CDing is a sexual pleasure

[Marilyn]

I would like to try a small experiment... Please bear with me.

Some thoughts about the issue of dressing and the need of the CD for acceptance by the SO. Since I am a CD and because my hormones are totally scrwed up by a brain tumor, I beleive I have some insight from the female side.

From my own perspective, I think that some CDs are turned on by dressing. At some point early on they may associate dressing with sexual pleasure. There is a "thrill" in the adventure of not being caught, and sometimes, being caught.

Some number of CDs masturbate while dressed for the sexual pleasure. Just like Pavlov's dogs, there are CDs who have learned that dressing means sexual arousal and pleasure.

Thus, when this particular CD wants to dress for sex with the SO/wife, he is really experiencing a sexual high. The more they have sex dressed, the more they need to do it dressed. It's a fix that is hard to break.

I have read posts from several of the SOs that expressed being turned-off by the hubby dressed; my ex-wife was also. They want sex to be a loving part of the marriage not a mechanical part to satisfy the hubby's sex drive. In my case, I wanted to have sex with my ex-wife for the same loving reason; sexual arousal aside. So it stopped soon after it started.

I don't believe such activity is healthy for a marriage. The sexual needs of the hubby are met but the SO is not considered. This would say that some CDs are selfish by their nature and their needs.

My humble opinion.

Ridge

The red text are my simple changes to Ridge's original post. I am not trying to intimate that this was Ridge's intended meaning. This is more a presentation of my interpretation, of his opinion, upon myself.

Before reading Ridge's post, I never had cause to think about such issues. This post caused me to form an opinion of those topics, and this is how it reads.

As you can see, and as I stated previously, the bulk of what Ridge said is intact. However, through a simple change - of just a few words - the meaning is quite different.

Because of previous posts, I would like to say that my intent here is not to anger, disgust, or offend anyone. I am simply presenting my opinion, of the original topic(s), in response to Ridge.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Hugs.

[CJ]

Hi Ridge,

Personally, I don't feel offended (even though a part of me keeps insisting I should be); I, as well as those close to me, know I'm not a selfish person, nor do I merit anyone's contempt or disgust. So, the fact that you think I'm selfish, contemptible, disgusting, and that my behavior freaks you out rolls right off me like a nylon slip over a silk stocking. But that's just me.

Yet, there's something in your attitude that keeps me coming back, like a tongue probing and worrying a loose tooth.

I still contend opinions are neither wrong nor right. How people act on those opinions can indeed have bad outcomes. I do not condone the acts of people that hurt or kill others.

You cannot simultaneously contend that opinions are morally neutral and condemn injurious or death-dealing behaviours based on those opinions. Either you must abandon the idea that opinions are morally neutral (thereby committing yourself to the idea that someone, somewhere, will be right about something and someone else will be wrong) or you must abandon the idea that people don't act on their opinions and their beliefs (which is pure nonsense). Even the statement itself of an opinion can be a behaviour. Wittgenstein put it this way: "Words are deeds." You've hurt some people in this forum, Ridge, because you've used your opinion as a vicious weapon. Like anyone who comes face-to-face with a knife-wielding thug, people will react instinctively in their own self-defense. Was it your opinion that things would be any different than what they turned out to be here?


Have you heard the expression: "shock and awe" as used in the war on Irag? Have you heard of the device called "contrary positions?" One gets the attention of others through many options, these are two approachs. Are they all bad? I think not. Could other approaches be used? Yes. Are all aproaches effective? Yes, some better than others.

Shock and awe? Shock and awe? What makes you think there are enemies here, Ridge? Do you see yourself as a mighty juggernaut clearing the path so that the light of reason may shine in this dark desert? You state you want to get the attention of others. Why? I, for one, am willing to give you my unsollicited and undivided attention for the mere reason that you are, that you exist, that I see in you another human being much like myself, Ridge. Perhaps you need to consider the possibility that you are at war with nobody but yourself.


My intent has been to get people thinking, mind you without personally attacking anyone. If you are offended, I apologize. But I did get you thinking and posting your thoughts for the benefit of others.

Ridge, you effectively attack every person in a group whenever you attack the group as a whole. As I've said, I personally don't feel all that offended--my velvety soft skin is pretty damned thick. So there's no need for you to apologize to me. However, I find it slightly presumptuous on your part that you believe I (or anyone else here) was not thinking and posting those thoughts for the benefit of others before your arrival. Read the archived posts; we're not thoughtless, we're not mindless, we're not ignorant, we're not delusional, and we're certainly not in need of any high-minded saviours, regardless of how well-intentioned he or she may be. People will feel much more free to post their thoughts if you invite them to do so not by slapping them in the face but, rather, by telling them a little bit about yourself and how you've learned to hold your own joys and sorrows. Show me, Ridge, that part of you that I can recognize somewhere in myself (and in everybody else here) and I'll gladly show you what the geography of my own heart and soul looks like.


