Gender

Gender has to be one of my favorite topics because i don't subscribe to one. I'm physically female and embrace that in a very physical sense. (I like wearing make up and smelling good) but mentally I'm very male. If someone eats my pussy I think of it as them sucking my cock (for instance).

Domination is a reflection of what is male in me. Which is why I ultimately can't Dom physical or mental males regardless of physical gender.

I don't often talk about things like this to groups of people so...

comments? suggestions?

I say all people are people. That gender is something you coincidentally happen to get at birth. I am attracted "PEOPLE" whether male, female or transgendered. Of course there are male/hard and female/soft as well as asexual people and you can have any number of preferences or compatibilities come into play. Were all just people <3

I endorse shyslut's views.

I honestly put very little importance onto gender- which is odd, given that one of my kicks is forced feminisation. But it's not something I tend to let guide me in my life, and so it's fun to guide people over the arbitrary male/female boundary.

Interesting post to say the least.

I'm of the opinion that we are all born with both male and female spirits. One is obviously more predominant than the other.

Scientifically speaking, both genders carry estrogen and testosterone in our chemical makeup. Most men produce 6-8 mg of the male hormone testosterone (an androgen) per day, compared to most women who produce 0.5 mg daily. Female hormones, estrogens, are also present in both sexes, but in larger amounts for women.

Is it possible that you have a strong male spirit and more testoserone than the average female? Or have I misinterpreted what you meant? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blythespirit

Is it possible that you have a strong male spirit and more testoserone than the average female?

---

I cannot speak for the OP but I think this is true for myself. I have never particularly identified as being female, although I know I'm not a male. I rarely wear heels or skirts, and even more rarely wear makeup. My face is fairly androgynous, and I have experimented with 'genderfuck', i.e. dressing myself and choosing hairstyles in such a way that my overall look is androgynous. I am not able to pass as an adult male (I once passed as a teen male, and the person was quite embarrassed when they realized I was in fact an adult woman!) but I wish that I could, that I had that choice.

Androgyny and gender hasn't really come up in my sex life, other than the plain fact of my female anatomy. Someone commented to me that he would love to see me dressed up girly-girl, and it would be something very foreign and humiliating to me, rather like what I imagine 'forced feminization' is to men. I think that that belief alone qualifies me for an androgynous spirit rather than a female or male spirit... whether that's the case, or whether I have a female and a male spirit and the male spirit is unusually strong, I don't know.

My two bits.

Interesting topic and there are some interesting personal takes on the Western concept of gender, which is not universal to the human condition. There are many instances in non-Western societies of "multiple genders" recognized regardless of a persons anatomy. There are also multiple roles that people of either sex can take that may be looked on by Western observes as "gender bending" or switching roles but is seen quite differently by the group in question.

It's also a fact that in some other societies, assuming a gendered role does automatically mean that the person in question assumes the sexual lifestyle as well. For example, a woman choosing an otherwise male role in society is not necessarily sexually attracted to women -- she may have other motivations, feelings, aspirations.

Gender is something constructed by society, different from biological sex. The meaning of what is to be male in terms of gender will be different in different societies. Are there some general patterns? Sure. But it does not surprise me that people don't always view themselves as conforming to the "normal" concept of gender. Nor should we feel constricted to do so.

I'd say that I fit the general Western concept of male gender and never thought otherwise, but it never surprises me that there are a multitude of different personal perspectives on gender in the world.

Gender to me is something rather interesting to recount.
For one, I feel that all females should be submissive, and all males, Dominant, but that's my personal feelings and I don't force these things on other people, especially not my friends. To this end, I feel that with women I'm generally more 'hard', in the sense that I feel they should be at their Masters' feet, and with men I am generally more 'soft', as in, I am more submissive toward them. My theory is rather hypocritical, I realize, because I basically just contradicted my first statement in saying that I tend to be dominant toward women and submissive toward men. I never claimed my logic was without flaw though, and I fully admit to being a filthy, dirty hypocrite. ;)

Anyway. I differentiate with gender in that sense. With men I am attracted to Dominance. With women I am attracted to submissiveness. This is not to say I'm a switch. Far from it. It's just my views. I've never had the urge to smack some woman's ass, or pull her hair back and call her a dumb cunt. But I DO have the urge to have it done to me by the right guy. ;D

Gender, unlike sex, is a constructive aspect of our person. It is contiuum with multiple layers in multiple contexts. We negotiate our expression of gender with ourselves and with others.

