A Dahl's House

Since being on crutches I haven’t been out en femme—since it automatically draws attention, plus I had some safety worries about the lack of mobility. (Never had a problem, but…) But I decided to take advantage of Halloween to go out.

(more…)

Ran across an interesting site put together by a French artist which shows 59 women in both clothed and unclothed states. Not particularly sexy, unless you’ve got a fetish for super serious women. As the person who passed it along said:

You voyeurs will enjoy all the naked women. For me, and perhaps some others who may question the femininity of our bodies, it’s a great opportunity to see a wide variety of real bodies I could compare to and contrast with my own. I also thought it was interesting the image I get in my mind when I see the woman clothed corresponds so poorly to what she really looks like.

Personally, I think the influence of Deuteronomy 22:5. which often taken to condemn crossdresser is overrated as source for society’s stigmatizing crossdressing. Most people disapprove first and then go looking for rationales to support that disapproval. Deut. 22:5 was just a reflection of pre-existing attitudes.

Without getting into the specifics of Deuteronomy 22:5 itself,* whose original ambiguities and subsequent mistranslations have been well discussed (not to mention that Christians who don’t keep kosher are technically engaged in “abombination” as well), I think the disapproval has a lot more to do with societal attitudes toward gender roles. There’s more disapproval in cultures where gender roles are more tightly drawn. And it reflects the historical (and current) lesser status that women have. Consequently, when women transgress gender boundaries, while it definitely has upset people, it was more “acceptable” in the sense that they were aspiring to a more powerful role in society. Whereas MTF crossdresers are giving up the privileges associated with the masculine role. (If crossdressing is so wrong, why does the Catholic church have a number of crossdressing female saints, including Joan of Arc–who was actually convicted of crossdressing rather than heresy.)

The other factor is the widespread public perception of the association of crossdressing with homosexuality. I think that has to do with the fact that manhood is often defined less by what it is than by what it isn’t: not feminine, not gay. When we were boys, we’d tease the weaker boys about being gay long before we had any idea what homosexuality was. Because this association is so strong, people just assume that a man who wants to be feminine must be gay as well.

The other big factor is that crossdressing suggests gender isn’t as clear-cut (just as homosexuality–or even more so, bisexuality–does for sexual orientation), which is quite troubling to people who tend toward a black-and-white worldview. As Shannon said, there’s a lot of people who aren’t comfortable seeing the world in shades of gray. Incidentally, this is true of cultures in general. Non-Western cultures, tend to be (but aren’t always), less absolutist in their worldview. Not surprisingly, transgenders tend to be (but aren’t always) viewed in a more accepting manner.

* OK I couldn’t resist–for what it’s worth might also be pointed out that Deuteronomy 22:5 is found among a lot of other Bibical rules that aren’t followed today, including:

• Requiring a battlement on the roof of your house to preventing anyone from falling off–Deut. 22:8
• Prohibiting vineyards from being sown with diverse seeds–Deut. 22:9
• Prohibiting wearing garments made of more than one fabric–Deut. 22:11
• Requiring fringe on the four corners of your garments–Deut. 22:12
• If a man marries and then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn’t a virgin when they were married. If her father can’t produce the “tokens of her virginity” (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father’s doorstep–Deut. 22:13-21
• If a woman is raped in the city and doesn’t cry out loud enough, the men of the city must stone her to death–Deut. 22:23-24

Research has found some folks have more “masculine” or “feminine” personalities (regardless of their sex), some androgyous people tend toward the center of the bell-curve of “masculine/feminine” traits, some androgynous people move between the more stereotypical traits depending on the context. The point is there’s a place for everyone
and we need each of these four groups.

Firefighters regardless of sex are going to be macho because that what they need to do their job. It takes certain personality traits to head into a fire, a storm, whatever when everyone else is fleeing away from it. This may not be “macho” per se, but it’s the sort of traits commonly considered to be part of being macho. Care givers regardless of sex are going to be nuturing for the same reason.

It is interesting that in studies on tomboyism, researchers have found two distinct styles of tomboys. There’s a small group that completely rejects comforming with girl’s gender roles and sometimes even that they’re female themselves. (The girls do have a higher incidence of becoming trans and lesbians in later life.) But the far more common type, which about half of girls do, is an exploration of broadening their range of behaviors, i.e. playing with dolls and trucks. I have a suspicion that crossdressing is in part caused because boys aren’t allowed an equivalent period of janegirlism. (Crossdressers who start early, i.e. age 5-6, in particular seem to mention an attraction to wanting to be able to wear the same pretty clothes as girls did.) Those “feminine” desires, emotions and behavior get repressed by society and so they become something we subconsciously fixate on until they come out in other ways, i.e. crossdressing.

