A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master



Message

SimplyMichael -> A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 12:04:24 PM)

I have often found in arguments that people are actually agreeing on the core concepts but are instead arguing or at least misunderstanding other's semantic differences.

So, I propose a new tack to make the discussion about dominants who bottom more clear.

Lets pretend we can agree on a measurement of dominance, say 1 through 10 with 10 being the most dominant.  Just suspend belief and pretend we can do this.

So we are speaking here of generalities, as broad concepts, not of specific people, not you, not your dominant, not any single person.  So conceptually I want to hear how people think.  Try and keep responses short if you can so we can see the broad spectrum of belief rather than get lost in the details if possible.

I believe that regardless of how often someone bottoms, submits, goes bisexual, or how they part their hair that those acts do not prevent them from achieving a 10.  I am not saying everyone can be a 10 or even that doing those things is needed to be a 10, simply that having done them is NOT a bar to becoming a "perfect 10 dominant".

One last caveat, I realize that for some, any hint of weakness invalidates someone as THEIR choice for a dominant but we are setting that issue aside for the sake of this discussion. 



mnottertail -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 12:11:17 PM)

well, first reality check, I am at least an 11.

I still think that part of the issue is that many people in their heart of hearts see submission as weakness.

I have talked to several Dominatrixs (gowd that word is hawt).  that would gladly have let me whip them or torture them, no humiliation, no dirty words, no suck my dick no nothing else, just submit to torture, flogging, whipping and so on.

I don't see them as weak because of that, I think that many girls are just wired that way.

I think you can do about anything, it isn't that there are books being kept and we have to subtract this column because------

This ain't like going to court for speeding where transgressions of some codification by the clueless can be assayed and assessed.

But people think like they think, yanno?

Ron 



KatyLied -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 12:16:53 PM)

What's the deal?  Does reaching 10 or beyond make you more *real*, *twue* and/or superior?

I see topping/bottoming as more of an event thing than an orientation thing.  Meaning that I don't see the difficulty with a dominant wanting to be on the other side of the sensations or a sub wanting to be on the other side, you know, to experience it, see what it's like.

I agree that people are going to think what they want to think.  But if they are making a big fuss over it, perhaps they are doing some projecting.





Rover -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 12:21:23 PM)

Personally, I do not think that Dominance (a state of being) and bottoming (an activity that, presumably, feels "good") have any correlation to one another whatsoever.  And they are certainly not inversely proportional to one another.
 
I bottom for massages.  Is that any different than bottoming for a flogging that might feel good in exactly the same way?
 
Bottoming does not require a power exchange, while Dominance does.  That is what distinguishes them as wholly separate and distinct. 


John



slaveish -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 12:22:25 PM)

I avoided the other thread, didn't even read it, figured it would turn into an exhausting debate. If the Dom ~wants~ to bottom, then the Dom is doing what he wants to do and is, therefore, behaving in a Dominant manner. Bottoming does not make him less Dominant - it increases his exposure to various kink. Like Katy said, bottoming and topping are activities and not necessarily orientations.



PONYSEEKER -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 12:22:39 PM)

I agree with you.



BitaTruble -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 12:28:49 PM)

I'm not quite sure I'm getting the question, but, to me, regardless of what you do, it doesn't take away from what you are. If you call yourself 10 on the dom scale, then spend an evening bottoming I don't see that you get minus points for that. If you're a 10, you're a 10.

Celeste

edited to add: Yeah, what Rover said.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 12:30:41 PM)

The issue with "switch" for me has always been that it implied on/off or "one OR the other" when in reality it's "both/and/always."

But people prefer boxes, and overlapping levels of complexity is too much for them.



LordVelvet -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 12:38:46 PM)

I would have to agree with LA. When I have switched it doesn't take away from the Dom side of Me. They are two different sides residing in one body. That is how I see it.
LordVelvet



mstrjx -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 12:41:14 PM)

I've long considered that all I really wanted in a partner was to be a complement.  What is it that you want or need, and I'll bet that I really am that person.  Orientation doesn't really mean that much to me, activities more or less the same.

What does that make me?  Without an identity?  Without a soul?

When I first started, I happily was dominant because it seemed that it takes a bit of foresight and creativity to craft a scene, a dynamic, a relationship centered around WIITWD.  I have those things, and I wasn't meeting a woman who could have fulfilled that position with me as the 'opposite number'.

Don't get me wrong, when I do what I do, I'm definitely feeling the appropriate rush.  But I'm probably just as likely to feel that rush in bottoming.  Who knows?  The opportunities have been so few and far betwen over the years.

What matters most to me, and always has been, is my focus on a partner.  All of my partners through the years have been submissive women, and they never seemed to question either me or my methods.

Jeff



mnottertail -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 12:47:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

I bottom for massages.  Is that any different than bottoming for a flogging that might feel good in exactly the same way?
John


Wow, I never thought about it like that--------------
Oh, honey, come here -- you can suck my dick and I will be on the bottom, I am feeling kinda submissive today------more tongue goddammit.
This has opened up a whole new facet of interaction for me.

