quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

Great answer and thoughts - made me think a lot. What you said about cross dressing made me think (and I know you didn't mean it in any gay context, which cross dressing is not), is that to be a better lover as a man, one doesn't need to go have a gay experience. I think the concept is stepping into their shoes, to better know what they want. But that doesn't mix with "I know who the F I am and what I want".

What you (and Bhruic) both missed is that there's no 'gay' or 'crossdresser' in my respective replies. You got the wrong metaphor....

I used the hetero side of my sexuality to debunk this nonsense that doms should experience submission to be a "better" or "true" dominant. By that flawed logic, then a man needs to spend time adopting a woman's persona to be a "better" or "true" man to his woman. To walk in a woman's shoes (so to speak) just as a dom should submit, first.

quote:


I could make a reasonable argument that anyone advocating their dominant self should first submit is more dangerous (to a sub) because their "dominance" is compromised by guilt and social conflict. That dominating someone, no matter how willing the sub, is.... wrong....

But I'm not saying that in public.... ;)

Focus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
Thanks for observing a great point and where I was ambiguous. I agree, it's much more than a role for m2, it's who I am. I used the word "role" too loosely, partly because I imagine for the switches, it is one of two or more roles they play, as they empathetically tailor themselves to their partner. That really cuts to the heart of one side's argument, that it's not as good cus it's a role being played. I can't reconcile that view.

I'm not a switch but those I've spoken to say they don't consciously tailor themselves to their partner. In exactly the same way as I as a straight woman only click with certain men, and only certain dominant men, they as switches only click with certain partners. The ones who put out energy that compels a response from  them. The fact that sometimes they respond dominantly and at other times submissively does not change it from  being an authentic response from their essential self. Any more than the fact that I am only compelled to respond to a very few dominant men makes it less than an authentic response from my essential self.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

Second, you're injecting guilt into the discussion, which makes me think you have your own second thoughts about going too far or some perceived past mistake. That informs on why you think it might compromise.

quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of what I think you're saying is that if you experience the other side, you won't feel free to be yourself and will question yourself when being dom. You are what you are, and don't want to think about the other side.

quote:

But may I humbly suggest that there's nothing wrong with learning (or experiencing) the other side, and some would even say it's insecure to worry that it might compromise your "domness".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

Second, you're injecting guilt into the discussion, which makes me think you have your own second thoughts about going too far or some perceived past mistake. That informs on why you think it might compromise.

Whoa, nice turn of transference...! A dom submitting is compromise - that's *you*, not me. "Guilt" (and shame etc) is not being able to look myself in the mirror and it's important to me that I can. That's where my sense of justice and right n wrong is validated.

Or do I need to commit a criminal act (for "just intel") to appreciate why criminality is wrong too? Ol' mate in the mirror answers that for me before actually acting, as well.

quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of what I think you're saying is that if you experience the other side, you won't feel free to be yourself and will question yourself when being dom. You are what you are, and don't want to think about the other side.

You're wrong. It's before the action; I'm questioning the motivation that drives you to act this way. It's not that I don't "want to think about the other side" as that implies denial, it's that I don't need to. I have needs only a fem/sub can fulfill. I've been around long enough to know the right fem/sub has complementing needs I fulfill. No guilt; no conflict - her being her and me being me...!

And I'm very comfortable with who I am.

quote:

But may I humbly suggest that there's nothing wrong with learning (or experiencing) the other side, and some would even say it's insecure to worry that it might compromise your "domness".

Nothing wrong - to *you*. And I've yet to meet anyone who can't find a way to validate their beliefs - or diminish another's accordingly.

So, how soon into a (potential) relationship do you tell your sub about your own submissive experiences?

Focus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

Second, you're injecting guilt into the discussion, which makes me think you have your own second thoughts about going too far or some perceived past mistake. That informs on why you think it might compromise.

Whoa, nice turn of transference...! A dom submitting is compromise - that's *you*, not me. "Guilt" (and shame etc) is not being able to look myself in the mirror and it's important to me that I can. That's where my sense of justice and right n wrong is validated.

Or do I need to commit a criminal act (for "just intel") to appreciate why criminality is wrong too? Ol' mate in the mirror answers that for me before actually acting, as well.

quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of what I think you're saying is that if you experience the other side, you won't feel free to be yourself and will question yourself when being dom. You are what you are, and don't want to think about the other side.

You're wrong. It's before the action; I'm questioning the motivation that drives you to act this way. It's not that I don't "want to think about the other side" as that implies denial, it's that I don't need to. I have needs only a fem/sub can fulfill. I've been around long enough to know the right fem/sub has complementing needs I fulfill. No guilt; no conflict - her being her and me being me...!

And I'm very comfortable with who I am.

quote:

But may I humbly suggest that there's nothing wrong with learning (or experiencing) the other side, and some would even say it's insecure to worry that it might compromise your "domness".

Nothing wrong - to *you*. And I've yet to meet anyone who can't find a way to validate their beliefs - or diminish another's accordingly.

So, how soon into a (potential) relationship do you tell your sub about your own submissive experiences?

