Theories Behind Cross Dressing example essay topic

Cross-dressing is defined as the act of dressing oneself in the attire of the opposite sex. It has long been a phenomenon that has intrigued society to the extent that texts have been written and studies have been conducted in order to decipher just what "causes it". People have always been afraid of the unknown, and it is this theory alone that perhaps explains why minority groups and subcultures have remained marginalized. The gay and Lesbian community, ethnic groups, the punks, the Goths, the skaters have all encountered discrimination on one level or another and it isn't wrong to assume that many of these resulted because people were unaware. It's always been easy to marginalize the people that have visibly different appearances, the Goths with their all black attire, the punks with the Mohawks and safety pins and even ethnic groups in relation to their skin pigmentation, the coarseness of their hair. So when confronted with people who choose to dress in the attire of the opposite sex, it's hardly surprising that such a group is marginalized.

Through the duration of this paper numerous aspects of cross-dressing, in relation to masculinity in particular will be explored. Theories and definitions will be noted in order to further understanding. The history, politics and culture of cross-dressing will be unraveled in order to gain as much information on something considered so deviant. And lastly a brief look at the drag queen phenomenon that is so closely related to cross dressing that it can't help but be included. Why people cross-dress has long been a topic of discussion from early on in history to the present era.

To fully understand the concept of cross-dressing in relation to masculinity one must first define the terms and become familiar with the theories and points of views. For this reason one must break the cross-dressing phenomenon down to its simplest form and define the important, however somewhat overlooked terminology. In regards to the terms, transgender, transvestite and transsexual although similarly sounding and often used interchangeably, all possess important and different meanings. The term transgender refers to people who appear as or wish to be considered as the opposite sex. In short males that appear as females / females that appear as males.

A person who has undergone a sex change operation, is therefore considered to be a Transsexual and the term transvestite is referred to people who may dress and act in a style or manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex. Having clarified the terminology, the possible associated theories behind cross-dressing can be absorbed on a completely different and increasingly complex level. Louise Hordern, a transvestite, claims one of the theories behind cross-dressing to be fetishistic. "Fetishism is the term for sexual arousal by inanimate objects, which are in the case of transvestism, the clothes. (Louise Hordern, pg. 19) This theory in particular refers to the clothing traditionally worn by the opposite sex.

For example for a male to female transvestite, such traditional items would include suspender belts, high heels, skirts, brassieres and feminine underwear. Some cross-dressers, as a result of both embarrassment and shame will don only one article of clothing, in particular women's underwear, such a display is referred to Partial Transvestism. Another theory Louise Hordern voices is that of Bondage and domination. A male to female transgender ist desires to escape the guilt, he encounters in regards to his inclination to female attire, when he is a member of the master male sex. "What better excuse for doing so, then to be ordered by some more dominant person to do so" (Louise Hordern pg. 20). Roxy Bulwinkle a drag performer that was interviewed on the basis of new and current research, specifically for this essay provided an insight and personal theory in relation to cross-dressing.

Roxy stated that cross-dressing was something she thought was undertaken by people who needed a creative outlet for their femininity / masculinity. As a result of finding an outlet for their conflicting surge of emotions, they, in her opinion, were able to feel more comfortable within them selves, as any feelings of guilt or 'wrongdoing' were suppressed. The persona they took on when cross-dressing, would, in theory, disappear when the makeup, clothing and jewelry had disappeared. Francois Timo leon de Choisy, born in 1644 is said to be one of the first accounted displays of transvestism. From his first walking years till his eighteenth birthday, de Choisy dressed himself in complete female attire. Eventually a 'marriage of conscience' was entered, however even then de Choisy referred to himself as Madame.

Although transvestism is now considered to be a primarily sexual obsession, it has throughout history been associated with rituals, political and social dissents. "It is a persistent and universal activity, it exists wherever sexual behavior itself exists, perhaps lying dormant in most human beings". (Peter Ackroyd pg 10). Towards the end of the last century, the number of male characters in English and American literature, appearing in female guise was on an unexpected increase. Mark Twain, Rudyard Kipling and Conan Doy al in particular had a newfound interest in the cross-dressing phenomenon. Children's books were no stranger to the display either, in such books as Punch, Judy and Toby, Toby dons his grandmothers dress when deprived of his trousers to keep him indoors (Richard Ekins and Dave King pg 127) Male privilege in the nineteenth century was deeply engraved into western society.

