Sherry, I hope you don't mind a long reply. At least I hope I'm not unpardonably boring anyone with my thoughts.

In some ways I'm like you in being attracted to "the whole package" of women's clothing. And for me it all started, not with panties, but with a skirt. Actually I did try on my mother's nightie one time when I was probably less than five years old, but I don't count that because lots of kids "experiment" with clothing, and it was a one-time incident, not a compulsion that continued in childhood. Not until my teens, that is.

I'd like to make a general comment about "fetishism." I'd say there's a distinction between a "pure fetishist" and a "fetish dresser," even if sexual arousal is a motivation for both. I hear there are fetishists who are turned on by all kinds of objects and scenarios, some of them strange indeed, but with women's clothing naturally forming a large number of these fetish objects.

Yet "pure fetishists" don't necessarily wear the items that arouse them. Or if they do, they do it only to enjoy tactile contact with their fetish; like garments of fur, leather, or rubber, say. Some fetish objects indeed are unwearable! (I once read of a guy with an erotic fetish for ballpoint pens, would you believe? Why ballpoint pens? Beats me!)

Anyway when it's items of women's wear, there are fetishists out there who are especially into things like shoes, women's gloves (more in the past I guess; how many women routinely wear gloves today?), but some of these guys don't actually wear the items--often because they're too small to fit! Even when it's panties, I've heard of guys who just sit there and fondle the items that arouse them.

So when it comes to "dressing," I think there's an additional significance to the act of "dressing" in itself; to being a "fetish dresser," even if it's still mostly sexual in nature. Arousal doesn't necessarily spring purely from the fetish object per se, but also from the fantasy of actually being a woman.

"Fetish dressing" to me is a "crossover" activity. Not "cross" in the hallowed sense of "cross"-dressing, but in the sense of a "crossover SUV," say" forming a bridge or hybrid between one kind of thing and another. On the one hand we have the "pure fetishist," who may have no desire to identify with the opposite sex. On the other hand we have T-people who dress in the clothes of the opposite sex, not for fetishistic purposes--they're not sexually aroused by the clothing--but only because it feels proper to their gender identity. Somewhere in between, we have the "fetish dresser," who is likely to fetishize and be aroused by some aspect of identification with womanhood more broadly than the "ordinary" fetishist, who is more focused on a single object.

And it goes without saying that this can also "shade over" into a desire to identify with the opposite sex in non-erotic ways. Though it may never erupt into a strong desire to "transition," it's no surprise to hear from members here who started off dressing for erotic purposes and later came to enjoy it for other reasons. That's true of me too. Often I just "feel good" wearing a skirt. And while I'm fortunately comfortable with being masculine (unlike some who struggle with it), I know I have a "feminine side" as well.

My point in mentioning all this is that what I personally label the "fetish dresser" is likely on that account to be attracted, not just to a single item, like panties, say, but ultimately like yourself--and like me--to "the whole package," because it's all wrapped up together in this erotic fantasy of "being a woman."

Now that doesn't mean we don't have specific "favorites" among our fetishes--like those here who are "into" women's shoes, say--in more senses than one! But often these specific fetishes form a "lead-in" that attracts the "fetish dresser" to the larger and more complete package pf women's clothing and accessories.

That's what happened to me, and it happened rather fast. What first got me into dressing was seeing my mother's skirt lying around one evening when I was twelve or possibly thirteen. It was a pretty, flowing light summer skirt with a blue floral pattern. I had an overwhelming urge to take off my pants, put her skirt on and zip it up around me. My parents were out on an errand, and I wasn't sure when they'd be coming back, so this was a scary, daring thing to do at that moment. Yet I couldn't resist it! After putting on my mother's skirt, "I did what little had to be done" (to borrow a delightfully euphemistic phrase from Agatha Christie's celebrated Roger Ackroyd) and fortunately managed to finish in time to avoid getting literally "caught with my pants down"--and a skirt on!

