What’s wrong babe? You didn’t touch your cyclospora lettuce, e-coli blueberries, glass shard popsicles, salmonella jalapeños, and listeria cheese.
Enough pixels have been burnt to death analysing the interest of women (general) in m/m fiction. Action and reaction, hot takes and cold takes and responses to both. Much has been commented, by every gender and sexuality under the sun.
I have never seen any pixels spilled on the topic of “also, some women are just tops. They like m/m, because it’s one of the few consistent ways to read good porn about topping.”
It is generally accepted that some people in queer couplings have a preference. Sometimes it’s a very strong preference. Sometimes it’s part of their own identity! But straight cis people are told, by mainstream and queer communities, that tab A belongs in slot B unless you’re queer.
If you can be brought to understand that topping/bottoming are roles that can be preferred in queer coupling, which aren’t necessarily fixed, “obvious” or detectable to outsiders, but that some people do have a strong preference, you can hopefully understand that this can also be true of straight people.
And ideally an evolved understanding will be that quite a lot of people might be giving or receiving sex in ways you can’t tell by looking at their haircuts. Some queer people have fixed preferences, some don’t; many relationships are versatile; one’s preference in the act can be entirely decoupled from one’s model of attraction, model of gender, and model of presentation.
My point is that some women, including straight cisgender women, can be preferentially vers or tops - just the same as anyone else - but they’re very limited by social expectations and their choices of partner. Same as anyone else. And vice versa; this generous planet is home to plenty of people who prefer to receive, but who have received variations on the designation of “straight man.”
And my theory here is that there are more women of varying identities and attractions in these groups than has ever been acknowledged, because straight people aren’t competent in expressing it, and queer people aren’t especially good at allowing interiority in straight people. We’re all picking at gender and attraction as if they have ANYTHING to do with what people like to do in bed, and assume that it has anything to do with what people do in bed, while at the same time saying loftily “it’s reductive to associate bottoming with femininity in queer couples” - come on now! It should be reductive in everybody.
As a result, you have cis gay men loftily pronouncing judgment upon everyone else writing penetrative sex scenes with men , because they have forgotten that “even” cis straight women can both give and receive anal sex with men… letting alone everyone else. Sure, in recent years, people have started pointing out that bi women, trans women, trans men, genderfluid people, and the entire asexual community can also write competently about sex. But the problem is still that this is focusing entirely upon the equipment that people happen to have, and not their desire; a missing component in the discourse! And it’s driven by the fact that not even the queer community are quite able to detach desire from one’s tackle.
Anyway! I’ll repeat myself: sometimes people without equipment are tops; some people whom society has assigned to be givers actually prefer to receive; some people don’t care much; and that doesn’t necessarily say anything about them. and they may have a range of attraction that ranges from same-gender to different-gender. It’s a fact of life.
It’s a small and specific point, and I am specifically speaking here of “straight cis woman who likes m/m fanfic” as an exemplar, just because it’s tumblr and there have been so many pixels burnt over this archetype. but I do think the greater point needs to be part of queer liberation. Assigning certain sexual preferences and desires based on presumptions of gender and equipment is not liberation.
And if a lady of ANY identity reading this suddenly has a lightbulb moment and realises she’s vers or a top - which apparently happens quite a lot when I talk about it - then I’m glad you got to read this, and I think you’re marvellous; if nobody else sees you, then I do.
immovabletype