Crossdressers-Haven.com

You know this is the kind of stuff that made me leave another forum ..
I'm sorry but this kind of BS is what spoils a good forum :evil: Carol Ann

I call your attention to the section on motivations for crossdressing. It contains many posts that are logical and well presented. They certainly are good arguments against my position. But also note they were posted well before any of my ramblings. So what did I do to set you off that the prior postings did not??

Ridge

Carol Ann, hang in there . . . stuff like this happens everywhere -- this really is a good forum . . . just ignore the posts/threads from individuals you don't care for.

Alexandra

A voice of reason prevails.

As is stated early on I am a CD from early childhood. Apparently not to the level of others on this forum. As for TG issue, I believe I also stated that due to a pituitary tumor, my homones are screwed up. So I am experiencing the same body changes as a TS. The only difference is I did not choose this course of action as a TS would.

Your suggestion is absolutely appropriate - if you don't like it you can avoid it. I obviously don't agree with everything posted - if I did it would be a boring world. Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable.

Ridge

Hi Ridge,

I've taken the liberty of excerpting some of your posts so that I may help you understand why it is that you appeared to have ruffled some feathered boas, here.


Just like Pavlov's dogs, CDs have learned that dressing means sexual arousal and pleasure.

Pavlov's dogs were taught to associate hunger and the delivery of food with the sound of a ringing bell, not to associate dressing with with sexual arousal and pleasure.


CDs are selfish by their nature and their needs.

People in general are selfish by their nature and their needs. It's called being human. Crossdressers (and, indeed, transsexuals) are no exception.


It seems I have struck a sensitive chord for some.

First of all, the answer is No, you haven't struck a chord with anyone other than yourself--your obvious sensitivity to this issue has made you lash out in anger, an anger masquerading as rational argument. Second, you haven't "struck a chord," you've smashed the guitar on stage is what you've done. Condemning an entire group of people on the basis of a small sample of its, more than likely only partially representative, members inevitably sets you up for vitriolic replies. In a place where people seek self-understanding and support as well as a privileged refuge from the poison too often dealt out by "mainstream" society, it's no surprise that shock and anger will accompany the discovery that such poison has followed us here.


But tell me, in a linear argument, what you don't like about my argument. And why is my position and opinion disgusting?? It is so easy to criticize and so hard to form a logical counter-argument.

There is no linear argument possible here because we're going around in circles. The reason we're going around in circles is that yours is not an argument at all, it's a statement of your humble opinion. As Alexandra has pointed out, providing facts to back up your opinion increases the likelihood we'll consider it an argument. The half-dozen women that so generously grace this forum come here for the same reasons we do, Ridge. They seek support, understanding, and some way to cope with the situation they find themselves in. So, it's not that your opinion is repugnant (it isn't), it's in the way you chose to attack, demean, devalue, condemn, and destroy crossdressers in the delivery of that opinion.


Frankly, it is rather disgusting to me that some CDs must dress to have sex with their SO. That freaks me out.

There's nothing in this that I haven't heard thirty thousand times over the past thirty years--it doesn't move me anymore. What surprises me is that it comes from the pen of a person who considers herself transgendered, not from someone belonging to the "unenlightened," non-TG masses. That fact alone doesn't invalidate your disgust; however, what does invalidate your disgust is your unwillingness (or inability, perhaps) to even attempt to understand or, God forbid! to empathize with the subject of your revulsion. Try to find out who we are, Ridge, (and, yes, who our SOs are also--Lefty and her mate aren't the only ones in a progressive, healthy, and loving relationship, I'm sure) before looking down on us in disdain. You'll have made a huge stride forward the day you'll be able to see the human being behind the dress.


I call your attention to the section on motivations for crossdressing. It contains many posts that are logical and well presented. They certainly are good arguments against my position. But also note they were posted well before any of my ramblings. So what did I do to set you off that the prior postings did not??

