Crossdressers-Haven.com

Don't they say "I am submissive, I am not dangerous to you, protect me?"

And doesn't that, if true and if you agree, go a little deeper (no pun intended) than just public display?

Maybe into the deep heart of sexuality?

Never heard a one say "I am submissive, I am not dangerous to you, protect me."

I see nothing about skirts or dresses indicating that the wearer is say submissive. Nor that the wearer need protection.

DT, what I am asking/saying is that assuming the "feminine" personae implies more than "it simply feels good." It implies a willingness to take a "sub" role, whether it be with a man or a woman.

IMO, of course.

Most men or women are not by nature of their gender submissive or dominant to say the least. That is a personal sexual preference or need. How you are dressed or what's between your legs has nothing to do with that. Humans have all kinds of sexual needs and desires and no one gender has cornered the market on any of them. Some people like to experience sex dressed a certain way or imagining they're something they're not. Don't overthink the situation. It's very simple. Humans love all kinds of sex in many different ways. Human is the key word not man or woman. Go with the flow.It's all good Hun. My boat floats in all kinds of water. Water is water. It's all wet. Hugs


Love
Jeannie

Ok, gals - a GG is stepping into this now - and dang it, where are my boots when I need them most? You know I hate getting my feet dirty!

Tracy, I most definitely agree with Donna - and yes, Jeannie, you, too - that just because I wear skirts or dresses does NOT mean that I am in any way submissive, not dangerous to you, or that I need protection!!

If anything, the exact opposite is true - to a certain degree - in my case. I am rarely 'submissive' - and Tracy, I think the term you were actually intending to use is 'subservient' and I'm not subservient, either. No way, no how, not in my lifetime!!

Not 'dangerous'? I could seriously hurt someone if aggravated enough, and received defensive training from the police departments when I was working in their civilian volunteer section. However, I would not be able to 'seriously hurt someone' anywhere near as well as Virginia could, but then she trained with the Navy Seals, has 3 black belts in martial arts, and is a world champion powerlifter! Does the phrase, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?" tell you anything?

Do I need 'protection'? Not necessarily, but I'm not stupid and know enough to stay away from the rough areas of town. My training with the police departments taught me to 'be aware' of people and my surroundings at all times - and to do so without it being apparent to others.

As Jeannie was stating, gender does NOT dictate dominant or submissive roles, especially in sexual preferences, although some children are taught that boys are dominant and girls are submissive - - how sad and archaic. I can 'bottom' as well as 'top' but prefer my partner and I to be 'equals' - and we are!!


- SL

SilverLady(F) wrote:As Jeannie was stating, gender does NOT dictate dominant or submissive roles, especially in sexual preferences, although some children are taught that boys are dominant and girls are submissive - - how sad and archaic.

Precisely.

Some things are drummed into our heads when were young. It's a big mistake. I loved playing with the girls and always played house and they dressed me up as the little sister all the time because I was the smallest. I have lots of pictures of little jeannie when she was young. It's so funny. When you look up submissive and subserviant in a dictionary guess whose picture is there? One question Silver lady. What's a top? Never been there! As Hedwig says"The Thrill of control. The sweetest taste I've ever known" I just go with the flow ladies. I hate swimming upstream! I always and I mean always leave that to someone else! Hugs and kisses.

Love
Jeannie

PS. Oh Oh! I think I'm going to kicked out of the men's club now! Who cares. It's those dominant GG's I prefer anyway! Whoa! I'm having a hot flash!

TracyQ wrote:Don't they say "I am submissive, I am not dangerous to you, protect me?"

Hi Tracy--
When I first saw your statement, I immediately thought you were only asking the question of other crossdressers. But I'd have to say that skirts/dresses have some of those connotations, and might be a big part of why women that I know do not wear them at all, except on formal occasions. This may sound like a big generalization, but it's true of both women friends and women business associates and/ or customers.

I notice this because I grew up in an era when 90% of women wore some type of dress. Not even 50% do now. I think a look around at any mall would confirm this. If I were a woman and thought that wearing a dress would imply that I was "one down," then I'd think twice about it, too.

