(
I thought I'd post this here just because this discussion indirectly lead to me discussing it with some else. It's not the entire conversation, just snippets.)
I spoke with a lesbian on the subject of kinks and whatnot. We somehow got here from blonde hair vs red hair on women.
I was discussing with her "fujos" (straight women fascinated with homosexual men) and I posited their view of such relationships may not be wholly sexual, which allows them to depict such relationships with a focus on emotional intensity over sexuality. Female philosophers (Tullia d'Aragona, Diotima of Mantinea, Iris Murdoch[sort've]) tended to veer in this Platonic idea of love—separation of physical attraction from feelings—that is possibly where a majority of women operate from. Men are less likely to separate the two*. It doesn't mean men are incapable of doing so, they're just less likely to. That'd mean there's examples of women who embody the inverse of what's regarded as typical for them (sexual attraction/desire=love) and vice versa for men.
She took issue with me suggesting that men and women think alike, or are even capable of such.
Some notable quotes.
The other component of the flaw is how each side finds something attractive. By and large males and females find things attractive in different ways. And it isn't just a matter of "that's cute and I can separate it from sex." It's difficult to explain, but it seems that males place a huge amount of value on "physical traits." Like, big tits, big ass, big dicks, etc.. I see endless discussion among men about how important different physical traits are. You have men discussing stuff like feet and armpits. Hair color and skin color/ethnicity often come up. When it comes to non-physical traits, you often see similar "categorizations" for personalities. Tsundere, tomboy, mommy/MILF, INTF(etc.), and so on. Males really like to compartmentalize these traits. Then something is attractive if it has or doesn't have certain traits. If it has certain traits in combination. If it has certain traits at or above/below a certain magnitude. The male mindset is that of the hunter. To find prey, do what is needed to "win" that prey, then enjoy the spoils. Enjoyment of various traits largely stems on what kind of pleasure or enjoyment that trait will contribute to the enjoyment of the spoils.
Actual lesbian (content utterly lacking in dicks, males, etc.) is typically just not interesting to males. It doesn't contribute to the idea of the man successfully getting to enjoy what he's seeing. By definition, he cannot participate in it. Indeed, his even looking at it carries with it a flaw because the content doesn't involve him and the ladies within would never perform for him. He's looking at something not meant for his eyes. "Male gaze" is ruinous to yuri content, because if it isn't made to appeal to the male, then the male is hostile to it existing. At bare minimum, the male simply votes with his eyes/dollars elsewhere to let it wither and die. While pushing up the success of everything that does cater to his gaze.
In contrast, women are attracted to things in different ways. A straight woman isn't attracted to a man because he has certain traits. It has to do with being in proximity to him and enjoying the experience. Be it a pleasant date, a romantic get together, or so on. It's about the experience of entering into motherhood. The experience of interacting with your (and his) children as the result of your relationship and actions.
When a woman finds homosexuals/yaoi appealing, it is not because the males look a certain way or have big dicks or whatever. It's seeing the way men interact with each other and deal with their feelings for each other and stuff. How they might interact with her is not factored into the appeal at all. She's interested in how they interact with each other. It's the dynamic between them which is appealing. Not the fantasy of invading their space as a participant, since neither of them would be remotely interested in her (they're gay).
As for lesbians/yuri, the attraction is more "that's my friend, and instead of just being friends, we're doing romantic stuff." It's about the feelings of safety, affection, enjoyment, and so on but between girls instead of towards a male. It could be, as with yaoi, finding the dynamic between two girls attractive. Or it could be more immersive and evoke the fantasy of being with one of the girls.
At the core of my disdain for men is not simply because of the anatomy between his legs. It is that the experiences of being in proximity to a man becomes revolting if it turns sexual, romantic, or even simply too affectionate. Regardless of his traits. Regardless of his intentions. You could say something is wrong with me as a woman because the thought of becoming pregnant or entering into motherhood is appalling to me.
Similarly, there are plenty of women that I just find uninteresting. It doesn't matter how much they pretty themselves up or try to be attractive. I could see her completely naked, in a sexual context and not find it even slightly arousing.
When it comes to things like kinks or fetishes and the like, I find it baffling that these are so important to others (usually men). If I were to describe an ideal sex scene between myself and a woman, it would be more about exploring her interests (early relationship) or affirming her interests. The appeal is the relationship and our dynamic together. How we change each other. If it was important to her enjoyment that her or my feet be involved, I'd accommodate that. I have zero interest sexually in feet but if that happened to be her thing, part of who she is in the bedroom, then that becomes more appealing. Not the kink itself but how her kink and including it affects her mood and enjoyment.
Overall, the discussions men constant and continuously have are so utterly foreign and focus on these traits and categorizations. Men tend to be more goal oriented. The idea of being categorized in such a way, or to seek some particular goal involving me are gross. These are not opposite sorts of approaches to the same thing. They are just different.
What I feel often muddles this sort of thing up is that women are often pushed into using the terms and concepts men use. Which adds to the illusion of the binary. Language doesn't readily convey the concepts of women since language is driven by men and their drive to conquer everything.
She's (and she is an actual
she) very disdainful of kinks/fetishes altogether because to male perspectives* they exist separate from the woman herself and become qualifying criteria that a woman
must have in order to be attractive. I think she took issue with me implying there were any men who were similar to her mentally, in that men are capable of separating sexual attraction from emotional attraction.
She sees men as people who mentally seek only to "conquer" when it comes to sex, and whose attraction is primarily physical over emotional. Interesting perspective that men don't truly enjoy true lesbian content because of no dicks, since it excludes them mentally from participation. (Men even looking at lesbian content "ruining" it was also notable too).
I did disagree. The reason I don't sex-lock certain behaviours is because I think you're fully capable of seeing women who display more stereotypically "masculine" (abstraction) morals just as you see men display "feminine" (abstraction) morals. This idea of men wishing to "conquer" things is one type of man that could exist but doesn't fit all men, for example. There might be women who want to "conquer" men, or other women.
Whilst I agreed on men tending to categorise, I don't think it's universally based in sexuality. The physical/personal traits don't just act as something males may or may not find attractive, they may convey an alternative meaning or have some sort of association tied to them that the man may or may not be aware of.
Her view of how lesbians differ from men was notable to me because it's the same exact thing I've seen echoed by gay men and even "fujos" on what a homosexual relationships were like. I didn't tell her that though—she'd probably tear my head off.
Anyway, I just thought chucking a lesbian's anecdotal perspective in here might interest some.
*I went on a major rabbit hole because of this thread despite its subject matter. I read Mishima, Plato, Dante, Maratima, d'Aragona, etc.
This was my love quest.
I came to the view love as something we ultimately abstract, but it
is real. We don't have an
actual name for it, but "love" is the word which covers everything which affects us when we experience it for someone else. It's unique in that it's the
closest people can come to completely understanding one another, because it is more or less impossible to see how someone else views the world, we're locked into our own perspectives.
Because of that fact, the most tragic yet beautiful aspect of love is that no matter what, you can never truly convey the
completeness of your love for someone else.
At best, it can only be translated into words and action, but nothing will ever be sufficient. But love, true love, means you'll never stop trying to.
