|
mp072004 -> RE: Doms vs. subs: Ratios (4/4/2007 4:33:05 PM)
|
It's axiomatic that there are fewer dominants and tops than there are submissives and bottoms, and that there are fewer women than men who self-identify as kinky.
This may be true--I haven't done or seen any demographic research. It seems that a lot of people I know identify as switches, which would indicate that either my circles are anomalous or we need to find a place for switch-identified people in the above axiom. What is certainly true, I think, is that everyone wants there to be more people with whom he or she enjoys mutual attraction than there are. Not necessarily because everyone wants multiple playmates or partners, of course.
Speaking as a dominant, top, bisexual woman, a member of a group that is widely regarded as the smallest in pansexual circles, demographics aren't really a good predictor of availability of people with whom a particular person can play or have relationships. I meet a lot of submissive men, and a lot of submissive women, both of whom are good candidates for me--at least, categorically, superficially. But some of them aren't attracted to my basic categorical attributes (female, dominant, top). They, and I, sometimes differ on our preferred play or relational styles--I'm not really available for romantic relationships, for example, and it's rare for me to do overtly sexual play with men. These and other selection processes, which rarely have anything to do with demography and frequently have a great deal to do with preference and taste, remove a number of metaphorical fish from the metaphorical sea, so that demography is far less relevant in determining one's chances for good play and good service than it might appear. Particularly when you consider the large number of kinky people who are also non-monogamous--so, in practical terms for you, just because a given submissive woman has a relationship with a given dominant man doesn't necessarily take her out of the running for you.
|
|
|
|
