Switchiness in a different light

Switchiness in a different light (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

greyangelus -> Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 11:28:07 AM)
Please note this thread assumes that there is a seperation between relationship/lifestyle and the bedroom/kink as very much interrelated but seperate concepts. According to many peoples philoshphies there is not, and I am in no way saying that veiw is invalid. On to the meat. Some or most on this board are fully uni-polar in their orientation, either Dom or sub, or enough so it makes very little difference in the end. This does not make them meeting the right person in any way guaranteed, but it does simply a lot of things. Who they're and what the enjoy remains a unified whole across 100% of their life. However, a good sized chunk of us are not quite so blessed, having both dominant and submissive tendencies. Switches are the prime example, but even quite a few doms and subs not only have polar opposite tendencies, but even explore them to a certain extent. Quite a few switches though, will admit to being "mostly dom or sub" or "only dom or sub for person x y or z" What I've not heard of though, and may be so rare as to not exist, is a person who identifies as dom or sub in the relationship/lifestyle sense, while being the polar opposite in the bedroom/kink sense. Are these people switch, dom or sub? It's open to interpertation, and the ongoing label arguements do little to resolve or adress this possiblity. In a lot of ways, how they think of themselves depends on which area is more important to them. Frankly I rather wish collarme had 2 orientation labels, one for lifestyle/relationship and another for sexual.

fluffyswitch -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 11:35:12 AM)
honestly that just makes me think of a klein grid and those get me so confused i just shut down automatically... but yes dominant bottoms and submissive tops do exist, i've met a few off of this site. but then i'm starting to realize just how off of normal my group of friends as an undergrad really was.

RCdc -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 11:36:55 AM)
I would list that as top/bottom - not a switch because I don't switch. I can top, yet I am 100% submissive 100% of the time. When I do top, I do so under submission, but I can see where submission doesn't have to be involved for others when the top or bottom. To me, it's an action, doesn't make it an orientation. the.dark.

ProlificNeeds -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 11:37:48 AM)
The problem with labels is you'll get oodles of answers from many different people. A lable meaning different things to different people makes it a headache. I could say I am a sub, that I seek to be submissive in my lifestyle and within my sexual kink. That isn;t clear at allt hough. When I say submissive in my lifestyle I mean with my partner, my personality is far from submissive except to select few people who I give that to. Does that make me not life-style submissive? I entertain ideas of switching from time to time, does that make me kink-oriented switch? No matter where you draw lines or make definitions there will always be exceptions, not a single one of us is the same, the only way to understand someone is to talk to them, and learn about them. As far as those who are Dominant in public and submissive in the bedroom, I have known some who are like that. I also have met people who are quite submissive in personality in public, but confess to dominant orientation sexually. There's no rule of thumb, no way to push them into a blanket generalization. They are who they are, and if they are blessed they come to terms with themselves and learn to enjoy life. Not the answer you wanted I'm sure, but it's the only one I have. * Edited because an acception is not an exception!*

fluffyswitch -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 11:41:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark To me, it's an action, doesn't make it an orientation. the.dark. sort of off topic but you get the similar distinction in the queer community sometimes too--people will be heterosexual but homosocial, and one doesn't have much to do with the other.

greyangelus -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 1:06:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark I would list that as top/bottom - not a switch because I don't switch. I can top, yet I am 100% submissive 100% of the time. When I do top, I do so under submission, but I can see where submission doesn't have to be involved for others when the top or bottom. To me, it's an action, doesn't make it an orientation. the.dark. Going be your definition, top/bottom are physical actions, D/s are emotional. My OP was meant solely to address emotional roles and views.

RCdc -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 1:14:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: greyangelus Going be your definition, top/bottom are physical actions, D/s are emotional. My OP was meant solely to address emotional roles and views. See, I view sex as an act with emotions contained within it. So my emotion is that I am in submission and that the sexual aspect is an action. So by that, do you mean that you view sex as an emotion and not an act? the.dark.

MasterFireMaam -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 3:10:38 PM)
They exist. I'm much more apt to bottom in the bedroom with a specific set of rules about what can and can't be done. Sometimes I'm the aggressor and will Top, but due to psychological stuff, bottoming is easier. Edited to add: my rules about what can and can't be done make the sex fairly vanilla...so I usually don't see it as 'bottoming' in a 'true' sense, but it can be. Master Fire

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 4:11:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: greyangelus Frankly I rather wish collarme had 2 orientation labels, one for lifestyle/relationship and another for sexual. GENERALLY, that's what people mean when they say "dom sub" vs "top bottom" Ds tends to be the relationship/orientation while top/bottom tends to be the play/sex. While it is rare, I know plenty of subs who top, or dominants who bottom- they aren't switches in that their orientation is singular.

