Switch definitions

[Private_Label]

I was browsing over at the collarme site and came across a couple of posts that really got me thinking.

Inspiration thread

...a switch is a person who enjoys control - both the letting go and taking of - and sees life through many pair of eyes, while at the same time keeping true to their own sexuality, sensuality, and natural tendancies.

I think as I personaly see the three sides of D/S is thus;
Dom - gets kicks from being in control
Sub - gets kicks from being controled
Switch - gets kicks from the study of control, and finding a way to be in control in all places.

I like firefey's definition, but I think Chamvex's is closer to what I am personality wise.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

I like firefey's definition, but I think Chamvex's is closer to what I am personality wise.

Originally Posted by Chamvex
I think as I personaly see the three sides of D/S is thus;
Dom - gets kicks from being in control
Sub - gets kicks from being controled
Switch - gets kicks from the study of control, and finding a way to be in control in all places.

Then again, some dominants do what defines the switch above by nature/desire.

 

[Killishandra]

Interesting topic, PL, and I'm glad you started a thread on it. I have been doing alot of self-examination over the last few months and in the last month in particular I have been wondering when people (for instance, in my Hawaii BDSM groups) ask me what my orientation is should I label myself "submissive" or "switch." I think labels in and of themselves are very limiting, but that doesn't stop them from being practical in many situations.

Wikipedia's current article on switching uses this for the BDSM definition of "switch":

"In BDSM, a switch is someone who participates in BDSM activities as both a top or dominant and a bottom or submissive. A switch will be the top on some occasions and the bottom on other occasions. Switches are very common; partners may switch roles based on mood, desire, partner. For BDSM activities, it is more common that a switch will be a top with one partner and a bottom with another than to switch roles with the same partner."

I like firefey's definition, but it's a little too poetic for how I think about myself. To be more practical, I would say the definition from Wikipedia is closer to how I'm currently viewing my journey into BDSM.

I think it is unrealistic to expect anyone (even expect yourself) to be either dominant or submissive 100% of the time. No one plays any role 100% of the time, whether it is that of dominant, submissive, mother, son, student, wife, neighbor, friend, milkman, or what-have-you. As we go through life we develop many facets. Humans are not static; we are dynamic, evolving, learning, changing players of life. Someone may embody one role more than others, even to the point where they feel they are always in that role, but I firmly believe it is rarely, if ever, the case. To limit yourself to one role... to always be dominant, and never be submissive... to always be proud, and never be humble.. to always teach, but refuse to be taught... That is self-limitation, my friends, in its most regretable form.

To steer closer to the subject again, I think everyone switches in some ways. Whether you choose to define yourself in the BDSM world as a switch or not would probably be best based upon your habits in the playroom/bedroom.

 

[~Aquarius~]

I think I understand what those people are saying, but IMO, that is far to simplistic.

For me as a sub, it is not that I simply get pleasure out of giving up control. It is much more than that, and I am not sure that I can explain it properly. (Although I'll try tomorrow when I've not been up for 24 hours straight, if you like. ) Chamvex says that it is a study of control for a switch. Okay, but I feel that it is for a sub...or at least this sub...as well.

I don't mean this to sound biting, and maybe I am interpreting the intent incorrectly, but to me Chamvex's definition implies that a Dom and sub have no where to go...no growth or expansion or room for self discovery, whereas the implication is that switch's do. And I disagree with that concept whole heartedly.

I'm not sure how I would tweak those definitions to better satisfy my own ideas and feelings on the subject, but I do think we all are studying control, just from different angles.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

To limit yourself to one role... to always be dominant, and never be submissive... to always be proud, and never be humble.. to always teach, but refuse to be taught... That is self-limitation, my friends, in its most regretable form.

You needn't assume a submissive role to find humility, nor to learn. That implies a submissive as something less than a dominant ... a limiting definition and regrettable in its own right. Take a look through some of the posts by Francisco and Shadowsdream. At no point do you see a loss of dominance when they learned something new. i'll let them speak for themselves concerning humility.

As for me, it only took the grip of a child's hand, barely minutes old, to teach me humility for the rest of my life.

 

[Private_Label]

How much is in a name...

Then again, some dominants do what defines the switch above by nature/desire.

Chamvex says that it is a study of control for a switch. Okay, but I feel that it is for a sub...or at least this sub...as well.

I am beginning to wonder if switches are as rare a breed as the impression I had a few weeks ago when I first learned about them...

Perhaps Killi has the right idea

I think it is unrealistic to expect anyone ... to be either dominant or submissive 100% of the time... Humans are not static; we are dynamic, evolving, learning, changing players of life. Someone may embody one role more than others, even to the point where they feel they are always in that role, but I firmly believe it is rarely, if ever, the case.

So do switches just spend more time at the center of the spectrum, with a ratio of D:s closer to 1:1, where a Dom might be closer to 8:2 and a sub closer to 2:8... or is it just a matter of how we each see ourselves at the point we accept a label?

 

[Killishandra]

You needn't assume a submissive role to find humility, nor to learn. That implies a submissive as something less than a dominant ... a limiting definition and regrettable in its own right. Take a look through some of the posts by Francisco and Shadowsdream. At no point do you see a loss of dominance when they learned something new. i'll let them speak for themselves concerning humility.

As for me, it only took the grip of a child's hand, barely minutes old, to teach me humility for the rest of my life.

You misunderstood me, AA. I was not trying to imply that those three flips of the coin were necessarily interconnected... i.e., that one must be submissive to learn or to be humble. Rather, I was using isolated examples of different ends of the spectrum to make a point about allowing ourselves to be dynamic entities rather than limiting ourselves through the roles we play (or wish to play) in life.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

You misunderstood me ... Rather, I was using isolated examples of different ends of the spectrum to make a point about allowing ourselves to be dynamic entities rather than limiting ourselves through the roles we play (or wish to play) in life.