Again, if you take the time to read that particular thread once more, you'll discover that each rose in that bouquet blossomed with nary a thorn in sight. We exchanged opinions (no, there are no arguments and counter-arguments in that thread) in the utmost respect of each other's experience and motivations. How can that be? Easy. We want to learn, not to pontificate; we want to accept, not to reject; we want to see, not to close our eyes. So, what did you do that set Carol Ann off? Well, let me put it this way: would you rather be approached by a purring, playful kitten or a snarling, drooling lion, red in tooth and claw? I mean, they're both felines, aren't they? Think about it.


As is stated early on I am a CD from early childhood... I am experiencing the same body changes as a TS. The only difference is I did not choose this course of action as a TS would.

Like Alexandra, I'd be curious to know what it is in your life that makes you define yourself as a crossdresser from early childhood (I've hunted around the forum for your "Beginnings" post, but haven't found it). Trust me, Ridge, I am sorry that a pituitary tumour is wreaking havoc on your physiology--my heart goes out to you, not in pity but in compassion--yet, if you seriously believe that transsexualism (or even "lowly" transvestism, for that matter) is any more a matter of individual choice than is your own condition, you need to talk to more transsexuals and transvestites.

Now, just to address your initial point (no, I hadn't forgotten), the wives and girlfriends and sweeties and partners whose posts fueled your indignation are, indeed, a testament to the turmoil they may be going through in their relationships as a result of their SO's crossdressing. However, what speaks even more loudly is the fact that they would post here at all. Do you see what I'm saying? They come here because they want to understand, they want a greater access to their own well-being, they want some measure of healing. As we all do. There are no selfish, disgusting freaks here, Ridge. Only people. And you certainly count among that number. Just empty your cup a little bit--make room for the experience of others. Others will then want to taste yours.

With all my respect,
Christina

Thank you CJ. Now when it came to what I read from ridge it made me confused on why ridge is here. I am glad you came to this forum Ridge it is a great place. Though sadly it is posts like yours that have made me not like another forum very much though I still go there as sometimes there is good info on the page. Now I am a crossdresser who while yes I have masturbated while dressed and still do sometimes. That does not mean that I have to. Hell I have masturbated in the shower. As for your idea that a female does not masturbate then why are so many vibrators get sold in the US? This is not a flame this is just my point of view take it for what it is a person speaking his mind.

CJ:

I'm sorry "GUYS"

I just don't understand where you are all coming from when you all seem to dislike any mention of the link between Crossdressing & Sexual pleasure. Sorry to burst your bubble but this is a common known fact. But hey lets keep it clean all the same as under 13's can have access to this site also!

If you are talking about transgender or transexual then that is a different matter but linked non the less to crossdressing. Crossdressing is a MOSTLY sexual activity!!! I'm not saying people havn't moved on from that, but that would make you transgender surely (seeing yourself as a person of the opposite sex)?

I don't see myself as a women, nor do I want to be a women BUT I do like to dress up in certain womens clothing and explore some femine things - and yes it MOSTLY turns me on, And if I can also mention that this is the same for SHANNON (who started this forum for us) read His post submitted Aug 21 2003 - WHY - http://crossdressers-haven.com/forums/v ... c.php?t=56

So in conclussion, if you are discusted with seeing any mention of crossdressing & sexual pleasure then you have an issue with the very same person who set this forum up. I'm sure SHANNON and SHARON set this forum up so we could talk about the WHOLE issue of crossdressing (albeit clean) and not just a limited view of it (which in my opinion is a misleading view of crossdressing).

Sorry if this offends you!!! but we all have an opinion.

Hi Melissa,

I respect your opinion (and Ridge's, for that matter). Not only that, I agree with it; I'd be lying if I said that, even though I refer to myself in the feminine gender and have given myself a feminine name, I'm not a GUY in a dress who derives some sexual pleasure from dressing up--I mean we all live on planet Earth, here.

However, there are reasons I object to the direction this thread has taken. Here are just three of them:

One (and it's the main one), if you want to exchange and discuss opinions with people in a fruitful manner, attacking and demolishing others is not a good way to start. You destroy the possibility for meaningful debate whenever you carpet bomb a whole segment of the population.