Muttling -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 4:43:14 PM)
For me, the first question is do you live the lifestyle 24/7. Is this kinky nature an aspect of play and an intimate part of your relationship or is it a defining feature of your relationship? I fall in the play category and I can easily slip into either role. However, I have no desire to be in a 24/7 relationship. That said, I have no desire to be in a strictly vanilla relationship either as I really enjoy kinky encouters and even weekends or complete weeks that are dedicated to kink. This is how I see myself as differing from the vast majority of the community. That said, I do not fault others nor look down upon them for their desires. This is my desire and it does make it difficult in finding a partner, but I can't sacrafice these desires anymore than a 24/7 could be happy in a vanilla relationship.

greyangelus -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 9:29:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark See, I view sex as an act with emotions contained within it. So my emotion is that I am in submission and that the sexual aspect is an action. So by that, do you mean that you view sex as an emotion and not an act? Sexuality is the emotion, sex is the act. Generally speaking, sexuality leads to sex, not the other way around. I will say that certain acts including sex can have an enormous role in shaping a persons desires, but there must be some form of underlying emotions (latent sexuality) to shape in the first place or lead them into doing them into those acts. Viewed through the D/s prism, there was a recent thread detailing the very first indications that they were submissive or dominant, often at a very young age. In the main, these indications "clicked" in the individual upon seeing or hearing about something. Without the necessary kernel of emotions already in place, I fail to see how they could have "clicked" in the first place. quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse GENERALLY, that's what people mean when they say "dom sub" vs "top bottom" Ds tends to be the relationship/orientation while top/bottom tends to be the play/sex. While it is rare, I know plenty of subs who top, or dominants who bottom- they aren't switches in that their orientation is singular. That works as well, but theres a lot of arguement that i read about what "top bottom" means. For some top/bottom just means which side of the flogger your on, you still retain the d/s orientation even though your physical actions are usually associated with your opposite role. Others subscribe to your views LA, in that holding the flogger makes you the dom/top, while getting hit with the flogger means your the sub/bottom. I've seen huge and very long threads between these 2 opposing veiws, as they're mutually exclusive to one another. It's also why I deliberately did not address top/bottom in the original OP, attempting to keep it solely towards the emotional aspects. Now that you've mentioned it, do these subs that top/doms that bottom switch their orientation during play, or do they still feel sub/dom even though they switched roles?

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 9:39:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: greyangelus Now that you've mentioned it, do these subs that top/doms that bottom switch their orientation during play, or do they still feel sub/dom even though they switched roles? They don't switch orientation, they are always a sub, always a dom. They just happen to enjoy the act of topping/bottoming as well. Not exclusive.

greyangelus -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 10:06:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: greyangelus Now that you've mentioned it, do these subs that top/doms that bottom switch their orientation during play, or do they still feel sub/dom even though they switched roles? They don't switch orientation, they are always a sub, always a dom. They just happen to enjoy the act of topping/bottoming as well. Not exclusive. Going by my original OP, it would be safe to assume their uni-polar doms/subs then? I should have been more explicit in the OP. I was curious as to wether there are people who are dom/sub in the relationship while being the opposite orientation during play and to which of these to they're primarily identify themselves as.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 10:09:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: greyangelus Going by my original OP, it would be safe to assume their uni-polar doms/subs then? I should have been more explicit in the OP. I was curious as to wether there are people who are dom/sub in the relationship while being the opposite orientation during play and to which of these to they're primarily identify themselves as. Opposite orientation would mean switch. And this is mostly true of beginners, who first start to branch out in the safer realm of play and scenes and then begin to feel their orientation working in the relationship as well. Do you mean with the same person? It's rare for people to switch within a relationship.

greyangelus -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/29/2008 10:31:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Opposite orientation would mean switch. And this is mostly true of beginners, who first start to branch out in the safer realm of play and scenes and then begin to feel their orientation working in the relationship as well. Do you mean with the same person? It's rare for people to switch within a relationship. Going by your question, yes (I think?). Example of. The dom of the relationships switches to sub during play, the sub of the relationships switchs to dom during play. However, there is no switching between orienations in the same context. The dom of the relationship is the dom of the relationship, the sub of the relationship is the sub of the relationship.

