Passive Tops and Active Bottoms: How Labeling Misinforms Us and Leads to Miscommunication

Passive Tops and Active Bottoms: How Labeling Misinforms Us and Leads to Miscommunication

Stuart Norman

Community Lingos and Styles

Leatherfolk, kinksters, SMers: What are we and what do we do? How do we define ourselves? What makes successful interactions and relationships? If I'm a top and you're a bottom, why doesn't it often work? Our definitions differ so that we're often talking past each other, not really communicating. We're experiencing another Tower of Babel phenomenon. We must learn to explain what we mean. Communication and negotiation are required to have a successful relationship, whether a one night scene or for a lifetime. For many of us who make kink a major part of our lives we must make adjustments to our relationships. The bottom line is that we need other kinky partners. Most people don't couple based on erotic interest alone, and neither do we, but it is often a significantly higher priority among us. That makes us different from the majority because our needs are different. And we have different ways of communicating those needs.

Labels are useful shortcuts. The labels we apply to ourselves hide a universe of differences in meaning and behavior. There are sometimes very subtle degrees of separation and distinction, rather than clear either/or meanings. None of these dominant/submissive relationships can be easily pigeonholed. Each person in a relationship has slightly different definitions, so the labels they apply to themselves may not entirely match others. Ultimately, we define ourselves. Each person is unique, another reason why these relationships are so difficult to categorize. Subgroups co-opt words within their groups and change their meanings. Definitions become slippery and meanings change over time. This is a perennial problem of language.

Look at how "gay", a term originally meaning lighthearted and festive, now means homosexual identity. Or look at the word "queer", which used to be another term for homosexual, after it had been appropriated from the traditional meaning, "strange", but now has a broader meaning nearer to the traditional one, and a badge signifying proud deviance. Untraditional lifestyles are queer. Therefore, even hetero kink is queer. Gays also reclaimed other derogatory terms: faerie, faggot, sissy, queen, dyke, etc., and made them positive terms of use within their communities.

Back in the 1960s, "straight" meant "square", i.e., repressed, uptight, conservative in common parlance; then it became the term signifying heterosexuals in opposition to "gay", signifying homosexuals, who were more sexually open and adventurous. In the leather/SM/kink communities, "straight" is used to define those who are not into sexual kink, or sometimes "vanilla" is used because it means bland. The connotations are similar in that straight in each context continues to mean conservative and traditional. Otherwise, kinksters may use common derogatory terms: sick, deviant, pervert, twisted, kinky, slut, pig, cruel, abuse, torture, etc., as positive descriptions, even as compliments, applied to persons and acts within the subculture, often with a good-natured humor, belieing the standard definitions. For instance, "pig" once had the connotation of filthy personal hygiene, then it meant one into sexual raunch, now it usually means an enthusiastic, unquenchable love for some thing or act.

Many of the misunderstandings and disagreements over definitions and labels revolve around protocols and etiquette. Both the hetero and gay kink communities created elaborate protocols, i.e., rituals invested with special meanings, and an etiquette appropriate to the particular behaviors of dominance and submission. People were judged on their behavior within that context, whether appropriate or not. However, protocols are more personal and fluid; different locales and generations have different sets of meanings relevant to their place and time, and if they meet can cause conflict.

The gay male leather/SM subculture has had an enormous influence in the past four decades on definitions and styles, literally creating modern kink identity. That subculture used the terms "top/bottom", "S&M" and "bondage/dominance" (BD). Some of the early gay players used "Sadist/Masochist" = SM. Heteros tended to use "Dom/sub" (DS) and "BDSM". In the gay male leather subculture top and bottom usually included dominance and submission. S&M was a term that included all of these. Top and bottom were terms only used to describe SM sex, not "vanilla" or non-kinky sex, as in who is fucking whom. These terms are both nouns and verbs, i.e., how one defines oneself as a player (top, bottom, dominant, submissive) or the actions performed (to top, bottom, dominate, submit).

That gay male leather/SM subculture was defined by a studied hypermasculinity and the exclusion of the culturally defined feminine, however, not the inherent feminine. Most gay men, no matter how traditionally masculine, or "straight" they appear, have a very keen sense of their inner feminine that comes from having to face and examine their alternative sexuality and being. Even hetero kinksters become queered and share something of the gay experience because they must examine their sexuality and they realize that they have become "other" or social outsiders, followed by self-acceptance and coming out into a new lifestyle in the kink community.