Some people live by the old saying: "First you are born. Life sucks, and then you die." I do not. But nobody said life was easy or fair. Indeed, it is not. Being a CD is not an easy road to follow. I hope that all people can achieve their personal goals and have a wonderful life.

Yes, some people do live by that saying. I've met many of them in the course of my work and in the course of my life. Not a one of them resides at this address. No, life isn't easy and life isn't fair (well, at least not according to the six o'clock news), but, really, the only thing that matters, Ridge, is that life belongs to you--you have life coursing through you and it's up to you to shape it so that you may also achieve your personal goals and have a wonderful life. In the end, that's all any of us are really trying to do, whether we're selfish crossdressers or distraught wives and girlfriends.

Respectfully,
Christina

[CJ]

Hi Marilyn,

I'm glad you posted your "experiment." It's made me soften my stance somewhat regarding Ridge's original post. However, the underlying assumption (and it remains unstated) that transvestism can be a deviant and destructive condition ("nature" and "needs"), injurious to others continues to bother me. What hurts others is not crossdressing itself--whether or not it's sexual, it's still relatively harmless--but, rather, the massive difficulty, and frequent failure, in integrating this aspect of ourselves into our relationships. As I've said elsewhere, our SOs are often caught in the orbit of our own private struggles with this compulsion. This is how it translates: many of the SOs here have expressed some degree of resentment not at the fact that hubby likes to wear a dress and heels, but that he felt it necessary to keep so crucial a part of himself away from the one he loves. These lies lead to an SO's feeling betrayed and this is where the damage occurs in a relationship.

There's an almost endless line of people in the world "outside" waiting for a chance to tell me that my condition is deviant, destructive, and injurious to others. Well, I just turn around and moon them (I have pretty garters). I just don't expect such criticism to come from within our own ranks, is all.

Respectfully,
Christina

[Marilyn]

What hurts others is not crossdressing itself--whether or not it's sexual, it's still relatively harmless--but, rather, the massive difficulty, and frequent failure, in integrating this aspect of ourselves into our relationships. As I've said elsewhere, our SOs are often caught in the orbit of our own private struggles with this compulsion.

This is how it translates: many of the SOs here have expressed some degree of resentment not at the fact that hubby likes to wear a dress and heels, but that he felt it necessary to keep so crucial a part of himself away from the one he loves. These lies lead to an SO's feeling betrayed and this is where the damage occurs in a relationship.

CJ, I do so appreciae your response...

From my personal experiences (I've never been with a woman who didn't at least partially accept), I believe you are correct. Although, as in my case, some issues may arise because I have moved into a new phase of crossdressing (lingirie only to complete).

I don't know from your post; would you say that, given the changes I have made in the text, that the statements now contain some level of truth?

Assuming your answer is yes, and then extending that assumption (based on some of the posts mentioned), to say that some of the CD's don't realize that they are being selfish - when it comes to sex - and not considering their SO's needs.

Is it not better to present the ideas that this occurs, in an un-antagonistic way and from those who seem to share some (or many) of the same traits, with the intent being to offer insight to the human condition that is crossdressing? This approach presents the possibility of having two benefits to the group.

First, whether you like the issue or not, by having it stated it has forced you to address the idea; perform objective reasoning; examine your personal moralities and beliefs; create your own opinion; and then articulate a response. I don't see how any of these things could ever be considered bad. And often times we will find that - if we had ever had reason to approach the idea in just that same way - we would have come to the same opinion. It's not that we didn't 'know' about the issue...just that we never had reason to think about it in just that way, until now.

I believe the second (possibly more esoteric benefit) is the possibility of a person (in this case the selfish CD), reading the opinion; recognizing that some, or all, applies to them; and initiating a change in their behavior, which translates into a positive change in their relationship.

While the SO may have articulated this same position - that the CD was only satisfying one person's needs (the CD's) - this idea may be difficult for the CD to accept because they see their SO as having a biased view. And, anecdotal evidence suggests this, particularly in relathionships where the SO is not completely, and openly, accepting of ones choice in clothing.

It is, for these reasons, that I have difficulty finding anything negative in this thread's initial post.