RCdc -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/30/2008 12:04:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: greyangelus I should have been more explicit in the OP. I was curious as to wether there are people who are dom/sub in the relationship while being the opposite orientation during play and to which of these to they're primarily identify themselves as. quote: However, there is no switching between orienations in the same context. The dom of the relationship is the dom of the relationship, the sub of the relationship is the sub of the relationship. But are you suggesting that they (those you are speaking about)are always the opposite during sex or play? Or just on occasions, even up to 50-50? I am submissive. Before I met Darcy I was primarily and submissive sadist. I can and do top. I am sometimes sadisitic and sometimes masochistic under Darcy. But whatever I do or am I am under Darcys authority so I am submissive and identify as such for the purposes of a website like this, but in everyday life, I am just me. As your scenario - Darcy is the dominant in the relationship always - regardless of what orientation I am during sex - I don't 'switch' sides I am always submissive - the authority is still Darcys'. I tend to think explaining one to one is much more important than any amount of labels they have on the profile sides. the.dark.

greyangelus -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/30/2008 1:14:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark But are you suggesting that they (those you are speaking about)are always the opposite during sex or play? Or just on occasions, even up to 50-50? I am submissive. Before I met Darcy I was primarily and submissive sadist. I can and do top. I am sometimes sadisitic and sometimes masochistic under Darcy. But whatever I do or am I am under Darcys authority so I am submissive and identify as such for the purposes of a website like this, but in everyday life, I am just me. As your scenario - Darcy is the dominant in the relationship always - regardless of what orientation I am during sex - I don't 'switch' sides I am always submissive - the authority is still Darcys'. I tend to think explaining one to one is much more important than any amount of labels they have on the profile sides. the.dark. No, nowhere near always. Theres a multitude a different combos: dom/sub, sub/dom, switch/dom, switch/sub, etc., etc. "Dom, sub, or switch" however, are limited to just those three states of being and doens't really offer a huge amount of choices. Theres just those 3 (with everyones opinon being different on what those three are, ad nauseum). Dom or sub come closest to having a generally accepted meaning though, as they tend to be uni-polar concepts that apply equally to anything in the realm of interaction with a chosen SO. Switch, though, is not a uni-polar concept, and has to include both dom or sub tendencies and self-identification. I've lost count of the "confused switch" threads in that regard. Some feel their switchiness is limited to solely bedroom play, others feel its limited to their relationship. Some feel they're either wholely dom or sub, depending on the person they're with. One-to one communication is to be prized, there's simply no substitute. Feelings and emotions are complex little buggers, difficult enough to describe with even full paragarphs, articles, poems, and full-length novels. Trying to boil some of those down to fit into a few words like "Dom", "sub", or "switch" makes trying to build Rome in a day as easy as a trip to home depot and a few hours of work.

MasterFireMaam -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/30/2008 1:36:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: greyangelus Now that you've mentioned it, do these subs that top/doms that bottom switch their orientation during play, or do they still feel sub/dom even though they switched roles? Some do, some don't. I don't. I am always Master Fire. I just happen to like being a "do me" bottom! Master Fire

RCdc -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/30/2008 3:55:00 AM)
Yeah, I believe I get ya now (takes me time sometimes)[;)] - but you were patient with me so thanks for that. I have always said I would have liked the option (on CM) to not have to list my 'orientation' - because I do find the single word 'submissive' as incredibly restrictive, as well as misunderstood and subjective because people in BDSM circles tend to have a word and define it themselves and it makes understanding someone quite difficult when your just handed a one word description. It rocks to say 'I'm me'. So I stick to that in most situations. the.dark.

viewfromthetop -> RE: Switchiness in a different light (1/30/2008 7:41:57 AM)
I can speak for myself a bit on this one; if you just met me in an everyday context, "dominant" is probably the last word that would come to mind. I tend to go with the flow, I have no problem with other people leading, and I generally keep to myself. In past relationships, I usually wasn't the one initiating. But with my pet...well, the boy's changed me. In the bedroom and out of it. I may still be reserved and often passive, but I'm more confident since I got with him - since he's extremely submissive in most aspects of the relationship, it's sort of pulled me into the opposing role.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125