Quote:
Originally Posted by
BTWimRobin
Hi Ladies,
I'm sorry if I offended anyone. That was not my intention.
It looks like I got some of my pronouns mixed up. My wife's whole point is .... she understands that I dress for myself and to make myself happy.
Don't worry, Robin. There's no need to be so anxious. You sure as heck didn't offend ME, and I didn't see anything the least bit "offensive" in your post.
At the risk of digressing, I do understand your anxiety. There are too many people in our modern world with "issues" who can "take offense"--or pretend to be doing so--at anything at all. But if they do, that's their problem, not ours, and I don't see any of that here.
Nevertheless, there's far too much of this "sensitivity" garbage in our degenerate culture today. It does seem to make a lot of people more nervous than they need to be about what they're afraid someone else might be reading into their words, and shrieking hysterically that they're "offended"--wah, wah!
Squalling babies, the whole lot of them! The truth is that WE are not responsible for what some paranoid idiot with distorted thinking might "read into" what we say, which no rational person could predict. Worse, that too many people have discovered and weaponized what is no more than emotional manipulation to silence and gag people whose opinions they dislike by guilt-tripping them with this rubbish about "being offended."
The antidote to this is not to be afraid to express an opinion, and if anybody ever does object with this rubbish about "being offended" when it really does look like a sham, either ignore them, or if they persist, tell them to "get over it." If they're just wackos, they need to be told to get back in touch with reality. And if they're "trying it on" as a manipulative ploy, they need to be told that "I know what you're playing at, and it ain't working on ME!" To be honest, I'm sick and tired of reading in the media that somebody "apologized" for this and that, when they ought to have boldly told their accuser to "stuff it where the sun don't shine!"
Well, so much for that rant, though I hope it stiffens your spine and inspires you to stand up straighter in the world of today--which you've been doing anyway by taking your courage in your hands and boldly telling your wife who you are, for which I congratulate you. As you said, all you were "guilty" of was confusing readers here over pronouns, over "meum" and "tuum," and that's a totally forgivable offense! But you got it sorted.
Anyway I'm glad you have an understanding wife, a lovely lady, and that things are going well between you so far. The details may need a bit of working out, but that can always be done, and you're on the right path of mutual understanding. I wish you every happiness for the future!
[SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Robertacd
Well... Good for you but...
"Women do and wear what they do and wear for a mate'
Is pretty sexist don't you think?
That thinking is exactly why people automatically assume a man wearing woman's clothing is Gay.
That's an insightful observation, Roberta. I'd never thought of it that way before. I always supposed that people assume a man in women's clothing must be gay because they conflate "gender identity" with "sexual orientation" as if the two were the same, when they're separate and independent of one another. Oh, and because the crossdressers most visible and familiar to the public are flamboyant "drag queens," who are generally gay anyway. All the other crossdressers are usually trying to "pass," or otherwise remain invisible (often in the closet). Yet the idea of crossdressing to attract a male "mate" is implicit for instance in those infamous lines:
I cut down trees, I skip and jump,
I like to press wild flowers.
I put on women's clothing,
And hang around in bars...
Is it "sexist"? Simplistic assumptions are invariably "sexist," but sexist, schmexist, who cares? These traits arise from Nature, and Nature herself is unashamedly sexist. Which is why most people naturally think in "sexist" terms, even though their assumptions about gender are often inaccurate.
The more important question is whether this assumption about women's motives for their choice of clothing is accurate or not. While there is some truth in it, for some women anyway, I have to agree that it's oversimplified. Leslie Langford made a good observation in this respect. Some time ago I recall a multiple choice "pop quiz" in which women were asked to choose from three options, namely:
Do you dress to please men? ["Attract" is the word I'd prefer here.]
Do you dress to please women? [To be brutally honest, I'd phrase that as "Do you dress to make other women envious?" It's a $TATU$ thing, as Leslie implied.]
Or do you dress to please yourself?
So there are at least three categories of women implied, though I regret to say I have no idea what percentage of women fall into each category. In fact there are probably four categories, because some women no doubt dress to please their own personal mate, while others dress to attact men in general--which is natural if they're single, but might be a different matter if they already have a mate!
Still, I have no doubt that by and large, women's preferences for adornment evolved out of Nature in order to attract mates and reproduce. Right off the top of my head a couple of observations occur to me. One is the well-known phenomenon that women's hemlines have in the twentieth century gone up and down with the stock market. Although unconscious thinking (and "feeling") is responsible for this, the obvious underlying explanation is that when times were good and economically conducive to having babies, up went the hemlines to invite men to come in and breed together. When the economy went sour and the environment for breeding became uncertain--who wants little babies to starve?--down came the hemlines in a gesture of caution.
Another question that occurs to me is why do women's fashions change so rapidly from year to year in the first place?--quite unlike men's fashions, which are more conservative and stable. In my male role I'm perfectly happy to wear the same kind of clothing from year to year. It saves a lot of mental effort not having to chop and change all the time. Why do women feel such an urge to change their appearance--including their hairstyles--more frequently? Is it really just boredom?
I can't help relating this to the need to keep an existing mate attracted--who is typically the father of a woman's offspring and a necessary provider in general. But men, more than women, tend to have a wandering eye and often look for more variety in sex--or in a sexual partner. Males are more prone to "get bored" and look elsewhere. This is seen especially in herd animals such as cattle and sheep, where one dominant bull or ram may be doing the honors for a whole bevy or "harem" of females, cows, ewes or whatever. To ensure he does his duty to them all, the male has evolved an instinct that tells him "I've serviced that female before; it's time to move on to another one!"
Admittedly we humans are not "herd animals" in that sense--though we are plagued with plenty of dumb "sheeple" who can't think for themselves and "follow the herd." That only proves how some of these instincts "carry over" from one species to another. Some of that polygynous, eye-wandering tendency of males has also carried over into our own species. What counterstrategyhas the female of our species evolved to avoid this risk of abandonment in her time of need?
One answer seems obvious to me. To overcome her mate's susceptibility to boredom, she must change her appearance from time to time, to look like a different female--one he hasn't mated with before! That way she can keep his attention!
Well, that's my theory anyway! :D Whatever, the feminine obsession with clothing and adornment has a biological basis in Nature. And most of us crossdressers, even if we're far from "fully female," share some of those traits too, though we're not for one moment trying to attract a male "mate."
