Through out History Don't you think Wives Must Have known and either supported

Our Dressing or helped us hide it out of embarrassment ?

If a certain percentage of men are born with this proclivity then for several centuries we either were great at fighting our urges or it seems are wives would have had to know.

I mean women stuck spending so much time at home how could we hide the dressing from them ?

Also just getting into their corsets and petticoats would take time

Also who was sewing our dresses for us ? You didn't have online shopping . I have often thought that farmers, and cowboy husbands often probably gladly volunteered to be their wives dress dummies back in the wild west.

I really wonder how cross dressing husbands and their wives got along years ago ??

Any Thoughts would be appreciated
Attachment 303811

Women are both smart and perceptive - I doubt husbands hide much from them (and no doubt they do much for their husbands out of love)

The laws of probability say that at some point in history there was some crossdresser who had a wife like you describe.

As for your other questions there were single men who lived alone.

There were men who made dresses.

By and large crossdressers were treated as criminal, insane, or both.

Hope that answers your questions.

Bridget is spot on. Most women are born with ESP...mine was. I told her before the “I do’s”, fearing the worst. Surprisingly, she said she suspected but, thankfully, for me, it wasn’t a problem with her. We spent many hours talking and answering questions. I asked her what were her clues and tipped me off. She said she picked up on my keen interest in, especially nylon stockings and other women’s lingerie. She recalled an instance where she caught me staring at her while she was removing her pantyhose. She tossed them over to me and dared me to put them on. I guess the look on my face gave me away. Supportive wives are irreplaceable. I’m very fortunate and treasure her.

As Nancy said, accepting and supportive wives like hers and mine do exist.

So it makes sense that accepting and supportive wives existed throughout history.

BTW: Speaking of historical crossdressing. Have you ever watched the movie Elizabeth?

I would say it was about the same as it is now.

I think it was most likely to be the same as it is today, CD’ing didn’t start recently.

Aristocracy was considered much different back then.

I would think that the amount of the male population who desire to crossdress has been pretty steady thru history. However, up until quite recently, the taboo and even criminality attached to anyone actually doing it will have prevented many from dipping the toes. Society attached sin to this practice, a powerful de-motivator for much normal behavior thru history, and society's 'norms' will have also put inordinate pressure on men to bury those desires.
Lately in our culture, we have seen the growth of the web, and that has opened us all up a massive amount to knowledge of the fact that this is not aberrant behavior, at least only in the minds of the inflexible zombies out there. Now we can indulge our true feelings a lot more easily than ever, so of course many more men are doing just that. Now we can get clothes online! Now we can easily buy stuff in person from an accepting store assistant! It was a whole lot more difficult to get female clothing to wear back then, at least not without sending up the biggest rainbow colored "crossdresser" flag possible!!

Thankfully things have changed!

Robbie, I am assuming that crossdressing is a first world issue. That is, when you were working for where your next meal is was coming from, I don't think it was much of an option historically. So maybe the wealthy, but not many others. The desire may have been there, but not the opportunity.

The frequency it is thrown in the face of a man would suggest this struggle has been going on for quite some time. Maybe in the beginning there was unisex fig leaves. After that? It would seem men of yesterdays would emulate women of the same period of time. I suspect it was tougher to be a cross dresser and to accept a husband's desires than today. Wearing women clothing was criminalized. Heck, a woman wearing trousers/pants was criminalized at times. In my youth women looked down on women who wore pants. Maybe not everywhere, but, in the apartment building I lived in for twenty years I could see the evolution of acceptance.

I think there is more societal acceptance of cross dressing as other once forbidden behaviors. The entire social structure has evolved over the years. What was a woman to do if she found out her husband wore women's clothing? Most women were unable to provide for themselves....locked into a marriage of male dominance and servitude. These days a woman has the opportunity to survive away from her husband.

Sometimes_miss does make a valid point, but, what the heck would a guy find to wear in biblical days unless the passage was aimed at the wealthier classes of society. Guys wore fig leaves over their nipples to emulate women who wore them over their breasts?

I always find it interesting when a historic tv show has LGBT people, and wonder if it is our modern society projecting this onto those times. Just because it was illegal so most people would suppress any urges or do their best to hide it from others. Would a wife who found out hide the secret, probably because it would look bad for her too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robertacd

As Nancy said, accepting and supportive wives like hers and mine do exist.

So it makes sense that accepting and supportive wives existed throughout history.

BTW: Speaking of historical crossdressing. Have you ever watched the movie Elizabeth?

---

Yes Thanks, Have seen the Movie and was always a bit surprised when I first saw the Scene. As you can see she clearly enjoyed the power dynamic of catching him in women's clothing!

