My liberal wife thinks all TVs are gay

My family says that I am a "Shirley McLean wannabe". Not because of my crossdressing but because I believe in multiple lives with our coming back over and over again. That being said, I sometimes theorize that maybe my proclivity to be dressed and act female is an overlapping of a previous life as a woman into this life. So if I was a straight woman in the last life and a straight man in this life, am I two straight people sharing the same body of just plan old "Bi"? Who cares? I'm very happy the way I turned out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flatlander_48

When I first considered having physical intimacy with men, a fascinating thought occured to me. That was I could choose to be the active partner or the passive partner or move back and forth as I saw fit. I chose to be the passive partner and that opened up a distinctly new train of thought. It was a very different way of looking at sexual dynamics and it fascinated me. It was completely unlike the rigid behaviors that I had assumed were appropriate. That new freedom can be intoxicating. Further, if approached correctly, there is no reason that a gay relationship has to look like an opposite sex reltionship. You don't necessarily have the preset expectations (wife does this, husband does that) that you would see in many opposite sex couples.

---

At the risk of beginning another debate in this thread, why do you think that a hetero sexual relationship necessarily involves one passive and one active partner? Aren't both partners effectively active? Without becoming too graphic, couples do things mutually, they take turns doing things, and there are lots of different positions to do them in plus couples can add spice by using a variety of things purchased in stores for sexual enhancement?

Also, doesn't the intoxication come with the person that you are with? For me, great sex happens when I'm very much into the person in all levels: physically, emotionally, and intellectually. Adequate sex happens when only one of the three is present. Generally, I think that GGs feel a holistic attraction to a person is more intense than just being attracted to one thing. I don't think we compartmentalize sex like men do. This might be why I defined bisexuality differently than Katey888 earlier.

I know this is not a proper study and of course there are exceptions, but this article expresses my point in more detail:
http://www.netnanny.com/learn_center/article/165/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katey888

BTW - DeeAnn:

Perhaps stereotypes have got the better of you too? It's also possible for that in an opposite sex relationship... ;)

Katey x

---

No, I don't think so. It didn't feel like that anyway. The way in which we have been indoctrinated by society comes into play. And yes, that part is stereotypical, but the dynamic is this. As we have been taught, unfortunately, females are less than. So, giving up control and being passive has a very different sense about about it compared to another male. The sense is that giving up control to a female seems like establishing equality. With another male, it feels like giving the notion of dominance away. It is hard to explain, but my sense is that it seemed to be very unique experiences.

But, there is also an interesting thing that takes place, speaking in more of an academic sense. In a male/female couple, the female can often use the male's desires against him and get him to jump through hoops on demand. Sometimes this has a playful intent to increase arousal and sometimes it has a more sinister purpose. What occurred to me was that I had could (and did) have the same influence over another male in a very similar way. And that is a complete, and fascinating, role reversal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

At the risk of beginning another debate in this thread, why do you think that a hetero sexual relationship necessarily involves one passive and one active partner? Aren't both partners effectively active?

---

Not necessarily. Active in the sense of participation, but not necessarily in terms of energy flow; complementary in the sense of Ying and Yang. To me, there is often a fluidity in terms of what happens, but sometimes there may be more conscious events that occur. The conscious part is what I was speaking to above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

Without becoming too graphic, couples do things mutually, they take turns doing things, and there are lots of different positions to do them in plus couples can add spice by using a variety of things purchased in stores for sexual enhancement?

---

Trust me that these are not foreign concepts! Between 2 wives, I've been married for a total of abut 40 years. Ain't my first trip to the rodeo...

DeeAnn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flatlander_48

Not necessarily. Active in the sense of participation, but not necessarily in terms of energy flow; complementary in the sense of Ying and Yang. To me, there is often a fluidity in terms of what happens, but sometimes there may be more conscious events that occur. The conscious part is what I was speaking to above.

---

I do understand the Yin/Yang as being a necessary component of a complementary sexual relationship in that two parts fit well together to form a whole no matter the position, but I don't understand what you mean by conscious events, or the conscious part. Would you elaborate?

If one decides to be dominant or passive as opposed to letting events take their course...

