necessity.

How common in usage was the word feminism at that time? And got any sources that it had nothing to do with womens rights and only neccesity?

It actually was not until WWII that european women began to wear pants en masse.

En masse does not show that an idea was not important previous, merely that it had not been acted upon to such a level!

There was a rationing of clothing. This occurrence prompted women to save money by purchasing men's clothing that was much less costly. This gave them "work clothes" and allowed them to preserve their dresses for more social activities.

Again please show me sources that show that pioneering suffragettes, womens rights campainers, women socialites and intellectuals in the womens movement did not introduce the idea prior to this event so that you can show that such a precedant had no effect on the phenomenon!

So while the feminists may have made a dent in the social expectations of how a woman should dress, it wasn't until much later that the barrier was actually broken.

And would it have were it not for that dent? You argue that merely the economics created the change yet there was also a rising awareness of competancy and independance amongst women which could equally explain the change. You argue a correlation but do not show it as the causation. Yet economic hardships had occured before without such a radical change, but the social changes had not. Logically you would make a better argument that it was the social changes that came from more working women rather than the economic ones that so trumped feminism.

However it takes only a handful of fashion-designs of pants or celebrities wearing them in any sort of popular exposure to allow for the possibility of the alternate explanations your trying to dissmiss.

17.6 % of women in the United States have survived a completed or attempted rape. Found here (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf).

Hmmm pdf wouldnt open for me. Regardless you might like to see if you can find similar stats for Australia to compare methodology (indeed the numbers I mentioned having come from the media cannot guarantee reliability). Of course getting accurate figures is impossible as many victims do not come forward. So if we make projections we are left with estimates whereas if we go only by those reprted to authorities we get a very reduced number than the actual number of offences.

For example of all the people I know who have been raped I mentioned or who suffered attempted rape, guess how many reported the crimes? Did you guess 0? Well thats how many of those have been reported! 0.Edit: a friend sent me this link: http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html

Women's Safety Survey 1995
(includes reported and unreported incidents)
The Women's Safety Survey was conducted in 1995 and published by the ABS in 1996. The survey relied on face-to-face interviews with a random sample of approximately 6,300 women in Australia, aged 18 years and over, who were living in a private dwelling in urban and rural Australia (non-English speaking women were interviewed over the phone with the assistance of an interpreter). The survey investigated women's experiences of physical and sexual violence in the last 12 months, and since the age of 15. It was estimated that, of women living in Australia aged 18 and over:

100,000 (1.5%) experienced an incident of sexual assault in the 12 months prior to the study.
99% of the perpetrators of sexual violence incidents experienced in the 12 months prior to the survey were men.
Women in the 18-24 year age bracket were more likely to be assaulted than women in other age-groups: 19% of women aged 18-24 had experienced sexual violence in the past 12 months, compared with 6.8% of women aged 35-44 and 1.2% of women aged 55 and over.
Only 15% of women who identified an incident of sexual assault in the 12 months prior to the survey reported to police.
An estimated 1.2 million women in Australia aged 18 and over had experienced sexual violence or its threat since the age of 15. More specifically, one in six adult women in Australia had experienced sexual assault since the age of 15 years.
45% of women sexually assaulted since the age of 15 had experienced more than one incident.
Sexual assaults occurring since the age of 15 were most commonly committed by a man known to the victim, and usually occurred in a home.
1 in 10 women who had ever been in a relationship disclosed an incident of sexual violence by an intimate partner.

Madame George

01-30-2009, 01:08 PM

GaleWarning

01-30-2009, 03:36 PM

Let me tell you a story ... a mixed group of 14 year old students was shown a video by the school counsellor ... in it, the "star", a young 15 year old, is shown getting ready to go to a party. She and a girlfriend discuss whether she should wear jeans and a t-shirt or a revealing lbd. Encouraged by her friend, she goes for the lbd.
They arrive at the party ... alcohol is available ... everyone is drinking, including our "star" ... she and a drunken male teenager go upstairs because she is feeling woozy ... they lie down on a bed ... one thing leads to another ...
The male is charged with rape.

I sat there thinking that two lives had been needlessly ruined because no-one at the party had been caring enough to look after a friend! Throughout the video, there had been opportunities portrayed for peer intervention, which were allowed to slip by, as right at the start, when the "star"'s friend encouraged her to wear the lbd instead of the jeans and a t-shirt.

The school counsellor's attitude was agressively anti-male throughout her presentation. When I wrote her a long, reasoned letter suggesting that the lesson might perhaps have been more balanced and useful had it focussed on the need for teenagers to look after each other at parties, on the many opportunities shown where peer intervention could have/should have occurred, rather than simply on the male's supposed misdemeanour, she did not deign to reply.

To return to the original title of this thread ... whose decision was it?
Our "star" or her alleged rapist?

And was it rape?

(I decided not to write down my answers to these questions. Instead, I invite others to give their opinion.)

Karen564

01-30-2009, 04:20 PM

To return to the original title of this thread ... whose decision was it?
Our "star" or her alleged rapist?

And was it rape?

(I decided not to write down my answers to these questions. Instead, I invite others to give their opinion.)

I think you should just open a new thread on this, IMO.

Maybe I'm just missing the point on this too..LOL

But who's decision to do what?

The star to decide to dress sexy, have good time & get drunk?
OR
The man to decide to take advantage of a situation?

I just don't want to hear that "She deserved it crap" just because how she was dressed. That's No excuse..

Girls get raped or Date Raped just as easily even when their wearing jeans too.

Karen

Kelli Michelle

01-30-2009, 06:06 PM

See what I mean about the threads having a life of their own?

I must say the comments are fascinating, and food for thought.

Let's try to keep on track as much as possible. Using examples of things to make a point are fine. But, let's not then go too far away from the question in point, and go on about the "example" used.

Thanks all.

battybattybats

02-01-2009, 11:06 AM

I have to say your ability to conflate issues and use round-robin arguments is astounding. If you're looking for a position in the revered stratuses of academic philosophical debate you should do quite well for yourself.

Try actually specific criticisms of my points rather than vague assertions and ad hominems.

To return to the original title of this thread ... whose decision was it?
Our "star" or her alleged rapist?

And was it rape?

(I decided not to write down my answers to these questions. Instead, I invite others to give their opinion.)

Any sexual act done under the influence of any cognitively impairing substance is not performed with truly informed consent. So anyone not-drunk having sex with anyone drunk is in principle rape no matter the amount of consent they get at the time! There cannot be assumed consent. Even if the person is consenting before they get drunk once cognition is impaired their capacity to rationally choose to withdraw consent is impaired. It may have the semblance of consent but not the essential substance of it.

Now consider the situation where both people are drunk! Neither is capable of giving genuine consent!

Whereas a 'forced sex' BDSM scenario with carefully prearranged safewords etc may have the semblance of non-consent but actually a very high degree of substance of consent.

So one of the most common states of having sex-after imbibing some alcohol to 'relax' is very very wrong and one of the most frowned upon sex practices of fantasy-rape BDSM can often be much more virtuous!

Reality is so counter-intuitive!

Consider: technically the use of sausages in a sex act is both bestiality and necrophillia!

I'm actually working on an article for an e-zine on this very topic of the complexities of consent.

Once again it boils down to individual somatic soveriegnty. A persons undisputable ownership of themselves under all circumstances and the respect everyone else must have for that self-ownership.

GaleWarning

02-01-2009, 02:17 PM

Batty, I am so interested to learn that you are writing an article on the subject of consent.
May I suggest to you that you need to also discuss the roles of rights versus responsibilities in it?
For example, do we, as individuals, have a responsibility to look after each other when out drinking?
(does Australia carry TV ads promoting the notion of host responsibility, as we do here in NZ?)
And do we, as individuals, have the right to expect others to look after us if we choose to drink and get motherless?

Also, what about collective rights and responsibilities ...
I'm thinking here along the lines of the school student who misbehaves in public. That student is seen, not as an individual, but as a representative of the school he attends.

LA CINDY LOVE

02-01-2009, 05:50 PM

I have to say your ability to conflate issues and use round-robin arguments is astounding. If you're looking for a position in the revered stratuses of academic philosophical debate you should do quite well for yourself.

MG out.
The one thing that I am learning about cross dressers is they are always right and everyone els is wrong, we Cd's are so quick to jump on those who do not under stand us but yet make excuses for our self.

We want people to be fair with us but are we fair to them, there is a CD element here that feels that a cross dresser is always a victim.

LA CINDY LOVE

battybattybats

02-01-2009, 10:26 PM

Batty, I am so interested to learn that you are writing an article on the subject of consent.
May I suggest to you that you need to also discuss the roles of rights versus responsibilities in it?

All rights involve responsibilities or they cannot be equal rights. An example I mention in my article: I have a right to do anything with my body, like say punching, that is yet limited by my need to respect your right to a say over whatever happens to your body, like choosing not to be punched. So my right is cancelled out by yours unless I have your full fair and uncoerced consent to be punched.

So what is ethical in a boxing match because everyone is consenting is unethical in a pub if one just chooses to punch the other.

It is the mutual obligation to respect each others rights where the consent issue comes from.

For example, do we, as individuals, have a responsibility to look after each other when out drinking?
(does Australia carry TV ads promoting the notion of host responsibility, as we do here in NZ?)

I don't know the ads. But indeed people capable of making clear choices are generally responsible for those who are not such as children, the mentally ill etc.

And do we, as individuals, have the right to expect others to look after us if we choose to drink and get motherless?

Ah, great question! If we drink at a establishment like a pub the sellers of alcohol do have a cler obligation to their customers. they are profitting from the drinking in their establishment so they are responsible for the drinking in their establishment.

If someone has a party where drinking is acknowledged to occur then certainly everyone there especially the host of the party does have a responsibility to their drunk guests.

Now if someone just drinks in a purely public space then its a messier matter. In that case a person has chosen to reduce their power to make decisions in public where they are vulnerable and where others are vulnerable to their influenced behaviour. Arguably thats an unethical choice unlike the pub and the party where there is an implied contract as its foisting extra personal responsibility on others by choice.

However if the public drinker is an alcoholic then their behaviour was already influenced by a disease. One the alcohol merchants make money off, and one that the non-alcoholic drinkers by ensuring an availablity of drink will exist.

Also, what about collective rights and responsibilities ...
I'm thinking here along the lines of the school student who misbehaves in public. That student is seen, not as an individual, but as a representative of the school he attends.

Another important question!
Society exists for mutual benefit of its members. As such there are indeed collective responsibilities. These involve ensuring that those who are incapable of looking after themselves are looked after, the sick, the disabled, the young. On top of that there are infrastructures made to serve the entire community like roads, public toilets, government, sometimes public healthcare etc. Whatever these are they are the benefit of the mutual cooperation of the citizens for the good of all. As such they need to be shared equally by all to be valid.

