Printable View
I read part of this, and the authors make it clear that they are addressing only one type of crossdressing, fetishistic crossdressing, particularly when it causes specific kinds of problems in a person's life. They state that transgendered people are "surprisingly ordinary" and are not considered to be mentally ill. The chapter probably doesn't apply to the majority of the people on this site. It certainly doesn't apply to me.
Really? That's a fairly extreme position to take. Would you refuse treatment for depression from a therapist who has not suffered from depression? Just because someone isn't a CDer doesn't mean he or she cannot offer valuable help, insight and advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frédérique
'For the most part, FC is harmless behavior. But like anything, if too much time and energy is devoted to it, it may take on a life of its own (referring here to the possibility that some FC men will become transsexual or compulsive in their FC). As is often said in Buddhist philosophy, all things in moderation. Part of our role as counsel- ors is to help clients lead balanced, healthy lives.'
Thanks for posting this Reine. The above paragraph really summed things up well for me, and my H (being a FC) agrees. All things in moderation.
Of course, I think this fits most CD online but perhaps not most here? I suspect the average member here is further into the TG side of CD and probably can't easily relate. I hope Chapter 8 gives them some insight as it was actually very useful reading about my H from a counsellors POV. I always wondered what they thought of FC. I might add FC doesn't just start at puberty either - often fetish has pinpoints in childhood that are then brought through to puberty and sexualised. It can start before or during puberty, but I think they do mention that in this article.
Thank you so much for locating this for us, Reine. I also love the term 'gender euphoria', and the paragraph about creating a bi-gendered identity for individuals with moderate gender dysphoria speaks to me. The paper by the Dutch researchers is thicker reading but even more fascinating. Can't wait to tell my therapist all about it...
Hi Missus, in Chapter 7, I think they tried to give a general over-all view of several different types of CDers, or how the CDing changes over time. It does start out sexually for most all teenage boys, but it does settle in after that to comfort dressing, or dressing to relieve stress, or developing a taste for the clothes, or wanting to be beautiful, or pure, or just the best embodiment of woman that a CDer can be. And then for some people, the beginnings of a feminine identity may develop, even if it is occasionally still sexual for them. But there are men in whom the fetish sexual aspect gets worse to the point where it seriously impacts their lives in a negative way: they can't concentrate, their work suffers, their relationships suffer, etc. But, I think these extreme cases are rather rare.
If your husband cannot control the sexual aspect of the CDing, then he needs help especially if his home and work lives are affected.
As to "most CDs online", it is true there are gadzillion sites that offer dating, meet-ups, Yahoo groups focused on the sexual aspect, trans-porn, CDing fetish-type clothes, places to post racy pics, etc. And we likely have members who participate in the discussions here, but who occasionally go to those other sites too. But I think that the men who engage in this stuff do so recreationally, like people who enjoy drinking but who don't abuse alcohol. They drink frequently, but not to the point where it impacts their lives negatively. If this makes sense. Different strokes for different folks and all that.
And thank you everyone else for your comments, positive and negative.
Thanks Reiene for posting this. It was a nice survey of the literature. It would have been very interesting for the authors to update their article in light of the many changes that happened in DSM V that came out a few months back.
In particular I find the phrase "trasvesite festishism" is pretty offensive.
Ossian, I'm not sure, but I think the book was in print before the DSM V was released?
It's true that in the US we use the term 'crossdresser' more than 'transvestite' but really they are synonymous. The latter is the latin form of the word that is often used in clinical journals (trans = cross, vest = clothing). And as for fetishism, again, the author uses this word because it is generally the root of the CDing. It begins for most CDers sexually as teenagers. But I hope you read the part where the author explained that the CDing is an aspect of the person and it is not a label that defines all of this person.
Some therapists ARE crossdressers. Like me.
Reine,Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
Thanks for the clarification. I've read enough academic papers to know that its important to define the terms that will be used as part of the discussion. I'm still not sure why folks take offense. They have to use some term or expression, and its important to remember the definition as prescribed for purposes of the discussion.