OK, thanks. :)

It's difficult to imagine these things from a different perspective than one's own because obviously we just only ever experience our own sex lives. But I can say that the fluidity that I have encountered among my sexual partners was not something decided on. It always simply happened, as a natural result of being sexually creative and sensual ... and aroused. lol. I also need to add that my current SO is the only partner I've had who crosses the gender boundaries, and there has been no difference in terms of fluidity between my SO and my other partners. In all my sexual relationships, the dominance vs. submissiveness ebbed and flowed, naturally I thought.

It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall and listen to a conversation about this between several GGs, just to determine if my experience is unique.

Discussions like this often seem to be a Your Mileage May Vary sort of things because, in spite of studies and scientific probabilities, it comes down to our experience and perceptions; rightly and wrongly. Personally, I have a hard time believing anyone that says they are a straight crossdresser. Certainly I won't challenge anyone directly unless they are really being an ass, but I have a different perception about it. I think between the lines, it may be the sort of thing where a safe choice was made in order to live a relatively calm life or it may be that people are comfortable in their male roles such that dressing only adds and does not replace the usual activities or desires, etc. So, when I hear Straight Crossdresser" what I think is one of the alternatives I mentioned above or perhaps something else.

Anyway, it is a fascinating question that may be very difficult to sort.

DeeAnn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flatlander_48

Personally, I have a hard time believing anyone that says they are a straight crossdresser.

---

Ahhh ... but then we get back to defining sexual preference. Is it defined by fantasy or the things that we actually DO on a regular basis?

People do fantasize about situations they would not like in real life. Read this article. In one example, they say that some women fantasize about cheating on their husbands. Does this mean they are not monogamous? No. They do not want to hurt their husbands. In another example, women say they fantasize about rape. Does this mean they actually want to be raped? No. The reality of rape is far too harsh.

I actually have the book, My Secret Garden. This is where I learned that the world of sexual fantasy is distinct and separate from reality, and it is not because people are repressing themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

Ahhh ... but then we get back to defining sexual preference. Is it defined by fantasy or the things that we actually DO on a regular basis?

---

No, I think what I'm saying is that perhaps the other shoe has not dropped. I wasn't speaking of fanstasy. I was speaking specifically to the identities that people claim regardless of how that came to the conclusion.

For a long time, gay people have told bisexuals "yes, that's what you think; give it time". My problem with that was that it was never universally true as some would have you believe. Sure, it does happen that way, but that in no way should suggest that it is an automatic. And, in my case, is wasn't true and in fact my path was the reverse: gay -> bisexual.

But, at the root of all of this is that opinions and preferences get formed over time. It could very well be that at some point in the future that some of those who currently claim to be straight crossdressers may come to revisit what they thought and they may come to a different conclusion. From my experience and from what I've observed, dressing evolves. How we are now doesn't necessarily mean that we will be the same in one month, one year or 5 years. There are always changes. It is not a static situation...

DeeAnn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flatlander_48

But, at the root of all of this is that opinions and preferences get formed over time. It could very well be that at some point in the future that some of those who currently claim to be straight crossdressers may come to revisit what they thought and they may come to a different conclusion.

---

This is true, especially after people begin HRT, or if not TS, among people whose relationships with GGs ended because these GGs would not agree to the CDing. It makes sense to seek love where there are possibilities, for example CDers in relationships with one another.

Interestingly, there's a wonderful article in todays New York Times, Better Late Than Never that also mentions changes from being female-attracted to eventually preferring males after HRT and transition.

And there are also heteros here for whom an actual experience with men is not and will not be desired, despite fantasies to the contrary.

I agree that we cannot put people into nice, neat little boxes.

Yes, I saw it online yesterday. Nicely done piece. For me, the thing that was significant is that once people sorted out where things sat, the motivation to align one physical and emotional selves was strong enough to want to transition. Those people are my peers and younger and wish them well and hope that their expectations are met. But at 60's and 70's this is no trivial matter.

On the NYT news article: the phenomena of late-transitioners I don't think will continue beyond people who were born pre 1970s-60s. I think it's a catch up of all the folks who are TS, but who could not have known or come out until now.