So then for non-alcoholics to be free to have access to drink society must acknowledge the existence of alcoholics and factor that into its responsibility to its constituents. And treat it as what it is, a disease. One that can be psychological but also can be genetic.

Ah now the schoolkid...
Why is he a representative of the school he attends? Is that a fair and valid obligation or is it an unfair imposition on his rights? Is it a contractual obligation? Was it the result of not just fair exchange but also fair negotiation free of coercion? Especially as he is a child and therfore in a state of flux dependant on rate of and state of brain development as to his capacity to make decisions and be properly considered responsible for his actions!

Does the public also have an obligation to consider the child as an individual rather than as a generalisation of the school? Would the person if they judge both the school and other children from that school in the future by the actions of one missbehaving student from that school be doing wrong by the school and by the other students?

And by teaching students that they have an obligation to the representation of and reputation of the school rather than teaching them of their behaviour responsibilities to themselves and all other people is the school teaching that illogical generalisations, stereotypes and by extension racism and sexism etc etc are acceptable?

Now where this is relevant to relationships... again they like society in general exist for mutual benefit. They have a responsibility to meet those equally. They often have dependants like children with plenty of responsibilities. And too both rights and responsibilities exist within them.

The one thing that I am learning about cross dressers is they are always right and everyone els is wrong, we Cd's are so quick to jump on those who do not under stand us but yet make excuses for our self.

We want people to be fair with us but are we fair to them, there is a CD element here that feels that a cross dresser is always a victim.

CDs certainly are not always right. And can be as capable as any wrong as any other human. But in a society where there is anti-CD taboos then a CD is a vicitim. Simply growing up with anti-CD messages or even a lack of representation of CDs as equals harms them. So all CDs in intolerant societies even if only mildly so are indeed victims! But that does not stop them from also victimising others! There can be far more than just one victim!

We need to acknowledge the fact of the harm done to CDs in such cultures and what the results of that harm is! But that does not mean CDs are incapable of wrong and are all saints etc.

GaleWarning

02-02-2009, 12:36 AM

Ah now the schoolkid...
Why is he a representative of the school he attends?

Good question! It is simply a truism that the public sees the uniform and identifies the school, not the individual.

Is that a fair and valid obligation or is it an unfair imposition on his rights? Is it a contractual obligation? Was it the result of not just fair exchange but also fair negotiation free of coercion? Especially as he is a child and therfore in a state of flux dependant on rate of and state of brain development as to his capacity to make decisions and be properly considered responsible for his actions!

Do children have rights, when their minds are in a state of confusion and uncertainty? Do we, as adults, be it their parents or teachers (in loco parentis), not have a responsibility to help them learn enough about right and wrong that their minds are no longer confused, and thus make good decisions? It has been said that we only have to make choices when we are confused. When we are not confused, we don't have to make a choice; we know what to do. I put it to you, Batty, that the reason so many kids today go off the rails is that their parents no longer accept that responsibility, and the schools' roles have been so weakened by the emphasis on the rights of the child and the responsibilities of teachers that mutual respect has gone out the window. Young people and their elders know that their actions carry no consequences. The laws of the land have stripped parents and the schools of the power to provide youngsters with boundaries, through the imposition of consequences.

I think respect is a key word when talking about rights and responsibilities. Rape is disrespectful of a woman (or a man, if the roles are reversed). Drunken louts are disrespectful of all others, especially when they get behind the wheel of a car and kill someone else.

Any student who misbehaves shows disrespect for his family/whanau (NZ Maori terminology) and for his school, if in uniform. Is this wrong, to hold such a point of view? I don't think so!

Talking of coercion ... the state decrees that we have to attend school for so many years and provides free education up to a certain level. Why? Because the state knows that, in order to function as a society, people have to be prepared to become labourers, artisans, professionals, etc in certain predictable numbers. Is this wrong? The state has coerced parents and teachers to abrogate their responsibilities towards the youth (don't argue, Batty, it has!). Is this wrong?

Does the public also have an obligation to consider the child as an individual rather than as a generalisation of the school? Would the person if they judge both the school and other children from that school in the future by the actions of one missbehaving student from that school be doing wrong by the school and by the other students?

In one sense, the answer to this is, "Yes". A single person has tarnished the image of the whole school, and perhaps the school does not deserve that. But hang on a second. Suppose not one, but two, or three, or four or more students also present the school in a bad light by their inability to behave properly. At what point would you accept that the school as a whole is probably not a "good" school?

And by teaching students that they have an obligation to the representation of and reputation of the school rather than teaching them of their behaviour responsibilities to themselves and all other people is the school teaching that illogical generalisations, stereotypes and by extension racism and sexism etc etc are acceptable?

Are such teachings "illogical generalisations"? None of us is an island. No matter how much we would wish it otherwise, we are recognized as "Ken's kid" or a man of Maori descent.

Perhaps I was fortunate, in that I grew up in surroundings which taught me that our prime purpose here on earth is to serve one another!

It's not about me. It's all about my relationships with other people!

Today's focus only on individual rights breeds selfishness. Selfishness breeds contempt for others, both individually and collectively. Bad behaviour such as drunkeness and rape is the end result of such contempt!

Where do you stand, Batty? do you believe in the virtue of selfishness, as Ayn Rand (author of "The Fountainhead") did? Or do you believe in the virtue of service to others, as is taught by most religions?

I think I shall turn the focus of these final thoughts into a thread focussing on CDing. Go well, my friend.

battybattybats

02-02-2009, 09:41 AM

Do children have rights, when their minds are in a state of confusion and uncertainty?

Most certainly yes. They very much do have rights. Otherwise people could do whatever they wanted to children. Instead children have a host of rights from access to education and healthcare to respectful treatment, to not be abused etc.

Also childs minds are not uncertain or confused, merely in a state of growth and development. They have less knowledge and experience upon which to make informed decisions for example but also the parts of the brain involving risk assessment and decision making does not finish development until on average IIRC sometime in ones 20's! So throughout this process a childs capacity to make decisions for themslves is constantly growing.

Do we, as adults, be it their parents or teachers (in loco parentis), not have a responsibility to help them learn enough about right and wrong that their minds are no longer confused, and thus make good decisions?

Adults responsibilities to children include shelter, food etc and education. That education must maximise the childs capacity to make informed decisions of their own. So it is utterly unethical to try and instill a particular set of values and morals and culture and religion onto a child so that they make the decisions in life we would make if we were them. Instead we must maximise their capacity to make intelligent decisions for themselves.

It has been said that we only have to make choices when we are confused. When we are not confused, we don't have to make a choice; we know what to do.

That sounds incorrect to me. While its fairly Zen if thats done in a state of pure self-awareness it sounds more like an encouragement for people to not-think but instead react on instinct reflex and emotion. But those often lead to things like hatred and bigotry and violence as well as making people far more vulnerable to manipulation.

I put it to you, Batty, that the reason so many kids today go off the rails is that their parents no longer accept that responsibility, and the schools' roles have been so weakened by the emphasis on the rights of the child and the responsibilities of teachers that mutual respect has gone out the window.

I suggest in response that in fact so many kids are not going off the rails today. Teen crime was all the fear in the 60's. Razor-gangs of youths once stalked the streets of Sydney over a hundred years ago!

Plato complained about the youth of the day, also. "What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They
ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions.
Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"

"The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of
today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for
parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as
if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is
foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest
and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."
Sermon by Peter the Hermit AD 1274

But is their real increase in crime violence and deliquancy of youth today? Or is it more visible now? Or is it just the general myopic vision of a golden age of nostalgia of ones own youth found in every generation as they age?

Its amusing how for example people cry about video games causing a rise in crime. But check out this graph http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/08/09/video-games-and-crime/ and if thats not convincing enough check these out http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames

The FBI has just released its 2004 crime report. The results? The violent crime rate has further dropped 2.2% since 2003. The number of murders is down by 2.4%.

According to the FBI, the murder rate hit a new 40 year low in 2004. I can't imagine a better statistic. The best selling video game of 2004? Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

There are many things which in reality are far better off than the past. But the perception is of the reverse. There was plenty of terrorism in the 70's and 80's. Plane hijackings, hostages, bombs going off, the Olynpics were attacked. And worse back then the world also quacked under the ever-present and very real threat of total nuclear anihilation! Yet we are all scared now?

So then, is there a real increase in a problem with young people today or is it the same old song thats been sung for thousands of years?

Young people and their elders know that their actions carry no consequences. The laws of the land have stripped parents and the schools of the power to provide youngsters with boundaries, through the imposition of consequences

Thats the claim... but is it really what is occuring? Has punishment ever been a successful deterrant? Is there a real increase in crime? And even if there is what is the cause?

I think respect is a key word when talking about rights and responsibilities. Rape is disrespectful of a woman (or a man, if the roles are reversed). Drunken louts are disrespectful of all others, especially when they get behind the wheel of a car and kill someone else.

Rape is not an impoliteness, but a violation. a violation of the woman or mans right to say no. At its core it is about the right to autonomy, its about consent. It is a failure to recognise and abide by or worse and usually so its a wilfull and intentional acta against the rights of others.

Whereas someone drunk is incapable of proper risk-assessment. Yes they do violate a persons rights when they kill them. But as when they get behind the wheel drunk are they not already incapable of proper judgement? And if that is a disrespect of the rights of others then surely all alochol is, so as any drink may nake any person stupid enough to make such a stupid decision?

"Any student who misbehaves shows disrespect for his family/whanau (NZ Maori terminology) and for his school, if in uniform. Is this wrong, to hold such a point of view? I don't think so!"

People have a right to culture, but they have a right to freedom from culture too! Not everyone must follow customs, and sometimes customs are wrong! Like for example the custom of having 9 year old girls deflowered by village elders in one culture in India. Or how about female circumcision of children? Or how about common male circumcision?

People have a right not to follow customs, and some customs are contrary to peoples rights without modification. An adult male can give consent to circumcision but a baby cannot. As that baby may well regret that they had been circumcised the act is wrong. But the adult has a right to their customary practice too, but thats as a matter of free informed choice!

So arguments of honour or respect or custom or tradition are mere variations of the social mores. Not a valid measure of right and wrong at all!

Talking of coercion ... the state decrees that we have to attend school for so many years and provides free education up to a certain level. Why? Because the state knows that, in order to function as a society, people have to be prepared to become labourers, artisans, professionals, etc in certain predictable numbers. Is this wrong? The state has coerced parents and teachers to abrogate their responsibilities towards the youth (don't argue, Batty, it has!). Is this wrong?

The battle for compulsary education was less about state control (states did fine without it in the past!) and more about insuring that the poor were not further disadvantaged. It falls under the right to an equal share of the benefits of living in a society. Something plenty of parents in the past prior to compulsary education were unwilling as well as unable to provide.

