Crossdressing in public

[Claire Diviner]

No it's not. Clothing predates not only Christianity but it's ancestors, clothing predates it entirely, it's not remotely a product of Christianity.

While you are right about this, it does nothing to rebut my statement on conservatives, right wings, homophobes, and religious bigots being the ones who find crossdressing immoral in today's society.

 

[Braydon]

While you are right about this, it does nothing to rebut my statement on conservatives, right wings, homophobes, and religious bigots being the ones who find crossdressing immoral in today's society.

Except that I was referring to @ _Keno_ 's crap about nudism, and not the OP, so this isn't relevant to what I said.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Well the general consensus last I checked seemed to be that a normal person naturally feels empathy, it's built in, but if raised right a sociopath can learn to take other peoples side of things into consideration. So it's not so much that sociopathy is caused but that there is failure to correct it.

Seems fair. I can dig it.

I'll have to look into all this myself later, since it promises to be some interesting stuff.

Anyway my point was just in a more broad sense, if someone turns out an unsavory character their childhood shouldn't be used as a model for raising children.

I certainly do agree that if a model of parenting yields offspring with unsavoury characteristics (e.g. sociopathy), that model ought to be discouraged.

Though I don't think one testimony is enough to suggest a trend. Do we see that a given model consistently does produce unsavoury characters (displaying sociopathy or other traits) across many cases? Maybe if 100 users came in here and said nudist experiences in childhood influenced sociopathy to come (for instance), there'd be more warrant to say it was those experiences in particular that contributed to the iffy constitutions of those people.

But with a single testimony, there's not much to go on. Without a trend, you can't demonstrate the harm of a model; you can only demonstrate that this model did yield a negative outcome on one occasion. Not to mention that diagnosing sociopathy through text alone (as we here have no choice but to do) is difficult to do. So I'm wary of accepting the proposition that "this one time, method X of parenting yielded negative results, so no one should parent with method X ever" as being something we're warranted to suggest is true (or has some truth to it).

 

[Claire Diviner]

Except that I was referring to @ _Keno_ 's crap about nudism, and not the OP, so this isn't relevant to what I said.

Keno's right, though. Nudity as a shameful thing is often taught. Nudism isn't my cup of tea, mind you, but the same holds true in regards to morality and nudity. Now let's get back on track with crossdressing before we seriously muddy up this debate with off-topic arguments.

 

[adumbrodeus]

It's not a red herring, sex and sex are inherently linked and are not independent from each other.

No, your nitpicking of my metaphors was a red herring.

Of course with this you admitted what you were contending was wrong, so let's move on. If sexual intercourse and physical sex are not the same, then how is dressing up in clothing that is stereotyped as exclusive to the opposite sex directly sexual (edit: as a direct part of sexual intercourse) in nature?

 

[Claire Diviner]

If crossdressing is akin to sexual intercourse, then the vast majority of people, especially in the U.S., have lost their virginities before puberty. This holds especially true for tomboys.

 

[_Keno_]

No, I'm not making any leaps. If clothing puts a damper on sexual situations, then therefor, removing clothing, does the opposite. Seems logical to me.

Now I can't tell if you're trolling everyone, or if you actually think that's a logical connection...

And how do nude beaches show that it's good to be nude? There are places women have to wear burkas, doesn't make it right, just because it happens.

Dear god man, follow the flow of our conversation. That's not my point at all... YOU said full nudity was sexual, and I just gave a list of examples of where everyone KNOWS FOR SURE that it isn't.

We can't continue any real conversation until you get this: nudity is not inherently sexual.

Obviously as a new born I didn't have an opinion, but there are plenty of natural things that don't come to a newborn, you're not even born with a lot of your reflexes, there are plenty of natural things that don't start at birth. I'd say I was more 5 or 6, not a tiny baby

So you're saying it's natural human development to think nudity is disgusting? At least try to back it up, rather than saying "that's probably how it is since I think nudity is disgusting."

Keno's right, though. Nudity as a shameful thing is often taught. Nudism isn't my cup of tea, mind you, but the same holds true in regards to morality and nudity. Now let's get back on track with crossdressing before we seriously muddy up this debate with off-topic arguments.

I might drop this tangent anyways, I'm making zero progress because he can't seem to fathom even basic situations where nudity isn't sexual.

