Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 70 of 70

Thread: a sister gone off the deep end

  1. #51
    Banned Read only
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    4,638
    There is an upside here as I don't think the lady will be reproducing...

  2. #52
    Rust Member trisha59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walking on the left side towards traffic
    Posts
    2,501
    I say with all honesty I am in awe of the intelligence of the people on this forum and the comments they make. I know I am out of my league when discussions such as these come up. All I have to work with is my C average schooling to work with. With that in mind I'm confused here. This forum is filled with posts about being honest and telling your SO. To lie and keep things secret is wrong. Advice I take very seriously.

    So please explain why a scenario such as this does not violate the prime directive of not lying to your SO.
    I purposely put in the word scenario because I am not necessarily talking about this one incident.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC][SIZE="3"]Wild Women Never Get The Blues[/SIZE]

  3. #53
    Senban
    Guest
    BattyBattyBats said - "Reasonable to Inform of the choice and maybe even the contemplation of the choice yes, I already said as much myself but Need to Involve in the making of the choice? No. Discuss with? Sure thats an option. Even ask the opinions of. But allow the other to have a say in the decison? To have a veto? To require negotiation about? No. Not with cancer treatment nor with dental work nor with a haircut. The principle is clear and unchanged from the minutia to the ultimate life and death decisions. This is a legal point, its a human rights point, its a philosophical point."

    Well yes and no. I agree with many of your points but some aren't quite as clear cut so I'll take them one at a time.

    "Need to involve in the making of the choice". No, absolutely not and yet if we don't then we have no reason to cry about it when our SO is unhappy about being cut out of the decision-making process. While the choice is ultimately that of the individual, to say it doesn't affect anyone and their opinions and needs can be ignored seems.....odd.

    "Discuss with". Again, this really seems to be the same point as the one above .

    "Ask the opinions of" is again sort of the same point so let's group it with the above two points.

    "Allow the other to have a say in the decison To have a veto". I'll say again that I think that ultimately it's the choice of the individual to make but if they have an SO e.g. a wife, then they have a moral obligation to discuss such a fundamentally life/relationship changing event. The SO may not be able to exercise some form of veto but they can make an informed decision as to whether they choose to remain in the relationship. Apart from anything, consider what has apparently happened here. There is now a divorce in the offing. Under these circumstances, the TG will be eaten alive by the SO's lawyers on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour and everything will end up in the SO's hands. If there had been discussion and honesty, the whole separation might have been far more amicable and less destructive and possibly even avoided entirely.

    "To require negotiation about". Actually what if the SO had said she would support the transition but asked if it could wait for six months until little Johnny was past his exams and so wouldn't have the extra strain of dealing with the events. Would that not be a justifiable type of negotiation? That's one example, I can think of several.

    So let me repeat. While it is the right of the individual to make any final decision, if the making of such a decision will affect the lives of others to such an extent (comparing it to a haircut is ludicrous, sorry) then there is a moral obligation to keep all affected parties in the loop at all times.

    I try to look at situations and imagine myself in them. I imagine myself taking action like this and then imagine how my GF would feel and act. As much as I try to see both sides of an event no matter what it is, in this case I know that she'd be absolutely gutted that I'd kept her out of the loop, she'd realise that the relationship existed in name only and she'd quite rightly decide to cut me out of her life as is her right and frankly I wouldn't blame her.

    The person in question, IMHO and admittedly only based on the few facts we have, has shown nothing but utter disdain for the SO and their marriage and deserves the coming repercussions. They obviously weighed up the pros and cons of their decision and made their choice accordingly. I respect their individual freedoms to do so but I think they forgot that any decision they make has an outcome; in this case the outcome was the loss of their marriage. We can only assume they realised that possibility beforehand and decided to go ahead anyway and that speaks volumes. If anything, my suspicion is that this was done to force the situation into a position where it had to be dealt with one way or another rather than linger as a possibility

  4. #54
    Banned Read only
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by trisha59 View Post
    So please explain why a scenario such as this does not violate the prime directive of not lying to your SO.
    I purposely put in the word scenario because I am not necessarily talking about this one incident.
    This particular case, if it's true (and the jury is still out on that) it violates EVERY rule of trust in the universe.
    I'm sorry...but I have zero empathy for the person who went to Taiwan.
    Last edited by MarcieM; 02-20-2009 at 09:48 PM.

  5. #55
    Banned Read only battybattybats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    3,091
    Quote Originally Posted by trisha59 View Post
    With that in mind I'm confused here. This forum is filled with posts about being honest and telling your SO. To lie and keep things secret is wrong. Advice I take very seriously.

