The Queernesss Thread

[Stella_Omega]

Now, I suppose, strictly speaking, I am bisexual, but I don't think of myself in those terms.

You could call yourself "bisexual, hetero-romantic."

There is a word for everything-- or if there isn't we can coin one. LOVE the English language!

I think that the het-gay spectrum is the easiest way to visualise this particular set of parameters. But I think also the way you do, that people change where they are on the spectrum all the time. Or anyway, pretty often. And that's only one of the manymany spectrums we have to place ourselves, regarding our identity.

 

[the captians wench]

See? That's what I'm talking about!
And what gets to me is this constant insistance that submission is All That. That a totally giving oneself over to a spanking isn't enough that there has to be submission...I would love to think that's a desire that you don't associate with Because You're A Girl.

I would be a very happy camper if the desire to be a little was something that was perceived as a separate thing. if boys and girls alike could admit to this very queer desire without calling it "feminine" or attaching it in any way to the status of women in general. if women weren't already dumped into the Dainty Fairy box... perhaps I would enjoy that game myself.

In my life I have fought and fought and fought against being treated like something adorable and breakable-- quite literally, when it was "don't use that band saw Stella, you might hurt yourself. Let Bobby cut your shape for you." (Bobby slipped and mis-cut the shape, BTW, but we already knew not to say so because we mustn't hurt the budding male ego, bless his heart. Still I would have preferred to fuck it up my self.)

Now see, I had just the opposite experience, which is probably why I have the opposite view. When I was a kid my brother was the pretty one. He has curly hair and thin and rosey cheeked. I was brawny, tough. I went to the park and played football with the boys. (eventually I wasn't allowed to play anymore because I was too rough)

When people saw us, they gushed over my brother calling him my name and I was "the other kid". I wanted to be the girly one. I'm so jealous of my niece because she has my brother's girly looks in a girly body.

And in high school, I was still "one of the boys" when all I wanted was to be seen as a girl, even if I did think more like them.

 

[BiBunny]

In my life I have fought and fought and fought against being treated like something adorable and breakable-- quite literally, when it was "don't use that band saw Stella, you might hurt yourself. Let Bobby cut your shape for you." (Bobby slipped and mis-cut the shape, BTW, but we already knew not to say so because we mustn't hurt the budding male ego, bless his heart. Still I would have preferred to fuck it up my self.)

When we were in shop class in high school, I'd already spent years helping my Daddy build our horse barn. By ourselves. Since there was no building yet, we also didn't have power on the property, either. So everything that was sawed was sawed BY HAND.

So in that class, even the boys would come and let me hand saw their boards, LOL. My friends sat on other end of the piece of lumber to hold it down (I was kinda rough when I did it), and I sawed from the time the tardy bell rang 'til the time the bell for the end of the period rang, LOL.

 

[rida]

(Sorry I'm not quoting all the post I'm referring to. Just too many to quote).

I've never been treated like little and breakable at home. At the same time, being mistaken for a boy, still made it that nobody outside if home would treat me like a delicate flower either. And even though I'm happy that I can do pretty much everything (including change a flat tire and helping guys unstuck their car from snow), I have had time where I wished to be treated as a "delicate little flower".

All the women in my my family have always been strong and doing many of the things that a man would. And I never felt (or heard) that any of them ever tried to "change society": they were simply who they were, and the world around them accepted them.

Similarly, once I got over the high-school angst, I never really felt the need to "change the world" at large, and I believe that the biggest reason's why is because I did not grow up in the US. My experience has been that, at an interpersonal level, there has been much more acceptance for deviance from the norm than opposition, as far as that expression was respectful.

I know that for some, the mere existence of the "status quo" privilege is something that should be overthrown. Personally I do not expect nor believe that society needs to cater to my differences, as far as it does not hinder them. "Majority rules", whether I like it or not, I believe is somehow necessary to avoid chaos and anarchy.

Perhaps, the fact that all in all I appear and fit in the "status quo" privilege, being female, married to a male, is what makes me less "socially active". But I think it is also because, for all the social restriction of where I now live, there is actually a lot of freedom when it comes to private life.

That said, I'm ready to fight for my girls' right to be whomever they wish to be, if they'll ever meet opposition.