Could it be handled better, certainly, but it could be handled worse too. As it was prior to compulsary free education!

In one sense, the answer to this is, "Yes". A single person has tarnished the image of the whole school, and perhaps the school does not deserve that. But hang on a second. Suppose not one, but two, or three, or four or more students also present the school in a bad light by their inability to behave properly. At what point would you accept that the school as a whole is probably not a "good" school?

Ah but if the school is not a good school yet its students behave themselves in uniform you could get a false impression that the school is good! A school with seemingly dissobediant students may well produce iconoclasts, inovators etc while one that has obediant well behaved students may crush all independance and though resulting only in obediant automotons useless to progressing society.

Might I suggest the best measure of a school may be the grades of it's students and the degree of their post-school success?

And again, why should the students rights be curtailed by the needs of the school? Surely the school exists for the needs of its students and never the students existing for the needs of the school!

Lets extend this from schools to states. A state with rigid rules and imposition of public behaviour that may embarass it, where individuals criticising the state is bad etc... well we'd be looking at countires like Iran, the USSR, Communist China, North Korea, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Whereas one thats more chaotic, with public dissent, with people willing to embarass the state.. that'd be the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, modern Germany etc etc.

Now if a school is suppossed to prepare people for later life... I'd suggest the one many would call 'bad' because of its wild independant students would in fact be good and the one people call 'good' with its obedient and regimented students may well be very very very bad!

Are such teachings "illogical generalisations"? None of us is an island. No matter how much we would wish it otherwise, we are recognized as "Ken's kid" or a man of Maori descent.

Yes, they are illogical. Not every Aboriginal is the same, not every tribe is the same etc. Our connections and relationships are worthy of recognition, so being 'Ken's kid' or Maori or descended from Transylvanian Gypsies can be important judging people based on assumptions generalisations and stereotypes of that is illogical. It ignores the individual variation in every single human being.

And sure none of us are islands. But our responsibilities to others extend to recognising their rights and fair share of societies advantages. If we all suborn our rights to the community then the community does not exist to serve the people who make it up but the people only exist to serve the community! Whereas if we all recognise each others rights we will still have a community, a more diverse and free and fair one but still with mutual cooperation for mutual benefit!

Perhaps I was fortunate, in that I grew up in surroundings which taught me that our prime purpose here on earth is to serve one another!

It's not about me. It's all about my relationships with other people!

I grew up in very altruistic surroundings too, one with individual rights respected, even of small children. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact I suggest that you cannot fairly serve all others unless you respect their individual rights! Individual rights are not about selfishness, merely diversity and difference and freedom. How can a group-focus community serve those in it with different needs? How can it handle people who do things in a different way? Usually it crushes them, punishes them and destroys them.

Today's focus only on individual rights breeds selfishness. Selfishness breeds contempt for others, both individually and collectively. Bad behaviour such as drunkeness and rape is the end result of such contempt!

I think there are leaps in your chain. Today does not focus on Individual Rights. That has been out-of-fashion for decades in general. No-one can concur with Universal equal individual rights without neccessary respect for the rights and freedoms and differences of others. That breeds respect for others. It is a disregard for the universal equality which breeds contempt etc. And all individual rights are dependant for their validity on that universality.

And again, has bad behaviour actually increased?

I think I shall turn the focus of these final thoughts into a thread focussing on CDing. Go well, my friend.[/QUOTE]

Where do you stand, Batty? do you believe in the virtue of selfishness, as Ayn Rand (author of "The Fountainhead") did? Or do you believe in the virtue of service to others, as is taught by most religions?

Ayn Rand is a *censored* who utterly missunderstood Egalitarianism's 'equality for all' as meaning forcibly making everyone exactly the same. Such a simple and obvious difference I have trouble understanding anyone making such an error. But then don't misscharacterise Ayn's argument, that doing good to others encourages them to do good to you so it is 'enlightened self-interest".

Lets leave religion out of it as immaterial, especially as that lesson is not so universal amongst them.

But if I consider that I appreciate being helped when i am in need then logically I should help others when they are in need. Even if I do not get paid back in return, though it is more likely to occur if i do. Egalitarianism supports that!

For as I would not want someone taking my freedom away and making me be different to how i want to be then I should not do so to others either.

If I like to wear Goth clothes i should not tell the Featherfeet to take off their headscarves! If I like to be given food when I am hungry and have none then I should give food to others when they are hungry and have none!

And right there is the logic that requires equal rights! Its very basis!

Now in case people mistakenly feel we have moved off topic when in fact we are cutting to it's very heart lets consider the relationship:

If a GG does not feel she needs her husbands permission to change any aspect of her appearance then she is wrong to do so in return. Again its equality and respect at its heart.

And let me explain a big error people make with this. I'll use the 'golden rule' as most know it. The flaw when people consider 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is people do not consider that what something is for them it may not be for the other person. So consider instead 'do unto others the equivalent for them as that for you which you would have them do unto you'.

So just because people may use their rights differently to you does not mean they don't have them. Even in relationships. One cannot project what they would want onto their partner but instead respect that their partner has their own mind and freedoms and the right to their own choices.

Ponder that idea and individual universal human rights are inevitable conclusions. And thats not religion-dependant either as that notion exists based purely on secular principles of fairness too.

paulaluvssz8

02-02-2009, 01:24 PM

battybattybats

02-02-2009, 09:39 PM

I believe that it would be the person who is Cding that is making the choice.

Why? Why is it the CD who is making the choice?

I was given an ultimatum several years ago about my CDing and I chose to hide it as I wasn't doing it anymore.

Wasn't that ultimatum a choice? Did they not choose to give you an ultimatum? Can we not equally say that not-accepting is also a choice and if not then we have to consider that not-CDing may also not be a choice!

Let us consider that the discussion about who has the choice may well be siding on the CD being responsible not because of there being evidence or even logic that makes the responsibility more theirs but instead because it is the thing not considered 'normal' in society currently and it is assumed that 'normal' is not a choice but a natural state and that 'abnormal' must be a choice as it's unnatural and thus could only exist by choice?

Are those claiming the CD is responsible not falling into a false unjust and unfair pro-status-quo bias?

Kelli Michelle

02-03-2009, 12:33 AM

This was the original question, basically, Batty.

Rather than repeat what I have written before, I will just say generally I agree with Batty here.

I am not generally criticizing the wife's choice, though there could be reasons to, just that, she did make a choice. The CDer may or may not be making a choice( if he is really TS that's not really a choice). In the case we are discussing it takes two to tango, at least, IMHO.

GaleWarning

02-03-2009, 01:34 PM

"People have a right to culture, but they have a right to freedom from culture too! Not everyone must follow customs, and sometimes customs are wrong!"

Jewish culture has survived virtually intact for thousands of years, despite the best efforts of too many people and other cultures to deny them that right.

Jesus was a Jew who split from that culture.

Scottish culture has thrived around the world, precisely because Scots have not forced it onto anyone else, whereas Afrikaner culture in South Africa is on the wane, precisely because Afrikaners tried to force it down the throats of people of other cultures, who saw them as oppressors.

Just random thoughts ...

"Lets leave religion out of it as immaterial, especially as that lesson is not so universal amongst them."

I am a Christian who has railed against systems which I have considered to be imperfect. These perceptions have been fueled by my dealings with a few individuals within such systems.

You, Batty, have a poor perception of Christianity (and other religions) because you judge them, not according to their tenets, but according to the actions of their followers.

Just recently, I have learned that it is my own personal inter-relationships with people that matter. Christians like Desmond Tutu and mother Theresa give the religion a good name because of their interactions with others (I have been priviledged to meet Archbishop Tutu). Christians like a couple of Ministers of the cloth I could name give the religion a bad name because of their poor iner-personal skills.

Have you read "The Shack" by William P Young? I guarantee it will change your perceptions of of God and of Christianity.

"'... do unto others the equivalent for them as that for you which you would have them do unto you'."

The more we try to pin down an exact definiton of ANYTHING, the more we find we have to shift the goalposts. Take the present posts about the definitions of a CD, TS, TV etc. When it comes down to legal issues, I believe that less is more. A convivial approach to life, with a minimal number of rules is far easier to cope with than a manipulative approach with an over-abundance of rules.

How many words are there in the Ten Commandments?
How many words are there in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
How many words are there in your average parliamentary bill?

More words, more loopholes ...

"So just because people may use their rights differently to you does not mean they don't have them. Even in relationships. One cannot project what they would want onto their partner but instead respect that their partner has their own mind and freedoms and the right to their own choices.

Ponder that idea and individual universal human rights are inevitable conclusions. And thats not religion-dependant either as that notion exists based purely on secular principles of fairness too. "

you are absolutely correct. I recently read a book on that religious notion called "Forgiveness" which was well-written from an entirely secular perspective.

Getting back to our friend Kelli and his wife, they need to consider the pain they are both needlessly suffering and causing the other. Whether they are religious or not, the solution to their problem is right there in front of them, waiting for them to embrace it. They need to improve their relationship. And for both to refuse to open negotiations is to choose to suffer further. They should, instead, choose to end the suffering.

It's going to be a good day! I'm out of here, Batty.

Penny

02-03-2009, 02:40 PM

Personal appearence is just that" Personal". How we look is our choice. Behavior on the other hand is not always our choice. It becomes very confusing to sometimes distiinguish the two and the case of a CD, they can be the same.

Crossdressing is generally harmless and hurts nobody,thus, it would not be considered bad behavior. On the other hand, given the right situation, it can hurt not only oneself, but also loved ones. This is true because of it's "taboo"
nature.

Balance, lest we tumble and fall

It would have been nice

to be born female

but that's not the case at all

:hugs:

Penny

LA CINDY LOVE

02-03-2009, 03:53 PM

I believe that it would be the person who is Cding that is making the choice. I was given an ultimatum several years ago about my CDing and I chose to hide it as I wasn't doing it anymore. So I do only when I am here by myself. Yeah it is hard, but I chose to love her and my family, friends, etc. And just stay at the level of CDing that I am. I'm guessing that she knows that I still dress, but she is good at keeping it at a "I don't want to know" reasoning.

Not a expert, but I deal with people as a profession and I have discovered that there is two sides to every fence..:)
I agree with you Paulaluvssz8 the person who is cding is making the choice, if the person feels his cding is causing problem with his marriage and family he needs to make a choice.....if your wife come to you and say I try to live with you and your dressing but I just can not do it any more and gives you the ultimatum you need to make a choice.

A married CD if given a choice between his family and dressing he will choice his family why......... like Paulauvssz8 said he chose to LOVE his wife and family.

LA CINDY LOVE

Kelli Michelle

02-03-2009, 05:28 PM

I agree with you Paulaluvssz8 the person who is cding is making the choice, if the person feels his cding is causing problem with his marriage and family he needs to make a choice.....if your wife come to you and say I try to live with you and your dressing but I just can not do it any more and gives you the ultimatum you need to make a choice.

