Are We Addicted?

Addiction starts with a choice.

irresponsibility, dishonesty, and denial; can and are symptoms of mental/physical addiction. Addiction; as in the context of this thread and in most definitions; is something that starts with a -Choice- at some point. The shopping addict chooses to keep shopping despite the toll it is taking on their finances and denies the fact that they responsible for it. The drug user chooses to chase that next fix and denies the problems it causes in their lives. There is a choice there.

A dependency is not made by choice.

A dependency can be something you are born with, as in the way that people who are born with diabetes are dependent on insulin. None of us just up and out of the blue choose to be TG. There is internal feelings in each and every one of us that has always been there that makes us CD or Express Ourselves.

I find it disheartening that people in the community would find crossdressing a compulsive desire caused by addiction.

-Donni-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shananigans

Oh, Lea, you still don't believe me. You see that without dressing as a woman, there is little to no outward expression of my gender. I couldn't disagree with you more. To be a duck you might say it should look like a duck, walk like a duck, and talk like a duck. Whether I'm wearing a plastic bag or a miniskirt, I still look like a woman, talk like a woman (this goes into more than just pitch), and walk the life of a woman. My outward portrayal of my gender is very evident in my actions and manners. These things are who I am...a woman. If I left it up to fashion to help me define my gender, I'd be a confused person indeed. If the latest fad isn't suits, it's meat dresses and Christmas lights.

I understand that dressing means something very different to a CD, but to me gender is not related much at all to my dress. It's by chance that society deemed it socially acceptable for women to wear dresses and men pants. Chance and chance alone governs this. In animals, we may see the male more flamboyantly "dressed" to attract the attention of women and to give off cues about his health. How am I supposed to let dress be such a defining role in my gender identity when clothes are impermanent and could be easily changes in value tomorrow.

Again, I could be done with them tomorrow. I'd miss them...but, for reasons that are mainly not gender-related issues. What can't be taken away is how I carry myself, my attitude, the way I talk, and my presence. All of these things are apparently female because it is my identity and how I see myself internally and it's translated externally.

---

It's not a question of belief. We're still talking past one another. Basically you responded (this time, that is) with a list of other OUTWARD manifestations of your gender identity. Again, I was asking whether or not you could give up ALL outward expression, not just dressing. Of course dressing is (relatively) superficial to you - you presumably live a complete, integrated, female life.

The expression problem runs deeper than any one particular manifestation like dressing. When gender expression is suppressed, you never develop. Were you put in a position growing up where all outward female expression were not possible, your gender identity would still be firmly female - but you wouldn't actually have developed as a woman in any meaningful way. You wouldn't be capable of responding or acting in any kind of gender-coherent way. You'd be almost certain to manifest typical dysphoria symptoms. You'd feel female but wouldn't actually know what it was to BE female in the real world.

Crossdressing is a coping mechanism to resolve gender identity psychological pressure. It's also a psychological enabling mechanism - by putting female behavior in a female context, it relieves a male crossdresser of the conflict of manifesting the same behavior as a male. As such, it's not merely dress-up in the playacting sense, and it plays a different fundamental role than routine gender presentation does for a cisfemale. This is a psychological need or drive that's very different from addictive behavior (though, again, a crossdresser could complicate with that also).

Lea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lea Paine

You responded along dressing lines, then went into inner identity and nurturing. Two difficulties here: I asked if you would be able to forego ANY outward expression of your (feminine) identity. While nurturing is clearly something that exists at both gender poles, it is different for men. The question, in essence, is whether it is possible to BE something in any way at all that is meaningful if it has NO expression. The second point was on dressing itself. I grant that dressing is a limited expression. I grant, moreover, that it can be viewed as superficial in many ways. So I understand that aspect of your response. What you may not realize, however, is the enabling aspect of dressing, that it is an important vehicle for the identity that is suppressed. That without it, the expression of other aspects of identity are difficult or impossible. So in the end, I felt as though you were trivializing dressing, in part by focusing on externalities, missing a more fundamental role, and then by enclosing that in a role point where women already have more expressive freedom.

On clothes: I don't exactly feel like I'm female when dressed. My appearance certainly doesn't scream "I'M A WOMAN" (far from it), nor am I really striving for that, as nice as it would be FOR the externalities. But there's a key that clicks something on when dressed that's noticeably missed when I'm not. Were it enabled by other means, I'd be more inclined to agree with you on superficialities. As things are now, it is not, and I don't.

On addiction: I'm generally inclined to agree with your view, especially when it tips into typically destructive behavior like spending oneself into financial oblivion. I'm also mindful that the forum includes people with CD behavior motives other than gender identity issues and for whom addictive behavior may play. For those whose CDing is tied to gender identity, I'd tread more carefully. It's certainly possible to be both addictive and have gender ID issues, but my first inclination would be to look for desperation rather than addiction.