    So please explain why a scenario such as this does not violate the prime directive of not lying to your SO.
    I purposely put in the word scenario because I am not necessarily talking about this one incident.
    If honesty with ones spouse is as important as many here claim it is (and I'm saying this as an idealist who is a lot more honest than most people according to psychologists I know) then I'd like the 1 in 3 SO's here who cheat on their partners to fess up. Cause about 1 in 3 of men and women cheat on their spouse and I've heard of no reason why the wives of CDs would be dissproportinate in that. Same with the CDs. And I'm pretty sure the stat is way higher for those who have concealed much of their past sexual activity though I don't recal it offhand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Senban View Post
    BattyBattyBats said - "Reasonable to Inform of the choice and maybe even the contemplation of the choice yes, I already said as much myself but Need to Involve in the making of the choice? No. Discuss with? Sure thats an option. Even ask the opinions of. But allow the other to have a say in the decison? To have a veto? To require negotiation about? No. Not with cancer treatment nor with dental work nor with a haircut. The principle is clear and unchanged from the minutia to the ultimate life and death decisions. This is a legal point, its a human rights point, its a philosophical point."

    Well yes and no. I agree with many of your points but some aren't quite as clear cut so I'll take them one at a time.
    Cool.

    "Need to involve in the making of the choice". No, absolutely not and yet if we don't then we have no reason to cry about it when our SO is unhappy about being cut out of the decision-making process. While the choice is ultimately that of the individual, to say it doesn't affect anyone and their opinions and needs can be ignored seems.....odd.
    And yet it is so utterly important that everyone respect this boundary. When it comes to shared resources, shared possessions then each must have a say. Over a persons own body? We should be outraged that anyone ever think they have a say in that decision! Make suggestions, say 'if it were me' etc is fine but to be upset not to be part of the final decision is to disrespect the partner at the most fundamental level possible!

    Sure others are effected by a persons choice for themselves, but it is not a fair nor valid thing for us to extend ourselves over anothers boundaries. It'd be like being upset with the colour a neighbour painted their bedroom interior walls in.

    Its natural for us to have emotional reactions to others choices and preferances for others decisions for themselves but it can never be valid for us to have a say over them!

    "Discuss with". Again, this really seems to be the same point as the one above .

    "Ask the opinions of" is again sort of the same point so let's group it with the above two points.
    Each though is seperate in it's field. Discussions involve exploring an issue often broadly and asking for opinions means to literally seek to consider their personal view and both may be considered but both may also be rejected. A say in the actual decision however is different.

    "Allow the other to have a say in the decison To have a veto". I'll say again that I think that ultimately it's the choice of the individual to make but if they have an SO e.g. a wife, then they have a moral obligation to discuss such a fundamentally life/relationship changing event.
    I've already said it is the wisest course of action under most circumstances, but that is different from a moral obligation. Explain the principle of the WHY you think it is a moral obligation please.

    The SO may not be able to exercise some form of veto but they can make an informed decision as to whether they choose to remain in the relationship.
    Oh very much absolutely! That is definately the case!

    Apart from anything, consider what has apparently happened here. There is now a divorce in the offing. Under these circumstances, the TG will be eaten alive by the SO's lawyers on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour and everything will end up in the SO's hands.
    Unreasonable behaviour? I had no idea your divorce laws were still full of such injustice and archaic nonsense! Either partner should be free to leave at a moments notice from a marriage for any reason whatsoever. Personal assets should remain such, shared assets split equally. Custody based on purely the best interests of the child. Only if one side has been economically or otherwise abusive of the other should such things become involved. The kind of punatative system you describe is itself a great injustice.

    If there had been discussion and honesty, the whole separation might have been far more amicable and less destructive and possibly even avoided entirely.
    Indeed. that makes it wise. But wise is seperate from ethical or moral. We can judge someone as bad for being unethical, but being unwise is merely worthy of pity not scorn.

    "To require negotiation about". Actually what if the SO had said she would support the transition but asked if it could wait for six months until little Johnny was past his exams and so wouldn't have the extra strain of dealing with the events. Would that not be a justifiable type of negotiation? That's one example, I can think of several.
    Require again is different from it being wise to take up an option. If the wife suggests that is a better way to do it and the husband agrees that is good. If the husband can only transition with the wives pernission following negotiation that is abuse. The difference is important. And a TS may not be able to wait if the GID crisis is severer and current.

