Conversation with coworker

Had a fascinating conversation with a co-worker over lunch the other day that covered a wide range of topics, including religion (which, incidentally, we are mostly in agreement about). He's expecting a baby girl soon, and confided in me that one good thing about having a girl is that at least when they get her baptized, he won't have to worry about what she's wearing. Because if he was having a boy, he'd have to wear the family heirloom baptism gown, and he would not put his son in a "f-ing dress!"

Really? Worried that making a newborn boy wear a baptism gown is somehow "unmanly?" I just don't get people. And I really like this guy, but I couldn't help but think to myself, "man, if he knew about Arianna..." Just goes to show you got to be careful what you say to people...

Interesting! Sounds like he may be a co-worker but NOT much of a friend!

Hi Arianna,
Sounds like an over macho guy talking. But I wonder if this is just bravado talking. His son would not know the difference, so he should just go along with the tradition of the baptism and be proud of his new-born son, wife, and family!
Di

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diversity

Hi Arianna,
Sounds like an over macho guy talking. But I wonder if this is just bravado talking.

---

I think that's it. Many men feel the need to prove themselves as men and "manly" whenever possible. He sounds pretty normal to me.

Still, you probably shouldn't invite him to meet you for drinks and show up as Arianna! :heehee:

Assuming that this co-worker is Catholic since you speak of baptisms and heirloom baptism gowns, does he also have a problem with his priest wearing vestments and/or a cassock when performing his duties? Not really that much of a difference between those and dresses...

Kind of reminds me of one of comedian Bill Mahers' lines, where he once compared the ornate ceremonial robes and headgear of the Pope with something that an elderly gay man might wear ;) :eek: :heehee:

Sounds to me that he may be "over compensating". For all you know he was wearing lace panties while you were talking.

you could say-- wouldn't he have been baptized and had to wear a f*cking dress? and didn't he turn out all right? :P

There are so many people with absurdly primitive attitudes. And strangely, they can be very nice people in many other dimensions of thier lives. You might have pointed out that generations of male babies have been baptized in gowns and it hasn't apparently had any adverse effects on thier gender orientation.

Probably nothing, just a little bravado.
Thing is many men might say stuff like this but you are only picking up on it because you are a CD. I wouldn't over think it, you said you like him so he must have some good qualities, you may find if he knew about you he wouldn't stop apologising.
I have a friend that acts all 'blokey' and bravado as that is how he was brought up, he comes from a tough community, friends from school in prison etc. Yet I know he is actually really caring and sensitive. Most people act how they think they 'should' act.

You can't fix stupid or ignorance.

My firm belief is people show their true beliefs when they feel comfortable with the listener. Sometimes we have to weigh whether the relationship is worth keeping. Your co worker is presumably bigoted or bias against cross dressing. However, to use those words is over the top.

You may want to reconsider your statement about having the same religious beliefs. I have several friends who are like your co worker. I am very sure they will not get through the gates of heaven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AriannaRenee

Because if he was having a boy, he'd have to wear the family heirloom baptism gown, and he would not put his son in a "f-ing dress!"

---

Hmmm...guess he has not seen the photo of what the founder of his religion wore huh? Amazing how one can see but still be blind isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by becky77

Thing is many men might say stuff like this but you are only picking up on it because you are a CD. I wouldn't over think it, you said you like him so he must have some good qualities, you may find if he knew about you he wouldn't stop apologising.

---

Agree Becky,

I hear all manner of anti-gay, anti anything off the alleged 'normal' man standard from the engineering guys and others at work most days. If I'm engaged in the conversation, I try to sort of challenge the attitude but don't go out of my way to change stock attitudes in 10 mintes.

There are many people we like but can't agree on everything, that's life I guess. I was christened Church of England but not in a dress, so crap,..............what happened there? :heehee:

Personally, don't take it so personally!

Rebecca

I would have reminded him that if it was a boy there would only be one little "thing" to worry about, with a girl there are a lot of little "things" you will have to worry about out there.

All three of my kids and myself were baptised in a baptismal gown. The same one. A lot of lace, very nice and made by my grandmother. It is used for a child only a few months old for heavens sake. A child that age wears a "dress" like garment often whether a boy or a girl. Sounds to me like he is overcompensating to hide something. Or maybe he suspects something about you and threw that in as either an insult or to make you think he doesn't have the same tendencies.

It's not a friggin' dress! It's a christening outfit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AriannaRenee

Had a fascinating conversation with a co-worker over lunch the other day that covered a wide range of topics, including religion (which, incidentally, we are mostly in agreement about). He's expecting a baby girl soon, and confided in me that one good thing about having a girl is that at least when they get her baptized, he won't have to worry about what she's wearing. Because if he was having a boy, he'd have to wear the family heirloom baptism gown, and he would not put his son in a "f-ing dress!"

