The new avatar posted by one of our members just made me think that the MIAD term was not covering members dressing in female pants or leggings while presenting themselves as males (Man In Female Pants?). Or does it?
The new avatar posted by one of our members just made me think that the MIAD term was not covering members dressing in female pants or leggings while presenting themselves as males (Man In Female Pants?). Or does it?
Last edited by DianeT; 12-09-2022 at 01:26 AM.
I think MIAD is just a way to describe the general principle.
Crossdressers are not all the same either.
Shelly is right or we end up with so many acronyms, MIAS, man in a skirt, MIHP, man in hot pants?
Life's complicated enough as it is.
I agree the MIAD gives the idea what is going on.
Good thought though Diane
Crissy
Classification is really weird stuff in that it can be so arbitrary and not represent anything meaningful. Or Not. And when dealing with individuals that are seemingly so variable as we are it can become "classification gone wild." In biology people who classify organisms fall into two groups - the Lumpers and the Splitters. Lumpers tend to compress things into fewer species while splitters look at differences in biological characteristics and split existing species into finer species units. One problem is that the definition of "species" varies.
Personally, I tend to be a lumper and I do that a good deal with classifying us. But with us, classification rules are very loose and it is really hard to keep up with classification based on really fine scale differences. The real question is whether those fine scale differences are really meaningful. In my mind most are not and MIAD is one of those that is really marginal. Especially when you stop and take a look at the vast numbers of those that are not like us.
I think perhaps this tendency in us is an attempt to find [B]Identity[B] in something that is more of a gender continuum where we just blend into each other and form a "species" that has a common characteristic - we wear clothes in a very wide variety of ways that includes garments from the traditional and stereotypical ways associated with people of the opposite sex. And we each have our own individual reasons for wearing this or that or going the full distance. It is a part of how we identify ourselves.
But to me, CD and TG and perhaps NB are three species that seem to have sufficient differences that distinguish them that the species are meaningful. Sub categories within those are more like subspecies, forms, and even varieties. They are likely meaningful in some ways to us because we are inside looking out while they have little meaning to those who are outside looking in.
You can split or you can lump - there really aren't any rules. But at the end of the day we are just variable and individualized. Maybe it is better to just lump everyone into one species - Human. And recognize that when it comes to classification Human can be a synonym for Diverse.
Well it just so happens that every time I saw a picture posted by someone declaring himself as a MIAD a dress was worn (I can't say I didn't miss some counter examples, but so far that is my experience). I wondered if members dressing in outer female clothes but presenting themselves as males felt included in that term. I don't care much about labels, I'm just curious.
Last edited by DianeT; 12-09-2022 at 07:24 AM.
Boy do I hate acronyms!!!! BDIHA !!!
Sounds like Diane is a Splitter, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Crissy
Ha! That's pretty funny, Diane! There is quite a list of M___s that would apply to me. Let's see, MWNP (man wearing nail polish), MWSL (man with shaved legs), MWBD (man with brows done), MIM (man in makeup), MIL (man in leggings), MWP (man wearing panties), MIWS (man in women's shoes), MWCHH (man who colors his hair), MIWS (man in women's sweater), MWLN (man with long nails) and this blast from the past MWLFH (man with long feminine hair) and MIAB (man in a bra). Fun! Then there's the MWUTBHM (man who used to be happily married) who pissed it all away to be a M____.
As one who uses the MIAD acronym quite regularly, I believe it pertains more to my total inability to do anything close to passing no matter what I wear.
My personal daily wear includes women's jeans, bra, panties and maybe a nice women's androginous top.
No dresses outside my apartment, but still cross dressing, and still decidedly a MIAD.
I am Me and Me is OK!
Shelby
I wear jeans from the women's section as a male. They fit me better than "male" jeans. They are the plain women's jeans, no embroidery or sparkles.
I don't think of myself as trying to fool anyone by wearing women's jeans as a man, they are just "jeans" to me. No "MIAD" here.