 

[Sucumbio]

I think the difficulty is that to a great many people cross dressing is seen as a fetish, and therefore by definition is sexual by nature. To entertain the notion that there is a segment of the population that dresses "wrong" not for sexual purposes but for gender identity purposes, is to admit that it's not JUST a fetish. This creates an instant conflict of reasoning. Therefore that population cannot exist (even though it does). And so we have the last 3 pages of argument.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I think the difficulty is that to a great many people cross dressing is seen as a fetish, and therefore by definition is sexual by nature. To entertain the notion that there is a segment of the population that dresses "wrong" not for sexual purposes but for gender identity purposes, is to admit that it's not JUST a fetish. This creates an instant conflict of reasoning. Therefore that population cannot exist (even though it does). And so we have the last 3 pages of argument.

The bigger problem lies in trying to tell those who see cross dressing as a "fetish" that it isn't a fetish, even with all the reasoning we can muster.

 

[AZ_Spellbound]

The bigger problem lies in trying to tell those who see cross dressing as a "fetish" that it isn't a fetish, even with all the reasoning we can muster.

It really is, its hard for me to convince people that i crossdress as a hobby.

 

[Sucumbio]

Well that's not to say it isn't also a fetish. That's the problem really... Telling the difference between someone who's doing it because it turns them/their partner on vs. someone doing because they identify as female.

There also seems to be some confusion over the role of clothing. People of both sexes, and of all orientations... Can choose to dress seductively. So even a straight male can attempt to attract females by sporting nice jeans, or shoes, etc. It's a learned behavior that starts as early as puberty, when young people start to develop an "image." Parents can either positively or negatively reinforce this process. It's even prevalent in girls younger than that, really, as parents attempt to dress their children according to what they deem appropriate.

Though not a good source I recall one of my coworkers telling me about her son. He'd watched her paint her nails and wanted to try it too. He was 5 or so. After wearing black nail polish for a couple days, he asked his mom to remove it because "it made him feel girly." Take from this anecdote what you will.

 

[Braydon]

I recall one of my coworkers telling me about her son. He'd watched her paint her nails and wanted to try it too. He was 5 or so. After wearing black nail polish for a couple days, he asked his mom to remove it because "it made him feel girly." Take from this anecdote what you will.

My takeaway; goths are girly, but everyone already new this.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Well that's not to say it isn't also a fetish. That's the problem really... Telling the difference between someone who's doing it because it turns them/their partner on vs. someone doing because they identify as female.

Or because they're performing a character, most drag performers for example, are merely assuming another gender identity to perform as one would another other character. They still identity as their given gender.

I'd love to see somebody telling, say the drag queen Max, that drag is inherently sexual. He'd be aghast.

 

[Braydon]

I might drop this tangent anyways, I'm making zero progress because he can't seem to fathom even basic situations where nudity isn't sexual.

Neither can the vast majority of human beings, but I guess everyone except you is insane. Alternately you could be imagining this and I could be right...

What you're telling me is that something that clothing, something every significant culture ever has worn, is only needed because of a problem that exists only in my head? Yet somehow the idea we should wear clothes was agreed on basically everywhere through out all of history for literally no reason.

No the fact that you could even consider that nudity is normal is insane.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Neither can the vast majority of human beings, but I guess everyone except you is insane. Alternately you could be imagining this and I could be right...

What you're telling me is that something that clothing, something every significant culture ever has worn, is only needed because of a problem that exists only in my head? Yet somehow the idea we should wear clothes was agreed on basically everywhere through out all of history for literally no reason.

No the fact that you could even consider that nudity is normal is insane.

You could say the same thing about gods.

 

[Claire Diviner]

What you're telling me is that something that clothing, something every significant culture ever has worn, is only needed because of a problem that exists only in my head? Yet somehow the idea we should wear clothes was agreed on basically everywhere through out all of history for literally no reason.

Oh, there was a reason, but morality wasn't it.

http://news.discovery.com/human/humans-first-wore-clothing-170000-years-ago.htm

Clothing came as a necessity to shield our hairless bodies from colder temperatures, so people covering up because they felt it "immoral" to have their thangs hang free is false.

I have intentionally left out any citations for things that detail morality for the reason we have clothing, mostly because I couldn't find a source, but also to openly allow you to challenge my rebuttal with any viable sources you can find, preferably from a non-biased source.