Two, opinions are not arguments. The world is already drowning in opinions as people love to wallow in their own ignorance. Although not a huge fan of syllogisms, I understand that Ridge views her opinion as an argument in the following form:

1. Anyone who submits another to his or her sexual desire is selfish;
2. A CD's partner feels she is made to submit to her SO's sexual desire;
3. (and this is a shadow premise in Ridge's argument) Crossdressing is an expression of sexual desire over which one has some modicum of control;
4. Therefore, crossdressers (and crossdressing) are inherently selfish.

All three premises, however, are faulty. Although I agree with premise 1, I don't think it applies to crossdressers all that well; transvestism is a compulsive behaviour--as such, it's the crossdresser himself who's made, in some way and to some extent, to submit to his own sexual desire; our SOs are, unfortunately, caught in the orbit of our own private struggles with that compulsion. Many resent it; some roll with the punches. Which brings me to premise 2. I've read the SO's posts and, yes, there's anger and resentment and bitterness at their predicament. However, I've only familiarized myself with the views of the SOs who've posted, not with those that haven't (again, as Alexandra has pointed out). If you read the posts again, you'll find that some SOs have found a common ground with their CDing partner--out of a deep friendship, a loving commitment, or, who knows? perhaps even a certain satisfaction of their own sexual desires. In fact, their are women out there who actively seek out crossdressing men as mates and partners (Kathy in Toronto is but one example; should she be considered selfish because she likes to dress up her boyfriends?). So premise 2 should be modified to read: Some CDs' partners feel they are made to submit to their SO's sexual desires. Premise 3 just doesn't hold. As mentioned above, crossdressing is a compulsive behaviour; yet, for us to evaluate and judge any action or behaviour in the light of morality or ethics (such as the selfish activities of a sexual partner), that action or behaviour must be freely chosen, not imposed (even if imposed by our own sexual psychodynamics). Trust me, Melissa, if I thought I could just stop crossdressing, I would. It's brought me (and those around me) untold pain and difficulty. There's a reason gender therapists these days focus on the matter of self-acceptance and self-esteem rather than on curative treatments. I rather suspect that Ridge's ability to just stop dressing has more to do with the fact that she's not a crossdresser than it has with any virtuous selflessness she may possess.

A third reason this thread is disquieting to me is this: as you, yourself, have pointed out, Melissa (by resorting to Mr. Oxford), transvestism and transsexuality are both points in the continuum of gender identity disorders. The salient fact about a continuum is that it's inclusive and all-encompassing, not divisive and compartmentalized. If one wishes to stand apart, then one also stands outside that continuum and criticizes it as an outsider. I, for one, have learned long ago not to fret over what outsiders may believe I am or how they view what I do. Such worrying isn't conducive to good mental health.

A final point. The previous paragraph notwithstanding, I think there's a major difference between transvestites and transsexuals (one that seems to be at the root of huge misunderstandings between the two "camps") and it's this: crossdressers, by and large, are satisfied and appreciative of their physiological sex--they derive their sexual pleasure as men (even if as "womenly" men sometimes) whereas transsexuals generally hold their bodies (especially their genitals) in utter contempt and would rather be in the world as physiological females. That's all well and good (and all the more power to them, I say, if they should have the means and sufficient desire to achieve that goal). What bothers me is that it seems as though that disgust transsexuals feel at their own ineluctable maleness is sometimes carried over to their evaluation of the transvestite condition. You just can't do that. Disdain for the tartness of our "orangeness" when compared to the sweetness of your "appleness" is unjustified, even though we may find ourselves carried in the same shopping bag. We're both fruits. Get it?

Anyway, Melissa (and Ridge), I just thought I'd put in my two cents' worth here because, although I'm not looking for consensus (you're right, Melissa, that would be boring as hell), I am looking for comprehension as well as positive ways to foster an atmosphere where that comprehension can flower. I'm hoping this is something we're all looking for, in the end.

With all my respect,
Christina

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh..Christina---Welcome back gentle voice of sweet reason! We missed you. I hope your break from here was pleasant and useful CJ.

