Do there exist men who genuinely couldn't get a kick out of cross dressing?

I contend that cross dressing is entirely normal and that most, if not all men have the capacity to be excited by it. Note that I say normal and not usual. Clearly not all men end up doing it. But I myself, for instance, feel entirely normal and I sense that the vast majority of the ladies here are just normal men. I feel it in the way most of you write. Now granted, I consider myself imaginative and unconstrained intellectually by received mores. But I nevertheless get a huge sexual, and let's be honest, it's mostly sexual, kick out of seeing myself dressed as a woman and being seen that way. Woman seem to hate that, and I myself keep that side of its attraction out of the limelight, even though my partner is entirely accepting and helps me choose and buy clothes. Which means, if my contention is correct, that women don't want to believe in the true reality of what it is to be a man, so in general it is better they remain in ignorance. This applies, I guess, to many private thoughts and fantasies that we all have.

As for evidence to support my theory, I don't have much. However, for instance, I have heard that actors who have to don women's clothes for their job frequently find that they enjoy it. And we frequently see men prannying around on the telly as clowns in frocks, perhaps glad of the opportunity to indulge in the taboo without perceived threat to their masculinity. ConversIy, I can't however imagine my father ever indulging in cross dressing and he certainly disapproves therof. But I suspect that is mostly conservatistm. For I know too that he used to have a strong kinky side; my mother once told me a few things.

A further factor that might encourage some men more than others is physical appearance. Certainly some of us have less work to do than others to appear feminine. But that doesn't contradict my original assertion.

It would be interesting to put the theory to a survey. What do you ladies think would be the result?

And that leads me to my final question: is it the fact that we are indulging a sexual fantasy in public, something that will always make people uncomfortable, that is the real reason behind the CD taboo?

To conclude, my post is certainly framed as a bit of a challenge. I will be interested to see the responses. My apologies to those of you who consider yourself women. But from what I can fathom though, most of us don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiniRock

I contend that cross dressing is entirely normal and that most, if not all men have the capacity to be excited by it. Note that I say normal and not usual. Clearly not all men end up doing it.

---

Well - I guess I'll start it off.

Nope.

Almost all the men I've known over the years have only ONE interest in women's clothing, and that it how to get women out of it.
The idea of putting any of it on themselves never even occurs to them.
I honestly believe that the vast majority of men would not "get a kick" out of it - though a certain few might go along with it if they believed they'd "get lucky" as a result.
In these cases they're not in it for the outfits, but for the end reward. (rats don't run mazes for fun - they want the cheese at the end)

IMO - Those who enjoy it for it's own sake, or for the "kick" are a definite minority when compared to the whole male population.

As for me - I'm not in it for the thrill. I do what I do because it allows me to feel like ME.
What thrill I get is from the sense of being free - not from "Gee I'm in a <blank>, and it feels so <blank>."

But I consider myself more of a "restricted" TG (or maybe even a bit TS) than CD, so that colors my perspective a bit.

Nope. Not everyone is Into all fetishes. Even someone as perverted as me draws the line at some fetishes

From my own intuition, as I have wondered this as well, and observed men in fine detail, I'd put it at 50%- meaning given a safe space, they would enjoy experimenting with women's clothes in a gender tourist kind of way. This is simply because it is obvious that it is a cultural setup, and there are some intense privileges associated with feminine clothes. I say tourist way because as men we are also educated into the intense vulnerabilities associated with femininity as well.
Recognizing that, and the hurdles and competitive challenges many men feel just to prove their manhood in the first place, and that one of those challenges is not to let down your guard, half of all men are quite content just staying on the masculine team and appreciating the feminine team's efforts to be attractive.

I'll bet 10% would get a kick out of being able to crossdress, and do it at least once, and that the reason is sexual in a Freudian way, since the feminine clothes we desire are generally designed to frame and flatter and present the female [i.e sexual] in order to attract attention. But there is a lot more, as in just the emotional freedom women are allowed, or the simple sensuality of some clothes, that also attract us.

I think those of us who embrace it are around 1%. And 0.1% of us go out and feel safe to be public about it.

All my estimates are a combo of published studies, what I see around me in society and how the subject is treated in film and news media, and the comments men make in private when the subject comes up.

My guess for the reason for the taboo is that, like incest, some regular fraction of people keep wanting to do it, but it is highly charged sexually, and messes with the ordered controls on sexual feelings.

My evidence for that is that drag queens are careful to announce they are men, TG women are killed a lot when alone, and both males and females tolerate us if we are not flirtatious.

