Is it a myth that there's always a dominant role in the relationship? Lesbian relationships are confusing mostly because of the box and labels we place on ourselves. Why can't we just be two women in love? Does there really have to be a masculine or dominant presence for the relationship to work?
When you look at the fem/fem relationships or the stud/stud relationships, theoretically there's not just one person who's dominant and the other submissive; if we stick with the rules of labels. A stud is dominant; a fem is submissive. But that's not always the case. Labels or not. I've seen fems who are way more dominant than any stud could ever be. I've seen studs take a submissive role in relationships with their fem lovers. There's no right or wrong way to do it. It's all about who feels comfortable doing what.
Everyone has a little bit of masculinity to them, and everyone has feminine qualities. The reason that heterosexual relationships don't appear confusing is because they have a set dynamic. The man wears the pants. The woman is submissive; she cares for the children, possibly cooks the meals, and takes care of the house. I cannot believe I just said that. It's a barbaric way of thinking, but in a lot of relationships this is the case. There are a few relationships out there where the woman wears the pants therefore the roles of what society have labeled as normal flips. Society has a problem with this dynamic in heterosexuals, so why would it lessen the confusion if it were two women? When two women are involved in a relationship there's a shift in that "normal" dynamic, especially if the roles or labels aren't clearly defined. I don't know how many times I've been asked who's the boy in the relationship? Sometimes people bluntly tag me as the boy without knowing one thing about the relationship. It's assumed because of outer appearance.
Who exactly wears the pants?
No one, and everyone. Yep, that's right. We all wear the pants. Even if you go with the masculine-feminine dynamic, both women still wears the pants. The masculine woman may have more control in more situations, but either woman can step up and take control when needed.
But if there's a stud/stud or fem/fem relationship, who wears the pants then? Who will be that more dominant person?
To use an example of two characters of The L Word (all lesbians have watched The L Word), if Shane and Papi were to be in a relationship who would be the most dominant? Obviously, they both were dominant with most of the fems they were in a relationship with. For instance, when Papi made out with Kit and Alice, she was dominant. When Shane was with Molly, and Carmen, she played the dominant role. But, when Shane was with Jenny it was hard to tell who wore the pants even though Shane was the stud. That's because Jenny had more of a dominant presence making Shane, who was once the person in control of all of her relationships, into a fem in stud's clothing.
It's all about what person has the stronger personality; the take charge attitude. Bette and Tina are both fem, but Bette was the obvious dominant role mainly because of how Bette managed the relationship; how she carried herself. Some could look at it as Bette being a control freak, but it was more to it than that. She commanded control as well as any stud could. But when Bette cheated with the carpenter who was a stud, she fell instantly into that submissive role. As if it were natural to her. It was because her commanding control was outmatched by the carpenter's. When those two energies come together, whoever has the stronger energy is the dominant woman in the relationship. Regardless if that person is fem or stud. Regardless if it's a fem/fem, stud/stud, of fem/stud relationship.
Remember, there are no rights or wrongs. Only what works for you and your lover.
Until next time,