Explain cross-dressing to me, please

[DrZoidberg]

I´ve also discussed, at length, with my queer friends why we think cross dresing women is cute, while cross dressing men so easily can cause offence. It´s misogyny. We have a society built around the fundamental belief that women have less worth as humans than men. How woman dress and looks is therefore everybody´s business. We think it´s fine to judge women on their looks since they exist for the joy of others. Male clothing is more a question of personal choice. That is why a man dressing as a woman is so incredibly offensive to society. It´s a man lowering himself down to the status of women. Men can feel it like a betrayal of his gender. Like he´s throwing away privilige.

When I first heard this theory I questioned it. But then I started looking for clues, and they´re everywhere. So if you don´t believe me, take this idea with you a while before rejecting it. So basically... sometimes feminist theoreticians get it right (but mostly they don´t).

 

[skepticalbip]

It is interesting that cross dressing is so common for females that nothing is thought of it. Women routinely wear men's clothing now but in the 1800s such a thing would be shocking in polite society, a woman in pants would create quite a stir.

But to the OP. I don't have a clue as to why some males enjoy cross dressing. There are likely several different reasons. As others have suggested, the surest way of understanding is probably to ask someone who does cross dress.

Hmmm... the gender coding for clothes and colours of clothes is of course completely arbitrary. As made evident for the pink/blue switch of the 1930´ies. Culture changes over time. So I disagree with you. Today a suit is not coded for men only. It is also a female dress. But we call it a pant suit. Same thing. There are subtle differences in that a pant suit has a tailored waist, while the male equivalent is more straight. But those differences are tiny. I don´t think it is cross dressing. Today I´d say that construction workers clothes are completely gender neutral. Any professional purely functional uniform, (I can think of), seems to be gender neutral.

Women in pants is not at all cross dressing. The male gender coding of trousers is completely gone today. I know women who fetishize femininity. Who go out of their way to come across as as feminine as possible. They all wear pants without flinching nor feeling like they´re cross dressing. It´s the style of how the pants are cut that code for gender. Not the fact that they´re pants.

Of course styles change. That was sorta the point of my post. Women didn't wear pants in the 1800s. Even into the mid 1900s it wasn't acceptable in "polite society". Today, women can and do wear any men's clothing, and not just traditional men's styles tailored for women, without anyone batting an eye. A high school girl wearing her boyfriends football jersey is "cool" but her boyfriend wearing her cheerleader's skirt would bring ridicule. A woman wearing nothing but a man's dress shirt after a night of romance is sexy but the man wearing her teddy afterword isn't.

However, since styles change, who knows, maybe by the end of the 21st century men wearing light, airy sun dresses will not cause anyone to even notice. But for now women wearing men's clothing in public doesn't attract any attention but men wearing women's clothing in public does.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hmmm... the gender coding for clothes and colours of clothes is of course completely arbitrary. As made evident for the pink/blue switch of the 1930´ies. Culture changes over time. So I disagree with you. Today a suit is not coded for men only. It is also a female dress. But we call it a pant suit. Same thing. There are subtle differences in that a pant suit has a tailored waist, while the male equivalent is more straight. But those differences are tiny. I don´t think it is cross dressing. Today I´d say that construction workers clothes are completely gender neutral. Any professional purely functional uniform, (I can think of), seems to be gender neutral.

Women in pants is not at all cross dressing. The male gender coding of trousers is completely gone today. I know women who fetishize femininity. Who go out of their way to come across as as feminine as possible. They all wear pants without flinching nor feeling like they´re cross dressing. It´s the style of how the pants are cut that code for gender. Not the fact that they´re pants.

Of course styles change. That was sorta the point of my post. Women didn't wear pants in the 1800s. Even into the mid 1900s it wasn't acceptable in "polite society". Today, women can and do wear any men's clothing, and not just traditional men's styles tailored for women, without anyone batting an eye. A high school girl wearing her boyfriends football jersey is "cool" but her boyfriend wearing her cheerleader's skirt would bring ridicule. A woman wearing nothing but a man's dress shirt after a night of romance is sexy but the man wearing her teddy afterword isn't.