Wow, lots of assumptions there. Interesting theories but ones I have heard before. It comes up every so often here. Personally I think it is an attempt to explain something that is often unexplainable. It's easier if people think that everybody does it, or wants to do it, or at least would be willing to do it. Um, no.

Sorry, NO! This is called "projection": falsely imagining that other people must think or feel the same as ourselves, when they generally don't. How can they NOT like golf--or Gerschwin--or gefilte fish--or "X" political candidate? But they don't anyway!

Granted, SOME men may be capable of obtaining a mild pleasure out of wearing female clothing, without ever feeling tempted to take up crossdressing full time. But I'm sure it's not a universal hankering among men at large.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marianne S

Granted, SOME men may be capable of obtaining a mild pleasure out of wearing female clothing, without ever feeling tempted to take up crossdressing full time. But I'm sure it's not a universal hankering among men at large.

---

I have a "professional opinion" ..lol Years ago,I worked at a "dresser's boutique" in Woburn ,Ma. We "put men in panties"...Anyway,these men were the "bravest of the curious"..lol They could explore their curiousity in a private,safe,setting and have our assistance when needed. In most all cases,they were satisfied of their exploration when they walked out the door and usually there were no repeats for the dressing. So,I can say that "your average male" doesn't wish to wear female clothes....

If we say the number of men who feel a NEED to dress in women's clothes (us) is perhaps 2-3% there is probably an unknown number on top of this who would quite like to but would only do so if the situation was determined for them - probably by a woman partner suggesting it. These would be far outnumbered by the men who would feel their masculinity was direly threatened by wearing anything feminine, even in private. And THAT is why it would not occur to them to wear something they associate with women. I think it is that threat to the masculinity that prevents most men from wearing womenswear, and even a lot of crossdressers keep it private because of this. Me, I am a bit more complex - I have a huge womenswear wardrobe, spend most of my time clothed from it, and go out dressed occasionally. The reason it is under the radar is that I value my masculine (not macho) image with my colleagues and friends and want to be remembered for my real achievements, not as "the guy in the dress". There are logical reasons for wearing skirts and dresses especially in hot weather, and if they are de-haired or in thick tights, men's legs can look fantastic but it is the fear of the feminine and this vulnerable masculinity that excludes men from the skirt or dress option. To them I say if your masculinity is going to be compromised merely by putting on a piece of clothing, there can't be much to it, but in reality the symbolism is HUGE. I know that in situations where I have worn a dress (with an excuse) women who usually flirted with me stopped and I didn't like that. So it's all a bit complicated.

As a point of discussion, the amount of enforcement applied to little boys to "be a man" can be nicely explained by the theory that little boys not naturally becoming society grade 'men' is a large and continuous problem. If little boys didn't want to be free to be human in ways the girls do get to be, there would be no need for enforcement on children, intense divergent training of each sex in how exactly to differentiate, oppression of women to amplify male privilege, and the threats of ostracism and ridicule if anyone dares to wish they could be a girl that continues through the teens until we finally lose hope and just get used to being men.

What remains are the members here! We keep our dream alive, mostly in secret. Just the fact that no mature men will admit it except anonymously is a testimony to the fact that crossdressing is a recognized temptation and threat.

I really hate that you’re making broad generalizations about both our community and the cis community. I for one (and a LOT of other people here are NOT “indulging in a sexual fantasy in public”. This post is nothing but projection.

Please stop, get some help. You might get someone into a really uncomfortable situation like that.

I can tell you that many men are repulsed by the idea.

Where I work cross dressing came up on day in conversation. I thought some guys were going to loose their lunch over it. These are the same tough homophobic guys that react negatively when a gay conversation comes up too. Guys are supposed to hunt, fish, work on cars and were jeans, t-shirts and boots type of guys.

To be honest there is nothing sexual in this for me. I do not get turned on wearing panties or women's clothing. It just feels right. I feel more comfortable and happy. It's a physical and emotional need. At this time I do not go out in public dressed. Though this is my wife's choice at this time. I really doubt that the vast majority of men would enjoy wearing women's clothes. Even if they were persuaded to try it once I bet only a small percentage of men would want to try it again. Before Diana emerged as part of my psyche I would never have considered trying on a skirt or a dress or even a pair of panties. We're unique and we're all the more special for it.

Some of us just dress for fun. Please accept this. Not everything enjoyable has to be sexual or identity-related. I think part of the problem is that little boys are made to feel that if they like anything remotely girly it is very very bad and they mustn't want these things. No wonder so many men grow up thinking women are inferior. Little girl wants to dress as Superman - excellent. Little boy wants to dress as Elsa - he should be ashamed of this. Result is a screwed up society that looks down on women and women have to spend far too much of their energy trying to fix this.