    So let me repeat. While it is the right of the individual to make any final decision, if the making of such a decision will affect the lives of others to such an extent (comparing it to a haircut is ludicrous, sorry) then there is a moral obligation to keep all affected parties in the loop at all times.
    You are making an error by suggesting that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the severity of its impact. Its still right or wrong just more impactfully right or wrong. Stealing a single bisuit is still stealling. It's stealling less than a billion dollers and so has less impact but it is still stealing and both can be compared as different degrees of the same crime.

    All decisions effect others. But we are only bound to respect the effects on others rights, not neccessarily their emotions. Otherwise we should never have let women be the equals of men under law because that upset the emotions of some men! Justice, fairness and Right itself requires that this be so! Sometimes it is right to act within ones rights no matter how much emotional upset it causes but would be wrong to restrict ones actions within ones rights because of those emotions. As every civil rights cause has proven as every one has upset people.

    I try to look at situations and imagine myself in them. I imagine myself taking action like this and then imagine how my GF would feel and act. As much as I try to see both sides of an event no matter what it is, in this case I know that she'd be absolutely gutted that I'd kept her out of the loop, she'd realise that the relationship existed in name only and she'd quite rightly decide to cut me out of her life as is her right and frankly I wouldn't blame her.
    Puting yourself in the shoes of others can only work so far as not everyone has the same size and shape feet.

    The person in question, IMHO and admittedly only based on the few facts we have, has shown nothing but utter disdain for the SO and their marriage and deserves the coming repercussions.
    You are making presumptions of intent. Thats very dangerous when evaluating anothers thoughts and actions. It's simplistic and ignores psychological issues which effect decision making and thinking.

    They obviously weighed up the pros and cons of their decision and made their choice accordingly.
    Do you have any idea how few decisions humans make like that? Not only are you assuming they considered pros and cons rather than acting on instinct or inner drive but your also assuming they had the capacity to rationally evaluate them clearly free of any other influnces (like a gender identity disorder crisis! GID being after all the reason people usually get SRS is it not?)

    I respect their individual freedoms to do so but I think they forgot that any decision they make has an outcome;
    Forgot? Maybe.
    Made bad assumptions possibly, perhaps based on prior paterns of behaviour, such as the SO might leave or prevent her from getting the surgery if she revealed it in advance but might accept it if it had already been done which while we are assured the opposite would be the case may be an understable fear... I'm reminded of a friend who was afraid to go anywhere at all alone even in broad daylight, she'd been raped on no less than 7 different occassions in her teens so her fear is quite understandable. The pattern of her life thus far has given her unconcious an unrealistic view of the odds of being assaulted.
    There are many possible motivations for the TSs actions. If my friend is scared to be with a single male friend in the mall in case he has to go to the toilet leaving her alone where she may be raped waiting for him in public we may easilly say that it is an irational fear as the chances she will be raped in a busy shopping mall in daylight is extraordinarily low, but given her past experiences surely anyone can understand why she may have this irrational fear and therfore act based on that fear regarding the circumstances she goes into town in?

    in this case the outcome was the loss of their marriage.
    And if a spouse insists on overiding the bodily autonomy of their partner with an insistance of having a say over the final decision should we not expect that the ending of such a marriage may be possible?

    We can only assume they realised that possibility beforehand and decided to go ahead anyway and that speaks volumes.
    No, we cannot make that assumption! Nor can we assume that it was wrong for them to take such a risk by going ahead anyway!

    Example: confessing to being a CD may also risk the loss of a marriage. Should then a closeted Cd only just becoming able to admit to themselves that they are a CD then hide it perpetually from their wife because of te possible loss of the marriage??? Your argument says YES!

    I'm reminded of the philosophy/psychology thought-experiment on intent where if a CEO says that they will go ahead with a project because they dont care about the environment and are only there to make profit even though it may harm the environment most people say that he intentionally hurt the environment whereas if its a project which will help the environment but he says hes doing it only to make money etc they day he is unintentionally helping the environment. Both are exactly the same! But most people hold a double-standard based on perceptions of the consequences!

    If anything, my suspicion is that this was done to force the situation into a position where it had to be dealt with one way or another rather than linger as a possibility
    That is indeed possible.

  6. #56
    Banned Read only
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by battybattybats View Post
    You are making an error by suggesting that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the severity of its impact.
    Oh my...another unnecessarily long and rambling post by battybattybattybatty.
    First let me ask - Do you believe everything you read on this forum?
    I sure don't, and I'd be willing to bet most people here don't.
    So, with that being said - is this story even legit?
    IF it is (and that's a big IF)...there should be no debating this issue. It's an open and shut case.

