Why the need to be dressed/seen as a guy while on a date with a girl?Originally Posted by girlalex
Why the need to be dressed/seen as a guy while on a date with a girl?
Warning: This post may contain up to 63% post consumer recycled Sarcasm ... or Peanuts."
"Sammy, really next time do try to make your point without being quite so abrasive." -RD
Because, lesbians aren't real.
Also, these sound like heterosexual inclinations from girlalex...so, putting things in terms of two lesbians would break those inclinations.
Man dates someone portraying woman (heterosexually viewed if passable); male dates GG (heterosexually viewed).
Last edited by Shananigans; 02-02-2012 at 11:27 PM.
"Today a young man [...] realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration...that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively...there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the Weather.”-Bill Hicks
“What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality! The only drawback in that freedom is that without it one would not be a human. One would be a monster.” East of Eden by Steinbeck
I know you've researched and quoted some theories about autogynephilia since you wrote the above, but I just want to clarify: AGP has to do with sexual behaviors and preferences only, not different personality traits when dressed vs. guy mode, such as being more outgoing, liking different music, enjoying different hobbies, or preferring doing housework.
Reine
How silly of me to forget that.
"Sammy, really next time do try to make your point without being quite so abrasive." -RD
I've read and re-read this thread several times now.
What I find is a disturbing trend among CD'ers here who continue to hold the belief that their Male side is a distinct and separate [personality] from their Female side.
Thus giving way to the phenomenon of being able to seemly adjust a purportedly fixed aspect of ones personality, their sexual orientation, based solely on how they present themselves at any given time.
I realized there is a classification for people who display this characteristic.
Psychosis (redirected from a psychotic break)
Definition- Psychosis: is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality.
Last edited by Sammy777; 02-03-2012 at 01:49 AM.
"Sammy, really next time do try to make your point without being quite so abrasive." -RD
Sammy, I don't think psychosis is really right. At the surface it sounds similar, but when someone is psychotic they usually can't "switch back to normal." The disconnect with reality is so great that they cannot function in society. It seems like a lot of CDs that DL this are still functioning and are able to switch back and forth at will to more appropriate thought processes.
Also, there HAS been a lot of research on changing personality ONLINE. I mean look where we are and posting. Many people are not who they portray online...perhaps, a CD would take that to a whole different level?
Yep, you're right, Reine. It seems like no one has done research into that area... It's actually kind of disappointing that we have been doing a whole lot of expanding on the AGP theory or MTF sexuality in the past 5 years. I doubt there will be a lot of research into seperate personas thing.
God, if only I could somehow turn that into a nursing problem, research it, chunk out a paper, and get a scholarship.
Last edited by Shananigans; 02-03-2012 at 07:39 AM.
"Today a young man [...] realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration...that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively...there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the Weather.”-Bill Hicks
“What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality! The only drawback in that freedom is that without it one would not be a human. One would be a monster.” East of Eden by Steinbeck
wow long thread. to turn this discussion around 180 degrees my wife told me that this whole notion of being with someone of the same sex is why some women (not saying all women) are really turned off by crossdressers in general. They don't want to be with another woman and this is why they might have an issue accepting it.
As for male crossdressers, I dunno. when dressed i have no attraction to men. I guess the only way i could have ever seen anything like this happening is if there were a woman involved too. Personally i think with some people (not saying all) the pink fog prevails and they get the notion that their feminine persona is so strong that they could see themselves with a man.
This thread is drifting and wandering.
1. I certainly don't consider my dualness to be a multiple-personality manifestation. Far from being "discrete" personas, there is tremendous overlap between one's guy and girl modes. Multiple personality situations are essentially psychotic; the person doesn't realize that the other personas exist while in one. I never forget or disregard my entire life history, preferences, interests, and so forth while exploring and exercising my advanced and manifested feminine side, and I don't think others do, either.