As a result most western institutions were under the assumption that male privilege was fundamental to maintaining order. It was from this notion that females were seen to be under the control of their, father, brother or husband. A woman's social identity was therefore defined by her marital status and her status was only to be increased at the command of the male in charge. Due to such male prejudice a growing number of women felt that in order to escape their restrictive roles, it was easier to pass as a man then to continue the battle for equality as women. As a result of this and prejudices alike, the female to male cross-dresser was derived and gave an acceptable explanation for something considered deviancy at its best. Women assigned themselves male's roles and lived their lives as such, as the benefits of the masculine patriarchy completely overrode their current rights as females.

As males they were given an opportunity to take on roles, that they as females would never have encountered. The position of power, the opportunity to apply and work in jobs, that as a female would have proved impossible. The income for any given job was increased for the male population; the right to male privilege both in and out of the office, the ability if preferred to, defend their country in the time of war. Loretta Janet Velazquez fought in the American civil war as a male, however was eventually found out and put in jail for ten days and incurred a ten dollar fine.

(V and B Bul lough pg. 157) Although having stated the above theories in paragraph one, in relation to women dressing as men, historically speaking, it can be assumed that the cross-dressing, women engaged in was solely due to the accumulated benefits that went hand in hand with being a man. "The term transgender covers, pre-operative, post-operative transsexuals, transvestites, drag queens, cross-dressers, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and straights who exhibit any kind of dress and / or behavior interpreted as "transgressing" gender roles" (Richard Ekins and Dave King pg. 215). As time has gone on, society has generally become more accepting of certain issues. As the women's liberation front moved in and the feminists were born, as racial boundaries were tackled and as the walls of stonewall fell.

One would be considered wrong by many, if they were to claim society's lack of development in open-mindedness. In reference to cross-dressing, I put forward the examples of Boy George and Ru Paul. A society considered close minded wouldn't have allowed Boy George to accept his Grammy award in 1985 for best New Artist who thanked his US audience not only for recognising his music but for recognising a "good drag queen". Ru Paul who thrives on pop music and theatrical sexuality was quoted "What counts is on the inside...

You " re born naked and the rest is drag". Both examples of pop culture have risen and made themselves respectfully huge. Perhaps it was there difference, their courage to wander into the unknown or perhaps it was something that had no 'real' followers, just a few thousand people intrigued at what boundary would next be pushed. The masculinity was prominent in both these performers. Although their on stage presence was largely centered on their drag theatrics.

Neither of the two took the step into female impersonation. They took the risk to evoke their femininity and to express it by way of their art medium, however they never claimed to be something other then they were. They were careful not to become caricatures of women and focused largely on expressing their femininity through performance and allowing there masculine other selves to evolve simultaneously. Through the expression of their femininity through performance, an outlet was formed. It gave opportunity for the femininity that built up a chance to emerge. For this reason, the masculinity assumed by each of them when not performing was enhanced as the femininity was dispensed of through their artistic expression.

In today's society it is almost second nature to assume that the arrival of a baby boy concludes that that the nursery be painted blue and vice versa for the arrival of a baby girl. From the moment we are born we begin, however unintentional sex role socialisation. It has been proven that female baby's are treated with more care then boys, and that as boys get older they encouraged to play that little bit rougher then then female counterparts. Like any other culture, this is just another random part of the socialisation process we have, although unintentionally, been introduced to. Different cultures respect and hold different values. Things deemed appropriate would deem inappropriate in other cultures.

In referring this back to the cross dressing phenomenon, it is not unusual that different cultures like with any behavioral antics, have different perspectives. Cross-dressing for example is extremely common in the Hindu mythology as males are valued far more then females. It if for this reason the majority of Hindu cross dressers are females. Never the less though, Hindu men will often take on the role women, as an adventure, to prove that as well as being men they can also be enchanting women. To prove that they are able to control and have the power to evoke both sexes need be.

