Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoney
So am I under standing that a stone femme may be
both a top----not wishing touch similar to a stone butch
and also a bottom who is a receiver of touch, but is more comfortable in ''not '' reciprocating the same touch for whatever reason that makes up their preferential dynamic?
Is this right?
thanks for all the responses, this has been great. Very interesting .
Much peace all,
Stoney
|
Yes, for better or worse, that's correct. And pretty darned confusing. There are femme women who have the same sexual boundaries typical of a stone butch. They may or may not strap, but they are the 'pitcher'. Those women are stone femmes. I believe Bit once suggested that in order to differentiate we could use 'stone femme' for a femme sexual top who does not want to be penetrated, and 'stonefemme' for a femme sexual bottom who claims the ID we've been dissecting in the above thread.
Yeah, OK, I can do that. Unfortunately the terms are barely distinguishable in print and utterly indistinguishable when spoken. What is more, the word 'stone' simply does not fit the openness and receptivity embodied by a stonefemme. 'Stone' is a wonderful descriptor for any person who does not get penetrated. 'Stone' evokes impenetrability. Which is why it always made me uncomfortable as part of the term that describes me.
Another reason I don't like the term is that using it for both a stone femme sexual top as well as a stonefemme sexual bottom will eventually erase the identity of those who are in the minority, (stone femme sexual tops). If logic prevailed, which it probably won't, 'stone' would be solely the provenance of the impenetrable.
I haven't thought of anything nearly clever enough to replace this term. I wish someone else would. I would adopt it in a heartbeat as long as it doesn't imply 'fragile flower'.