Good point. But what can I say? Baby steps, I guess.
I could start a whole other thread about how this particular group of lesbians aren’t particularly friendly with gay men themselves. I’ve heard derogatory comments towards gay men coming from these women. Not sure what to make of that.
Nobody seems to realise any of my partners have been lesbians until they see them hand in hand with me. They are femmes to my butch. Some femmes like other femmes, some butches like other butches and most lesbians are neither particularly femme nor butch. The trouble is that we butch types have always been visibly different so you think we are all that there is. We tend to like different bars, yours sounds like it caters to the majority in the middle more than we outliers.
Very real. You should see my sister’s partner. A knockout and totally fem.
That’s pretty much what I meant in the last sentence of my earlier post.
The problem is that the OP here unrealistically assumed that the fans and friends of this one bartender were somehow representative or even definitive of the lesbian population as a whole. Eta: I mean that as a counter to the above post. OP saw a bunch of lesbians and didnt see a lipstick one. Sahing he maybe saw a bunch of unrecognized lesbians on the bus on the way to work doesnt address the point.
Maybe he needs a better way to ask the question. Suggestions?
“Where the lipstick lesbians be at? ??”
They are everywhere in Fells Point, Baltimore.
But nowhere in Dallas Texas because Dallas Texas is Dallas Texas.
My work wife is pretty much a lipstick lesbian; her girlfriend certainly is. They’re both quite conventionally feminine in dress and mannerism, and attracted to women who are similar in appearance and habits to themselves.
I guess it depends on how you define “feminine,” I guess. At a former workplace, it was almost all lesbians, and none of them fit the urban dictionary definition, although I would have certainly considered the bulk of them feminine. There was the occasional butchy butch butch, complete with man’s haircut, plain unisex scrubs, and wallet on a chain, but for the most part it was flattering women’s haircuts of varying lengths, scrubs in cute cuts and prints, a little makeup. Not particularly girly, but certainly feminine. And the partners I met were about the same–one or two fairly girly girls, but generally just ordinary looking women.
Amber Heard identifies as, well, nothing really, but has been in multiple open lesbian relationships and is as conventionally feminine and attractive as it gets.
We are talking about in the whole wide world - outside of this bar. I believe we will all accept that there are no lipstick lesbians in that bar on those nights.
You’ve (probably) had at least one hetero man, one hetero woman, & one gay woman point this out. What you observe is effected by what you expect to observe. This is why clinical trials need double-blind studies.
(But I bet we all think more of those good ol’ boys are gay than you realize.)
Sounds trollish, but it’s a serious question that’s been nagging at me for decades. Are all the vehement man-haters unattractive and butch, or am I just examining a biased sample?
No, some vehement man-haters are quite pretty, polite, and even flirtatious. Some are even straight.
But, although I should not speak for those with inclinations other than my own, I might suggest that women who are not sexually attracted to men might be more inclined to suggest such men are not welcome company in language frank, forceful, and even vulgar.
Considering the amount of upkeep that look requires, it’s not a “lisptick whatever” only if your definition of “lipstick” includes “bright red”.
FWIW, I have never heard the term “lipstick lesbian” used in this specific way before. In my experience “lipstick lesbian” is just a description of the woman’s appearance (conventionally feminine/glamorous), and has nothing to do with what sort of woman she’s attracted to herself.