Whose decision is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madame George

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 It just sounds like both of your needs have changed and so the choices you made in the past are no longer applicable.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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madame George

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA CINDY LOVE

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA CINDY LOVE

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...

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jenn25wnycd

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Did I say it did?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madame George

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!

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?)

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

Key term there, self-identity.

---

Your point being what though?

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

History as with most social sciences is extremely subjective.

---

Yet that does not refute my point.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

17.6 % of women in the United States have survived a completed or attempted rape. Found here.

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clayfish

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madame George

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clayfish

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madame George

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clayfish

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA CINDY LOVE

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clayfish

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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/featur...and_videogames

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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]

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.

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..:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulaluvssz8

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?

Quote:

---

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?

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.

"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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulaluvssz8

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