42

Long before the TIM apocalypse, there was the "old-fashioned" variety of crossdressing. But it's not like that's any more acceptable than what we've currently been seeing. And yes, this includes drag queens.

Even if it was being "kept in private"... we had men trying on their partners' clothes, yes, and it's a fetish. It's all rooted in degenerate behavior, and it's all womanface, regardless of whether the man is actually denying physical facts or not. And quite understandably, the women got creeped out, because the men were forcing them to participate in their fetishes. No one believes that it's okay to beat your wife "as long as nobody else knows."

Likewise, both in the past and today, every time you're tempted to make an "exception to the rule" or something for "one of the nice TIMs" or convenience, or even fear of losing employment etc., consider all the victimized women, and children, who have to pay the price. Is that fair?

Call me bigoted or intolerant. But while it almost never works like that the other way around, whenever men put on women's clothing, it's pretty much guaranteed to be for the cheap sexual thrills.

Long before the TIM apocalypse, there was the "old-fashioned" variety of crossdressing. But it's not like that's any more acceptable than what we've currently been seeing. And yes, this includes drag queens. Even if it was being "kept in private"... we had men trying on their partners' clothes, yes, and it's a fetish. It's all rooted in degenerate behavior, and it's all womanface, regardless of whether the man is actually denying physical facts or not. And quite understandably, the women got creeped out, because the men were forcing them to participate in their fetishes. No one believes that it's okay to beat your wife "as long as nobody else knows." Likewise, both in the past and today, every time you're tempted to make an "exception to the rule" or something for "one of the nice TIMs" or convenience, or even fear of losing employment etc., consider all the victimized women, and children, who have to pay the price. Is that fair? Call me bigoted or intolerant. But while it almost never works like that the other way around, whenever men put on women's clothing, it's pretty much guaranteed to be for the cheap sexual thrills.

72 comments

The issue is that many men see women's clothing as inherently sexual because they see women as inherently sexual objects. Women did not put on pants in the 1940's and become so overwhelmed with horniness that our pants were soaked through from our own wetness. On the flipside, men put on a dress and are so consumed by their own degeneracy they can't help but walk around with a huge boner out the front. I think that clothing needs to be de-sexed but men need to break that association with sexual humiliation and submissiveness.

Men in other cultures wear skirt and dress-like clothing to this day, and in general in the past men all over the world used to wear the same. Scottish men don't put on kilts and walk around with boners. This is a very specific issue to the way our modern culture has sexualized women and all things relating to women.

As has been mentioned here, I don't think the sexualization of women is particular to Western culture. Unfortunately, misogyny is universal, and we must work from a variety of different cultural perspectives in order to mitigate it.

I'm not trying to imply those cultures do not have misogyny. My point in bringing that up, is that clothes are not inherently sexed. There is a sexual identity being forced onto those clothing by men. What is the difference between a man putting on a toga vs putting on a sundress he found out at the thrift store? I am not bothered by crossdressing, I am bothered by the fact that men put on the latter option, and find a sexual thrill in it. There's not much difference between the two clothing items at all, they're functionally the same. The man finds sexual thrill out of the second option because he has built this construct into it that he finds is inherent to it.