Family comes first. Do what you can to help improve the marriage. When and if you feel the moment has come, take the avenue toward your crossdressing and tell her again. Get her on this site to show her that crossdressing doesn't change the man that you are unless having more sensitivty than the average man counts. Let her see the benefits of having a cd SO.
Put a little lipstick on you'll feel better
I speak this from experience my new friend,
This problem will never be worked out unless she finds a level of acceptance or you actually quit cding.
I know that's not a lot to go on and it's a little direct, but I think a lot of time is spent trying to fix a situation using the wrong tools. Ultimatus on one side and sneaking around on the other side are not the tools needed to fix this situation.
dann
"It's a great big white world, if we are drained of our colors."
"Think for yourself. Question authority"
Its not a issue with me. I'm just stating the unfairness of it all!Originally Posted by Karen564
I could care less!
i was trying to point out in my original post here not just the clothes, but all of the other things we do to emulate women. when fully dressed it would be in my mind similar to a woman taking something to grow lots of body hair, have facial hair, take up male mannerisms, stuff their pants in front, male interests, etc. it seems as if most of us want a female persona in our SO's. more interested in a girlfriend relationship than a girl boy with our wife/SO as the boy. the more i think about the prospect of my wife doing all that if she could/would is not appealing. so this is a first for me thinking in terms of this. hmmm. even in private for sex this would have zero appeal to me. any thoughts. havent seen anything posted on this subject here, maybe it deserves its own thread.
Happiness is a choice.
I pointed that out before in a thread, but had no takers, so I took that as a no, just don't believe that it wouldn't appeal to most of them in the slightest, but does appear that they don't think twice about wanting their wives to accept them as female for some reason..
[SIZE=3]Karen[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]I really do have the...Right To Be Wrong.. [/SIZE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkSTG...eature=channel [SIZE=2]and my mistakes will make me strong![/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Just call out my name...and I'll come running...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SxTo...eature=related just lovin classic JT again...[/SIZE]
It's very presumptuous of her to assume that she has any right to "take the kids". Most courts would not see the situation this way- the greatest danger for most of us would be our employment and losing your employment would not help her or the kids in the least. Sounds like a nuclear standoff and that she is demanding you sacrifice yourself for her moral values to me. Yes- both people have a right to state their positions but CDing is not something that is mutually exclusive to the "kids and family come first" like say drug addiction or excessive spending. I equate that position with the "think of the children" bs which is most often used by those who wish to suppress others not because it's helpful to anyone but just because they feel they can get away with it. Do you and your your wife understand how fundamental this is to your sense of self?
By the way, as others have said on a different thread and having thought about it a bit if I were to become the female in the family and my wife the male I don't think it would bother me one bit. Which is odd, very odd but also very true at least in the abstact. Certainly if she wanted to explore this in a non-confrontational way I would have no problems with it.
Last edited by lavistaa62; 12-28-2009 at 10:49 PM.
The job issue that you mention should not be a problem as long as you don't CD at work, however when you are not at work you can CD if you wish. Some folks also belong to nudist colonies when they are not at work and this is no different than CDing. If you want to be safe, just don't CD at work.
Jamie
You will become stronger in the ways of the Pink Fog. May the Pink Fog guide you and be with you now and forever.
Heaping a lot of judgment on a wife we've never met there. The thing about crossdressing in a family is that only one person directly benefits from it. When/if it works out great, but it doesn't always work out. Support on our end doesn't always have to be, "me me me". It can also be, "Wow that sucks, hang in there. You can do it". Cheap advise when it isn't our marriage and family on the line is .......cheap.
(Bridget, reply to you is further down)
Karen, re-examine your previous posting:
Do you see the difference between that and what you just wrote? The first posted says "typically male mind" and the newer says "female mind". You appear to have gotten confused by The Fallacy Of The Excluded Middle: you have set up the logical premise that the only choices are "typically male" and "female", and that no-one can be anything else other than those two things.
If you review my response to you, you will see that no-where in my response did I claim to have a typical female mind: what I said was that the assessment of professionals is that I do not have a typical mind, and in particular that I do not fit the typical male pattern. If one does not adhere to The Law Of The Excluded Middle when it comes to gender, then that leaves me as at a minimum being an atypical male, and quite possibly as being some mix of male and female. In either case, the mind that "the old goat" is "showing off" is not one that is "typically male", what-ever it may be.