 

[KoPilot]

I'm somewhat along the lines of Catalina... I've described myself in years past as being a gay man in a woman's body, but I'm not quite sure. My gender is and has always been extremely fluid; growing up I was referred to by both pronouns quite a lot, and being thought of in terms of masculine pronouns was actually a source of pride for me. However, my orientation is pretty rock solid: I'm attracted to manly, dominant men, and that's that. There has not been a single occasion where I've fantasized about a woman, or anyone marginally feminine. But me? I'm cool with being whatever, so long as I get to be small and cutesy. I have thought about what it would be like to have a penis, though.

If anyone's familiar with the series of chan imageboard websites, I visit one on occasion. It's called Gurochan, and there's a thread there that I'd started following a little bit and it made me think: http://gurochan.net/f/res/3810.html The main focus is "cuntboys", or pre-op trans men of the likes of Buck Angel. When I saw them I couldn't help but go "Hey! Those boys look good! I wouldn't mind being able to switch between this and that sometimes." Not because of the sex, but the idea of being able to change based on my mood sounds appealing to me. Sometimes I do wish that I could just go out as a slick-lookin' drag king, but... the androgynous and the boy-dressed-as-a-girl look (and feel) is what I'm used to, and it's the aesthetic I like most these days.

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

Lists of things I have thought.

I have an actively proud teen~out and proud. She fits the classic bi-amorous profile. Can date either/or, loves either/or. She also has the makings of a poly personality and is a mini BOI, just like me. (And utterly Toppish...no idea why)

It bugs me~when she has trouble~ because the only things my battles have taught me is that there are certain things I can NOT fix for her. Not even if I wanted to. She has never had penis envy (But I have) and she is a very girly boi...( I am a very girly LOOKING boi) and in most things, she is a mini me.

That terrifies me.

I fought most of my battles in my teens~queer acceptance in the late 80's, biracial issues at the same time, racism, misogynistic assholes and girls who used sex as a weapon. For the most part, I don't begrudge the ease she has found in her battles. After all, people have been fighting for acceptance in various forms for YEARS...myself for over 20. *shrugs* Even so, it hurts that she has to fight ANY, you know.

Another thing~

Being a part time player sometimes makes me feel as if I no longer have the right nor responsibility to speak on BDSM. My journey has been long and at the end of it~I am Toppish queer boi and just a kinky vanilla...

Yet, I find myself still needing the connections I have found here and elsewhere...to keep my hand in. I don't understand that, I don't argue it either.

Last thought~

I never wanted to be male~I used to tell every one that I am a bisexual male in a female body because THAT is how I felt. But wanting the plumbing to match the inner part? Never (cept I wanted, nay craved, to write my name in the snow...you know) Until VERY recently, I never wondered about that~the fact that my inner me and my outer me did not go together never really bothered me. It is what is.

But I find myself drawn to trans fe/males more and more, because they compliment me much better. I feel even more queer than before. Is that odd, I wonder?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't want to comment on any of these posts except to say thank you Rida, You're right-- I do want to change the world at least around me. I want to change it so it's a bit more like yours

Ko-pilot, damn how is it that I've never seen cuntboy images before?

Luna well.. you know how I feel about you for your strength and honesty And I just don't see how being part time player makes any difference. I'm just coming out of a part time phase into more play-- but I never ever felt I wasn't BDSM enough or not legitimate. it would never occur to me that you weren't-- no matter how vanilla our dates might be

 

[bhndblueyes88]

*muse* cisgendered. I rather like that. It appeals to the science nerd in me.

 

[KoPilot]

Ko-pilot, damn how is it that I've never seen cuntboy images before?

I love that there are so many artists out there that think they're beautiful and sexy too. :3

I get really sick of seeing so many tits out there sometimes.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I love that there are so many artists out there that think they're beautiful and sexy too. :3

I never knew anyone did!

I get really sick of seeing so many tits out there sometimes.

Man if i start talking about that... it will be hard to stay positive.

 

[kittystryker]

Hee! Happy to be fanned in whatever gender.

Sexuality-wise, I feel fairly fluid- I've been straight, bi, dykey, and queer, and I will probably be most of those things again at some point in my life. Gender-wise, though, I'm female-to-femme, all the way. I admire people who are more fluid, gender-wise, but I'm not one of them!

And I like cisgendered because it prevents that whole real men/trans men split. Ick. If you identify as a man, you're a man, in my world!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hee! Happy to be fanned in whatever gender.