Also, I think this an important distinction for all of us to understand.. Does CD , FCD, (or whatever) apply to your life as an adjective or a noun?
I read the chapter and thought it quite good, balanced, and not given over to horror stories. The terminology is annoying but that's generally true of psychobabble.
I'd also like to note that nobody knows what animates "most" of the folks on this site. All any of us can hope to know is ourselves and even that's a tricky proposition at best.
Also it was interesting to note that the literature doesn't contain anything useful about older CDs. I know the arc has moved for me as I've gotten older.
thanks indeed Reined for posting this.
From a philosophical point of view, any system of definitions and classifications can be "true" as long as the participants agree to the terms. However, certain systems and classifications, often joined with various institutions, are often used to "control" or "have power over" other individuals. (Michel Foucault)
I was glad to be able to read some contemporary literature on the subject, but it still comes off like a bunch of scientists in white coats studying some strange creatures. Which is not to say that there are a lot of people who can find value in engaging in this system of classifications.
When I was in grad school one of my fellow students had a few rough nights drinking. Not able to process the experiences, she began to identify with being an "alcoholic". She started attending meetings and telling everyone that she was afflicted with the "disease" of alcoholism.
It would be neat to go back in history and study all of the "made up" ailments people used to think they suffered from. Again, I'm not attempting to explain away any diagnosis. I'm simply reiterating the point that there is an arbitrary element to human definitions.
sounds interesting I want to read but I am sure it is rather heavy but worth the read Thanks
Yep, I did read that part. It was pretty good. If you find more things like this please post links! It is very helpful!Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
It would be nice at some point to create an online bibliography or even a sticky with links to journal articles and textbooks on TG/CD topics.
Unfortunately, the title itself taints the whole document; unknowledgible readers will automatically assume that the writer is an authority on the subject, and will come to automatically associate the word fetishistic with crossdressing. Mr Alderson clearly isn't doing us any favors here. For someone supposedly informed and educated, both he and the editors of his document have committed a huge problem rather than improve the situation.
Thanks for nothing, Mr Alderson.
sometimes_miss, it really feels like you and I have read completely different documents. The author has made very clear that the fetishistic aspect of cross-dressing for a lot of cross-dresser becomes less important after a while. A direct quote here:
I think the author is doing us a favor by offering counselors a balanced story, depathologizing/normalizing cross-dressing behavior, while being honest about the sexual aspect of it. I assume most counselors actually do read past the title. While 'fetishistic cross-dressing' may be a bit of a misnomer, assuming that there's no fetishistic or erotic aspect to cross-dressing at all for the majority of people is just factually wrong.Quote:
The erotic and fetishistic properties are often reported by FC individuals to subside as one ages. As the fetishistic aspects diminish, the most commonly reported continuing motivation is that FC makes the individual feel self-soothed, less stressed, and more comfortable as a result
What's interesting to me about these discussions is the underlying presuppositions that often accompany the paradigms. The definition of fetish is "an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency." Perhaps one aspect of the archetype is manifested in a more crude form as the typical high school panty raid, in which an article of clothing is symbolic of the object of desire. Many men still find this to be true, as evident in the multi-million dollar lingerie industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
To take the leap from simply admiring the object to begin wearing the objects seems to be the point at which the psychiatric paradigm begins to label the behavior as "fetishistic". But this is only in relationship to societal norms. The unspoken rule of society is that it is proper for males and females to wear different clothing. It then becomes "taboo" to wear clothing of the opposite sex. At this point the word "fetishistic" is semantically utilized to mean "taboo".
From an alternative perspective, the moment one decides to embrace and wear what was once just an "object of fetish" can actually be a more sublimated expression. Instead of just utilizing a fetish object for auto-erotic sexual fulfillment, one begins to more fully embody the feminine archetype. (It seems that even members within the cross dressing community judge each other on the basis of whether it is "just a fetish", or if it is more mature and developed.)
The presuppositions are often hidden but still present. For many, the fact that the activity of cross dressing is a topic of discussion amongst psychiatrists is in some way inherently offensive.
