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

I’m ok w cross dressing, in THEORY. But only in theory. Because if men were normal non pervert humans, they could put on a dress without immediately cumming into it. But we live in a reality where men are perverts.

[–] crodish 🔪🍠 49 points Edited

This. The problem isn't men wearing dresses. People can wear whatever the fuck they like. The problem is men being so depraved they get a stiffy when they put on clothing that they think is women's clothing. If this was an alternate universe where skirts for men was and had always been the norm, and women were the ones who had been wearing pants for all of history instead, they'd be cumming in pants because they thought pants were women clothing.

Women managed to normalize wearing pants without rubbing off all over them.

Yup. You could argue a thobe is a kind of dress but you don't see Saudi men dressed like Saudi women.

[–] tkhs 11 points

Also how boys are raised to be prevented from wearing feminine clothing by other men, right? Because to them, female clothing marks a person as "fuckable" and how dare a heterosexual man have any thought of wanting to fuck a male.

And then they grow up to be men who sexualize female clothing.

Clothing needs to be de-sexed imho, if you think make-up and skirts are for women you are pandering to the patriarchy, I don't care what anyone wears what gets me is when they try to claim what they wear defines what they are (i.e thinking they are women or girls because they dress in the stereotypical uniform of women and girls).

[–] [Deleted] 9 points Edited

The problem is that it isn't, though. We all feel that way personally here, but when men dress in what society considers to be women's clothes, it is done for fetishistic reasons. When we dress girls in what society considers to be female clothes, we reinforce the oppression intended by society for women in designating those clothes for them.

I totally agree we need to de-sex clothing, but the way to do that is not to promote more use of the most gendered clothing we have. Instead I personally think we should promote wearing clothes and styles that are already considered to be more gender neutral.

It's kind of like a femen protest. They are trying to say that breasts should not be sexualized (I think?). But everyone but feminists do sexualize breasts. So their protests actually cause breasts to be more sexualized. You can't necessarily make people view things the way you view them, you have to consider how they are going to receive the message.

Wearing so called "women's" attire has a similar effect. It just reinforces the fact that such articles are "for women", really regardless of who wears them. I don't think a dress will be a neutral article of clothing until women stop wearing them, personally.

They are trying to say that breasts should not be sexualized

Isn't that what we want? To say that "your body is okay" so that teenage girls with self-image issues don't identify as TIFs and mutilate their healthy tissue?

Of course we want a world in which breasts are not sexualized. The way to achieve that is not for all women to run around topless though. At least not until they are already not sexualized. Talk about motivating girls to chop them off!!! See the problem?

[–] Dee 6 points

I'd agree, and I've got the urge to say that I don't care what they wear as long as they don't seek to steal our identities and erase our existence. But that's not true. Certain types of clothes exist solely to arouse men, and when men don those clothes and claim that that embodies femininity, they harm women but reinforcing the idea that this is what women are or are meant to be. I think that this is part of the thing that sends so many women into TIFdom, honestly. If that's what a woman is, I don't want to be one, that kind of thinking.

but your just utilising the point I just made, your saying about them using clothing to claim they are something they are not, womanly. all clothing needs to be desexed

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.

I agree. I’ll just say that clothing happens in the context of culture – as in, there’s nothing inherently “feminine” about flowy, non-trousered garments because men wear these types of garments in various cultures. But in western cultures, certain types of women’s clothing is sexualized and fetishized. It’s almost always these types of clothes that TIMs gravitate toward, and that’s the greatest dead giveaway that this is a sexual fetish for them despite their bullshit saying otherwise.

Bingo. We wear men's clothes because it's more comfortable. But men wear our clothes because they get a sexual thrill from it.

[–] ProxyMusic 9 points Edited

This trend might be most obvious in modern Western cultures, but it's not only in Western cultures that certain types of women's clothing is and historically has been sexualized and fetishized. Look at the highly sexualized, fetishized (and often pedophilic) way that girls and women are portrayed in extremely contemporary popular genres from east Asia like anime and K-pop...

The traditional clothing and accessories worn by/associated with/and forced on women and girls in many Asian, Middle Eastern and African cultures have been sexualized and fetishized by men within those cultures as well as by men outside those cultures with a taste for "exotica" for a long, long time. Indian saris, veils, jewelry, face and body markings like henna tattoos; the Japanese geisha aesthetic; Chinese courtesans; Madame Butterfly; the Asian "lotus blossom" and "dragon lady" looks;, traditional women's Cambodian costumes; Egyptian and Ottoman belly dancers; the varied custom of female veiling that originated in the Middle East; the Bacha Bazi boys who dress and dance "as women" in Afghanistan; traditional women's clothing in Persia/Iran; the "harem look" of girls and women kept as sex slaves and wives sold and forced into marriage in many different non-Western cultures...

https://theculturetrip.com/middle-east/iran/articles/an-introduction-to-irans-traditional-dress/

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Swoboda-shopping_in_harem_mid19th.jpg

https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/20000-women-and-100000-castrated-men-serve-emperor-imperial-harem-china-021296

In this clip from 1977, my fave male rock 'n' roll artist of all time demonstrates the politically incorrect way men historically have fetishized Japanese women who embody the "geisha girl" aesthetic in their dress, makeup and manner: https://youtu.be/BauVLD0ldDc

I like this perspective, its certainly something that needs to be considered...cultural context. Id never look at man in a kilt and think he was trying to be woman.