MiniRock ,
I don't consider it " Projection " but more a question for debate .

The question possibly does boil down to a sexual one , what honestly turns a man on . Many of us have probably enjoyed wearing items like stocking and supenders and many non CDing men like to buy sexy underwear for their partners , some may be tempted to try them themselves and find they enjoy it more than they expected but it may not turn them to CDing on a more permanent basis .

Personally I'm glad the sexual side has died back somewhat , it's in balance because otherwise I wouldn't feel comfortable being out in the RW as I do consider myself female . If other people associate my appearance with my sexual needs it's in their minds not mine , for me now sex stays at home . I agree it's a tabboo that's taken some shaking off .

Phili,
I have to agree with your last paragraph .

Sorry, but no I don’t think all men are really potential cross dressers. I really do think we are all individuals (person from crowd “I’m not.” ). Whether our cross dressing is fetish, a need to express femininity, a mixture of both, or has some other drive behind it it is a part of our personality, a part of who we are. There are others out there who do not have this part of their personality. It is not part of who they are. I compare this to another equally strong drive in my life, and one my wife knew all about when we married. I have to have a dog. This is not just something I like, it is a deep need. Having a dog is absolutely central to my identity. Now I know there are people who don’t have dogs and who don’t even like the idea of having one. There are also people who can take dogs or leave them - some who sadly take them on and then abandon them. That’s not how it is with me. My dogs are central to my identity. But I know everybody is not like me.

JennyMay, Using the "dogs" analogy is good, rather than say some "hobby" (to which others would say CDing is not a hobby).

For many, CDing is a preference, need, or identity.

Also, the OP mentions:

Quote:

---

.... is it the fact that we are indulging a sexual fantasy in public, something that will always make people uncomfortable, that is the real reason behind the CD taboo?

---

Taboo in whose eyes? I understand those who have lived through the 50's, 60's have that mindset, but in today's world, is it really still taboo? Don't know, but many younger people seem to take it in stride.

To answer the OP's question; There may be some men who would be willing to "try" CDing but just my guess, it would be a small number. Just my opinion, but I think the majority of men are either happy with their gender or don't even think about it.

I believe that 99.9% of men have a kink of some sort or another. It's just the way we are wired.

A small percentage--less than 5%, and more likely less than 1%--are interested in cross dressing. That means 95+% don't have an interest, which I believe is the correct answer to the OP's question. No, the vast majority of men don't.

Of course, I'm guessing that 75+% of men would agree to crossdress if doing so would guarantee they got laid. Unfortunately, the number of women who consider crossdressing to be a sexual turnon is significantly less than the percentage of men who have the interest in crossdressing. So the answer is still no.

Well if this is just a sexual thing to you then you already know the answer... (It's Yes)

Might as well ask:

Do there exist men who genuinely couldn't get a kick out of S&M (or enter your favorite kink or fetish)?

I tend to think that if women universally showed an inclination to be attracted to or even 'turned on' by a man in clothes that are currently reserved for genetic females, men would be wearing dresses regularly. I think that most men would, at least privately, wear a dress/panties/makeup or whatever tomorrow if the right woman showed true excitement at the idea. Once the idea became common, that women in general enjoyed men in less traditionally masculine styles, MOST men would adapt quickly.

A sudden change in human female behavior is NOT what I'd expect to happen. But, finding ANYTHING that might lead to a better chance of getting laid would be a major motivator. And, it's not all sexual. Men want women to be admire them and to be pleased with them, even if it doesn't lead to sex. Just the number of SA affirmation stories on the forum would seem to support that view.

I believe the vast majority of men have no interest in cross dressing whatsoever. As for myself I have always been attracted to feminine things as far back as I can remember. I work in a male dominated industry and am one of the guys at work. What they don't know is my toenails are painted. I believe some of us are just wired differently. It's not a sexual thing for me it just feels right to have girl time daily. I am happy to be wired differently !!!!

My brother.
Jon

MiniRock, to get into the parts I didn't address in my earlier post, what is the real reason behind the CD taboo? Here's a hint: Why are some people so vehemently opposed to "bathroom bills" that would permit transgender people born genetically male to use women's restrooms? It's granting them a privilege they didn't have before, that some people don't want them to have.

I don't entirely dismiss what you said about the possible sexual connotations of crossdressing in public. Mind you, as Micki_Finn implied, most of us who do go out crossdressed are not necessarily "masturbating in public" (to use my own words), and I don't suppose most people think of it that way either. I can only agree that anything "out of the ordinary" in the field of sex and gender can be disturbing to some people in a vague and general way they can't put their finger on, including those who are homophobic or have similar prejudices. There can be other reasons too, such as when women object to men competing with them on their own territory of "beauty." Women can be just as territorial as men are when they perceive the opposite sex as "invading their territory."

