Clothing! It keeps us warm, protects us from the elements, helps to identify who and what we are and serves to cover up our modesty. But how did it evolve into such an elaborate and vital part of our every day existence? What was the beginning of this ritual of covering up nature? If we look to the biblical references in the book of Genesis it's all about apples, snakes, sin and fig leaves. Other experts speculate as to why we didn't evolve as hairy creatures like other mammals, or they emphasize our opposable thumbs and superior intellect as contributing to our clothing "fix". Still others claim that our migratory nature necessitated a quick solution to the problems of protection from the environment and that we used our intelligence to provide solutions rather than wait for evolution. Whatever theory we examine, the biblical one is the only one that addresses the issue of modesty resulting from shame and guilt. In that context there is a marked similarity between dressing and crossdressing. The only difference is we hide our crossdressing rather than our body.
So where would we be if Adam had not eaten that apple, or none of the evolutionary forces had led us into slavery to such habilements, including makeup, jewelry and hair styling, while all other technological progress had occured as it did? This is a question that would be particularly relevant to our community which after all is based in large part upon how we dress. The answers depend upon where we sit on that imaginary scale between the extremes of female impersonation and transexuality.
Let's look at crossdressing first. Those who, like me, dress occasionally in female clothing for reasons such as adventure, excitement, escapism, curiosity, artistic expression, or giving vent to the so-called feminine side of our personality would be out of luck without being aware of it. Crossdressing for any of us would simply not exist since dressing would not exist. There would be no basis for any curiosity and our need for adventure or venting of certain emotional needs would likely be satisfied by other activities and experiences.
Female impersonation could exist, but only in a very limited form, emphasizingg things like voice, mannerisms and so on. Much of the impact would be lost without the imagery of clothing. By the same reasoning "drag" would fall flat without the excesses created by clothing.
Transexuality would still exist, as we would still be aware of the existence of the two prime sexes, and how we identify as belonging to our own genetic or assigned sex or the opposite one. Perhaps the visual images surrounding us, unimpeded by the cover-up of clothing, would increase that awareness of our feelings of identification.
Androgyny might be in a similar position to crossdressing. Regardless of our crossdressing tendencies, everyone possesses a blend of traits and characteristics that could be referred to as being either masculine or feminine. In other words, every man has his feminine side and vice versa. Cultural conditioning tries to teach men to suppress these feminine tendencies, particularly as they might apply to appearance and mannerisms. Without clothing, many of the restrictions to feminine expression would not exist. The androgynist might just be a bit freer to be himself, without thinking about it.
Finally, we have transgender people, who unlike the crossdressers, sense a degree of identification as female, but unlike the transexuals have little or no desire to make physical changes except in those cases where desired changes can be achieved by means of hormones. Would these individuals be in the same position as the crossdressers, less aware of their identity conflicts because of the lack of such visual evidence as clothing, or would they be more like the transexuals becoming more aware because of that same absence of clothing?
We often see a lot of objection to statements such as "It's all about the clothing", from all sectors of the community, but without being able to experience our behaviours in the complete absence of clothing, we cannot support that objection. In the absence of clothing, would we still pursue our need to express our femininity, our sense of gender or our rights? Would we still seek to be understood and accepted? Perhaps it actually is more about the clothing and our appearance than any of the reasons we may claim, whether we are crossdressers or transgender. I don't have the answers. What are your thoughts?
Veronica
Originally Posted by Veronica27
