I find defining roles in a relationship to be so very limiting, just don't get it (for myself, you gals please do whatever rocks your boat!). And I certainly wouldn't press my girlfriend or myself in any category, we both go with the flow and identify as feminine queer girls, and that is about it as far as labels go.

But then I am also bisexual, and I have rejected any type of fixed roles in my past heterosexual relationships as well, so maybe this is just generally not my cup of tea. If a man tried to top me all the time, that would be just as unsexy as a girl who can't let me have my way with her.. ;-)

And dominance outside the bedroom is extremely unappealing, I like to be en par with my partner, male or female. One of the things I LOVE about a lesbian relationship (and the reason I ultimately prefer to be in those) is that you don't have to negotiate power patterns and roles, you start off as equals and just stay that way. With men the problem of male dominance often arise, they have learned that they rule the world, so they will always try to get their woman into some kind of heteronormative behaviour. For example, the whole "who stays with the newborn the first couple of months" issue would be a no-brainer with a guy - only the most advanced, feminist specimens would even offer to be the one who stays home. In a lesbian relationship the whole debate might start earlier (who gives birth in the first place), but the roles in parenting are wide open for individual arrangements. I find that to be very liberating.

Personally, I like to feel free to express myself across a wide spectrum of styles of dress, appearance, and interaction.

Maybe it's easier to form a model of someone else in your mind if it is shaped with categorical prototypes like 'the butch' or 'the femme'. It may not be an accurate model--people are very, very complex and dynamic in a single moment and from moment to moment. But, I think, understanding by categories is a reasoning strategy that works in some situations we encounter. Just not all of them. For example, I can use the same basic understanding of 'the automobile' to successfully interact with most any car or truck. People are a lot more complicated than autos, though. Part of me would like to have a basic schema for thinking about someone who I suppose fits a certain mold, but all that has really yielded for me, as far as I can tell, is misunderstanding after misunderstanding. After a while I just threw my hands up and said, "Well, I guess any sort of person can have any sort of trait, and I don't really know jack about anybody." Once I accepted that I don't know anything and have no basis for expecting anything, it actually got easier to interact with people. I was no longer limiting them in my mind. That's just my personal experience...

Top/bottom roles, I don't know. Maybe they simplify the framework for a sexual interaction? Some people prefer a particular dynamic and just want to find a compatible partner. Labels can sort of help with that. Dom/Sub labels are a similar (but not identical) example. As long as it is natural to you and not just you conforming to a social rule or expectation, no prob. Some folks are more consistent about how they like to be, what they're comfortable with before/during sex and in a relationship, and others flow about depending on the moment and where their partner flows to/is at. As long as you are being you and he/she is being him/her, it works. Top, bottom, or other.

I think, maybe, the butch-femme expectation (that not everyone has) is another instance of yearning for a cornerstone to build a social system on. "What can we rely on?" "Well, this looks like a stable place to start from." If that dynamic is right for you, awesome. And if not, that's awesome, too. No need to imprison ourselves or each other. Since this is, in fact, a false cornerstone. It doesn't work for/isn't natural to everyone.

I have essentially nothing to add on the subject, but this:

Like, in my mind sex between two people is created by those two people and doesn’t exist without those people or with other people.

is beautiful.

this is definitely an interesting debate. i personally identify as very girly, and while i have dated more femme girls, i typically like to be the one who wears a dress when we go out to nice places (and girls in suits are just so hot). a really good example of this, for me, is that when my girlfriend and i are sitting on the couch or on a bench or whatever, i love it when she puts her arm around my shoulders. and if i were to put my arm around her shoulders, that would just feel awkward to me. i like to feel protected and held close rather than like im the one on the "outside"- if that makes any sense to anyone but me. so yeah, we assume "gender roles" in that putting your arm around a girl's shoulders is typically more of a male role. but i dont really have a problem with that. its about what feels comfortable to the two of us.

Ive had people comment on stuff like that before. One time i was discussing my gf with a friends of mine, And her brother said something like  "So she needs someone to dominate her, Or is she dominating you".. And i was just like "....wha?....." Because its the stupidest thing ive EVER heard. Assuming that in lesbian relation ships we need a male and a female type. My gf and i are both femme, Not the femmest of femme. Not that it even matters.

Personally i think its irrelevant, If there's one thing being gay has taught me, Is that nothing matters when it comes to love, not Gender, color, and leaste of all the balance of More feminine or masculine characteristics.

 

God helps those, Who help themselves.... In bed.

I'm a femme and all the girls I've ever been with are feminine too.  There was never a problem with top or bottom, it's just kind of whoever makes the first move.

Consider me old school, but I enjoy being in a butch-femme relationship.  My lover and I have been together 17 years and we have always been comfortable in this dynamic.  I realize this isn't for everyone and frankly I wouldn't be attracted to a femme girl because I am the only queen of my home.  This dynamic works in the raising of our son even though he is confused as to his other mom's gender and will argue that she's not a girl.  We are okay with it for now so he can learn that not all girls look a like or act a like. We have argued with other couples that defend the breaking down of roles and not being labeled, but funny enough after conversing we find they do have a defind seperation of roles in their relationships: ie, one predominately cooks and one does yard work and the roles of parenting fall very close to ours.  Of course, the most important thing is who you are attracted to and who fits into your identity make-up. Sexually, the more time passes the more you find you both enjoy the same things - the important thing is you continue to enjoy each other for what you each bring into the relationship.