2. Dr. Blanchard's autogynephilia theory is just that, a theory, not a proven fact. It is but one way of attempting to describe transgendered behaviors, and the sexual arousal patterns of some TG/CDs in particular. Like all such informed theories, it has substantial conceptual appeal, but exceptions abound, which certainly calls into question both its validity and its general applicability. IMHO, quoting at length from 20-year-old clinical writings adds little to this conversation. Blanchard's theory has plenty of critics, and AGP doesn't really address bisexuality (the topic here) in any meaningful way. My personal take on AGP, dating back to its first entry into TG science, is questioning whether it states a causal relationship to TG/CD sexual-arousal patterns or simply compiles and describes behaviors. In other words, is AGP a pathology that distorts TG/CD sexuality from some kind of posited "normal", or is it merely a conceptual description of common TG/CD sexual behaviors? If the latter, it's useful as a tool for understanding and comparing; if the former, welcome to a debate that has raged out in the open for decades without reaching a consensus. As a way of explaining the causes of TG behaviors, it's inadequate psychobabble compared to real possibilities like brain-wiring anomalies in utero, many of which have been verified in lab-rat experiments that tinker with prenatal hormone doses to produce male rats with female sexual behaviors and vice-versa. I place it somewhere above Freud's classic, discredited strong-mother/weak-father nurture theories but below real, verifiable agents of causation, whatever they may someday be found to be.
3. Viewing male-male sex as homosexual by definition flies in the face of the experiences of many TG folk. Male/female is anatomy; man/woman is a social construct of expectations and behaviors. I don't know how anyone with an open mind could watch gay porn and ******* porn without noticing the difference and realizing that the TG "women" in the latter may be anatomically male but appear to approach sex from a female perspective, albeit with all kinds of variations that are more of commercial value to the industry than they are indicative of typical TG sexuality (e.g., BDSM, ******* topping male, and so forth). ******* porn looks a lot more like straight porn than it does like gay porn, and it's not just the clothes. As Shannon's intolerant gay friend said, he doesn't like "men" acting like "women"; he wants a man, and that's homosexual. Male with TG/CD male is something different.
So, I think the "bi-CD" phenomenon is just one more of the mesmerizing aspects of TG people and behaviors, common but hardly universal. It's not psychotic, and it's heterosexual in the context of those binary expectations and behaviors of a gendered culture. I'll close with a line from one of my songs: "As the hand of fate takes the gift of time/There's little we can do/But marvel at the mystery we often misconstrue".
It is a marvelous mystery, no?
It makes sense there are exceptions when theorizing about any human condition since there are many variables that determine people's motives. I do not presume to come up with a single explanation as to why some CDer's sexual preferences change when they are dressed. But, the AGP theory seems to fit the CDers in this forum (not the TSs) who have read it and acknowledge that the thought of themselves as women is the driving force behind a sexual manifestation of the CDing.
Yes it does, and deservedly so, among the heterosexual TSs who do not feel their gender dysphoria is paraphilic. I don't know enough about Blanchard to determine why he limited his theory to transsexuals and did not take into account the CDing population. But, in a CDing context, the theory has been validated by some of the members here as being true for them.
I also don't know how Blanchard would have defined the patients who reported a sexual attraction to males and females before transition. Would he have classified them as homosexual, and therefore not paraphilic? At any rate I also do not see in this particular article any mention of bisexuality. But again, Blanchard's theory attempted to explain a TS's motive for transition and not a CDer's changing sexual preferences while dressed. From a common sense point of view without necessarily finding proof in academic research (if this is possible), doesn't it stand to reason that if someone is bi, he will be bi even in guy mode, especially if sexual attraction is thought to be independent of gender identification?
I think the pathology lies in the concept of a sexual manifestation of a CDer's self-love as a woman, as an object not dissimilar to any other object-oriented fetish, as opposed to a sexual attraction to another human being. Herein lies the difficulty: how can one measure whether there is a true attraction to a male, or if the male serves as an accessory to emphasize the occasional thoughts of being a woman? Again, I find it hard to understand that if there is a true attraction to males, why it would not be present in guy mode. I suppose a theory might be that fear of homophobic repercussion can cause some men to stay in denial over a real attraction to other males, but then why would they have difficulty with this yet embrace the CDing, which is equally stigmatized in our society?
