Crossdressers-Haven.com

This question came up in a conversation with someone who is not a CD/TG/SO . . . the question is this: Is a person (male) who has a female underware fetish but doesn't actually ware them a crossdresser?

What say you?

To put it shortly, no. Well that's what I think.

Let's say a man has a car that he never drives, he only likes to look and admire it. Now is he a car drives? I think not.

Or something like that. But if someone likes to call him/herself a crossdresser, even though he/she doesn't wear the clothes of the opposite sex, the by all means, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Hmmm . . .

I think they are, I don't think they are transgendered, but even that could be debatable.

There's my 2 cents though.

Beauty

I guess the "cross" part is there, but the "dress" part is missing. I suppose I might categorize this sort of fetishism as being related to crossdressing, but I probably wouldn't think of it as being a proper instance of it. But if such a person wishes to consider himself a crossdresser, I'm not going to kidnap him for deprogramming purposes.

-Celia

Interesting scenario. However, I believe that if they aren't wearing them then they would simply be a fetishist. But to each his/her own.

Hugs.

Hmmmmm. . Good question Alexandra, but Nope, don't think so. Here's my reasoning. It would seem to be a fine line in some cases. Fetishism is defined, in part, as : "Fixation of erotic interest on a part of the body, as the foot, or on an article of clothing." A person who is aroused by rubber clothes, or footwear for example that they are not wearing, but are either handling, sniffing or even just seeing pictures of are simply fetishistic by definition. The objects or photos are used by them to stimulate or enhance a temporary fantasy, without wearing the items. Would it not be the same for panties that are not being worn?

Psychiatrists used to distinguish crossdressers from the above in that they wear the clothing of the opposite sex for sexual stimulation or to meet other needs, hence the term transvetite or crossdresser? For some, perhaps many based on "beginnings stories" on this forum, the initial acts of dressing can be fetishistic and limited to just one or a few articles, and almost ritualized at a young age. Some remain at the level of one or two items of clothing for short periods of time that they WEAR, while others find themselves fascinated with a wider variety of clothing as outfits and become concerned with passing (gee whiz Ms. Wizard, imagine that ) . Some crossdressers prefer the styles of particular periods of their lives, perhaps that were popular when they first started or became aware of sexual feelings when they were dressed, which could also be an element of fetish. Maybe not a great deal of difference, but it seems to me it should be the act of wearing that makes it crossdressing, though it certainly doesn't mean that it can't also be fetishism too.

Hmmmph! That paragraph was a tempest in a teapot, but "Oh well".

Well I think that if they are wearing the panties or bras then they are a crossdresser though if they have a fetish that they like touching or feeling the underwear but not wearing them then no they arent a crossdresser...so almost a shorter version of Carolynn's point.

Stephanie

IMO it depends on what he fantisizes about with them (wearing them or who WAS wearing them...lol)
Seriously I agree that it is most likely a textile sensation fetish and it probably wouldn't be called crossdressing.
However, some professionals have catergorized the panty fetish as the begining of the spectrum of transgendered people (with post trans-sexual being at the other end).

In "The Man In The Red Velvet Dress" the author (who is a crossdresser)
feels the fetishist (is that a word ladies..I sound like I'm wearing dentures when I try to say it ) is at the begining of transgerderism and included it in the book.

It's a witty book if you haven't read it. It is a laymans guide to all things TG.

Alexandra, if you were talking to someone not CD/TG/SO then I'm curious how the heck this subject came up..lol ??????????

leftyrainbow(SO) wrote:Alexandra, if you were talking to someone not CD/TG/SO then I'm curious how the heck this subject came up..lol ??????????

Good question!

I agree with Sharon [SO], Unless they actually wear them, they should think of themselves as fetishists and nothing more. (Until the come out of the closet )

Kyra

Hi all,

Good question, Alexandra. I won't be bucking a trend here; I have to say that our underwear aficionado is a fetishist, not a crossdresser (although, as others have pointed out, there is such a thing as fetishistic transvestism), for the same reason an art collector is not a painter or a sculptor.

Love,
CJ

Kyra wrote:I agree with Sharon [SO], Unless they actually wear them, they should think of themselves as fetishists and nothing more. (Until the come out of the closet )

Kyra

Ooops. I didn't read it correctly. I thought the person only wore undergarments, instead of collecting them. Collection without wearing, that's a fetish.

This person isn't a CD'r.

They're the Diet Coke of CD'rs, just one calorie, not quite enough.

Still the most probing question would be from Lefty. How did you get into this convo Alexandra?

Beauty

Beauty wrote:Still the most probing question would be from Lefty. How did you get into this convo Alexandra?

I haven't got a big butt, so my husband tells me but it is a lot larger than his, seeing as he hasn't got one! So when he wears my panties they are too baggy on his butt and not enough coverage on the front. He put them on back to front...problem solved!

Hi Curly,

Interesting idea. I just now, a couple of minutes ago, went to try this myself after reading your post. (Yes, I'm a, ahem, "hands on" kind of girl! ). I guess an adequate "backward" fit would depend on the style and cut of the panties as well as the degree of someone's "buttlessness." Now, I've just tried on several different pairs in several different styles, putting them all on back to front, and not one of my panties fit properly. On those with a crotch lining, the back seam sort of dug in where it isn't really supposed to, if you get my drift, and, on those, much smaller panties, that don't have a crotch lining, my round derrière actually became an advertisement for half my assets, so to speak.

Has Ed ever tried on panties with sewn-in (or removable) foam hip and fanny pads? Even though they look a little strange on their own, they do add a curving line where it counts. I own a couple of pairs myself and find that, although my butt isn't really in dire need of any enhancement (trust me on that one, Curly!), these panties do serve to further the illusion that I have a much narrower waist than I do in reality, especially when I wear a corset or longline bra.

Of course, there are also padded girdles (such as Classic Curves' "Veronica" models--link below), but I think that some of these are so "over the top" as to provide a caricature of the female form, rather than a semblance of reality. Well, that's my opinion, anyway. Perhaps Ed could give one of those a try in order to remedy his buttlessness? (By the way, that's not an endorsement; I've never bought one as I'd have to go without food for forty days in order to afford, say, the Veronica III. )

Anyway, sorry, all this is slightly off-topic--but fun to discuss, regardless.

Love,
CJ

Classic Curves International

http://www.clcrv.com/shop/index.cfm