However, since styles change, who knows, maybe by the end of the 21st century men wearing light, airy sun dresses will not cause anyone to even notice. But for now women wearing men's clothing in public doesn't attract any attention but men wearing women's clothing in public does.

Before the advent of trousers and their common usage in teh 15´th century it was all dresses for men. But a manly dress was of course called by a different name. Still a dress. And in the 15´th century, what did men of status wear when they wanted to show off how stylish they were? They wore tights. Of course super manly mens tights that are indistinguishable from todays ladies tights. I think it´s hard to argue that modern women in tights are cross dressing. I rather feel a bit feminine when I wear my yoga tights to class. I only wear them because they are functional. I have to put shorts on top of them to maintain my male dignity, even though I´m aware that looks ridiculous. I still do it.

Fashions have really been all over the place. I strongly doubt you´ll be able to find a modern piece of female clothing that hasn´t had a male equivalent in some era that wasn´t considered manly. So I think we need to keep a steady focus on what is considered manly today, and only today.

Check out these Greek elite guards. When these uniforms were introduced they were specifically designed with maximum manliness. It had to be no hesitation in the on-looker that these guys were the perfect manly specimines filled to the brim with testosterone. They were to fill their opponents with fear just looking at their manly clothing.

http://cdn2.cheeseweb.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/20120219_Athens_0175.jpg

 

[Rhea]

This has been very illuminating and insightful - thanks for all the discussion. It helps me very much to have these many thoughts about the issue at hand when thinking about someone who may be struggling with acceptance. I feel it is yet another hurdle to a person, especially a young one, if even the accepting and tolerant people are saying, "wait, WHAT?" with surprise. To have their audience instead react with curiosity instead of off-balance surprise seems like a more accepting environment.

So to the early comments on, "google it and you'll find you're not alone," that's exactly what I'm after is the ability to NOT react as if that person is the only one I’ve ever heard of when they first say something. And googling is good, but I find I like discussion better. The play off of each other, the ability to ask in a safe place without it being the questions a young person first revealing this has to answer.

The topic came up in a parenting group, where some of the members discussed a brother, a friend, a son, who has revealed they are a cross dresser for the first time. Asking THOSE people is asking someone who may not know their own emotions fully yet and seems like asking them to defend themselves rather than simply get support that they are not weird/wrong/alone.

It seems to be that better support can be offered if one has had the conversation already with others and can instead react with, “this is not the first time I have encountered this, you of course have allies and compatriots.”

The male gender coding of trousers is completely gone today. I know women who fetishize femininity. Who go out of their way to come across as as feminine as possible.

This is quite interesting and possibly a liberating thought for a young teen MtF cross dresser. Yes, those hyper-feminized women really are “cross-dressing” in a way, seeking a particular gender identity to magnify. I never thought of that before, even though I have always wondered what motivates some women to be so hyper feminized.

A woman wearing nothing but a man's dress shirt after a night of romance is sexy but the man wearing her teddy afterword isn't.

That is so true as an expression of the roles that give rise to some of the cross-dressing desires, and still quite an hilarious picture.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is quite interesting and possibly a liberating thought for a young teen MtF cross dresser. Yes, those hyper-feminized women really are “cross-dressing” in a way, seeking a particular gender identity to magnify. I never thought of that before, even though I have always wondered what motivates some women to be so hyper feminized.

I wouldn´t call it cross-dressing. But they are playing around with gender dynamics. In gender studies there is a theory that certain or most activities and objects are coded for gender. People are socially encouraged to engage in activities that are in line with the stuff that is accepted for their gender. I think that this is beyond question. It´s glaringly obvious. This is true regardless of gender-typical behaviour being innate or learned.

I think masculinity and femininity is on a sliding scale. We can be more or less strong in our gender-typical behaviour or appearance. If our outward appearance isn´t as feminine as we feel on the inside, or is too feminine then we will do what we can to modify it. There are evolutionary psychological theories for why this behaviour exists. But I´ll stop here.

 

[ronburgundy]

I´ve also discussed, at length, with my queer friends why we think cross dresing women is cute, while cross dressing men so easily can cause offence. It´s misogyny. We have a society built around the fundamental belief that women have less worth as humans than men. How woman dress and looks is therefore everybody´s business. We think it´s fine to judge women on their looks since they exist for the joy of others. Male clothing is more a question of personal choice. That is why a man dressing as a woman is so incredibly offensive to society. It´s a man lowering himself down to the status of women. Men can feel it like a betrayal of his gender. Like he´s throwing away privilige.