A married CD if given a choice between his family and dressing he will choice his family why......... like Paulauvssz8 said he chose to LOVE his wife and family.

Let's try this again. The husband makes a choice to cd (assuming it is a choice, it may not be)---he WANTS to STAY---then the wife says either quit cding or leave---therefore he is the only one making a decision here???? There is no decision by the wife? I don't get it, I guess. :doh:

LA CINDY LOVE

02-03-2009, 08:11 PM

If the wife gives the ultimatum, and husband makes a choice to continue cding but he wants to stay, then he has made his decision, now the wife must make a choice on her decision should she stay or separated.

LA CINDY LOVE

ReineD

02-03-2009, 08:49 PM

Kelli, not everyone here will agree because the posters cover the entire TG spectrum. I hope the women responding to your post will realize that for some, CDing is a choice. For others, it is not. In your case, it clearly isn't. So you and your wife need to decide whether or not you can meet half way.

If somewhere down the road it comes down to making the very painful decision to divorce, and I'm sure your wife will be distressed about this, I would be happy to talk to her. You can tell her that I won't try to "convince" her of anything. I will just listen. I don't imagine she knows of many other GGs she can discuss this with. It might also help her to know she is not the only SO who feels the way she does.
:hugs:

GaleWarning

02-04-2009, 03:57 AM

battybattybats

02-04-2009, 04:21 AM

Jewish culture has survived virtually intact for thousands of years, despite the best efforts of too many people and other cultures to deny them that right.

Oh that is so not so. Jewish culture changed heaps and split into many subsets. Know the name of Gods Wife, the jewish Goddess? She's right there in the archaeological record!

Jesus was a Jew who split from that culture.

And wasn't the first nor the last either. But what is important is that individuals have a human right to take or leave as much of culture as they wish.

Scottish culture has thrived around the world, precisely because Scots have not forced it onto anyone else, whereas Afrikaner culture in South Africa is on the wane, precisely because Afrikaners tried to force it down the throats of people of other cultures, who saw them as oppressors.

Most of 'Scottish culture' as we now know it is very recent. I'm substantially of Highland Scottish descent on one side (along with Irish, Welsh, Cornish, English, Bohemian and Transylvanian Gypsy)

But an individual forced to abide by their OWN cultural traditions is also oppressed when they would rather not. Look up some of the tribal initiation rights involving extreme genital modification using stone and wood tools and you'll swiftly see why people have a right to not follow their own cultural practices either!

"Lets leave religion out of it as immaterial, especially as that lesson is not so universal amongst them."

You, Batty, have a poor perception of Christianity (and other religions) because you judge them, not according to their tenets, but according to the actions of their followers.

Not so! I have studied comparative theology! From the Gnostic Gospels to Zoarastrians to Siberian Animism to the worshipers of Camasotz and Quetzalcoatl. I can judge Christinaity on its tenets quite well. But that is immaterial to a discussion on human rights because A) human rights do not depend on religion but on philosophy and B) freedom of religion is just another human right bordered by the need to respect the human rights of others otherwise you cannot have true freedom of religion! Besides, religious discussion belongs in PMs or the Religion section as per forum rules!

Just recently, I have learned that it is my own personal inter-relationships with people that matter. Christians like Desmond Tutu and mother Theresa give the religion a good name because of their interactions with others (I have been priviledged to meet Archbishop Tutu). Christians like a couple of Ministers of the cloth I could name give the religion a bad name because of their poor iner-personal skills.

You prove the problem with judging everyone in a group by an example individual from a group!

Have you read "The Shack" by William P Young? I guarantee it will change your perceptions of of God and of Christianity.

Nope, but I'd be surprised that it could after reading several different translations of the bible as well as studying the broader abrahamic faiths and their influences as well as many other faiths from around the world. Believe me I'm well familiar with many different variations of Christianity, and Bhuddism and Wicca etc.

"'... do unto others the equivalent for them as that for you which you would have them do unto you'."

The more we try to pin down an exact definiton of ANYTHING, the more we find we have to shift the goalposts. Take the present posts about the definitions of a CD, TS, TV etc. When it comes down to legal issues, I believe that less is more. A convivial approach to life, with a minimal number of rules is far easier to cope with than a manipulative approach with an over-abundance of rules.

Thats an issue with language. An unavoidable one. However so long as it is the ideas that matter rather than the words then all that matters is to convey an understanding, which to truly grasp may take many many words for some ideas.

How many words are there in the Ten Commandments?

Depends on which version, of which there are a great many!

More words, more loopholes ...

The problem comes in with people attempting to make 'literal' limited interpretations of laws rather than trying to understand the true meaning. In which case fewer words greater problems.

Easy example: All sentiences should be considered equal because all sentiences have by virtue of being sentient the capacity to think, reason, feel and object to having no autonomy. Ah but if we say that 'all men are equal' then literalists could say 'well it doesn't mean women!' even though men can mean all humans both men and women. And so inequality was justified by the loophole of too few words!

Getting back to our friend Kelli and his wife, they need to consider the pain they are both needlessly suffering and causing the other. Whether they are religious or not, the solution to their problem is right there in front of them, waiting for them to embrace it. They need to improve their relationship. And for both to refuse to open negotiations is to choose to suffer further. They should, instead, choose to end the suffering.

People arent always in a position, emotional, psychological or even practical, to negotiate and not everything can be up for negotiation. And if negotiation is done when one has a position of power over the other then the result wont be fair. A good reason again for a respect for equal rights prior to negotiation and throughout the negotiation process!

If the wife gives the ultimatum, and husband makes a choice to continue cding but he wants to stay, then he has made his decision, now the wife must make a choice on her decision should she stay or separated.

Ah but then she chose to make an ultimatum! Therefore the choice is hers! And if he may not have a choice to quit as obviously is the case for a huge proportion of CDs then her ultimatum is false! And she has made a choice but is using the ultimatum as a way to blame him and make him responsible for that choice! If she did not present the ultimatum then the CD would never be caught between the two!

So let us consider then what such an ultimatum truly is! It is a TEST to see if the CD is so as a hobby or an intrinsic trait DISGUISED as a test of their love that re****s in BLAME-SHIFTING for the already made DECISION to abandon the husband if the CDing is not the husbands fault! And in that blame-shifting it is truly horrific!

Imagine for a moment a wife is in a car accident. Her spine is damaged and willpower alone will not re-connect it if it turns out to be severed. Were the husband to say to the wife 'if you love me you'll be able to walk again but if you stay in that wheelchair I'm leaving you' then there would be plenty of appropriately nasty words to call the husband!

She has no power over whether her spinal nerve is permanantly severed! No amount of motivation based on fear can fix it if thats the case. So the husband is an insensitive *censored censored censored* and is balming the wife for his choice to leave!

So no, its the wife choosing to give an ultimatum which is unfair, unjust, traumatising, blame-shifting, cruel and wretched!

It is no different than the man who dumps their wheelchair-bound wife with such an ultimatum for not loving him enough to miraculously walk!

The wife has every right to ask the CD if they can stop and every right to leave by their own choice or if they just can't hack it if they can't or won't stop (cause every spouse has a right to say no!). But to blame the husband for the wives choice is nonsense!

Satrana

02-04-2009, 06:35 AM

The wife has every right to ask the CD if they can stop and every right to leave by their own choice or if they just can't hack it if they can't or won't stop (cause every spouse has a right to say no!). But to blame the husband for the wives choice is nonsense!

End of story.

One additional point. Every SO should know what CDing is about and understand you cannot unmake a CD. If her own happiness and relationship is on the line, do we really believe a SO is incapable of finding out the facts about crossdressers? It is clear many make no effort because they don't want to know because they have already decided that they will never accept crossdressing.

It is NOT difficult to sensibility compromise by allowing a CD private time and space to pursue his needs. This happens all the time in relationships because spouses often have hobbies and interests that are not shared with each other. What makes it so hard and causes all the grief in our cases is the SO not recognizing and accepting the CD's right to express his own femininity. Unless the SO accepts this basic right then the behavior will forever cause strife and will likely tear the relationship apart in the long run.

It is the woman's choice not to accept that men have feminine sides to their personalities. This is ground zero.

Kelli Michelle

02-04-2009, 09:14 AM

Kelli, here's a ponderous thought:

As long as we blame, we effectively rob ourselves of our own empowerment.

Stop blaming your wife or anyone else for the situation. Talk with her. Forgive her for her intractable stance. Forgive yourself for yours. Know that you are both forgiven.

Only then you will both truly be free to begin to seek a solution to the problem.

At the moment, both of you are stuck.

Just to be clear, my wife has not asked me to get out, I was merely posing a question about "what if your wife said this." Once again, I would be NOT blaming my wife for anything, if this occurred,unless you count her making a decision, and blame would be the wrong word. Maybe taking "responsibility" would be a better word.

You said it yourself in your post, about forgiving each other for our "intractable stance". In other words a stance involves a decision. That's all. I am not trying to deflect my responsibility by making a decision, nor should she deflect hers. To further illustrate, let's say (again) you decide to cd, she says get out----two decisions, not one. Or am I crazy???

I think I am beating a dead horse here, lol.

Thanks again for the perspectives.

GaleWarning

02-05-2009, 12:55 AM

Kelli, you are wondering whose decision it is which causes an impasse, the CDer's or the wife's; I am trying to say that in the end, when the marriage is over, is does not matter whose decision it was!

What is more important (and this is what so many of us are saying over and over again) is that spouses need to keep the lines of communication open. Only in this way will the marriage stand a chance of surviving. The process has to be on-going.

Brandiwvr

02-05-2009, 01:58 AM

Life is a journey that we all must make are own choices. If I could have my wife back, she passed away due to an illness, I would still be asking her for her love as she always returned the question. We only realize what somethings value is fully when we lose it.
MAKE SURE YOU ARE WILLING TO BE RESPECFUL TO ALL FIRST INCLUDING YOUR SELF.
cant seem to find the rule book on life so i resort to prayer.

ReineD

02-05-2009, 02:51 AM

We only realize what somethings value is fully when we lose it.

So very, very true. :sad:

GaleWarning

02-05-2009, 02:15 PM

"... human rights do not depend on religion but on philosophy ..."

I have mentioned that I am reading "The Shack" by William P Young.
On page 137 the dialogue between Mack, the main character and Sarayu (God the Holy Spirit) goes like this ...

Mack: "... didn't Missy (his daughter, who was murdered) have a right to be protected?"

Sarayu: "No Mack. A child is protected because she is loved, not because she has a right to be protected."

Mack: "But what about ...?"

Sarayu: "Rights are where survivors go, so that they won't have to work out relationships."

GaleWarning

02-05-2009, 02:21 PM

And this one's for Kelli, another comment from Sarayu on page 123.