Focus.

I confess, I don't really understand or get you yet, but hopefully I will as I read your posts, because you're interesting and very real about it.

I don't think the motivation of switches is much different than the motivations of anyone else in general, but I can't speak for them. I.e. I don't think role, gender, or sexual orientation divide our motivations as much as you seem to think they do.

I didn't get the *you* part of it, and didn't imply that dom submitting is compromise. Both the words 'compromise' and 'guilt' were your own words, not mine. You used them to describe BDSM, and I couldn't understand either in the context of what we were discussing - thus, you read what you considered projections from me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic
LadyPact... My comment was not meant to be taken personally, or as a judgement of you or any particular person. I was just responding to your opinion. I just don't personally think that there are many GOOD Doms who are inflexibly Dom because they are so smart that they automatically understand the the needs and situation of people who are in roles that they themselves would never consider exploring. That's all... and yes, it is a personal opinion :) But personal opinions seem to be the stock in trade here.

As to bottoming, I don't hold the personal opinion that you have to bottom to every sensation at least once, by several different tops to figure out that you don't like bottoming in general.  Maybe there is some magic number that everybody can agree that are enough times to qualify that a person doesn't like the experience. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic
Its an interesting question. Perhaps it only takes trying something once for some people to be certain they don't care for it... but at least they really know that. My friend used to say he didn't like Brussel sprouts. Once I asked him if he'd ever tried them and he said "Why would I, I don't like them". 30 years later he has never tried one and is still convinced he hates them. I used to hate them, but my tastes changed I guess and now I do like them. Maybe if he tried them now he would still hate them.

Is it a big issue? No. Can one live without Brussel sprouts (or BDSM) their whole life? Sure. Its not a matter of right or wrong. Its justa matter of different approaches to life.

The original post was about a general impression of disdain for switches. I have noted that too and so will talk about it when it comes up in conversation. If it doesn't, I don't. (sorry... find myself answering more than just your post here hehe)

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlekitten1
THere's no rules for satisfaction... All I know is that I respond extremely well to a dominant force, responding in the way that tickles my fancy. But I also know that I'm not really a 'true' submissive. Way too difficult to work with, but if people are willing to put up with that, then good for me :)

So yea... I don't think people can be described, and I think that "switch", "Dom" and "Sub" is just here to make communication easier. And none of it is 'better'... The only thing that anyone should concern themselves with, is to test out to see what they respond the best to. That means they are better equipped to find their happiness..

It's healthy though, for a dominant to switch though, IMO, so he learns about the impact of certain toys and such ^^ But I wouldn't make that a requirement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

You think I think what? You sound like Emily Litella....Ohhh, you said that? NEVERMIND!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
I could make a reasonable argument that anyone advocating their dominant self should first submit is more dangerous (to a sub) because their "dominance" is compromised by guilt and social conflict. That dominating someone, no matter how willing the sub, is.... wrong....

But I'm not saying that in public.... ;)

Focus.[/font][/size][/color]

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
I could make a reasonable argument that anyone advocating their dominant self should first submit is more dangerous (to a sub) because their "dominance" is compromised by guilt and social conflict. That dominating someone, no matter how willing the sub, is.... wrong....

But I'm not saying that in public.... ;)

Focus.

I'm curious as to what you mean by this. All of the doms I've been close to have said that at first they went through feelings of guilt and inner conflict, wondering whether or not it was really ethical to beat etc their consenting partners. Are you suggesting that having these concerns makes someone a dangerous dom?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

I confess, I don't really understand or get you yet, but hopefully I will as I read your posts, because you're interesting and very real about it.

I don't think the motivation of switches much different than the motivations of anyone else in general, but I can't speak for them. I.e. I don't think role, gender, or sexual orientation divide our motivations as much as you seem to think they do.

I didn't get the *you* part of it, and didn't imply that dom submitting is compromise. Both the words 'compromise' and 'guilt' were your own words, not mine. You used them to describe BDSM, and I couldn't understand either in the context of what we were discussing - thus, you read what you considered projections from me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
And while to submit would also be to adopt a role, it's a physical act (top/bottom), which gives you ZERO input into a submissive's thought processes (or "wiring") that drives their need/desire to submit to the other's dominant will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic
LadyPact... My comment was not meant to be taken personally, or as a judgement of you or any particular person. I was just responding to your opinion. I just don't personally think that there are many GOOD Doms who are inflexibly Dom because they are so smart that they automatically understand the the needs and situation of people who are in roles that they themselves would never consider exploring. That's all... and yes, it is a personal opinion :) But personal opinions seem to be the stock in trade here.

As to bottoming, I don't hold the personal opinion that you have to bottom to every sensation at least once, by several different tops to figure out that you don't like bottoming in general.  Maybe there is some magic number that everybody can agree that are enough times to qualify that a person doesn't like the experience. 

Its an interesting question. Perhaps it only takes trying something once for some people to be certain they don't care for it... but at least they really know that. My friend used to say he didn't like Brussel sprouts. Once I asked him if he'd ever tried them and he said "Why would I, I don't like them". 30 years later he has never tried one and is still convinced he hates them. I used to hate them, but my tastes changed I guess and now I do like them. Maybe if he tried them now he would still hate them.