When I first heard this theory I questioned it. But then I started looking for clues, and they´re everywhere. So if you don´t believe me, take this idea with you a while before rejecting it. So basically... sometimes feminist theoreticians get it right (but mostly they don´t).

I think they get the theory wrong there too. I think the misogyny (or at least power inequality) comes into play more in determining proper "male" and "female" attire in the first place. It is in the creation of "feminine" attire that is so uncomfortable (even damaging), inconvenient, costly, and sexualizing. Whereas the standard "male" attire (which pants and tee-shirt, not a suit) is much more practical, comfortable, cheap, and non-sexualizing. IOW, men's clothes are closer to what anyone of either gender would prefer to wear if we weren't socialized with gender roles. That means that women just need to be normal people looking to be comfortable and not constantly sexualized in order to want to dress "like a man". Whereas you need to be oddly obsessed with gender roles and constructed "femininity" to want to wear highly feminine attire when its not expected of you.
Male cross-dressers are regarded more as weirdos with issues than females who wear men's clothes (even clothes clearly from the "men's" section, not just a women's pants-suit), because they probably are "weirdos" with some issues if they wan't to take on their attire that women wouldn't want to take on themselves without social coercion. IOW, male cross-dressers are not merely abnormal in desires compared to other men, but also compared to most women who only wear what these men prefer because they are socially rewarded for it whereas the men are punished for it.

 

[Rhea]

This is quite interesting and possibly a liberating thought for a young teen MtF cross dresser. Yes, those hyper-feminized women really are “cross-dressing” in a way, seeking a particular gender identity to magnify. I never thought of that before, even though I have always wondered what motivates some women to be so hyper feminized.

I wouldn´t call it cross-dressing. But they are playing around with gender dynamics. In gender studies there is a theory that certain or most activities and objects are coded for gender. People are socially encouraged to engage in activities that are in line with the stuff that is accepted for their gender. I think that this is beyond question. It´s glaringly obvious. This is true regardless of gender-typical behaviour being innate or learned.

I think masculinity and femininity is on a sliding scale. We can be more or less strong in our gender-typical behaviour or appearance. If our outward appearance isn´t as feminine as we feel on the inside, or is too feminine then we will do what we can to modify it. There are evolutionary psychological theories for why this behaviour exists. But I´ll stop here.

True, not "cross" dressing, but very much "gender-forcing;" do NOT make any mistake in any aspect about what gender I am presenting!
Whereas many others of us are going for comfort.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I´ve also discussed, at length, with my queer friends why we think cross dresing women is cute, while cross dressing men so easily can cause offence. It´s misogyny. We have a society built around the fundamental belief that women have less worth as humans than men. How woman dress and looks is therefore everybody´s business. We think it´s fine to judge women on their looks since they exist for the joy of others. Male clothing is more a question of personal choice. That is why a man dressing as a woman is so incredibly offensive to society. It´s a man lowering himself down to the status of women. Men can feel it like a betrayal of his gender. Like he´s throwing away privilige.

When I first heard this theory I questioned it. But then I started looking for clues, and they´re everywhere. So if you don´t believe me, take this idea with you a while before rejecting it. So basically... sometimes feminist theoreticians get it right (but mostly they don´t).

I think they get the theory wrong there too. I think the misogyny (or at least power inequality) comes into play more in determining proper "male" and "female" attire in the first place. It is in the creation of "feminine" attire that is so uncomfortable (even damaging), inconvenient, costly, and sexualizing. Whereas the standard "male" attire (which pants and tee-shirt, not a suit) is much more practical, comfortable, cheap, and non-sexualizing. IOW, men's clothes are closer to what anyone of either gender would prefer to wear if we weren't socialized with gender roles. That means that women just need to be normal people looking to be comfortable and not constantly sexualized in order to want to dress "like a man". Whereas you need to be oddly obsessed with gender roles and constructed "femininity" to want to wear highly feminine attire when its not expected of you.
Male cross-dressers are regarded more as weirdos with issues than females who wear men's clothes (even clothes clearly from the "men's" section, not just a women's pants-suit), because they probably are "weirdos" with some issues if they wan't to take on their attire that women wouldn't want to take on themselves without social coercion. IOW, male cross-dressers are merely abnormal in desires compared to other men, but compared to most women who only wear what these men prefer because they are socially rewarded for it whereas the men are punished for it.