TSs born in the 1980s or after (anyone who is under 30 now), became adult when there was internet and other resources and so they know who they are at the beginning of adulthood and they can make appropriate choices for themselves. These people do not need to keep this a secret from GG partners like their predecessors, they will not need to repress this for 30 years and wait for kids to grow up, parents to die, or retirement before feeling they can express themselves, and they can even find a middle ground right now if they want to, which I think was almost impossible to find before. The idea that in order to express gender fluidity or femininity, one has to try to pass as a female or be ostracized I believe is leaving us.

I was recently talking to someone in her 50s at my SO's gender support group. She identifies as "TG", not "CD" or "TS" and she is hugely involved with the group and newcomers. She quizzically asked why so many young TGs she is meeting don't dress full-on as women like she does (breast forms, wig, traditional makeup, heels, hose, etc), they are happy presenting androgynously or as feminine males and identify as genderqueer or a number of similar labels (agender, bigender, pangender, etc).

It is interesting to witness the face of TG changing among younger people compared to their predecessors. The trend has been there among FtMs for awhile (not all but quite a few), to go ahead and present masculine without giving up a female identity and losing their stature in the lesbian community.

There are most definitely still TSs of both genders, but their parents are beginning to listen to them now and so they are getting on hormone-blockers before onset of puberty. So yes, long-term repression is coming to an end, I believe.

But, will there still be CDers, will there still be men who identify as men but who love to dress as sexually attractive women? Yes. I don't see this going away at all. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flatlander_48

Reg

No, people can't be pushed, convinced or turned. Whatever your native sexuality is, that's what it is. This ties in with the concept that homophobes erroneously believe: gay people Recruit. No way that you're going to turn someone who does not have a predisposition.

---

I beg to differ. This has absolutely nothing to do with "recruiting" anybody. Go back and think about what I said the 1950's and 1960's were about when it came to sexuality. You really think a young kid would have the opportunity to read about cross dressing? Would a young kid be able to discuss cross dressing with anyone? Young kids are very impressionable. They are full of doubts about themselves. They can lose their self esteem. I would not judge yesterday's society of forty or fifty years ago by today's standards, etc.

There is the persistent notion that one's sexual orientation, when other than heterosexual, is chosen. There is evidence to suggest that this is not true, but so far it is not conclusive. However, this document is significant I think:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tonymerevick...y-c#.wn4j6AWQ2

Former Ex-Gay Leaders Unite in Opposition to Conversion Therapy

Conversion therapy, also known as “reparative therapy”, “ex-gay therapy,” or “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE), professes to help lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people to change or overcome their sexual orientation or gender identity. The majority of those who practice this “therapy” often do so with little or no formal psychological training, operating instead from a strict religious perspective, believing homosexuality to be a “sin.”

At one time, we were not only deeply involved in these “ex-gay” programs, we were the founders, the leaders, and the promoters. Together we represent more than half a century of experience, so few people are more knowledgeable about the ineffectiveness and harm of conversion therapy. We know first-hand the terrible emotional and spiritual damage it can cause, especially for LGBT youth.

We once believed that there was something morally wrong and psychologically “broken” about being LGBT. We know better now. We once believed that sexual orientation or gender identity were somehow chosen or could be changed. We know better now. We once thought it was impossible to embrace our sexual orientation or sexual identity as an intrinsic, healthy part of who we are and who we were created to be. We know better now.


So, if sexual orientation or gender identity cannot be changed, that strongly suggests that it is an innate characteristic. It isn't something treatable like obsessive-compulsive disorder. Therefore, exposure to LGBT people would not change your orientation or gender identification. However, a possible exception to this may be crossdressing from a fetishistic viewpoint as this may not have anything to do with orientation or gender identification.

