Marriage Was A Drag

LONDON: A woman got a divorce here from a husband who dressed up in women’s clothes. He belonged to a transvestite society, and this, with everything else, made his conduct intolerable the divorce court said. The court that gave Mrs Suzanne Dillon, of Hendon, a divorce heard that from the time she married her 26-year-old husband in 1968, he had enjoyed wearing drag.

To start with she thought it was a joke, but after a while, they went to see a psychiatrist, who pronounced Mr Dillon “biologically a perfectly normal male.”

The wife never complained when he did not ‘make a home for her’ as they were running a sandwich bar in Victoria, her parents bought for them, but she did object when he spent £600 on videotape equipment, which he told her would make money for them.

His plan was, it is claimed, to make blue movies and sell them, and he contacted people who were willing to perform through a sex-contact magazine called Exit.

The judge, who was summing up at the end of the hearing, said that Suzanne and her husband had not had satisfactory sex since six weeks after the end of their honeymoon.

She said that he had been to the doctor and been given male hormone pills, but he wouldn’t keep taking them, although, while he was taking them as prescribed “he was almost like a man.”

The judge said the husband found sex with his wife was “unsatisfactory because as he

put it to me in the witness box there was not

When he gave the wife a divorce, Judge Dunn said that he was satisfied that she had objected to her husband’s transvestitism. Even in a letter written to his wife, the husband had described himself as “selfish, inconsiderate lying, unaffectionate, no-good and bigheaded.”

He rejected the husband’s application that the marriage had broken up because of his wife’s adultery.

enough variety and because of this his unconscious will to dress up as a woman was brought forward.

As the wife refused to let the husband dress up in the house, he joined the Beaumont Society 1969, about which Mr Justice Dunn said: “Members of this society, I understand, are all males, meet at various premises, dress up as women and take photographs of one another, and call one another by women’s names.”

The wife found letters from Edna and Pamela in her husband’s pockets – both of these were from members of the society. Both were from men.

He asked his wife to go along to the Beaumont Society’s meetings, but she refused to because she found the idea “revolting”.

She had sex with her husband’s friend and left her husband at the end of 1969.


Judging from the tone of your centre page feature in GN 6 and from your readers’ correspondence it would appear your journal has some things against transvestism.

Perhaps your journal (which I may take to be a reflection of the opinion of the ‘straight’ gay world) realises that a great deal of TV’s are not homosexual. Most regard themselves as women, not as gay men. Besides I have found out from experience that gay men just don’t want to know us, they regard us as being altogether much too feminine.

Note I use term ‘Feminine’ as opposed to ‘Effeminate’. The two are poles apart. I for one don’t ‘camp it out in drag’. Drag is a word I never use. I dress in clothes. Many TV’s I know (myself included) appear in female clothing most of the time. Tastefully dressed in a style to suit the individual and properly made (not the hideous war-paint as worn by ‘queens’) up we are accepted without question as women. We wouldn’t wish it otherwise.

A great deal of straight people seem to have the impression that all TV’s are gay and dress as they do solely to attract partners for sex. Nothing could be further from the truth, homosexual practices disgust me. The thought of any man using my body to alleviate his lust nauseates me!

The people who give us a bad name are ‘gay camp queens’ who flutter their eyelashes etc. Therefore if your contributors regard TV’s as giving gays a bad name, so then do TV’s regard gays as giving them the same. Also another reason why gays give us the cold-shoulder – we are to them quite useless for sex and in the ‘meat-market’ gay scene, this counts for little.

By the way, talking of meat-markets, the only place I have been asked to leave was a pub of this type. I don’t believe the landlord found out for himself, one of our gay ‘brothers’ must have told him! This is something which hasn’t occurred (touch wood) in a straight.

One last point – gays should bear in mind that they are to some degree accepted by society, whereas we are definitely not. A gay, by his very nature, must be seen and recognised as such to attract partners. A TV is the diametrical opposite. A TV must play his chosen role to the full and merge completely into the surroundings if he is not to be found out.

Please do not think from what I have written that I have any dislike of gays. As we are all oppressed to some degree, we need all the friends we can get.