If you review my past postings, you will find that I do not identify as either typical male or as TS (and medical professionals do not consider me to be either of those): I identify as non-polarized gender-fluid; the approximate label (if one is going to label at all) would probably be "androgynous"; as, though, I feel that label to have overtones that are not appropriate to me, I usually just shorten it to saying that I am TG.
What, all of it? Or just some parts of it? For example, are you, in making that statement, making the claim that I was incorrect when I said,
in response to Acadeca saying,
That is, are you claiming that it is true all over the world that in every case where a wife is "straight", that she "needs a masculine man" at least as much as her husband needs to dress? If so, then is your claim evidentially based, or is your claim based upon your personal definition of "straight" -- i.e., that any wife who does not "need a masculine man" as much as the husband needs to dress, is, de facto, not "straight" ?
=====
Bridget's response came in while I was writing my previous response. The following is not intended to be thematically connected to my response to Karen, but the rules on avoiding multi-posting require that I edit it into the existing response:
I agree to some extent: there have been a number of firm opinions expressed without knowing the complete facts or hearing the other point of view; opinions formed without proper context are seldom the best of advice. On the other hand, the original poster stated some facts about the situation, and it is not inappropriate to make judgments based upon those facts (separated from the original poster's interpretation of the facts) if those facts are sufficiently stark. This process does, though, require that we believe that the original poster stated those facts correctly, that the poster's wife did in fact say what the original poster posted as having transpired. For the most part, we (in general) do not expect forum posters to deliberately lie on serious matters -- though we recognize that it has happened in the past and will likely happen again in the future. I notice that no-one here has expressed doubt about whether the original poster's wife did really say what was claimed: there has, though, been a considerable diversity of opinion as to priorities and appropriate and responsible reactions under the assumption that the original posting was telling the truth.
That's an interesting insight that I don't recall seeing expressed before, and one that I shall think about more in the future.
The main difficulty that comes to my mind upon reflection upon it, is that one could substitute any of a number of things for "crossdressing" and the statement would still be true.
For example, my job skills do not happen to be in carpentry or plumbing or any of the building trades such that I could directly (personally) build or refurbish our house for my wife's benefit; hence what I do for a living and the money I earn for doing it do not directly benefit my wife, only me. (There is some overlap between the kinds of work that she and I do, and I assist her from time to time by teaching her or pointing her in the right direction -- but that too is only an indirect benefit to her of my job-related skills.)
Similarly, nearly any daily activity I perform is not directly for my wife's benefit. About all I can think of at the moment that lies within my skills and would be directly for her benefit, is cooking, and light medical treatment (e.g., massages if she has hurt herself.)
I did buy the house (completely funded and paid off by myself), which is to her direct benefit, but the direct activities there consisted only of deciding on the offer value, signing the offer, and signing the purchase and mortgage papers -- only about 2 hours of direct activities, and that about 7 years ago. The cross-dressing has kept me sane and healthy enough to hold down a job to be able to afford the upkeep and improvements on the house and contents thereof, is, as you correctly point out, not a direct benefit to her, for all that it has enabled me to improve her "quality of life".
Thus, although what you wrote is interesting and evocative, at the moment (and it is fairly late and I'm tired), it seems to me that in a typical modern urban marriage (especially where both partners are earning a decent wage), that there isn't really all that much that a husband can do that is directly for the benefit of the wife. Which, unfortunately, seems to "wash out" the cross-dressing component of the evocation.
Last edited by sandra-leigh; 12-29-2009 at 01:13 AM. Reason: add response to newer posting
OK, enough is enough, Your post is making me very dizzy....lol
So what your saying is you have neither the mind of a male or a female, and more like somewhere in between then, maybe???....
All I know now from your latest post is, besides making my head spin, is that you have way more issues that I ever had...and I that I feel very sorry for you in some strange way, and wish I could help you in some way too, but I know I cant, because what's wrong is far beyond my knowledge..
Take care..
[SIZE=3]Karen[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]I really do have the...Right To Be Wrong.. [/SIZE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkSTG...eature=channel [SIZE=2]and my mistakes will make me strong![/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Just call out my name...and I'll come running...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SxTo...eature=related just lovin classic JT again...[/SIZE]
If the wife is fine with it, who cares what she is? But THIS particular wife is turned off by it. But according to you, she, not the CDer, has to adjust and change.
