RE: Why are we so rare? (Full Version)

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



Message

DiurnalVampire -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/17/2007 5:00:09 AM)

I dont think being a switch is rare.  I think being completely able to switch and not settle to one side or the other once with a partner IS rare. There are very few switches I have ever met that have been able to maintain a fluid reationship with someone else where the dynamic of who was Dom and who was sub did not eventually stick. I personally do not like relationships with switches because I have had much the same experience as Lotus.  They tend to want to wander, to fulfill their "other side" even if our relatonship is going well. Much like dating a bisexual who feels the need to have a partner of each sex to be fulfilled, if you are looking for monogamy it is a bad match. I think switches are around more than you think, but they advertise only one side or the other to find specifically what they want at the time.

Of course, there are also other switches who dont mention having been sub when they ar looking to be Dom becasue of the number of times I have personaly heard subs or slaves say they couldnt sub to someone who had been sub before.  Ridiculousness like that tends to change the way someone wil maret themselves as well.
DV



LotusSong -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/17/2007 7:36:18 AM)

Rich.. your relationship is the example of the only way I see switches finding happiness... within their own preferences.   But why is it that if they get spurned by someone they are interested in because they are a switch and the other party isn't.. then that is when they start talking about narrow mindedness or "little boxes".
 
Can they not accept "not interested"?  I would not reject them as a friend.. just a D/s alliance.



MsOpal -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/17/2007 9:49:17 AM)

HI,
Personally I do not care for the name/word/label "switch" becasue I do not ever feel different and to me switching just means that now I feel like A and later i feel like B.  I am foremost sub, but ONLY sub to Argent.  I treat other Doms we know with respect, but I would do that no matter what 'role' I was in, just as I treat other subs with respect.  I take a rather dom-like position with most subs, and I seek out relationships with boys who are seeking a Top/Dom.  I have had weekends with a boy here for me and while I was totally D with him i was also totally s to Argent and yes it is totally possible.  The boy said it was not confusing to him, but did help him understand a Ds dynamic better.
MsOpal



BondageTopJere -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/17/2007 11:06:05 AM)

Have to agree with most of the other posters.  It's not so much that switches are rare; its that the chances 2 switches meeting that have complementary ideas of when they would s and the would be D ARE rare, and thats if they wanted to switch in the relationship to begin with, which so far that I've seen a fairly large number don't  Its s to one, D to another, and never the twain shall meet.  Plays another story though, mainly due to my own personal philosophy that the relationship D/s and the Play D/s comes from different parts of oneself




SunNMoon -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/17/2007 3:41:46 PM)

I don't think switches are that rare. It's just hard being a switch (just like it's hard being green).

I can't really say anything since I'm one. [:)]



TheHeretic -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/17/2007 4:35:58 PM)

     I don't think it would matter how many different boxes CM might set up, Lotus.  Jerks who can't understand a simple "no" would check every one of them.  It might just be my reading of your posts, but you sometimes seem to have a particularly broad brush when it comes to switches.  You have every right to your preferences though, and to have them respected by those who contact you.

    From what I read in these threads, I casually do stuff that many cannot imagine.  Not only do I switch with the same partner, the dynamic sometimes shifts right in the middle of things.  Is that far enough outside the paradigm to make us "edge players?"  'Normal' is what you're used to I guess.

    I understand that this isn't just a hard limit, it's Sacred Dogma for a lot of people.  If we play with others, that is respected.  No wrestling matches (but we both have a SAM streak they'll just have to deal with [:D] ).

     The best piece of advice I've had in this lifestyle was one of the first.  "Don't let anybody tell you what your kink has to be."  I'm sticking with it.

     Heretic isn't just a name, Lotus, it's a way of life.  Hmmm...  maybe I need to go add 'fireplay' as a hard limit.



