why bother with titles anymore?

[leo9]

I'm not saying one can't experience what it's like to be on the other side of the fence. I'm saying that one should acknowledge that they are in between roles if they choose to do so. It was once my opinion that you shouldn't call yourself a Dom if you are submitting to another.

It seems to me that you have a personal and deeply felt need to believe that anyone dominating you is 100% pure Dom without a submissive bone in hir body. I'm familiar with the attitude because my ex-slave was the same (though less dogmatically), she absolutely did not want to hear about my sub experiences, it made her feel her world was being undermined. Nothing wrong with that, we all have our special needs, but I think you're making a mistake when you try to generalise it into a rule for how everyone should define themselves.

If I'm introducing myself at a munch, I'll say I'm Dom, because (a) that's how I generally operate and how I identify myself most of the time, and (b) in a situation like that I'm looking to hook up with a sub, I don't want Doms hitting on me. If the conversation gets around to it, I might mention that I can also sub to the right person, and most people will accept that without concluding that I was lying at first.

I acknowledge that their is a difference between being bi-sexual and simply experimenting. But that's the part that I don't think others get. Sure, if you kiss someone who is your own sex, that doesn't automatically make you bi-sexual. But I don't think you're straight anymore either.

Then you've defined down the heterosexual population to a very small minority. I can see that this might be correct in the strictest technical sense, but it is very impractical for everyday useage, and the only people who normally use such a definition are the most rabid homophobes who call anyone who gives them a hug a faggot.

Maybe a new label is in order. I just get so confused when I talk to Doms. I start talking to them and they say they are Dom. But then they go on about how they have fantasies about submitting occasionally. I find that misleading. When I think 'Dom', I feel there should be no submission in his heart as far as bdsm is concerned. Just like if I see someone who is 'straight', there should be no sexual same-sex interests either. Because then it gets confusing. When someone says 'Dominant' you don't know what they mean anymore if you follow the logic that you can have submissive tendencies but still be dominant. Does this mean I have to ask every single men in detail how dominant they are? Once again, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the labels?

Normally, if someone introduces himself to you as a Dom, it means that he's looking for that role in relation to you. If he wanted you to dom him he'd call himself a sub. So for everyday practical purposes, the way people use the terms is a lot more practical than saying "I'm a switch but right now I'm looking for a scene/relationship where I am the Dom."

I accept that the normal usage breaks down with someone like yourself who can only relate to switch-proof Doms who've never even fantasised about subbing. But that doesn't mean that everyone else is doing it wrong, it just means that you have to make your needs clear, because they're uncommon enough to need spelling out.