Comments on: outdated questions on binaries

By: Shannon

Shannon — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:29:00 +0000

The ironic thing is, most women in this culture embody conflicted identity structures. They are constantly bombarded by opposing identity representations, which reflect both entrenched and new social realities. So it's logical to assume that they would internalize two or more seemingly opposed ways of being and yet these experiences are seemingly authentic to them. Seeing a masculine woman, a sexualized masculine woman, must be threatening because it implies a synthesis that they haven't yet achieved for themselves.This is a fascinating conversation, thank you.

By: lady brett

lady brett — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:30:00 +0000

Sorry, i don't think i was quite clear.Yes, i did mean sex, like biology. But what i was trying to point out is that it's not binary; people just like to simplify it, and talk about it as though it were. (much like common conception is that people are gay or straight, and that's it).And, i think the distinction i was trying to make was that there are these pair identities(butch/femme...), where you choose the two parts that play off of each other. I think it is admitting that it is a choice from amid the spectrum that makes it valid to pair them off.I'm not certain that made it any more clear, but it's the best i can figure out right now.Oh, and the distinction between the words could very well be all in my head =)

By: Bad Bad Girl

Bad Bad Girl — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:28:00 +0000

This is such a huge topic and I'm so interested in reading more. Sinclair, you always have such brilliant things to say. And if people are going to leave "comments" like that, then hve the guts to at least give yourself a name!!!

By: sinclair

sinclair — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:05:00 +0000

lady brett: interesting distinction. I see your point, that a duality may be a sliding scale whereas a binary is two distinct parts, but I think they are much closer in definition than that – at least, according to the dictionary. so I'm not sure I agree, it seems they both mean, basically, "consisting of two parts".(although if that's true, then why the two different words for the same thing in our language? there must be a subtle difference. which is perhaps your point. interesting – I will keep thinking about that.)also, when you say "The best example i can think of is the idea that gender is binary: male and female." I am a bit confused – I think you mean sex here, and not gender? biology? but as you point out in the next sentence, sex isn't binary – there is a wider variety of biological sex than just 100% male and 100% female. Intersexuals (as one big lumped category) are exactly the "proof" … so, you're saying that biological sex is binary, but social constructions of gender (butch/femme, masculine/feminine) or various orientations (top/bottom) are a duality?

By: Dylan

Dylan — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:02:00 +0000

Argh. The comment on that post completely set me off as well. I am glad you were able to articulate something much better than what I had to spew in the wee hours of the morning. Uuuuugh!

By: lady brett

lady brett — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:38:00 +0000

Right on.But i do want to toss in the difference betwen dualities and binaries. Binaries i really don't hold with, because i think they are what we use to eliminate shades of grey, and just not thinking about them doesn't make those shades go away. The best example i can think of is the idea that gender is binary: male and female. Well, that's fine except it's not true. You have trans, but even if you don't hold with that (as 'choice', etc., etc…and that's a whole other discussion), you can't dismiss intersexed people in the same way.Duality, on the other hand, is much more fluid, and therefore applicable to the real world. I think this is where butch/femme, masculine/femminine, top/bottom, etc. come in, because all of these dualisms have a very wide range of meanings. But in each one the two parts play off of each other.

By: sinclair

sinclair — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:25:00 +0000

yay! good comments, both! thanks for making me feel less frustrated & more understood. @kimi: you are definitely right that there the person on top may not stop, and obviously the top has a lot of control. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I see it as a really equal approach, where both parties have a lot of control, both perspectives are important and valued, not just one more than the other.your comment disliking safewords is interesting too. subs who are so into pleasing their dom that they are unable/unwilling to stop the scene really scare me, actually. I like to be pleased, don't get me wrong, but that indicates a power imbalance, which makes me uncomfortable.@joy: thank you! I like what you're saying about archetypes and patterns and how they can be interesting ways to deepen the understandings of our lives. well put! I feel like I'm having a lot of trouble articulating this, which is frustrating because I believe in it so strongly and it is, in many ways, such the core of my identity. so thanks for the continuing conversation, it helps get my head clearer about it.

By: Joy

Joy — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:14:00 +0000

I. Love. Duality/Binaries. Of course, I'm a big fan of archetypes and patterns and repeated motifs and mythology anyway…but I love dualities. I do find them celebratory, freeing, interesting ways to look at aspects of our lives. Now, granted, I am (in practice, at least) pretty well straight, so I don't have to worry about duplicating the hetero-normative – I am part of it. I am not part of repressive, male-dominant heterosexual culture, but I'm still part of the most culturally accepted group. (And I don't know why these good things you talk about haven't penetrated society's psyche, Sinclair. I am baffled too.). Even so, even though I really can't speak for a butch/femme duality or a dom/sub duality, I feel very strongly that these are not simple replications of the male power-female submission paradigm. As you said, there are as many ways to handle gender and power as there are people.

By: Kimi Dreams

Kimi Dreams — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:41:00 +0000

I'm responding to this thread because you specifically stated here the question about "who's in control?". That wasn't a stated point in the last post. So there's my reasoning for putting it here.It's not so easy to just say that bottom is in control. We aren't always in control. Absence of control is sometimes the whole point of being on bottom. Yes…in the end…we have the ability to say stop..BUT!….The person on top may not stop. I'm not discussing abuse. I'm discussing control. Another issue…"who's in control" is the entire reason I dislike "safewords". When you have a submissive or a bottom who lives to please or does not want to dissapoint their top/dom a safe word may be entirely useless. It has been in the past for me. There have been times where I've wanted nothing more then to say "stop" but I couldn't bring myself to do it. It's why tops/doms need to be aware of what's going on with the bottom/sub. You can not always count on the sub to know when or actually act to stop.The topic is huge and I'm happy to discuss any part of it. But I wanted to directly respond to "who's in control really."