I think its less about the actual garments and more about the performance of the stereotypes. There are some garments that lend themselves more narrowly to a specific gender stereotype (regardless of whom that stereotype is supposed to please) such as short glittery dresses and sky high platform heels. Those items mean something specific when a woman wears them so it can be inferred that a man wearing them means to send the same message. But pants versus skirts or form fitting versus loose is different thing.

I live in a balmy climate year round and the men here wear wraps or sarongs sometimes to be casual, its also part of the cultural dress overall...but so do the women. No one is confused by anyones presentation.

Exactly!!! You cannot ignore the culture in which these things are done. That's actually the whole point. It obviously wouldn't matter in the first place if the culture did not say "women wear X". Any one person's intention or viewpoint is irrelevant-- we need a culture change.

Yup. And now they can do it at the office. Imagine if it were men in Blackface, parading around in public because they feel like Black men. It's no different, yet we're supposed to join in with a smile or else.

It does really throw me for a loop that even self described feminists can't even try to understand why a man pretending to be a woman is offensive as fuck. Like it seems so...obvious...?? Makes me wonder if I died and now I'm living in some weird sort of hell.

Makes me wonder if I died and now I'm living in some weird sort of hell.

LMAO I wonder this too, all the time....

A lot of women in GC circles aren't actually GC.... They are conservative genderists who just don't like gender theory. Posey Parker, Abigail Shrier, etc. GC is synonymous with radical feminism, but ask the question and you'll find a number of users are not radical feminists. So take responses to posts like this with a grain of salt.

Isn't not liking gender theory "gender critical" by definition?

I read this as "a lot of women in radfem circles aren't actually GC."

[–] GenderHeretic Assigned2LegsAB 4 points Edited

Makes me wonder if I died and now I'm living in some weird sort of hell.

Like those Philadelphia cream cheese ads. They're set in heaven but I always interpreted them as being set in hell, where the most tortuous part is that the person has no idea they're really in hell.

"When did I ever say you were in heaven? This IS the other place! (cackles)"

I think some think of it as a compliment, and that attitude is mostly attributable to internalized misogyny. "This real human is debasing himself by pretending to be one of us lowly creatures. How sweet."

This attitude is also responsible for the laughable TRA claim that no man would pretend to be a woman for nefarious reasons: "Why would a man make a laughingstock of himself just to get his freak on." TIMs know that the debasement and humiliation is the point. Allies mostly haven't made that connection.

Same. I feel like I woke up in an alternate universe and what the hell is going on...

Mother Ginger in the Nutcracker. She is traditionally played by a man, because she has MASSIVE skirts that hide her children (who dance out as part of the ballet)baller, and the structure is usually too heavy for most female dancers to support.

That's literally all I can think of. Ballet nerd moment over.

I always thought Mother Ginger was a giant structure on wheels or something.

[–] hontrapoints 14 points Edited

I'd be fine with it if men weren't broken creatures. Skirts/tights are comfy as hell and I wouldn't begrudge a male who wanted to feel comfy (sorry, not sorry, pantsfans). But unfortunately that isn't the case.

To quote a brilliant poster on another site, "men are utilitarian coomers with no human soul."

Edit: it also depends on how "cross-dressing" is being defined. Do we consider women who wear men's clothing to be "cross-dressing"? Is it in a neutral sense like that? Or are we talking about men who are dressing in women's clothing while also trying to imitate women?

Edit II: on further reflection, while I'm okay with the idea of men cross-dressing in normal women's clothing, I 100% do not believe there in ever an acceptable reason for a man to wear women's underwear. They can't possibly be wearing them for comfort reasons. Like, maybe an obese man wearing a sports bra for his gynecomastia would be fine, but that's the only thing I can think of.

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.

I've changed my mind after reading the trans widows' Twitter thread this morning--now I realise 'at home' probably means 'in front of his wife and children'.

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.

Wearing normal, feminine clothes appropriate for the setting (e.g. skirt suit to office job, sundress with appropriate undergarments to conceal genitalia to a park outing) is fine I think. But I don't think I've ever seen it. It's all fetish wear, club wear, completely inappropriate stuff. And rainbow sparkly unicorn clothing made for little girls.

Eh then we're getting into Rachel Levine territory...if you look up pictures of his ex wife, Martha Peaslee, it becomes so obvious that he's skinwalking her style right down to the chunky necklace.

Among my real-life friends and peers, Richard "Rachel" Levine is my main go-to example for arguing against the notion that "it's okay as long as the outfit is non-sexualized and age-appropriate."

It's still the same.

I mean, I didn't used to mind Panto Dames, a UK-specific cultural phenomenon. And 80's musicians/goths/other subcultures with non gender conforming clothes.

I'm afraid anyone now seems suspect just because...AGP...once you know, you can't forget.

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!

Load more (13 comments)