It's interesting that you equate Dom with masculinity. Why is that so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dom Teacher

Gender, unlike sex, is a constructive aspect of our person. It is contiuum with multiple layers in multiple contexts. We negotiate our expression of gender with ourselves and with others.

It's interesting that you equate Dom with masculinity. Why is that so?

---

If I could I'd tell you. I'm sure I'm the bane of most feminists when I say that I feel a woman's place is by her Master's feet. -Looks up.- Hm. I've always assumed it came from the fact that I am heterosexual and submissive, however, I have bisexual tenancies that surface, so I'm sure the root cause of my feeling this way is something far more deep seated than mere preference. I suppose because I equate masculinity with power is one cause, another being I'm intimidated by most men, not in a bad way, but in a way that makes me squirm. Hm. Seems I have more to discover about myself than I originally knew. -Grins.-

As stated, I understand not all relationships fall under the category that I find ideal, being a woman submissive to a Dominant male, but if it's something outside that, it's generally not something for me personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tusayan

Gender is something constructed by society, different from biological sex.

---

Gender = masculine or feminine. Sex = male or female.

Masculine = male. Feminine = female.

Are definitions different in other parts of the world, or philosophies?

I guess the point he was trying to make is that gender is more fluid than sex. There are multiple masculinities and there are multiple femininities. This is especially true when gender is compounded by class, race, and other aspects of identity.

I don't know DT, sex with me is usually pretty fluid. lol (sorry couldn't resist)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blythespirit

I don't know DT, sex with me is usually pretty fluid. lol (sorry couldn't resist)

---

Pun was left in there intentionally, no need to apologize:blurp_ani

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blythespirit

Gender = masculine or feminine. Sex = male or female.

Masculine = male. Feminine = female.

Are definitions different in other parts of the world, or philosophies?

---

Well, you can break it down into those categories (I would, anyway). But it's more complex than that (isn't everything? lol).

Even within the Western world, you have people (I'm thinking of some feminist theorists in this case) that would challenge those basic categories.

But, what I meant was that in every society there are norms accepted by the majority of people that define what is masculine and feminine. And these aren't the same across the board. They even change through time.

For example, in the US today the majority would probably not define a real man as a male who wears lace, is well perfumed, wears make-up, a powdered wig of long hair and is well versed in romances and ballroom dancing.

But, there are also third genders or multiple gender categories that are accepted in other cultures. And it has to do with the role people take on, not necessarily their sexuality (although it may involve sexuality as well).

This is really interesting to me compared to the orthodox Western view of two genders, two sexes, two different roles, one type of sexuality and anything is else is outside of the norm.

We're seeing in this thread, too, that individuals have their own take on how they accept or reject, enact or react to those norms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dom Teacher

I guess the point he was trying to make is that gender is more fluid than sex. There are multiple masculinities and there are multiple femininities. This is especially true when gender is compounded by class, race, and other aspects of identity.

---

Yeah, something like that. You said a lot more concisely than I did. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dom Teacher

It's interesting that you equate Dom with masculinity. Why is that so?

---

I, like Ipet have always felt that men should be Dom and women should be submissive. Nature has dictated that. Let's face it... Men are stronger than women and can, at will penetrate them (though of course legal/ethical issues arise from that). I just don't feel that nature made every physical female a mental female. I also think that sex and bdsm is more mental.

Other than that. Most cultures view masculinity as dominance as hardness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blythespirit

Gender = masculine or feminine. Sex = male or female.

Masculine = male. Feminine = female.

Are definitions different in other parts of the world, or philosophies?

---

They are. Some cultures actually have what is called "the third gender". That's actually my preferred gender. It's female boys and girls who feel differently than their nature assigned physical gender. I'm not attracted by sexual organs specifically. (though a great set of tits is a great set of tits).

I am attracted to physical boys who act like girls. Not like male subs... but like girls. I actually reward acting like a female more than i prefer forced feminization.

I'm physically a female and enjoy physical aspects of that however I am mentally a boy.

Yes, gender is more like a field of negotiated experience, about the way óne comes across as more or less masculine/womanly/brash/commanding/soft-spoken/ strident/silly etc - and the kind of relations you get involved in, and how they look - than just the fixed fact of being physically male or female. That latter one is immutable for 99.9% of people unless you actually go through a physical sex-change, which wasn't possible until fifty years ago.