Hopefully this clarifies where my questions were coming from.

Lea

---

My last post just didn't seem to address what you said well, and so I figured I'd try a little better. I think I saw only 2 sentences of it on my phone for some reason. This is why I just need to do something else with my time between classes other than cruise the internet. ANYWAY!!! I still stand on my stance of outward portrayal of my gender that has nothing to do with my clothes (what I talked about in the post prior to this one). When you say this, "So in the end, I felt as though you were trivializing dressing, in part by focusing on externalities, missing a more fundamental role, and then by enclosing that in a role point where women already have more expressive freedom." I am a little confused. What I was arguing about was an internal nature of femininity. This internal nature definitely manifests outwardly with or without clothes (see prior post). The difference in my view and yours' is that mine has little to do with the superficialities. I can't say that I understand exactly what you are saying your CDing comes from, just as I am having a hard time expressing to you where my femininity comes from. They're really hard things to communicate aren't they? And, they are pretty much things that are individualized to each person. I think that with CDs the focus could be heavily on clothes simply because you may have the feminine things that I am talking about, but you aren't really allowed to express it. The obvious form of expression is usually dressing like a woman. However, for me, dressing doesn't seem like the obvious expression at all. Instead, I see feminine expression from other levels. At the same time, I was raised primarily by my grandmother who is Native American. Her ideas on feminine and masculine expression and "roles" are different from your typical Western view. (Even though it's still a "Western" view...we won't get into semantics. I feel like you know what I mean). As you can imagine, clothes take a very minimal role in the definition of masculine versus feminine in her culture. Therefore, my life experiences have me biased towards a certain view on what is masculine and what is feminine, just as you could be biased from a Western view of what is masculine and what is feminine. I don't mean to make clothing expression of gender into a trivial matter, because it is pretty important with our society. And, it's especially important for people who may have been denied the obvious outward feminine expression that is heralded by society. I can't say that these things don't also influence me on a great level, but going back to the family aspect...They (my family) has influenced me more. And, this probably has to do with differing views. I always find it interesting to hammer these things out though, because we all learn a lot from each other and about each other. I hope this answered you more appropriately and I apologize that my previous reply was only addressing maybe 1 or 2 sentences of your post :)

EDIT: Now, in response to your most recent post. Again, I don't really know what you mean by getting rid of all outward behavior. If I were to be paralyzed, had my mouth sewn up, and were unable to communicate at all...well, I don't know what I would be. I figured that your focus of outward expression was largely focused on clothes. I see my outward expressions as innate that come from something internal. In other words, they cannot be changed or modified. This is a quite different from CDing...so, I'm a little confused.

In your second paragraph, you appear to be alluding to transsexualism. I never deny that there aren't people who are TS. If I were to be thrown into a society where I was to wear an assigned uniform (unisex), was told to alter my natural female gait (yeah, it's based on pelvic structure), had my hormones repressed so that I could not go through natural processes that cause my feminine actions and certain behaviors, etc. etc. I might know I was female (?), but then wouldn't act female. (?) But, I don't really get it. I'm sorry. I could see a TS that was born male, but is mentally female. But, I feel like this person would have feminine actions and thoughts that would come naturally (being internally female). The difference is that they were told to suppress what was natural. This, again, is different than what your average CD is going through (and, the group that I was talking about). It would definitely be very confusing for a TS.

But, my point was that I could give up something "trivial" as dressing "like a girl" any day if it meant it or my family. It would of course be a completely different manner if I grew up in this world where all expression of my natural gender is not allowed. I couldn't say how I would act in that situation, because this world does not really exist for me. As far as I knew, a person that is "just CDing" still identifies internally as a male...and, therefore, if the "addiction" was CDing then it wouldn't really be a suppression of the male ego. It would be a suppression of the dressing.

I can see how CDing enables a CD to act out in a different gender more effectively. But, I still think that this has to go into how you are viewing femininity. It's hard to lump all CDs and people and say "this is what it is and this is why they do it...this is how they see femininity." I think there has to be a FEW people out there that could balance their expression of their feminine nature without ANY clothing involvement. I see this a lot with husbands that stay at home and help care for the kids. These men that I know are actually very feminine in their care and actions...and, how I have learned to identify feminine versus masculine roles. I'm not dismissing what you are saying, because I agree dressing in the opposite gender can definitely be a coping mechanism. But, it is inherent on how you see "feminine energy." To me (and I can't be the only one), it has little to do with dressing. Therefore, someone who may have the same need to express their feminine side may have the same needs as a CD, but go about it in a completely different way (because they see feminine expression as independent of society assigned clothing roles). This person may never CD because he is content with explorations that aren't really riding against society's outward portrayal of what we are (in terms of gender). Or, he may very well be a CD, but does not take the dressing to the extent of an addiction. It might be easy for such a CD not to dress as a woman if other expressions of the feminine energy were encouraged. But, this person would have to be a very different CD than ones you usually come across. But, I'm not going to say that they don't exist! It's all mostly individualistic.