The same thing that women do when they’re not interested.

Say something to the effect of “thanks, but I’m not interested” or “I’m flattered by your interest, but I’m hanging out with my friends tonight.” You don’t have to make a big deal out of him being a man, although if it’s a “mixed” gay/straight bar, letting him know that you’re not into to men might be appropriate if said in a matter-of-fact way. Then go back to what you’re doing and don’t act intimidated. So far it’s worked for me.

If he doesn’t take no for an answer, then let the management know you’re being bothered. That’s one reason I tip well, it tends to make the bartenders be protective of their good customers. If they make a scene with him, then it is wise to be safety conscious leaving afterwards and perhaps have someone walk you to your car.

If I hear one more person whine about how “women can wear pants, so why can’t I wear a dress” I’ll just scream. I will, I will…. It’s the intent to present as women that distinguishes cross-dressing from the kiltmen or the freestylers. It’s as if women who wear men’s-styled clothing also chose to add facial hair and to strap and pack.

And need I point out women can’t wear whatever they want. They’re quite sensitive to being labeled “slutty” or “unfeminine.”

Check out Thebreastformstore.com and call/email Victor for some advice on the best size. They’ve also got size charts on their site, but Victor can help you get the best size and shape. (Not only should your form be proportionate to your size, but if you’ve got large pecs, you may need a form that’s got a curved back in order to fit better.)

It’s better to err on the side of being a little small if you’re interested in going out in public. You can always get a set of bra enhancers if you want an extra boost for certain outfits. I’m normally a C cup, but there’s a couple tops that look better with the bra
filled out a bit more.

BTW, just in case you weren’t aware bra band sizes aren’t your actual chest size, you actually add a couple inches. Shapings.com has the best fit chart  I’ve seen and if your actual measurement is 34, you’re probably either a 38 or 40. For females, if you’re an odd number you go up to the next even size, but since our “breasts” aren’t attached to the chest wall, I find it can be a good idea to go down to the next even size, so that the form doesn’t potentially slide under the bottom of the bra. (That’s what happened once when I was dancing.) It just depends on whether you find a smaller size comfortable. One other thing that complicates sizing is the amount of stretch in an individual bra. I got a cheap bra where I needed to go down to a 40 because it stretched so much and when I got a quality bra from Victoria’s Secret, I discovered I needed to go up to 42 and even that’s slightly small.

BTW, definitely also check out Shaping’s bra fitting info. It can be a challenge, but if it’s any consolation most women don’t wear bras that fit properly either. Fortunately, we don’t need to wear our’s full-time, so a bad fit is annoying but not as critical.

One thing to beware of are breastforms that have “mildly erect” nipples, which may show through clothing — something you may or may wnat. Most women are embarassed at having “headlights,”which is why some bras have a light foam liner and I’ve heard some women will stuff a bit of tissue in the bra over the nipples to hide this.As far as the bra, a “pocket bra,” specially design to hold breastforms, will definitely keep the girls in place, but don’t feel constrained to get a pocket bra. My experience is that any good full coverage bra works fine (if you’re out dancing, etc. additional adhesives are good for a little extra security). If you’re shy you can do mail order — that’s how I bought stuff from Victoria’s Secret. At worse some clerk some where might have suspicions, but you’re just a name to them anyway. But I’ve heard from enough other crossdressers who’ve gone in for bra fittings at Victoria’s Secret or Lane Bryant (whose Cacique line is made by the same manufacter as VS) that you’ll rarely be the first crossdresser they’ve encountered and it’s usually no big deal to them. After a sale is a sale.

Virgina Prince did do much good — she was out seeking acceptance for crossdressers before Stonewall, which showes incredible (dare I say it) balls — but I think we need to acknowledge two things.

First she was a product of her times. Some of her stuff read today is more than a bit embarassing, reflecting the sexism of the day.

Second, in a bid to gain respectability for crossdressers, she did a couple things that while well-intentioned, led to some undesireable consequences.

