because I would never want to "offend"
a cop out on manhood
Moderators: KimberlyS, CathyAnn
-
Elizabeth
- Miss Ruby Goddess
- Posts: 1878
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 3:02 am
Re: a cop out on manhood
I have heard similar comments. "I need a 'real' man", "I don't want a girly man", "I want a manly man". From her perspective he may fail her definition of what a man should be, but they are just her stereotypes, in her mind.Penni SO wrote:
It read "my husband wears womens clothes,because he is a failure as a man."
Many women do want a stereotypical macho type guy. Finding out thier guy is actually a soft feminine type can actually destroy their own view of themselves. How could they have been so wrong about this person? To be honest I find these kinds of statements to be indictments of the people saying them more than of the person they are talking about.
As a man, I was very sucessful. I worked hard, provided for my family, ran a business, coached little league football and conducted business honestly with a handshake. In fact I have been told by more than one person that I taught them more about being a man than anyone else in their life. How ironic, I hated every minute of it. It was all for the benefit of others. In the end I am sure many said that I am a failure as a man, and that may be true, but it's only because I stopped trying to be what others wanted me to be.
I don't see myself as a failure as a person or as the woman I have become. I can live with that.
Love always,
Elizabeth
-
Absaroka
- Miss Diamond Goddess
- Posts: 3344
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:30 am
-
Lisa(SO)
- Miss Platinum Goddess
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:03 pm
- Location: Milton, VT
- Contact:
I just read this thread for the first time and I can't believe that one thinks her SO is less of a man. I belive my husband is more of a man by being honest and true to himself and me. I get the best of both worlds I have my "manly" husband and a best girlfriend. I was married to a macho man before and needless to say I am divorced. Men used to make more money but now it is common for the wife to be the breadwinner. These stereotypes need to change with the times. Women scream equal rights well then we need to be more accepting don't we?!
I hope that with each generation of crossdessers it get easier and barriers are smashed.
Lisa
I hope that with each generation of crossdessers it get easier and barriers are smashed.
Lisa
-
Penni SO
- Miss Emerald Goddess
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:10 pm
- Location: Australia
Dear Lisa,You read my post wrong,I never wrote this from a personal opinion ,it was a question emailed to me,as I'm a spouse rep for a transgendered society www.chameleonswa.com
Unfortunately many SO's do look athe their husband as being less of a man.I have been with my spouse for 14 years and have completely known about his dressing.I will get to my point soon,but I have also had many emails from men who say they feel less of a man.There are many emotions that bubble beneath the surface of us all,these emotions can change and affect our lives at various stages in our lives.
I have always been an accepting SO anyone that know's me would say I am a very proactive spouse with my husband and the club that we belong too.
Well 6 months ago my life did begin to change and I have felt what the SO who sent me the original email felt..My husband came out totally about wanting to be a woman,he had felt this way for as long as he could remember,but society has expectations for those that are of the male gender,society has stereotyped behavoir for a man as much as it does for a woman.So my spouse has actually been living his life not as he chooses but as society chooses.Thus hormones were began,our sex life has not been existent for 6 months or more and yes life took a drastic turn for both of us and our 6 children.
I have supported my spouse through this and I have attended sessions with him and will continue this support, as before he was my husband he was my best friend.
Well 6 months on,my spouse decided that transition was not an option,what to do next,yes firstly we both have to accept that within this male body is a female mindset,some truths came out from my spouse that I have found hard to cope with,the first being that sex is something that does not appeal to my spouse.I will be honest here and say that I am human,I have needs and I'm having a struggle with the fact that in body my spouse is a male and that yes I yearn for that.
So once again I have felt a little betrayed as have those spouses that do not accept.
My spouse is on a journey to firstly accept his/her womanhood and then we will deal with the physical journey that he is equipped as a male.
So you can see emotions have been brought forth about my spouses manhood from he himself not me.
But I do understand now why this particular spouse contacted me with her feelings etc about manhood and her husband.
Another question that has sprung to mind is that very often a husband comes out about his dressing,but 10 years down the track is a very different crossdresser than the beginning of coming out.It is practically inevitable that once out of the closet things do change,experimentation and desires change.............so yes many spouses veiws do change also.