"When you choose independence over relationship, you become a danger to each other. Others become objects to be manipulated or managed for your own happiness. Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong use to make others conform to what they want."

Emily Anderson

02-05-2009, 02:23 PM

sande10

02-05-2009, 07:46 PM

yikes. there are too many variables to get a good read on your situation. Tell me more

Satrana

02-05-2009, 11:24 PM

"When you choose independence over relationship, you become a danger to each other. Others become objects to be manipulated or managed for your own happiness. "
????
Let me rewrite that quote so it is more realistic. Relationships leave people wide open to abuse and the selfish nature of their partners. All too often partners will manipulate or manage you under the guise of love. Those who are independent are free from manipulation and have no need to manipulate others.

GaleWarning

02-06-2009, 07:05 AM

You don't get it, Satrana.

Any partner who tries to manipulate or manage the other under the guise of love is not in a true relationship with their partner.

Two or more people who are inter-dependent are in true relationship with each other.

When one is truly in a relationship with another, one counts the other's needs to be more important than one's own, and vice-versa.

None seeks to dominate or control the other.

Sheila

02-06-2009, 07:17 AM

Any partner who tries to manipulate or manage the other under the guise of love is not in a true relationship with their partner.

Two or more people who are inter-dependent are in true relationship with each other.

When one is truly in a relationship with another, one counts the other's needs to be more important than one's own, and vice-versa.

None seeks to dominate or control the other.

Guess that means that Debs and I are in a truely loving partnership ............ while both of us need each other, neither of us would do anything to harm or abuse the other and in fact would walk over the proverbial hot coals to save the other a moment or even a second of pain, either from others but more importantly fome each other :):)

battybattybats

02-06-2009, 09:22 AM

ReineD

02-06-2009, 01:34 PM

To love someone enough to respect their freedom? Thats true love!

When someone is caged their presence is valueless, when free to leave their freely chosen presence is of incalculable value!

The love of a truly independant person is more valuable than that of a billion dependant people combined! Because it is truly freely given not required or demanded, not the slaking of a thirst or a psychological craving.

Beautifully said, Batty.

LA CINDY LOVE

02-06-2009, 03:40 PM

Beautifully said, Batty.
WOW............THAT was sweet.....

LA CINDY LOVE

GaleWarning

02-07-2009, 01:24 AM

Mack: "... didn't Missy (his daughter, who was murdered) have a right to be protected?"

Sarayu: "No Mack. A child is protected because she is loved, not because she has a right to be protected."

Mack: "But what about ...?"

Sarayu: "Rights are where survivors go, so that they won't have to work out relationships."

As I see it, you are correct in stating that "human rights" are a man-made (sorry gurls!) construct created in response to tyranny and oppression. Even today, most humans live under some form of tyranny or oppression, be it based on class (India), creed (Zimbabwe), age (paedophiles exist world-wide), gender (women, and en-femme CDs on this forum have expressed a sense of heightened fear of attack on the streets because of their sex) or whatever.

The book that I am reading is all about relationships. The message is that any one-sided "relationship", especially one which is based on cruelty or selfishness, is not really a Relationship.

"Rights are what you get when you consider that all should be equal when they currently are not treated equally. "

The Christian God-in-Trinity considers that all should be equal AND TREATS THEM EQUALLY. We could write a book on this ... how do I elaborate, briefly?

Ah. "God causes the rain to fall on the good and the evil alike."

As I recall, someone asked Billy Graham's wife how God could have allowed 9-11 to happen. I thought her answer was profound ... I must look it up. That would be another aspect ...

Here's a third. As humans, how do we decide what is good and what is evil? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Mack puts it this way,
"I guess I would say that something is good when I like it - when it makes me feel good or gives me a sense of security. Conversely, I'd say something is evil that causes me pain or costs me something I want."

It's subjective, in other words.

What I find so overwhemingly attractive about Christianity is it's inclusiveness. John 3:16 uses the word "whosoever" - no-one is excluded, for any reason! There are many, many other instances.

Christianity (as opposed to those who profess to be Christians, too many bad examples there!) is all about healing relationships, binding up wounded souls, rebuilding broken lives.

Christianity is all about service to others. Why do you think that servants are exhorted to obey their masters? And the ultimate act of service is to lay down one's life for someone else. It is the highest expression of human love.

Human rights are not about human love. They are not even about justice. Because in order to be effective, they have to be enforced through some form of judiciary. True human love is not forced upon anyone; it is freely given, without having to do so, but rather, by choosing to do so.

Matthew 5 is amazing! It runs counter to everyting that normal humans would consider to be natural behaviour. Forgive your enemies; bless those that curse you; turn the other cheek; if someone asks you for your jacket, give them your shirt as well; go the extra mile ... Every one of these is an act of human love, freely given from within, not imposed from without.

This is how we create and sustain good relationships.

As I see it, human love is a God-made construct in response to human tyranny and suffering. Everyone is capable of loving (it is reported in today's NZ Herald that one of the murderers of 3 year old Nia Glassie told the court that he loved her), which makes everyone a candidate for redemption.

The saint and the sinner, the rich and the poor, the master and the servant, the old and the young, the living and (amazingly!) even the dead.

Satrana

02-07-2009, 11:17 PM

When one is truly in a relationship with another, one counts the other's needs to be more important than one's own, and vice-versa.

None seeks to dominate or control the other.

Oh I do get it but actually having this arrangement is unusual and even if you do reach this stasis, it is unlikely to survive in the long run. I am just being pragmatic that this ideal is rare in our society, and getting rarer as we steadily away away from social/community organized behavior to independent (frequently selfish) behavior.

Truth is all human beings come with a myriad of faults, it is how we deal with the faults that counts. Better to work on that model than chase after a perfect relationship.

battybattybats

02-08-2009, 12:17 AM

As I see it, you are correct in stating that "human rights" are a man-made (sorry gurls!) construct created in response to tyranny and oppression.

Politically and legally they are man-made. Logically and philosophically however they are realised in the same way that mathematics are realised. We render the truth that 1 + 1 = 2 with a formula we create but the practise remains true. Now rights are logic (a formula just like the arithmatic) derived from assumed principles (precepts) so if the precepts are true and the formula without error then the result is true. In which case unless there is a flaw in the precepts or the logic then rights are a realised or discovered truth rather than an invention.

Even today, most humans live under some form of tyranny or oppression, be it based on class (India), creed (Zimbabwe), age (paedophiles exist world-wide), gender (women, and en-femme CDs on this forum have expressed a sense of heightened fear of attack on the streets because of their sex) or whatever.

Indeed every single country on Earth has a host of human-rights abuses.

The book that I am reading is all about relationships. The message is that any one-sided "relationship", especially one which is based on cruelty or selfishness, is not really a Relationship.

When any two things effect one another they are in a relationship. They relate to the other. The bullets in a corpse relate to the cause of death, they are in a relationship. The bully that traumatises their victim to the point of being suicidal is also in a perpetrator-victim relationship. Its important to consider there are good relationships and bad, healthy and unhealthy, free and coerced. And some people may enjoy an unequal relationship even though it is technically abusive, even on either side of that inequality. But all are still relationships.

"Rights are what you get when you consider that all should be equal when they currently are not treated equally. "

The Christian God-in-Trinity considers that all should be equal AND TREATS THEM EQUALLY. We could write a book on this ...

If you would like a theological discussion feel free to PM me or we could have a public one in our visitor messages or via my blog or the religious discussion section (though I'm not yet part of that section).

So I will only respond to your points about religion where they pertain to the subject at hand, that of measures of right and worng (philosophy) that relate back in some form to who gets to make crucial decisons in relationships over whom so we can keep this at the very core and heart of the subject at hand let alone obey the forum rules.

Religion is no definer of right and wrong in relationships or society because:

1. More than one religion exists.

2. No religion has utter proof of their truth

3. Spouses as well as individuals in a state may belong to different religions or different subsets of a religion or different sub-subsets ad infinitum. (eg even two Catholics or Protestants may still follow different factional thoughts within that doctrine)

Therefore not only is a freedom of religion one of the individual universal human rights as per prior discussion but also any system of right and wrong, decision, authority, morality, ethics, law etc even within a relationship must work irrespective of any one religious system so that it serves everyone, from the fundamentalist Jew to the Chaos-Majyk Neo-odinist/Wiccan/Bhuddist to the member of Anton LeVay's Church of Satan.

Your freedom of religion depends on recognising the freedom of others religions, otherwise you lose the protection of that freedom against other religions. So you cannot impose your religious tenants or religious morality over another even a spouse without losing your right to keep your own! Here we see that in the context of relationships whether between person and person or person and state Secular Ethics (which protects freedom of religion, the anti-faith secular states like Turkey and the USSR having been unethical) trumps Religious Morality as the latter is purely personal!

Here's a third. As humans, how do we decide what is good and what is evil?

There is a whole field of thought found in countless cultures that has existed for many thousands of years called philosophy. Moral and ethical reasoning fall under this field. It's a fascinating subject that I'm sure you will enjoy as clearly much of the ideas your raising are philosophical ones more than theological or psychological or political ones even though they all do relate to those other fields.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Are there ethics in war? Oh most certainly yes. An attack upon a state even from within, upon it's capacity to wage war or to unjustly oppress its subjects are clearly sabotage, espionage, insurgency, rebellion etc. Even attacks upon the police may be so counted in certain circumstances. However attacks upon civilians in order to gain political advantage via fear especially in a democracy is terrorism.

Therefore no freedom fighter can be a terrorist simply because of what side they are on. They are only a terrorist when they attack civilians instead of soldiers, police or functions of the state (even economic targets are legitimate targets in war but civilians are not). There exists again a very clear line between acts of terrorism and acts of freedom-fighters even though many freedom fighters have been also terrorists.

The War of Independance: freedom fighting. The storming of the Bastille: freedom fighting. The Stonewall Uprising: freedom fighting. Every plane hijacking, every street bombing, every civilian hostage taking: Terrorism. There is a clear line between the acts. The targeting of civilians makes all the difference.

Mack puts it this way,
"I guess I would say that something is good when I like it - when it makes me feel good or gives me a sense of security. Conversely, I'd say something is evil that causes me pain or costs me something I want."

It's subjective, in other words.

That is a truly pathetic measure of good and evil. Even modern advocates of Hedonism consider that the equality of others comes into the equation just for starters. Let alone that something may be good precisely because it has cost something else desirable in order to obtain or that one must suffer in some way in order to obtain it. In fact we often value more that which we must pay more for either in goods (expensive items considered better than cheap ones) or in direct personal suffering (e.g. childbirth, breaking a personal record in some sport etc).

Meanwhile any argument of right and wrong that is based on a personal revelation or decision of the truth of any particular religion (ie faith) is invalid when used to judge or measure anyone who holds to a different faith or has none!

