Redefining fetish as a normal response to deprivation

[Bea_]

I felt so relieved, and now feel that we can be justified in saying that for the most part 'fetishistic' crossdressing is just what any ordinary person would do under the extreme stress of emotional and experiential deprivation on so many fronts.

Your thoughts?

I'm not one to throw the word "fetish" around much. The need to redefine the word in order to "be justified" defeats the idea of "definition" in the first place. I can "feel justified" to crossdress, but justification is like beauty. It's in the eye of the justifier. I can justify my behavior any way I want and can be denied justification just as easily by anyone else. From my point of view, I'm not trying to get justification. Justification will only lead to tolerance at best. What I'd be interested in is approval and affirmation.

It seems like a circular argument to say that crossdressing, 'fetishistic' or otherwise, is the result of being deprived of being able to crossdress.

I was a latecomer to the idea of wearing clothes that are typically reserved for women. Before I ever considered the idea of wearing panties, the thought never occurred to me that I was deprived. Wearing them, at first, did at times precipitate some 'fetishistic' behavior, but it wasn't deprivation that caused it. If anything, it was the novelty of a new experience.

What you might be describing is more along the lines of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs where it's stated that "once a need is met, it no longer motivates". That would speak to the idea that those who's need for perceived acceptance in an area are less inclined to be stuck trying to get that need met.

[Sunny_with_a_chance]

I definitely think you're right about that. I've similarly felt that thrill and almost 'fetishistic' part when I dress. There's a level of excitement and joy that I feel, but I agree that excitement is derivative of finally expressing a part of myself that stays hidden and is taboo culturally.

The less I deprive myself of my desire to express femininely, the more that subsides.

[Aunt Kelly]

So just real quick . . are you defending the way we got those panty threads stopped...


Wasn't my proposal....






And yet you want to take it upon yourself to force the "fetish" label onto dressers before their gender identity has been properly assessed and before they are ready.

Oh... So they're all just suffering from undiagnosed gender dysphoria. That's an absurd notion, of course, but you seem to be trying to invalidate a perfectly accurate application of the term "fetish" when it might, in rare instances, be applied to those who have some other drive. Fine, so stipulated, but that fact remains that for most here it is all about the clothes. Stop acting like they need to be defended.
Wanting to wear (insert item here) simply because it feels good does not deserve derision. Calling it what it is is not derisive.

[phili]

My post was a philosophical reflection aimed at redefining the common usage of 'fetish' from a negative label with the idea that someone has left the normal range of behavior, and with the implication that they are somehow defective, to a descriptor of behavior that is a reasonable attempt by an ordinary person to deal with deprivation of experiences they reasonably need- whether it is simply sensual enjoyment of our clothes, or feeling like we are sexually desirable in a particular way, or that want to feel vivacious, or more interesting, or whatever we are missing.

I approached the question from the standpoint of the social norm that a masculine presenting man who has a secret preoccupation with panties is pathological. I am saying what is pathological is the social framework that deprives him of the experiences he is seeking. He is doing what he can do to try to experience himself as whole. He is suffering, and can't even see well what he is missing, but the panties help.


Some of us mentioned how, as we accept ourselves and feel more whole in the emotional range of life, we are less deprived and it is a relief that we will often then not attach so much value to limited experiences.

But I do see that for many here fetish behavior, meaning intense autoerotic focus on some set of our clothing items, is just a way of really enjoying ourselves!

[Robertacd]

So basically you don't like a fetish being called a "fetish" because that makes it sound like something bad?

[Lydianne]

@Aunt Kelly: Many thanks for the reply.

Stop acting like they need to be defended.

That would be quite convenient for you because otherwise you'd need to keep thinking up more ways of avoiding the question.

But "unfortunately", . . . I decline.

Oh... So they're all just suffering from undiagnosed gender dysphoria. That's an absurd notion, of course, . . [SNIP]

Then some time later, some of those labelled people might get professionally diagnosed with GD.

Would you like to.. try again?

That's an absurd notion, of course, but you seem to be trying to invalidate a perfectly accurate application of the term "fetish" when it might, in rare instances, be applied to those who have some other drive. Fine, so stipulated, but that fact remains that for most here it is all about the clothes. Stop acting like they need to be defended.

You call application of a term that pertains to being "all about the clothing" to a group of individuals that could contain instances that have some other drive "perfectly accurate?"

