Lumus
Posts: 5968
Joined: 9/16/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote:
ORIGINAL: Lumus If you don't like a society's label for you, but you insist on being part of that society, do you reject the label for one of your own making; assume a different label bantered about within said society; or accept the label the society gives you? Even with the flaws of said society [ie the reaction Switches get from those who do not understand them], is it more practical [the term honest would be misleading here, as I'm now wending down the path of self integrating into a group, as opposed to self versus the group] to say: "I am this by the standards of this [BDSM] society - and these are the particulars of me that may gainsay the label..." or to assume a different label and say, "I am this." without clarification? Depends on the context :) Many people who would traditionally be called "switch" create their own unique label which fits them better. The limits of "switch" is often that people think of literal switch- something is either on or it's off. That's not really how it tends to work- everything is "on" all the time, just like a slave is a slave all the time. It simply is expressed and processed differently depending on the particular relationship with a particular person. So the more common alternative term people use is something like "versatile" or "pan-oriented" which can help avoid the instant backlash of 'switch' and allow a broader perspective to the term. It's the people who expect a "label" to really convey much information or be enough to tell the story that get frustrated. Most people realize that labels are just quick references and to identify with an INDIVIDUAL, you have to go far beyond that in discussion. I openly label myself as a switch because I'm not seriously or actively seeking any particular partners, because I want to be a proud example of how wrong all the stereotypes are, and because I feel it suits me best. But if I were seriously seeking a submissive partner, and wanted to just focus on that for awhile and avoid the other crap, I certainly could see myself opening a profile centering only on my dominant orientation. Admittedly, that is one scenario I keep overlooking, LA. Online you can have another profile, be another 'entity'...as opposed to the real-life models of societal interaction we've had up to this point. Another thing holding me back in this discussion is my own personal inclinations. I'm only a Dom, never had any desire beyond a capricious tongue-in-cheek comment or two to consider submitting. I'm also heterosexual. Rather like being stuck in the upper left-hand corner of Hollywood Squares, trying to see the middle box... I like 'versatile' and 'pan-oriented'. Maybe it's the brevity of the Internet life that tosses a few stones into the fray; long enough for people worldwide to connect over one idea, and for new terminology to evolve...without discarding any of the initial terminology. The natural cycle of language up to this point has been for new terms to replace old ones, or for unused terms to quietly fade away. Not so for this community from an Internet perspective...though it would be interesting to see how exactly it does eventually evolve... Sorry. I know, side tracked. I do admire your willingness to base your profile on yourself despite the muddle of the term Switch; it resonates well with my own inner "ahh...been there, done that, this is who I am, guess you'll deal or not" attitude which I had to take on for myself at one point in my life. I am curious...if you created a second profile, would you state in said profile [in your own words, of course], that you are also known as LA or LuckyAlbatross?
_____________________________
<Talk to educate; listen to learn.> ~ the other half of "L&L" ~ I have been dubbed the Rainmaker. Do not make me take your water for my tribe.
|