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

[–] Julie92845 5 points Edited

There used to be a man who wore a skirt who worked in an outdoorsy type store near where I lived, and I think he did it right. It wasn't sexualized, it went with the rest of his outfit, he didn't draw attention to it, and he actually looked good IMO. If all men who wore feminine clothing in public did it like that guy did, I'd have no problems with it whatsoever.

The trans trend has changed my mind on this specifically because so many men crossdress for fetishistic reasons. I'll believe "clothes are clothes" when men stop treating women's wear as fetish gear. This is similar to how I'll take "free the nipple" seriously when men stop leering with their tongues lolling out anytime they see a topless woman.

There are some men who wear women's clothes in a not obviously pervy way; I'm thinking of men who wear women's clothes that suit a wearer with a flat chest, wide shoulders, and narrow hips. Eddie Izzard used to do this, but his latest clothing choices have fully outed him as a fetishist.

Anyway, these days I assume pervert until proven otherwise or unless the clothing choices are genuinely suitable for a man's body, and aren't low cut, frilly, or flouncy clothes (or, even worse, look like bondage gear -- case in point: Jamie Lee Curtis's son) that rarely look good on women and are a total disaster on a man.

I think it is absolutely disgusting. But in the end, what someone does, on their own, in the privacy of their bedroom that does not in any way actually harm someone or involve something illegal, is up to them.

Halloween?

I came here to comment this too. I guess if a guy wants to dress as a female character for Halloween and can manage to not be gross about it, I'm fine with that.

otherwise.....um, spies?

And about the spies, I saw something once--it might've even been linked here--that was a very interesting interview with a former CIA disguise specialist. The work they do to transform people is pretty amazing. But she said that while you can convincingly disguise a woman as a man, you can't go the other way--there are too many tells.

Well, I could think of some situations.

Shakespeare plays. (And yes, I am also fine with Othello being played by a white person of either sex who painted their face. The best Shakespeare plays I have seen were by schoolkids and university students, and in such settings you usually don't have much choice in actors. Also, in Germany, it can be really hard to find an actual black person.)

Also, opera, ballet and the likes, where suitable.

Undercover policing, too - if, say, you need to lure a rapist ... I would fully approve of sending a crossdressing policeman into a venue where you know women are usually molested to catch those men red-handed. Can't expose policewomen to such dangers.

So basically, all places where deception serves a good cause.

Otherwise, men can dress how they want, as long as they don't wear garments designed for the female body. Kilts are fine, as are robes, as are all other garments that normal men without fetishes wear someplace on the planet.

If they want to invent moob binders to make their moobs less obvious, that's fine, too. (I don't think any normal man would want a bra for his moobs? But underwear designed to give the body a more flattering shape has been a thing ever since the corset ... and men wore corsets, too.)

Clothes have no sex. Skirts and lacy underwear and crop tops and such should never have been deemed as womens clothing by modern society. Men fetishize it precisely because it's taboo. If sexism wasn't so widespread even in clothing the trans movement never would have come into existence.

Also had the same thought a couple months back (think I might have made a thread about it).

I would happily support men dressing GNC providing that it isn't motivated by the following:

  1. fetish/sexual thrills/boners

  2. womanface/degrading women.

My final conclusion was that, for the most part, the only non-problematic time men can dress GNC is through artistic self-expression (think Bowie, Prince, etc). But like 99% of the time the reason men want to dress GNC is for the above-noted motivations and that sucks.

My teenage son thinks its hilarious to wear sweater-vests and women's cardigans a la Ann Taylor. He wears them with his Tool t-shirts and his Vans. There is absolutely nothing sexual about it.

Are you a mother? If you had a son (at either childhood or adolescence), would you buy him feminine clothing like skirts and dresses if he requested it?

I was considering only adult males, not children with the original topic but yeah, if I had a son who wanted to wear skirts of course that would be fine. Would fall into the artistic/self-expression category.

Your definition of "artistic/self-expression" is fairly wide. Maybe my perspective is unusual, but I think for most of us, most of the time, clothes aren't so much about "self-expression" so much as "it's rude/dangerous/illegal/cold to be naked in public". On a continuum of artistic/self-expression, if David Bowie's wardrobe is on one end, "ways to reasonably be not naked" is probably on the other.

Before the rise of gender nonsense, I was perfectly fine with Eddie Izzard's "executive transvestite" schtick when he performed. Genderism ruined that for me - now all I see in those men is the pornsick fetish.

Yeah, it was fine to me too, because he wasn't trying to say he was an actual woman. He did not appear to be fetishizing it either. Evidently that was all a lie. They are all lying about it, even the so called good ones. I no longer give the benefit of the doubt. Until proven innocent, Harry Styles and Brad Pitt are fetishizing the dresses they wore here recently.

And news flash on this: I think men fetishize kilts too. This always gets mentioned as the exception. It's the exception that proves the rule IMHO. My stepdad would wear one and be gleeful about the fact that you go commando beneath. Men looove that about a kilt. Next time one of y'all see a man in one and pat yourself on the back about how it proves men can wear dresses without being gross fetishists, think again!

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.

Load more (13 comments)