Sorry if I'm not being PC here, but when a CD wears a dress, he's automatically going to be judged as submissive. This does not mean that he is; this is just the predominant reaction from the general public, and I don't see it changing any time soon. There is still no rational reason for a man to wear a dress, in this society. A rational man dresses in a way that reinforces dominance and aggression, or: he dresses in a way that shows he can defend himself against others if need be. Both these dress modes spotlight desirable male attitudes.

If a man deliberately goes against this in an extreme way, he is seen as rejecting these qualities. The opposite of dominance and aggression is submission; there's little middle ground here. All the kilt wearers and carpenters with man-skirts are not going to turn that image around for CDs.

Frankly, I don't care if I'm seen this way. The public opinion doesn't change how I act or feel when wearing dresses. But I had been ready to give up my image of myself as an aggressive man long before I started CDing. And although I know there are some of us that still identify strongly with male behavior, even when dressed, we are not going to be perceived that way on first impression.

As much as I love wearing dresses, they're going to be associated with "one down' status for as long as I'm alive, I'm afraid. And I'm sorry that women also sense this, because I used to enjoy the sight of women in dresses. But I don't blame them for not wanting to keep the stereotype alive, and I'm not surprised that men judge us for wearing them.

Like many women, I get a charge out of showing men that I'm not the stereotype they think I am. That education goes on all the time.
I don't want new members to think that I get put down or disrespected for wearing a dress in public; I don't. It's unspoken judgments and assumptions that I'm speaking of here.

And the "I am not dangerous?" There's some truth there, when it's a man wearing the dress. I'm very much aware in my own mind that I'm making the statement to men I meet: "I've laid my weapons aside. I can't be much more vulnerable than this. Will you be real, too?" That is one of the benefits that I get from CDing--I'm being as real as I know how to be, and I'm asking for the same from them.

Hi all,

Generally speaking, men's clothing:

- is made from rugged fabrics built to last
- protects (or covers) a large surface area of the body
- comes in dark tones and colours
- does not restrict movement

Generally speaking, women's clothing:

- is made from delicate fabrics requiring special care
- reveals the wearer's body in such a way that range of movement is reduced
- comes in a riot of "decorative" colours
- hobbles or handicaps the wearer in some way, restricting movement

One of the inferences we can draw from this is that, indeed, women's clothing is designed to highlight (and encourage) both subservience as well as submission. Think about this objectively: what happens to a person whose nails are so long she can do little with her hands? Whose whole body is teetering on fashionable stilts? Who cannot put one foot more than twelve inches in front of the other because of the fabric binding her thighs together?

I tend to agree with Tracy. But I'll go further. It's not just skirts or dresses. Women's pants and slacks share the same characteristics as do skirts and dresses; they're not functional (where are the damned pockets?) and they're still too thin. In effect, they say (along with skirts, dresses, heels, etc.): "We have no need to be functional or practical because we're intended for a creature that has neither functionality nor practicality in mind but, rather, simple, superficial appearance and devotion to leisure."

Again, this is but one of the inferences we can make (and it's an unabashedly feminist one, at that) but there are many other ways of interpreting and assigning meaning to the gender divide in clothing design.

Interesting discussion. Great post, by the way, Anita (you? not being PC? Perish the thought! )

Love,
CJ

TracyQ wrote:Don't they say "I am submissive, I am not dangerous to you, protect me?"

I think it depends on the skirt. I dont know about you, but I have a skirt that makes me feel like "a badass B****", and another skirt that makes me feel kinda "earthy". Am I the only person who thinks like this?

Hey CJ,

You say women's clothes might imply...
"We have no need to be functional or practical because we're intended for a creature that has neither functionality nor practicality in mind but, rather, simple, superficial appearance and devotion to leisure."

Devotion to leisure? How about more inclined to use my brain than my brawn?

I agree that my work clothes, the skirts and heels that won't let me run if my life depends on it, are impractical but in today's society being able to feel like an equal (well almost) when entering a room full of men in suits makes me think they are very functional.
T.