The one thing I have learn't from being a spouse rep,is to never be quick to judge a spouses reaction,feelings and attitudes about her husbands dressing.We do not live their lives etc and the chances are that our lives are completely different to theirs.
Hugs Penny
Supporting wife of Transexual partner
-
CJ
- Miss Diamond Goddess
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:12 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Hi all,
Penni,
It's great to hear from you. I was hoping that you'd surface soon; I know you and M have been going through a tough time.
In my previous tongue-in-cheek post in this thread, I asked you to define the word "man" and, in a way, you just did. And I agree with your definition (amongst others, of course). Yes, yes, I know, Penni... you're flexible, open to discussion, and don't believe much in stereotypes. Still, in the narrow view, a man is a person who "has" a body a heterosexual woman could conceivably be sexually attracted to. Can, then, a person who modifies that body in such a way that this attraction is no longer possible be considered a failure as a man? I'd say: yes. Does that mean this person is necessarily a failure as a human being? Obviously, the answer is no. In fact, many CD's will argue that their gender sensibilities will have made them better people (and even better men, albeit in a different sense than the one we've been talking about)...call this the "Tootsie Defense," if you will. Just as obviously, though, being a better person might not make much difference in bed.
From all that I've read in the last thirty years on the psychosexual development of heterosexual male crossdressers, I'm given to understand that the libido, or sexual desire, of CD's is, generally, lower than average. It would seem that it comes with the territory and is a salient feature of GID. So, my question, then, is this: Is this what we really mean when we say that a man is a failure as a man? That he has little interest in sex? Or that he cannot "perform" sexually as well as a man who is completely free from feminine compulsions?
Oddly, I get the feeling (and, yes, this may just be stuff going on nowhere else but in my own mind) that the understanding that men (and women) have of what it means to "be a man" makes it such that, in many cases, men would rather reveal to their spouse that they enjoy wearing women's clothing than that they have little interest in sex with a partner. If this is true, it then behooves a man about to enter into a long-term commitment with a woman to tell her this is the case much more than it does to tell her he likes to dress up.
From most of the comments I've heard from SO's, both on these forums and in personal correspondence, once they've gotten over the fact (if ever they do) that they've been lied to for all this time, SO's can learn to live with a "frilly man" as long as he is still ineluctably male and available, sexually, as that male. When a man becomes unavailable as a male, the temptation is strong (from all quarters, as Penni pointed out) to consider this a "failure of manhood." A man whose sexual desire for a partner is extinguished (and whose, uh, "equipment" he'd prefer not come into play in sexual relations) has little chance of satisfying his SO as a man. This is tough. It's also a betrayal if the SO was led to believe that her needs in this regard would be met when, in reality, they cannot be. In other words, if her DH was working hard at being sexually attracted to her, for the sake of being "a real man" (regardless of what he chose to wear) while his heart was just not in it, an SO will inevitably feel she's "been had" when she discovers the charade.
Now, of course, things are never so black-and-white. People change. They do so, especially, over time, as they come to know themselves. Everybody goes through this, CD's and SO's alike. CD's become more aware of where their true desires (and their "true selves") lay as they experiment with the scope of their transgenderedness. SO's become more aware of what, exactly, they can or cannot accept in their partnership with a transgendered person. Often, as is the case with partnerships and marriages in the non-TG'd world, this kind of change can lead either to a dissolution or to a strengthening of relationships. My guess is that a strengthening of the relationship will occur if the basic needs of both partners continue to be met. This includes sexual needs.
We've all heard of instances where the sexual dimension of a couple's relationship (where one partner is TG'd) has completely vanished and yet the two halves remain bonded. I'm thinking this can only happen if sex is no longer a pressing basic need for both partners. I say "pressing" because I truly believe that physical intimacy will always remain a basic need. Whether that intimacy be sexual or not will vary depending on the individual. So, there's occasionally room to manoeuver. Very occasionally.
I think the one objection that I have to the wording of the disgruntled spouse's article quoted in Penni's original post is that a man would "dress as a woman because he's a failure as a man." (emphasis mine) It's the other way around, I believe. Probably, what goes through people's minds is this: a man dresses as a woman... ergo, he must be a failure as a man. There are just to many men out there who could be considered (unkindly, I think) "failures as men" who nevertheless never come within a mile of wearing a simple pair of panties for us to make the inference that, because such men are deemed failures as men, they wear (or choose to wear) women's clothing, or mimic women, or pass themselves off as women, etc. It's an unwarranted conclusion. As I said above, people are probably confusing this with the stereotype according to which a man is not a "real man" if he cannot satisfy a woman sexually. And that's a different beast, altogether.