Sexuality-wise, I feel fairly fluid- I've been straight, bi, dykey, and queer, and I will probably be most of those things again at some point in my life. Gender-wise, though, I'm female-to-femme, all the way. I admire people who are more fluid, gender-wise, but I'm not one of them!

And I like cisgendered because it prevents that whole real men/trans men split. Ick. If you identify as a man, you're a man, in my world!

I don't know if "admire" is quite the word ... it's not like I have a choice in my gender dysphoria, I didn't choose to be so.

I suppose I've made several choices to exhibit it-- not live my life as if I were cisgendered. But even that-- that's an accident of luck, I could have been born forty, or a hundred years earlier and not had any choice whatsoever but to be a woman and someone's wife.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I just found this article, an interview with the Gerald N. Callahan, author of a book on intersex conditions and the people who live with them.
The author makes the point that much of our perceptions of male and female are cultural, and very few of us are wholly male or female.
Between XX and XY

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Hmm. The article certainly is worth thinking about. I definitely agree that most of the perceptions of male and female are cultural, but I'm a little hesitant on some of the points he makes about biology. Where do you draw the line between "endocrine disorder" and intersex? For example, a woman who has an excess of testosterone and thus has more developed facial/body hair...is that "intersex" or "hormonal disorder"? Or, to refer to an example from Grey's Anatomy I saw the other day , a piece of development goes awry and a man's testicle develops into an ovary. Is that a developmental dysfunction, or "intersex"? It just seems like such a hazy line to be making ultimatums either way on. The gives the example of hyenas, and he has some points there...except they still have strict male/female chromosome patterns. This is how I've always determined biological sex. XX=female, XY=male, and variation from that would be what I call "intersex". Throwing in all the people with little hormone variations from average, developmental errors, etc...etc... seems to be trying to fill a pot with as many ingredients as possible to make it seem more like a soup. When you're talking about actual biological sex, not gender, it just seems to be trying to create more subjective definitions for the sake of some social goal.

Not pushing away what he says here by any means! It is worth considering. I'd be interested in hearing what someone who thinks of themselves as intersexed would think about what he says. Particularly someone who falls what I see as the gray area of endocrine and developmental anomolies.

 

[Stella_Omega]

yeah, the primary goal is social IMO.

I think that societally speaking, All conditions that visually confuse people that way are going to be intersexedness in people's minds, and therefore in the way those people get treated. It seemed to me, that's what the book is about. A woman who has a testosterone excess, and shows some facial hair will not be considered a "real woman" by the average passer-by.
And then-- there's the question of what mechanism creates the overproduction...

I consider myself intersexed, somehow. I cant point to any actual physical anomaly. But it has affected the way i get treated in the world, the way I judge myself, the comfort levels I feel at different times.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

I suppose that makes more sense. I certainly agree that people will treat others differently due to even the slightest deviation from what's "right" for a sex. What gets me, is that it comes off as he's trying to present scientific proof that no one is really "male" or "female". That's just...incorrect and misleading. Yes, the exact biology to fit the perfect ideal of a man or woman is rare...but perfects are always that way. When you're talking about basic genetics and biology, most people are either XX or XY, Unless you're a duck, then your ZW and ZZ, respectively. Whatever. And as far as I know, most people have the appropriate anatomical parts. I suppose I could be wrong about that. I'd be interested in knowing, although I admit, I probably don't care enough to research it atm

It just kinda grates on me when people manipulate science to further agendas, however righteous they are. And that's what it feels like he's doing.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I suppose that makes more sense. I certainly agree that people will treat others differently due to even the slightest deviation from what's "right" for a sex. What gets me, is that it comes off as he's trying to present scientific proof that no one is really "male" or "female". That's just...incorrect and misleading. Yes, the exact biology to fit the perfect ideal of a man or woman is rare...but perfects are always that way. When you're talking about basic genetics and biology, most people are either XX or XY, Unless you're a duck, then your ZW and ZZ, respectively. Whatever. And as far as I know, most people have the appropriate anatomical parts. I suppose I could be wrong about that. I'd be interested in knowing, although I admit, I probably don't care enough to research it atm

It just kinda grates on me when people manipulate science to further agendas, however righteous they are. And that's what it feels like he's doing.

i know how you feel, but it seems to me that he's saying is that imperfect male/female binary is much, more common than people think it is, and shows up in more ways.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Yah I guess. People manhandling science IS something I'm a bit oversensitive too, so I'm probably reading more into it than there is. Still, he has good points. If I had time for extra reading, I'd probably want to find a copy of his book.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yah I guess. People manhandling science IS something I'm a bit oversensitive too, so I'm probably reading more into it than there is. Still, he has good points. If I had time for extra reading, I'd probably want to find a copy of his book.

needless to say, I'm glad he's on my side. if he were talking about The Natural Order or something-- I'd be pissy, but I'm partisan that way.

