50-50 switching/indecisiveness?

50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Switch

Message

funhippykid -> 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 11:11:01 AM)
Hey all, I was just wondering if any other switches have ever had an indecisiveness (aka "greed") problem. As in, you'd really like to top your partner, but at the same time you'd really like to submit to them. I'd like to do both at the same time, but obviously that's not very logistically possible. Just speaking for myself, I'd say switches are the most greedy, insatiable, and arguably unreasonable of the lot. Any fellow switches know what I'm talking about? Maybe it just takes me a little time to get into either sub or dom space (in the meantime I'm in "smartass sadomasochist space"-it seems to amuse both doms and sub partners and, just as importantly, myself), but its like having to choose between delicious surrender and delicious your partner's surrender and not being able to "commit" to one for the scene because you want both. Any other switches have this problem/similar experiences?

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 11:26:30 AM)
I don't really think switches are greedier than others, or feel things differently than non-switches in terms of desire and wanting to acquire that which we desire. We just have a lot more on our buffet in terms of relationship dynamics to choose from.

Dustyn -> RE: 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 12:18:42 PM)
How much of that buffet will grow cold from lack of attention?

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 12:47:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dustyn How much of that buffet will grow cold from lack of attention? Does it matter? If you're paying attention to the things that you want, and everyone is well fed, then it doesn't matter. That's the benefit of a buffet- take what you want and leave the rest.

Dustyn -> RE: 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 2:01:47 PM)
This is not the best example, but reasonable enough for the time being: Take a quarter and lay it flat on a table. On one side, write a "D" for dominant, on the other an "S" for submissive. Pick the coin up and flip it through the air. Once it lands, and for the sake of simplicity, the "S" is facing up. That is the side that is getting your attention. Can you directly state that you can give any attention to the opposite side?

BitaTruble -> RE: 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 2:40:42 PM)
I wouldn't make the assumption that one can't pick that coin up at turn it over. ;) Celeste

Dustyn -> RE: 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 2:53:39 PM)
And once the coin is turned over, can you see the side you were previously looking at?

Sensualips -> RE: 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 2:57:35 PM)
I am very greedy. But that is not because I am a switch. ;)

SimplyV -> RE: 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 4:11:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: funhippykid Hey all, I was just wondering if any other switches have ever had an indecisiveness (aka "greed") problem. As in, you'd really like to top your partner, but at the same time you'd really like to submit to them. I'd like to do both at the same time, but obviously that's not very logistically possible. Just speaking for myself, I'd say switches are the most greedy, insatiable, and arguably unreasonable of the lot. Any fellow switches know what I'm talking about? Maybe it just takes me a little time to get into either sub or dom space (in the meantime I'm in "smartass sadomasochist space"-it seems to amuse both doms and sub partners and, just as importantly, myself), but its like having to choose between delicious surrender and delicious your partner's surrender and not being able to "commit" to one for the scene because you want both. Any other switches have this problem/similar experiences? Well of course with the right person.. then yes flip it as it may.. any time.. Yin-Yang thing.. When one of you switches to sub the other Doms.. and vice versa. It would take a lot of communication and understanding, but it could work. with the right person. But there are very few people who would be capable of that. Many switches, while they like D or s .. usually only like being D with one person and s with someone else, and would never dream of switching roles with those partners. Finding someone who is capable of Dominating and submitting to you will be hard, since you as well need to be able to Dominate and submit to them. Though if you seek long enough, you may find one. I'm not sure switches are any more greedy or insatiable than anyone else. I'm pretty sure some of the "true Masters" out there have us beat on that. I tend to see us as people who love giving as much as recieving. But then I also like to wear my rose-colored glasses to alter reality too. [:D] As for indecisiveness, I am the Queen. I come from a long long line of indecisive people. I also come from a long line of packrats.. wonder if one has something to do with the other.. Hmmm

fergus -> RE: 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 7:35:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dustyn And once the coin is turned over, can you see the side you were previously looking at? And if you ARE the coin, can you not feel your two sides? And know which side is up, and yet still recognize the existance of the other? Can you not even, at times, be in perfect balance and stand on edge - even for just a little while. fergus

Laura -> RE: 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 7:52:45 PM)
People are not coins. We have a lot more than just two sides. If you counted everything that makes a person who they are, all the roles we have in our lives, we would look a lot like one of those dice from Dungeons and Dragons (12, 16, 24 or more sides). If you think people only have two sides, you're deluded.