Wearing leather garb has no direct causal connection to SM/DS and kink, but it has a long subcultural fetish tradition of hundreds of years. Contrary to popular belief, it was not born with the gay male leather/SM subculture, who developed a particular style of biker leather dress as identity coding: masculine, armored, defended, outlaw adopted from biker culture. That's why leather/SM gatherings are still called "runs", from the biker club runs, although most events are held in hotels; and the leather clubs have their "colors", the backpatches that are symbols of belonging to one of these organizations. I should also clarify here that not all leather clubs have the same motivations. Probably the majority are leather fetish clubs, allowing membership to anyone with an interest in erotic leathersex, from SM to mostly vanilla leather fetish and may be involved in educational activism. The minority are SM play clubs that provide organization, contacts, space and equipment for serious SM players. These events are usually called play parties.

The myths of the Old Garde with its tightly constructed definitions and behaviors still live on in the gay male leather community. Top and bottom used to have shared meanings in those circles - respectively, the giver and receiver of SM. In exclusively gay male circles of over a decade ago, if I said I was a top and you said you were a bottom, our definitions would have been very similar; no longer. Or if you were into leather that usually meant SM, although there were many derogatory jokes about the leather fetishists - those who only "Stand and Model" = SM. There were and still are different definitions according to locale and communities. However, in the early gay male leather community there was tight control of who was top or bottom - you were one or the other, and tops who bottomed lost status. This is curious in the light that many tops and Masters were trained starting as bottoms, by experience, considered the only way to learn SM and DS, but once you graduated you remained in the role.

Leather or kink? A newer generation doesn't relate to the traditional labels and many don't like being pigeonholed because they see their gender and interests as fluid. Leather has lost meaning as a euphemism for SM. It still may be a powerful fetish. Kink is becoming a popular term to describe the whole host of fetishistic sexual practices.

There are many definitions of SM, from sadism and masochism to sensuality and mutuality. Sadism and masochism are pathologies: a sadist wants to inflict nonconsensual suffering; a masochist wants to be punished and suffer for real or imagined infractions. The term, "S&M", was derived from these pathologies, but parodies them. There were no positive terms in most languages for the kinky activities we do, so the pathological terms were borrowed and redefined. "S&M" became "S/M"; now it has been shortened to "SM". SM is usually considered purely physical, using such activities as whipping, tit, cock and ball torture, electrotorture, bondage and other physical stimulation. It is largely techniques. SM and Dominance/submission (DS) may or may not include fantasy scenes with role playing. DS usually has a connotation of a mental state and doesn't have to be physical. Then, must SM be based in Dom/sub interaction? No. It can be mutual - the interaction between a giver and a receiver.

SMers make a distinction between hurt and harm, although the terms are sometimes confused in conventional society. Hurting is acceptable; intent to harm is not.

Is SM physical, sexual, emotional, spiritual or all of the above? Most players would say yes. It offers erotic stimulation, emotional catharsis, potential to alter consciousness - these are body/mind/spirit energies. Is it pain or intense sensation? Pain is relative to the context of the experience. In SM pain becomes intense, often pleasurable, sensation. The effects of physical SM produce endorphin or adrenaline rushes: narcotic ecstasy or excitement, flight/fight reaction and intense emotions. But first, SM is often viewed as sexual or erotic behavior, but doesn't necessarily involve penetrative sexual behavior, although most players tend to agree that SM is driven by sexual/erotic desires. However, it is sometimes used therapeutically.

SM and DS are forms of power play - "exchanging power" is often the term used to describe it. It's relative to individual relationships. Everyone has power and needs personal power. However, a misunderstanding of these consensual relationships led to a feminist critique of SM/DS power, equating it with upholding and sustaining the traditional patriarchy. Actually, a free, consensual and very conscious playing out of even traditional patriarchal dominant/submissive roles leads to an understanding of the negative results of traditional roles and often produces a freer self less likely to be captive of these roles in the totality of one's life. SM/DS is liberating.

Our definitions of dominance and submission are influenced by cultural masculine/feminine definitions. There are inherent and cultural differences - assertive vs. receptive - in men and women, but in our society we tend to place a higher value on the traditional masculine dominant/assertive/aggressive characteristics, yet in the ancient meanings they were equal and there was a balance; the female could take in all the male could put out.