In a book about Martha Stewart a few years ago - I think it appeared shortly before she was sentenced to jail, sorry I don't recall the name of the author - a recurrent theme in the picture of her was that behind the scenes, she had been rough, brash, too greedy (competitive and hard-fisted - virtues in a male CEO) and apparently also had Dominated her husband - figuratively speaking: she had forced him to give up some of his opportunities in business and serve her business empire. At the same time, Ms Stewart's status as a house stuff & cooking priestess in America rests solidly on her feminine image, doesn't it?

Though the writer didn't come out and say gender was the issue, he clearly felt she was being "unwomanly", and the quarrel was with her having been 'no real woman' rather than with being a tomboy or doing what it takes to get rich, and this was a grave sin. The same thing recurs with Hillary Clinton or female soccer players (often accused of being lesbians) - they are seen as "not real women" or it's flatly stated "lesbians are girls who were ugly, had hairy armpits and didn't learn how to please a man, so they didn't get enough cock in their teens - in frustration they turned to other loser girls". That last one is a view I think is perfectly dumbass.

Madonna's impending divorce also has lots of gender implications - she was always a far bigger success than Guy Ritchie, and she's been both playing on, subverting and submitting to the limitations of her woman-ness. I don't think she's being very subtle, but the pushing of gender boundaries is a constant part of her shows and her public personality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iPet

As stated, I understand not all relationships fall under the category that I find ideal, being a woman submissive to a Dominant male, but if it's something outside that, it's generally not something for me personally.

---

This is pretty much where I stand also.

I like men to act like men and woman to act like women.

I think a big reason why people are not sure about their gender identities is because this day and age people are taught not to conform to a gender. Not to mention all the split marriages where either mother or father isn't present and the child may not be getting that male or female role model.

*I believe there are always exceptions of course, where something chemically really IS more male/female in one's mind or body.



No offense meant to anyone, this is just my opinion.

No offence, but the point where it gets sticky is when this neat split-up real men - real women (talking of behaviour, thinking, attitudes - not what organs they have) is hailed as something objectively right, something carved in stone, or in DNA, for all time. Real men are hunters, short-tempered, competitive and want to rule things alone, they don't sob and they never accept close friendship from a woman if they think they can have sex and want to. Real women are nurturing, a bit emotional and guilt-ridden, care about their looks and put hubby's career and the kids before their own job.

I don't think most gays, lesbians or other erotically "non-standard" people wish to make everybody else become gay, or insist on that men should always stay at home with their kids and should be ashamed if they are fast-paced, competitive and gritty. What gays, dykes and trans people etc want is more, like, the right not to be slammed with "you're not acting like a real man/woman" from a hundred newspaper columns, ads and books, from everyday talk too, and then get branded as misers or, again, not-real-so-and-so, if they try to pitch a discussion about why it's like that. In a sense, many gay men probably want gayness to be a non-issue in society, or at least a non-sexual issue to the people they don't choose to have sexual relations with, but that's a long way off. And this becomes all the more striking because you can't, in pretty much any country, define yourself as midway between man and woman and make the world around you buy it: the gender identity, and the many correlates of it in behaviour and styling (do you wear a skirt? perfume? are you likely to cry if you're very afraid or moved? will you plan the weekend for the family and make sure things run smoothly?) even if constructed have to be pretty definite on the surface, or it will just get confused.

Since sympathetic gay men (I'm using it as an instance of "non-standard males") were all but absent from, like, mainstream movies and tv until around 1980, this idea that "real men are hot-blooded womanizers or John Wayne types" can look all but self-evident. But there's nothing objective about it.

Yeah, I have to disagree with boo...

Though I don't have any insights to the other "states" I had my epiphany that it has all too much to do with the brain... and therefore how we're born. We know that we are all of the same stock... dna... and that we're all physically the same gender (or perhaps better to say genderless,) in the womb early on... That sexual differentiation occurs along the way... and that it can get mixed up... XX with penises, XY with vaginas... so why not assume that the more complex organ, the brain can get mixed up too.

But I digress. I realized that my sexuality manifests itself from the brain and that it has an awful lot to do with how I process shapes. I was in Vegas at the same time as a body building championship was being held... found myself behind this absolutely "gorgeous" woman... and... nothing.