This is true but doesn't published ******* porn, either commercial or otherwise, cater to the fantasy of adopting opposite sex gender and sexual roles?
Reine
What an awesome thread. I have to admit after reading through it, that I'm beginning to feel some sympathy for the CD that feels an attraction to men only when he is "dressed". It seems bizarre on the face of it, but maybe the clothes are serving as a kind of license to get your freak on. I definitely have compassion for the closet queens who use being "bi" as a get out free card because I used to do the same thing. Before I finally accepted that I was strictly dickly, it was soooo much easier for me to believe I was bisexual. Even though I was clearly not aroused by women. I can only imagine how difficult self discovery would have been, if I had been cross dressing as well. Wow.
par·si·mo·ny (pärs-mn)n.
2. Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham's razor.
I don't claim to understand all of this, but I wonder if there is all this attempt to explain and rationalize behaviour by Blanchard and others --because it's "fun" to put all these what ifs, etc into consideration, but don't you think that the "simplest" explanation--which you have already listed--e.g. denial--is the real root of the CD/BI experience? Isn't it more likely to be homosexual denial as the root explanation. Why try to run around fitting pieces in here and there and then the "theory" only fits part and not the rest. That isn't scientific in any sense and I realize that when dealing with humans one can't necessarily quantify all the varieties of behaviour. But, if it is a working theory, it should fit most or more of the subjects than it seems to fit. How can it be an explanation when it applies to only 1 or 2 percent? Since there is a great frequency of the"fantasy" wouldn't it be easier to say that it is denial and then if something in research turns up to put that notion on its head, then call it something else. At the moment, as I read this, it seems to my only somewhat informed brain that rationlized denial is the problem, and that the CDers in questions are non-accepting homosexuals. Even with humans one needs to take to most basic, logical explanation for the behaviour.
just a thought.
remember my jammies aren't flame retardant
OK, I shouldn't have said "theory". I should have said "question". lol
So if it is simple denial, then why would someone not want to admit they are gay, when they willingly embrace the wearing of women's clothes? How can the barriers break down for one and not the other? Don't forget, we are referring to the self-identified, hetero CDers (who identify as male, who like being male, and who like women), but who feel their sexual orientations change when they dress and only when they dress. We're not talking about TSs or CDers who straddle the line between CD & TS.
Reine
Thread = tl;dr
OP: I am also bisexuality and after being here... five-ish? months, it just simply isn't a factor here on this site. You're accepted because you're a transgender and/or dating/married/whatever to a transgendered. At least, this is what I have personally seen. I don't know what every one else sees.
I have to disagree, from a purely clinical, academic and/or psychological point of view anyway.
Many CD'ing traits [this one in particular] can be looked upon as symptoms of Multiple Personality Disorder.
Definition: Multiple personality disorder [MPD] or Dissociative Identity Disorder [DID]
is a mental disturbance classified as one of the dissociative disorders. MPD or DID is defined as a condition in which "two or more distinct identities or personality states" alternate in controlling the patient's consciousness and behavior.
As with ANY medical condition, not all symptoms need be present to be diagnosed as such.
Again, I am in no way saying any or all CD'ers suffer from any kind of disorder in general. All I am saying is that if you were to remove the want/need aspect of dressing and look at all the other factors then there is a possibility that people could misconstrue all these other traits as being symptoms of the disorder above.
For obvious reasons I'm omitting MtF and FtM TS's from the equations below.
I tried to skirt this one in my last post by using "bisexual encounter".
But why should it? Let's just call a duck a duck here for a minute shall we.
Why should sex between two people that are both anatomically male and identify as male be called anything other then homosexual sex?
I don't care if you wear a dress or a chicken suit, once the clothes [and the fantasy] are removed you are left with - drum roll - homosexual sex plain and simple.
Just because one of the participants wishes to portray themselves [being seen/treated] as a woman does not change or dismiss the act as anything but what I just described above.