Again, Penni gets the head-cogs turning with one of her posts. Thanks, woman! I hope you'll soon find yourself basking in the light again.
Love,
CJ
Penni,
It's great to hear from you. I was hoping that you'd surface soon; I know you and M have been going through a tough time.
In my previous tongue-in-cheek post in this thread, I asked you to define the word "man" and, in a way, you just did. And I agree with your definition (amongst others, of course). Yes, yes, I know, Penni... you're flexible, open to discussion, and don't believe much in stereotypes. Still, in the narrow view, a man is a person who "has" a body a heterosexual woman could conceivably be sexually attracted to. Can, then, a person who modifies that body in such a way that this attraction is no longer possible be considered a failure as a man? I'd say: yes. Does that mean this person is necessarily a failure as a human being? Obviously, the answer is no. In fact, many CD's will argue that their gender sensibilities will have made them better people (and even better men, albeit in a different sense than the one we've been talking about)...call this the "Tootsie Defense," if you will. Just as obviously, though, being a better person might not make much difference in bed.
From all that I've read in the last thirty years on the psychosexual development of heterosexual male crossdressers, I'm given to understand that the libido, or sexual desire, of CD's is, generally, lower than average. It would seem that it comes with the territory and is a salient feature of GID. So, my question, then, is this: Is this what we really mean when we say that a man is a failure as a man? That he has little interest in sex? Or that he cannot "perform" sexually as well as a man who is completely free from feminine compulsions?
Oddly, I get the feeling (and, yes, this may just be stuff going on nowhere else but in my own mind) that the understanding that men (and women) have of what it means to "be a man" makes it such that, in many cases, men would rather reveal to their spouse that they enjoy wearing women's clothing than that they have little interest in sex with a partner. If this is true, it then behooves a man about to enter into a long-term commitment with a woman to tell her this is the case much more than it does to tell her he likes to dress up.
From most of the comments I've heard from SO's, both on these forums and in personal correspondence, once they've gotten over the fact (if ever they do) that they've been lied to for all this time, SO's can learn to live with a "frilly man" as long as he is still ineluctably male and available, sexually, as that male. When a man becomes unavailable as a male, the temptation is strong (from all quarters, as Penni pointed out) to consider this a "failure of manhood." A man whose sexual desire for a partner is extinguished (and whose, uh, "equipment" he'd prefer not come into play in sexual relations) has little chance of satisfying his SO as a man. This is tough. It's also a betrayal if the SO was led to believe that her needs in this regard would be met when, in reality, they cannot be. In other words, if her DH was working hard at being sexually attracted to her, for the sake of being "a real man" (regardless of what he chose to wear) while his heart was just not in it, an SO will inevitably feel she's "been had" when she discovers the charade.
Now, of course, things are never so black-and-white. People change. They do so, especially, over time, as they come to know themselves. Everybody goes through this, CD's and SO's alike. CD's become more aware of where their true desires (and their "true selves") lay as they experiment with the scope of their transgenderedness. SO's become more aware of what, exactly, they can or cannot accept in their partnership with a transgendered person. Often, as is the case with partnerships and marriages in the non-TG'd world, this kind of change can lead either to a dissolution or to a strengthening of relationships. My guess is that a strengthening of the relationship will occur if the basic needs of both partners continue to be met. This includes sexual needs.
We've all heard of instances where the sexual dimension of a couple's relationship (where one partner is TG'd) has completely vanished and yet the two halves remain bonded. I'm thinking this can only happen if sex is no longer a pressing basic need for both partners. I say "pressing" because I truly believe that physical intimacy will always remain a basic need. Whether that intimacy be sexual or not will vary depending on the individual. So, there's occasionally room to manoeuver. Very occasionally.