Then I realized that her triangular back, trapazoid shaped trapezeus, her polygonal buttocks... made my reaction to her the same as if she were male.

Suddenly it's clear (at least to me) that shapes matter.

Now don't get me wrong... I know this is an over simplification.

Men and lesbians are attracted to curves.
Women and gay men are attracted to angles.

And for another thread if anyone is interested... the "ill" are attracted to squares and rectangles, which if you look... are what we humans tend to look like before puberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

Now don't get me wrong... I know this is an over simplification.

Men and lesbians are attracted to curves.
Women and gay men are attracted to angles.

---

It might be fairer to state:

In our society, curves and roundness on women are considered generally attractive.
In our society, angularity and edges on men are considered generally attractive.

I know you were oversimplifying, but as long as we're going to oversimplify, might as well use inclusive language.

The talk page below on "real women" and porn brings home a few easy short circuits and points where the "women who dress in an alluring way are asking to get laid asap, so they shouldn't try to play no blame game" argument tends to get a bit mixed up.

http://www.brunchma.com/archives/For...ML/000508.html

Though the discussion at the link just above starts out from porn, it soon moves into questions of gender, "slutty dress" and masculine/feminine self-images. The guy called "USADave" and the flat contradictions in his lines of argument - on one hand, he maintains that sexual orientations aren't much to do with your outdoor, daytime personality, it really comes to life in private; on the other he's hellbent that real men and real women are like in an old Western movie - is one of the things that make it so illuminating.

Note that I'm not quoting anyone on this, it's just a feeling i get from the last couple of posts and my responses to them.

The idea that lesbians and straight men like curves and gay men and women like angles is way off base. If that were the truth then all lesbians and straight men would also like anyone who was chubby.

The truth is (and I've seen this especially in lesbians) what people are attracted to is wildly different even in the same person. There are a lot of angular lesbians who attract a lot of lesbian attention.

I also very much like social roles because they have their place. Women are scientifically different than men and from those scientific difference we derive our stereotypes.

Martha is the BEST example of that actually. Women have more white matter which makes them better at lying, communication, language, and manipulation. Martha more times than not simply used those to her advantage in her empire. She didn't get ahead by "out manning" a man in a "man's world"... she did it by out womaning him. Women are meant to get ahead... quietly.

For me, the biggest tell about gender roles are trannies. They FEEL feminine, they feel like their body needs to match that. When i start talking about hunting and camping i start to feel more masculine, so do a lot of m2f. It's when physical members of another gender identifies with feelings and attitudes that they all believe to be of the opposite gender to the degree that they must change their physical appearance that you have to accept there is a difference.

I don't think that it's your junk which defines you as your gender as a lot (if not all) transgenders will tell you, it's how you feel and they are real men and real women based off how they feel and act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

Men and lesbians are attracted to curves.
Women and gay men are attracted to angles.

---

Is that the norm, Oz, based on research? The reason I'm questioning it, is because I know too many men who don't like curves. They're attracted more to straight lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voxelectronica

The idea that lesbians and straight men like curves and gay men and women like angles is way off base. If that were the truth then all lesbians and straight men would also like anyone who was chubby.

---

I don't believe you (collectively) can equate curves with chubby. Curves are a shape, whilst chubby is more so defined as being slightly overweight.

White matter? :D lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blythespirit

I don't believe you (collectively) can equate curves with chubby. Curves are a shape, whilst chubby is more so defined as being slightly overweight.

---

The state of being chubby gives you the shapes of curves. That's not saying all curvy women are over weight. In high school I remember telling some really mean fat girl that my curves, curved in while her's curved out.

If all straight men and lesbians liked the shape of curves then they would have found both me and the ridiculously overweight girl equally appealing. I just don't see how that would be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fellintobed

It might be fairer to state:

In our society, curves and roundness on women are considered generally attractive.
In our society, angularity and edges on men are considered generally attractive.

I know you were oversimplifying, but as long as we're going to oversimplify, might as well use inclusive language.

---

But I'm saying it's not societal. I'm suggesting that we are genetically predisposed to respond to certain visual cues.

Society changes the degree of the cue... or perhaps better to say it alters enhances the response when the cue meets certain societal beliefs.

