Crossdressing

[G.K Zhukov]

I noticed that several GD members likes to do a bit of crossdressing. To me this sounds very strange, and I must admit I never even thought about doing it.

So please enligten me, why do you guys do it? Whats the "kick" ?

[SilverSmoke]

I am curious about this as well, i thought it was something mainly bi-sexuals and homosexuals do, but I hear straight people also do it.

[Marilyn Manson]

It's hardly any less strange than being a hungover Marxist-Leninist in 2005.

[Minty]

I have a picture, want it?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

I noticed that several GD members likes to do a bit of crossdressing. To me this sounds very strange, and I must admit I never even thought about doing it.

MM's sniping aside, I'm interested that a Marxist-Leninst (and presumed progressive in general) is so culturally "conservative". Don't you think overcoming conventional morality is an important step towards liberation (not to speak strong defence of LGBT rights of course).

So please enligten me, why do you guys do it? Whats the "kick" ?

I'm not a major tranny unlike my fellow Comrade T&F. However, I like the aesthetic, and when I'm out clubbing I generally get a positive response from women (much more than when normally attired).

Also, it's a bit of a **** you to convention. It's interesting, no matter how liberal / enlightened you may think your home town is, you walk along the road with a 6ft blonde guy in a maid's outfit at 3am and you get a different impression.

And there's some random factoid that 80% of "trannies" are straight, but that's probably shite. I've never met a gay person who dressed up in woman's clothing, most of the gay people I know have very short hair and wear quite "traditional" male clothing.

[G.K Zhukov]

I havent exactly grown up in a major metropolis Dante, or maybe its just my old-fashioned working class with parents working in the industrial sector

Besides, I have always found to express myself trought clothing rather stupid. This has to do with all the idiots who has cool brand-cloths and think they are special becouse of it. So Ive always thought of expressing your self (or rather showing off) by the choice of clothing as very superfiscal. Ive always stood out becouse of my political opionions and that I have argued with teachers/autorities from a very young age. I rather dress up in cloths I like, and who are comfy. Thats the only two demands I set for my cloths really.

And Im not a marxist-lenninist. Im a marxist-lenninist-maoist
(If MM could read, he would have gotten that by now)

What is LGBT rights?

[1-X]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I'm the only marxist-leninist-maoist in the village

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Besides, I have always found to express myself trought clothing rather stupid.

To an extent, I agree. I've never cared about label clothes or anything like that, and I've always had a slightly "grunge" appearance by default. Which is why I never wash my clothes, or my hair, and don't really care so long as I'm comfortable most of the time. If I'm going out to a place where everyone makes an effort, I may make an effort, but even then it's half-arsed.

But then if you're not going to care about clothes then you've got to take it both ways. If you don't care about what you wear (so long as it's comfortable) then you shouldn't really care what other people wear too. I realise you weren't being offensive, it's just that when out one of the questions we often encounter is "Why are you wearing that?". Well, that's a fair enough question but you wouldn't ask that of someone dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, so obviously it does matter, on some level.

What is LGBT rights?

"LGBT (or GLBT) is an acronym used as a collective term to refer to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people."

And I know what you mean about working class backgrounds, but the same could be said about racist attitudes, etc.

[Dante Hicks]

That's a good point, horn.

It's a tautology but everything we does defines us. The clothes you wear say a lot about you, regardless whether you want them to or not.

[1-X]

Originally Posted by horn

Androgeny suits men (at least in the here and now).

you might reconsider having seen Pete Burns :eek:

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

MM's sniping aside, I'm interested that a Marxist-Leninst (and presumed progressive in general) is so culturally "conservative". Don't you think overcoming conventional morality is an important step towards liberation (not to speak strong defence of LGBT rights of course).

If people are doing something unconventional, its reasonable to assume that they have some kind of rational motivation for doing so, and asking them what this is hardly qualifies as victimising them, or infringing on their rights. A reply of "because its different" might provide an interesting insight into certain aspects of their psychology, but it couldnt really be called a good reason.

'Tolerating' actions simply for the sake of tolerating them, without knowing or wishing to know their motivations, is akin to moral nihilism.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by horn

why are your political ideologies any more valid in terms of defining "yourself", or using it as a base for the "self", than using what you wear ?
(i do generally find that people who dress a certain way to identify with an "ideal", or "sub-culture", but it just doesn't seem any more "authentic", using the term Marxist as a base for your identity)

My political orientation is just one part of who I am. Under the cynical-classwarfare now-commie there is a big huggybear who loves to cuddle you know (or something). Its not like politics is my only interest here in life.
There is a lot of wannabe raddicals at my uni who dress up like radicals. Most of them have not much clue and are hardly more radical than leftist socialdemocrats. They also claim that they're choice of dressing is very individual, but in reality the type of dressing refers to a specific sub-culture. Needless to say, I dont "approve" and find this extremly shallow.

