Interesting.

One good thing about growing up is: I am starting to be able to step back from situations and recognize how people are responding in ways that are totally typical for them and their reaction has very little to do with whatever stimulus is put in front of them. Some people stop and think, “Ok, what could this mean?” and some people get upset. It’s very interesting.

So, this quote: “The problem with women is that they are not as pathetically grateful for everything you give them as men,” came out of a conversation I had with Noah. It was him mocking me. We were talking about the topping issue and I was specifically listing people and situations that have worked out well for casual play/sex and situations where I have had lots of issues. At one point I was speaking in sweeping generalities (as I am wont to do when really upset) and he snapped that line at me. I had to stop and think about that. It was a really interesting thought provoking thing for me. I stopped and thought about it in terms of a lot of different things in my life. I started thinking of all of my lovely chick-privilege. I started thinking about how men and women are allowed to act in society. Of course there are ways in which women grovel/are more grateful than men and lots of the degrees of this sort of thing are person dependent regardless of sex/gender.

But I’ve been thinking a lot about the things I take for granted where Noah has to be grateful he gets it, if he gets it at all. There’s a lot more of it than first blush made me recognize. The people who thought “sex” first were certainly starting in the right place (and DSH–men are generally *very* grateful for sex, more will admit it than not in my experience) but I think it goes past that.

I don’t really think that, “The problem with women is that they are not as pathetically grateful for everything you give them as men.” But I do think that the statement is harsh and abrasive and makes me stop and think about sex/gender relations. Maybe some of my friends who don’t appreciate sweeping generalizations can be kick-started into thinking about things easier than I can. I need to be smacked in the fact in order to realize where I’m taking things for granted and not looking at my assumptions.

4 thoughts on “Interesting.

  1. bluegreysky

    I didn’t respond yesterday, because I was really thinking about it.

    In general, I’m kind of stupidly grateful for sex. I’ve had lovers playfully “prohibit” me from saying thank you more than once. I’ve always thought of this as being somewhat an insecurity thing, a previous/current assumption of unattractiveness that makes one approach every fuck as a pity fuck–rather than something that’s gendered, and certainly not gendered masculine, although I get the whole “gatekeeper” argument and that makes some sense.

    So, I think some level of insecurity is true of a lot of kinky women. Kinky women tend not to be the mold society makes for beautiful women, although there are exceptions. Kinky women tend to be curvier, for one, and geekier, and lots of other things. We learn how to dress and walk and use our eyes in a way that communicates sexuality, but few of us were belle-of-the-ball in high school.

    So what I think is interesting is the kink dynamic that changes women (specifically submissive women) who would otherwise be “pathetically grateful” for sex into creatures that take sex for granted and forget to appreciate the gifts others give them. I think it’s a community effort/dynamic. I think it’s sort of ingrained into the very heterosexualized division between top/dom/domme/man/butch and sub/bottom/femme/woman. (I’m not at all saying that all tops are masculine and vice versa, simply that the roles are characterized that way to a good extent.) Tops are supposed to be prowlers, to approach a sub and beg for the opportunity to play. Subs, in becoming the acted-upon partner (even as we say it’s more complex and equal than that), forget that they are part of the interaction and become the admired/pursued/object.

    I think that this dynamic is limited to casual play in most cases (although I’ve known a few lovers who had this to the extreme and whom I stopped playing with). It’s one of the reasons I’ve really been questioning whether I’d like to re-enter the public play scene, because I don’t want to play that game anymore.

    Then again, maybe it’s exactly the interaction of those like us who want to shake things up and fuck with everyone’s assumptions and generally be a pain in the ass that will change the dynamic=)

    Reply
    1. i_am_dsh

      “Tops are supposed to be prowlers, to approach a sub and beg for the opportunity to play.”

      Perhaps male tops???

      As a female top, I just had to show up. I didn’t have to beg. I barely had to ask. How Princess* is that?!

      I think the dynamic is more gendered than you describe it. Men are pursuers, more often than not, whether they want the top role or the bottom.

      I think bottom-boys realize they have to hustle for partners because there are so many of them, and so few female tops.

      * Princess = one is a desired object, one need not work to get attention or desired interaction

      Reply
      1. satyrlovesong

        I agree. I merely need to walk into a room to be swamped with requests – including requests by at least half of the male doms who would like to switch or would like to play with me in *any* capacity. I think that’s why I generally take a partner to events, for then I have an excuse to politely turn strangers and casual acquaintances down.

        On the whole, I’ve found subbies of both genders to be very grateful and quite attentive – but then I take a great deal of care to show them that I am very proud of them and enjoy the canvass that they present.

        Reply
      2. bluegreysky

        Interesting. I’ve found that interacting with male and female tops is not at all dissimilar (which likely has something to do with the dynamic of interacting as a sub already attached to a dom, such that the interaction is more dom/me-dom/me (sub), rather than just dom/me-sub), but I can really see how the numbers game changes things… female tops are less common, and thus pursued.

        Interesting. I’m assuming that heterosexism has “bled” into kink, making dom and sub interact in a classic male-female way regardless of actual genders of those involved. But I can see the argument that it is just plain gender fucking us up. Thanks for the response=)

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.