When she formed Tri-Ess, she specifically excluded transsexuals and homosexuals — to avoid freaking out the SOs of crossdressers. This has contributed to unnecessary divisiveness within the transgender community — as well as some difficult situations for individuals. What happened to the Tri-Ess member who realized she really was transsexual?

Second, she created the “no sex please, we’re crossdressers” mythology — as opposed to those nasty, pervy fetishic transvestites. Unfortunately, the reality is usually messier. I’d venture that sexual excitement has been a component of dressing for the vast majority of crossdressers at some point during their history. (Prince herself has a taste for she-male porn to this day, according to her biography.) Not that it was the necessarily the main reason why we dress, but it was/is there — and needless to say SOs are rightly skeptical about the difference between the rhetoric and what they see. (For what it’s worth, transsexuals also developed a similar “no sex please” rhetoric, albeit for different reasons — namely clearing the gatekeepers who deemed it the only “acceptable” way of thinking if you wanted to get GRS.)

So let’s recognize her contributions, but also realize that things aren’t as clearcut as she protrayed. Virgina today would probably be considered a non-op transsexual, something that she’d probably hotly dispute.

Very interesting article on the “Muxe” (moo-she) of Mexico’s Oaxaca state in this month’s Travel & Leisure Magazine. Muxe are family members who are crossdressers and/or gay, very artistic, and care for family elders since they do not leave home to start their own family. Each year there is a festival called “Festival of the Authentic, Intrepid Danger-Seekers,” and it says that this culture is 2000 years old.

It wouldn’t surprise me that there’s latent sexism in some of the older literature about crossdressing, however I think “escape from the male” argument still has validity.

(Standard disclaimer, I’m not saying any of the following necessary applies to all crossdressers, let alone those who feel to one degree or another that their personalities don’t match their bodies.)

As boys we’re less sure about what “being a man” is, than what it’s not — not gay and not female. So it’s not surprising that if we want to express our “not manly” sides, we don the dress to do so.

If you look at a lot of crossdressing behavior it’s not about emulating the everyday lives of women, rather it’s emulating the parts of their lives we find most attractive — and frankly some of it has more to do with our imagination and “grass is greener” feelings than actuality. So I think it often has to do with being “not male” rather being “female.” For example, we love dresses and skirts, even though the vast majority of women wear pants most of the time. But a skirt is definitely “not male.” Or to take another example, the well-known passivity of many crossdressers en femme in the bedroom probably isn’t reflective of how they view women’s role there. In fact if you’ve ever dated a Sweet Gwen the Innocent, you know how frustrating it is to have to be responsible for not only your satisfaction but her’s as well. Instead, the passivity is probably more a chance to step aside from the pressure to perform and be the one who gets to just lay back and enjoy for a change.

The other part is crossdressing probably a particular form of escapism that someone might engage in anyway — in sense how different is it from the hard-core Trekkie who learn Klingon, the Rennaisance Faire folks, or the folks for whom Burning Man is the highlight of their year. I’m sure I started crossdress in part to escape the misery during my teens of
being one of those kids on the outside looking in. Why did I put on a dress rather than a Starfleet uniform? Beats me. That’s where other propensities toward crossdressing came into play.

The third factor in “escaping” is similar to the point the Myers-Briggs (temperment theory) people make about being able to do something that’s not “naturally” your style. You can do, but much like writing with your opposite hand, it takes a lot of effort. So if you don’t feel fit well into the masculine gender role, it is undoubtedly relaxing to slip into another role that feels more “natural.” Since it’s pretty common for some crossdressers to try to butch themselves up by being alpha males, so it’s possible some of them ended up in the high-stress positions that were observed.

As far the “forced femme” fantasies and behavior of some crossdressers, I see it mostly as a guilt avoidance mechanism. I agree that undoubtedly sexist views of women as “lesser status” come into play, but part of it is simply related to doing something that society views as strange.

And that’s where crossdressing really does expose still lingering attitudes of women being inferior to men — and sadly it’s an attitude that lingers deep inside many woman as well. A female friend of mine put it well: “By rejecting femininity in males, we inadvertently promote gender discrimination. We admit to the world that women are inferior. We are our own worst enemies…. Shouldn’t women recognize that men wanting to emulate us is a step in the right direction for true equality? A man striving to be like a woman discredits the premise that men are naturally superior… it shakes the foundation of culturally engrained gender roles.”