As it is, I'd read the book first before i decided he was manhandling science. And even then I probably wouldn't complain too much.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So, I have just discovered the site http://www.seekers.org.uk/ by way of a link to the very lovely and moving ceremony of the rose.

It's a really fabulous site with a ton of excellent information on it, except.

I have often wondered where, and why so many newcomers to BDSM step in with the notion that "submissive" and "Dominant" are basically synonyms for "woman" and "man." This site is one reason why, I am afraid.

The list of sections starts by discussing "Dominants" in exclusively male pronouns.

The "Submissives" are one and all female-- one of the very first articles is titled "WHY SHE WANTS TO BE SUBMISSIVE"

Dominants who are not male are "Mistresses." Mistress gets her own section, which she shares with male subs-- who are carefully referred to through as malesubs.

"Switches" are relegated waaay down the list.

And in the discussion titled "What's in a name"the site speaks of "submission" as the default role, period. If someone wants pain play, they "submit" for the sake of the sensation they require.

Do you see how pernicious this is? The site is really excellent, trustworthy, i would recommend it. Because of these sterling qualities, who would stop to think about the base assumptions that it imparts?

In fact, that Rose ceremony-- could it not be switched, genderwise? Suppose a dominant woman was marrying a submissive man?

There is NO NEED for the M/f default. It's just that same old same old unexamined heterosexual normativity.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Out of curiousity, what would you prefer to see? In general, that is. I think you're spot on with that particular site. Still, it'd be kind of cumbersome in a discussion to always have to type out he/she, his/her, etc...etc... What sort of language would you prefer to see in such a context?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Out of curiousity, what would you prefer to see? In general, that is. I think you're spot on with that particular site. Still, it'd be kind of cumbersome in a discussion to always have to type out he/she, his/her, etc...etc... What sort of language would you prefer to see in such a context?

"they" isn't perfect, but it helps.
And whoever wrote has, as it turns out, made some attempt. But yanno, not really enough for me.

here's a paragraph inthe first article on the site ;

There is a real need for a submissive to feel the power
of a Dominant influence in their life. It is only when
a Dominant and submissive come together that they feel
complete. A submissive needs to serve if she is to feel
fulfilled. A Dominant needs to be served if he is to be
complete. When people are new to the life style they
want to know what it feels like to experience a scene.
It is the bite of the thorn that gives beauty to the
rose. The Dominant needs to be in control and the
submissive needs to feel the power of his control. Be
patient and make sure you know what you are getting into
and who the other person really is.

It's such good advice! And it makes me so peevish!

 

[BiBunny]

"they" isn't perfect, but it helps.
And whoever wrote has, as it turns out, made some attempt. But yanno, not really enough for me.

here's a paragraph inthe first article on the site ;

It's such good advice! And it makes me so peevish!

Ugh. That's painfully written. Just make the whole damn thing plural, so you can use "they/their" properly, and be done with it.

/English major

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Ugh. That's painfully written. Just make the whole damn thing plural, so you can use "they/their" properly, and be done with it.

/English major

He he he he. I was going to mention that, but decided to restrain myself. Every time I use "they" as a gender neutral singular instead of a plural, I feel just a little guilty *shame* It kinda chafes.

 

[Stella_Omega]

He he he he. I was going to mention that, but decided to restrain myself. Every time I use "they" as a gender neutral singular instead of a plural, I feel just a little guilty *shame* It kinda chafes.

We have all these neologisms to use but... they are way too neo to be useful, IMO. I feel like I'm reinventing grammar half the time.

I'm browsing through the encyclopedia, and damn someone needs a copy editor, just for formatting and such. And interestingly, the encyclopedia is one hundred percent "he or she" construction.

It isn't easy, I admit it.