Posted by giveawayboy on March 30, 2005 at 12:38:05:
O.K. I'm going to bring this up as sparked by John's recent post on the Kinsey scale and sexual orientation vs. identity. I know that some of us have different views on gender identity and I'm not sure I will go in that direction, as it's a complex and sensitive topic, but I DID want to comment a bit about androgeny from my own perspective. I've never been a fan of androgeny that disrespects the uniqueness of men and women. I won't talk to the specific cases of those who feel that man and woman are not unique. I think they are. I love an androgenous kind of 'look' though. What I mean is I love alot of range in how a man can look and still look like a man or how a woman can look and still look like a woman. I like that kind of androgeny. There is no rulebook for it. I just know when I see it. Sort of like when you experience a moment where you feel truly alive. No one can reproduce that in a test tube. I can't take you to that moment, likewise I can't evoke what I'm seeing. It just has to show forth naturally. I like that kind of androgeny though since for me it points to wonder, creativity and otherworldiness. These are great things. I think of this androgeny as sort of even holy or angelic. It's not an androgeny that negates sex differences, but one which is comfortable with them. It's not a negation of man and woman, but a larger exploration into what it means to be unique and wonderful. That's where I'm going. I'm not too sure about what some people call gender bending or genderf**k. I'm more into androgenous looks as a deepening of masculinity and femininity, not a denial of them.
Oh yeah I don't think a butch look on a girl has to make her hard or rigid, just like I don't think a pretty boy is necessariliy soft of unmasculine. Look at Brad Pitt for God's sake. Or Jonathan Rhys-Myers. They are more on the pretty side but still very guyish.
Bill