I had a very long, detailed post prepared, but basically it all comes down to this: Alderson's chapter all boils down to the assumption that all mtf crossdressing is connected to sexual arousal. Even your statement that 'the fetishistic aspect becomes less important after a while, indicates that he assumes that all crossdressing starts with it. If you want, I can quote the passages in his chapter that indicate this, but it will make for a very long post. The title of the chapter, and the obvious absence of discussion about oh, non fetishistic crossdressing makes this very obvious, and it will cause problems for therapists as well as their patients, as they may very well assume this false concept is accurate. What I find odd, is, that the concept was dismissed well over 20 years ago, so I don't know why he resurrects it again; unless, of course, he is a fetishistic crossdresser himself, so he assumes that if it's true for himself, then it must be true for all crossdressers. That is a very real possibility, as many psychological theorists base many of their observations on their own feelings and beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zylia
The thing that strikes me is that there are "therapists" who hang out shingles to counsel people on TG issues whose total exposure to the TG community is the reading of a couple of chapters like this and perhaps a lecture or two. That is very frightening regardless of the completeness or accuracy of the reading.
Mimi and I were at a CD party a few weeks ago. Also in attendence was a GG university psychology professor and MFCC who had been invited to socialize with us. I was introduced to her and immediately sensed that she wasn't really comfortable with me, but I let it go and enjoyed the rest of the party. Later on in the evening, after the professor had left, we were having a group conversation and Mimi mentioned that the professor had asked to "pick her brain" about her relationship with a CD husband and asked her quite a few questions. Other wives had received the same treatment. It came out then that our hostess who invited the professor to the party instructed her just to socialize and observe, not to question, yet she quickly violated this condition. It is unfortunate that this is an example of a person who is training practicing psychologists.
From the first paragraph after the opening reflections:Quote:
Originally Posted by sometimes_miss
The document is not about all people who cross-dress or all transgender people, it's specifically about fetishistic cross-dressing people, and yes, the author obviously assumes that most of those have urges grounded in or somehow related to transvestic fetishism. A point can be made about fetishistic cross-dressers actually being a minority in the cross-dressing universe, but I personally don't believe that, and considering the choices the author has made, he also doesn't.Quote:
Recall from Chapter 1 that transgender individuals include those who present unconventional gender expressions (e.g., fetishistic crossdresser, transgenderist, gender bender) and/or those who present unconventional gender identities (e.g., transsexual, transwoman, transman). In this and the next two chapters, the focus is on three types of transgender individuals: fetishistic crossdressing, male-to-female (MTF) transsexual, and female-to-male (FTM) transsexual people.
Unless one participates at this Forum and is BLIND and/or is quite selective in what threads they read, it's obvious the VAST MAJORITY of participants here, at some point in their lives had Os while wearing "some" article of female clothing. The evidence for this exists everywhere at this site.
The VAST MAJORITY had at least one O if not dozens, hundreds or thousands? I never cease to be amazed that so few can figure out the implications AND lasting IMPRESSIONS from those experiences. Dressing, no matter how "far" or to what extent IS a way to prolong and drag out those 6 or 7 seconds. OR, later in life [commonly reported here] serve as a "substitute". Our BRAINS do this kind of stuff daily.
The author broke no new ground at all in the entire chapter 7 from anything other than what has been posted here at these Forums or what I have read elsewhere. I do give the author Kudos for all the various references. I wish I had counted them all. BUT to cite [just one of many] "studies" that had One GG and 50 males? Oh please...
In the bit of questioning/coaching the author offered to counselors, I found it "unconscionable" that the author, in devoting an entire chapter to FC, DID NOT impress the fact to counselors that males have no control of how their vision affects them and that that FACT should be impressed upon any client.
A man's VISION is the glue that binds most all of this CDing behavior, at least long enough for the brain to lock it in. It obviously can and does proceed from there.
For a miniscule percentage.
It IS a FACT that those "other" CDing sites constitute "most" CDing sites by a wide margin.
The bottom line is that for a man to feel embarrassed or ashamed for something he has no control over shows little regard for Mother Nature if nothing else.