Can we find an objective measure of good and evil? If we consider equality and liberty as a starting assumption then can you find fault with that as a measure?

Whatever a person chooses to do with their liberty within their rights (remembering that each persons rights is bordered by the recognition of the rights of others) is good no matter how starnge, unpopular or contrary to the wishes of others who would rather that persons do something else with their choice. Whatever abuses a persons human rights is evil.

Can you find a better objective measure of good and evil than that? One that is any more fair to all religious faiths, to all cultures, to everyone? Certainly some become more restricted than others, for example someone who wishes to sacrifice someone to the god Camasotz would need to find a willing fully informed freelly consenting sacrifice uncoerced in any way. Cultures and faiths where imposing over the freedoms of others is considered good do suffer more as they must only apply such rules to those who consent to such rules... so to obey the witch-muder rule in the bible is a less severe constraint because it is a less central tenant to the faith than regular human sacrifice is for some faiths.. however what other system treats all such cultures and faiths so well?

What I find so overwhemingly attractive about Christianity is it's inclusiveness. John 3:16 uses the word "whosoever" - no-one is excluded, for any reason! There are many, many other instances.

And there are many other religions that do likewise, including the serving-others tenant. Ba'Hai, Bhuddism, many forms of Islam especially amongst the Sufi, many Animists beliefs etc etc etc say people should serve others and that everyone else is included. Christianity is not unique in it's inclusiveness. Nor is a faiths inclusiveness a reason for presuming it over all others is an objective measure of right and wrong. Rights however allow a Sufi to be a Sufi whether a Dervish or not and the Dervish to practice their dance and song rituals and a Christian to be a Christian whether Catholic Protestant Gnostic Marionite Coptic or even a Johannite! Their religious practice remains limited by respecting the rights of others, you can't just kill witches despite what the bible says, but nevertheless all can still hold their own faith.

Human rights are not about human love. They are not even about justice. Because in order to be effective, they have to be enforced through some form of judiciary. True human love is not forced upon anyone; it is freely given, without having to do so, but rather, by choosing to do so.

LOL. Human Rights are about equality. Rights are absolutely about justice, and what form of justice does not require a judiciary, democracy or other such system of enforcement? That true human love can only exist by free human choice means it can only exist in a state that concurs with human rights! Whether or not anyone calls them human rights if love only exists where uncoerced and given with full free informed consent then it is in exact concorde with human rights!

Sounds like your arguing FOR Human Rights there!

Matthew 5 is amazing! It runs counter to everyting that normal humans would consider to be natural behaviour. Forgive your enemies; bless those that curse you; turn the other cheek; if someone asks you for your jacket, give them your shirt as well; go the extra mile ... Every one of these is an act of human love, freely given from within, not imposed from without.

Ah... but... is it truly uncoerced when there is a promise of heaven and a threat of hell attached? No, that is not uncoerced. It has both carrot and stick coercion! As for the naturalness of such actions you may want to read on the experiments with monkeys regarding altruism, fairness and justice. And they aren't the only ones. Did you know for example that vampire bats will voluntarily regurgitate food to help a hungry perfect stranger? These are animals that require a certain amount of food for their own survival and to have enough energy to get their next meal. Such an altruistic act puts themselves at risk. And yet they are altruistic with utter strangers!

This is how we create and sustain good relationships.

Ah but if two people sacrifice all they wish for the sake of the partner you may get a stalemate, a state of stagnation, of a lose-lose scenario. And if the relationship is unbalanced one gets all the benefit and the other all the burden. Even those vampire bats stop supporting a moocher if they regularly abuse their natural generosity.

As I see it, human love is a God-made construct in response to human tyranny and suffering.

But from where comes human love is immaterial to right and wrong inside a relationship.

Everyone is capable of loving (it is reported in today's NZ Herald that one of the murderers of 3 year old Nia Glassie told the court that he loved her), which makes everyone a candidate for redemption.

Umm... are you sure on that? Are you sure that everyone is capable of feelling love? Have you looked at all the neurological variations that mean people experience thoughts and emotions differently? All the forms of brain damage that alter such capacities and experiences?

Something like 1 in 30 people (and 1 in 3 CEO's) are psychopaths, people clinically missing intuitive natural empathy for others. Literally lacking the capacity to understand the emotions of others being related to and comparable with their own emotions. While they are capable of desiring are they capable of the form of love you describe? Let alone all the other variations of people which effect how they think and feel and experience?

GaleWarning

02-08-2009, 04:27 AM

Politically and legally they are man-made. Logically and philosophically however they are realised in the same way that mathematics are realised. We render the truth that 1 + 1 = 2 with a formula we create but the practise remains true. Now rights are logic (a formula just like the arithmatic) derived from assumed principles (precepts) so if the precepts are true and the formula without error then the result is true. In which case unless there is a flaw in the precepts or the logic then rights are a realised or discovered truth rather than an invention.

I could go into a lengthy discussion of the philosophy of mathematics at this point, but like you, I will be brief and mention only the essentials.

Mathematics is not at all like logic. The Russell paradox, which detroyed the life's work of the mathematicians who wrote Principaea Mathematica (sp?) led these gentlemen to introduce new axiomatic treatments of set theory, which did avoid the paradox, but at a price. By the time they were finished the structure of set theory was so complicated that one could hardly identify it with logic in the sense of "The rules for correct reasoning." So it became untenable for them to argue that mathematics is nothing but logic.

In a series of proofs produced in the early 1930s, Kurt Godel proved that it is impossible to show that any mathematical system is absolutely consistent! The consequence of this asounding result is that in the last analysis, mathematics rests on faith - we hope and believe that what we are doing will not lead to any contradictions, but we are not absolutely certain of it.

In the same vein, I would challenge you to prove to me that human rights are a logic. Perhaps if you PM me with the details of your blog, we might continue there ... Certainly, I am skeptical about your claim that human rights always existed and are a discovered truth. And are they universally true?

I believe that they are an invention.

Religion is no definer of right and wrong in relationships or society

Correct. But what if religion (God) only recognized our absolute freedom to do what we like? Then society would be as it really is, extremely messy.

To draw the obvious parallel, all religions rest on faith, not on logic.

You mention freedom of religion as a basic universal human right ... I put it to you that religious persecution has ruled throughout the ages, and continues today. There is nothing to suggest to me that anything is likely to change soon ...

That true human love can only exist by free human choice means it can only exist in a state that concurs with human rights! Whether or not anyone calls them human rights if love only exists where uncoerced and given with full free informed consent then it is in exact concorde with human rights!

I am not sure if I understand you correctly here. If that state refers to a country, then your claim is easily refuted. Christ lived in a state which was being occupied by foreign, hostile forces. Christ claimed to be fully human. Mother Theresa lived and worked in India. Many Christians lived out their faith in Nazi Germany. Religions in general thrive best when they are oppressed. Not so, human rights.

But if you are referring to a human state of uncoerced love, then I would agree with you. Not all humans live in that state, though, which reinforces my thesis that the notion of any universal set of human rights will forever remian a fallacy.

is it truly uncoerced when there is a promise of heaven and a threat of hell attached?

This is another comment which deserves detailed discussion. Briefly, I would simply reply that my understanding of Christianity does not include the existence of hell; merely life after death, or no life at all.

Therefore no freedom fighter can be a terrorist simply because of what side they are on. They are only a terrorist when they attack civilians instead of soldiers, police or functions of the state (even economic targets are legitimate targets in war but civilians are not). The targeting of civilians makes all the difference.

How would you categorize the German blitzkrieg on London in 1940 or the allied bombing of Hamburg or Dresden in 1945? Or, even better - the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945? Let's be more contemporary. How do you classify the recent Israeli action in the Gaza strip?

Something like 1 in 30 people (and 1 in 3 CEO's) are psychopaths, people clinically missing intuitive natural empathy for others.

That is a frightening statistic. Do you have a reference? Personally, my professional life was ****ed up by just such a CEO some years ago.
Did you know that M Scott Peck held that such people suffer from a disease, which he called "evil". It's an interesting take on the phenomenon.

It's getting late. I am looking forward to tomorrow and would rather meet it well-rested. Time for bed.

battybattybats

02-08-2009, 07:28 PM

I could go into a lengthy discussion of the philosophy of mathematics at this point, but like you, I will be brief and mention only the essentials.

Mathematics is not at all like logic.

People much more qualified than I have staked careers on arguing either side of this so we shan't get a totally conclusive answer on it here :)

But as far as most maths goes its passed the repitition tests used in normal science. If there were major flaws in basic arithmatic we would have found them in our generations of shopping bills. Ah but the more complex stuff, that may indeed need further refinement. Though has it often failed? Considering we put satelites in orbit and do many other practical things based on mathematics we know that often it works because it does what we expect it to when applied to the real physical world.

The consequence of this asounding result is that in the last analysis, mathematics rests on faith - we hope and believe that what we are doing will not lead to any contradictions, but we are not absolutely certain of it.

Isn't that a metaphysics issue thats applicable to everyhting though? The rock-kicking attempt to refute the existentialist and bhuddist claim that no reality may genuinely exist refutes nothing because reality could be wholly hallucinatory and illusiory in every sense and respect including the rock, the kick etc. But there is a huge difference between holding something on pure faith and holding that something is currently true because it has yet to be disproved whe it is testable.

This is a major flaw in classical philosophical argument and mathematics as the attempts to rest on proofs is intrinsicly flawed hence why scientific method rests on inability to disprove a disprovable hypothesis. Our knowledge of all reality rests on our experience, yet we know our experience is vague and nebulous and fallible therefore all reality can be doubtable.

Even Cogito Ergo Sum "I think, therefore I am" is at least partially debatable and disputable especially considering some of the revelations coming from cognitive neuroscience using FRMI scanning!

In the same vein, I would challenge you to prove to me that human rights are a logic.

I would suggest that we should see if we can find a disproof.

Perhaps if you PM me with the details of your blog, we might continue there ...

I don't think there are any rules issues with me posting a link here, certainly others reading this part of the thread may find it interesting to follow any further discussion there http://caveofrationality.blogspot.com/

Certainly, I am skeptical about your claim that human rights always existed and are a discovered truth. And are they universally true?

I believe that they are an invention.

Depending on the way one looks at things all things are an invention, even memories and real-time experiences! But then we head into metaphysics. The importance of course is in the IFs. IF people are or should best be treated as equals THEN this is universally so.

Correct. But what if religion (God) only recognized our absolute freedom to do what we like? Then society would be as it really is, extremely messy.

To draw the obvious parallel, all religions rest on faith, not on logic.

Freedom does not neccessarily equal anarchy though. As for what God recognises, without testable evidence of the objective reality of God its a moot point though. If we try making deductions on what God must be like based only on the natural world we would conclude that God is cruel and evil by most modern human standards, very much the evil Rex Mundi of Gnosticism responsible for all manner of natural sufferings.