I don´t think that works historically. Both male and female clothing have historically elevated impracticality. Simply because having servants and not having to work for a living was high status. Nothing signalled that better than clothes who were quite literally impossible to do any work in. We still have a cultural heritage from the first half of the 20th century when high status women were housewives. The house wives with the highest status had servants. While, in the same culture, it was high status for men to work for a living. Sure, they didn´t work with their hands. But they still worked. So female clothes elevated impracticality while male clothing elevated practicality. This difference is historically quite unique. So there´s nothing inherently masculine with practical clothing and feminine about impractical clothing. I think that´s just a momentary cultural quirk that will disappear for good and most likely never come back. I think from now on working will be high status for both men and women, so practicality in clothing will have a gender neutral coding.

And this shows also in the clothing. Impractical female clothing are all nostalgic female designs. They´re all about looking back and elevating an earlier and lost era. Contemporary and modern designs in clothing are always super functional. Now it´s all about eco friendliness and recycling. A completely different view of high fashion.

 

[OLDMAN]

It may be that cross dressing is just a taboo that people find exciting. I mean a man can always wear a kilt and no one bats an eye, put on a mini-skirt and everyone's apeshit.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think they get the theory wrong there too. I think the misogyny (or at least power inequality) comes into play more in determining proper "male" and "female" attire in the first place. It is in the creation of "feminine" attire that is so uncomfortable (even damaging), inconvenient, costly, and sexualizing. Whereas the standard "male" attire (which pants and tee-shirt, not a suit) is much more practical, comfortable, cheap, and non-sexualizing. IOW, men's clothes are closer to what anyone of either gender would prefer to wear if we weren't socialized with gender roles. That means that women just need to be normal people looking to be comfortable and not constantly sexualized in order to want to dress "like a man". Whereas you need to be oddly obsessed with gender roles and constructed "femininity" to want to wear highly feminine attire when its not expected of you.
Male cross-dressers are regarded more as weirdos with issues than females who wear men's clothes (even clothes clearly from the "men's" section, not just a women's pants-suit), because they probably are "weirdos" with some issues if they wan't to take on their attire that women wouldn't want to take on themselves without social coercion. IOW, male cross-dressers are merely abnormal in desires compared to other men, but compared to most women who only wear what these men prefer because they are socially rewarded for it whereas the men are punished for it.

I don´t think that works historically. Both male and female clothing have historically elevated impracticality. Simply because having servants and not having to work for a living was high status. Nothing signalled that better than clothes who were quite literally impossible to do any work in. We still have a cultural heritage from the first half of the 20th century when high status women were housewives. The house wives with the highest status had servants. While, in the same culture, it was high status for men to work for a living. Sure, they didn´t work with their hands. But they still worked. So female clothes elevated impracticality while male clothing elevated practicality. This difference is historically quite unique. So there´s nothing inherently masculine with practical clothing and feminine about impractical clothing. I think that´s just a momentary cultural quirk that will disappear for good and most likely never come back. I think from now on working will be high status for both men and women, so practicality in clothing will have a gender neutral coding.

And this shows also in the clothing. Impractical female clothing are all nostalgic female designs. They´re all about looking back and elevating an earlier and lost era. Contemporary and modern designs in clothing are always super functional. Now it´s all about eco friendliness and recycling. A completely different view of high fashion.

That doesn't really contradict my point, so much as specify a mechanism by which gendered clothing came to be unfairly different in practicality. Basically, you are saying that rather than just a direct impact on clothing, it was in part due to gender role ideas about work and type of work that impacting clothing as a byproduct. I can buy that to some extent, though these days the impracticality has little to do with status, since the expectation is applied to women of all statuses. And impracticality is still very central to women's expected attire. Make-up is impractical, costly, and time consuming. High heels are still central to women's fashion and cultural standards, uncomfortable breast squeezing bras are more "required" than ever, dresses are still expected in formal occasions no matter how cold it is, etc.. Also their is the high degree of sexualization issue that has increased massively in the last century for women but not much for men.