 

[Sucumbio]

Well like with the confusion over the role of fashion so too is there some confusion over the difference between public nudity and US attitudes of modesty, and the act of being naked. We don't assume giving our child a bath is a sexual situation any more than a citizen of say, France sees going to a nude beach as necessarily sexual. You can thank the Puritans for ensuring that US society ended up so repressed compared to other countries. I mean, in the hottest of climates here in the US people were still expected to over dress. It's not until the free movements of the 60s that America started to loosen up although there are plenty of examples of individuals dressing down, but almost all those examples are that of artistic representation or early era "porn." it's still considered ungentlemanlike to shoe open toes in public, for instance, in many parts of the US.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Neither can the vast majority of human beings, but I guess everyone except you is insane. Alternately you could be imagining this and I could be right...

What you're telling me is that something that clothing, something every significant culture ever has worn, is only needed because of a problem that exists only in my head? Yet somehow the idea we should wear clothes was agreed on basically everywhere through out all of history for literally no reason.

No the fact that you could even consider that nudity is normal is insane.

Are you telling me that parents bathing their babies is sexual? As in evocative of sexual intercourse?

No, you're incorrect the vast majority of civilizations had situations where nudity occurred that was non-sexual and there are plenty of civilizations that do practice public nudity or did. Even though civilizations which do practice public nudity wear clothes. Why? Protection and adornment, it's that simple.

 

[_Keno_]

Neither can the vast majority of human beings, but I guess everyone except you is insane. Alternately you could be imagining this and I could be right...

What you're telling me is that something that clothing, something every significant culture ever has worn, is only needed because of a problem that exists only in my head? Yet somehow the idea we should wear clothes was agreed on basically everywhere through out all of history for literally no reason.

No the fact that you could even consider that nudity is normal is insane.

Well everybody else seemed to hit the nail on that one. Clothing originally existed for weather (be it the cold, sand storms, etc) or protection (insects, predators, war). You also seem to be under the impression that EVERYONE agrees with you, when you are quite far from correct. It is a regional attitude that nudity is sexual, not a global one.

 

[WalkOnARainbow]

I think that you should be able to be able to express your gender, your femininity or masculinity however you want. And be yourself.

I think people should always and always be able to express themselves the way they are, in front of others. And be happy and have self esteem in who they are.

 

[Braydon]

@ _Keno_
You know what, it doesn't matter. Even if I'm just psychotic and delusional like you think, that still doesn't mean public nudity should be legal, because you know what, I don't want to look at some 400 pound mans saggy ass, no one does.

I think that you should be able to be able to express your gender, your femininity or masculinity however you want. And be yourself.

I think people should always and always be able to express themselves the way they are, in front of others. And be happy and have self esteem in who they are.

So everyone should express themselves and no one should complain? Magical. So everyone's allowed to express themselves, but never express their unhappiness about something, if you're unhappy you should just be forced to bite your tongue and deal with it. And god forbid you ever say anything about it, just sit there with a big fake smile on your face and get used to being unhappy.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@ _Keno_
You know what, it doesn't matter. Even if I'm just psychotic and delusional like you think, that still doesn't mean public nudity should be legal, because you know what, I don't want to look at some 400 pound mans saggy ***, no one does.

You really ought to stop assuming that your preferences and biases apply to everyone.

 

[Claire Diviner]

@ _Keno_
You know what, it doesn't matter. Even if I'm just psychotic and delusional like you think, that still doesn't mean public nudity should be legal, because you know what, I don't want to look at some 400 pound mans saggy ***, no one does.

This argument implies that your views on public nudity isn't about morality more than it's about aesthetics. Would you be more open if everyone on Earth had bodies of Greek gods and goddesses?

 

[WalkOnARainbow]

@ _Keno_ but never express their unhappiness about something,

Well, if someone is expressing their gender or their femininity or masculinity, they're just expressing what makes them happy and aren't hurting anyone. So there no reason why anyone should feel unhappy about it.

Why would someone be unhappy about someone's harmless self expression?

 

[Braydon]

This argument implies that your views on public nudity isn't about morality more than it's about aesthetics. Would you be more open if everyone on Earth had bodies of Greek gods and goddesses?