I think the one objection that I have to the wording of the disgruntled spouse's article quoted in Penni's original post is that a man would "dress as a woman because he's a failure as a man." (emphasis mine) It's the other way around, I believe. Probably, what goes through people's minds is this: a man dresses as a woman... ergo, he must be a failure as a man. There are just to many men out there who could be considered (unkindly, I think) "failures as men" who nevertheless never come within a mile of wearing a simple pair of panties for us to make the inference that, because such men are deemed failures as men, they wear (or choose to wear) women's clothing, or mimic women, or pass themselves off as women, etc. It's an unwarranted conclusion. As I said above, people are probably confusing this with the stereotype according to which a man is not a "real man" if he cannot satisfy a woman sexually. And that's a different beast, altogether.
Again, Penni gets the head-cogs turning with one of her posts. Thanks, woman! I hope you'll soon find yourself basking in the light again.
Love,
CJ
-
Stormy(SO)
- Miss Emerald Goddess
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:39 pm
- Location: Chicago, Illinois
Sorry but it sounds to me like she was feeling like a failure as a woman and struck out in hurt and bewilderment.
What a crass, rude thing to say about any man.
What I've learned in my life is that when someone makes statements like that they need to first look in a mirror and watch themselves as they make that remark and see if it fits!!
Just my two cents!!
Stormy
What a crass, rude thing to say about any man.
What I've learned in my life is that when someone makes statements like that they need to first look in a mirror and watch themselves as they make that remark and see if it fits!!
Just my two cents!!
Stormy
Live well, Laugh often, Love much!
-
Tiffy
- Miss Crystal Goddess
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Absaroka wrote:Elizabeth, many of the things you describe as being a successful man, like providing for your family or conducting business on a handshake, are not the sign of a successful man. They are signs of a successful adult.
Absaroka
That is a wonderful bit of wisdom. Well said dear.
Tiffy
Would I change it? No.... Spent to long fighting to get to this point. I would not change nor give it up.
-
Virginia
- Goddess of the Universe
- Posts: 5543
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:06 pm
- Location: Strange Magic Hill
I have to reiterate my position from the religious stand point!
"You say you believe in God, that God is all perfect, that HE/SHE is incapable of making a mistake? Well, here stands Virginia! What do you think??"
God Bless us - everyone!
Virginia
"You say you believe in God, that God is all perfect, that HE/SHE is incapable of making a mistake? Well, here stands Virginia! What do you think??"
God Bless us - everyone!
Virginia
First star to the right, then straight on 'till mornin!
-
Georgia(SO)
- Miss Platinum Goddess
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:58 am
I've been watching this thread for a while. Any SO who says her guy dresses like a woman because 'he's a failure as a man' is just being vicious and tacky and her guy is better off without her. Plain and simple. OTOH, if the SO was wondering if he dressed like a woman because he FEELS like a failure as a man... then, you may have a compassionate SO who is just fumbling her words.
It has been my experience that men, regardless of whether they dress or not, are capable of feeling like "failures as men" far more often than women ever feel like failures as women. I have known a number of non-CDing men who, when things are rough - particularly on the financial front - will say something akin to being a "failure as a man".
Conversely, in times of financial or business distress, women may say "I'm a failure", but I've never known any who would add the phrase "as a woman". Perhaps this has to do with societal, and thus internal, expectations of what it means to be a man or a woman. More importantly, it seems to me that men, in general, seem to define themselves in terms of gender more than women do. "Being a man" seems to be something that is inherently important to males in our modern-day American society. There simply is no correlation for gg's in our society.
Yes, we are taught to be "good girls", but that is different. Even women who know they don't fall into the "good girl" category do not seem to spend any time wondering if they are failures as women. Failures as mothers, wives, daughters, business people, artists - whatever - yes. But that overarching gender description just doesn't come into play for any females I've known. We are women - that's all there is to it.
Is it possible that men in general put all sorts of gender expectation on one another? On themselves? GGs, ya wanna help out here? Have ya'll noticed this aspect of men in general, or is it just the guys and gals I know?
-g(so)
It has been my experience that men, regardless of whether they dress or not, are capable of feeling like "failures as men" far more often than women ever feel like failures as women. I have known a number of non-CDing men who, when things are rough - particularly on the financial front - will say something akin to being a "failure as a man".