As far as your talk about definitions: Hey, why should CDers not be the one to broaden their definition of femininity and just wear jeans, a t-shirt, and old sneakers, as many females do? This would be a good compromise that would doubtless make the SO much happier?
Of course, that's not what most CDers want. They want to be FEMININE, to wear fancy dresses. And similarly, the wives who don't accept CDing want a MASCULINE husband. If the husband had been honest from the start, if he had told her about how his femme identity and all, both parties could have gone their separate ways and pursued other partners who would have made them happier. But the CDer wasn't willing to do that. How is the resulting problem now his wife's fault?
It's not the wife's fault. But, the CDer can only stop by becoming depressed, moody, etc. If that's acceptable to both parties, then fine. The other options are divorce, or some sort of acceptance on her part.
Have you asked HER that - in these words?
"I don't mind living in a man's world, as long as I can be a woman in it." — Marilyn Monroe
Acceptance on her part can also result in depression, moodiness, etc--for the same reasons. And "some kind of" reduction in dressing on the part of the CD is also an option.
Yeah, with the proviso that I might be one of the people for whom even "in between" is not right either. There are some people who can reasonably be understood as being positioned somewhere on a line between "male" and "female", but it isn't clear yet that I am one of them. Describing me is probably going to require multiple dimensions in a non-Riemann geometry
Thank you for your note of concern. I do not disagree with anything you wrote there. You are correct, I have multiple difficult issues in my life. I'm working on them from multiple angles, and attempting to fix what I can and attempting to adapt to what is beyond my control.
So... can we now agree that if your experiences and thoughts lead you to disagree with something I say, that it would be better to say that you disagree rather than to say that what I wrote should not be paid attention to?
I suggest, Acadeca, that you review what I actually wrote and what I did not write.
You wrote that "She needs a masculine husband as much as you need to dress", and you did so without apparent evidence as to the extent of the original poster's need to dress. My response was to point out that for some of us (and by extension, possibly the original poster), the need to dress is very high indeed. Call it a "biological defect" or a "brain disorder" if you need to in order to understand the situation: some of us literally get sick (in a measurable medical sense for some of us!) if we do not cross-dress.
Can you cite anything in the posting that originated this thread, or in anything posted previously by the original poster, that allows you to make an absolute statement that the original poster's wife needs a "masculine husband" to the point of being incapacitated if her husband is not sufficiently "masculine" ? If not, then you are going on supposition or stereotypes or myth.
I am not aware of having made any comment in this thread about what the original poster's wife should or should not do.
You made an absolute statement that presumed detailed knowledge of both the wife and the husband's internal mental states and biological conditions, and offered no supporting evidence for that absolute statement. I addressed the incorrectness of making that absolute statement without clear definition of terms. That doesn't mean that I agree with the husband; nor does it mean that I disagree with the wife: it means I disagree with the making of unclear absolute statements, especially ones not backed by evidence.
Irrelevant to this thread since there is no indication that the OPs wife has ever seen him dressed or there has been any discussion about the degree of emulation involved, if any.
This thread revolves around the FEAR that many women feel at the very idea that a man might want to embrace and express feminine feelings. This fear is based on preconceptions of sexual stereotypes of what constitutes a man.
The OP has a choice to either play along and present a false image of himself being a "real man" to keep his wife's sensitivities happy, or he needs to find a way to get his wife to look inward and address her transphobia. This will most likely need third party assistance and is probably the only route open where both of them can remain happy in the relationship.
And both of them deserve happiness. Any scenario where one has to sacrifice themselves just to please the other will only destroy the relationship.
Dina i'm with you ..i do belive that women have all the power..
Man i feel like a woman!
It saeem like the right thing at right time I told my wife all about crossdressing just when we start to get serious with each other, after a few month of dating and before we got the thought of getting married and it worked well for us
As a society we've now grown to the point where most people accept that being gay or lesbian is something that people are born with--it's not a mental illness or something deviant. In a similar way, I didn't sit down one day and choose to become a crossdresser! Rather, I just simply recognized that there is a feminine part of my being. I also recognized that supressing that part has had some very negative consequences to me and the people around me. I onlt hope some day most people will accept that hetero-sexual crossdressing isn't a mental illness that needs to be cured or some deviant sexual behavior and that some people are 'born to be crossdressers' just like some people are born to be musicians, poets.