Dustyn -> RE: 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 8:03:27 PM)
Never said that anyone was the coin. Heads or tails, submissive or dominant. Without external aids, it is physically impossible to view both sides of a coin at the same time, and that was what I was demonstrating. It's amazing what people will read into things because they want it to be more complex than it truly is.

SimplyV -> RE: 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 8:47:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dustyn Never said that anyone was the coin. Heads or tails, submissive or dominant. Without external aids, it is physically impossible to view both sides of a coin at the same time, and that was what I was demonstrating. It's amazing what people will read into things because they want it to be more complex than it truly is. Umm this is your original. quote: ORIGINAL: Dustyn This is not the best example, but reasonable enough for the time being: Take a quarter and lay it flat on a table. On one side, write a "D" for dominant, on the other an "S" for submissive. Pick the coin up and flip it through the air. Once it lands, and for the sake of simplicity, the "S" is facing up. That is the side that is getting your attention. Can you directly state that you can give any attention to the opposite side? What you meant by your original coin analogy.. was up for grabs.. you can't really blame people for trying to make you understand that your orginal analogy left a LOT to be desired. And what your coin analogy seemed to be doing was oversimplifying something that is by all means complex. As I said to you before.. Switches cannot be "boxed".. defining a switch is relative only to the particular switch you're talking to and will differ from each and every switch you run into.

Jadedtrinket -> RE: 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 8:57:38 PM)
I think this is the sort of thing that makes others believe that switches dont really exist... that switches are afraid to commit to their "true selves" me personally its all in a feeling... not in the moment... but when you meet someone... from friends to co workers to the guy at the gas station.... something about them that makes you feel inferior, superior or equal to them and vice versa. Not quite sure how flipping a coin would fit into that picture... but hey if it feels good do it! lol

BitaTruble -> RE: 50-50 switching/indecisiveness? (4/5/2006 9:06:31 PM)
quote: Never said that anyone was the coin. Heads or tails, submissive or dominant. Without external aids, it is physically impossible to view both sides of a coin at the same time, and that was what I was demonstrating. It's amazing what people will read into things because they want it to be more complex than it truly is. You are viewing switch from a one sided perspective and assuming that they are opposites to one another as a coin has two sides. Think of it more like a domino. If the right side of the domino is dominance and the left side is submission, the positions are not opposites of one another, they work together side by side. Then there are those special pieces that can be played in more than one way. The doubles pieces which can be played end to end just like any other domino, or.. they can be played across to form a bridge. The doubles are the only pieces in the set with that ability. Some people flip coins, some play domino's and some watch tv and don't play at all. Gotta love diversity. :) Celeste

funhippykid -> coins? (4/8/2006 10:19:34 AM)
I like the heads-tails game, though when I've played it it's been "heads you get the strap, tails you get the hairbrush...[sm=whoa.gif]" Makes for a lot less philosophical debate [sm=evil.gif].

Dustyn -> RE: coins? (4/8/2006 12:22:30 PM)
Let's see if I can line this out completely. I'm getting the feeling that somewhere, I am thinking steps that are getting overlooked by everyone else. Tails = Submissive. Heads - Dominant Viewing = Trait in use at that moment What I am getting at, and apparently failing miserably, is that, with the same person, one cannot be both submissive and dominant at the same time. Can a light bulb be on and off at the same exact time? I'm not saying that people cannot be both sides of the coin, merely that one side of the coin is visiable (in use) at a time.

LaMalinche -> RE: coins? (4/8/2006 3:30:55 PM)
Coins are objects. People are not. A coin may not have all sides visable at once. . . especially if it is lying on a table. A person can have more than one side of their personality showing. People are multi-faceted that way. Think of a cut gem-stone. There are many facets to a person. A person, especially a switch, can be both dominate and submissive at the same time. . . especially if it is a three-some. Objectifying people is always the first mistake. Best, LaMalinche

Dustyn -> RE: coins? (4/8/2006 9:22:00 PM)
If one is normally used to dealing with cabachon-cut onyx, a princess cut champagne diamond can be dazzling. And confusing. Besides, the gem-stone argument is flawed (no pun intended) in this discussion because the example I was using was only two dimentional. If I was including concepts of external influences which impact differently on either of those two distinct personality archetypes, then yes, a gem stone would be more appropriate. Instead, I went for the most basic interpretation. Besides, gemstones also have inclusions and impurities that refract the light different, putting different emphasis on different facets as the light strikes them and the flaws inside. I just tend to prefer to look at things at the basic levels before expanding to the larger views.

LaMalinche -> RE: coins? (4/8/2006 10:38:42 PM)
The point was that you should expand your veiws. Always expand. . . never diminish. Best, LaMalinche

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.078125