Conversely, in times of financial or business distress, women may say "I'm a failure", but I've never known any who would add the phrase "as a woman". Perhaps this has to do with societal, and thus internal, expectations of what it means to be a man or a woman. More importantly, it seems to me that men, in general, seem to define themselves in terms of gender more than women do. "Being a man" seems to be something that is inherently important to males in our modern-day American society. There simply is no correlation for gg's in our society.
Yes, we are taught to be "good girls", but that is different. Even women who know they don't fall into the "good girl" category do not seem to spend any time wondering if they are failures as women. Failures as mothers, wives, daughters, business people, artists - whatever - yes. But that overarching gender description just doesn't come into play for any females I've known. We are women - that's all there is to it.
Is it possible that men in general put all sorts of gender expectation on one another? On themselves? GGs, ya wanna help out here? Have ya'll noticed this aspect of men in general, or is it just the guys and gals I know?
-g(so)
-
SilverLady(SO)
- Retired Site Administrator
- Posts: 5419
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:00 am
- Location: Strange Magic Hill (Virginia)
Georgia -
I have to agree with you 100%, for I have noticed the same thing. Your post made me realize that my xh acted the same way, the old "I'm a failure as a man" routine - what a ridiculous statement (and he is not a CD)!!
I think that the only way a person could be a 'failure' in their gender is because they have some sort of illogical, preconceived notion of what their gender should be like, rather than just being themselves regardless of their gender. How did they come to that notion? Maybe that was the way they were raised - boys/men don't cry; supposed to be big, tough, strong; don't show emotion; be the breadwinner in the family, etc.
I believe that 'conditioning' would also carryover to those who are CD and had repressed, ignored, denied those feelings when they first became known because 'real men' did not act that way, only women were allowed to show their emotions (crying, tenderness, sympathy, etc.), and to do otherwise meant you were a sissy. And so to avoid being teased and tormented by their peers they repressed their feminine side. What a shame.
Your comment on women - I, too, have *never* heard a girl/woman ever say that they were a failure as a girl/woman. I have heard comments that they thought they were a failure while "wearing the hat" (so to speak) of being an artist, a business person, mother, daughter, wife - but never failure as a girl/woman. GG's just don't think that way.
- SL
I have to agree with you 100%, for I have noticed the same thing. Your post made me realize that my xh acted the same way, the old "I'm a failure as a man" routine - what a ridiculous statement (and he is not a CD)!!
I think that the only way a person could be a 'failure' in their gender is because they have some sort of illogical, preconceived notion of what their gender should be like, rather than just being themselves regardless of their gender. How did they come to that notion? Maybe that was the way they were raised - boys/men don't cry; supposed to be big, tough, strong; don't show emotion; be the breadwinner in the family, etc.
I believe that 'conditioning' would also carryover to those who are CD and had repressed, ignored, denied those feelings when they first became known because 'real men' did not act that way, only women were allowed to show their emotions (crying, tenderness, sympathy, etc.), and to do otherwise meant you were a sissy. And so to avoid being teased and tormented by their peers they repressed their feminine side. What a shame.
Your comment on women - I, too, have *never* heard a girl/woman ever say that they were a failure as a girl/woman. I have heard comments that they thought they were a failure while "wearing the hat" (so to speak) of being an artist, a business person, mother, daughter, wife - but never failure as a girl/woman. GG's just don't think that way.
- SL
SilverLady(SO)
- Native Motor City and Wolverine gal . . . GO BLUE!!
- Molon Labe - Saepius Exertus, Semper Fidelis - Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
-
Proud Military Family - Navy, Army, Coast Guard, National Guard
- Native Motor City and Wolverine gal . . . GO BLUE!!
- Molon Labe - Saepius Exertus, Semper Fidelis - Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
-
Proud Military Family - Navy, Army, Coast Guard, National Guard -
Terri(SO)
- Miss Platinum Goddess
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
I agree with SilverLady and Georgia regarding women in this culture never attaching gender to their "failures". I was married into West African culture for many years and heard it there, however. It was attached to being unmarried or married and childless.
Until being involved with CD, I don't think I ever attached gender to much of anything, success or failure.
T.
Until being involved with CD, I don't think I ever attached gender to much of anything, success or failure.
T.
Love is a verb. It's a doing thing. No action, no love! - Terri
-
CJ
- Miss Diamond Goddess
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:12 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