You mention freedom of religion as a basic universal human right ... I put it to you that religious persecution has ruled throughout the ages, and continues today. There is nothing to suggest to me that anything is likely to change soon ...

Plenty of periods of history have involved substantial rligious tolerance too though! There was times of peace in Palestine and Israel with Judaism Islam and Christianity coexisting!

And just because something occurs that does not make it good or right or justifiable that it occurs.

I am not sure if I understand you correctly here. If that state refers to a country, then your claim is easily refuted.

I meant state as in situation.

But if you are referring to a human state of uncoerced love, then I would agree with you. Not all humans live in that state, though, which reinforces my thesis that the notion of any universal set of human rights will forever remian a fallacy.

Its worth pointing out that a right and a power are different. One may have a right to something but be prevented the capacity to excercise that right, which is then an abuse of the persons rights except when it occurs because of the natural border between two peoples rights.

How would you categorize the German blitzkrieg on London in 1940 or the allied bombing of Hamburg or Dresden in 1945? Or, even better - the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945? Let's be more contemporary. How do you classify the recent Israeli action in the Gaza strip?

Oh that's often easy. The simple rule is, when a target is civilians its unethical and therfore a war crime. So some of the bombing done by all sides of WWII was a clear wrong.

Now where civilian casualties may be an unavoidable consequence because of proximity to military targets then things get messy so the Isreali action in the Gaza strip cannot be dealt with as one instance but a battle-by-battle bomb-by-bomb evaluation is needed to sort the clear wrongs from the messy area. The messy stuff idealistically is still wrong as any civilian death where a possibility of civilian death is known at te time of conflict is unethical, so things usually get measured in pragmatic levels as the consequences of inaction may be worse than that of action, a determining between wrongs. A quick google of the Trolley Dilemma and Footbridge Dillema if your unaware of them can easilly illustrate how complex that kind of thing is.

Something like 1 in 30 people (and 1 in 3 CEO's) are psychopaths, people clinically missing intuitive natural empathy for others.

That is a frightening statistic. Do you have a reference? Personally, my professional life was ****ed up by just such a CEO some years ago.
Did you know that M Scott Peck held that such people suffer from a disease, which he called "evil". It's an interesting take on the phenomenon.

It's getting late. I am looking forward to tomorrow and would rather meet it well-rested. Time for bed.

I think i first heard it via a BBC or New Scientist article but have since discussed it with several psych students I know. The written test involved is pretty simple, only taking about 30 minutes. Try a search for the term 'powerpaths' which has become the popular term for many of the psychopaths who end up in high levels of business and politics.

Nicki B

02-08-2009, 08:25 PM

I agree that a partner has a choice as to whether she wants to stay in the relationship after her husband informs her he intends to transition, and if not immediately, eventually she will come to realize it is also her choice to leave the marriage, but to accuse her of being ignorant, prejudiced and not enlightened discounts her heterosexuality. Not every woman is able to alter her sexuality or live in a platonic marriage to accommodate a transsexual partner.

Reine, forgive me for using your comment to build another discussion on (it's absolutely not meant as an attack on you).

How much choice is there in a relationship and how much should there be?

The focus here is so often on crossdressing (and often the associated deceit), but what if your spouse falls ill, is mutilated, brain injured, or fundamentally changed in some other way, for example so they can no longer have sex?

Does this give anyone the right to say 'the rules have changed and so I'm outta here', or should we pay more attention to the promise many of us made 'for better, for worse, in sickness and in health', etc?

And, if it doesn't - why is cross-dressing different? The assumption, from many posts here, seems to be that it's a choice. The behaviour might be - but how can the thoughts and feelings be? :strugglin

GaleWarning

02-08-2009, 09:54 PM

sarahNZ

02-09-2009, 10:39 AM

Kelli Michelle

02-09-2009, 12:05 PM

Well Kelly I can't speak on behalf of anyone else but in my particular case the choise was all hers (the GF). I was given two options stop or leave! I chose to stop, sadly what I didn't realise at the time was I can not stop, it is who I am! I did my best to keep to my promise but my earges got the better of me, and hey presto streight back into it again. A few years later (now the) wifey caught me at it again, started a row yada yada... (the D word)... blah blah

2 months later she has moved on, new bloke in my bed etc etc... now apart for 6 months and I can honestly say I would accept her back into my life! (What can I say... I love my wife or I would not have married her!) Sadly once again not my decision, I can not force her to change her mind.

I hope that gives you some semblence of an answer that you can use.

That is sad, for sure. As ReineD said, she certainly has the right to make her own decision on the matter. She basically realizes, I guess, that you will be unable to stop forever, so she has made her choice. Fair enough. Can love trump cding? That has been the basis for many threads in this forum, either directly or indirectly. For some people it can, for others no. Do you think you could give it up completely, seriously? Or at least mitigate to something minor? If you could, with new resolve, you could approach her again---or is she just "done"?

As you know I have my own issues, but I hate to see any 2 people, who loved each other at one point, break up. I feel your pain. If you want to message me personally, please feel free.

:hugs:

sarahNZ

02-09-2009, 12:29 PM

Why are CDs sick? How about those who are transphobic getting professional help instead.

well said!

in reply Kelly we have talked on many ocasions but she has moved on. Knowing how seriously this affects her has changed my way of thinking some what, I have told her that I would give up completely to have her back but I guess she knows better, or at least does not think that my being stuck in man mode to keep her happy (and lets face it if she is happy I am happy enough) should be an option, as you say "I have a right to be happy too"

GaleWarning

02-09-2009, 01:55 PM

As I have stated earlier on this thread, it is my experience that there is always some other issue, but CDing is used as the excuse for breaking up.
It's sad, sarah. Life does get better, though.

LA CINDY LOVE

02-09-2009, 03:36 PM

You make an excellent point, Nicki.
If two people get married for better for worse etc, why should crossdressing become a divorce-causing issue?
The reason for secrecy is embarrassment, not anything illegal or immoral, in almost every case.
Adjusting to the arrival of children causes huge upheavals and levels of adjustment in any marriage. CDing should not be any worse.
Good on you!
Well... they do say that you get married for better or for worst.....but that is not really true. People get divorce for a number of reasons and cross dressing is one of those reasons why people get divorce......you just do not hear about it.

I do not feel that people use cross dressing as a excuse to get a divorce, I have not heard were a wife or GF found out you were CD and ran out the front door for a divorce,
first they let you know how they feel and if they can not deal with your cross dressing them you get the ultimatum, stop or I will leave.

There is NO way that you can compare the arrival of a child to a marriage and the joy not upheavals that may come to that of discovering that your mate is a cross dresser.

TO SAY THAT BEING MARRIED TO A CROSS DRESSER IS NO WORST THEN HAVING A CHILD IS REALLY SAD.

I was always told that getting married is easy but living together............

LA CINDY LOVE

ReineD

02-09-2009, 07:05 PM

And, if it doesn't - why is cross-dressing different? The assumption, from many posts here, seems to be that it's a choice.

I agree, it is a very difficult situation, and you raise an excellent point. I wish I had some answers.

I don't know of anyone personally who has gone through facing the decision to stay in a marriage with a spouse who suddenly experiences debilitating health issues, and I imagine each situation is different depending on their ages and the degree of illness or deterioration. People do stay in marriages after a partner suffers loss of limb or eyesight, which might compare in terms of severity to a spouse engaging in CDing vs. wanting to transition. This is a gruesome comparison, but I am using it since if falls within the examples you used. Or, in the case of a terminal illness, love and human compassion would obviously motivate staying the course until death. But, if it is a case of severe brain injury with major loss of functioning ... would a partner stay to care for her spouse, but get her emotional and physical needs met elsewhere? Are they 35 years old or are they 70? Or would the spouse go into a facility that would provide the type of physical care he would require and the partner might remarry but continue to visit and care for her ex the rest of her life? And in the case of a spinal chord injury where a spouse retains intellectual functioning ... I've heard stories of such spouses giving their partners permission to get their physical needs met elsewhere out of love for them. Sad.

In the more severe cases, the disabled spouses cannot care for themselves and it would be terribly cold and uncaring to just abandon them to their fate. But, I imagine this happens too. :sad: Still, none of these cases involve the healthy partner having to make fundamental changes about herself such as her sexuality or her definition of love and marriage. And society supports spouses spouses who cope with disabled partners rather than ostracize them.

I do agree no one chooses to be born transgendered. And in an ideal world, TGs who are TS realize this before beginning a lifelong commitment with someone who believes they are marrying men (in the case of M2Fs). But I do view altering one's gender differently than the above cases, whether someone opts for SRS or not. Even if the realization that one is not a male comes years into the marriage, the TG retains full functioning and is able to seek happiness with someone whose sexual preference and emotional needs is a better fit. As can his wife.

Having said all this, there are still GGs who do continue the journey with their TS husbands. I imagine the reasons are varied. But, there would have to be a great deal of mutual love and respect between the partners and the marriages would likely be free of other marital issues. Maybe for some, the TS wishes to retain male functionality, so is non-op and the partners continue to be able to share sexual intimacy. Also everyone has different needs from relationships, and a physical relationship is not a priority for many people. Perhaps for others GGs married to post-ops, the emotional needs met within the relationship are a far greater priority than having sex. Or, they define sex differently for themselves. Or perhaps some GGs discover they are not solidly at the very heterosexual end of the spectrum.

I do not believe that GGs who cannot stay through a transition stop loving their spouses because they are transgendered. I imagine it is devastating to know that they continue to love their partners but they realize their mutual needs cannot be met .. they cannot bridge the gap.
:hugs:

Nicki B

02-09-2009, 08:17 PM

Or would the spouse go into a facility that would provide the type of physical care he would require and the partner might remarry but continue to visit and care for her ex the rest of her life?

So - and this is meant as a general question - is it reasonable to split up if someone has fundamentally changed?

Still, none of these cases involve the healthy partner having to make fundamental changes about herself such as her sexuality or her definition of love and marriage. And society supports spouses spouses who cope with disabled partners rather than ostracize them.

Certainly true - but the person they married isn't the same person anymore, in a similar way? Should they be treated differently?

Having said all this, there are still GGs who do continue the journey with their TS husbands. I imagine the reasons are varied. But, there would have to be a great deal of mutual love and respect between the partners and the marriages would likely be free of other marital issues.

Transitioning to live full time as the opposite gender is certainly a severe strain on a marriage between a man and a woman. But there seem to be many members here who have found their partners couldn't cope with the concept of cross-dressing at all, not transitioning... :sad:

Is it always symptomatic of other underlying issues? Or is it that it is seen as unacceptable in some societies to continue a marriage in such conditions?

There seems to be no pressure from society to stop a partner leaving, for this reason - whereas, as you say, there is often some support for dealing with a major disability?