White, (meaning untanned,) skin and plump if you're in 19th Century British Victorian England (because that signifies wealth and prosperity, and just the opposite in the latter half of the 20th Century in the USA... for much the same reasoning.

But the basic cues, the shapes, strike me as instinct. And given the nature of how we develop in the womb, and the complexity of our brains, and the fact that diversity creates greater opportunity for the species to prosper, the whole question of gender orientation is a natural one.

It's really only the modern churches, which, imo, believe procreation extends their power, that have created this onus against "non-traditional" gendering.

Go BC and it was quite acceptable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voxelectronica

Note that I'm not quoting anyone on this, it's just a feeling i get from the last couple of posts and my responses to them.

The idea that lesbians and straight men like curves and gay men and women like angles is way off base. If that were the truth then all lesbians and straight men would also like anyone who was chubby.

---

Well no one else said anything like this... so you must mean me.

I was just pointing out one aspect. Visual cues. And if you want to quibble after I already said I knew I was oversimplifying the idea... fine. So let's quibble.

Quote:

---

The truth is (and I've seen this especially in lesbians) what people are attracted to is wildly different even in the same person. There are a lot of angular lesbians who attract a lot of lesbian attention.

---

How am I "off base" for pointing out something "I" obsrved and believe, but you know "the truth" because you've "seen" it?

Quote:

---

I also very much like social roles because they have their place. Women are scientifically different than men and from those scientific difference we derive our stereotypes.

---

What!!! Do women have a different set of scientific theories than men? I mean yeah, individuals may disagree on how the world works... but I have NEVER heard anyone say there's a basic gender-driven basis for what men and women believe to be true. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Martha is the BEST example of that actually. Women have more white matter which makes them better at lying, communication, language, and manipulation. Martha more times than not simply used those to her advantage in her empire. She didn't get ahead by "out manning" a man in a "man's world"... she did it by out womaning him. Women are meant to get ahead... quietly.

---

Huh? Are you implying that scientific theories proposed by women are lies because they have more white matter? Or did you actually change the topic midstream... I'm disappointed that you think a woman can't be successful because she's smart... but has to lie to get ahead.

Quote:

---

For me, the biggest tell about gender roles are trannies. They FEEL feminine, they feel like their body needs to match that. When i start talking about hunting and camping i start to feel more masculine, so do a lot of m2f. It's when physical members of another gender identifies with feelings and attitudes that they all believe to be of the opposite gender to the degree that they must change their physical appearance that you have to accept there is a difference.

---

What the heck do you mean by "feel"? Where's it come from. What makes you "feel" the way you do? How does one "feel" masculine or feminine? If you're going to argue against something like visual cues being interpretted in the brain, give us something more than "feelings" because they're generated in the brain too... and ultimately, you're saying exactly the same thing as I said.

Quote:

---

I don't think that it's your junk which defines you as your gender as a lot (if not all) transgenders will tell you, it's how you feel and they are real men and real women based off how they feel and act.

---

Yep. Exactly the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

But I'm saying it's not societal. I'm suggesting that we are genetically predisposed to respond to certain visual cues.

Society changes the degree of the cue... or perhaps better to say it alters enhances the response when the cue meets certain societal beliefs.

White, (meaning untanned,) skin and plump if you're in 19th Century British Victorian England (because that signifies wealth and prosperity, and just the opposite in the latter half of the 20th Century in the USA... for much the same reasoning.

But the basic cues, the shapes, strike me as instinct. And given the nature of how we develop in the womb, and the complexity of our brains, and the fact that diversity creates greater opportunity for the species to prosper, the whole question of gender orientation is a natural one.

It's really only the modern churches, which, imo, believe procreation extends their power, that have created this onus against "non-traditional" gendering.

Go BC and it was quite acceptable...

---

I think there's something to this line of thinking. It's been shown from an evolutionary point of view there are definitely visual cues, that are part of our hardwiring, that are used to determine the fitness of potential mates.

By fitness, I'm not talking about pilates, I'm talking about fitness in the Darwinian sense.

I don't know about shapes necessarily, but body development in females including a certain amount of fat reserves in the thighs, hips and breasts are visual clues that do give off signals about prime reproductive age. These things are tracked by males in studies. Often it's subconcious or just people choosing their "type" - the underlying pattern is there, however.

That doesn't mean there isn't going to be some variation among individuals, though. But it is a general pattern.