Who gets to be Man or Woman is NOT decided by who does the dishes or takes out the trash.
The only "social construct" is how men and women are expected to act and behave within a set society.
You are trying to completely dismiss the inherent qualities [and differences] that make up what it is to be a Man/Male and Woman/Female.
Man = Male, Woman = Female is an innate feeling, ones sense of self, something that while connected to "anatomy" is much, much more deeper then that. While it is more then "JUST" anatomy, anatomy does play a crucial role in what it is to be Male or Female as well.
Rule #34 - If it exists there IS porn of it.
You are forgetting that the porn industry is there solely to cater to specific demographic and that "She-Males" are just another viewer demographic and another way for them to make money.
Although the exception to this rule is that "she-males" are for the most part the sole construct of the porn industry and a quite rare "in the wild".
"Sammy, really next time do try to make your point without being quite so abrasive." -RD
True, It is not correct once you get past the surface, but an interesting thought none the less.
The one that better encompasses the idea and explanations of my hypothesis [on a
Psychological/Clinical level] behind such behaviors was originally omitted.
Acastina actually mentioned it and gave me opportunity to delve into it a bit above.
I guess "changing personality [while] online" is what is implied above.
I per pose an analogy of the phrase: A drunken mans words are a sober mans thoughts.
That while, yes, some people do feel free to more openly express themselves in anonymous online environments such as this forum. It seems to me that many of the desires portrayed here, especially this one, are more so then not expressions of their true selves and not merely some fictitious "online only" personality.
In his work here:
The concept of autogynephilia and the typology of male gender dysphoria.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol 177(10), Oct 1989
Blanchard uses 4 groups: 1 homosexual [Androphilic] and 3 nonhomosexual [Autogynephilic].
The nonhomosexual groups were heterosexual, bisexual, and analloerotic
But then later takes those 3 groups and combines them all into nonhomosexual.
My guess for this is that he was looking to separate all "other" TS' from his "Core" "True" TS's who suffer from Androphilia
Last edited by Sammy777; 02-04-2012 at 03:07 AM.
"Sammy, really next time do try to make your point without being quite so abrasive." -RD
well I love being as fem as possible and I love being a woman with a man
I understand where you're coming from Paulette, and no you're not odd. Good luck. I'm pretty much bi-sexual myself. I hope you meet that special friend.
L’imagination au pouvoir!
Care to explain that a bit further?
"Sammy, really next time do try to make your point without being quite so abrasive." -RD
I wonder if with the willingness to try things which were taboo years ago (expanding our sexual horrisons) we are inadvertantly confusing desires and fantasies. In years long gone by anal play used to be completely taboo and was seen as a purely homosexual act, but now it has become more accepted by some couples as normal and in some cases it is the male partner on the recieving end. It isnt a homosexual act when a wife dominates a husband in the bed room and perhaps the "bi curious" amoung us are substituting another more receptive ficticious male for the role they would rather have their SO take, because of their SO's and their inhibitions to discuss what could be an undesireable in their eyes addition to the bedroom play. Perhaps we are not bi curious at all but rather feeling that we couldnt ever experiment with one we love and so create a fiction in our minds that this other person would be acceptable. Perhaps being dressed makes us less inhibitted to things we would otherwise find hard to consider. we are for a while freed from our usual constarints and free to think outside the box we stepped out of.
Or I could be completely wrong, but food for thought.
H
Well you can't really call it a Personality Disorder if one is falling into a character while dressed in girl mode. It could be a character they are playing that is the way I act. Do we say actors have a personality disorder when they are playing their role? I don't think so.
You are right that anatomically sex between two males is physically homosexual sex. But if you look at someones preference. They could still be hetero.
Take a man who engages in a activity with a TS and doesn't know the TS has male parts. That is a homosexual encouter but the man may still be hetero.
A CD who falls into a mode believign she is a female has an encouter with a male, that is a homosexual encounter, but the CD could be in a autogynophilia state fantasizing about being the woman during the encounter, and could still have a preference for being hetero.