Perhaps people who have been there might want to comment? :idontknow:

ReineD

02-09-2009, 08:59 PM

Certainly true - but the person they married isn't the same person anymore, in a similar way? Should they be treated differently?
In some cases, yes. Neither are physically or mentally impaired and they both have a chance to find more suitable partners.

What happens if, during a marriage, one partner discovers 'religion' and decides he wants to join a sect and live in the commune, ... or he decides he wants to give away all his earthly goods and live in poverty in a different country among lepers? These are extreme cases ... no doubt there are less severe examples of major changes in life goals. But should the spouse follow him if the new lifestyle goes against her own system of values? What about spouses who cannot continue to stay in marriages with philanderers or people who have difficulty overcoming their gambling, spending, or alcohol abuse compulsions?

Transitioning to live full time as the opposite gender is certainly a severe strain on a marriage between a man and a woman. But there seem to be many members here who have found their partners couldn't cope with the concept of cross-dressing at all, not transitioning... :sad:

True, but there ARE many SOs who stay in marriages and choose to support the CDing. I imagine this will continue to improve in time with more positive education and media coverage. There are many new GGs joining this site who come fully prepared to support their partners. I don't imagine this was the case 5 or 10 years ago.

Is it always symptomatic of other underlying issues? Or is it that it is seen as unacceptable in some societies to continue a marriage in such conditions?
My guess is the failure to support CDing is symptomatic of underlying issues. But many of the CDers do not wish to out themselves so the fear of being ostracized as the result of living openly femme is not as great. For marriages with transitioning women, then likely the fear of society's views plays a part in the decision to leave the marriage, but I would guess not as much as an inability for the GG to continue to see her spouse as a romantic partner.

There seems to be no pressure from society to stop a partner leaving, for this reason - whereas, as you say, there is often some support for dealing with a major disability?
Hopefully things will change in our lifetime. But I do agree with Batty. CDers would have to come out en masse and make themselves visible fighting for TG rights in order to be a catalyst for change. However, not everyone has that type of courage, especially if they have families to support. It is a very sad quandary.

battybattybats

02-09-2009, 10:47 PM

In some cases, yes. Neither are physically or mentally impaired and they both have a chance to find more suitable partners.

I don't know if the statistic has changed since the 90's but at least then most marriages where chronic fatigue syndrome strikes one partner ended in divorce! Especially if the afflicted was the wife!

Hopefully things will change in our lifetime. But I do agree with Batty. CDers would have to come out en masse and make themselves visible fighting for TG rights in order to be a catalyst for change. However, not everyone has that type of courage, especially if they have families to support. It is a very sad quandary.

I suspect the desire to protect spouses by many CDs is a big reason, perhaps even the biggest reason, why we have not gone far while Gays etc have overtaken TG in achieving equality.

Perhaps the spouses of CDs may need to take a more active role in encouraging CDs to come out for their wives sake, their families and the broader communities sake as well as to campain for greater civil rights? Because otherwise many CDs just wont be willing to put their families through it even if its for the greater good of all.

We have seen the mothers and fathers of TG kids become a strong force for TG rights lately.

Maybe part of what we need is for more wives to similarly stand up as well as helping their husbands do so?

Satrana

02-10-2009, 03:37 AM

As I have stated earlier on this thread, it is my experience that there is always some other issue

It is too simplistic to say that CDing is always used as a proxy. It is clear that many SOs see the behavior as a major issue in its own right.

It is said that CDing is the straw that broke the camel's back but in many cases a more accurate description would be the 6x3 plank that broke the camel's back.

With 50% of marriages ending in divorce within five years, our society now largely ignores the purpose behind the marriage vows to stick together through thick and thin and find ways to support and understand each other. Our consumer society has put self-gratification on a pedestal and if our partner is not delivering the goods we want and believe we deserve then the advice is to quit and try again. We feel cheated if we end up with someone who does not fit our requirements to make us feel good about ourselves.

The reaction of SOs is in essence a reflection of where society stands not just on TG issues but on relationships and where lines should be drawn on what issues can be coped with and what is forgivable to walk away from.

Kelli Michelle

02-10-2009, 10:39 AM

Clearly, it is the cding that causes the split, whether there were other problems or not. I mean if the cding didn't come out, there would be no ultimatum, at least not at that point, right? It is possible that the other issues may have had the effect that the wife was less accepting, of the cding. I mean if you are not getting along well, in general, it seems less likely she will try to be accepting.

Truly, once the parameters of the marriage are changed, we all have to re-evaluate, and make a call. This is influenced by love of one's partner, family, need to express oneself, etc. While one can understand where each other is coming from, it doesn't mean they will agree. That doesn't make either one of them a bad person. If the marriage does not work at that point, we could hope that "split" will be handled with as much grace and decorum as possible. Sadly, this doesn't always happen.

GaleWarning

02-10-2009, 01:45 PM

shesadvl

02-10-2009, 02:02 PM

I can only speak from my own experience. Three women; two say they are comfortable with my dressing. I split from the first - nothing to do with non-acceptance. The second split from me - nothing to do with non-acceptance. In both instances, CDing was cited as a major cause (by the women). My present SO was pleased when, the other day, I packed all my girly stuff away, despite her claim of total acceptance. I can pick up the vibes!
That's just the way it is around here.

now this is where everyone will get to know who your SO is... no i wasnt pleased he packed his things away what he didnt tell you he has given up cding for LENT, I admired him for doing that, he did not have to do this at all.. now what does that tell you... I love you no matter sheesh... men????:doh: cding enfemme or what...:devil: grrrrrrrrrrr he couldve just left them in the wardrobe/closet nomatter that ...was his choice to do this... once again "whose choice is it" or "decision is it"...????:tongueout
the above is his opinion only.
Dont ever assume nothing where it be me my dawling only the position is warranted...laffing....;oP~~~

Nicki B

02-12-2009, 04:46 PM

Clearly, it is the cding that causes the split, whether there were other problems or not.

A trans-friend of mine's partner knew for more than ten years - but she only walked out of the relationship when my friend's MS symptom's started to get really bad (diminishing sight, balance and other function problems, depression.... :sad:

marny

02-15-2009, 02:13 AM

LISA 99% of us are not gay...........get a grip!!!! and I am being polite! marny

shesadvl

02-15-2009, 06:17 PM

As I have stated earlier on this thread, it is my experience that there is always some other issue, but CDing is used as the excuse for breaking up.
It's sad, But Life is & does get better, though.

No its not the CDing that causes the excuse for breaking up in most cases, its the ability to cheat whether it be on each other , knowing where to see what is in front of you, because once its gone, you never know what you had..or you have just thrown it away because you dont want to deal with or make a "decision or choice"
re the situation....
yes clayfish is right, its always some other issue, (as he has first hand experience)... as in like another female,.. "Not the CDing ".. a hetrosexual one, that as men/women, do no matter if they CD or not, create these situations with other females/women, that also goes for women who find other men, that is called "cheating on each other" , not acceptable no matter how one puts it.
CDer's as well , I have read here that there are SO's on here that have been in this same very situation, also :eek:

Even if there is communication on the above ,talk it out or through to salvage, or rectify a relationship, that with the continuance of contact with these women/men, that is deemed so called "(friends)," is this acceptable?, even though there has been infidelity, ?? that this contact continues.??
Here in, what is really acceptable?, & what is not, even though the parties are in two different countrys say for now., or elsewhere. Also knowing that the person/party that an infidelity has been committed with, does not know the level of CDing. Then where does that leave either SO to make or even consider a "choice or Decision" to all this., if resolution cannot be found.???? That the person who has committed the infidelity does not want to loose the relationship they have. (cant have the best if both words??)

Originally Posted by ReineD
"In some cases, yes. Neither are physically or mentally impaired and they both have a chance to find more suitable partners."

Does this also allow them to find more then one partner whether it be male or female, even though they are in a relationship ????

Kelli Michelle

02-16-2009, 10:38 AM

No its not the CDing that causes the excuse for breaking up in most cases, its the ability to cheat whether it be on each other , knowing where to see what is in front of you, because once its gone, you never know what you had..or you have just thrown it away because you dont want to deal with or make a "decision or choice"
re the situation....
yes clayfish is right, its always some other issue, (as he has first hand experience)... as in like another female,.. "Not the CDing ".. a hetrosexual one, that as men/women, do no matter if they CD or not, create these situations with other females/women, that also goes for women who find other men, that is called "cheating on each other" , not acceptable no matter how one puts it.
CDer's as well , I have read here that there are SO's on here that have been in this same very situation, also :eek:

Even if there is communication on the above ,talk it out or through to salvage, or rectify a relationship, that with the continuance of contact with these women/men, that is deemed so called "(friends)," is this acceptable?, even though there has been infidelity, ?? that this contact continues.??
Here in, what is really acceptable?, & what is not, even though the parties are in two different countrys say for now., or elsewhere. Also knowing that the person/party that an infidelity has been committed with, does not know the level of CDing. Then where does that leave either SO to make or even consider a "choice or Decision" to all this., if resolution cannot be found.???? That the person who has committed the infidelity does not want to loose the relationship they have. (cant have the best if both words??)

Originally Posted by ReineD
"In some cases, yes. Neither are physically or mentally impaired and they both have a chance to find more suitable partners."

Does this also allow them to find more then one partner whether it be male or female, even though they are in a relationship ????

I think we all go down a slippery slope when we use absolutes in describing anything, unless it's a law of physics.

"It's always some other issue." Really? Always? Anecdotal data is useful for explaining a point, but to indicate it as THE answer, is just wishful thinking except for that particular person to whom it occurred.

Not sure how we got around to "infidelity" as an issue here, but...it doesn't apply, at least to me. I suppose it's possible that people on this forum have "cheated" on a spouse, but I haven't seen very many admit it, which doesn't prove anything, really. In my opinion, if that is the case (cheating on top of cding), the cder doesn't have a leg to stand on.

In regard to potential"other problems" let's take two scenarios. One, no real problems, the couple is loving, reasonably forthcoming about issues, etc, a true partnership. Let's say the huband confesses to his wife re. his cding. Will she accept it? Impossible to tell, but I would say, in lieu of other problems, the chances are greater that she would.

Second scenario, there are "other" issues, but the couple is still together, nothing insurmountable as a rule, just that they are having typical issues as most couples do. Would she accept the husband's cding? Impossible to tell, but clearly with other issues, it would seem more unlikely.

Still, it seems that MOST wives don't fully accept cding, particularly with THEIR husbands. My wife always said it was no big deal if other people CDed, but not HER husband. So, the chances that ones wife would accept ones cding are slim under the best of circumstances. To have additional problems already in the marriage, would make it even more difficult.

It might be interesting to have a thread asking CDers whose wife is unaccepting, if there were other main issues between them, when they came out.