Hi Carolynn,

Thanks for the welcome. Yes, I think it did me good. (Still trying to reconciliate pleasure and usefulness, though! )

Love,
CJ

Thanks for such an in depth reply "CJ"

I'm not sure what your getting at even though you wrote a lengthy reply? In part I agree with you but have not the time to reply to them now.

I was just motivated by the fact that "Ridge" was getting a hard time from you guys just because he raised the sexual link with crossdressing, personally I don't think his argument is far wrong even though there maybe differences of opinion in some instances. Not to mention that Carol Ann was "discusted" come on????? I read nothing that was offensive from "Ridge's" post at all.

Anyway, I'm not here to make enemies but rather share my thoughts as well as seek support when needed.

Hi Melissa,

All I want to convey is this: true, crossdressing is sexual (perhaps even mostly sexual) in nature. I don't think anyone can argue with that. I certainly don't intend to be contentious on the matter. What I find disagreeable (and this, maybe, is what Carol Ann found "disgusting") is the vitriol with which Ridge injected the otherwise unobjectionable statement of her opinions. Loathing has no place in a forum where many members seek the camaraderie and support of others who've also been the victims of such loathing for the better part of their lives, whether that loathing came from within themselves or from "society at large." I want to know, and am eager to hear, Ridge's views, but I'm not willing to put up with personal attacks on who we are merely on the basis of our "nature" and our "needs." This kind of dark essentialism erases my humanity; I don't like it.

In a nutshell, that's all I wanted to say. Sorry for my previous long-winded posts (I get carried away sometimes).

With all my respect,
Christina
(and, yes, you can put quotation marks around my name or initials if it'll help you to focus on the fact that I'm a male--I won't object to that)

CJ wrote:Just like Pavlov's dogs, CDs have learned that dressing means sexual arousal and pleasure.

Pavlov's dogs were taught to associate hunger and the delivery of food with the sound of a ringing bell, not to associate dressing with with sexual arousal and pleasure.

So let me get this straight: You are saying that Pavlov's dogs were not 'taught' to gain sexual pleasure from wearing women's clothes, and Ridge is saying that many CD's associate sexual pleasure with wearing women's clothes similar to how Pavlov's dogs associated food with the ringing bell.

Seems like you are both correct.

CJ wrote:CDs are selfish by their nature and their needs.

People in general are selfish by their nature and their needs. It's called being human. Crossdressers (and, indeed, transsexuals) are no exception.

True. People are selfish. Ridge's comments refer to an SO who had issue with being put in a position of having sex with their partner while they wore women's clothes. This was uncomfortable for them.

I'm willing to bet that most everyone would be uncomfortable being put into a position without being given a choice. And we would also look for a way to not be in that position again. But what is the SOs choice? End the relationship? Not the easiest choice to make.

I have always believed that relationships are a continual succession of compromise. Example: (Him) "I want to be dressed while we make love." (Her) "I'm uncomfortable with that. How about we switch off? You can dress, but the next time you don't. (Him) "Ok".

Everyone gets some measure of what they want, or need.

CJ wrote:It seems I have struck a sensitive chord for some.

First of all, the answer is No, you haven't struck a chord with anyone other than yourself--your obvious sensitivity to this issue has made you lash out in anger, an anger masquerading as rational argument.

Anger tends to make one irrational, so I am having problems believing Ridge is angry yet making rational arguments. And it is certainly better than something like, "You're wrong. Now go away."

CJ wrote:Second, you haven't "struck a chord," you've smashed the guitar on stage is what you've done. Condemning an entire group of people on the basis of a small sample of its, more than likely only partially representative, members inevitably sets you up for vitriolic replies.

I must have missed the "condemning" part...

CJ wrote:In a place where people seek self-understanding and support as well as a privileged refuge from the poison too often dealt out by "mainstream" society, it's no surprise that shock and anger will accompany the discovery that such poison has followed us here.

Be careful not to generalize...