In other words: "All about the clothing" ≠ "Some other drive".


You would have to take the "all about the clothing" at face value from them, but some individuals would not be aware that it can run deeper. They might initially think it's all clothing, but then they discover it's more. And you do know that, but you're willing to overlook it for reasons you seem not to want to disclose.


Instead of your blanketing application of the term, why not simply let each individual find their own path,.. as we already allow for every other identity. That way, those that are fetish dressers will discover that, and those that are not will discover that too. Then let them tell us.


Obviously, the massive downside of this would be that you wouldn't get to nail premature labels onto a multitude of people, accuracy-be-damned,.. but.. I think the Earth would just about manage to still go round 🌎👍.

Wanting to wear (insert item here) simply because it feels good does not deserve derision.

Agreed.

Calling it what it is is not derisive.

But this isn't what happened. The panty thread contributors were not just non-derisively described, otherwise they would still be posting today. The rest of us hounded them to stop.


..And you blame them for what we did:

If you allow yourself to be "marginalized" because of something that is a part of who you are, it's on you.

Quick question: Let's consider how women are being kept out of the topmost jobs in business and industry.

So, gender inequality in the wider society ( and let's throw anti-trans into there too ). Upon whom is that?



And for the third time:

Why are you so desperate to interfere? Why shouldn't people be given time and space to figure out their dressing for themselves?

- L.

[docrobbysherry]

So, a fetish is a fetish unless u don't like that term? Then, it suddenly becomes dysphoria?

Potayto, potahto?

Folks here refer to me as a "fetish dresser" because dressing often excites me sexually. So, I have used that term to describe myself for simplicity's sake.

But from now on, I wish to be referred to as "dysphoria dresser"!

[Lydianne]

So, a fetish is a fetish unless u don't like that term? Then, it suddenly becomes dysphoria?

Quote?

Potayto, potahto?

Reading, Comprehension? .

Folks here refer to me as a "fetish dresser" because dressing often excites me sexually. So, I have used that term to describe myself for simplicity's sake.

But from now on, I wish to be referred to as "dysphoria dresser"!

Aww! Bless you, Doc! . Here's a bouncy ball.



Don't let it get away now! .

- L.

[Gillian Gigs]

Reflecting on my own life, during puberty especially, there was a clear fetishistic aspect to my interest in women's clothing.

my wives were generally pretty accepting of cross dressing so long as it was in the context of a sexualized behavior. What bothered them, particularly my second wife, was the prospect that it might reflect gender variance...something she could accept in others, but not in her husband.

Yup, that about sums it my when I think about my wife and I. As a teen becoming sexually active it was a fetishistic thing. After coming out to my wife, it was accepted as a sexual thing. She would refer to it as, my little fetish! Wearing the clothes without any sexual activity was not so readily accepted. It took much longer to get acceptance in that area. We have now worked out all our compromises.

[DianeT]

For many here, it's all about the clothes, and that certainly fits the broader definition of "fetish".

That's an absurd notion, of course, but you seem to be trying to invalidate a perfectly accurate application of the term "fetish" when it might, in rare instances, be applied to those who have some other drive.

Study protocol :

• Contributors: Kelly, Aunt
• Purpose: Find out if crossdressers are fetishists?
• Definitions:
  
  • Crossdresser: a fetishist
  • Fetish: self-explanatory, broad acception combined with perfect accuracy will do
• Method: educated guesses
• Sampled population: a good some
• Results: Crossdressing is caused by one of the following:
  
  1. A fetish (vast majority)
  2. Some other drive (rare instances)
• Comments: And Bob is your uncle

[Aunt Kelly]

And for the third time:

Why are you so desperate to interfere? Why shouldn't people be given time and space to figure out their dressing for themselves?

- L.

And for the nth time, why is calling a spade a pointy garden implement "interfering"?

[c2candice]

From my reading of psychological definitions, gender dysphoria does fall into the range of pathology precisely because one is experiencing emotional distress because of gender issues.

1000 times, this. Once the distress to ones self or those around them is gone, it?s no longer a pathology. It?s an abnormality.

Normal is for chumps

[char GG]

Mod note warning:

Thank you contributors. If anyone want to talk back and forth only to each other, please take it to private messages.