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

I noticed that several GD members likes to do a bit of crossdressing.

Never did it.

[mrmao]

I don't know dose taking the term dress rehersal literally count?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If people are doing something unconventional, its reasonable to assume that they have some kind of rational motivation for doing so, and asking them what this is hardly qualifies as victimising them, or infringing on their rights.

It's obviously not infringing their rights, but the context is important. If your best friend started only eating food beginning with the letter 'C' then it's one thing to say "Hey dude, what's up with that". It's quite another to ask a complete stranger on a darkened street, completely out of the blue "Why the **** are you dressed like that? What's your problem?" etc.

"Convention" is also rather important here as it implies there's some rationale behind it. In many circles reading philosophical books might be seen as "unconventional" but I'm not sure I'd like to have to explain myself to people about it. Maybe they're just outside your 'convention'.

Being curious is fine (obviously) but it's interesting you use the terms "tolerance", as if you're doing someone a favour by not smashing their face in or something. 'Tolerating' isn't a positive action, you don't have to go out of your way to "tolerate" how someone is dressed, or whatever random lifestyle choice they make. Why would I need to know someone's motivation in order to "tolerate" it?

[Duncan]

Originally Posted by horn

The idea of dressing up like a women having anything to do with your sexual orientation seems a tad strange when you think about it to be honest.

The 'myth' prolly has something to do with the fact that woman dress like woman to attract men, generally speaking.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Duncan

The 'myth' prolly has something to do with the fact that woman dress like woman to attract men, generally speaking.

This doesn't seem particularly clear. Married / celibate / lesbian women usually still dress "like women" but it's not clear they're trying to attract men.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It's obviously not infringing their rights, but the context is important. If your best friend started only eating food beginning with the letter 'C' then it's one thing to say "Hey dude, what's up with that". It's quite another to ask a complete stranger on a darkened street, completely out of the blue "Why the **** are you dressed like that? What's your problem?" etc.

Well if I were interested in the phenomenon of how alphanominal prefixing affected food preference, and a lot of people on an internet forum I frequented mentioned that their diets mainly consisted of carrots, cabbage and cock, then posting a thread asking them about this wouldnt be inappropriate.

"Convention" is also rather important here as it implies there's some rationale behind it. In many circles reading philosophical books might be seen as "unconventional" but I'm not sure I'd like to have to explain myself to people about it. Maybe they're just outside your 'convention'.

Well, I certainly think that you should have some justification for it, otherwise youre just drifting through life at random. I'm not saying that you should actually share this justification with others (youre perfectly entitled to tell them to piss off and stop being nosy), but you should at least be justified 'before yourself'.

Being curious is fine (obviously) but it's interesting you use the terms "tolerance", as if you're doing someone a favour by not smashing their face in or something. 'Tolerating' isn't a positive action, you don't have to go out of your way to "tolerate" how someone is dressed, or whatever random lifestyle choice they make. Why would I need to know someone's motivation in order to "tolerate" it?

Meh. I just dont like the idea of 'tolerating' things and believe the word is horribly overused. Theres a trend in our society towards being non-judgemental and I think its an exceptionally bad idea.

[NEWSBOT3]

smoking makes you look like a twat horn.
there is no cool factor.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Well if I were interested in the phenomenon of how alpha-preference affected food consumption, and a lot of people on an internet forum I frequented mentioned that their diets mainly consisted of cabbage and cock, then posting a thread asking them about this wouldnt be inappropriate.

Indeed. I wasn't trying to have a go at Zhukov, I just think it contradicts his latter claim of clothes being unimportant. I was perhaps oversensitive however.

Well, I certainly think that you should have some justification for it, otherwise youre just drifting through life at random.

I think it's a bit unfair to say you need a justification for every action or choice. You might be a highly driven individual in every aspect of your life but then just pick your clothes out at random. You may genuinely not care (I'm not saying that is the case here) about this.

Meh. I just dont like the idea of 'tolerating' things and believe the word is horribly overused. Theres a trend in our society towards being non-judgemental and I think its an exceptionally bad idea.

