Cross Dressing - Weird?
- Thread starter Xilef
- Start date
sixtyandaquarter
Member
I've walked to the deli and back in a bath robe :x
Sic Semper Tyranosaurus
Sponsor
Cazakara":239vez0f said:
Pssst. Hey you. Yeah.Cazakara":239vez0f said:
Serious crossdressers like to shave. For that reason.
Sex change? I see no problem with it. It's your body and as long as you keep in mind that not everyone is going to be that accepting of it (ie. inform sexual partners prior to intercourse) then there shouldn't be any kind of problem with it.
The problem with cross dressing is far deeper than gender confusion. It has inherent problems that trace back to the foundations of society. The issue is that people are forced to wear certain things through social convention. If chance had made women the geneticly stronger gender, wouldn't men be the ones subjected to the requirment to look pretty? For the sake of my argument and the fact that I have little time to spend justifying my prior statment: assume the answer is yes. With that in mind, isn't the clothing we wear little more than a symbol of the roles the genders have been forced into over the centuries? To me it seems as if cross dressers are doing nothing short of being eccentric and are simply breaking convention. Is this day and age there really is no justifiable reason to restrict ourselves to convention, and as Mill and Nietzsche (who are arguably two of the greatest thinkers of all time) would argue, the breaking of convention is equated with the forward progression of society.
Don't get me wrong, breaking convention for the sake of breaking convention is useless in itself. I'm just putting it into perspective, and trying to underline that intolerance of eccentricity may well be a major factor in the slowing of society's progression.
The problem with cross dressing is far deeper than gender confusion. It has inherent problems that trace back to the foundations of society. The issue is that people are forced to wear certain things through social convention. If chance had made women the geneticly stronger gender, wouldn't men be the ones subjected to the requirment to look pretty? For the sake of my argument and the fact that I have little time to spend justifying my prior statment: assume the answer is yes. With that in mind, isn't the clothing we wear little more than a symbol of the roles the genders have been forced into over the centuries? To me it seems as if cross dressers are doing nothing short of being eccentric and are simply breaking convention. Is this day and age there really is no justifiable reason to restrict ourselves to convention, and as Mill and Nietzsche (who are arguably two of the greatest thinkers of all time) would argue, the breaking of convention is equated with the forward progression of society.
Don't get me wrong, breaking convention for the sake of breaking convention is useless in itself. I'm just putting it into perspective, and trying to underline that intolerance of eccentricity may well be a major factor in the slowing of society's progression.
Meh, its not gay until you actually enjoy being with the same sex in a relationship, sexual or not.
You can dress like a female, be a cheerleader, do what you want that's considered by mainstream as "gay", as long as you don't have intimate relations with the same sex, you're not gay by definition.
You can dress like a female, be a cheerleader, do what you want that's considered by mainstream as "gay", as long as you don't have intimate relations with the same sex, you're not gay by definition.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
Well you can be gay by definition - but that would be me splitting hairs that a definition for gay can still be happy and jubilant
But I knew what you meant
-
One thing that's always bothered me is the connection between wearing clothes and homosexuality. I never got it. It's like if you wore leather and spikes you were gay or if you wore a frilly pink dress you were gay or if you wore a pink handkerchief you were gay.
People gotta understand in casual wear uniforms don't exist.
But I knew what you meant
-
One thing that's always bothered me is the connection between wearing clothes and homosexuality. I never got it. It's like if you wore leather and spikes you were gay or if you wore a frilly pink dress you were gay or if you wore a pink handkerchief you were gay.
People gotta understand in casual wear uniforms don't exist.
Holly":3a0mh1mf said:
Friggin shot in the dark, you wanna do something sometime?
Srsly tho, emo's are basically cross dressers. Both sides, male and female. Girl pants, boy shorts.. same hairstyle, boys kissing boys, girls kissing girls. I cant really say OH YEAH on emo's kissing because you never know.
+1 maxipad of androgyny
What most people don't understand is that both pants and heels were invented around the same time and for the same purpose: war. Pants were designed so that a heavy cavalryman could have adequate armour on his legs while sitting astride a horse. Heels were invented because flat iron boots would slip out of the stirrup when the rider struck a target with his lance in a charge. Both were invented in the Middle Ages. Prior to that, both sides wore either tunics or kilts. For centuries after their invention, both remained exclusive to mounted soldiers.
adelaidechoc
Member
Discomfort? the invention of pants and heels are revolutionary! They're easier to wear than most of our traditional clothes and give us more movement freedom. Heels also protect our precious foot 
And I don't mind emo except boy-boy or girl-girl kissing part ;P
Oh! Macho men aren't always gay! Some people born to be macho, some are not. However, gays have tendency to be macho (or better body than average) because they appreciate physical beauty (of themself) more than average people (many of them are also artistic-type).
wtf@all that extra space in here. Please don't do that, it's annoying @_@ ~Holly.
And I don't mind emo except boy-boy or girl-girl kissing part ;P
Oh! Macho men aren't always gay! Some people born to be macho, some are not. However, gays have tendency to be macho (or better body than average) because they appreciate physical beauty (of themself) more than average people (many of them are also artistic-type).
wtf@all that extra space in here. Please don't do that, it's annoying @_@ ~Holly.
bashful crobat
Sponsor
adelaidechoc":1u6ublke said:
:x?
adelaidechoc":1u6ublke said:
Bollocks. If you paid attention to real people instead of the oddballs that make a spectacle of themselves, you'd see that the majority of gays are actually pretty normal if you overlook their sexuality.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
I'd say the majority of gays are actually pretty normal even if you looked at their sexuality.
adelaidechoc
Member
@holly:
I'd say 'tendency' not always.
We also have gays here, and as I said, they take pretty good care of their body and appearances. I never say they looks abnormal as one of my friend is also gay and he looks okay.
I'd say 'tendency' not always.
We also have gays here, and as I said, they take pretty good care of their body and appearances. I never say they looks abnormal as one of my friend is also gay and he looks okay.
Incognitus
Member
Please, for the love of God, don't use the "---- community" expressions. It's just putting a PC face on emphasising an essential "otherness". How often do you hear people discussing "the straight community"?
It irritates me so much.
/rant.
adelaidechoc
Member
(deleted)
Incognitus
Member
adelaidechoc":1syzh8su said:
That's the entire point. What you're doing right there. People who have the same interest/hobby? What's that exactly? Same-sex sex? Hang out together? That's ridiculous.
What you're doing is exactly what I was objecting too, and exactly what makes me cringe. You're very overtly defining people are "other", and even going further with your description in which we have overtones of the outsiders, huddling together and socialising together.