I'm not very imaginative, I guess. I've never thot about that or what riding a unicorn mite be like---:brolleyes:

Hey all,

If anyone is interested in reading a few books on subject matter referenced in this thread I can recommend three books, two of which were written by Neil Mc Kenna. One is titled 'Fanny & Stella' 'Two young men that shocked Victorian England.' The other is titled 'The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde.' Both books give a pretty decent look into cross-dressing and gay life style during the Victorian period. Note there were societies, somewhat secret, where members could go to dress.

The third book is titled 'Arresting Dress' by Clare Sears. The subject matter is cross-dressing, law and fascination in nineteenth century San Francisco.

Cassidy

Thanks so much Cassidy.

I guess we will never really know how most Crossdressers lived the last several hundred years and how many got to experience Dresses and petticoats at least once

If I recall I remember seeing pictures of the early presidents in history books in high school, and many tv shows that showed how the aristocrats dressed back in England and the ones that came to America. The guys had ruffles on their sleeves, their heel of their shoes were tall and blocky. I've seen many wearing hats with long feathers stick out. In my classes on animals the males are the ones that have the longest brilliant colored feathers and are the brightest and strutting their stuff especially in the turkeys, peacocks, and various other avian species. This is for excistence as the females were the drab, matching the land no colored ones. This was for preservation. Fast forward to the Indian Tribes here when folks started settling our lands in America the Chiefs were the brightest most decorated feathers and they were usually the oldest and wisest ones of the tribe. The early plantation owners had silky shirts we learned from visiting the eastern states once on a vacation when I was young growing up. The women I saw pictures of we're all in bonnets and looked like flour sack dresses. I think modern males have been the ones to change this and we says crossdressers let it happen somewhat by tv commercials and neat rebids that came out in the name of marketing. The male became lazy and no longer dressed to impress the female so that he might be the one chosen to breed the best female for what many thought was survival of the fittest and fittest off spring.... These are just my thoughts on this but it is still this way in nature. Guess nature didn't follow the trends of magazines n movies. Just thinking out loud.

Just another thing we will never really be able to find an answer to.
We have always been a very small percentage of the population.

Does rather beg the question of how many of my countrymen were drawn to the theatre to play female roles before female actors were allowed following the Restoration in the late 1600s. 🤔

[SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE]

Also Gretchen made a salient point in a thread of mine wondering if we're seeing these shifts now as there's never been a time in history when the traditional division of labour has been less relevant and so might this be allowing for societal even potential genetic shifts.
One person's disadvantage is another's advantage.
Take my wife. She has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a genetic defect of her collegen. A mutation that forms the basis of her disabilities. But the laxity of her joints that comes as a result meant she was a superb gymnast and it probably saved her life in a major car crash that broke her neck and back in several places.
Naturally it's hereditary and not so destructive a mutation to ensure its own obsolescence.
It is however a bitch to live with. Still, she's 56 and that's not bad considering cardiac vascular deficiencies in mayn with EDS.
Sorry to ramble but I too wonder if we're seeing an environmentally motivated genetic shift.

We are also looking at history through the skewed lens of modern bias. Most of other times and other cultures had very different perspectives on things. Recently, a viking skeleton was discovered buried with weapons and armor, evidence of battle injuries on the bones. Everything looked like a male burial site but they were female bones. Don't think that your 25 mile radius viewpoint applies to the rest of the world.

Not just through history, what about geographically ? If CDing is a human condition the there must be crossdressers in countries where being gay or a crossdresser would potentially be a death sentence or prison at the least, definitely illegal. It would be very difficult & dangerous to act on your desires in those countries (mentioning no names). We're lucky to be living in a first world society with the laws & attitudes we enjoy without fear of the authorities finding out.

I feel that the situation was the same as it is now.

Maybe a slightly different perception and these days it is more acceptable to dress up.

Hi again,

In a further effort to hopefully help out with information regarding this thread, I'll offer up an additional book titled 'Cross-dressing, Sex and Gender' by Vern L, and Bonnie Bullough. Part I of the book discusses Cultural and Historical Background. There are specific references in the sub headings to sixteenth century and earlier information as well as later centuries. Part II is 20th century information.

Two movies that may shed some light on the subject are 'Shakespeare in Love' and 'Stage Beauty' The latter movie concerns itself with the reign of Charles II of England and his passage of the law allowing women to play women's parts in theatrical performances. The movie also suggests Charles II was a cross-dresser.

I hope this is helpful to those wishing to purse the 'early days.'

Cassidy