Mental state and physical definition will often contradict.
Well I think you answered it RD, they IDENTIFY as male and say over and over that they like women, some have even regaled us with stories of gleeful violent retribution for a smack on the bottom from some poor admiring guy. These "straight" CD's have indeed somehow accepted that they have a "fem" side but apparently only under the condition that they remain faithfully attracted to the Vag. I can speak to the power of denial and I can totally understand that the "fem side" is an attractive loophole.
You know that for me the most important lesson that I've learned from this journey is to be honest with yourself and be proud of who you are. I believe denial is a significant barrier to self acceptance and being allowed to be situationally gay, only serves to prolong and perhaps deepen the denial. A man in deep denial is a creepy man and that creepiness will manifest itself in other areas of his life. This I know to be true.
For me, being bisexual was just a way to continue denying my real desire. Being bi is freaky and fun, being gay was a total surrender of whatever masculinity I had. A masculine CD can live with wearing a dress, as long as he can kick your ass because he's still a man. Maybe better than a man, but to admit an attraction to other men is something he cannot do. Dressing like a woman is bad enough, but there's nothing worse than being something less than a man. This is where the denial is rooted.
There is an article in today's NYTIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/fa...QOFmQj/NRS2p1A
February 3, 2012
Open Marriage’s New 15 Minutes
By ALEX WILLIAMS
re-opening the old can of worms about NEWT's desire to have an "open marriage" and his wife saying NO. It was a popular idea in the 70's that lost gas pretty quickly, but with the advent of the internet, it has apparently reared its head again in several forms, some orgs even run by women. But to read the NEW description, it seems to nothing more than the old description which was just an excuse to fool around and have lots of sex with everyone and call it open marriage. Basically what it seems to me is the need for "an out", "a rationalization", a denial that perhaps the marriage isn't all what it is cracked up to be and rather than loose a bundle through divorce, everyone just decides to screw around. It is what we all, at one time or another, look for--an excuse for the things we do or who we are, that we aren't willing to admit to.
just an opinion
With respect, this assertion requires an extended response. It is a superficial understanding of DID/MPD, and the quoted definition doesn't begin to describe the disorder. I think it's important to know the difference because dismissing the kind of dual nature that TG/CD folk experience as a multiple personality disorder is all too tempting. From WebMD:
"Most of us have experienced mild dissociation, which is like daydreaming or getting lost in the moment while working on a project. However, dissociative identity disorder is a severe form of dissociation, a mental process, which produces a lack of connection in a person's thoughts, memories, feelings, actions, or sense of identity. Dissociative identity disorder is thought to stem from trauma experienced by the person with the disorder. The dissociative aspect is thought to be a coping mechanism -- the person literally dissociates himself from a situation or experience that's too violent, traumatic, or painful to assimilate with his conscious self.
Is Dissociative Identity Disorder Real?
You may wonder if dissociative identity disorder is real. After all, understanding the development of multiple personalities is difficult, even for highly trained experts. But dissociative identity disorder does exist. It is the most severe and chronic manifestation of the dissociative disorders that cause multiple personalities.
It is now acknowledged that these dissociated states are not fully-mature personalities, but rather they represent a disjointed sense of identity. With the amnesia typically associated with dissociative identity disorder, different identity states remember different aspects of autobiographical information. There is usually a host personality within the individual, who identifies with the person's real name. Ironically, the host personality is usually unaware of the presence of other personalities.
What Roles Do the Different Personalities Play?
The distinct personalities may serve diverse roles in helping the individual cope with life's dilemmas. For instance, there's an average of two to four personalities present when the patient is initially diagnosed. Then there's an average of 13 to 15 personalities that can become known over the course of treatment. While unusual, there have been instances of dissociative identity disorder with more than 100 personalities. Environmental triggers or life events cause a sudden shift from one alter or personality to another."
