Crossdressers-Haven.com

Hi sisters,

Hoping the following does not transgress any forum-to-forum etiquette—
I noticed this question topic on Laura's Playground CD forum at:

http://www.lauras-playground.com/forums ... opic=11207

Poster Andrea S.'s question is "...what do you think we would do...instead of crossdressing...if there were no clothing distinctions between men and women? What if everybody wore the same style, the same colors. Did their hair the same way...what would we do then?"

With thanks to Andrea S. for posing a fascinating question, and with all due credit to Laura's Playground, I thought I'd quote it here and ask you all the same. Whatcha think?

You may also wish to post your thoughts at Laura's.

Love, Robyn Katie

I'd still wear what is considered today's female clothing, because they're so soft and cozy.

Besides that, it'd be nice to finally be able to wear anything I like, not just conforming to ''present yourself as a man or a girl, never both''.

If everybody wore the same thing crossdressing would not be an issue. Any of us would hope that the standard style would be feminine, soft and frilly but that would be even more unlikely than the idea itself. Remember the Kemer Rouge. They all wore the same clothes. Maybe Pol Pot wanted to supress his desire to crossdress by making everybody wear identical clothing.

Lets make it simple. How do you cross dress in a nudist setting? I'm sure we'd find a way.....

Zari

I reckon that there would at least be one difference, and that is in the breast size. Surely there would be some type of breast support which would allow for "padding".

In some of the old Communist Countries, both men and women wore the same outfit and had the same haircut. It lasted only as long as the country was communist. Then men and women went their separate ways as far as fashion and hair.

Personality, behavioral patterns, gestures, grace, skin care, attitudes, facial hair removal to smooth pores, and yes, the ggs would need something to strap down their breasts, so it would always be possible to dress under the outer clothes. Probably wearing the same androgenous clothes women would still appear more curvaceous, and since bodies come in all forms, then there would likely be constricting undergarments that could be used by cds to provide the curves in much the same way as some genetic wormen would want/need. In some ways, that might make cding truly more of a learning process, since you wouldn't depend on clothes to make yourself seem femalebut really the often unnoted things that really set men and women apart in our culture. Might be an interesting excercise.

Absaroka wrote:Lets make it simple. How do you cross dress in a nudist setting? I'm sure we'd find a way.....

Zari

Accessorizing, of course. Earrings, jewelery, hair accessories, all that jazz.

That would be one way. But if we got rid of the accesories we'd still probably find a way.

Zari

Getting rid of accessories?

BLASPHEMY!

Hi sisters,

It is interesting to imagine a totally unisex-dressed society. Presumably many other evidences of gender differences would also be erased.

We'd all be human beings, our individual differences not sex-marked. No distinction between what we do, where we go, etc. ...

But what about how we act? Would men and women have the same styles in personality, behavior, etc.? Just how identical could people be?

Even within one sex today, whether male or female, there is a vivid universe of differences in outgoingness, self-expression, interests, playfulness or soberness, dignity or not, and every imaginable style of behavior ... let alone knowledge, intuition, perceptiveness, etc. etc.

So I think we could find a broad range of ways to express ourselves, walk, move, tease, and suggest whatever angle on our chosen gender we could think of. And if that angle is "feminine" — whatever feminine means in a totally unisex concept — then we'd happily exploit that.

After all, among women as a gender (just as among men) are hundreds and thousands of individual different ways of behaving (and, indeed, dressing as well), from girly to mannish, with excursions in all directions.

So, first, I'd be toward the girly end of the scale, and then ... I'm sure imagination would come to my rescue with other fun approaches.

On the other hand, if the unisex world included unisex thinking and feeling as well, then that's a whole nother kettle of fish.

Love, Robyn Katie

Hi "uni-t(h)ers" (lol... my try to combine brothers and sisters),

I also had a discussion on such a topic with my SO and our thoughts where similar to Robyn's.

Imagine such a community, which does not know about ANY differences between men and women - except the physical ones. Everyone could wear trousers or skirts, accessories of any kind, just the way this individual likes it and completely independent of sex/gender. No feeling of: "today I wear a skirt, so I am en-femme" - simply because there is no "en-femme" anymore.

Will this community have CD'ers?
NO - because there is no rule, that tells what men or women wear - so the outfit will not make a difference, and can't be different to the outfit of the "opposite" sex. There is simply no way to cross-dress.

Will this community have TV/TG?
We are not sure about this - because there is no crossdressing, at least no-one would recognize it at a first look. But inside - TGs feel like the "opposite" sex, they want to live in the other or even in both roles w/out changing their body. But when there is no difference between men and women - would TG'ing disappear as well? Tricky question...

Will this community have TS?
We guess, TS would stay, as TS have the feeling, that they do not even physically fit into their body. Even when this is the last and only difference between men and women, the difference stays as well. But would this be less, as often TS is the end of the road from CD via TG? Tricky question as well...

BTW - last not least, in such a community, there is no "opposite" sex...

The physical differences can get pretty important once you start thinking in terms of children. Also it needs to be considered if the way the brain is wired is part of "physical differences".

I'd think that this society would still have gender differences and that some would find a way to cross them.

Zari

Only the Mao suit? If there were no differences but Sex I suppose we would desire transition - that being the only remaining way to express our femininity. If there were only one sex I suppose we would either like tantalus be in agony always wanting but never having what is always out of reach, OR we would be totally Oblivious - We would be cured!!!!

Thanks to Robyn Katie for bringing up an interesting question. I wrote so much that I thought I should split it up, and posted a new topic here.

I'm wondering if the original question assumed there were no differences in clothing due to externally applied restrictions (religious law or economic conditions) in some hypothetical future society. If that were the case, I'm sure humans would find a way to transgress. Even in a highly regimented society like Mao's China, males and females wore different underwear. I'm sure there was some swapping. We all know rules can't stop a deeply felt need for long. No news flash here.

Maybe the question postulated unisex clothing because, in some future world, there were no external differences between the sexes. If everyone had breasts, everyone could wear a bra. In other words, there is no such thing as crossdressing if there is no line to cross. Like, duh. But if people had any sexually linked characteristics, people would be crossing them. They would be trying to exaggerate something they felt wasn't strongly enough expressed, or they might just want to experiment with how the opposite sex lived. Of course, "opposite sex" is just an arbitrary simplification of what is a range of psychological and physiological characteristics. I imagine some males in that externally unisex world might enjoy a feminine moment by handwriting a message in a nice legible, generally rounded style of semi-cursive lettering. I'm sure if there were a characteristic of one sex which could be emulated by the opposite sex, it would be emulated. Again, that's already been said.

I believe the key concept is that sex is not strictly a binary classification. There will be a range of expressions for a range of characteristics. And nothing will prevent it.