However, the real reason for the taboo should be obvious. Men who crossdress have been "looked down on" and ridiculed by many because being "feminine" in perceived as being physically weak or pretending to physical weakness, and thus abandoning their male duty to be tough, strong, and brave: to do the physically hard things in life without complaining, and to be protective of others--especially women and children--when necessary.

Paradoxically, this obvious fact is often obscured by people irrationally claiming the opposite: that men who crossdress are despised for allegedly abandoning some supposed "male privilege," a piece of ideological duckspeak that a number of sheeple today have been brainwashed into believing. And I think that's worth taking the time to dismiss.

That notion makes no sense to begin with. By and large, nobody despises anyone for "giving up a privilege" to which they would otherwise be entitled. If a CEO chose to give up his annual bonus and use the money instead to prevent layoffs at his company, he would be respected, not jeered at, for doing so. Sometimes people may be laughed at for being "silly" enough to pass up an opportunity, but they are not "hated" for doing so.

Ironically, that notion is the reverse of the truth. It is at least more accurate to say that men who crossdress have historically been condemned for daring to be "uppity," for having the effrontery to assume female privilege to which they are not entitled by reason of their sex.

Of course it's true that both sexes have always had their assigned "gender roles," in which some things were demanded of women, and conversely prohibited to women, while the reverse was true for men. But in physical terms women have always been the "protected sex." By and large women have enjoyed the privilege of protection and exemption, from fighting in wars to doing the vast majority of the toughest and most dangerous jobs, as men still do today. For women these are merely an "option." Countless examples could be cited to prove this point. Boys are taught "not to hit a girl." Girls are not taught "not to hit a boy." It's men's job to protect women, not the other way round--even if not all men do it. And when the Titanic went down, it certainly wasn't "men and children first." Men, more than women, are treated as the "disposable sex." Women are excused other things too, such as the "emotional freedom" phili mentioned, that men don't have so much.

As far as this is relevant to clothing, if memory serves me it was that great rebel feminist Camille Paglia who wrote an inspired essay about "male" versus "female" clothing. She pointed out that the clothes women tend to wear, compared with men's, are those of a privileged class. They could be compared with clothes worn by rich merchants and other aristocrats centuries ago, silks and satins and colorful garments, when there were actually "sumptuary laws" dictating that only the wealthy were permitted to wear such clothes--partly to prevent the "lower classes" from pretending to be "above themselves." They were delicate clothes advertising the fact that their privileged wearers never had to soil their hands with rough work or risk tearing their clothing, since they were a "protected" class. And these were fabrics that needed caring for--but rich people naturally had servants to do all that for them.

It all reminds me of Allan Sherman's celebrated song "You Went the Wrong Way, Old King Louie," about Louis XVI, who famously "lost his head" in the French Revolution:

To you, King Louie, we say "Phooey"!
You disappointed all of France.
But then what else could we expect from a king
In silk stockings and pink satin pants?

Louis XVI was a far cry from the kings of old. clanking around in armor and leading their armies on horseback to battle and victory for their nation. One classic biographer of Napoleon wrote, with his "apologies to feminists" (back in 1958!), that one factor precipitating the French Revolution was people's perception that the nation had become "too feminized" and needed stiffening up. Silk stockings need protecting from damage. Just like nylons and lace.

Meanwhile it was the peasant class who did all the hard physical labor in service to their "betters"--the "sans-culottes" and their peers in other countries--and wore rough, hard-wearing, homespun "utility" garments, designed chiefly to protect the wearer. They were "drab" as well. None of those bright colors the rich could afford from expensive dyes, or the fine lace work that cost money for the intricate labor to produce it. Peasant attire could be compared to the utilitarianism of men's work clothing today, compared with women's.

Meanwhile, swirling elaborate dresses are the clothes of a privileged class. Even today, notice that men who wear "robes" (note that "robe" is the French word for a "dress") are "dignitaries" we're expected to look up to: judges, high church officials, the mayors of some English towns.

However, it's still clearer to see the issue in terms of responsibilities and duties placed on each sex, rather than "privileges" granted to them. Rightly or wrongly, men who crossdress have been seen as "feminine," therefore "weak," therefore "shirking men's duties," "not pulling their weight," as if they were "cowards." They could be compared to the men in Britain during World War I who, if seen out of military uniform in public, were presented with a "white feather" by women as a sign of supposed "cowardice" for not enlisting. In the end those invalided out of the forces due to honorable wounds were awarded badges to escape this kind of harassment.