Really? Worried that making a newborn boy wear a baptism gown is somehow "unmanly?" I just don't get people. And I really like this guy, but I couldn't help but think to myself, "man, if he knew about Arianna..." Just goes to show you got to be careful what you say to people...

---

You should take the time to educate these types of folks when they make statements like that.

The ones that pound their chests the hardest, are probably able to do so because of the heavily padded c-cup bra they have hiding under their shirts.

Thank goodness the local "Babies R Us" stocks muscle tees, leather chaps and boots for infants! Because no one who wears something like that is going to see his manhood questioned!

Well, yeah...unless they just happen to be @ss-less chaps ;).

Hi Arianna, Who knows maybe that's how i got started some sixty nine years ago.

I probably am just a wee bit oversensitive to statements like this. It just amazes me that people will get so worked up about it. I mean, really?

Some people have a strange insight into tradition.
It is best not to discuss sex, religion and politics at work anyway. :)

Yeah, some of these guys want to hand their baby boy a football as soon as he comes down the "chute". Talk about living vicariously through your children.:doh:

Hi,

Yes, I'm aware this thread is a bit old but thought I'd respond anyway. First of all Arianne, I think your friend's reaction was a bit exaggerated but I suppose we all have our comfort zone. I think his distaste for the idea of putting his son in frock-like baptism garb was more than a little overdone but as others have mentioned perhaps it was overcompensation.

Even if that guy did have a male child I don't think an infant really cares WHAT they wear anyway.


@Leslie,
You point out an aspect of "cognitive dissonance" that I've long noticed myself with respect to many men (mainly over-compensating "Type A" men but not all) who are devout and look askance at cross-dressing or even the adoption by another man of any aesthetic they deem overly feminine. Thank you for making the point as it is a good one and is an interesting one to consider in the discussion.

I am also well aware of the distinction that these same men would probably make vis a vis a woman's frock proper and clerical vestments. They would doubtless assert that the former was for women and the latter was/were religious garments that, despite vestments' clear aesthetic similarities to stereotypical garments of females, the two were in no way equivalent.

In a way, of course, they'd be right - both symbolically and historically as there is fairly good historical evidence that present-day Catholic clerical dress at any rate developed from individual items of menswear present in the late Roman world at the time of the rise of the Church and the codification of the forms, position, and specific garb, related to those occupying clerical office.

Initially the presbytoi of the early Christians wore the same clothing as everyone else which in that time and place meant many long flowing garments; even laborers and those who preferred shorter garb for freedom of movement still wore belted tunics that reached at least to the knees.

Early Christian clergy very likely had certain types of ornamentation on their clothing that became progressively more ornate to separate themselves from the laity but initially they would have dressed much the same as the average lay-person. However, as time wore on, clothing for lay-men changed within expanding Christendom to more along the lines of shirts and trousers - excepting, perhaps, lay teachers and professors at the early universities many of which had religious origins in the early Medieval period - while the flowing robes of the earlier period was retained by churchmen and vestments thus grew more and more distinct from the garb of the average layman.

The alb, chasuble, and palum for instance were all Roman male clothing with the former in particular meaning merely a white tunic which was later extended in length and the name of the latter garb mentioned was derived from the Latin "palla" meaning woolen cloak.

Nevertheless, and this is an important consideration especially for many of us cross-dressers especially who necessarily look at clerical vestments as at least reflective of feminine dress in basic cut and ornamentation, in the era of drab male wear today such religious garments have a decidedly feminine look and allure.

Notwithstanding, the actual evolution of the vestments of the Western Church from Roman male wear, I am still struck by the feminine aspect of most religious dress....particularly when it comes to that worn by prelates and even acolytes of the Latin Rite.

Unlike Arianne's friend however, I have always loved what to me seems to be a psuedo-feminine mystique around church garb and I can say that I would have no problem "wearing the dress."


In fact, when I was a kid I went to a parochial school and got to wear a cassock and pretty lace surplice in a religious play a few times. I remember being delighted to wear the acolyte garb and these incidents were among the handful of times in my young life just before puberty where I realized I was a cross-dresser was able to externalize my love of wearing frocks in a socially accepted way. Naturally, I did not let my friends know the extent of my attraction to server garb or vestments or dresses, but I felt quite mirthful inside and can remember twirling and dancing in the vestiary in my robes directly after vesting with them as the cassock and surplice felt and looked like a dress on me and I felt so feminine!

The person in question must also be unaware that a great many males in the West were dressed in frilly lace frocks during infancy through around age three every day as was the custom in the 19th and early 20th centuries. This was even the case with the male children of leaders of non-Western countries who hoped to emulate Western child-rearing practices - at least externally. I once saw a picture of Emperor Hirohito as a child in around 1903 riding his rocking horse in a billowing lace boy's infant gown. A great many other males we typically think of today as "mens men" from that period likely were also dressed up that way by their mothers.

The upshot of all this: Don't fear the dress....embrace it! (Even if "the dress" in the context of the Church didn't start out as feminine.)

Best,

Gunda