Wow...that got really interesting. I have a lot to think about.

Interestingly enough, my grandmother's brothers are delightful people that have a great balance of both feminine and masculine energy. My grandmother has no idea what a CD is...so...this just isn't the case with them. However, they really do stress family, community, and equal care for each other. It's obvious who the women and men are, but the roles aren't quite as rigidly defined. Women are highly respected, as are feminine traits. I don't know if perspective that has been drilled from society really does have that profound of an effect, but it's an interesting thought. It's interesting to think about how a CD would behave if more feminine behavior were encouraged, if it were seen as a good thing. Focus may be less on clothes, but would the clothes till be as important?

Quote:

---

I still think that this has to go into how you are viewing femininity.

---

That is a great part of your post Shan

I feel i view femininity differently too. Not all of us see femininity as a soft, frilly, emotion filled, mentality.

Quote:

---

I think there has to be a FEW people out there that could balance their expression of their feminine nature without ANY clothing involvement. I see this a lot with husbands that stay at home and help care for the kids. These men that I know are actually very feminine in their care and actions...and, how I have learned to identify feminine versus masculine roles.

---

Gawd! i could hug you right now! What an awesome statement of an accepting perception.

-Donni-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonniDarkness

That is a great part of your post Shan

I feel i view femininity differently too. Not all of us see femininity as a soft, frilly, emotion filled, mentality.



Gawd! i could hug you right now! What an awesome statement of an accepting perception.

-Donni-

---

Sorry I editted that post a million times!!! I was worried someone was reading it :)

I'm glad you liked it :hugs:

i think it is an addiction, but so is coffee, alcohol, and tabaco pruducts. those things are sold everywhere. at least this addiction doesn't hurt anybody. i do get jittery when i have'nt dressed for few days. to the point where my best friend/co-worker-partner, will tell me to go home and put on a dress. when my attitude becomes a bit "bitchy'. but who cares, we girls don't huert anybody or ourselves when we dress. so just have fun and live life to the fullest.

I know what you mean sandy, especially being bitchy after not dressing up for a while, i only get to dress once a month if im lucky due to working nights and living far from the town centre.
x
Vikki

This thread is such great proof of how dressing has such a different meaning for all of us.I could never view it as addictive but rather something totally productive in my life ,adding meaning and insight.Smoking on the other hand will kill you,after 3 attempts at quitting and 36 years with them I've cast them aside,so there is a difference between productive and non productive addictive behavior.

And so, we add "addiction" to the list of words we can't reach agreement on a definition, like
- crossdresser
- transvestite
- trangender
- female
- feminine
- gender
- sex

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NicoleScott

And so, we add "addiction" to the list of words we can't reach agreement on a definition, like
- crossdresser
- transvestite
- trangender
- female
- feminine
- gender
- sex

---

JEEZ! we can't agree on the meaning of sex???? I thought that one was in the bag!

Even President Bill Clinton could not agree on exatly what SEX means :strugglin

I have to admit that I don't get these discussions about the meaning of a single word. This is why we have dictionaries. If you don't like the meaning, apply for it to be changed, but it is what it is so to speak.

Quote:

---

My last post just didn't seem to address what you said well, and so I figured I'd try a little better. I think I saw only 2 sentences of it on my phone for some reason. This is why I just need to do something else with my time between classes other than cruise the internet.… I still stand on my stance of outward portrayal of my gender that has nothing to do with my clothes (what I talked about in the post prior to this one). … What I was arguing about was an internal nature of femininity. This internal nature definitely manifests outwardly with or without clothes (see prior post). The difference in my view and yours' is that mine has little to do with the superficialities. I can't say that I understand exactly what you are saying your CDing comes from, just as I am having a hard time expressing to you where my femininity comes from. They're really hard things to communicate aren't they? And, they are pretty much things that are individualized to each person. I think that with CDs the focus could be heavily on clothes simply because you may have the feminine things that I am talking about, but you aren't really allowed to express it. The obvious form of expression is usually dressing like a woman. However, for me, dressing doesn't seem like the obvious expression at all. Instead, I see feminine expression from other levels. …

---

I agree with most of this, except that expression - as a whole - can't be regarded as superficial. I also believe one's sense of identity is inner, and that doesn't change with the outfit of the day. So, while you may regard any one manifestation of gender - of what you ARE - whether dress, speech, emotional expression, or anything else, as superficial, taken as a whole it's the realization of what you are. You, in the real world. Forbid it, suppress it, and you'll wind up suffering consequences. Suppress one aspect like dressing … no big deal, maybe not even noticeable. Suppress it all and you have a real-world problem, including consequences that penetrate to that inner self, conflict it, and twist it.