Regardless of how the current gendered attire expectations arose, the fact is that they are still highly sexualized and impractical for women. Thus, the central point of my argument still remains that is this difference that is responsible for why it actually does take a different (and arguably more "weird", abnormal, and fetishistic mentality) for hetero men to desire the added and impractical constraints of modern "female" attire than for women to desire the less constrained and more practical "male" attire. IT is somewhat analogous to a preference of summertime attire between loose cotton clothing and a skin tight latex body suit. People that would prefer the latter as a summer attire are more likely to be "weirdos" who likely has "issues". Weirdos make the world interesting, but odds are those issues emerge in other interpersonal ways that are less fun.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And impracticality is still very central to women's expected attire.

keep your eye on the ball. What is the clothes trying to signal? Today not having to work isn´t worth signalling. The poorest members in our society don´t do shit. They´re on wellfare. So purely impractical clothing we can´t work in is not going to signal anything we in today´s modern society value.

Make-up is impractical, costly, and time consuming.

Not that time-consuming nor impractical. Not really. But it is costly. Which is the point. It signals affluence. As does expensive creams and beauty treatments.

It is interesting how come make-up hasn´t made a comeback among men. Historically men of status have used more make-up than women. I don´t have a good answer.

High heels are still central to women's fashion and cultural standards, uncomfortable breast squeezing bras are more "required" than ever, dresses are still expected in formal occasions no matter how cold it is, etc.. Also their is the high degree of sexualization issue that has increased massively in the last century for women but not much for men.

I think you´re right on the money. Sexualisation is the answer. Today we don´t really value virginity or nor laziness. Today sexiness has high status and that is the focus.

High heels make the legs longer. But it also forces the pelvis to tilt backward, which is an ancient primate signal of sexual availability in a woman. It´s a universal signal for all primates that she´s ready to go, and obviously in humans to.

Breasts is a weird one and quite hard for evolutionary psychologists to explain. Best explanation I´ve heard is that our brains haven´t quite adapted to bipedalism yet. So the tits are a "front ass". The brain can´t really deal with women standing upright. Large or full breasts doesn´t correlate to health or youth in a woman nor ability to produce milk. It´s just a weird sexual attraction. Anyhoo... it does why we like tits being squeezed together. It looks more like an ass-crack from behind.

But why dresses specifically are considered sexy... can´t really answer. I might have to do with ease of access? That would counter your impracticality argument? That would be super practical. But I suspect most guys think this is way sexier on a woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBbDuamkYVY

On the sexualisation of men, I beg to differ. The result of the women´s revolution wasn´t that men started treating women like sexual objects. What happened was that women started treating men like them to. Which I actually think is a good thing. I´m all for equality and not about to start treating women less like sexual objects. What would the fun be in that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7HwXWHWejI

it´s still high status for a man to be rich. But having a hard ripped body is getting increasingly important. If you want to bed a hot chick in Sweden just having money will get you nowhere. So the sexualisation is clearly covering both men and women today. I´m guessing this development will only become more pronounced in mens clothing in the future.

 

[fromderinside]

It may be that cross dressing is just a taboo that people find exciting. I mean a man can always wear a kilt and no one bats an eye, put on a mini-skirt and everyone's apeshit.

I like the feel of silk and I think I look good in a bra.

 

[ronburgundy]

keep your eye on the ball. What is the clothes trying to signal? Today not having to work isn´t worth signalling. The poorest members in our society don´t do shit. They´re on wellfare. So purely impractical clothing we can´t work in is not going to signal anything we in today´s modern society value.

That's my point, the impracticality is still completely there for female norms, but it has nothing to do with your historical factors of work and affluence. At every level of affluence, women's clothes are much less practical than men's. Impracticality covaries with gender now rather than with affluence. It signals, that "I am a women, and thus my youth, beauty and sexuality are my only important qualities, and I don't need to be able to do anything useful or even protect myself from my environment because you can just take care of me in exchange for sex."
That is why many women participate in those expectations to as little a degree as they can get away with without thwarting their own social goals. That is why it rather shallow, sexually obsessive, "weird" and not actually "female" for hetero men to want to take on that attire, whereas it is more normal and sensible for women to want to wear most male attire.