And while I do understand the issues with some of the words used: "many", "most", "all", I have yet to understand how the issue is a 'slap in the face'. As I feel I've shown, above, the statements are not far from being a statement of some measure of truth - whether it applies directly to us or not - and how can one justify anger at the truth? Anger at not liking the truth. Anger at the person who stated the truth. But the truth simply is, and it only is able to alter itself when we make the effort to change it.

Hugs.

[Marilyn]

I have pretty garters

I'm sure you do, sweety.

Hugs.

[Alexandra]

Pardon me, but fact: a lawyer is someone who holds a law degree.

DING! DING! DING!

Now THAT is NOT TRUE!!!!!

Based on your statements in this tread, I DO NOT BELIEVE you are an attorney!!!!! I believe you're pulling a fast one on us!!!

A lawyer is a person that passed a bar exam and is a member of the bar. Most (but not all) people that sit for the bar exam have law degrees, but exceptions are made for others to sit for the bar exam. (depending on the state/circumstances)

A person that holds a law degree, but did not sit for the bar exam, or FAILED the exam IS NOT A LAWYER!!! They're just a person with a law degree. Such a person calling themselves an attorney and is not a member of the bar is subject to severe discipline, not to mention open to civil liability lawsuits!

So, your statement is FALSE as stated.



You opened the door by stating that you had legal training to "add weight" to your "arguments" -- (argument from an authority) and that's my cue to debunk your baloney. I'm not attacking you personally . . . I'm attacking your claim to being a "lawyer".

The very first post in this thread almost certainly would have never have been written by a good attorney. A good attorney who goofed up on the first post would have responded to my second post by offering up evidence.

But here we are on the THIRD page and you, a lawyer of all people, have YET to offer up proof for "many", "most", "all" and instead choose to hide behind "opinion". CLEARLY there is something else going on here.



Remember YOU opened the door here, so let me do some speculation of my own (my opinion, of course) . . . you're no lawyer, and if you are, you're a bad one -- which of course explains why you're into a different field. I've a hunch you're a Jerry Falwell flunky just here to stir up trouble. Of course, I've no concrete proof, but then you haven't provided any either.

If you ARE sincere, well then "MAN", you blew it!

[Shannon]

Okay, this post is more than I care to read, because it basically says nothing. I agree Ridge was making a point that he feels, I don't have a problem with that...

But as I stated earlier, Ridge, your tone is totally inappropiate. Your response to me was was on the tone of my response to you.... you have now been manipulated as you have manipulated others....

But I don't care to play anymore.....

I really strongly request that you, Ridge, change your tone and combative attitude.... The tone since you started posting here is not what I personally want on this forum..... I love the exchange of ideas (good and bad) but I don't like the tone being used and if it continues I will remove it and you, Ridge. I have asked you once and now twice to change your tone and you have not.... last warning.

I am sure that you, Ridge, will come back and say there is nothing wrong with your tone... that you are only expressing your "humble opinion" and are not attacking people, but from the combative nature of your posts and the posts of others I don't see that it is producing and good atmosphere. So there is something wrong with it.

There is another member here on this forum, she has not posted much in a while but always had a strong opinion on topics and was never afaird to state it, but her posts never turned into such back and forth BS as this has... she presented her opinions respectfully and in a manner that was not so combative and insulting.... and yes I feel you have insulted people here based on the reactions shown.... so if you feel like you haven't that is fine, I am basing my statement of "insult" on what I see...

Thank you for your input.

[Ridge]

Alexandra;

I give you credit for being like a pit-bull: never letting go.

But the truth is that indeed I am an attorney, who has passed the bar, is a member of the bar in a Midwest State, admitted on May 23, 1989. I am a graduate of Marquette Law School, Milwaukee, WI.

Let me set the record straight ( legal terms you know): a doctor earns that title upon graduation from medical school. Since I was married to one, I am familiar with the process. Doctors need to complete a residency before they may practice but they are doctors. Watch ER to get the idea.

But you still haven't answered my request as to your legal credentials.

But then again this posting is in line of you and others who lash out at others who dare to diagree with you. And the irony is that you do it in the name of love and understanding.

At no time have I ever personally attacked you. But you and others continue to berate me. Maybe this is good for you are exposing to all to read who you really are and what you really stand for.

Since you prefer to be addressed in the feminine: have a great day sweetie pie.

Ridge

Ps. still waiting for your legal credentials. TA TA

[Alexandra]

not a lawyer, have no law degree, but smart enough to know a lawyer isn't a person with a law degree, but rather, a member of the bar. now why didn't you state that? or did you just generalize again?