Most people either do tolerate or do not care one way or another. It's way less than the majority that that keeps people shaking in their boots. Seems like enough though. It also occurs to me that the majority of people who blame unaccepting society seem to be doing it from the safety of the closet or from behind closed doors. ( Not singling any one person out here... just a thought.)
Kelly
Last edited by kellycan27; 12-31-2009 at 09:27 PM.
Can YOU find any evidence that a MAJORITY cross dressers absolutely to dress--or they'll become ill? It's hard to tell from this forum,because abstinent CDers are unlikely to hang out here. But even on crossdressers.com, I've seen posts from several abstinent CDers, including Bridget. They admit that it's difficult, and they think about it often, but they do it to keep their marriages together. Sure, SOME CDers may break down if they don't dress, but not all.
And the wives? A relative of mine is the wife of a CD and she's the reason I'm here. Before her husband's confession that he CDs, she was a happy, cheerful woman.
Now, she wishes for nothing more than to keep her family together, and she's tried as hard as she can to accept. But she just can't--it makes her physically ill to see or imagine her husband in female dress. She's had several breakdowns and is now on a variety of antidepressants.
I don't blame her husband for being a CD--only for lying to her (by omission) in order to bring her to the alter.
Last edited by Acadeca; 01-10-2010 at 03:25 AM.
It doesn't do any good (now) to say that she should have been told before marriage. It's been discussed many times here, so not to dwell on it.
Only one person in the family benefits by cd-ing? How many are harmed by it? I say none. It's not the cd-ing that harms anyone, it's reactions to it (as a matter of choice) that cause the harm.
I agree with some others that this may be a deal-breaker for the the marriage. But it isn't necessary for the kids to go down with the ship. Lots of kids survive divorce, especially when both parents love them enough to keep them out of the fight. What a shame when parents make kids the weapon and the prize.
So how does the marriage survive? Maybe it's Don't Ask Don't Tell. It works for lots of marriages.
One can say the same thing about QUITTING CDing. It's not stopping that causes problems, it's the CD's reaction to stopping.
All I ask is that you try to understand what your wives are going through before insisting that they accept the new you long after the wedding. What if, 10-20 years into the marriage, they suddenly insisted on dressing like, say, an animal or whatever most of the time. AND they wanted you to have sex with them dressed in their choice attire?
To many wives, that's how it feels to suddenly learn that their husband is a CD.
Irrelevant. It is you that made the first claim (that the wife needs a masculine husband as much as he needs to dress), so it is up to you to prove your claim, or to modify the claim. Do you know the details of the wife's mental and medical conditions? Do you also know the details of the husband's mental and medical conditions? If not, then you are projecting.
Are you familiar with the saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!" ? All you have is a hammer (the experience of your friend), but not everything is a nail -- the variety of human relationships may not literally be infinite, but it is at least up in the 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 range.
It is not a black/white, either he CDs or not issue. Marriage with a TG is difficult, for both parties. For now I will use the pronoun "he" for differentiation purposes.
Not every TG knows at the marrying age the depth of their need for femme expression. It takes a long time to cut through being raised as a male. I've observed here that self-acceptance of being TG is progressive. At any rate, he eventually needs to express his feminine self more than perhaps wearing lingerie occasionally and pleasing himself. His wife needs to be with a man. If he is TS headed for 24/7, obviously the marriage will not survive.
If he identifies as a male CD, he still is a man who wants to express his femininity. In this case the ideal is for his wife to acknowledge his need and either participate if she is OK with it, or if she isn't, then give him the time and the space to do so .... if they want to save the marriage. If they love each other and want their marriage to succeed, it is all about compromise. He may CD a little less than might be ideal for him, and his wife may give him more time and space than might be ideal for her.
He still will be her husband. If he increasingly wishes to eradicate his male self in favor of being femme, or if he cannot be happy getting back to guy mode and he "makes" himself do so in order to appease his wife, then he needs to examine whether he is TS or not. If he is TS, the kindest thing to do is to be honest with himself and his wife so they can make appropriate decisions for themselves.
Reine
Posting Permissions