Make-up is impractical, costly, and time consuming.

Not that time-consuming nor impractical. Not really.

Um, women spend an average of 30 minutes every day just putting on their make-up that does not count time on their hair or time to take the make-up off, which probably totals around 1 hour every day, (or 6% of their waking existence), which increases their "grooming and hygiene" time by 2-3 fold what it would be otherwise and what it is for the avg. male. So again, cross-dressing males are choosing a time consuming (skin damaging) routine that so many women hate and only do out of social coercion. That's weird.

But it is costly. Which is the point. It signals affluence. As does expensive creams and beauty treatments.

Women of every affluence level wear and are expected to wear make-up. It does not signal affluence. Wearing cheap make-up is less socially punished than wearing no make-up. What matters to the norm is that you demonstrate that you spend lots of time and effort on your appearance, especially in looking "flushed", "full lipped" and sexually receptive. It is costly, yet expected of women of every social standing.

It is interesting how come make-up hasn´t made a comeback among men. Historically men of status have used more make-up than women. I don´t have a good answer.

Its because the "affluence" theory is wrong and doesn't apply today to either clothes or make-up. Its more about gender roles, not economic standing, and those expectations that women of all status must emphasize their beauty and sexuality are onerous, impractical, and costly for women and many resent it. Yet cross-dressing males choose to adopt it which signifies unhealthy underlying "issues" and makes their psychology qualitatively different than other men, and then either traditional or cross-dressing women. Which again, is my entire point.

High heels are still central to women's fashion and cultural standards, uncomfortable breast squeezing bras are more "required" than ever, dresses are still expected in formal occasions no matter how cold it is, etc.. Also their is the high degree of sexualization issue that has increased massively in the last century for women but not much for men.

I think you´re right on the money. Sexualisation is the answer. Today we don´t really value virginity or nor laziness. Today sexiness has high status and that is the focus.

High heels make the legs longer. But it also forces the pelvis to tilt backward, which is an ancient primate signal of sexual availability in a woman. It´s a universal signal for all primates that she´s ready to go, and obviously in humans to.

Breasts is a weird one and quite hard for evolutionary psychologists to explain. Best explanation I´ve heard is that our brains haven´t quite adapted to bipedalism yet. So the tits are a "front ass". The brain can´t really deal with women standing upright. Large or full breasts doesn´t correlate to health or youth in a woman nor ability to produce milk. It´s just a weird sexual attraction. Anyhoo... it does why we like tits being squeezed together. It looks more like an ass-crack from behind.

Okay, so we gettting somewhere in agreeing that modern female attire is much about sexualizing women at the expense of practicality and even physical health. My argument is not that women's attire is intentionally made impractical for the sake of impracticality. That is more your argument regarding affluence and showing that you don't work, so you don't need practical attire. My argument is that for various reasons highly tied to gender roles, women's clothes today have the byproduct of being an impractical nuisance to them and many don't like it. The underlying reasons are not that critical. What matters is the reality that this gender difference in impracticality exists. That reality is why some cross dressing by hetero males requires an odd fetish that not only violates norms, but can go against valuing of comfort, practicality, frugality, and safety. That makes it a qualitatively different type of thing reflecting a different type of psychology than most female cross dressing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's my point, the impracticality is still completely there for female norms, but it has nothing to do with your historical factors of work and affluence. At every level of affluence, women's clothes are much less practical than men's.

I don´t buy it. I work in an office as a manager. I have "power clothes" to work. It´s a tailored suit, tie, fancy leather shoes, expensive looking watch, cufflinks and so on. Nothing practical about any of that. In fact, the clothes are so expensive and sensitive I can hardly do anything in them. In those clothes I´m not less a princess than ladies in delicate fabcrics and high-heels. Both clothing are all about sending sexual signals rather than anything practical.

On my free time I do a lot of sports. That is purely functional clothing. I wear completely and utterly different clothes for work than I do for sports. I´s say female clothes for sports are equally functional to men´s sports attire. If not more. Tights are actually awesome for sports.