Well no, my argument isn't really about aesthetics, I just figured I'd throw that in because I wasn't getting through with the other argument. Anyway I think it's a legitimate argument as well.

When I brought up that it was sexual I kept getting crap like this;

Are you telling me that parents bathing their babies is sexual? As in evocative of sexual intercourse?

What is this? Is he trying to imply I'm a pedophile?

Obviously this situation is exempt because babies are not sexual... There's a difference between an adult and a baby clearly...

You really ought to stop assuming that your preferences and biases apply to everyone.

... I don't... They just apply to most people...

Well, if someone is expressing their gender or their femininity or masculinity, they're just expressing what makes them happy and aren't hurting anyone. So there no reason why anyone should feel unhappy about it.

Why would someone be unhappy about someone's harmless self expression?

First of all, who the hell died and made you the divine arbitrator of what is and what isn't a legitimate reason to be unhappy? Maybe it makes them unhappy because they're religious, maybe they think you're annoying, maybe they just like complaining, does it matter? You said everyone should be able to express themselves, well then they should be able to express that they don't like you.

But that's not really what this is about, it's a made up reason why people shouldn't be allowed to criticize you, because you believe no one has the right to question you...

 

[adumbrodeus]

When I brought up that it was sexual I kept getting crap like this;

What is this? Is he trying to imply I'm a pedophile?

Obviously this situation is exempt because babies are not sexual... There's a difference between an adult and a baby clearly...

Because it was a clear counter-example to your argument, I find it amusing that you brought it back after dropping it only to admit that I was correct, that it was a counter-example and that nudity is not inherently sexual, but rather contextually sexual.

Unsure if your attempt to frame it as a personal attack was intended as a red herring or simply a complete lack of comprehension of the idea of providing a counter-example as a way to disprove a universal quantification.

I have to ask, have you studied basic mathematical logic? Do you understand set theory? Do you understand that my chosen example just as dispassionate as pointing that if you argued all numbers in the set of integers were even and I pointed out that 5 is not an even number?

The example was chosen explicitly because I knew that you would not context my assertion that nudity in that case was non-sexual, therefore an explicit counter example to your "all nudity is sexual" argument.

At first I assumed that you merely didn't respond because you knew it was impossible and that previously you were using semantics to wiggle out of arguments. It now occurs to me that you lack the background to discuss topics in any logical fashion period.

 

[Braydon]

Because it was a clear counter-example to your argument, I find it amusing that you brought it back after dropping it only to admit that I was correct, that it was a counter-example and that nudity is not inherently sexual, but rather contextually sexual.

Unsure if your attempt to frame it as a personal attack was intended as a red herring or simply a complete lack of comprehension of the idea of providing a counter-example as a way to disprove a universal argument.

I have to ask, have you studied basic mathematical logic? Do you understand set theory? Do you understand that my chosen example just as dispassionate as pointing that if you argued all numbers in the set of integers were even and I pointed out that 5 is not an even number?

The example was chosen explicitly because I knew that you would not context my assertion that nudity in that case was non-sexual, therefore an explicit counter example to your "all nudity is sexual argument".

I didn't admit you're correct, you're not correct! You're the one using a ****ing red herring. I'm obviously not talking about babies, I just assumed the people reading would have enough sense to understand that without me specifying it. Who the **** is basing their argument on semantics here? I'd say it was the person who's trying to distort my argument to be about babies... And then you try to claim it as proof I'm some ignorant fool.

At first I assumed that you merely didn't respond because you knew it was impossible and that previously you were using semantics to wiggle out of arguments. It now occurs to me that you lack the background to discuss topics in any logical fashion period.

I'm unable to have a discussion in any logical fashion?! What the hell is your problem!

 

[adumbrodeus]

I didn't admit you're correct, you're not correct! You're the one using a ****ing red herring. I'm obviously not talking about babies, I just assumed the people reading would have enough sense to understand that without me specifying it. Who the **** is basing their argument on semantics here? I'd say it was the person who's trying to distort my argument to be about babies... And then you try to claim it as proof I'm some ignorant fool.

You said:

I might drop this tangent anyways, I'm making zero progress because he can't seem to fathom even basic situations where nudity isn't sexual.

Neither can the vast majority of human beings, but I guess everyone except you is insane. Alternately you could be imagining this and I could be right...