You were the first person in this thread to use the term 'tolerance' as far as I can see. It doesn't belong in this thread. Tolerance seems to imply there's some slight you're suffering (i.e. "I tolerated him playing his guitar all night because in otherways he was a good bloke").

I agree, to an extent, on the judgement side. People seem incapable of distinguishing between judgments which matter and ones that don't. There seems to have been a over-shift from bizarro authoritarian absolutist judgements to equally stupid relativist "Hey they stone women to death but that's just their way, we shouldn't judge!".

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think it's a bit unfair to say you need a justification for every action or choice. You might be a highly driven individual in every aspect of your life but then just pick your clothes out at random. You may genuinely not care (I'm not saying that is the case here) about this.

Well, not every action. But I think that the (chosen aspects of) a person's external appearance are fairly important, and I would be curious about anyone who genuinelly didnt care about it. The decision to dress like a woman isnt really comparable to having no preference between McDonalds milkshakes and those you get from Burger King (even though the former are objectively better).

You were the first person in this thread to use the term 'tolerance' as far as I can see. It doesn't belong in this thread. Tolerance seems to imply there's some slight you're suffering (i.e. "I tolerated him playing his guitar all night because in otherways he was a good bloke").

Perhaps we're using the word 'tolerance' in different ways; I generally see it as being synonymous with a refusal to pass judgement. For instance, when someone says that we should 'tolerate' Muslims or gays, they probably dont mean to imply that Muslims and gays are somehow inconveniencing our daily lives. They just mean that we shouldnt judge people based on their religious/sexual preferences.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by horn

so if you're a bit of a thicko who autopilot's through life (like a lot of people i know) and doesn't tend to contemplate their motivations to any great depth but conform to most norms (as would seem likely) should you also be required to justify your beliefs/actions ?

I'm not sure what 'required' means here; as I said, you have no obligation to explain yourself to others. I was talking about justification 'before yourself'; ie having some sort of rational foundation for your actions.

because you believe that without a base on which they have formed these beliefs they are unjustified ?

Well yeah, thats pretty much what it means for something to be 'unjustified'.

Does that mean that if you catch me offguard when trying to justify a certain action i am doing something wrong ? maybe an example would be helping an old lady cross the road.
or just choosing left instead of right for no apparent reason.

Well not everything is equally important. There's probably no deep reason why you prefer sitting on the left hand side of the bus to the right hand side, but I think you should have some rational reason to justify your belief that helping old ladies is a good thing to do, since your ethical attitudes towards others are likely to play a significant role in your life.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The decision to dress like a woman isnt really comparable to having no preference between McDonalds milkshakes and those you get from Burger King (even though the former are objectively better).

This is perhaps true but the problem is that if you follow the "default" (i.e. what everyone else is doing because you don't really care too strongly to swim against the current) then it can lead to a sort of mindlessness. You're saying someone who wears jeans and t-shirt (unconsciously I suppose) doesn't need to justify it, but someone who wears fishnets and suspenders does need to justify it (even if only to themselves). But obviously they're extreme examples. I'm wearing a black band t-shirt which is probably pretty generic of me, but it's a specific band which I happen to like, etc.

Mainly, with any clothes I've ever bought there's been an unconscious "that looks kinda cool / I think I will look kinda cool in it" type thought pattern. I've not usually thought about it too much (although there are some explicit examples - I have a hammer and sickle t-shirt for instance).

Perhaps we're using the word 'tolerance' in different ways; I generally see it as being synonymous with a refusal to pass judgement.

Yeah, we are. I'm using it primarily in the 'put up with something or somebody unpleasant' capacity of those definitions. As I say, I'm fine with judgement, I think there should be more moral "assertiveness" (as it were) but I'm not sure if this is an area it applies.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This is perhaps true but the problem is that if you follow the "default" (i.e. what everyone else is doing because you don't really care too strongly to swim against the current) then it can lead to a sort of mindlessness. You're saying someone who wears jeans and t-shirt (unconsciously I suppose) doesn't need to justify it, but someone who wears fishnets and suspenders does need to justify it (even if only to themselves). But obviously they're extreme examples. I'm wearing a black band t-shirt which is probably pretty generic of me, but it's a specific band which I happen to like, etc.

