Is it normal?

Ive honestly never been in a relationship, but i feel the same way even though i hate referring to myself as the "girl in the relationship". im not girly at all but I rather say that i want the guy to be manlier than me..lol.. i think it is normal theres nothing wrong to feel that way..at least not in my opinion

 

That is perfectly normal and if anything will help deal with all that awkardness that comes from male dating. As in, "Who's the gentlemen--Who holds the door for whom."

In any sense, I've seen relationships where one guy (usually the bottom...lets face it) takes on the roll of the "girl" in the relationship. Although I don't quite agree with calling anybody in a guy/guy relationship, a girl, sometimes people prefer this distinction. You know what you want, and that's perfectly fine

 

We should never feel trapped by gender roles, but should be free to make use of them to express ourselves.

Unfortunately, we live in a sexist and heteronormative society. Regarding gender, society privileges both masculine behavior and cis-gendered behavior.

I believe this is the principal reason that lesbians are more willing than gay men to admit to preferring gendered roles within relationships.

For lesbians, there is a mitigating effect, because a woman who is more masculine is less cis-gendered, and vice versa; thus, for lesbians, the two partners have approximately equal status regardless of their gender roles (arguably even more so than in straight relationships).

For men, however, the effect is compounding: a man who is more feminine (less masculine) is also less cis-gendered. Thus, the two kinds of privilage stack against them together. So, among gay men, there is a tendency for the more masculine guys to assert their masculine, cis-gendered privilege by distancing themselves from the more feminine guys. This often includes not having relationships with them ("str8-acting only, plz") as well as constantly flinging insults at them.

When a masculine man expresses an attraction to feminine men, it is often accompanied by an expression of shame, even if he is past feeling ashamed of being gay.

Because of the pervasive sexism in society, the feminine roll is understood to be lesser. This is true both regarding social roles and regarding sexual roles; that's why the term "top"--which indicates dominance and superiority--is used for the "masculine," penetrating partner, while "bottom"--which indicates submission and inferiority--is used for the "feminine" partner who is penetrated. Note that it is, in fact, possible for the "bottom" to be dominant; for the "bottom" to be "on top," physically; and for the "bottom" to be the more masculine partner. (You can see that this role is considered lesser by the way that InaRut thinks that the association with "bottoming" is something that needs to be faced, rather than a neutral fact.)

Where someone prefers a sexual role that goes along with the social role, the sexual role is preferred as part of the social role, rather than the social role being adopted as a means of pursuing the sexual role, as some people seem to think. (This is true for either the masculine or the feminine roles.) But people can be very femme or butch without necessarily preferring the corresponding sexual role.

[TANGENT=value of traditional women's roles] I would like to point out that, traditionally, wealthy women would not work outside the home, even if childless, but would be in charge of running the household and entertaining business contacts and their families, as well as engaging in a lot of charity work. (In fact, if she had children, someone else was usually hired to look after them, because she was too busy with social obligations.) While there are some women who fit the "trophy wife" description, it's also common for the wives of very wealthy men to have a similar role to that traditional one. In some cases, if she worked, she would make so little money compared to her husband that the contribution to the household income would be negligible, while the job would occupy most of her time, perhaps making it difficult to spend any time with her spouse. What's more, through her role as hostess or "corporate wife," she can socialize with people who will open opportunities to her husband, often a far greater contribution to their overall income than any pay she would get by employment. Of course, this unpaid work she does is typically looked down on.

My point, though, is that it is possible to have significant duties as a spouse, even if one is not a parent. Some of the "women's work" that doesn't get done anymore because women mostly work outside the home, arguably is having a negative effect on our wellbeing. People were a lot healthier when most people were eating three homemade meals every day, prepared by someone who cared about them, rather than convenience food grabbed out of the freezer or picked up from McDonald's. Ridiculously, we tend to talk as if everyone had just gotten lazy, rather than recognizing that nearly half of the adult population used to devote their time primarily to cooking and housework, and now they don't. Having someone free to take care of all the grocery shopping and most other errands (including time for price shopping), cook all your meals, wash and iron your clothes, and do all the house cleaning, is a significant benefit, even if there are no children. [/TANGENT]​

dylangoelz, I don't think you meant that someone would take care of you while you just lounged around. I think you just want to be "treated like a lady," so to speak. You want him to do the butch things, so you can do the femme things, because it will be an affirmation of your inner self. You want to be able to express your femininity in the context of your relationship.

There is nothing wrong with that. Lesbians have the whole thing codified, in fact. Whatever problem there is, is society's problem, not yours.

For an interesting look at gender roles and how they don't have anything to do with biological sex, see Kate Bornstein's blog post, WALL•E: A Butch/Femme Love Story... or Silly Rabbit! Robots Have No Gender

 

Most gay couples I know don't (outwardly) do the "I'm the guy/he's the girl" thing. It may be that, behind closed doors, they play the roles to the hilt. But to the world at large (or at least to me), they're just two guys in a relationship. There doesn't appear to be any set roles for them. That doesn't mean they never act feminine, or anything of that sort. My partner and I hold hands, and do nauseatingly sickly-lovely things for each other to show we care. Any I guess my partner would be more likely to do so, simply because I'm somewhat of a robot.

It might be difficult to find someone to act as you wish at the outset, simply because it's more of a means to an end. People tend to hold hands and take care of each other less because "that's what I like to do", and more because "that's what I want to do for this particular person". And even then, it's rarely an announced thing - you sort of find your way in relationships by trial and error. I think once you start meeting guys and dating, you won't have any problem slipping into what you might call "the woman role" so long as he's cool with it.

Lex

 

Hmmm Im trying to understand what you are saying. By the girl in the relationship are you talking about a gay coupling where you are on the receiving end? Or are you talking about a heterosexual setting where you are a different gender?

Either are just as serious, but I would not say abnormal. There are many people in both situations, whether they are bottoms in a gay relationship, or trans-gender or transsexual or what have you. I would say that what you are thinking is just a primitive initial thought; once you have experimented more then I think it will bring new light to things. Just remember to stay safe ok?