A necktie also restricts physicallity. No one wants to do physical labor or get in a fight while wearing one. But still we have power ties that are meant to demonstrate dominance. I think the same is true of some dresses, skirts and so on. Perhaps they go so far as to say that " I am so powerful I do not need to resort to physical dominance" which is truly an intimidating statement to men who are raised to think of power as coming from physical strength. THink of Samson and Delilah.

Aside from that I have never thought of women as weaker than men. If you go back a ways in this forum you will see a post about my grandmother where we had a bit of a discussion about this.

Absaroka

Hi all,

Terri,

Yes, here leisure is contrasted with work in the sense of physical labor (the theories aren't mine, by the way; they're a feminist reading of fashion semiotics).

Historically, in Western cultures where leisure predominated or where labor was performed by slaves (for example, those around the Mediterranean basin: the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, etc.), fashion for the ruling class--men, of course, included--tended towards the impractical and decorative... dresses, skirts, robes, etc. (think: Toga Party).

Obviously (for feminists), the inference is clear: impractical clothing is okay for women... they can devote themselves to leisurely pursuits... because men will take care of them, look after them. Women have no need to look after themselves, to "fend" for themselves. They have no need to develop who they are outside the purview of men--the providers, the caretakers, the guardians--other than to see to it that men are kept satisfied. (Here, it can be enlightening to read--or re-read--Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.)

Notice, Terri, that I'm not saying this view of things is necessarily true or the right one. I just find it very intriguing. It should be obvious why. It would only take a slight shift in perception to suppose that, really, it's women who hold the reins of power here and that men are their slaves, in a way; women devote themselves to leisurely pursuits while "their" men go to work so that they can furnish "their" women with the means to indulge in those pursuits.

Heh. Of course, this view (which I'm equally not saying is necessarily true or the right one) has also been expressed before. It was called "The 1950"s"!

The point is, I wanted to address Tracy's question about what skirts or dresses ("impractical clothing" according to the argument) say about us. As Absaroka mentions, "power ties" are certainly just as impractical (and I hereby posit that the often wildly hilarious shortcomings of "power men" are the direct result of a reduced blood flow to the brain--something that doesn't happen to someone wearing a scoop-necked blouse). But, here, we move into a different subject--that of uniforms.

I agree that my work clothes, the skirts and heels that won't let me run if my life depends on it, are impractical but in today's society being able to feel like an equal (well almost) when entering a room full of men in suits makes me think they are very functional.

Terri, are you using the word "functional" in an equivocal way here? When you say "impractical," you're talking about the physical aspect of the clothes; but in referring to them as being "functional" (or not), you're referring instead to both their physical and psychological aspects. There are many more ways of being able to feel the equal (or even the better) of "a room full of men in suits" than those involving appearance (uh, yeah, says the guy who likes to dress as a woman).

Men are as much prisoners of their workplace uniforms as are women; a stroll down Wall St. at half past noon will confirm that the "power suit"--something meant to suggest that the wearer is exceptional or somehow stands above mere mortals--is a but a uniform, one that signals the wearer's membership in a certain social group (or class). As such, the suit levels and standardizes, making sure that no one person stands out. But, as we all know, women must often stand out if the worth of their best efforts is to be held as high as even the worst that some men can muster.

I agree, Terri, stand out with your brain.

Clothes do not make the man; nor do they make the woman (regardless of what crossdressers may think--myself included). But there are nevertheless all kinds of connotations associated to specific items of clothing. Skirts and dresses are good examples of such items.

Love,
CJ

A little known fact about trousers is they were invented for one purpose only and that was to ride a horse. All changes after that were down to fashion.

I don't ride a horse.

Susan

I don't think wearing skirts/dresses is a sign of submissiveness nor sexuality. When I am out as Maria, I enjoy wearing short miniskirts or my short black minidress with my tights; I don't own any woman's pants. I enjoy the practicality that my minidress and miniskirts provide, freedom of movement for my legs.

Maria