<td hei

I'm conflicted about this topic.  I'm a femme I guess but at the same time not.  Though I dress girly and love some of the stereotypical girly stuff, at the same time I have a strong personality, and I'm a top.  So I actually want someone who essentially is femme-ish like me except I want them to be more bottomish.

 So I'm split on your topic title... I don't think the classic "butch/femme" needs to occur, but at times I think that if someone is very topish or very bottomish, it could be a mild annoyance if there isn't a complimentary situation, but of course being/doing both is fun, so of course there is some compromise

 Also, this is very like... in a weird world where you have total control.  Especially for me, I just fall for people so if it didn't work out "perfect" I'd adapt to the new situation, because you can't really help who you fall for BUT, at the same time if you have bad sex because your styles conflict, then you may just decide you don't have the right chemistry.

Thank you for opening this topic. I was beginning to think I was the only one who felt this way about the whole butch/femme issue. As for me, I am very girly. Not Serena Van der Woodsen girly, but enough so that I'm certain that if I were to come out to anyone (I'm still closeted, sadly, but looking for the right time to at least tell my parents) they wouldn't believe me. Peruvian society is quite conservative and square-minded, and I think their idea of "lesbian" is someone more on the butch end of the spectrum.

I also haven't been with anyone, but I don't find the butch type attractive (not saying there's anything wrong with it, I think it's awesome, but for me personally it doesn't do anything). However, since most of the most visible lesbian couples I know (Ellen/Portia, Cynthia Nixon and her partner, Melissa/Tammy) all seem to have a clear butch half and a clear femme half, I have been led to believe all this time that this is the norm. Which, in turn, makes me wonder if I'm going to spend the rest of my life alone because no femme lesbian will ever be attracted to me or I'll keep getting my heart broken because I'll keep falling for straight women.

I couldn't comment on the top/bottom issue, but that's my take on the butch/femme dichotomy. I'm happy to see that it doesn't seem to be as black and white as I thought it was, so perhaps my future won't be so dark after all, heh.

I guess for each individual there is really not that much of an issue if you are happy with the situation/relationship you are in. From having a partner that resembles you to being in an "opposites attract"-type of a relationships, if you are fine with it, then that's just great!

What I sometimes feel might be an issue is that I am not that static of a type, I vary my hairstyle from long to almost no hair as do the way I dress and I love it that way. There might be a problem though if I was with someone who would expect a certain role or look from me and might then not feel comfortable when I would swing to the other end of the spectrum. And then again, to be able to express your identity just the way you feel right is so very important. And what is femme/butch anyway? Can you divide the spectrum into two equal parts anyways or should we look at it as more of a continuum? Maybe we are made of little butch/femme/top/bottom parts in different proportions that make us the complex bunch of gals that we are?

I personally don't get the whole label thing, but hey, to each their own.

I don't know about the butch/femme dynamic, but they have done studies with straights, that showed that very femme women tend to be attracted to very masculine men and vice versa, whereas men and women who are not that stereotypical feminine or masculine also prefer partners that are not.

So I guess you could apply this to lesbians too. If you are or feel very butch (or femme) you are more likely to be attracted to someone who is very femme (or butch), whereas if you do not you tend to like women who also do not fall on the ends of the scale.

Makes sense?

As for the whole top/bottom thing...I personally think variety is a good thing, so I could never be with someone who needed to be on top all the freaking time. But hey, that's just me. 

- - - - - - - - - -

-Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

Who doesn't blog these days?

 

 it has been really interesting reading all of your comments, I am glad that this topic has been brought up. for me personally i am a more feminine girl, i wear make-up, wear dresses and partake in most of the stereotypical "girly" things. I have to admit that I am more attracted to masculine woman, but my experience with femme/butch girls has taught me to not limit myself, becuase by narrowing your choices and going by outward appearences can really make you pass over the real thing

and as for the top/bottom debate, i was not aware of the two types of l.esbians haha, therefor i cannot catagoprize myself into one of the 'groups'. Like many above me (haha no pun intended) have mentioned, sex is a very personal and intimate experience between two individuals, with each experience being different and unique. I dont think I could be with someone who was set on their top/bottom role, variety is key!

 

send a little smile my way...

I find these 'butch/femme' labels to be far too restricting, and just tends to perpetuate a ridiculous gender dichotomy and stereotypes. Just tends to needlessly complicate things. People should just be.

I suppose this is fairly hypocritical in that people who are happy to define themself are 'just being', but surely it would be easier without all that? Hm, I don't know. 'Horses for courses.' I prefer to like people as people, not as a gender presentation or sexual identity.

It depends for me.  I swing from one side of the butch/femme spectrum to the other as I do in the bedroom with the top/bottom label.  I am who I am -- as my friends have told me, I really don't fit either category.  And in regards to sex, I have found that each relationship has it's own dynamic.