Are switches confused or is everybody else?

[denuseri]

Thanks so much for the responses, i am not meaning to high jack this thread so much as provide a non-switch perspective for all you nice switches to comptimplait

BTW please be careful with interpetation of number 3 peeps. its actually not a question but a declaration to help explain why some doms and subs think as they do about switches, and i dont personally think all switches are confussed, i know they all have many justifications for choosing to identify with the middle path more than the other older roads,

and yes craven, you kinda confirmed numbers 1- 4 thank you with the entire post

, what that dominant ment when he told me that, in number 4 was that a "real dominant" in his opinion wouldnt let a "switch" dominante him, it would allways be the other way around, even when it didnt apear to be so, toping from the bottom so to speak and ussually seceeding, if not on anything but an uncoucious level, yet topping all the same, basically in his old school view, you were eaither a dominant or you were not, balls to bones, so to speak, He said the "title" of switch was wholey unnessesary to begin with as all else that wasnt dominant was submissive by defualt to one degree or another

[thir]

i dont personally think all switches are confussed, i know they all have many justifications for choosing to identify with the middle path more than the other older roads,

This is a misconception that comes up many times, like that mail about switches who "dabble" in bdsm: I can tell you that for me and the people I know personally there is not "middle path" in our switching. It is as submissive as any other sub, and as totally dominating as any other dom.
I know that this is hard for "one-siders" to grasp, but then perhaps, not being switches, you should just accept what people who actually are, say.

and yes craven, you kinda confirmed numbers 1- 4 thank you with the entire post

, what that dominant ment when he told me that, in number 4 was that a "real dominant" in his opinion wouldnt let a "switch" dominante him, it would allways be the other way around, even when it didnt apear to be so, toping from the bottom so to speak and ussually seceeding, if not on anything but an uncoucious level, yet topping all the same, basically in his old school view, you were eaither a dominant or you were not, balls to bones, so to speak, He said the "title" of switch was wholey unnessesary to begin with as all else that wasnt dominant was submissive by defualt to one degree or another

So I think the general idea here is that people who are not, in fact, switches themselves tend to have lots of opinions of that which they do not know about. Well, nothing new there.