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

Would you be okay with a man wearing them only at home?

If he wasn't wearing it to/was going to masturbate, why not? I don't believe that clothing and other inanimate objects are gendered (though I'm not denying that males seem to do so frequently). Various cultures across the world have menswear items that aren't pant/trouser based.

I don't think Scottish bagpiper men get erections when they wear a kilt, nor Japanese men when they wear yukata, nor male ballet dancers when they are in costume. There's nothing inherently sexual about clothing items.

Agreed. I've known some men (hippies, generally) who wore long flowy peasant skirt type skirts in the summer occasionally, for airflow reasons. They function basically like a sarong, and those men were definitely not pretending to be women.

If someone is putting on a costume or fetishizing themselves in the outfit they've got on, usually there's an "off" sort of aura around it and that definitely creeps people out, for good reason.

One of the complicating factors is that certain women's clothing is designed to sexually display the women wearing it and otherwise be various sorts of restricting and annoying to wear. When men put that stuff on, it's extra questionable just because women don't wear that stuff for comfort either, the "male gaze" is sort of built into it.

Hence, men in pencil skirts to me is more side-eye worthy than men in some wide full movement basic thing.