subgirlygirl: Uh… not really. I like labels. Labels serve a purpose. Not to exclude for friendship,
subgirlygirl: Uh… not really. I like labels. Labels serve a purpose. Not to exclude for friendship, but as a rudimentary gauge of compatibility? Absolutely. If I buy a can of what I think is tomato soup and end up with chicken noodle, I’m not going to be pleased. If I choose to try chicken noodle, that’s one thing. But having no up-front identification? That’s a recipe for disappointment. If the soup analogy isn’t doing it for you, Iet’s go with a more relevant example: If someone identifies as dominant but likes to be whipped and clipped on occasion, that information, or the label ‘switch,’ should probably be mentioned pretty immediately. You identify as a ‘little’? That’s need-to-know information. How we identity ourselves dictates, to some degree, how people engage with us. Should we all have to be the exact same ‘breed’ of dominant, or submissive, or kinkster, or ____? Of course not. It would be impossible anyway, because we all define things a little differently. But knowing up front that someone is ____ could save a lot of time and energy. -- source link