Suleiman -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/17/2007 5:27:25 PM)

I do agree to some extent with what you are saying, Lotussong, but I must comment. I have said what I said from personal experience; I am *Not* "confused", I am not "a pushy bottom", nor am I any of the other epithets which opinionated others have attempted to apply to my sexuality over the years. When I say that there are people who seem intimidated by the strange, the unfamiliar, or those things which fall outside of their convenient system of labelling, it is not out of unhappiness with my current situation, but rather I say what I have said because I am [bleep]ing tired of being *told* that I am something other than what I am - I AM a SWITCH.



LotusSong -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/17/2007 7:38:33 PM)

So what is you big beef then?   I don't mean a switch is a bad person.. I just see their focus more on "role play" for whatever fits at the moment.  Not too wide a brush as you accuse me of. 
 
Just be happy with what you are and know that you ..nor anyone.. is everything to everybody.,, no matter how hard you try, one cannot "cover all the bases".
 
 
(heretic - rat's ass - no got)



Mustardseed -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/17/2007 9:00:23 PM)

In my primary relationship, I'm Daddy's girl. Because I haven't felt comfortable with the amount of skill I have, I've been mainly bottoming and -- more recently -- submitting. However, I am switch. That not many people identify me as such is their issue: if they want to know badly enough, they can ask. I've raised a few eyebrows when I've co-topped or done some early scenes, because I'm moving towards a position where I can give that part of my personality some room to grow.

I've been quite out as a switch. That's how I identify, for the better part of a year I was attending "Switch Meetings," and it's what my profiles say and my Daddy was quite aware of the fact. Indeed, the man primarily dates switches because he likes that a hint of pushback and that potential for an obedient henchperson for co-topping scenes.

It's difficult to be active as a switch, though. It's hard to both bottom and top, or submit and dominate, at the same time. It's not that it's impossible -- hence the evil obedient hench-co-top -- but I don't think people quite recognize it as switching when they see it.

*shrug*



Gauer666 -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/18/2007 12:04:55 AM)

Well, first off I want to thank everyone for their insightful comments. Reading the posts from all who wrote just kind of reconfirms the fact that I am who I am. I see no need to portray something that I'm not in order to be in a majority, if that's what it really is. Come to think of it, I think I feel more well balanced and fun loving than I would have I concentrated on a single preference. In the past, I've ended up assuming a dominate role in my relationships, which was fine since I do have a tendency to be more dominate than not, but even then I did have a yearning for change. Perhaps, one day, if I associate with like partners, I have the best of both worlds.

Thanks again all for the firestorm of responce,

Colin



arayofsunshine55 -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/18/2007 5:25:24 AM)

My friends at work find it difficult to find a partner.  This is life.  Hooking up with someone compatible, long-term compatible isn't easy.  Period.  One thinks her boobs aren't right.  Another thinks maybe if I was funnier.  And you wonder maybe if I was less switchy.  In the end you gotta be you.  Whatever that means for you. 

Now I don't find any of this to be a "need" per se.  I can do without portions and still be a very happy camper.  But I am really really flexible.



RythymMan -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/18/2007 8:02:52 AM)

It has been my experience that switches (top/bottom) are the
overwhelming majority, 98/100.  Many just have a tough time
admitting it.  Kind of like asking people if they are into BDSM,
almost no one is.  But if you ask them if they have ever spanked,
tied up, blindfolded, exposed, etc. or been spanked, etc. for
the erotic pleasure, almost everyone is!  (and THANK Goodness!)

Now the Dom/sub roles are situational and so that would be
like comparing apples and llamas.









daddysprop247 -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/18/2007 9:43:36 AM)

interesting thread. from an outsider's p.o.v., i've never thought switches were especially rare. in fact my Master and i would have so many responses from switches on our alt profiles that he had to edit our profile to clearly state "NO SWITCHES." i must admit i don't really understand switching within the lifestyle (and by lifestyle i mean D/s relationships, not bdsm activities)...i feel that one is either a natural Dominant or a natural submissive. if one has the need/desire to dominate sometimes, and submit at other times, that to me is pretty much the definition of "vanilla" as most people are that way.



daddysprop247 -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/18/2007 9:44:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DiurnalVampire

Of course, there are also other switches who dont mention having been sub when they ar looking to be Dom becasue of the number of times I have personaly heard subs or slaves say they couldnt sub to someone who had been sub before.  Ridiculousness like that tends to change the way someone wil maret themselves as well.
DV



why is it ridiculous that a submissive or slave would have no desire to submit to another submissive (or bottom)?