If someone literally chose to wear jeans and a t-shirt just because everybody else wore jeans and a t-shirt, then that would be quite odd. But in 99% of cases, this wont be his actual reasoning; he will probably think that either a) jeans and t-shirts actually look good, or b) wearing jeans and a t-shirt lets you fit in and not be judged based on your clothes. But when you do something like cross-dress, you know that you WILL be judged based on your clothes, and this is the sort of thing that requires justification (why do you want to be identified based on something external?). Someone on another forum summed it up quite nicely (albeit in a totally different context) with the remark "Christians arent necessarily idiots since they have the excuse of being brainwashed by society, but wiccans have somehow managed to brainwash themselves"

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

he will probably think that either a) jeans and t-shirts actually look good

Yeah, as I said it's unconscious - they think it looks cool because it's a common trend in society. If you were born in the 1850's and saw someone wearing a modern t-shirt you'd probably think they'd look shit.

I'd imagine that "I think that looks good" is the motivation behind the vast majority of clothes buying/wearing*, but that's almost a truism. It then becomes "Why do you think that looks good" which is a much harder question to answer.

* = Excluding uniforms obviously. Although with the cases of "voluntary uniforms" (like football shirts) a lot of people probably think they look good in them anyway.

edit : I think the wiccan/christian thing is a little unfair because you don't have to pick any spasticated cult at all to follow, but you do have to wear some sort of clothing (usually). Although the nudity thing is probably an extension of the same debate. "Why do you like being naked?" - "Well, why do you like wearing clothes" - "Well, I don't feel comfortable without them", etc.

[Duncan]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This doesn't seem particularly clear. Married / celibate / lesbian women usually still dress "like women" but it's not clear they're trying to attract men.

I guess "like women" was too vague. I mean outfits that compliment female anatomy. Conservative ones do attract men, really it depends on individual tastes what culture you're from. I believe the universal traits that attract men subconsiously are child-bearing hips and youth. Accordingly, most female clothes don't hide these attributes.

But really, I didn't know that crossdressers tried to look like married / celibate / lesbian woman, thought 'slut' was the typical image you went for.

Oh and I'm not saying that most crossdressers are gay, just giving one reason why people might think that's true.

[dda]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

I rather dress up in clothes I like, and who are comfy. Thats the only two demands I set for my cloths really.

I assume from this that either 1) you have tried dressing up in traditional women's garments and found them uncomfy or that you didn't like the style, or 2) you have never tried women's clothing and don't like them for some reason other than color and style.

It sounds to me as if Dante is saying that he finds the style pleasing and that the clothing is comfortable. You share the same criteria for chosing your attire.

[Appocomaster]

tbh, I blame Spinner for the crossdressing trend.

[dda]

Originally Posted by horn

serious question.
what would happen dda, if you turned up to court in a skirt ?
infact what would happen it turned up in jeans and a t-shirt ?

Most judges would comment on it and either send me out of court to return when properly dressed or else they would suggest that I would be in contempt if I ever again appeared in such attire.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by dda

I assume from this that either 1) you have tried dressing up in traditional women's garments and found them uncomfy or that you didn't like the style, or 2) you have never tried women's clothing and don't like them for some reason other than color and style.

It sounds to me as if Dante is saying that he finds the style pleasing and that the clothing is comfortable. You share the same criteria for chosing your attire.

I havent tried, and I don't see any point in trying. Take a bra for instance, I dont have man boobs. So no need for it. I dont like clothing stores, and I dont have alot of money to spend (beeing a student).
Take my boxers for instance, they are damn comfy. I even heard that girls are using this particular brand of boxers, couse they are so comfy. On the other hand Ive heard that womens underwear isnt comfy. So it kinda makes the choice easy.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

I havent tried, and I don't see any point in trying.

A bra is a poor example because not all (many?) people who cross dress wear bra's as they don't have anything that need supporting.

It basically boils down to what you're willing to try. Some of my relatives have never travelled outside of the the UK, for instance. They don't see the need. They're comfortable where they are, eating the same sorts of foods all the time, staying in their part of the world. Why should they try anything else? They've heard foriegn countries are dangerous, or too hot/cold or just full of people who can't speak English. They've not tried it themselves of course, but they're willing to trust what they've heard.

For others, there's a curiousity. They're interested in what other places are like. What it feels like, what the reactions they'll get. Whether they'll be more comfortable elsewhere. After all, who knows?

For yet others, it's a total obsession. For one reason or another they've got the idea in their head that they must travel. And so they do.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

MM's sniping aside, I'm interested that a Marxist-Leninst (and presumed progressive in general) is so culturally "conservative".

Hey, let's forget all the state-sponsored anti-semetism and homophobia under the USSR.