What poison are you referring to? Lack of understanding? Disliking the fact that we wear women's clothes? The first can be corrected with education. The second is an opinion, that through education, can often-times be changed.

Dislike, and lack of understanding, are parts of the reality of the world in which we live. IMO, it would be naive that you could find anyplace where you could get away from that reality.

CJ wrote:But tell me, in a linear argument, what you don't like about my argument. And why is my position and opinion disgusting?? It is so easy to criticize and so hard to form a logical counter-argument.

There is no linear argument possible here because we're going around in circles. The reason we're going around in circles is that yours is not an argument at all, it's a statement of your humble opinion.

Ridge gave his opinion. Carol Ann said she disagrees. Ridge asked her to explain herself. Seems pretty linear to me.

CJ wrote:As Alexandra has pointed out, providing facts to back up your opinion increases the likelihood we'll consider it an argument.

How about providing facts to support your position, on this issue? It seems pretty one-sided to only ask that he produce facts. And it is simply an opinion.

In my opinion, chartreuse is an ugly color. There are no facts to support this. It is simply how I feel about the matter.

However, when you respond that you like chartreuse, and you think my opinion is wrong, then it has become a discussion (better word than argument). We should both provide some explanation as to why we feel the way we do, and perhaps sway the other person to our point of view.

CJ wrote: it's in the way you chose to attack, demean, devalue, condemn, and destroy crossdressers in the delivery of that opinion.

I must have missed this part, too...

CJ wrote:Frankly, it is rather disgusting to me that some CDs must dress to have sex with their SO. That freaks me out.

What surprises me is that it comes from the pen of a person who considers herself transgendered, not from someone belonging to the "unenlightened," non-TG masses.

At what point did Ridge say he considered himself TG? He said he crossdressed. Said his body was changing due to a medical condition. But I haven't seen him relate to himself as TG.

If anything it actually makes sense. If Ridge hasn't had TS/TG thoughts or feelings, yet he now feels his body is forcing him to go that direction, he doesn't have the 'enlightenment' or 'understanding' because he has not gone through the phases that one normally does before they get to the point of being a TS/TG. But he is here trying to find that understanding, and enlightenment.

CJ wrote:That fact alone doesn't invalidate your disgust; however, what does invalidate your disgust is your unwillingness (or inability, perhaps) to even attempt to understand or, God forbid! to empathize with the subject of your revulsion.

Don't do it, Ridge! I don't want anyone's empathy:

Empathy: Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See Synonyms at pity.

I would like your understanding. And I think Ridge is here to try and reach some level of understanding. Yet this group seems to be vilifying that.

CJ wrote:You'll have made a huge stride forward the day you'll be able to see the human being behind the dress.

I'll bet a lot of those who don't understand still "see the human being behind the dress".

Just because they know that you are compassionate, intelligent, loving, caring, (whatever adjectives you choose), does not mean that they understand why you want to wear women's clothes.

CJ wrote:I call your attention to the section on motivations for crossdressing. It contains many posts that are logical and well presented. They certainly are good arguments against my position. But also note they were posted well before any of my ramblings. So what did I do to set you off that the prior postings did not??

Again, if you take the time to read that particular thread once more, you'll discover that each rose in that bouquet blossomed with nary a thorn in sight. We exchanged opinions (no, there are no arguments and counter-arguments in that thread) in the utmost respect of each other's experience and motivations.

Actually, Ridge said that those posts contained arguments against his position.

Here he is, offering you information to support your position, and yet you continue to vilify him.

CJ wrote:We want to learn, not to pontificate; we want to accept, not to reject; we want to see, not to close our eyes.

And I don't see Ridge trying to do anything but. He simply made an assertion, based on posts that he had read. And he certainly did not present it dogmatically!

CJ wrote:Well, let me put it this way: would you rather be approached by a purring, playful kitten or a snarling, drooling lion, red in tooth and claw? I mean, they're both felines, aren't they?

They are. And since you put it that way, then each of us is the lion.