Your thesis is a universal quantification (a "for all" argument, but I did link you to the wikipedia page so you should know that), specifically as follows:

"All nudity is inherently sexual"

As noted on the aforementioned page, a universal quantification is proven false by a single counterexample, I provided one.


The simple fact is that your argument DID NOT exclude babies, you merely never considered it or expected everyone to interpret it as such. Add relevant details.

Even if I was to expect that you meant it that way, you argue that nudity was sexual regardless of context and parents bathing their babies is clearly a context, order to actually discuss which contexts it isn't I must first prove context matters, the unyielding phrasing required a clear indisputable counterargument.

Since it's your exact argument it's not a distortion, nor is it a merely semantic difference because there's clear substance to why I had to provide a counter-example to your painfully false assertion, even if it was only to force you to assert your actual views. Your criticism fails.

I'm unable to have a discussion in any logical fashion?! What the hell is your problem!

I was referring to logic as a scholastic mathematical discipline, which based on how you classified my response you seem uneducated on. Again I ask, have you studied, in your math classes, the mathematical building blocks of logic? Thing like set theory, propositional logic, etc?

 

[Braydon]

@ adumbrodeus
Congratulations on not being able to understand basic conversational English or context. You think you're so ****ing smart don't you? So vastly intelligent you can't understand my argument. What a ****ing genius you are.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Well no, my argument isn't really about aesthetics, I just figured I'd throw that in because I wasn't getting through with the other argument. Anyway I think it's a legitimate argument as well.

When I brought up that it was sexual I kept getting crap like this;

What is this? Is he trying to imply I'm a pedophile?

Obviously this situation is exempt because babies are not sexual... There's a difference between an adult and a baby clearly...

The thing is, nudity isn't sexual by nature, but was made into a sexual thing at some point during human evolution, since during the dawn of man, people have been in the nude, only using clothing as a necessity against cold temperatures.

I could walk nude around my house, and I would get zero sexual gratification out of it - I could just walk in the nude because I like the freedom of it. You see where I'm going with this? Nudity is "morally wrong" because various societies deem it so. What about various tribes in Africa or other island nations where people run around either in the nude, or where women are always walking around topless? Where do they fall in this?

To steer more to the topic, crossdressing in public is no more sexually gratifying as being naked to bathe. Women are always doing it by wearing men's jeans, T-shirts, etc., yet no one bats an eye, so why is it immoral for a man to wear a cardigan, blouse, or even a dress, especially if he just happens to like the style of clothes without getting off on the idea of wearing them?

 

[Sucumbio]

Let's tone it back a bit, no need for cursing and whatnot. While I understand this is a frustrating topic there is no need to resort to bickering or snide comments. And just so we're clear @ adumbrodeus makes a legitimate point and with good reason. The DH may be non-smash related, but it does have something strongly in common with other parts of the site: the need for specificity. As would be expected in a tier list discussion or ruleset discussion, so too are the discussion here held to a standard. That standard includes the often arduous task of vetting your posts before hitting "post reply" for key markers such as "does my example hold up to scrutiny?" "does my argument follow logical conclusion?"

Once again I will point people to the Forum Rules thread which has some excellent source material on matters of logic, discourse and DH etiquette. Logical fallacy is something that takes a while to get into. Logic itself is not as easy as it sounds, ironically. When an argument is made, -especially- if it's the tough angle, as is the argument "nudity is perverse," it falls on the presenter to cite examples, but more importantly, to provide sound logical reasoning as to why counter arguments are invalid. Simply saying "oh well, I didn't mean it that way" is lazy debating, pure and simple (this is not directed toward anyone in particular as I've seen it countless times before, and it usually gets a pass - it should not.)

 

[Sehnsucht]

Concerning logical rigour, I think it might be a useful exercise for all involved to start employing syllogisms.

A) Premise 1;
B) Premise 2;
C) Premise 3;
D) Ergo, Conclusion.

In logic (and therefore debate, which employs logic), any conclusion or proposition you make must follow causally from prior premises. If there are any breaks or kinks in the chain of your premises, you may risk logical fallacies, which occur when there are such breaks and kinks in the causal chain.