There are several pages on the topic in WebMD for those who want to know more. My original comment was "Multiple personality situations are essentially psychotic; the person doesn't realize that the other personas exist while in one. I never forget or disregard my entire life history, preferences, interests, and so forth while exploring and exercising my advanced and manifested feminine side, and I don't think others do, either." I can't speak for the "others", of course, but that opinion certainly squares with the majority of comments on this site, which nearly constantly reference a full conscious understanding of their "normal" lives and the phenomenon of their CD. In fact, expressing one's feminine side through CD appears to be just that, a separate facet on the same personality jewel.
I'm not sure I even understand what's being said here. "Man = Male, Woman = Female" is the anatomy-is-destiny formulation, and it begs the question. My whole point was that male/female is anatomical and biological, while man/woman is social and cultural. In fact, the last quoted sentence doesn't go far enough. The role of anatomy in male/female is not only crucial, it's total, with the exception of intersex phenomena.
The recent thread about third-gender Samoans, and the Native American Two-spirit traditions, illustrate my point exactly. Those cultures disregarded the anatomical binary when male children exhibited TG behaviors early, and those children were assigned to and lived out social roles typical of females.
If one proceeds from anatomy alone, of course two males having sex is homosexual. But if one of the males identifies as male and plays a man's role exclusively, while the other male identifies as woman (even if temporarily with a full, non-psychotic realization that s/he is anatomically male) and plays a typical heterosexual woman's role (to the extent possible), we have something that is more in the nature of ordinary heterosexual mating than two gay men (males) who identify as and relate sexually to other males (men). It's the difference between the anatomical binary and the social-role binary (which of course has many shades of variance). An illustration of this would be the question whether one is perceived as a woman (perhaps large, broad-shouldered, Adam's apple-d, and husky voiced, etc.) or a man in a dress. The parenthetical characteristics are anatomical, but the perception is social.
Plenty of observers have noted that man/TG sex looks a lot more like straight sex than it does like gay sex, and that requires separating anatomy from social behavior.
This is internally contradictory. The logic: If there is porn of it, it exists; but ******* porn is purely a creation of the porn industry; and they don't really exist outside of the industry. Say again? The existence of the non-op TS or anatomically homosexual CD preceded their exploitation by pornographers, or your first statement is false. If the first statement is true, your third statement is necessarily false; the industry didn't create it out of pure fantasy, but rather made it part of the categories catalog precisely because it does exist "in the wild" and appeals to some viewers. And one doesn't have to make an extended study onlineto note that the anatomical maleness of the "woman" partner runs the gamut in terms of functionality and what the couple or group does with the anatomy.
The more potent and active she is, the more it looks like gay sex in a costume. The less potent and more passive she is, the more it looks like straight sex.
And that was my point.
To Sammy777: No. 1. I don't think transgenders who look like porn star ******** are any more rare "in the wild" than genetic girl pornstars with breast implants, liposuction waists, brazilian buttlift glutes, and ten thousand dollars of dental caps and whitening, if you compare the ratio of ******** to ordinary crossdressers, and Pornstar genetic girls to ordinary girls, I suspect the ratios aren't all that different. No. 2. I personally know two transgenders who have had implants and some other cosmetic surgery, and who are not involved in the porn industry. No. 3. Not all transgender porn stars are surgically enhanced ********. There are very many who happen to be lean, flat chested individuals with wigs or long natural hair, makeup, and hairless bodies, and the porn in which they are involved looks just as much like male/female sex as the stuff involving enhanced ********. No. 4. What happens to the ******** when they get old and heavy in your universe? I don't know if it's still true, but it used to be said that many of the stars of ******* porn only worked in the industry long enough to pay for their surgeries, and then they left it to pursue private life, or in your parlance, "in the wild."
Ok can someone answer this for me. If a CD enjoys the feeling of being made to feel like a woman and has a man do that for her, but she is not really attracted or turned on to the man in a sexual way that is Autogynophilia. Is there any issue with that if the man is ok with it? Is that bisexual? She is attracted to the feeling of being made a woman.
So when someone says its not about the clothes, then why even dress, why don't they have a full beard and and mens dress pants and feel fem. It is about the clothes in my opinion.
Posting Permissions