Thanks John!!!!!!!!



Rover -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 1:01:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

I bottom for massages.  Is that any different than bottoming for a flogging that might feel good in exactly the same way?
John


Wow, I never thought about it like that--------------
Oh, honey, come here -- you can suck my dick and I will be on the bottom, I am feeling kinda submissive today------more tongue goddammit.
This has opened up a whole new facet of interaction for me.

Thanks John!!!!!!!!



Exactly, Ron!!!  Except bottoming doesn't have anything to do with feeling submissive.  :)
 
John



MasterFireMaam -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 1:04:17 PM)

Since I feel that Top/bottom are physical roles, I don't have a problem with mix-matching them with Ds or Ms. It's just physical sensations we enjoy. I haven't always, mind you, felt this way...and sometimes, I admit, I still have the knee-jerk reaction of sub=masochist, Dom=sadist. This isn't, as I have seen and experienced, true (at least in my world).

Master Fire



mnottertail -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 1:05:17 PM)

LOL, I get it, you get it, Mike gets it, some others get it....just a macabre presentation of the concept for the nay-sayers.



Rover -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 1:06:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

LOL, I get it, you get it, Mike gets it, some others get it....just a macabre presentation of the concept for the nay-sayers.


You know how I love the macabre. :)
 
John



Grlwithboy -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 1:09:14 PM)

Honestly?

I've never had a conversation with someone with whom I've gained intimacy - real no-bullshit intimacy - in which that person hasn't expressed at the LEAST a curiosity about T/D if they are s/b or vice versa.

There's a lot more malleability in what people do than in what they say. Self included, so I've really ditched on the "never" concept as much as I can. I know what works well for me and what doesn't now. I know that the likelihood of relationship success is increased hugefold with someone who gets really excited about the prospect of submitting to me and is at most indifferent to the idea of me submitting to them rather than really dying for that to happen. It'd be a long wait and rather dull.




Rover -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 1:14:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy

Honestly?

I've never had a conversation with someone with whom I've gained intimacy - real no-bullshit intimacy - in which that person hasn't expressed at the LEAST a curiosity about T/D if they are s/b or vice versa.

There's a lot more malleability in what people do than in what they say. Self included, so I've really ditched on the "never" concept as much as I can. I know what works well for me and what doesn't now. I know that the likelihood of relationship success is increased hugefold with someone who gets really excited about the prospect of submitting to me and is at most indifferent to the idea of me submitting to them rather than really dying for that to happen. It'd be a long wait and rather dull.



I never said "never", in that they may be found together (Dominance & Top, submissive & bottom).  But that they are not fundamentally or causally linked.  Just as "homeowner" (or any other descriptive term) and Dominant can often be found together, they are not related to one another beyond a happy coincidence.
 
John



Aswad -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 1:22:39 PM)

Just my 2 cents on the topic...

Some dominants may not have the mental control required to put themselves in a different mindspace. Some are afraid to find out that they "secretly" like it, thinking that will diminish their dominant side, or invalidate it somehow. Some simply do not have the confidence to surrender control to someone else, even for a limited amount of time, either in the sense of lacking the confidence to enter into the situation, or lacking confidence in their ability to "revert" to a dominant mode. There is probably a significant overlap between these groups, as these misgivings tend to be tangled up.

Personally, I am fairly symmetrical of mind. I would not thrive under long-term submission, though, and most Dommes appeal more to me as friends, acquaintances or some other equivocal relationship, so it takes an exceptional person for me to want to bottom, but I can do it for the sake of gaining insight as well, or to let someone else practice on a very emotionally stable person with good feedback. I do not find any conflict with my lifestyle.

I have no problem with people saying "tried it, didn't like it", but when people are absolutely adamant about not even trying it once, and proclaim that "real" Doms don't do such things, I smell fear. Not saying my gut reaction is right, but that is my gut reaction. It is also what I tend to sense from them when I meet them IRL.

Apart from that, I pretty much agree with what LA said, but I you don't need to be a switch to make it work, or even like the experience. Just like a lesbian couple doesn't have to be bisexual in order to use the "natural" means of procreation when adoption and/or artificial insemination is disallowed for lesbian couples in that jurisdiction (this is common in Norway, where there is some incongruity in the law at the moment, hopefully to be fixed Sep 1st). You tell yourself "I'm doing this, period", and then you do it with whatever heart you decided to put into it, a matter of self-discipline overriding instinctive desire.



beargonewild -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 1:25:12 PM)

Being either Dominant or submissive or a combo of both is an inherent trait in everybody. Each person expresses this in a way that they see fit to do so. Whether a Dominant is flogging a sub or telling a sub how to flog is still the same concept just expressed in two different avenues.



mnottertail -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 1:31:03 PM)

 Just as "homeowner" (or any other descriptive term) and Dominant can often be found together, they are not related to one another beyond a happy coincidence.


among my attributes are homeowner and mortgagee, so I bottom to the bank once a month and there is nothing happy or coincidental about that....they say they have a signed contract that it is my free will, but I can guarentee I was under duress. 



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125