So, in order to put your positions to the test, try running them through a syllogistic format. Is your conclusion that crossdressing is permissible? Outline the supporting premises. Do you hold the inverse? What premises lead you to that conclusion? Same goes for questions of (public) nudity, sexual fetishization, and other topics that have sprung up so far in relation to crossdressing.

Outlined in this clear and straightforward format, one's arguments may become clearer for all involved, and minimize misunderstandings and misinterpretations. And you can then have a focused discussion on whether one's premises are sound or warranted, whether the conclusion does indeed follow from the premises, and so on.

 

[adumbrodeus]

@ adumbrodeus
Congratulations on not being able to understand basic conversational English or context. You think you're so ****ing smart don't you? So vastly intelligent you can't understand my argument. What a ****ing genius you are.

You miss the entire point, it's not that I don't understand, the point of the example was that you would obviously recognize that it was non-sexual.

The point was it would force you to A. be specific and B. recognize context.

So, point out your actual views and be specific or concede that if that context for nudity can be non-sexual then so can others and those others are defined by the group that practices it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The simple fact is that your argument DID NOT exclude babies, you merely never considered it or expected everyone to interpret it as such. Add relevant details.

Great, then let's just add that for him and stop fishing for points.

...Which still doesn't work, because nude culture, skinny-dipping, and the like are all trivially non-sexual much of the time, but let's not split hairs on points he apparently isn't supporting.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Great, then let's just add that for him and stop fishing for points.

...Which still doesn't work, because nude culture, skinny-dipping, and the like are all trivially non-sexual much of the time, but let's not split hairs on points he apparently isn't supporting.

Come on budget the point is to get him to define exactly what contexts nudity is non-sexual and give his reasoning for supporting his set of contexts by forcing him to admit that context DOES matter so he actually has to define things.

Or am I to assume he meant all nudity except the ones I agree with?

 

[NightStormFox]

I would call this subject a matter of opinion, in regards to the original post on the first page. We live in a time where everything seems to be out in the open. The internet of course being a great example of just how openly accessible information, whether biased or factual, may be. You can find groups open to cross-dressing and forums that support its idea.

I myself won't cross-dress, but I know some people who will. A friend of mine plans to cross-dress for a cosplay. Another friend happens to cross-dress often for being a transvestite and hiding the fact. Do you have to have a specific reason to cross-dress? I think there is a cause to actively choose to cross-dress. There's some reason behind wanting to wear clothing meant for the opposite gender. On that note it can be for the same reasons someone buys the latest and hottest clothing for guys wear thinking that outfit might be cool.

There's no law against cross-dressing, but even if there was that hasn't stopped people from doing what they would do, such as smuggling in beer when in was once outlawed in the US for a brief period before our time, and the current war on drugs which has been an ongoing battle. The subject of cross-dressing doesn't bare the same intensity as far as the law is concerned, but by means of possible social judgement I would advise anyone doing so to be open-minded to the fact that others won't be accepting of the action.

When confronting people who aren't accepting and ridiculing you for cross-dressing, be prepared to state you reasons as to why you enjoy it. I don't entirely understand the desire to cross-dress myself, nor do I plan to in the future, but just as I have met many others with habits or lifestyles unlike my own, I've found many people whom are different to be decent people.

This may seem a bit wishy washy, but it's a really grey line in my opinion. Summing it up though, if people find it acceptable for women to wear full tuxedos and ties, then it's a double standard to not be accepting of men in dresses.

 

[Corginado]

O.K. so,

If you're doing something that's not endangering anyone else nor negatively affecting their well-being (meaning putting their physical/emotional safety at risk or forcing targeted-actions upon a person while denying their permission/request to stop) then they shouldn't be able to stop it due to mere dislike.

I'm not going to tell you that you must love the color purple on men.
I will say you can't legally enforce your personal prejudices towards the color purple being on men as perverted and non-natural to the point of stopping males from wearing it.

I mean.. the sad thing is you actually can criminalize on the basis of mere emotional contempt in our society.


As long as you rally enough people, you can legally enforce the attitude of:
"QUIT LIKING THINGS I DON'T LIKE!! I don't like the color purple on men, I think it's gross and shouldn't be done. While it isn't targeted towards me or hurting me aside from my own cognitive disdain for it as a concept, I can't get over seeing purple as sexually inappropriate and more fetish-y than the other colors.. maybe not for girls but DEFINITELY for boys! So instead of accepting my own personal dislike of men wearing purple while choosing to accept people should still be allowed to like what I don't, the more logical choice is to make men wearing purple a criminal offense so I won't have to deal with the fact that I will occasionally have to walk by people who are comfortable with things I am not!

