RE: Men who love women AND their clothing

[stephanie_cd]

Wow indeed -- my hat [wig?] is off to you, not only for surviving all you've been through but for still having a positive outlook today, and for all you're still accomplishing! I've heard some of the horror stories about HRT and the other hassles of "transitioning" firsthand, so I'm sorry to hear that yours didn't go as planned. Still, you should be proud of who you are and what you've accomplished -- and it sounds as though you are! 

[tbirdgal]

I absolutely refuse to be a victim and start to demand "Special rights or privileges. I also will stand for the rights of individuals to be who they are and to be able to have the right to privacy with in their home as long as it doesn't involve minors ............   

[RAE]

I love my wife, been married for over 18 years. She is OK with my dressing,
and wants me now to go find a wig. New Development.
Today, since I was staying at home today, I put on my bra, #6 forms, panties,
a black 1/2 slip, and a jean skirt.
Very comfee. and when I had to go to the mail box, I went into the Garage,
started up my Tahoe, Backed down the drive, and went to the mail box.
Drove back into the garage, and went back into the house.
Rae

[lukei]

I'm probably not wording it right, I think the term sissification and feminisation are similer but a sissy is more frilly and humiliating than a man who's been made to dress and act as a woman although I could be wrong.

Similar but different, like all these terms. I think sissies are male crossdressers who want to be pretty often in a submissive way, and feminisation is for males who want to be women or be like women. A straight crossdresser who likes to be sissified may not want anything more than temporary feminisation, certainly not hormone therapy for permanence.

When someone says A is B, like "men are liars", it is only a definition if all A are B, and it is wrong if not all A are B.
And it is a Good Definition only if in addition, all B are A. (The statement all B are A is logically the same as "all not-A are not-B", if that makes anything clearer!)

The first statement can be envisaged by all A people being in a circle which is contained in a larger circle of B people.
The second is the reverse. So in a good definition, the circles A and B are identical.

In general when A and B are characteristics like crossdressers and gays you have to consider all possibilities.
Using statistics which I just invented, perhaps 20% of males are latent or actual crossdressers,
and 10% of males are gay (and we could also consider bi as a subset of these).
Perhaps there is an overlap of 2%, so that 1/10 of crossdressers are also gay and 1/5 of gays are also crossdressers)

You draw a Venn diagram with overlapping circles. Be ready to draw 100 dots.
Outside both circles , those not A and not B are "normal heterosexuals with no dress fetishes", here 80.
Those in A but not in B are straight crossdressers, 18.
Those in both A and B are 2 cross-dressing gays.
Those in B but not A are 8 gays who aren't interested in cross-dressing.
If you add up the 4 areas, you get 98 persons, so the percentages are not exact

And any time you consider another characteristic, you have to draw another circle which overlaps the others, and figure out examples for the overlap areas. Don't generalize and blur the areas or say that the overlaps are empty.

Here is an example of a Venn diagram of the European union! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... Bodies.png