Is it a big issue? No. Can one live without Brussel sprouts (or BDSM) their whole life? Sure. Its not a matter of right or wrong. Its justa matter of different approaches to life.

The original post was about a general impression of disdain for switches. I have noted that too and so will talk about it when it comes up in conversation. If it doesn't, I don't. (sorry... find myself answering more than just your post here hehe)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

You think I think what? You sound like Emily Litella....Ohhh, you said that? NEVERMIND!

and imo you sound like a pretentious armchair bdsm academic.. sitting in your overstuffed leather chair in your book filled library puffing away on a pipe trying to over analyze bdsm.. that is why i said you should get out and enjoy the sunshine..

quote:


where are you getting this shite from? switches are "better"??? wtf? imo switches are inferior,.. they cant make up their friggin mind what they are.. jmo..

I am not interested in switches or subs or bi-sexual men..

me thinks you have been gazing at your navel too long.. go out and enjoy the sunshine..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
I could make a reasonable argument that anyone advocating their dominant self should first submit is more dangerous (to a sub) because their "dominance" is compromised by guilt and social conflict. That dominating someone, no matter how willing the sub, is.... wrong....

But I'm not saying that in public.... ;)

Focus.

I'm curious as to what you mean by this. All of the doms I've been close to have said that at first they went through feelings of guilt and inner conflict, wondering whether or not it was really ethical to beat etc their consenting partners. Are you suggesting that having these concerns makes someone a dangerous dom?

You'll note that I didn't say that out loud, right? lol

Those doms aren't me because I certainly didn't go through any guilt or conflict trips. In fact, I think your thoughts & experiences are more in line with the OP's "dom submits first" ethos.

I'm not a bad or abusive person. My need to beat, control or otherwise dominate in my relationships is dependent on having a submissive partner attuned to complement those needs for her own fulfillment. My needs (and ethics etc) would therefore be compromised by a vanilla partner - so I don't seek there....

I'm just saying that anyone conflicted by what they're doing is more liable to make mistakes. Doesn't mean I jumped in all guns blazing, either. I s'pose I should also add that my D/s is practised in the form of a personal, monogamous relationship. That I'm very much aware of the emotional and flesh n bones frailties of my submissive partner. I don't need to don a foreign role (submit) to appreciate her worth to me.

Focus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

Just to add a personal note to this, I certainly did go through a period of questioning. In my case, the rub was that it had been drilled into my head that the only "proper" way to do a marriage was 50/50. So while I would unquestioningly assume control in other situations and generally feel good about myself for doing so, I had to connect the dots to make that OK in my marriage. In the end, I had to realize that good leadership was always good. It's only bad leadership that is bad. It took me a few months give or take to come to that realization.

After that, as I extended my control into her mind ever more deeply I worried about the law of unintended consequences. Even though my intent was always pure, rummaging around in someone else's mind just seemed... perilous. It still does frankly.

Later, as I realized just how thoroughly I had taken ownership of her I pondered the question, "By what right do I do this?" My interim answer was that I did so because I could and the only real measure was against my own ethics. Later, I learned wisdom from the lord of the rings (all my best lines come from fiction stories)

It, like my heart, is mine to give

It took me a while to realize that Carol had every right to give herself to me and it was presumptuous of me to think otherwise.

All of that took years all told. And yes, I made mistakes during those years. I somehow doubt that I'm done with the "making mistakes" phase.

At least for me, there was very definitely an adjustment period and, now that I think on it, that period has not ended. How could it end before growth has stopped in the dynamic?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

I confess, I don't really understand or get you yet, but hopefully I will as I read your posts, because you're interesting and very real about it.

I don't think the motivation of switches much different than the motivations of anyone else in general, but I can't speak for them. I.e. I don't think role, gender, or sexual orientation divide our motivations as much as you seem to think they do.

I didn't get the *you* part of it, and didn't imply that dom submitting is compromise. Both the words 'compromise' and 'guilt' were your own words, not mine. You used them to describe BDSM, and I couldn't understand either in the context of what we were discussing - thus, you read what you considered projections from me.

Glad I'm interesting to you, but (uh-ohhh) I'm getting a little tired of the word play coming back in response.

You advocate a dom submit first, to (presumably) appreciate the sub's role in D/s activity. To me, to do so is the same principle as hetero male mimicing female behaviour first or carrying out a criminal act to appreciate the rights n wrongs of criminal behaviour. Why one but not all - along with probably a hundred other examples? Fer instance, how does a hetero know they're not gay? Experimental role play?

I'm one of those boring types who doesn't indulge in role play. I don't do "pretend". And while to submit would also be to adopt a role, it's a physical act (top/bottom), which gives you ZERO input into a submissive's thought processes (or "wiring") that drives their need/desire to submit to the other's dominant will.

Again, I know who I am - and who I'm not. The hard part is finding that complementing opposite. Her complementing energy is pre-programmed to fill the void, rather than me pretend I can, but never will.

Focus.