    A married man goes to Taiwan under the pretense of a teaching job, but the real motive, unbeknownst to his wife, is to have SRS.
    And a TS may not be able to wait if the GID crisis is severe and current.
    A gender identity crisis you might say? Sorry, I don't buy it. A heart attack, a severed limb, getting hit by a train...these are all crisis situations that require immediate medical attention. Gender identity is not a condition that requires immediate medical attention.

    Any individual who makes a choice like this, has zero concern for his wife or others, and is fully endorsing 100% selfishness. IMHO, this person deserves no support from anyone. This person does deserve other things I probably shouldn't list here.
    Last edited by MarcieM; 02-21-2009 at 01:08 PM.

  7. #57
    Platinum Member Sheila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    12,386
    Quote Originally Posted by MarcieM View Post
    I'm sorry...but I have zero empathy for the person who went to Taiwan.
    Apparently you have Zero empathy for any members of this forum .... but there again I may be wrong u never know
    I allow myself to set healthy boundaries ..... to say no to what does not align with my values, to say yes to what does.
    Boundaries assist me to remain healthy, honest and living a life that is true to me

  8. #58
    Banned Read only
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheila View Post
    Apparently you have Zero empathy for any members of this forum .... but there again I may be wrong u never know
    This is true...you "may" be wrong.

  9. #59
    Ain't love grand :-) Jess_cd32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by kym View Post
    the really sad part is she would have supported him and been there through the surgery if he consulted her about it.
    This post is as far as I've read so far, she wanted out of the relationship if you ask me, very easy to see. As you said, divorce is in the works, how much you wanna bet she's someone's wife down the road. I think thats what she really wanted from the git go.
    What she did to her wife is inexcusable IMHO, I really feel for her

  10. #60
    Aspiring Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northern Nevada
    Posts
    830
    If I had been this sisters friend, I would now be this sisters ex-friend.
    This sister did more than destroy the trust in her relationship, she ripped it to shreds. I feel that anyone who would do that to her so would find it even easier to do something similar to someone else. For just one example if you were still in the closet would you trust this person with your secret?

  11. #61
    the inner beauty waiting kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    greensboro nc, wilmington nc, and in the fantasy land of your mind
    Posts
    325
    Marcie M sees my point in posting this, and for once i completely agree with her.

    NV lady your right on target as well. thanks ladies for supporting my position in this post.
    when in doubt, dress

  12. #62
    Vegas Domme rickie121x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas NV
    Posts
    416

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by flatlander_48 View Post
    There is an upside here as I don't think the lady will be reproducing...
    ...either one of them, actually!
    "Who's around your TV is more important than how big it is...." Dr. Phil
    http://profiles.urnotalone.com/54617
    http://www.frappr.com/?a=myphotos&id=1265395

  13. #63
    Administrator Tamara Croft's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    27,770
    Anymore bickering in this thread and I will close it, if you want to bitch, take it to PM.
    Administrator

    Missing my Libra babe Sherlyn, I hope she's rocking up there with the angels
    Missing our Rianna, doesn't seem right, gone to early, hope she's partying with Sherlyn

  14. #64
    Banned Read only battybattybats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    3,091
    Quote Originally Posted by MarcieM
    A married man goes to Taiwan under the pretense of a teaching job, but the real motive, unbeknownst to his wife, is to have SRS.
    A gender identity crisis you might say? Sorry, I don't buy it.
    Such crises do occur. They often result in self-harm as well as suicide attempts, mental breakdowns and the like. Try this for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money#David_Reimer

    A heart attack, a severed limb, getting hit by a train...these are all crisis situations that require immediate medical attention. Gender identity is not a condition that requires immediate medical attention.
    Often it is not and yet often it very much precisely is. I suggest you start here http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/06/...and-brain.html and you'll find much more on the blog.

    Mental health also has it's crises, not just physical health.

    For those wishing to understand more on the nature of intention and judgement of others intention and philosophy and psychology I suggest this:
    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemin...09/2493436.htm if you can't download the podacst the transcript will be up at that link in a matter of days.

  15. #65
    Lingerie Lover RachelDenise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,960
    I believe this is the secret (or not so secret) fear of many SO's and GG's. A major cluster F@*#.
    Rachel Denise

    [SIZE="2"]“One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. ‘Which road do I take?’ she asked. His response was a question: “Where do you want to go?’ ‘I don’t know,’ answered Alice. ‘Then,’ said the cat, ‘it doesn’t matter.' "
    - Lewis Carroll
    [/SIZE]

  16. #66
    Platinum Member Angie G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    just west of syracuse n.y.
    Posts
    22,887
    That was just cold She must be one of the ME ME ME types with no regard to others. I'd say a creep. and some other off color names.
    Angie
    Last edited by Angie G; 02-22-2009 at 09:54 AM.

