.:.Roles & Rules: The Butch-Femme Issue.:.

But You Don't Look Like a Lesbian!
By Chè Celi, Indigo Corewomyn

That's a common reaction when hets (read: heterosexuals) learn that I am a lesbian. You see, for most of them to realize that I am indeed one, it usually comes out as some form of shocking revelation. It happens simply because I don't easily fit the stereotype that they associate lesbians with: tough-looking, cropped-haired, stoop-shouldered, masculine-dressing females.

So they always assume that I am heterosexual like them. (It's a different story, of course, for us gays - because we move in a smaller circle, we know who is or isn't; and of course, it usually takes one to know one. But I digress.)

This assumption is more often than not due to my "looking and acting so much like a girl." I wear makeup and high-heeled shoes, wear my hair long with ribbons, and, undeniably, have this ineptitude for anything mechanical and electrical. It gets frustrating at times when they find it hard to take my sexuality seriously because I fall into the category of the "latent" lesbian, the femme (/fam/), as opposed to the "manifest" type, which is the butch.

I hear expressions of "HUH?" from straight folks out there, and I shall endeavor to enlighten.

Okay.

There are heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Heterosexuals, according to my trusty Webster's dictionary, are "of, or relating to, or marked by sexual attraction to the opposite sex." So if you're female, you get attracted to males; and if you're male, you get attracted to females. They're also commonly referred to as "straights" (although it sounds politically incorrect because it implies that non-heterosexuals ought to be termed "crooked").

Homosexuals are the opposite of heterosexuals: they - well, we - get attracted to the same sex. And this is where it gets colorful!

The more popular "categories" (for want of a better term) include:

• lesbians - females exclusively attracted to other females;

• gays - males exclusively attracted to other males;

• bisexuals - people who get attracted to both males and females; and

• transgendered/transsexuals - " males trapped in female bodies" or "females trapped in male bodies".

Now the more interesting part is that these categories are split into further "subcategories".

But because this isn't supposed to be a treatise encompassing all the possibilities out there, let me just focus on the part that's least complicated for me: lesbians, of course.

There are as many number of issues about gender and sexual orientation as there are arguments about the types of lesbians and the roles they play in a relationship, but I'll be "old school" for a while, and use the premise that lesbian subcategories are used as replicas of heterosexual relationships (which - please! - doesn't mean I agree with them; it's just a bit simpler to use them).

Theoretically, there are two types of lesbians, based (a) on physical characteristics and (b)the roles usually played by partners in a relationship - the butch, "dominant" lesbian taking on the role of the male, and the femme, "submissive" lesbian taking on the role of the female. The butch takes care of house and car repairs, while the femme cooks, wears skirts and makeup, and does all the girly-girly stuff.

Butches and the femmes are further divided into three types: stone, hard, and soft.

The stone butch ALWAYS stays on top, is NEVER touched by her partner during lovemaking (termed "one-way" sex), or act in any way that is "feminizing"; she will, most of the time, find themselves going after heterosexual women. The stone femme, on the other hand, is often attracted to very masculine butches, and could most likely view them as male substitutes. This set of lesbians seems to be the most imitative of heterosexual relationships.

The hard butch will never wear a skirt, but has no qualms about taking on "girly" chores (but only when necessary), and is open to "two-way" lovemaking. The hard femme gets involved with the hard butch (also known as "high femme").

The soft butch has no problems with skirts and may be more expressive of her feminine side. Soft femmes get involved with soft butches.

Yes, what baloney, that femme-typing is dependent on butch-typing! But then again, we're being "old school" here, so that probably stems from the dominant-submissive tradition.

So where does the androgynous lesbian come in now? The "andro" may identify with and be attracted to any of the abovementioned types, thereby blurring the line between butches and femmes.

Times have indeed changed, and these "types" have evolved. I think this is also because women have become more empowered in general, and no longer think that they have to act as is "expected" of them. Today, there are more butches and femmes who do not adhere to their "originally-assigned" roles and comfortably slip from one type to the other, depending on the type of lesbian that they are presently in a relationship with.

Bottom line: it is not a given that lesbians look and act masculine. Just because we are in love with women doesn't mean that we have to take on masculine roles or emulate the heterosexual relationships in our society. If you're not comfortable with yourself playing out the role that your present partner expects you to, then ditch her and find another girl (I know, I know, easier said than done) with whom you'll feel comfortable with, someone with whom you can just be yourself.

Or maybe you can try enlightening an "old school" partner that it's perfectly all right if you suddenly find yourselves attracted to lesbians of the type you're not supposed to be attracted to.

The more important thing is that you accept that you love women: romantically, spiritually, and sexually. Society, after all, must not dictate whom to love. It is a personal choice.

As one of our lesbian friends would say, "Whatever rocks your boat, honey!"

About The Author
Chè is a member of LGBT advocacy group LAGABLAB's Core Committee as well as a member of Indigo. She is saving the topic of lipstick butches for another issue just to keep us all wondering.

An earlier version of this article appeared in Manila Times' "Purple Road" column on November 30, 2000.