Ridge stated an opinion, and "Opinions are like a*******, everybody's got one." (Anonymous)

CJ wrote:As is stated early on I am a CD from early childhood... I am experiencing the same body changes as a TS. The only difference is I did not choose this course of action as a TS would.

Like Alexandra, I'd be curious to know what it is in your life that makes you define yourself as a crossdresser from early childhood (I've hunted around the forum for your "Beginnings" post, but haven't found it).

So...since Ridge has not posted in the "Beginnings" forum, he is not a crossdresser? While you say that you are "curious", you make it sound as if you expect Ridge to 'prove' his right to say he is a crossdresser, not simply accept that it's true.

What is there for someone to accept that you are a crossdresser? Because you typed some words on a screen, and posted them in a certain spot?

In some ways this reminds me of several old discussions I have seen: "I only wear panties. Am I a crossdresser?" But take it one step further: "I only put panties on one time. Am I a crossdresser?"

The answer is yes, to both. However, for the second one, the answer only applies for that moment in time that the person had the panties on. Or does it always apply?

Are you a crossdresser even when you are dressed as a man? You and I would probably answer "yes". The time dressed as a man is simply 'down-time' from when we are crossdressed. Maybe that person who wore panties once is just in a long-term version of 'down-time', and will once again put a pair of panties on. Then they would also be a crossdresser.

CJ wrote:if you seriously believe that transsexualism (or even "lowly" transvestism, for that matter) is any more a matter of individual choice than is your own condition, you need to talk to more transsexuals and transvestites.

I am not totally disagreeable with this. However, Ridge said more along the lines that CDs are making a choice, but TS/TGs have different motivations.

In some sense, I agree with that. We all make a choice to wear women's clothes. Yes, it makes us more complete. Yes, we would feel an emptiness if we didn't. But we still make a concious decision to put a dress on.

CJ wrote:Now, just to address your initial point (no, I hadn't forgotten), the wives and girlfriends and sweeties and partners whose posts fueled your indignation are, indeed, a testament to the turmoil they may be going through in their relationships as a result of their SO's crossdressing. However, what speaks even more loudly is the fact that they would post here at all. Do you see what I'm saying? They come here because they want to understand, they want a greater access to their own well-being, they want some measure of healing. As we all do.

And I don't think Ridge is really looking for anything different.

CJ wrote:Just empty your cup a little bit--make room for the experience of others. Others will then want to taste yours.

Let me say for Ridge, "Please do the same."



I guess my primary issue stems from how little acceptance, there seems to be, for Ridge's opinion(s). And this from a group that does nothing but talk about how nice it would be if people could more easily accept us, and ours.

Rather than spending so much energy discussing the 'presentation' of his opinions, why not spend it explaining how he might be wrong? I think you will find this to be the more difficult thing to do.

Every part of the human condition is part of a scale. There are heterosexuals, homosexuals, and some form of everything in between. Just as there are non-crossdressers, crossdressers, transsexuals, transgendered, and everything in between. And just because we exist somewhere along that scale does not mean we truly have an easy understanding of some other group along that same scale.

Ridge is here to try and come to terms with, and find understanding, for himself and the direction he feels his medical condition is taking him. He seems to see himself pushed towards Transsexualism, which he does not understand. IMO, everyone is better served if we put our efforts towards helping him find that understanding, which may lead to some measure of acceptance, as well.

Anyway, those are my many cents worth. My intention was not to anger or deride.



Hugs.

Melissa wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble but this is a common known fact. . . . Crossdressing is a MOSTLY sexual activity

It is??? Commonly known fact??? Crossdressing is a MOSTLY sexual activity???

Sure, there may be some sexual connection, I don't doubt that, BUT, now, not only we've got "most", "many" we've got a new ones, "commonly known" and "Crossdressing is a MOSTLY sexual activity"!!!!!!

I know you're posting an opinion, BUT its high time to start posting FACTS that'll back up "most", "many", "commonly known fact" and "Crossdressing is a MOSTLY sexual activity!!!

I'm looking for FACTS that I can go verify on my own without taking anybody's word for it. :|