We should make it clear that submission is not subservience. Subservience has a connotation of being an inferior. A self-deprecating sub is pathological. Healthy bottoms/submissives are usually very proud of their abilities and are valued by tops/doms.

A curious conclusion that we must arrive at is that all submission is voluntary! Even under coercion you have a choice to submit or fight. If you are overcome, you haven't submitted. You submit to preserve your life or another's or a cause, but only to the degree that you think is necessary, otherwise you resist. You calculate a risk and take it.

SM, DS, BDSM, leather: the specific practices and roles that are part of these activities, etc., are erotic and sexual fetishes. Fetishes are acts or objects that engender erotic/sexual arousal and are very personal and sometimes very specific. The list of fetishes, whether kinky or not, is probably endless.

SM/DS and kinky sex crosses gender boundaries. Sexual orientation is becoming less important than knowledge, skill and personality. Increasingly, as the community integrates into pansexual or multisexual identities there is more play among the heteros, homos and others, although there might not be penetrative sex. Kink is often perceived as erotic, but not blatantly sexual. The energies created and sustained in SM/DS can transcend genital sexuality.

Kinky people getting together to play SM/DS often call their sessions "scenes". However, there are at least three definitions of "scene": 1) kink communal identity, 2) type of SM activity, or session; and 3) theatrical role play: "Are you in the scene?" "We're going to play a scene." "Our scene is captor/prisoner." Scenes may include role playing fantasies such as infantilism, military, police, captor/prisoner, pony, dog/puppy, French maid, Master/slave, humiliation and verbal abuse. Others like to play only in reality as the real people they are without roles, other than who is dominant or submissive.

The names by which we call our activities have an important context. Many of us call it "play", giving to our activities a context of lightheartedness, suggesting frivolous games and childlike play. This is good because adults need to play as much as children. Calling our equipment "toys", although they are implements of potential torture, is in the same vein. In the very early gay male SM scene serious players called it "the work" - it was more than just a night's pleasure, but an ongoing development to which one dedicated one's life. Calling our implements of restraint and stimulation, "Tools" and "Instruments", also offers a more serious context. There is a newer convention to use the upper case in spelling Dominant, Master and their proper names and pronouns and using lower case to denote submissives and slaves, including their proper names, i.e., "Master John", "slave bob", as well as slaves avoiding the use of the personal pronoun, "I".

A top or dominant (Dom) is the one asserting control, leading, commanding, demanding, manipulating - a doer or authority figure. A bottom or submissive is a receiver of the action. However, top isn't necessarily synonymous with dominant nor bottom with submissive. There exist dominant/submissive acts or personalities, each very distinct. A Master has or wants a slave, defining a dominant/submissive or service/obedience relationship, not necessarily anything specific to SM. Mistress usually defines a female Master. A Daddy is similar to a Master, but has a boy, connoting a more father/son type of relationship, not as strict as Master/slave, but more nurturing and mentoring. Sir is a term of respect, often used with either gender, but can be a term for Dominant or Master, especially in hetero circles. A sadist likes to give heavy pain/stimulation and usually wants a bottom/masochist who can take it willingly.

Bottoms and submissives are receivers of the action, giving up self-control to tops/Doms - following, letting go, giving up, begging, entreating, pleasing. A masochist was often the synonym of bottom or submissive, but had a connotation of one who likes heavy pain - a "pain pig". A boy is usually defined as a younger, submissive gay man in service to an older, more experienced Daddy, although the age and DS roles may be reversed. "boi" is a newer term usually meaning a biological woman who wants to act and dress as if she is a submissive, young gay man, preferring to be fucked in the ass, although lesbian "bois" are becoming popular. We must be mindful that bottoms/submissives are independent actors and by asserting their desires they get what they want. Their submissiveness is only confined to a play session.

Styles of control/letting go vary: contrast resistance/acceptance - Apollonian/Dionysian - the far-seeing, penetrating and controlling gaze of the sky god or the embracing intoxication of the Earth Mother/Goddess. Some bottoms like to resist the stimulation, others let go to receive it. Some tops like their bottoms to resist, others like them to let go and absorb the stimulation. An unbound bottom commanded to receive SM must use obedience and self-control to withstand the stimulation and can't fully let go. Some tops and bottoms take pride in the amount of intense pain/stimulation they can dish out and/or take. Concerning mental aspects, tops and bottoms either prefer humiliation and/or verbal abuse or encouragement to take more stimulation.