Impracticality covaries with gender now rather than with affluence. It signals, that "I am a women, and thus my youth, beauty and sexuality are my only important qualities, and I don't need to be able to do anything useful or even protect myself from my environment because you can just take care of me in exchange for sex."
That is why many women participate in those expectations to as little a degree as they can get away with without thwarting their own social goals. That is why it rather shallow, sexually obsessive, "weird" and not actually "female" for hetero men to want to take on that attire, whereas it is more normal and sensible for women to want to wear most male attire.

I think that used to be true. But as women´s salaries are slowly creeping up to male levels I think this difference will disappear. The male metrosexual look, may be out of fashion right now. But I think it´s part of a greater trend, where women also are going for younger and more fit men. It has become harder and harder for men to compensate for lack of a youthful body with money. I think this is a trend that will continue, until we´re on equal footing.

Make-up is impractical, costly, and time consuming.

Not that time-consuming nor impractical. Not really.

Um, women spend an average of 30 minutes every day just putting on their make-up that does not count time on their hair or time to take the make-up off, which probably totals around 1 hour every day, (or 6% of their waking existence), which increases their "grooming and hygiene" time by 2-3 fold what it would be otherwise and what it is for the avg. male. So again, cross-dressing males are choosing a time consuming (skin damaging) routine that so many women hate and only do out of social coercion. That's weird.

Really, 30 minutes? I spend a good 30 minutes grooming in the morning, and I´m not particularly fussy. I just do the basics.

It is interesting how come make-up hasn´t made a comeback among men. Historically men of status have used more make-up than women. I don´t have a good answer.

Its because the "affluence" theory is wrong and doesn't apply today to either clothes or make-up. Its more about gender roles, not economic standing, and those expectations that women of all status must emphasize their beauty and sexuality are onerous, impractical, and costly for women and many resent it. Yet cross-dressing males choose to adopt it which signifies unhealthy underlying "issues" and makes their psychology qualitatively different than other men, and then either traditional or cross-dressing women. Which again, is my entire point.

Good point. Since today make-up signals femininity. No make-up signals masculinity. And since men want to exaggerate maleness, they go for the no-make-up look. Even if they do use creams and stuff, they still try to hide it. Observant of you.

High heels are still central to women's fashion and cultural standards, uncomfortable breast squeezing bras are more "required" than ever, dresses are still expected in formal occasions no matter how cold it is, etc.. Also their is the high degree of sexualization issue that has increased massively in the last century for women but not much for men.

I think you´re right on the money. Sexualisation is the answer. Today we don´t really value virginity or nor laziness. Today sexiness has high status and that is the focus.

High heels make the legs longer. But it also forces the pelvis to tilt backward, which is an ancient primate signal of sexual availability in a woman. It´s a universal signal for all primates that she´s ready to go, and obviously in humans to.

Breasts is a weird one and quite hard for evolutionary psychologists to explain. Best explanation I´ve heard is that our brains haven´t quite adapted to bipedalism yet. So the tits are a "front ass". The brain can´t really deal with women standing upright. Large or full breasts doesn´t correlate to health or youth in a woman nor ability to produce milk. It´s just a weird sexual attraction. Anyhoo... it does why we like tits being squeezed together. It looks more like an ass-crack from behind.

Okay, so we gettting somewhere in agreeing that modern female attire is much about sexualizing women at the expense of practicality and even physical health. My argument is not that women's attire is intentionally made impractical for the sake of impracticality. That is more your argument regarding affluence and showing that you don't work, so you don't need practical attire. My argument is that for various reasons highly tied to gender roles, women's clothes today have the byproduct of being an impractical nuisance to them and many don't like it. The underlying reasons are not that critical. What matters is the reality that this gender difference in impracticality exists. That reality is why some cross dressing by hetero males requires an odd fetish that not only violates norms, but can go against valuing of comfort, practicality, frugality, and safety. That makes it a qualitatively different type of thing reflecting a different type of psychology than most female cross dressing.

I think we agree on plenty. We just disagree on details. Like on the impracticality of male clothing. I argue that they´re just as much about sexualisation. Both men and women are ever increasingly sexualised. And we spend lots of time emphasizing whatever we can like crazy.