Talk:Lipstick lesbian

Derogatory to Bisexual Women

It can also mean a person who isn't actually lesbian but pretends to be, for various reasons such as pornography. The term can also be applied to bisexual females.

HOW DEROGATRY TO BISEXUAL WOMEN-THE PRETEND TO BE LESBIANS!

I am not entirely sure of the purpose of this comment. Do you mean to say that because the sentance which mentions bisexuality follows a mention that the term can be used to refer to non-lesbians pretending to be lesbians, it implies that bisexuals are pretending to be lesbians? I'm not sure that is the case. I note that this comment was mentioned a while ago, so I am not entirely sure I will receive a response from you, but I would like to keep discourse on this matter open if it is in fact an issue for people. --Scandal 07:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I don't see any necessary connection between the term "lipstick lesbian" and "bisexual female". If "lipstick lesbian" means (in part) "feminine woman attracted to other feminine women", well a bisexual woman need not be feminine, and a bisexual woman need not prefer feminine women either. Of course, a bisexual woman could be "lipstick", but then she's not a "lipstick" lesbian, she's a "lipstick" bisexual. But, I don't think that's a common term. Thus, "The term can also be applied to bisexual females" is not true. --SJK 12:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on that point. I just wasn't sure what the original comment was intended to mean. --Scandalous 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

Currently (August 2006) this article is highly self-contradictory. In the opening sentence: "Lipstick lesbian is a slang term for a feminine homosexual woman who is attracted to another feminine woman, rather than a lesbian who is attracted to a more masculine woman"

Then later: "A lipstick lesbian is a homosexual (or bi-sexual) woman who exhibits feminine gender expression... ...The term applies to a multitude of women, regardless of their preferences in partners. A lipstick lesbian may be attracted to more 'butch' or masculine women or may be attracted to other femmes but is not solely attracted to feminine women."

Any sources or similar stating when the expression was first used, or how it is most widely used now, to help clear this up? --Justynb 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Chapstick v.s. Lipstick

The beginning of the article says:

> A lipstick lesbian, sometimes referred to as a chapstick lesbian

I thought the two phrases were different concepts, i.e. chapstick lesbians are less feminine than lipstick lesbians.

They are. Which is why I'm removing that part of the sentence. - 85.210.146.49 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear

In the 30 years I've been a lesbian I have never once encountered the definition of Lipstick Lesbian given here. Where I'm from (and everywhere I've been) Lipstick Lesbian is simply another term for a "high femme" lesbian. These are lesbians who wears lots of makeup, mostly wears dresses and skirts, high heels, long hair (or extremely fashionable well styled shorter hair), sometimes prissy and almost always very high maintenance. They very very rarely are read as lesbians. It has no connection to her attraction to other women, butch or femme. It is a descriptor of personal style, manner of dress, wearing of said lipstick and other makeup and bears no meaning to her adherence to any kind of butch/femme dichotomy. Lipstick Lesbian is basically the opposite of Diesel Dyke (which again has nothing to do with partner choice, but is a descriptor of a "look")

The article does state

A distinction is sometimes drawn between the phrases "lipstick lesbian" and "chapstick lesbian" and the older phrases butch and femme by suggesting that the former phrases simply refer to appearance, whereas the latter imply mutual attraction of the two types. "Chapstick lesbians" are often considered soft butch.

Which I would say is the only correct part of the whole article. And even then it is flawed. I will refrain from doing any editing, as I would vote to re-write the entire thing, swapping the two definitions around (the one I describe becoming the major definition, and the major one up there now becoming the minor definition) and it would just get changed back. What's the point. 71.193.228.220 (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)