Tops, bottoms, Doms, subs, Masters and slaves play their respective roles, whether controlling or submitting, because it pleases them, i.e., turns them on, and is usually very pleasurable. SM/DS also offers the potential for heightened intimacy and trust because of the concentration required and the intensity produced. Each expects some benefit in their seemingly unequal interactions, actually it is primarily in self-interest.

All of these relationships must be consensual and voluntary, i.e., by mutual agreement, to work. But who is really in control? It has often been said that the bottom or sub controls the scene by setting limits beyond which the top/Dom must not go. These limits may describe specific actions and/or intensity. Furthermore, by sounding each other out and by negotiation the top and bottom can come to an agreement whether they should play and if so what each wants from the scene and is willing to give. But if the bottom/sub allows self to be helplessly bound, only trust, goodwill, respect or the fear of social ostracism and legal repercussions can constrain the top. In this context control is an ethical abstraction. Many bottoms/subs want more than an illusion of giving up self-control and welcome giving up to a top/Dom and expect that top/Dom to be able to be authoritative and maintain control. That means that the top/Dom must have significant self-control. Many tops/doms also want more than an illusion of being in control. They want to receive submission. But with that ability to control comes an enormous responsibility to the needs of self and of the bottom/sub.

Trust and respect are the most important factors in SM and DS scenes and especially in Master/slave relationships. Responsibility, honesty and forthrightness are just as important, including extensive knowledge of techniques. Because of these requirements the kink community developed the ethics of Safe/Sane/Consensual, but recognized that there will always be a conundrum between consensual/nonconsensual - persuasion, seduction, encouragement, manipulation, even to consensual nonconsensuality/nonconsensual consensuality - pushing limits, playing with power and attempting spontaneity. From this arose the concept of limits.

Limits mean defining acts, practices and/or intensities of those practices beyond which tops/doms and bottoms/subs will not transgress. Limits are to be respected, but there is a common understanding that limits are meant to be pushed to a reasonable, safe and sane degree, otherwise there could be no growth, development or deeper understanding of the self within the kink scene. The nature of limits requires that they be made known and discussed before play so that each player understands what those limits mean to each player. We may want to give and receive hurt, but not cause harm.

One way to enforce limits is the safeword, a word or sign from the submissive to the dominant to slow down, lighten up or stop. They are still controversial because there is a power and weakness: are they safety valve or crutch? They're a good idea for novices of both persuasions, i.e., for tops who haven't learned to read bodies and emotions well or bottoms who don't know how much they can take. However, they may also limit the spontaneity and dom/sub aspects of the scene. Players who are experienced with each other often forgo safewords.

Masters, tops, dominants have limits, too, which they will not go beyond, so it is possible for the dominant to refuse a practice or withhold the intensity the bottom wants. This is sometimes a very good ethic, especially when a bottom is flying so high that he doesn't know if he's being hurt. Some tops are heavy players, others light; the same with bottoms, another reason for negotiation before a session so that each knows what to expect of the other or whether to play at all. This is the responsibility of those in control - to be able to read bottoms reactions and absent that to have given the bottom a safeword or signal, although that can be forgotten in the heat of the moment. However, a command to the bottom to remember a safeword can give the bottom something to mentally hold onto - a connection with reality by conscious will - that can bring them back.

There are degrees of topping/dominance and bottoming/subbing, from control freak to submissive pleaser in either: for example, a pushy bottom cares nothing for the pleasure of the top, only in receiving the simulation he wants - topping from the bottom. The Service Top is primarily interested in pleasing bottoms, deriving his pleasure in service to the needs of the bottom - bottoming from the top. A total bottom says: "My pleasure lies in fulfilling yours". A total top demands to be pleased as he wishes. A top who cares nothing for the bottom's pleasure is the exact opposite of the pushy bottom.

Most of us would associate top/Dom with active and bottom/submissive with passive, but the situation is far more complicated. Passive tops and active bottoms exist. In cruising situations active tops want to make the first move; they prefer passive bottoms. The reverse exists wherein passive tops want an active bottom to initiate the contact. This in no way reflects on who is dominant and submissive, so we must divorce our ideas of active/passive from top/bottom and DS. It's an issue of who's what in fucking or cocksucking? Either giver or receiver can be the top or bottom according to intent and initiation of action. Neither top and bottom or active and passive have anything to do with who is the penetrator or who is being penetrated. Many tops like to be fucked by their bottoms, but they might sit on the bottom's cock and are still in control of the scene. A Master who orders his slave to top him hasn't exchanged roles with his slave, he is just demanding his pleasure.