I'm only thinking about muh kids! Gotta teach them that there's no point building even the most minimal baseline-tolerance needed for people liking things you don't like even living in a diverse society. "

See: It is now legal for women to wear pants in Paris (2013)
See: Russian man in kilt arrested for 'wearing a skirt' in public at St Patricks Day celebration (2015)


What's even worse is some people take things tragic a step further.
Rather than just social condemnation, they threaten these people who've committed the terrible act of merely existing with physical mutilation and even death. "Quit liking things I don't like, or I will smash your face into the the concrete. Quit liking things I don't like, or they'll be burrying you tomorrow."

See: Stop the Violence: Angry Mob Violently Stabs and Shoots Cross-Dressing Teenage Boy to Death
See: 16 year-old kills cross-dresser




Maybe I'm just a weird guy.
I realize there are things I dislike and will never like- even some blatantly trivial things; regardless, in terms of those looking to peacefully live out their lives, I spend time seeking to understand other people rather than forcefully projecting my own model of the world onto them. With social outrage lately around issues that are simply contemptable rather than dangerous, and seeing the disgusting extent that contempt is taken to, I'm really starting to believe that more tolerant mindets really are a rare breed.

And that sucks.
That really sucks.

 

[Jellydino]

It really shouldn't be a issue on what you dress like in public as long as it's not indecent. I understand the issue of children seeing it and it raising questions, but if someone feels conformable doing so, why should they not be able to?

I used to go to a after school program at my local park where the person in charge was a crossdresser and none of the kids really cared, it wasn't until my mom picked me up one day that someone finally made a huge deal about it. I guess it's just about what someone cares about and their views on social standards.

 

[Braydon]

The thing is, nudity isn't sexual by nature, but was made into a sexual thing at some point during human evolution, since during the dawn of man, people have been in the nude, only using clothing as a necessity against cold temperatures.

I could walk nude around my house, and I would get zero sexual gratification out of it - I could just walk in the nude because I like the freedom of it. You see where I'm going with this? Nudity is "morally wrong" because various societies deem it so. What about various tribes in Africa or other island nations where people run around either in the nude, or where women are always walking around topless? Where do they fall in this?

To steer more to the topic, crossdressing in public is no more sexually gratifying as being naked to bathe. Women are always doing it by wearing men's jeans, T-shirts, etc., yet no one bats an eye, so why is it immoral for a man to wear a cardigan, blouse, or even a dress, especially if he just happens to like the style of clothes without getting off on the idea of wearing them?

It doesn't make nudity non sexual because you can find an exception, such as when you're alone. You can find an exception to practically any rule, if someone had murdered Hitler their might not have been a world war 2, but that doesn't mean killing isn't wrong. You can't say that nudity isn't sexual in nature due to one or two exceptions, it is still sexual in nature in the case of public nudity which is what was brought up by @ _Keno_ anyway.

I'm pretty sure women have been wearing women's T-shirts and jeans... if they're not that might be a bit uncomfortable. Anyway T-shirts and jeans aren't gender specific in the same way as a blouse or dress, you can make a women's T-shirt but a blouse or dress is specifically a garment designed for a women's body. Pretty much the difference between a blouse and a shirt is that a blouse has extra room for a woman's breasts, and when crossdessers wear them they typically have padding or something to imitate the female form, that's why a man with a blouse is different from a woman in jeans, it's not the same unless the women is stuffing her crotch.

Let's tone it back a bit, no need for cursing and whatnot. While I understand this is a frustrating topic there is no need to resort to bickering or snide comments. And just so we're clear @ adumbrodeus makes a legitimate point and with good reason. The DH may be non-smash related, but it does have something strongly in common with other parts of the site: the need for specificity. As would be expected in a tier list discussion or ruleset discussion, so too are the discussion here held to a standard. That standard includes the often arduous task of vetting your posts before hitting "post reply" for key markers such as "does my example hold up to scrutiny?" "does my argument follow logical conclusion?"