The Egyptians believe firmly in the evil eye and one way of deterring such misfortune has been for the parents of Egyptian boys to dress them in female clothing. As the evil eye is interested only in pretty boys not girls, this therefor acts as a disguise. Likewise African men would disguise them selves as women, as women were seen as being less important then men. In the Java tribes as women were seen as inferior and as needing to be looked after, men who needed their prayers answered by the god would pray, whilst dressed as women, as it was believed they'd have their prayers answered sooner as a result of inferiority. In sum Cross-dressing is an important element in many religions and cultures, and "serves to emphasis that male and female are somehow incomplete standing alone" (Richard Ekins Dave Kind pg. 19). Despite women primarily cross-dressing for positions of power related to masculinity, It is evident, at least in many orthodox religious cultures that men will only cross over, if it emphasizes their masculinity.

That is acknowledging that they can become women when something is needed but using it as a strength as opposed to a weakness. After numerous hours researching, and the snap reading of over 20 texts and documents. I was surprised that. Prior to contrary belief that there was such a defined line between what was considered cross-dressing and what was considered drag.

Louise Hordern 1993 dedicates an entire paragraph in her text Cross-Dressing, questions and answers. Hordern argues that the drag queen's aim is "the caricaturing of women... Usually he is a homosexual, dressing in the most exaggerate feminine clothing... often to belittle women and promote his cause - homosexuality" Surprisingly most texts argued similar points. That is all texts printed prior to 1999.

For this reason I researched previous interviews that had been undertaken with drag queens and conducted one of my own with a dear friend of mine known as Roxy Bulwinkle. Roxy's involvement in the drag scene has stemmed four years to date, and was something she initially undertook as a favor to a friend of hers. Having done the one spontaneous performance Roxy became aware that through drag she was able to express her creativity through character expression and performance. The opportunity to change her self visually in a way that even those closest to her couldn't recognise her gave her a sense of power. The metamorphous intrigued her and thus Roxy was thrust into the drag scene on a regular basis.

"Drag is about performance, you create your character, you build up on your character... the person u are when your in drag doesn't exist, the successful queens are the ones that can pull it off... however in a literal sense its all about gender illusion. When queried about what drag was and meant to Ms Bulwinkle that was the response thrown back at me. All the texts available on cross-dressing, I think have thrown a negative impression on what drag is actually about. Hence my desire to interview drag queens stemmed from the fact that I felt at the very least "the girls" needed a chance at rebuttal.

The interview with Roxy ended with my querying about her masculinity, and had drag impacted on her 'manliness' in any way. Rather then try and sum things up, I'll end on the note that Roxy did. "My masculinity is far from threatened as a result of the drag scene. I believe it can pose a threat to other people's masculinity however... I do drag not because I want to become a woman but because it's an art and like other artists I've chosen the medium I excel in and enjoy most.

Drag has made me more comfortable within myself and in ways increased my masculinity... I've always been feminine, however I've found an outlet for it, not because I had to, but because I fell into, and loved it. Drag gives you the opportunity to be completely fruity and camp and as a result you calm down a lot as a boy". In closing, the intention of this paper was to express the nature of cross-dressing in relation to masculinity. Having spent the time to research such an intriguing minority group, I for one have had my eyes opened. Although many of my associates and friends have been involved in the drag scene, and drag itself has been no stranger to my eyes; I've never put myself in a position to really acknowledge the difference between cross-dressing and drag.

Drag as mentioned above, is about performance, where as cross-dressing is so much more complex then I'd have ever imagined. The theories associated, the definitions, the history, politics and culture behind it prove far more intensive then society has acknowledged. What one needs realise however is that cross-dressing, has been around for numerous years and my assumption is that it is far from dying out. On that note society needs to become more open minded, there is now doubt in comparison, we have come along way, however the battle is far from over. Cross-dressing doesn't pose a threat to masculinity; it simply relays an outlet for the femininity that males within most cultures have been socialise d into believing they should feel guilty for. The belief that males need to be the power bearers and shake off all emotion is narrow-minded.

Masculinity isn't about, never shedding a tear, or refusing to wince in pain. It is about acknowledging that finding an outlet, whether it be for the femininity within, or the will to cry or acknowledge when one is hurting, is strength in itself. It is the strength to break down society's walls and have the will to express whatever one feels without feeling compelled to hold back because of societal norms. And if this means that each and every man, at least once in his lifetime, need don a pair of stilettos, then I say, so be it!