Sometimes some primarily tops/doms enjoy bottoming for the beneficial experience of pain/stimulation and/or letting go. Some primarily bottoms also like to top occasionally. There is no ultimate top or bottom or exclusive Dom or sub - these are relative - not inherent or inborn, but culturally determined preferences. There are no generic Masters or slaves who want to control or serve anyone without regard to any personal value judgment. Personality, appearance, "chemistry" and shared values determine whether a relationship will work. Somewhere out there is a top for the most demanding top and a bottom for the most submissive bottom that makes them want to switch their usual roles. Switching roles is very acceptable today. No one is expected to be exclusively top or bottom, Dom or sub, as it once was in the gay male SM community. That would be missing out on half the fun.

Some people form permanent DS relationships in which each partner plays one dominant or submissive role, but the DS and kink activities are confined only to the bedroom or playroom and in all other aspects they are equals in the relationship. This might be called temporarily loaning power. We want to distinguish these from Master/slave relationships.

Masters and slaves

Masters and slaves are a special category because it is a committed lifestyle, identity and relationship, not just an erotic, temporary scene. Master/slave relationships are more intentional and rigorous than traditional relationships and require a greater commitment - both must work at it harder, although there are different degrees of commitment. Longstanding Master/slave relationships, often referred to as "24/7", are rare because both change and grow in ways that may not be compatible; new needs might not be met. Most tops, Doms, bottoms or submissives are motivated primarily by erotic interest, but Masters wish to be served in many ways other than the erotic, and slaves are primarily motivated by a need to serve; the erotic desire is of secondary interest and gladly given the Master in service. Or else it is erotic to serve and be served in all ways. It's a very different mentality and mindset from bottoms/submissives.

Masters are usually tops/Doms; they want to be in charge of and control all aspects of a relationship. They may wish service for the exercise of authority or to free themselves from the menial jobs in life so that they can perform more important work. However, the greatest misunderstanding, even in leather/SM circles, concerns the definition of slave. Slaves aren't necessarily super bottoms or submissives, but they are driven by a need to serve, obey and please. Slaves must submit in some degree to obey, but most importantly they must discipline themselves to master slavery. A Master cannot instill that in them, only encourage it. A slave would not define and demand the way he should serve - that's too assertive, but should expect to have his talents and skills used by the Master for His benefit. Still, this drive to serve and give up control over their lives is in their self-interest. The ability to serve requires that they must be able to take charge of situations and make decisions based on the Master's wishes. The direction of their lives may need to be controlled, but they don't require micromanaging. While some slaves are by nature more top than bottom, their desire to serve outweighs their need to be in control. Most slaves are dedicated to service and are very capable people who have many abilities and enjoy using them, even taking charge of major projects at work, in the community and for the Master. Slaves are not inferior beings, but very valuable assets. A common misconception is that slaves have no limits. It isn't true, but they do have few limits and those are brought to the Master before there is a commitment to a relationship. After a successful agreement, the Master is in charge of the slave's limits. Slaves need to be open and transparent to their Masters, but Masters psyches not necessarily equally accessible to their slaves. The fantasy of the slave kept as a prisoner to be used at the Master's whim is mostly just that because the Master would have to serve the slave: feed, exercise, manage the toilet, constantly monitor - a full time job in itself. A rich Master who has other slaves to help might be able to do it. This is primarily a submissive's fantasy that could be maintained for an evening or perhaps a couple of days, but not much longer.

As an expression of the level of commitment in the relationship, slaves usually will consent to receive corrective punishment from their Masters, something independent bottoms and submissives usually will not. Master/slave relationships are decidedly not fantasy role play. However, M/s relationships may not all be 24/7. Sometimes Master and slave are lovers, but in other M/s relationships this is not the case, however, some considerable caring and respect for the needs and wants of each must develop for the relationship to be successful.

Often Master/slave relationships are based in consensual ownership - the slave is considered property of the Master, having voluntarily given up all of their rights. It is considered a greater commitment. How can one own another without an ethical/legal framework? This ethical structure exists only by agreement within the leather/SM subculture, especially among the parties involved in such relationships.

There is much disagreement in the kink community concerning who can best train slaves. Most people believe that slaves cannot be created, only an inborn slave nature can be nurtured. But should that nurturing and training be by a Master or by other slaves? Because the mentality of Masters and slaves is so different it is difficult to get into each other's head space. Yet many slaves eventually become very good Masters. Certainly, a Master can train a slave to serve him in his specific way, but training a slave mentality may be beyond a Master's ken unless he has been a slave. Conversely, a prospective Master is best trained by other Masters.

Breaking slaves is a controversial topic that is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. Bottoms may break when their limits are pushed and they experience many conflicting emotions and perhaps catharsis, but this is a positive break, really more of a spiritual-emotional release. Masters can't break slaves to their will, although they can train them using intense SM techniques to bind and focus them to what they both need. Slaves must already want to serve as slaves. Breaking should be a kind of positive born again experience. A negative break would be from real torture - destructive, rather than releasing. No Master should want a broken slave - fearful, unconfidant, insecure, weak.

There has been a renewed and growing interest in Master/slave relationships in the past decade, even to the revival of the Old Garde concept of "Houses" - in which one or more Masters runs a household for more than one slave, perhaps to build a family or just to train slaves for others.

Mastership

Concepts of Master/slave must lead us to mastership - is it role or being? We expect tops/Doms to be masterful, but even bottoms or slaves can be masters of their respective roles or of SM/DS. However, a Master (of a slave) may not be a master of a discipline or field of knowledge. Mastership is having learned a field of knowledge so well that it is second nature to one's being, that that knowledge has changed the practitioner and that one has the ability and the duty to extend that knowledge. A master has earned authority by discipline.

Authority contrasted against authoritarianism is the difference between leading vs. coercion (demanding) and defines the two forms of discipline.

Discipline has many meanings according to context. There are two important meanings: instilling control imposed from without, as in law, punishment, or self-imposed self-control in learning knowledge or a "discipline". Therefore, discipline can mean learning the discipline, i.e., the theory and skills, of SM by submitting to the superior knowledge and experience of a master of SM. Even the master submits to the requirements of the discipline; it is greater than the practitioner. Master Steve Samson of Butchmann's Academy (a Master and slave training institute), says that "slaves serve Masters; Masters serve the Universe."

Discipline or punishment? Bottoms/subs usually do not commit or submit to corrective discipline - that is usually in the realm of Master/slave relationships and perhaps Daddy/boy. Masters may use corrective discipline on their disobedient slaves. It may be by SM, some form of corporal punishment or denial of SM or other privilege. If SM is a pleasure, then how can it be used as a disciplinary measure? Many slaves say that if the Master withdraws his supportive energy or affection, then they are disconnected and isolated from the Master and the same techniques that were a sharing are now painful and harsh. Intent does make a difference.

Is it Always Safe, Sane, Consensual?

The phrase, "Safe, Sane, Consensual", came into being in the early 1980s in an attempt to define in simplicity how we should play with beneficent effect. To play safely requires knowledge and experience of SM and the human body, so that we don't do damage. To play sanely means that we don't take our negative emotional issues into the playroom. Consent means that what will be done is agreed to prior to play. It sets limits so that SM isn't abusive. Not everyone agrees with this assessment. Some people want to play with uncertainty and flirt with danger, not under the "vanilla" restrictions of others' sense of ethics. These may be called "Edge Players".

Edge play is usually defined as the most extreme forms of SM in which the acts are often very dangerous, very painful or strenuous and stressful, physically and psychologically. A major part of edge play lies in the concept of consensual nonconsensuality. We usually play with informed consent, but consent can be a fuzzy area. There is conditional consent wherein limits are expected to be respected, although not specifically spelled out. Unconditional or a blanket consent can cover a much broader area perhaps with some areas excluded. Some players think that playing without the use of safewords is consensual nonconsensuality, but most semi-consensual play goes far beyond that. In consensual nonconsensual play the submissive is willing to be pushed, controlled, used in ways that might not be expected or specifically agreed to. It pushes boundaries, limits, tolerances, stretches or even abolishes the concepts of safe and sane play - the rewards can be great or disastrous. Responsibility for the consequences is paramount, requiring tremendous maturity, experience and clarity. It's still a controversial issue within the community.

Identities and Lifestyles:

Biological sex and gender are different entities. Gender seems to be a cultural role, i.e., learned behavior that begins at birth, but that means it can be unlearned and changed at will. Biological males and females can live different gender and sexual roles: pansexual, transexual, transgender, transvestite, homosexual, lesbian, heterosexual, bisexual (two types), ambisexual, hermaphrodite, androgyne. Even male and female definitions are now being challenged.

There appear to be at least four sexes: hetero females and males and homo males and females (lesbians). There may be others, such as hermaphrodites or intersexuals with both sets of sexual organs, so even biological sex is not always so distinct. Even these sexes may not be inherent, but purely cultural constructions, although deeply rooted in the psyche. However, bisexuals are difficult to categorize. There are those who need both males and females to have a harmonious sexual/emotional life and others who might better be termed ambisexuals because biological sex and gender are not all that important, only the person, and they can be fulfilled in relationship with either sex/gender.

The Kinsey Bell curve of sexual orientation is smooth and defies labeling because there are an infinite number of points along its continuum. People may identify with a known gender behavior nearest to their needs as a convenience, although it doesn't quite fit. There can be a significant difference between primary orientation and choice of how one identifies and prefers to present self.

Sexes and genders have different emotional and psychological needs. Gays usually relate by subject/subject consciousness: an identity of likeness, wanting to be the object of desire or merge with it, creating a greater whole. Heterosexuals usually relate by subject/object consciousness that is an appreciation and balancing of the opposite sex to reach equality, but the observer doesn't want to be that sex. This is a significant difference. Neither is superior. However, this consciousness isn't the exclusive province of the respective genders and sexes.

There is no scientific proof that humans are inherently monogamous, but there's strong data to suggest that humans are heterogamous. Monogamy is part of patriarchal religious belief systems to preserve male lineage and power. Sexually free people are often polyamorous - capable of loving many, equally or to different degrees, at the same time. But is polyamory promiscuity? Not necessarily. It depends on how we define promiscuity, positively or negatively, or how we live it and it impacts our lives - functionally or dysfunctionally.

Most of the terms defining sexualities were created in outsider, minority, deviant subcultures to define themselves. Homosexuals have given us perhaps the largest number of terms: gay, lesbian, queer, faggot, queen, faerie, nelly, poofter, sissy, Bear, dyke, Drag Queen, Drag King; butch/fem (butch and Drag King is male impersonation, fem is a traditional female role) - largely lesbian lifestyles that parody traditional hetero lifestyles. There aren't as many original pansexual/heterosexual terms: Mistress, slut, dominatrix, prostitute (commercial-professional sex worker).

Drag is fantasy dress and/or gender transgression used to create and express a chosen persona. Gays and transvestites have traditionally been the groups known for drag. The fetish and role playing parts of the kink scene and play sessions are also a venue for drag. These affectations are also codes of sexual availability, in contrast to the predominant heterosexual unavailability code, the wedding ring. A prime example is the hanky code of gay leathermen; a specific color of handkerchief denotes the specific sexual activity sought, and whether it is worn in the left or right rear pocket denotes dominant or submissive, respectively. And, of course, the black leather, biker uniform.

All of these activities, behaviors and relationships are culturally deviant. In this context deviance is strictly a statistical term carrying no negative baggage. It simply means a difference from the norm, which is the average or majority, and used to measure the degree of difference. But cultures do place taboos on some deviant beliefs and activities, making many deviant behaviors negative qualities to be shunned and prohibited. It is these social prohibitions that we must overcome in belief and law to create a freer and healthier society wherein voluntary and harmless behaviors are not stigmatized.

Gays, gender transgressives, swingers, the polyamorous, leatherfolk and kinksters are nonconformists, shamans, healers, visionaries, shit-stirrers, outsiders, edge-players. They are more likely to be tolerant and accepting of other, nontraditional lifestyles and to explore alternative sexualities. These people have a wealth of alternative experiences and understandings that could be beneficial to our society. So, we must offer a critique of our society, along with positive models for alternatives lifestyles, to create a place for us in a new social order.

I have discussed many definitions, their changes through time and communities, and probably have not come near exhausting all possible terms and meanings. I hope that I have offered some clarifying perspective to the swirling confusion of terms surrounding our scene. These definitions I have presented will change over time. Then, is standardization of all definitions possible? Probably not. However, we need to consider some method of enforcement of meaning applied to specific terms, otherwise language loses precision to the point that any word could mean anything and no one could understand another. Now, all we can do is ask what another means, and by that come to some common understanding.