Why do many BDSM people look down on switches?

That was meant to be a reply to Ozme52...

Wow! A lot of really interesting stuff in this thread. Now for my two (or ten, or fifty) cents worth. First, does anyone remember the Kinsey scale? It goes from one to seven, with one end being completely straight and the other being completely homosexual (I just can't remember which end is the one and which is the seven) In his studies of human sexuality he found that almost no-one is a one or a seven; most of us fall somewhere in the middle. I've mentioned elsewhere in the forum that I am bi-curious; I use that term because I have had very little experience with other women-to put it in high school terms, I've only been to second base. My primary attraction has always been, and probably will be for men, but there are some women and some situations in which I find myself attracted to women/a woman. Does that make me confused? I don't think so; think in restaurant terms: do you always order the exact same thing at the restaurant every time? I don't. I may have a favorite that I order most of the time, but I will have days when I want something different. So men are my favorite, but that doesn't mean I would never "order" a woman instead. On the Kinsey scale, I think of myself as either a 2 1/2 or a 5 1/2, whichever is more hetero.
Why can't BDSM be similar? If we call one a total submissive, and seven a total dominant, wouldn't most of us fit between two and six? I have had completely vanilla relationships, others in which I was submissive only, one in which we switched almost evenly, top/bottom, with a healthy mix of vanilla added in. In that particular case, our submission was exactly the same-to top him, I only needed to do what I would have wanted, with a few changes for our different gender equipment, if that makes sense. I could be a really good top for him, and he for me, because we knew and understood what the other wanted. I've had relationships in which BDSM was just a little spice, so we each tried both role to see what we liked and didn't like.
In my current relationship, we are primarily vanilla or me as sub. I tried topping him one night, but he is a very different sub, as compared to me. It is/was harder for me to know what to do to/for him; I pulled him out of sub space by doing something I would have wanted in that situation, and ruined it for him. I am trying to learn more about what he feels submission is, and work up a scene that his sub would enjoy.
I bring up all of my relationships (well, not all . . .) because I think that part of the reason I will play top comes from my submission; actually, a lot of my sexual behavior comes from this place: I want my partner to be happy and satisfied. If vanilla sex is most pleasing, I can do that-and sometimes, that is exactly what I want. To be held, treasured, whisper sweet nothings . . . fairy tale sex, of a sort. I am primarily a sub in sex, although I am learning, through this man and all of you, how many different definitions there are for that-connotations, not denotations, if you will. I am very outgoing in public (I have even been called bossy, drill sergeant), and if my partner needs/wants to let go, not have to run things, then I can draw on that side of myself and try to be the top, or just the aggressor, for that time. Let me pull one example, one that can fit with vanilla, top, or bottom sex. I love to give head. I love to look at, touch, smell, taste male genitals. (Well, as longer as you have showered in the past few days--that is one of those scents that is great fresh, bat can go bad kind of quickly. Yes, I know it is the same for us ladies.) I love to see and hear my partners pleasure in what I am doing. Sometimes, I even get a bit of a power trip, knowing the reactions I can incite-even if I am giving head as a sub. It pleases me, it pleases him, on multiple levels. At least, they seem to be pleased. If I can ever get my Dog-dear onto the site, you can ask him if I am any good at it. But the evidence I have collected says that I am, and I think it is because I want to be, so I am willing to try different approaches until I get that pleasure response from him. (BTW, this is one of the reasons I hesitate to be with a woman: I have no experience going down on them/us, and would hate to disappoint a female lover with my ineptness.)
Oh, and I am another mixed-up-NOT confused-person: socially liberal, fiscally conservative, etc., etc, just like a few other ladies described themselves back on page two of this thread. And I am okay with it-even proud.
Again, I don't know if I just made things more complicated,or if I managed to add to the discussion, but I hope it is the latter. Thanks for listening.

I think you make a lot of sense there, and I was not confused at all by what you have written.

I also like the Kinsey scale model of looking at both hetero/homosexual feelings and dom/switch/sub feelings. That would probably throw a lot more people into the switch category than there are now, if people tended to use a scale.

Personally, I can't really imagine being the top without sort of a nervous, bad feeling. I did try it when asked but I didn't get any fun out of it, and he ended up "escaping" and overpowering me anyway. That part was fun :) I may be about a one on that scale.

Probably I am closer to the middle than the edge on the gay/bi/straight scale, although I have had absolutely no experience with women.

I am puzzled by the whole premise of this thread. Look down? Look at, maybe. Look to, look for, but look down? Never! If that were the case, I would be without my bride. That wouldn't do at all. I would be without nearly a third of my friends, IRL and on the other kink site I frequent.

For what it's worth, I think switches make a whole lot of kink possible, never mind fun. Let them get and give in proportion to their wants and needs, and those of their partners and play mates.

I'm also rather tickled by the comparison to the Kinsey scale. For the record, 0 is exclusively heterosexual, and 6 exclusively homosexual. If people could get together on how to set up the nomenclature, for instance, 0 = bottom, 6 = top, it could be a useful tool for those seeking mates, partners and play friends.

Don

Thanks for the clarification, Red-15--I can never remember which end is which. The only problem with using the 0-6 scale for BDSM is that there is so much variety in it. Even if you state that you are, for example, a "0", what does that mean? Do you like orders, bondage, pain, all of the above, or something else completely? (And, yes, I know that I brought the idea up. I thought of this problem later.) I, to use a real example, like being tied down, but not masses of rope in painful bondage. Dog is introducing me to shibari (I know I spelled that wrong, hope you all know what I mean,) but that is not painful. I like being spanked, and am learning to take more and harder strikes, but I don't like all pain. I do like being ordered around, and some of what one author termed "erotic humiliation," but I am sure there are other subs who enjoy it when it is much more intense than I would be comfortable with. Maybe us BDSM folks need multiple scales to cover all of our play. Anyone want to take a swing at setting up a profile?

@Dog's Lady, This has been done, sort of. At least in a sort of individuated way. I don't know if one can post a link to another kink site here without irritating TPTB, but if you are interested, PM me, and I'll be happy to direct you to the tool to which I refer.

Don

Would anyone look down on a great cook, who also likes to eat?

Anybody ever tried telling Clint Eastwood he can't be both a real director and a real actor?

We know human beings are complex, multifaceted characters in other aspects of life. To insist on rigid categorization in our relationships, which are among the most complicated things we involve ourselves in, really makes no sense.