bit of a ramble.. (15)

So with my play partner, I would say I am bottom and he is top, since there is no domination outside of defined playtimes.

That does not make him permanently a top, nor me permanently a bottom. And it can be argued that for those play sessions I absolutely and completely submit to him. So even by my own definitions, there is a lack of clarity!

Your mileage may vary.

The one who claims to be innocent - who wants to test the claim?

Surely if someone makes a compromise it is because they get something else from the relationship instead of that which they were seeking originally? So each of us weighs up what works and what doesn't work, and as no-one is likely to get every single little thing they want in one package, we all choose to miss out on part of what we want because we get most of everything else we want.

Why not? A relationship made up of two dominants can work, so why can't a relationship made up of any two people work? We're people first, dominant or submissive, top or bottom somewhere after that. If a sub is fighting back and not submitting, is the sub really a sub? The same thing could also happen with a dominant who doesn't want to play that sub's game. It doesn't have to be because you think someone is a top rather than dom.

I submit because I want to submit to him, not because he 'makes' me do it.

If, in your example above, the sub fights back and doesn't accept her/his partner's dominance, does the top/dom look down on the sub for not submitting? It works both ways.

Why would someone 'look down on' someone else they are in a relationship with? If this happens then the two people are fairly obviously not right for each other, no matter what the reasoning behind it.

You ask "is it a macho/image thing", then ask what is wrong with being a top instead of dom. You've already implied that being a top is not worth as much as being a dom, otherwise why would you suggest it is "a macho thing"?

Yes and most of us do it a lot of the time. We mould ourselves to the situations and people we surround ourselves with. We change with every interaction we have with anyone else, or if we don't then we're learning nothing.

I don't know what you mean by a 'natural dom' or 'natural sub'. We do what gives us pleasure, and if someone gets pleasure from pleasing someone else does it matter what each of them call themselves?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast.

Interesting point, and a good reply! If a sub loses her submissive feelings then she's a Bottom? In the example I cited then, does her Dom become a Top? Probably... not that I care about the definitions.If those involved can work it out, who cares about labels.

"the purpose of life is to live creatively, love and be kind" Anne Rice "Ah but it's being creative in how you do that thats fun. And sometimes you have to be quite firm" JV

I am who I am. Get close and you'd really know who and what I am.

All labels. I've enjoyed all sorts and laughed about it afterwards wondering who was what to whom. It didn't matter, we had fun.

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.

As for compatibility, as long as you're both getting what you need, there is no need for labels.

"Leadership isn't about changing people. It's about creating environments where people can change themselves." @RogerFrancis1