I have a point in posting this, because things have causes.. They can't just be put down to "prejudice," as if "prejudice" is purely arbitrary and has no cause. It invariably does. Why is there "homophobia"? Despite never bothering to study "gay literature" to see what they believed, I once came up with about eight different reasons, some probable, some at least possible. Near the top of the list was precisely the same issue: that those gay men who are "effeminate" are the "visible" ones, the so-called "limp-wristed" type (a telling expression!) who have been ridiculed or hated for precisely the same reason as male crossdressers are: for "abandoning the masculine duty of toughness." The fact that plenty of gay men are downright macho escaped public notice, so "gayness" became "weakness" in the public mind.

In more primitive times, exclusively gay men must have had the double whammy of not mating with women to produce children, and not being as motivated to help the tribe by working as hard to support their own wives and children as a husband and father would. They weren't "doing their duty" in pronatalist times when it was important to keep the tribe's population up in the face of disease and starvation and territorial competition from other tribes. Whether these and other imperatives are embedded in our DNA or simply preserved in "cultural memory," they're still with us today.

I'll be brutally blunt. We're only "different" and "more tolerant" today, in our advanced industrial and postindustrial society that many of us are proud to call "Western" (despite the civilized contributions of the Japanese and others) because the work chiefly of men, by far the larger contributors to advances in science and technology, has brought us a physical and societal environment far safer and more secure--for women in particular--than has ever been known before in human history. Yes, we all know that has brought new risks in itself: pollution, claims of global warming--and especially of overpopulation, threatening to exhaust our planet's resources. But in the meantime, conditions have changed. We don't need to breed like rabbits any more. On the contrary, in the safe, healthy environment of our advanced society, nearly all children survive, and we don't need too many of them. So who cares if gay people don't breed? We should be grateful because they're actually helping with our problem of overpopulation.

Far more relevant, in a more secure society with more food and other necessities to go around, there is less competition, and the threat of major war--among civilized nations at least--is far more remote than it was even a lifetime ago. Threats and disasters of all kinds are taken care of with the help of mechanical and technological power, which is men's gift of strength to women, empowering women to do everything from driving a car or using a computer just as well as a man could. As far as women have been given some ability to protect themselves, a modern weapon like a can of Mace is a male invention, while even in medieval times a dagger such as a woman might carry would be forged by a (male) blacksmith. More to the point, we live today in a society which, though hardly free of crime, is mostly safe for women, and men as well, to go out in public unarmed, protected by a police force staffed in America by 86 percent men, and only 14 percent women. This is a far cry from times only a couple of centuries ago--less in parts of some countries we call "civilized" today--when it was not safe for women to travel without a (male) escort, and even men preferred traveling in groups for their own protection.

What's more, the beneficial and less stressful conditions we live in today permit us to be "kinder and gentler" to one another than most humans were in history.

One result of all this is that our own ("Western") society today does not perceive the same need for men to be as "tough" as it once did. Masculine strength and protection still operates, transformed yet more powerful than ever, but it's concealed from public view where too many people don't observe it--and don't always see the need for it. That is not a good thing, since men are not as appreciated today as they deserve to be, but it does operate in favor of men who are "more feminine" and not denigrated so much on that account.

The reason I'm pointing this out is that we live in a little "bubble" today that is nothing like the way our ancestors lived for the greater part of history and prehistory. Some people imagine we're different because of some magical property called "cultural change" that somehow made us arbitrarily "more tolerant" of things like crossdressing, among others. As if a "culture" could be whatever some people wanted it to be, simply by waving a magic wand. Conversely, "prejudices" of the past are seen by some as equally arbitrary, as if they had no cause and were therefore "unjustified." We forget what conditions humans lived in in the past, and can't imagine them because we never experienced them ourselves. There are reasons why these things happen--and why they change--and they're rooted in our biological, physical and ecological environment.

The short answer is, yes! There are men who are so tightly wrapped around the axle of maleness they are incapable of any diversion. To them, "Men are Men" and "Women are Women." No deviations allowed. The same can be said of most women.

Sorry to throw cold water on one of your assumptions, MiniRock.
But, the fact is: about 95% of men have no interest in wearing female things. And, if they do? There's no lasting attraction or memory!:straightface:

In fact, I'm living proof of that! I began CDing out of the blue in my 50's. Even tho, in my 40's, my ex and I changed gender roles for a huge Halloween bash! It was a wild, crazy nite!:drink:

And, it made such a lasting impression on me, I had been dressing for 10 years and was in my 60's before recalling dressing fem at that event!:brolleyes: