Quote by WmCutterBlack
I guess I have a different attitude about the labels and definitions. To me topping, like dominating, is a verb, not a noun. Submitting is the same, existing only in the action, not in some static form as a "thing". I think we tend to over-label things, partly as a result of the alleged information age in which we are so exposed to so much data and input that we try to use some form of "shorthand" as quick and easy labels to communicate.

That said, I suspect, as human beings, we are all what people call switches, constantly flowing form one to the other depending on what we experience and choose to do. But again, it's over labelling: at work we have to do what a boss tells us to do, are we then submissive to the boss? If we're driving and someone tries to cut us and we honk the horn and they back off, did we just dominate them? It gets a bit absurdist to my thinking to keep trying to apply inappropriate labels and definitions all the time.

I suppose for "tops", we define them as the assertive initiators of actions, the controllers, perhaps, but how a dominant can be a "bottom", then I don't understand. If we define a bottom as the catcher and the top as the pitcher, why then confuse the issue with dominant and submissive? It just seems pedantic. I know humans are prone to encompassing dichotomies, but a dominant bottom and a submissive top seem a little oxymoronic, like a weak tyrant or a cynical romantic. Maybe my mileage must vary...