But in doing so, comparing apples and oranges Killi. i won't argue the fact some confine their dominance/submission to roles they play in the bedroom, perhaps elsewhere. Others, however, simply carry "it" (for lack of a label) with them wherever they go.

i hate to drag a definition out of an old profession, but some circles label "it" as bearing. When certain people walk in a room, they needn't say a word. You simply feel the juggernaut. At the other end of the spectrum, have you ever had a boss that let "it" slip? If so, you might have felt uncomfortable with some of the thoughts running through the back of your head, i.e. "S/he ain't very comfortable in their role. Can i trust their judgement won't get us in hot water?"

 

[Killishandra]

I am beginning to wonder if switches are as rare a breed as the impression I had a few weeks ago when I first learned about them...

Perhaps Killi has the right idea




So do switches just spend more time at the center of the spectrum, with a ratio of D:s closer to 1:1, where a Dom might be closer to 8:2 and a sub closer to 2:8... or is it just a matter of how we each see ourselves at the point we accept a label?

I see myself as a switch, but I identify more closely to the submissive side of my personality. I could say I hold it nearer and dearer to my heart. Although many switches might exhibit a ratio close to the "1:1" you mentioned, I don't think it's integral to being a "switch." (ooohhhh hate the labels, lol.)

I think until the official dictionaries include the BDSM definitions of "switch" into their entries, we are always going to have very differing opinions on this label. For instance, sinn0cent1 had a line in her sigline area a while back that said "Yes I am a submissive. But not YOUR submissive." Does that make her a switch, just because she is not submissive to anyone but her Master? I doubt she'd label herself a switch just based on that. Personally, I use the word switch to relate only to BDSM activities, since I certainly exert dominance in many of my vanilla relationships.

Anyway, whether or not the ratio is 1:1 doesn't seem important to me. Someone who is Dominant with all their partners will probably label themselves a Dom. Someone who is Dominant with 90% of their partners might label themselves a Dom or a switch. Same goes for submissive relationship tendencies and ratios.

Results may vary.

 

[~Aquarius~]

So do switches just spend more time at the center of the spectrum, with a ratio of D:s closer to 1:1, where a Dom might be closer to 8:2 and a sub closer to 2:8... or is it just a matter of how we each see ourselves at the point we accept a label?

Good question, and you've fried my tired brain but good. I should probably sleep and come back to consider this tomorrow but what the hell. Forgive me if I'm incoherent...

At the moment I'm inclined to say it is more about how we perceive ourselves at the time we accept a label. I know that my views of submission, what it is for me, have changed over the years. In the beginning, if pressed to give a ratio, I'd have rattled off something like maybe 3:7, or even 4:6. But as time has passed, and I've learned more about myself and where I feel I fit that has changed drastically. Today I would certainly be closer to your 2:8 example, and there are days when I might even tell you it is 1:8. And yeah, there are even days when my hackles are up and I might still tell you it was only 3:7 or 4:6. It's a journey and it's constantly changing and evolving. For me that evolution is only towards deeper submission. But for others, I can see how the path could lead the other way and they might eventually consider themselves a switch, or completely flip the coin and call themselves a Dom.

That's why, or partly why, I was uncomfortable with the definitions in your first post. If we aren't all studying what it is we are doing...if we aren't all growing and expanding our horizons regardless of whatever label we choose to accept...what is the point?

 

[Killishandra]

But in doing so, comparing apples and oranges Killi. i won't argue the fact some confine their dominance/submission to roles they play in the bedroom, perhaps elsewhere. Others, however, simply carry "it" (for lack of a label) with them wherever they go.

i hate to drag a definition out of an old profession, but some circles label "it" as bearing. When certain people walk in a room, they needn't say a word. You simply feel the juggernaut. At the other end of the spectrum, have you ever had a boss that let "it" slip? If so, you might have felt uncomfortable with some of the thoughts running through the back of your head, i.e. "S/he ain't very comfortable in their role. Can i trust their judgement won't get us in hot water?"

I wouldn't argue with the fact that some people exert dominance (or perhaps "it") constantly and effortlessly. And in doing so, they are not (in my eyes) limiting themselves to a role. However, if they view their own dominance as something that must be upkept and weilded at all times and with everyone, then they are pushing themselves into a "role" and limiting their ability to grow as a person.

The point I'd like to make is that even those people with a truly dominant personality needn't employ it 100% of the time in 100% of situations. I have a great deal of respect, for instance, for both Francisco and Shadowsdream. Part of the reason I do is because I don't see them trying to force their opinions on everyone else when they post.

I think someone who is comfortable taking many roles, even if they chose to normally embody just a few, is someone who is ultimately in control of themselves and in the best position to be responsible for others.

 

[catalina_francisco]

So do switches just spend more time at the center of the spectrum, with a ratio of D:s closer to 1:1, where a Dom might be closer to 8:2 and a sub closer to 2:8... or is it just a matter of how we each see ourselves at the point we accept a label?

I would equate that to the belief that someone bisexual has equal desire for both male and female partners, or someone gay must dsire everyone of their own gender. It is another of the misunderstood myths like being a bisexual or gay means you just have to desire everyone of your own sex and if someone straight asks you if you fancy them and you say no, they get all cut and want to know what you think is wrong with them even though they don't want to have sex with you anyway. Just another frustrating point in life some of us have to face from time to time.

Catalina

 

[Moleculor]

Bwahahaha!

No.

I'm a switch. I don't make sex into a study. I just enjoy kink from both the top and the bottom. If there was a "just kinky" label, I'd use it, but as such, I most closely match the definition of a switch.

SOME switches may study control, but I don't. And I'm sure there are others who don't, either.