Krisi
Boy! Do I agree with Audrey and Rhonda. By the way, what?s BDIHA? IMO, if there?s a group that is as variable as a Rubik cube, it?s us. Why does one have to be classified? It depends on the minute, hour, or day. When the pink fog rolls in, Anything Goes. My daily wear consists of panties, bra, and hose (mostly thigh highs). After that, who knows? Skirt, pants, dress, sweater, blouse?
At some point, having a unique label for every possible permutation of everything becomes absurd. That's what language is for.
Calling bigotry an "opinion" is like calling arsenic a "flavor".
Quite true. On here we use language to argue about... language!
Last edited by char GG; 12-09-2022 at 11:45 AM. Reason: Not necessary to quote the post directly before yours
I thot u mispelled, "MILF"!
U can't keep doing the same things over and over and expect to enjoy life to the max. When u try new things, even if they r out of your comfort zone, u may experience new excitement and growth that u never expected.
Challenge yourself and pursue your passions! When your life clock runs out, you'll have few or NO REGRETS!
Deleted post
Last edited by Elizabeth G; 12-09-2022 at 12:44 PM.
Just to reassure fellow BDIHA members fearing that I might want to pile a new label over existing ones, the MIFP was precisely a gentle joke about this, nothing more.
hello Diane,
what about a "man crossdressing as a woman crossdressing as a man"?
I could easily pass as one of those!
luv J
[SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE]
is that a "man in lingerie forever"?Originally Posted by docrobbysherry
I that you misspelled, "MILF"!
luv J
I've done a man CDing as a woman CDing as a donkey. Would that count, Jacques?
U can't keep doing the same things over and over and expect to enjoy life to the max. When u try new things, even if they r out of your comfort zone, u may experience new excitement and growth that u never expected.
Challenge yourself and pursue your passions! When your life clock runs out, you'll have few or NO REGRETS!
the new avatar was posted by me earlier and I found out that I had the post in the wrong place. I changed it again and now you can see the new Diane. I think that MIAD covers everything, in general, we are talking about CDing. If you try to split out into too many acronyms we'll just get a flood of things and that doesn't make ant sense to me.
By the way NancySue what audreyinalbany meant by BDIHA was an acronym for what she had just said "Boy Do I Hate Acronyms", she was having fun with the talk about acronyms. Congrats on that audreyinalbany, you have a quick wit!
Classification is serious business. However, classification can also be a very fun game and as demonstrated by the responses to Diane's question, we are on a roll. Hilarious. I love the BDIHA.
This morning I was a MISA (Man In Short-Alls) (Overall shorts) Yeah, gotta run with BDIHA on this one!
Seriously, isn't MIAD just an umbrella term (oh no, here we go again) for a guy wearing feminine clothes without making any attempt to look like a woman? Or does it have to be a literal dress meaning even skirts wouldn't fit the bill?
Good question. My point wasn't just humorous. Many of us consider for example that the typical (stereo-wise) feminine attire is more dresses and skirts than pants, whether they are jeans, capris, leggings. On that ground, if we consider the MIAD as a presentation where one wears typically feminine outer clothes while displaying obvious maleness from the neck up (for example wearing a beard, not trying to pass with wigs or forms), then it implies a contrast that may not be achieved with pants and sneakers. Of course, the level of contrast will vary depending on the cultural and gender references of the beholder. With that supposition in mind (MY supposition, not saying it is so), I got wondering, if I ever dressed as a male with just female outer clothes at home (I discussed this with my wife recently) if I would feel included in that MIAD umbrella when reading posts from members using this label to define themselves. In return I wondered if members doing the same would ask themselves that same question. Which led to asking the question here (and adding the MIFP title as a tease).
I like to wear my kilt with some pink or light blue satin panties underneath.
No Heel is Too High.... When it's Pointed at the Ceiling
I really do stand by the MIAD label to respectfully declare for myself that not only do I comfortably present as a man who happens to like women's clothing, but also to indicate that I do not adapt feminine mannerisms when dressed. I am just myself, who happens to be relatively butch and somewhat hairy.
Posting Permissions