Give me a break. Marxist-Leninists are some of the most bigoted and small-minded people you'll ever come across, and that includes both the traditional sense of the words and in a more general political sense.

Marxist-Leninism has as much to do with social liberalism as it has to do with liberalism in any other sense.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Hey, let's forget all the state-sponsored anti-semetism and homophobia under the USSR.

I heard there was some slavery in capitalist countries therefore anyone who supports liberal capitalism must also support enslavement of black people.

Give me a break. Marxist-leninists are some of the most bigoted and small-minded people you'll ever come across

Not from my general experience. "The left" (sigh) are generally better about these things when direct, meaningful comparisons are made, then other political currents.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I heard there was some slavery in capitalist countries therefore anyone who supports liberal capitalism must also support enslavement of black people.

I was just amazed at your apparent bafflement that someone who supported one of the most socially repressive doctrines ever concieved by man was 'conservative.'

Slavery (in the racial sense) is not fundamental to Capitalism. Marxist-Leninism, on the other hand was socially intolerant pretty much throughout it's entire history - indeed, it needed to be to prevent itself from collapsing. Therefore your comparison is a little off, to say the least.

Let us be clear here: Marxist-Leninism is not progressive in any sense of the word.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I was just amazed at your apparent bafflement that someone who supported one of the most socially repressive doctrines ever concieved by man was 'conservative.'

I don't believe it is socially repressive in the general sense, or socially conservative in the personal sphere in particular. But I suspect when you say "Marxist-Leninism" you mean something quite different from me. If you can find me something in Lenin or Marx which is explicitly "socially repressive" (in a general sense) please do.

Slavery (in the racial sense) is not fundamental to Capitalism. Marxist-Leninism, on the other hand was socially intolerant throughout it's entire history - indeed, it needed to be to prevent itself from collapsing.

You seem to be switching emphasis here. No, there is nothing fundamental in capitalism which implies chattel slavery will have to take place under it. However, I would say there is nothing inherent in Marxist-Leninism that is inherently socially intolerant. Yes, regimes which called themselves ML (or People's Democracies, or Worker's Republics or whatever else) did some horrific things but that is different from the issue of whether something is inherent/fundamental to the ideology in question. Zhukov is not the living embodiment of the USSR (no matter how much he may think he is) and thus this seems a strange line of reasoning.

Also, there is the issue of context. What Marxist's may have said/done/believed one hundred years ago is going to be quite different from what a Marxist should think/believe nowdays. I would imagine Marx probably believed that Newton's laws were 100% correct yet I would still be surprised if a modern Marxist denied Einstein's relativity.

Therefore your comparison is a little off, to say the least.

My comparison was merely supposed to illustrate that you cannot judge a "philosophy" (or system of ideas whatever) by one or even many of it's instances. Similar thinking could lead to a formulation like "Under a capitalist economy, only countries which have a majority white or Asian population can do relatively well" (which would be true from an empirical point of view, but still junk).

[Duncan]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

For others, there's a curiousity. They're interested in what other places are like. What it feels like, what the reactions they'll get. Whether they'll be more comfortable elsewhere. After all, who knows?

For yet others, it's a total obsession. For one reason or another they've got the idea in their head that they must travel. And so they do.

Hey that's why people piss on eachother's faces too

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Duncan

Hey that's why people piss on eachother's faces too

And good luck to those people who enjoy it.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

And Im not a marxist-lenninist. Im a marxist-lenninist-maoist

marx and lenin and mao were shit. engels was tho.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

"Christians arent necessarily idiots since they have the excuse of being brainwashed by society, but wiccans have somehow managed to brainwash themselves"

Christianity often also has pragmatism going for it; it could be very difficult for a professed atheist to work up the corporate ladder. And God help him if 'he' wanted to run for president (Church attendance statistics are common here for those running for office).

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Perhaps we're using the word 'tolerance' in different ways; I generally see it as being synonymous with a refusal to pass judgement. For instance, when someone says that we should 'tolerate' Muslims or gays, they probably dont mean to imply that Muslims and gays are somehow inconveniencing our daily lives. They just mean that we shouldnt judge people based on their religious/sexual preferences.

are you saying that we shouldn't tolerate muslims and gays?

PS: i think you are preaching to the choir here on tolerance; i think we all agree that some people/groups claim we should tolerate things we really shouldn't.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It's a tautology but everything we does defines us. The clothes you wear say a lot about you, regardless whether you want them to or not.

What if you wear an invisibility suit?