Now here's an interesting thing in my mind. All I can recall to memory was that the next thing after that, when I was around thirteen, I was into dressing fully in my mother's clothes when opportunities arose. (I was an only child, so she was my only source of women's clothing at the time.) What seems odd to me is that I can't remember any progression from wearing her skirt that first time to wearing "the whole package." I mean, there must have been an intermediate period when I was experimenting, exploring, putting on certain items of women's clothes for the first time. There must have been a "first time" I slipped into a bra and hooked it up around me, then put on a blouse, or slid into my mother's panties. There must have been a "first time" I pulled on a girdle (way back when women customarily wore girdles), and found out how to roll a pair of nylons up my legs to attach them to the garters. Thrilling as it must have been back then, for some reason I just don't remember all those details. In my mind it's as if I jumped instantly from putting on a skirt to putting on everything! Though I do remember my mother had a nice blue sheath dress that I enjoyed getting into, zipping it all the way up my back and feeling deliciously "closed in" by the dress. But I was certainly into "the whole package," and felt disappointed, incomplete, if I couldn't find some item--like nylons, say--that I "needed" to wear.

Although this was undoubtedly "fetish dressing," motivated by sexual arousal, it was to a large extent the notion of "being a woman, dressed as a woman" as a whole that was the source of this arousal. The skirt, a visibly outward symbol of femininity, merely acted as a "trigger" to prompt exploration of the whole.

Having said that, I have to admit some items are indeed "special" fetishes for me. To paraphrase Orwell in Animal Farm, for me "all fetishes are equal--but some are more equal than others!" At any rate I have a kind of "hierarchy" of fetishes. And in spite of being first seduced by my mother's skirt, I have to confess that as for many others, it's panties that edge out every other contender for the top of my list. I know you didn't want to talk about panties, but they're unavoidably erotic for reasons so obvious they don't need stating. When I dressed in my mother's clothes, I'd finish by pulling her deliciously cool, silky panties up under my skirt or dress: "saving the best until last," as it were.

However, it's not all about panties; not by any means! I especially love skirts, blouses, dresses, bras and slips. I sense there's a kind of "core fetish" here: that I'm focused on "basic" items that an ordinary woman might wear on her body, and panties just happen to be at the center of it.

Like many others here, I love what's delicate and feminine--a lacy slip, a frilly blouse, and silky smooth things especially, like a woman's skin: a silk blouse, a slip, and panties too of course. Yet that's not all. Again like many others here, I got turned on by wearing anything I found attractive when I saw another girl or woman wearing it. ("I've just got to get a dress, or a bra, or whatever, exactly like that!") Being an older guy myself, it took me a while to get really used to women in pants; but once I did, they became "sexy" to me too.

And things are "sexy" in different ways. I don't have to wear nylons today to "complete" an outfit--so many women don't!--but I have to admit that stroking my legs through nylons is a uniquely delectable sensation! (No wonder a woman gets turned on when the right man--not some creep--strokes her legs through nylons!) Further downrange in this hierarchy, what about shoes and things? Yes, they're nice too--though while I have a collection of them, I'm not intensely "into" shoes the way the "truly dedicated shoe fetishist" is. And even something like a purse is nice. It's not "erotic" the way panties are, but carrying a cute woman's purse brings a pleasantly warm feeling that affirms my feminine identity as Marianne.

Still, we're all different here, unique individuals. I know I'm not the same as you, Sherry. For one thing I'm not into anything exotic, outrageous, "over the top" as you put it. What attracted me was always the "ordinary" women and girls I saw around me, the ones I fell in love with--and the clothes they wore.

And something else. If what excites us as "fetish dressers" is the image of being a woman, what is it about that image that's so exciting? It doesn't have to be the same thing for everyone.

As you said, "seeing myself as a female in my mirror sometimes excites me. Actually, it nearly always excites me." OK, that's one reason. They tell me there's a theory about what's labeled "autogynephilia," proposing that "straight" (gynephilic) crossdressers are aroused by the image of themselves as women. That sounds like what you're describing, and it may be true for some. Who am I to say? Sure, I like the image of myself as a woman too. But it doesn't have to be the whole story, though some people will insist on propounding some reach-me-down theory that's supposed to apply to everyone, when it probably doesn't.

With me for instance, what I find especially exciting about the notion of being a woman is having sex in a "feminine role"--even though from the beginning that meant playing a "lesbian" role to a female lover. That was my "fetish" from my earliest teenage years of crossdressing. Skirt and blouse, bra and panties formed the necessary costume to facilitate this fantasy. So there ought to be a long jawbreaker term for that idea too!

All the best, Sherry!