DavanKael
Posts: 3072
Joined: 10/6/2007 Status: offline
|
Hi, LadyPact---- Cool premise for a thread. :> I think that many are loathe to label themselves switches for many of the same reasons that many will not identify as bi-; much like Lynnxz said, many believe those are fence-walker orientations. A number of thoughts on this as I do endeavor to use terms correctly. I used to simply not use the terms top or bottom and went with either dominant, switch, or submissive (rarely used the term slave). I still am not terribly comfortable with integrating all of those terms at times, though I understand the distinctions. Sometimes, I think that people are apt to hang on to disclaiming behaviors via using top and bottom when their description of motives does seem more switch-ey than strictly dominant or submissive. I will admit a bias to thinking that more people are switches and bi- than say so for the afore-mentioned negative-association reasons, etc. I am sure that in some threads, I have made the query as to switch status over certain behaviors ('Cause it could be valid) while also staunchly defending things like being submissive and fucking a Dominant male in the ass with a strap-on (An act I admit a particular love for, regardless of the side of kneel or lack there-of of the male, as long as they're someone special to me) with the disclaimer that I do default to it being a Dominant act for me to fuck a man in the ass though I can grab my skull-set and make it otherwise. I favor a more inclusive terminology when self-defining and don't personally agree with alterations of orientation. As an example: I prefer to be submissive with males in relationships (Although I have certainly been dominant in relationships with males), though I can top or bottom. With a female, me being dominant and top is all I contemplate as acceptable. Thus, I believe that self-defining as a switch is most accurate and inclusive. As far as self-defining as bi-, I've had a sexual experience with a female (One) and find certain females and female attributes sexually appealing (In particular, breasts and occasionally more), thus, according to the Kinsey scale, that makes me bi-. I am one of those people who takes the unpopular view of 'if you've had sexual relations with someone of the same sex, you are not straight', and I will fully admit the instance I experienced, I was 'taking one for the team' and had I been asked to reciprocate I would have likely tossed cookies. One can get into all sorts of qualifications but for me, going with the more inclusive terms keeps things on a more even keel. I do think that there is more flexibility in the D/s/s debate than the straight/gay/bi debate, at least from my perspective. I agree with you about intent related to D/s/s orientations. I think the reason I am more rigid on one aspect as opposed to the other is the matter of behaviors and intent (Which aren't always straight-up tangible) where-as, to me (And, yes, likely to flames from some, I know) body parts are body parts and the tangibility is there no matter. Hopefully that makes sense; going back to writing some reports (Boring!) and will look forward to seeing how this thread unfolds. :> Davan
_____________________________
May you live as long as you wish & love as long as you live -Robert A Heinlein It's about the person & the bond,not the bondage -Me Waiting is 170NZ (Aka:Sex God Du Jour) pts Jesus,I've ALWAYS been a deviant -Leadership527,Jeff
|