DeeAnn

I just read through this whole thread and I feel like my own sexual preferences weren't represented so I want to make room for a further complication in the heterosexual-bisexual spectrum. I have been into TS porn for some time and have always desired to be with a TS. A near approximation of this fantasy is to be with other CDs. I am attracted to femininity and have been in many long-term relationships with women but I also...enjoy the male anatomy. But beards and hair and muscles? Total turn-off. So am I "straight" because I am only attracted to the female form? Not necessarily - because there is ONE aspect of the male anatomy that I am attracted too (the penis). Accordingly I've recently started labeling myself as bisexual because *technically* I can also be sexually attractive to men (who are dressed as women, the more fem the better). But perhaps my ideal sexual partner would be a pre-op TS. Other CDs satisfy this preference of mine but hints of masculinity in facial structure or demeanor are definitely a turn-off. Where does this put me on the spectrum? Hard to say. All I know is that if there is a spectrum of heterosexual to homosexual I wouldn't be 0%, 50%, or 100%. It's more complicated than that.

I can't be the only CD on here who is sexually attracted to other CDs (but not macho men) but I haven't seen this position represented.

Hope that makes sense.

Sexuality is complicated. I'm still discovering who I am and trying to be comfortable with my preferences. At the end of the day you have to do what makes you happy (and horny).

More numbers:

Quote:

---

Nationwide, Gallup says, 3.6 percent of adults consider themselves gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. [...] Gallup’s numbers are based on surveys of 374,325 adults across the 50 largest metropolitan areas, conducted between June 2012 and December 2014. The margin of sampling error for each of the metropolitan areas is no more than plus or minus 1 percentage point.

---

Note that the numbers roll everyone up in one basket -- they don't distinguish L from G or B or T. I don't know how long the link will stay good, but this is the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/up...abt=0002&abg=0

hi - Everything in life is a spectrum - all colors are involved - nothing defines you except what you feel yourself I expect
Jessie

In my opinion, I was gay and just didn't realize it. Let me explain.
I am a Transgender (MtF). My attraction is to women and always has been to women, yet I am becoming a women.
So by definition I am gay. (Gay - adjective, gayer, gayest. | 1. of, relating to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.)
I grew up and lived my life as a male. As such, I always considered myself Straight. Yet, I also considered myself a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Now that I have taken steps towards becoming the women I always wanted to be, I have come to realize I am and have always been gay. I did not become gay, but rather, I have always been Gay and just never had the strength to take the steps necessary to express it properly.
Now that I am taking those steps (hormones, etc.) I am able to express it more properly.

OR.....am I still straight and just confused? heh :P

LOL, Vicki, it would be so much simpler if we eliminated the terms "gay" and "lesbian" altogether, since in addition to describing the person attracted to, they describe the sex and/or gender of the person who feels the attraction. This is why the terms cannot apply in the same way when someone transitions. Even the meaning of "same-sex attraction" changes if a person changes their sex.

If we just stuck to "male-attracted" (androphile) or "female-attracted" (gynophile), then the terms wouldn't change since they ONLY describe who we are attracted to without describing us in any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReineD

If we just stuck to "male-attracted" (androphile) or "female-attracted" (gynophile), then the terms wouldn't change since they ONLY describe who we are attracted to without describing us in any way.

---

It's way messier than that, though. There are males that are attracted to males presenting female (CDs) but not to males presenting male. And CD's who are attracted to other CDs but not males presenting male. No words cover that. No words cover males who are attracted to FtM transsexuals. There IS "pansexual" if you're attracted to pretty much anyone in any presentation. But for the others there are either no words or we deny or discount those attractions. I have no answers to this, by the way, just the observation.

My gay TV thinks Liberals are WIVES!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jennie-cd

It's way messier than that, though. There are males that are attracted to males presenting female (CDs) but not to males presenting male ...

---

Then we can expand and also include CD-attracted. The point is that if we need to describe who we're attracted to, why do we need a single word that at the same time describes who we are? The two are unrelated.

So if we split it up, it would go like this:

I'm (pick one trans/CD/male/female) and I'm attracted to (pick one trans/CD/male/female/everyone/no-one).

Yup all tvs are gay...joking, yea its a very narrow minded opinion to think that, I for one am married but I am bisexual, guys are great to look at and many are outright yummy but girls are really where I like to be.....you know out of our circle of crossdressing friends I am the only one who bats both sides, many guys who dress are straight and its sad to think that some folk think that just because a guy puts on a dress he's labelled as gay, 9 times out of 10 those opinions are formed through ignorance, to me dressing is a form of expressing your personality and not sexuality.