Okay, just to clarify some replies...
So, if a guy simply puts on, say, a dress, heels & hose -- and that's it... He's *not* crossdressing, because he's in guy-mode??
Weird, but every official definition of CD'ing that I've ever read over the decades states he's doing exactly that.
But if he were then to also throw on a wig & make-up, and arguably he's emulating/looking like a female, then, according to some of you, he now *is* crossdressing?
Just want to get that straight, here.
Because if this is what some of you are saying (and it seems like it does), then what you're also implying is that long hair & cosmetics, i.e., appearance, "makes the woman."
Yikes... Better not let a feminist hear you say that!
I mean, where do you draw the line with this?
Maybe a guy is losing his natural hair (like some women do), and opts for a wig with some length to it (like some women do). You know, to make himself feel better about his situation (again, like some women do).
And wearing make-up? Maybe he just likes looking more youthful & wants to accentuate his best features?
What does that have to do with crossdressing, really?
Okay, okay... Throw on some fake boobs & hips/butt, too, on top of all that.
Again, in the same vein, now you'd be implying that a woman is defined by her body.
All I can say to that, is: Wow... :confused3:
I dunno, but I'd be careful of putting one's own spin on the definition of the word "crossdressing" -- because apparently doing so is a very slippery slope, IMO.