I don't fully accept that dressing isn't more than just obvious. I do accept that it may not be the obvious or important expression to you, of course, as we're individuals, but as I said in another thread regarding lingerie, there's an immense, worldwide industry entirely focused on women's fashion. Some cross dressers are primarily interested in fashion (I'm not). Others use it as a trigger to actualize inner feelings.

Quote:

---

I hope this answered you more appropriately and I apologize that my previous reply was only addressing maybe 1 or 2 sentences of your post 

---

No worries. I appreciate your thoughtful responses and your reach for understanding. It's VERY hard to comprehensively answer some posts! (Like your last response!)

Quote:

---

EDIT: Now, in response to your most recent post. Again, I don't really know what you mean by getting rid of all outward behavior. If I were to be paralyzed, had my mouth sewn up, and were unable to communicate at all...well, I don't know what I would be. I figured that your focus of outward expression was largely focused on clothes. …

In your second paragraph, you appear to be alluding to transsexualism. I never deny that there aren't people who are TS. If I were to be thrown into a society where I was to wear an assigned uniform (unisex), was told to alter my natural female gait (yeah, it's based on pelvic structure), had my hormones repressed so that I could not go through natural processes that cause my feminine actions and certain behaviors, etc. etc. I might know I was female (?), but then wouldn't act female. (?) But, I don't really get it. I'm sorry. I could see a TS that was born male, but is mentally female. But, I feel like this person would have feminine actions and thoughts that would come naturally (being internally female). The difference is that they were told to suppress what was natural. This, again, is different than what your average CD is going through (and, the group that I was talking about). It would definitely be very confusing for a TS.

---

My focus was not clothing, but clothing as one example of expression. Much else changes with a cross dresser's change of clothing: other aspects of appearance, of course (makeup, hair, etc.), nails, speech in a variety of ways, reactive behavior and personal interactions, activities, etc.

Your comment on transsexualism gave me pause, but gave me a clue as your thinking. Some do view cross dressing as part of a continuous spectrum, one end of which is TS identity. That's not what I believe, however (or at least that it doesn't apply to all cross dressers). I do believe that some of us have gender identities that are either female or have female aspects, though. This isn't unlike transsexual identity in some regards and, depending on degree, causes some of the same issues (I don't like to use "confusion"). So this indeed is exactly what many cross dressers go through.

Quote:

---

But, my point was that I could give up something "trivial" as dressing "like a girl" any day if it meant it or my family. It would of course be a completely different manner if I grew up in this world where all expression of my natural gender is not allowed. I couldn't say how I would act in that situation, because this world does not really exist for me. As far as I knew, a person that is "just CDing" still identifies internally as a male...and, therefore, if the "addiction" was CDing then it wouldn't really be a suppression of the male ego. It would be a suppression of the dressing.

---

That's the thing … it's the everyday reality for cross dressers, at least those with fundamental identity issues. I theoretically agree to the "just CDing" bit, though I wonder at it. See other threads for raging controversies on same! Brilliant circular twist on addiction and suppression! This deserves a thread on its own. I.e., dressing itself must be its own identity issue, else suppressing it would not be an issue … unless for a given individual it IS an addiction!

Quote:

---

I can see how CDing enables a CD to act out in a different gender more effectively. But, I still think that this has to go into how you are viewing femininity. It's hard to lump all CDs and people and say "this is what it is and this is why they do it...this is how they see femininity."

---

Almost right. I don't view femininity that way … really. For the purpose of identity, it doesn't matter to me how my wife dresses, for example. I would see her the same, regardless, as would she. Why dressing then? It goes back in part to your comments on what's obvious. It IS obvious, but don't conflate that with either its utility or finality. You went on to introduce the concept of "feminine energy". Many cross dressers do introduce all kinds of things into their daily lives that align with your concept. It doesn't invalidate the dressing. Outward things like dressing are very important, nonetheless, as people long to be, be seen, and live fully as they are. (hobbyists, et al, excluded) As for the cross dressers "you usually come across" … I can't say how many do it lightly versus those whose behavior is tied to identity, but I strongly suspect, based on what I've read in the medical literature as well as what I read on the forum itself, that more are in the latter camp.


Lea