I think there is enough evidence posted in this thread for people to make up their own minds without whats going on in this thread without any more "opinions" from you or me.

[Ridge]

Alexandra;

I concur.

Ridge

[CJ]

Hi Marilyn,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply (and, actually, no my garters are really strictly run-of-the-mill ).

As for Ridge's original post, I agree with much of what he says (and I've already said so), whether or not I read the "red letter" edition or the standard edition. I (and others) have also said, here and elsewhere in the forum, that there appears to be an element of selfishness in the practice of crossdressing that many of us (as well as our SOs) are already in the process of trying to come to grips with. It may be a sore point with some, one that needs little reminding. This is a chord that Ridge has struck, no doubt. There's no call for exultation, though: Ridge is beating a dead horse.

It bothers me that Ridge is indignant about being vilified for his opinion--which he considers inarguable--while simultaneously challenging others to provide evidence that may sway his thinking on the matter. That's commonly referred to as an invitation to debate, not as a mere statement of opinion.

It bothers me that, from the very first paragraph, Ridge sets himself up as an authority on the SOs' viewpoint by virtue of his medical condition (hence my desire for Ridge to clarify where he's coming from, psychologically, on this issue).

It bothers me that, from one single example of a CD he considers selfish (a person he doesn't want to name), he moves on to "some" CDs.

It bothers me that he resorts to these CDs' "nature" as a springboard for his moral judgement. I want him to describe this "nature" to me. Such essentialism is at the root of much sorrow and violence in the world.

It bothers me that he equates (and reduces) the sexual experience of human beings to the level of canines submitted to operant conditioning experiments.

It bothers me that he chose to introduce the matter in a jangling, discordant tone, rather than seeking out some harmony--not consensus, harmony--in his desire to offer his viewpoint.

It bothers me that he feels a string of credentials will add weight to his opinion. Isn't being human enough? A crossdressing human, at that?

It bothers me that he thinks it's possible to have sex with your spouse while shutting off your own sexual arousal. What does this say? Has it ever been the case that crossdressing is something you can turn off, like a cold water faucet? If so, why do crossdressers go through so much pain? so much sorrow? Why do they commit suicide? Because transvestism is a compulsion, that's why. You say, Marilyn, that we make a conscious decision to put on a dress. I beg to differ. If I felt I had a choice in the matter, I, for one, would not put on a dress; I'd thereby save myself a lot of heartache and ostracism (not to mention beatings). Frankly (and I may be way off base, here), I'm skeptical of anyone claiming to be a crossdresser saying this is just something he "stopped."

Finally, I realize that all I've said here is based on feelings, not on facts, arguments, expositions, or "contrary positions" and "shock and awe" tactics. You may say, "so you're bothered... live with it. That's how the world is." But, to steal a line from the Jodie Foster SF flick, Contact: "Funny, I always thought the world was what you make of it." If Ridge (or anyone else) believes that pugnacious argumentativeness stands any better chance of fostering understanding than do care and empathy (by the way, empathy: understanding of and identification with another's feelings--not pity: a feeling of sympathy--not sympathy: sorrow for another person's pain or trouble), then that person need only take a look at the level of understanding found in the world's religious and political arenas.

Well, that's it, Marilyn, I'm all "Ridged out." I don't think I have anything more to say in any intelligent way--time to empty my cup (seriously, though, thanks for pointing that out--I am too full of myself sometimes, especially when I get riled up... on the other hand, I never claimed my opinions were humble ).

Love,
CJ

[Marilyn]

Well, that's it, Marilyn, I'm all "Ridged out."

As am I.

Let's go shopping!!!!!!

Hugs.

[CJ]

Great idea, Marilyn! Okay, where do we go first...?

Love,
CJ

[Alexandra]

being the pitbull that I am (arf) I decided to do my own research on the topic and here's what I've found . . .

there are other people that have ridge's views and have done a bit of writing on the topic . . . but like ridge, the ones that I've found weren't able to substanciate any of their claims either . . .

I was unable to find any writer that used "many", "most", "all" in their postings either . . .

I was unable to find anything that indicated that people with ridge's views were in the minority or majority. . .

anyone wanting to read more on ridge's views can enter "dark side of crossdressing" in your google box and take it from there.

be forewarned . . . doing research on TG/CD issues will result in a lot of porno hits and you'll have to wade though this muck.

[Ridge]

Elvis has left the building.