butcheros

stone, and what it means to give

give and take.

these terms come up often in our discussions of sex. in fact, they are somewhat intrinsic to how we conceptualise the interactions of sex - one person gives, the other takes. and then, it seems, you swap over. this phrase is ostensibly intended to convey mutuality and reciprocation - sex in which both participants are equally satisfied and have their needs met.

as a stone fem, however, I have encountered this phrase being used predominantly in ways to stigmatise me and my stone kin and the way we experience our bodies and sexual desire. I have lost count of the number of times that I have seen or heard, in response to the subject of stone coming up: “I’m not into that, I believe in give and take”. in discussions of lesbian sex, stone is characterised as selfish, stingy and repressed; a refusal to be an equal participant in an act of intimacy.

it is both painful and isolating to repeatedly encounter these attitudes from outsiders who cannot fathom the stone experience. “give and take” becomes a phrase of attack, a means of framing one kind of sex as more authentic, more truly lesbian, than another. already profoundly aware of our difference in contrast to common expectations, the contempt and judgment of others is further stigmatising, inhibiting open discussion of what it means to be stone. stone butches become reticent and guarded; stone fems stay silent altogether. it is only when we are together that we feel the comfort of mutual understanding.

yet, so entrenched are common notions of what sex should entail, we do not look deeply enough into how it is socially constructed - and question that. the more time I have contemplated the phrase “give and take” and its intended connotations, the more I question the entire framework the concept exists within.

ultimately, I feel that the underlying concept of “give and take” is more truly heteronormative than it might seem at first glance, and this has everything to do with how we have uncritically absorbed the heteropatriarchal construction of what sex requires. under this model, to “give” means to perform an act on another person’s body. to “take” means to be the recipient of those acts. this term did not originate in lesbian community - it is a term used commonly in the English language to describe various forms of mutually agreeable exchange and interaction. it is used to describe sexual exchange by people of all sexualities. recognising its origins in the ruling heteropatriarchal class, what is conferred by “give” and by “take” is clearly rooted in the model of penis-in-vagina sex - a restrictive one that depends on notions of aggression and passivity strictly situated in sharply defined gender roles.

it is no secret that stone butches and stone fems are inclined towards such gender roles as a natural expression of our inner selves. the sex we desire is often described as heteronormative by other lesbians. it is ironic, therefore, that I criticise the concepts that underlie the term as heteronormative in a way damaging to buches and fems who identify as stone.

the problem lies in what is conceptualised as giving and what is conceptualised as taking - these concepts directly relate back to the heterosexual mode of sex that facilitates recreation - the one who is “active” - who penetrates - is giving. the one who is “passive” - who is penetrated - is taking. this heteronormative construct translates within lesbian community as performing sexual acts on another - the giver - or of receiving them - the taker. ultimately, this reinforces the idea of sex as one person having something done to them rather than a mutual experience in which giving and taking is actually a constant, overlapping exchange between participants.

I believe that we need to completely redefine what we perceive as giving and taking when it comes to the intimacy and vulnerability of sex. not only will this engender greater understanding towards stone relations, it will improve our attitudes and beliefs about sex on a broader scale. it has been a long battle for LGBT people to have the ways we have sex recognised as real and meaningful. lesbians in particular have historically had our sexual realities attacked or denied on the basis that a penis is generally absent, this cited as definitive proof what we experience together is not sufficiently ‘real’ to count as sex. we have all felt the sting of this judgment. yet unthinkingly perpetuating limiting definitions upon each other only obscures the myriad complex ways sex functions in our lives and how we manifest desire. it devalues how we, as lesbians - an underclass of people - communicate and connect with respect to the uniqueness and variedness of our needs, and create our own erotic languages through mutual respect and understanding.

as already stated, the term “give and take” is used to suggest sex in which both participants are equally satisfied and have their needs met. but what is meant by “equally satisfied” in that context is that each participant is the subject of sexual acts performed on their body. so when applied to criticise a stone interaction, “give and take” suggests that stone sex is one-sided, the term an attack on its very nature.

yet within a stone relationship, the mutuality and reciprocity of the experience is never in question by those participating. the challenge is in justifying this to those outside of it. given the sensitivity of the subject, many stones prefer instead silence to making themselves vulnerable to the judgment of those unwilling to broaden their perspective. the emotional cost can be too high. to me, this is unacceptable. stone butches and stone fems are a complex people, with desires and needs specific to our identities. we are as deserving as anyone to understanding and acceptance for the ways in which we love each other.