  17. #67
    Banned Read only
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Angie G View Post
    That was just cold She must be one of the ME ME ME types with no regard to others. I'd say a creep. and some other off color names.
    Angie
    I'd say you're absolutely correct with your evaluation of this individual. zero regard for others is not the way to go about doing this type of thing.

  18. #68
    Administrator Tamara Croft's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    27,770

    Thumbs down Shameful...

    Quote Originally Posted by Angie G View Post
    That was just cold She must be one of the ME ME ME types with no regard to others. I'd say a creep. and some other off color names.
    Angie
    Wow that's tollerant of you isn't it? You don't even know this person, yet you're already calling her names and then some. What gives any of you the right to judge this person when you don't even know her? For all we know, this could all be

    You know, I'm really sick of this thread, I've never know such a bunch of intollerant people in all my life and I'm disgusted that you, MTF's of all people, sit there and judge a person, when the majority of you have lied for years to your own wife/partner etc about your CDing... pot.. kettle.. black...
    Administrator

    Missing my Libra babe Sherlyn, I hope she's rocking up there with the angels
    Missing our Rianna, doesn't seem right, gone to early, hope she's partying with Sherlyn

  19. #69
    Semi Sane innocent angel
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Somer were deep in California
    Posts
    6,896
    Ok I might me out there , but this is not a person I would condem but a person I'd reach out . The alternative could of been death . Would girls prefer that ? Its seems that people here can't make the coloration. Have ever met some that would rather die then live as man ? Judging by the response I'd say no. That’s just how I feel . I've seen Trans women at their worst. When a person feels like they have to do so me thing or the alternative is death , that is a powerful motivation.
    That's what got me out dressing , and eventually the need to transition. Having .357 with the chamber open and a box of ammo out , thinking what should I do. When you girls reach that point come talk to me , then you can condemn that person. My depression and thoughts of suicide is not some thing I talk about often because it takes me back a dark place I don't want to be . I thought might post this since the majority seems that they can't won't understand what's like to be at the edge .


    Now I need to address the tone of this thread. I'm going to say few things that is going to piss a lot of people off in this thread but it needs to be said .

    You girls are some the cold hearted uncaring unsympathetic
    Group I've ever met . When Babby Batts attempts to explain her position she gets personally attract. I don't agree with a lot of stuff she says but I'm adult enough to ignore it or debate it like an adult . Seems like you girls have a narrow view of life and can't except any thing out side that view. I'm not just talking about trans issues. When one o f the girls was having a hard time with her l and lord and paying the rent. You girls were like pay the rent you dead beat. This thread i s no different. You take a point a of view and then berate the person that not doing some thing you feel is right. God help you if you girls fall on hard time . I've seen more compassion from a macho dumb jock then what I see here .
    Business is the the art of extracting money from another mans wallet with out resorting to violence

    9 out of 10 Dr say I'm sane. The 10th one never made it to the hearing. Did you know that California has drop bears ?


    First a groom then a bride. Never again.

  20. #70
    Unofficial CD Mom Holly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In between states.
    Posts
    8,041
    Poke this thread with a fork... it is done. This is probably the best example of bad behavior I have seen around here in a long, long time ... personal attacks, gross assumptions, all the things we detest in our own RL and out they come here. If you can't post your own thoughts without personally attacking another poster then DON'T POST. From the forum rules, "All members of the forum have the right to post and reply to posts and generally take advantage of the features of the forum without abuse from other members. If the board Administrators and/or moderators believe that any abuse is taking place, the offender will be warned and their posts may be moderated. If the abuse continues, the offending member will be removed from the forum for 7 days. If on return, the abuse still continues, the offending member will be removed from the forum permanently." If you have something to personally say to another member, take it to PM.
    Fulltime girl on the inside.
    Lipstick=confidence

    [SIZE=4]Holly[/SIZE]

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Check out these other hot web properties:
Catholic Personals | Jewish Personals | Millionaire Personals | Unsigned Artists | Crossdressing Relationship
BBW Personals | Latino Personals | Black Personals | Crossdresser Chat | Crossdressing QA
Biker Personals | CD Relationship | Crossdressing Dating | FTM Relationship | Dating | TG Relationship


The crossdressing community is one that needs to stick together and continue to be there for each other for whatever one needs.
We are always trying to improve the forum to better serve the crossdresser in all of us.

Browse Crossdressers By State