Once again I will point people to the Forum Rules thread which has some excellent source material on matters of logic, discourse and DH etiquette. Logical fallacy is something that takes a while to get into. Logic itself is not as easy as it sounds, ironically. When an argument is made, -especially- if it's the tough angle, as is the argument "nudity is perverse," it falls on the presenter to cite examples, but more importantly, to provide sound logical reasoning as to why counter arguments are invalid. Simply saying "oh well, I didn't mean it that way" is lazy debating, pure and simple (this is not directed toward anyone in particular as I've seen it countless times before, and it usually gets a pass - it should not.)

People report me for insulting them, I get an infraction, I report adumbrodeus for insulting me, I get a lecture on how dumb I am.

Succumbio for worst mod ever.

You miss the entire point, it's not that I don't understand, the point of the example was that you would obviously recognize that it was non-sexual.

The point was it would force you to A. be specific and B. recognize context.

So, point out your actual views and be specific or concede that if that context for nudity can be non-sexual then so can others and those others are defined by the group that practices it.

Oh really? That was the point in declaring me incapable of logical discussion? And here I thought you said it because you were a *******.

You lecture me about how to debate, yet you use strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks for no reason. You also seem to be under the idea that your way of debating is the only way, which is blatantly untrue. I'm sorry do you see a forum called the "Formal debate hall?" I haven't seen where it says conversational English is banned and you have to talk mechanically because your reader might be to ****ing stupid to understand context or fill in the, very small, blanks.


You criticize it because you can't understand, and you didn't even try to. All that ever went through your little walnut brain is how you can defeat me with your strawman arguments, putting words in my mouth, you might as well just go ahead and start writing "Vanquished" in giant text at this point.

Great, then let's just add that for him and stop fishing for points.

But this is the fishing for points subforum!

This may seem a bit wishy washy, but it's a really grey line in my opinion. Summing it up though, if people find it acceptable for women to wear full tuxedos and ties, then it's a double standard to not be accepting of men in dresses.

Again, there is a difference, a dress is designed to fit a woman specifically, cross-dressers will have some form of fake breasts, such as padding under a bra, a suit is just a type of coat and pants, it's not the same unless the woman has something to make her crotch bulge.

 

[Claire Diviner]

It doesn't make nudity non sexual because you can find an exception, such as when you're alone. You can find an exception to practically any rule, if someone had murdered Hitler their might not have been a world war 2, but that doesn't mean killing isn't wrong. You can't say that nudity isn't sexual in nature due to one or two exceptions, it is still sexual in nature in the case of public nudity which is what was brought up by @ _Keno_ anyway.

Yeah, but this does not change the fact that nudity isn't sexual by default. Just because conservative lawmakers of old saw it as something that's wrong doesn't make it so. One would be too bold to, say, try and tell tribes who are in the nude on a normal basis that they're wrong for not wearing clothes?

I'm pretty sure women have been wearing women's T-shirts and jeans... if they're not that might be a bit uncomfortable. Anyway T-shirts and jeans aren't gender specific in the same way as a blouse or dress, you can make a women's T-shirt but a blouse or dress is specifically a garment designed for a women's body. Pretty much the difference between a blouse and a shirt is that a blouse has extra room for a woman's breasts, and when crossdessers wear them they typically have padding or something to imitate the female form, that's why a man with a blouse is different from a woman in jeans, it's not the same unless the women is stuffing her crotch.

Again, there is a difference, a dress is designed to fit a woman specifically, cross-dressers will have some form of fake breasts, such as padding under a bra, a suit is just a type of coat and pants, it's not the same unless the woman has something to make her crotch bulge.

That's a pretty bad argument. For starters, you imply that we're talking exclusively about drag queens who use means to simulate breasts, etc. Secondly, you imply that the only was a woman can cross dress is to have a bulge?

So let me get this straight: If a woman wears clothes meant for a man, it's okay so long as she has no bulge in her crotch. If a man wears clothes meant for a woman, and makes no effort to wear makeup or give the illusion of mammaries, it's still wrong? Why? Is it because men in dresses or cardigans look aesthetically worse in your eyes than a woman wearing a tuxedo? If so, then that's the kind of double standard that needs to be addressed and ultimately removed from society, because if a man wants to wear a blouse or a skirt, simply because he likes the way they look, not receiving any sexual gratification from it, then why deny him that freedom, or why ridicule him?