I discussed this with my SO and she doesn't like the Chapter heading either. She was insulted by it. And I don't blame her, she is not a fetish CDer. She fears that the public will just read the chapter title without reading the chapter in depth.Quote:
Originally Posted by sometimes_miss
My suggestion (and hers as well) is to write the author and suggest a new chapter title for the next edition. But in the meantime, I think it would be a mistake to write off the entire chapter just based on the heading. The author does state quite clearly that the fetish aspect changes for many CDers.
Also, I don't think the average person would even think to pick up a book like this. Spouses may, therapists will, CDers will, and all of these people will not base their opinions of the CDing just on the title of Chapter 7.
I don't believe in cd counseling. Maybe for others, but not for me. Never, they do not know be better than I know myself. And they want me to PAY them?
I agree and think this is a "real life" example of how theoretical paradigms always fail when confronting real world examples. My previous post attempted to demonstrate the semantic and categorical demarcations of so called "theoreticians", and how those demarcations have more to to with the theoreticians than the actual, real life participants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eryn
At this point in time the idea of an "armchair philosopher" seems like it would be commonplace and universally viewed with skepticism. I guess the "old guard" always seeks to maintain control, no matter what the manifestation may be.
Taylor, the theories do come from observation of real life participants, many of whom are desperately seeking help for themselves. They do not understand what is going on. This is empirical data, not armchair philosophy. If we left it up to forum members to define themselves, their motives, and develop healthy coping mechanisms it wouldn't happen especially since many (most?) cannot fathom anyone who is different than themselves. Have you come across any of our lengthy argument threads yet? :p
Also, who is the 'old guard', what do they control, and what do they get out of maintaining control?
I have two major problems with this chapter. The first is the idea that "once a fetish crossdresser, always a fetish crossdresser." I would compare it to a banjo player (why would I think of that?!!) who starts out playing folk music Pete Seeger style and then, upon hearing bluegrass music, decides to learn that style. Then, realizing the potential of the banjo, ventures into jazz. After becoming bored with jazz, the banjo player decides to dedicate the rest of their life to transcribing the entire output for lute of Silvius Leopold Weiss to the banjo. If we were to think like the authors of this chapter, our banjo player would always and forever be a bluegrass musician. What? Our banjoist didn't even start out playing bluegrass. But since banjo = bluegrass in the minds of most people, it doesn't matter how you started or how you ended up. If you ever played a note of bluegrass (or even if you didn't) you are forever a bluegrass banjo player no matter what you might be doing now. So if you ever had an erotic thought connected to crossdressing (or not), you are forever a "fetishistic crossdresser" in the minds of these "therapists." Because crossdresing = fetish. It just does! It would seem to be a natural progression to start out crossdressing when you were 5 because you wondered what it would be like to be a girl. Then you reach puberty and wonder what it would be like to be a girl.... in bed. Maybe you get stuck there (like me) or you move on to weightier things like shopping for cute shoes at the mall en femme. Maybe you bypass that sexual "stage" altogether. Anything is possible, I guess.
The other problem I have is the idea that "fetish crossdressers" have a condition that "normal" people don't have... namely a "fetish." The fact is that all sexual arousal is fetishistic. Some fetishes are just more unusual than others. I don't know how many posts I've read here where GGs have lost sexual interest in their SO once they find out about their CDing or after they see them en femme. They need to see their man as masculine in order to be aroused. What is this but a fetishistic attraction to "masculinity?" There is nothing wrong with this BTW. It is what it is. It is the "normal" fetish. The problem arises when the GM in this case can only become aroused by thinking of himself as feminine and the GG can only become aroused by thinking of him as masculine. What we have here are incompatible fetishes, not a situation where one has a "condition" and the other doesn't but has to learn to cope (or not) with it. If they can't find some common ground, they should probably just go their own ways. Therapist would do well to stop "othering" people with minority sexual interests. If people could be honest and open about their sexual interests instead of constantly trying to conform to some concept of "normal," we would have a lot fewer of these situations where sexually incompatible people get together.
So, IMHO, this chapter is part of the problem, not the solution.