[DianeT]

Oh the silence, suddenly

[IamWren]

I think there might be a bit of truth in what Phili posits that would apply to a majority of crossdressers and I say that from the number of posts I've seen here and elsewhere on the internet as well as from direct messages I have received. (Y'all CDers have some imaginations! let me tell you.)

That was not my experience though. What I gained from wearing clothing intended for women wasn't the pleasure... an almost high, that I've heard described of the tactile sensation of wearing certain fabrics and clothing. Wearing women's clothing and trying to appear as much like a woman as I could, gave me license to explore gender in a way that I felt I couldn't while dressed as a man.

Were there times when I was aroused when wearing women's clothing and appearing as a woman?... sure. I mean I think I'm pretty cute as a girl! But I also feel better about myself and my place in the world. I feel confident, the walls I've built are no longer there, I’m more fun, easy going and I feel sexy when I appear as a woman. (just for clarity... although trans, I do not identify as a woman. I'm an enby.)

I've seen in a number of places (although not from academic sources) that suggest that sometimes a feeling of arousal can come from those affirming feelings of confidence, strength, sexiness, etc. For me those feeling don’t happen because of the clothes though. The clothes have simply been a mechanism for getting in touch with who I am.

About those "what color panties are you wearing" or "show us your nail polish!" threads... Yeah. They're kinda cringy. But if I were to go through my history of comments when I first came here I imagine there are a TON of cringy things I said as I was learning about crossdressing vernacular and culture, exploring feminine presentation, and learning more about myself.

I’m no psychologist so I'm not sure I can speak as to whether any ordinary person who is deprived of emotional and experiential deprivation would engage in fetish type behavior. Maybe? Probably not. But hey... if you're not hurting yourself or anyone else, paying all your bills and taking of your family... who am I to judge.

By the way... gray cotton hipsters with a little pink bow in front.

[Alice Torn]

Yes, and in my case, deprivation for sure!! 66, still a virgin, never had steady girlfriend, starved for female beauty and touch, all my adult life, though i did get to dance with a lot of GGs at singles dances for 10 yrs. The times i went out dressed in public, i was wanting to be noticed, and it felt so nice, but got jeered at too. Now, I dont have much sex drive at all, and do not act out much anymore nor dress often anymore.

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

Well said Gillian! We are all damaged goods is true even if we cannot see it.

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

VS fan, You got that right. Lack of connection with others, isolation, deprivation feed all addictions. Lack of communication, and relationships is big hurt and we all need that, whether CD or not. Sadly, so many men lack connections wit others and i dont mean just physical or sexual.

[Aunt Kelly]

That was not my experience though. What I gained from wearing clothing intended for women wasn't the pleasure... an almost high, that I've heard described of the tactile sensation of wearing certain fabrics and clothing. Wearing women's clothing and trying to appear as much like a woman as I could, gave me license to explore gender in a way that I felt I couldn't while dressed as a man.

Were there times when I was aroused when wearing women's clothing and appearing as a woman?... sure. I mean I think I'm pretty cute as a girl! But I also feel better about myself and my place in the world. I feel confident, the walls I've built are no longer there, I’m more fun, easy going and I feel sexy when I appear as a woman. (just for clarity... although trans, I do not identify as a woman. I'm an enby.)

Thank you, Wren. It is this kind of clarity and honesty that is so often lacking in the posts here. Obviously, it is fair to say that for you, the term "fetish" is not accurate when describing your motivation or "drive". It is my observation that there are many here who feel similarly and who would justifiably bristle at the "fetish" label, but who are not comfortable enough to abandon the "...but I'm still a hetero male..." binary identity. I regularly see in posts here, the angst that comes from that conflict, and I get it. It's often a tough thing to recognize, much less admit.

As the OP (philli) describes them, "...the fortunate among us who have been able to get out of the closet and crossdress in ordinary life, to find that there is no longer the need for the solo imagineering that is derided as fetish...", are something quite apart from those for whom fetish is a perfectly accurate term. Perhaps it's my near pathological pedantic streak, but I can not understand why those to whom the term clearly applies insist on seeing it's use as "derision".

[docrobbysherry]

Aunt Kelly, I believe it was Shakespeare or Robinhood who said, "He protestith too much!"

[Robertacd]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is from Hamlet.

[DianeT]

I suggest to not feed the troll any further so this thread doesn't get closed or deleted.

[char GG]

This thread is done.