stone is ultimately defined by a need for boundaries. the reasons for these boundaries can be varied, complicated and entirely unique to each individual, but their sacredness plays an instrumental role in a stone’s interactions and ways of relating to another. the way that outsiders characterise these boundaries as inherently selfish and a denial towards sexual partners reflects the entrenched misogynistic perception of women as being boundaryless. under heteropatriarchy, women are under immense pressure to be always obliging, generous, receptive and open - of our time, our labour and our bodies. this socialisation manifests in various ways throughout lesbian community and the appalled reaction most greet the concept of stone with underscores its pervasiveness. that a woman would ‘deny’ another access to certain parts of her body; or decline to utilise her body in certain ways, seems to many a strange and alien notion that must necessarily point to character flaws. a meanness and repression that manifests in withholding certain intimacies from a sexual partner.

this attitude is a blatant devaluation of what women have to give, and what of ourselves we are willing to give. the hostility articulated in criticisms of stone sex is an outright attack on the very idea of women having boundaries - often related to the trauma of living under heteropatriarchy - and insisting that they are essential for satisfying relationships. to my mind, no community can have a healthy and functional approach to sex without an inherent, stringent sense of respect towards another’s stated boundaries, without demanding justification or explanation. especially amongst communities of women, these needs should not seem so baffling.

as lesbians, we should recognise the immense value of overcoming the crushing social pressures of homophobia and misogyny to seek intimacy and satisfaction together. we should recognise that the willingness to be alone with another, to seek erotic fulfillment, is in itself an act of immense giving. allowing ourselves to be vulnerable, whatever that means to us, is a great generosity, a gift of self that should never be taken for granted. recognising that we are always giving when we seek intimacy with another is a fundamental step to shifting attitudes around sex that view it as a system of quid pro quo rather than a mutual exchange of desire. valuing ourselves and others for what we are, as we are, is a step towards greater understanding and appreciation for all our diversity, and places emphasis on our inherent worth as human beings, regardless of what we are willing to do with our bodies.

of course, it would be a mistake to think socialisation doesn’t play a part in stone identity, to varying degrees depending on the individual. I believe we should make space to talk about this reality and its impact in our lives. the problem arises in when we take simplistic and unnuanced approaches to issues that are far too complex to be reduced on any level, and present them as a solution. the human psyche is at once too volatile, too fragile and yet also too resilient, adaptable and unique to be easily and generically addressed. those who attribute the mechanics of stone identity to socialisation only disregard the authority of the individual over their own lives, as the central expert of their personhood and what they subsequently need. our autonomy over our desires and the journey we have each undertaken to claim them is undermined by the defining of our boundaries as symptomatic only of a socially-imposed affliction; rather than the complex manifestation of identity, desire, self-actualisation and - yes, sometimes - socialisation that they are.

the ways stone butches and stone fems are targeted by other lebians are specific to each identity, but are all rooted in the language of shame. stone fems, with our lack of desire to penetrate another, our generalised indifference to performing oral sex, are characterised as lazy, selfish and greedy, focused only on ourselves. stone butches, with their aversion to being penetrated, their preference to not be genitally touched, are characterised as repressed and cold, as cruelly denying their lovers. there are gendered implications to these characterisations that should not be ignored - that these attacks reflect common negative ideas about feminine and masculine lesbians is significant and instructive as to what preconceptions and prejudices other lesbians bring with them to their interpretations of our interactions. the force of this shaming - which occurs both socially and in intimate situations with lesbians who are not stone - often compounds pressure to the point personal boundaries may be compromised out of a sense of obligation. this coercion has devastating emotional impacts.

between stone lovers, however, these boundaries are experienced completely differently. and this is where a reconceptualised definition of what it means to give and take is crucial for outsiders to comprehend what that experience means for us.

