� In this diary, I record my life as a transvestite. Perhaps it will help somebody else, who finds their lifestyle doesn't quite match that endorsed by the 'tranny mafia'. Well, I've been there... and survived. The debriefing starts here.
�loves: All kinds of stuff that society thinks I shouldn't.
The media and the sexy woman 7:30 a.m. -- 2008-07-19
In a recent note, ten-oclock asked some quite difficult questions about the media's portrayal of women...
"Hi! me again. Your note ... is picking my brain. I really want to understand Tranvestitism. Soooo.... do the you think the media fuelled the image of Woman into something very desirable yet unattainable so that it gives the image power? I think the sexy woman is seen as a very powerful symbol (well depends if you're a feminist or not lol)."
-----
First off, I don't think I should complain, because the balance was previously tipped in favour of males for centuries. I mean, men were in charge of almost all the money, and had control over property, mobility, education... we lived pretty well, for a long time!
Suddenly, in the eighties, women were empowered. Women had had the vote as early as 1893 (in New Zealand, anyway)... but that is a crude measure of empowerment. Being allowed into the workplace or the polling station does not necessarily indicate equality, but it is related to power.
But you also ask about the media. It should be noted that the world, as portrayed by most elements of the media (exceptions being some in the news business) does not reflect reality. It has to be larger-than-life, because larger-than-life sells. Nobody really pats their own bottom at the checkout in Asda...
Sometime in the eighties, it became common for women in films, TV series and adverts to be shown outwitting the men. They were more sophisticated, more cultured... and their husbands were portrayed as loveable, bumbling dweebs. I say husbands because virtually nobody shown in the media back then was cohabiting outside of marriage. Nobody was gay in Ad-land, few were black, and there were no mixed-race couples.
Studying the idealised families you see in advertisements, the shock-value caricature families from soap operas, or the road-accident pursuit of fame that is 'reality' TV nowadays, you won't actually learn a lot about how things really are.
Still, novelty sells, in the media. And a generation ago, it was novel to show wives getting more than their fair share of things. For once, they were being portrayed as winners, rather than prizes. Another marketing ploy, perhaps dating from the 1990s, was for younger and younger girls to be encouraged to act like grown-ups. This doesn't seem very healthy to me, but there you go.
Meanwhile, in real life, women were admired for breaking out of their gender role. In the UK we had a female prime minister for the first time in 1979, a female Lord Mayor of London for the first time in 1983... I think it was probably a great time to be a girl. Too bad I wasn't one... because it was also a pretty bad time to be a boy, with the end of a lot of heavy industries like steel, shipbuilding and coal mining. For many, dad was out of work, or retraining to do a much less macho job... and mum was keeping the family afloat.
Unfortunately, kids growing up at that time were the first generation for whom separation and divorce were commonplace. Positive role models for women are great... and the separated or divorced need to be independent and strong... but there were a lot of boys growing up without a male role model in the family. You only have to look at how badly boys' performance at school has slipped to see how disaffected so many have become. (But I can't solve that one today; nor is it a part of your question.)
Let's address the issue of the 'sexy woman'.
I think that a great deal of empowerment stems from women having control over their fertility. That's something that really arose in the sixties, but the full social implications took a while to filter through. Suddenly, women could afford to be sexy; to experiment with sex without first establishing the safety net of marriage.
When you eliminate the evils of the back-street abortion for an unwanted pregnancy, you do a great deal to eliminate the 'evil' of sex before marriage. With contraception, you can enter into a much deeper relationship, to see if you really like the idea of a full life with your partner. That includes trying out sex together, obviously, and introduces an element of being choosy about potential partners.
And if you're going to be auditioning for a husband, you'll want to attract some high-quality applicants. And even if you're not looking for one, you don't want to compare poorly to the females who are. That business of competition for a mate is interesting in itself. In just about every other species, it's the males who display. Peacocks with their tails, orang-utans with their facial flanges, bullfrogs with those throat pouch things... human females have to do a lot, however. Wearing high-heeled shoes to make their legs look longer and slimmer... impractical, long nails... elaborate hair, makeup...
The sexy woman, especially as portrayed in Ad-land, has to remain somewhat unattainable. A woman is a lot less interesting to a male if she's already in the arms of an enormous rugby player. Also, the sexy, Ad-land woman is unsullied; she has no baggage... she is 'up for it'.
In reality, if the human race is to survive, then sex must ultimately lead to motherhood, at least some of the time. And yoghurty bras, and infantile vomit-encrusted clothing, and nappies. (And those terribly earnest TV commercials in which young mothers discuss nappy rash as if the condition of little Joshie's arse is on the agenda at the G8 summit...)
This is not sexy. But marketing is all about selling you something you probably wouldn't have decided you needed, if left to your own devices.
In all this, I suppose we have bear in mind that my brain is wired up differently. I don't respond to stimuli in quite the way that society says I am supposed to. If you showed me pictures of semi-naked women, I'd probably be thinking 'Damn! Why can't I look that good?' whereas most males would (I assume) be thinking about sex.
I hate pornography, because the 'models' always look so unhappy. I can't understand why people would pay money to obtain images or movies like that. (It's not that I don't fancy women, but exploitation is the least sexy thing ever. It's about as sexy as looking at a first aid training video, with close-ups of wounds.) Incidentally, the creepiest thing about porn is the people who treat it as if it were attainable. The men who talk as if the fantasies presented in videos, magazines and certain... venues... are a part of the real world.
Anyway, I'm odd. What the heck do I know?
I know that there's one more kind of unattainable female, unique to the transvestite. That's his female persona. I say unattainable because I don't think any tranny would ever say that they have arrived at their perfect 'look'. Then again, would a genuine girl say that? Cross-dressing is a response to a self-actualisation need, but it's an ongoing pursuit, rather than an actual destination. Besides which, even if he managed to create his dream girl, the one thing the transvestite can't do... is kiss her.
She's unattainable, but she is sexy. In fact, she's always in the mood, just when he is. And while she won't kiss, she certainly won't tell. She can be a sexy little minx when required, and then she can be banished to the back of the wardrobe for weeks. In some ways, she's the perfect concubine. Perhaps that's why so many wives and girlfriends feel threatened by her.
Anyway, I've written too much, and I'm starting to wonder if I'm actually just doing somebody's homework assignment for them.
In summary, sexy is powerful... up to a point. Confident is sexy, too. But being sexually active can have a downside, just as overconfidence can lead you into danger.
Don't believe everything you see in the media.
Better yet, don't believe anything you see in the media.