MsBearlee -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/18/2007 10:30:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

... 
This group is the one that sees to be the most miserable.. they just can't seem to find a partner and blame everyone who isn't a switch nor interested in one, as "close minded".  No.. we just like what we like- just as you like what you like. 
...    



Isn't that a little like suggesting a person who is bi cannot be monogamous?
 
Beverly



bellaballanda -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/18/2007 11:53:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: daddysprop247
i must admit i don't really understand switching within the lifestyle (and by lifestyle i mean D/s relationships, not bdsm activities)...i feel that one is either a natural Dominant or a natural submissive. if one has the need/desire to dominate sometimes, and submit at other times, that to me is pretty much the definition of "vanilla" as most people are that way.


I guess that could be a point of view from a monoagmous relationships, but I know people in poly relationships where person a submits to person be who submits to person c.  "Vanilla" people mostly don't see any type of dominance and submission in their relationships I would thing.  I also think you can have a monoagmous relationship that runs one way and have serious other relationships in which you assume the other role.

Just my thoughts though.  I believe the lifestyle is what you make of it and no one's way of practicing it is "wrong."



bellaballanda -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/18/2007 11:55:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: daddysprop247

quote:

ORIGINAL: DiurnalVampire

Of course, there are also other switches who dont mention having been sub when they ar looking to be Dom becasue of the number of times I have personaly heard subs or slaves say they couldnt sub to someone who had been sub before.  Ridiculousness like that tends to change the way someone wil maret themselves as well.
DV



why is it ridiculous that a submissive or slave would have no desire to submit to another submissive (or bottom)?


I know a lot of great Doms who started out as subs to "learn."  There are also households in which some submissives are required to submit to the "head" sub who then submits to the master....



bellaballanda -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/18/2007 12:03:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

Rich.. your relationship is the example of the only way I see switches finding happiness... within their own preferences.   But why is it that if they get spurned by someone they are interested in because they are a switch and the other party isn't.. then that is when they start talking about narrow mindedness or "little boxes".
 
Can they not accept "not interested"?  I would not reject them as a friend.. just a D/s alliance.

From reading your post I think i have a question about your definition of switch.  I'm a switch in certain situations, but looking for a relationship in which I am always the bottom.  Just becuase I *can* top on occasion doesn't mean that I *need* to top in my primary relationship.  Would you consider that a switch or just a sub who *can* top on occasion?



RoninTyger -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/18/2007 2:14:44 PM)

ive yet to meet a dominant who didnt ask someones opinion or a submissive who didnt make a decision once in a while .so it seems we are all switches when you get right down to it. if everyone was just one way or the other it would be a strange and scary place. all you suposed dominants out there do you have a job? do you have a boss? do you do what your told? all you submissives did you decide to be a submissive? have you ever chosen something for your self? how do you survive if you cant decide for your self? we are all switches its just a question of degrees dont get caught in a rut always be flexable.    
      Michael



LotusSong -> RE: Why are we so rare? (4/18/2007 5:52:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsBearlee

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

... 
This group is the one that sees to be the most miserable.. they just can't seem to find a partner and blame everyone who isn't a switch nor interested in one, as "close minded".  No.. we just like what we like- just as you like what you like. 
...    



Isn't that a little like suggesting a person who is bi cannot be monogamous?
 
Beverly


Gee.. if being bi means needing more than one gender to keep you happy.. I don't know how they could be monogamous by definition.  .. but don't get me started a the bisexual thread!!  LOL  that's a whole 'nother bugaboo :). 



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.21875