the stone fem’s supposed passivity during sex is regarded with great suspicion and animosity by outsiders, who imagine us as “starfishes” who refuse to contribute. not only is this a false conception, it disregards how vital the existence of stone fems are to stone butches. apart from the fact that we actively participate in sex in all kinds of ways, that we come with an innate understanding of the boundaries of stone butch has granted relief and comfort in our chosen partners. stone butches often find sex with outsiders a nerve-wracking experience in which they must be constantly vigilant against unwelcome touch, guard against attempts to access their bodies that are violating. they must also contend with resistance to their needs, with the struggle to explain to those who won’t understand. with stone fems, however, a stone butch can be at ease and enjoy herself without anxiety. we do not view another’s physical boundaries as a series of challenges to overcome in order for authentic connection to occur. our own boundaries grant us insight and empathy and we recognise the value of what is being shared by our lovers. a stone fem never pushes for more, and many stone butches have spoken in celebration of this fact, for how we provide space for a stone butch to be confident and free in the full expression of her desire as she defines it.the stone fem derives erotic fulfillment in part from offering herself as a subject for a stone butch’s desire - according to the manner in which that manifests. this is an act of giving. allowing our partners the liberty to express themselves sexually in the manner that feels most authentic to them is the very antithesis of selfishness. we give of our bodies and ourselves without reservation to our stone butches, honouring and celebrating them for the way in which they come to us, without demanding justification or adaptation.

the stone butch’s compulsion to take on the ‘active’ role exclusively, her preference not to be genitally touched - sometimes not even to undress - is skeptically viewed as inhibition and denial - denial of self certainly, but primarily denial of a partner. the stone butch’s boundaries are seen as prohibitive towards the other participant, an unfair restriction that prevents true mutual satisfaction from occurring. the stone fem experience of being intimate with a stone butch, however, is distinctly different. the stone butch’s trust in us is a gift that we treasure, the validation her desire gives ours is an exciting union of need that complements and affirms. a stone butch accepts a stone fem’s boundaries easily and with eagerness, and derives fulfillment in part from providing erotic pleasure to a fem. a stone fem is not selfish or greedy in a stone butch’s eyes, and the relief from this common stigma cannot be understated. stone fems also experience resistance and coercion from other lesbians, but with even less empathy shown us. because of the way “give and take” is conceptualised when applied to sex, stone fems are seen only as takers. this perception is related back to our feminine presentation, which is then judged as cause and effect. however, the stone butch experiences a stone fem’s boundaries as generosity and liberty, and values them as such. in a stone butch’s arms - so enamoured of our feminine ways, our receptivity, our understanding - a stone fem finds peace and comfort. no longer constricted with anxiety over what so often is judged as a failing, but reassured that the way in which we give is recognised, honoured, and deeply loved. stone butch is not experienced as repressed or prohibitive at all, but as immensely compassionate, appreciative and generous, taking stone fems as we are whilst also granting us the enormous privilege and pleasure of being intimate with the women we desire most in all the world.

stone is not an experience that can be comprehended by all people, but it is one that people can cultivate greater empathy towards. this begins by recognising that we ‘give and take’ to each other in ways that are significant to how we experience desire; that what we have to give is more complex than the simple exchange of physical touch in certain prescribed ways. it means recognising that, even if the ways in which we express it are different to the mainstream, our needs are the same as anyone else’s - love and intimacy, understanding, companionship, pleasure - and affirmation. and finally, it requires a willingness to listen to us and trust that whilst the ways of stone may not be for you or the lovers you seek, together stone butches and stone fems find true fulfillment and satisfaction by being authentic to our own selves.

it means understanding that all relationships, undertaken honestly and with full consent, exist on a continuum of giving and taking. that to give and take can often be the same thing, that the complexity of connections between us can make this exchange layered and specific. the basis of all human interaction is a desire to connect and find commonality. the physical borders of the stone experience are not intended to inhibit that compulsion, but to facilitate it in ways that uphold identity and the needs of personal boundaries. in sex that is truly mutual, there can be no taking without giving, no giving without the desire for it to be taken. stone butches and stone fems understand this, and it is the basis on which our sexual culture is built - out of the fundamental desire to give exactly what the other most needs in order to be fulfilled, and in that take our own fulfillment.

anyway while yall are logged off tumblr on dec 17 to protest tits how about you also go to a protest or vigil because dec 17 is the international day to end violence against sex workers

edit: wrong map! that one’s 2016. here’s the 2018 event map

stone, and what it means to give

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

More you might like

anyway while yall are logged off tumblr on dec 17 to protest tits how about you also go to a protest or vigil because dec 17 is the international day to end violence against sex workers

edit: wrong map! that one’s 2016. here’s the 2018 event map

stone, and what it means to give