View Single Post
Old 12-16-2009, 06:12 PM   #353
blush
Member

How Do You Identify?:
femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
she
Relationship Status:
I'm with goofy.
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 911
Thanks: 962
Thanked 2,375 Times in 616 Posts
Rep Power: 15632317
blush Has the BEST Reputationblush Has the BEST Reputationblush Has the BEST Reputationblush Has the BEST Reputationblush Has the BEST Reputationblush Has the BEST Reputationblush Has the BEST Reputationblush Has the BEST Reputationblush Has the BEST Reputationblush Has the BEST Reputationblush Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJFemmie View Post
High femme to me is a high maintenance femme - one who is - yes - fussy - over makeup, heels, appearance, and carries the attitude and the demeanor.


Do I think of all high femmes this way? Not necessarily, but, in a way yes - when I consider attitude, demeanor and aesthetics.

Side note: I know very few high femme submissives.

Low femme would be the opposite (IMO). Low maintenance femme makes me think of a 'casual' femme - more down to earth in appearance and 'tude. Not as fussy aesthetically speaking, but femme non the less.

Yet, to sound contradictory to my pyramid statement, it's difficult for me to perceive a "ranking system" for anyone. I don't think an ultra or high femme is "above" a low and/or casual femme. The pyramid I am referring to would be based on purely aesthetics.

This may sound redundant, but I base opinions of people on WHO they are, not WHAT they are, or HOW they perceive themselves to be. When I think of "ranking" - I think of who is better than who - who stands above someone else - and I find that to be difficult for me, since I base my opinions on people based on who/how they are as a human being - not how a person dresses and/or portrays themselves to the world - and not based on what title they hold in life.

Issues about not being femme enough have (more-or-less) the same conflicts as not being butch enough. IMO, it's all based on opinions, and opinions are - loaded guns with serious implications. I don't think any less of myself because I am not ultra or high femme - and I wouldn't tolerate anyone making me think that I am. It's about preference. If I am not femme enough for someone - that's okay - I am not going to make myself into something I'm not because I think of a "ranking system".

I guess when I continue to read that some are having self-issues with the level of femme-ness they possess (or don't) - it bothers me a little. You are who you are, and that doesn't make you (collectively) less than. It doesn't make them (collectively) better.

Well, thank you for putting up with my morning rant.
I will now consume copious amounts of coffee, with the hopes that everything I just said made some kind of sense.

Cheers.
What hit me about what you (and others) are saying is that the most common descriptor for femmes is entirely based on our appearance. We sum ourselves and each other up based on how we look. Is this human nature or is it the b-f culture?

I do consider a pyramid to be a hierarchy. The "top" (high femme) has the attitude and the dress. It scares me to think that the pinnacle of "femme-ness" is any "type." Shouldn't our admiration be based more on human ethics? Wouldn't it be fabulous if our pinnacle was something more than the type of shoe a femme wears? Shouldn't we have better standards?
__________________
"We never forget those who make us blush."
Jean-Francois de la Harpe
blush is offline   Reply With Quote