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

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



Message

SimplyMichael -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 2:10:55 PM)

Any chance you guys could keep this one simple and respond to the OP as written?



Grlwithboy -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 2:15:17 PM)

Sorry, I think I started the drift.

You are right. In fact, I would say that doing what you feel like doing because you want to do it is evidence of self-determination.



mnottertail -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 2:25:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Any chance you guys could keep this one simple and respond to the OP as written?


I actually thought I was keeping it simple.. I was pointing out that even someone who says they will not submit, or ever takes the bottom side in the domination submission bdsm relations is in fact submitting to the will of another constantly, somehow and somewhere.  The fact that they are a 10 doesn't add or subtract from it.  It doesn't change a damn bit just because one is dressed up in a french maid's uniform, there is a constant ebb and flow, and while it may be uninspiring or squicky to the kink-heart of some in their mind, it nevertheless is as natural as breathing and something that we all do in some fashion, so to check out a whipping or whatever;  I firmly believe has no bearing on anything in the world.

Ron



AdventurousLife -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 2:26:26 PM)


What I'm trying to figure out is why the idea of "bottoming" keeps coming up in the discussion of Domainance and Submission. I get the impression that people think that if, say, A master were died up and whipped by his slave, that he'd be "switching". If the Master ordered the slave to tie him up and whip him, then the Master was in control the whole time, and did not, in any way, submit.... though of course he could be said to have "bottomed".

Also, I don't quite get the scale of 1-10 for dominance-- what exactly is being measured?




Celeste43 -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 2:28:08 PM)

I don't view topping or bottoming as inherently D/s. If you like five alarm chili with your mouth on fire and tears running from your eyes, are you then a submissive since this is a form of pain play? Not in my book.

The same thing goes for most other activities. Do you enjoy having your feet rubbed after a long day standing? Does this make you a sub since someone else is performing an activity on you. Or are you automatically in charge if you ask your partner to do this for you? No relation seen here. And what if you like deep tissue massage, shiatsu or Reiki? Because before all the knots in the muscles have been released it will hurt. Therefore you're submissive since you'll pay the massage therapist $60 to get the pain and then the release? Puh-lease!




SireKane -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 2:52:34 PM)

In my opinion you can't discount the factors which you have stated. If you are a dominant who submits, not just bottoming, how could you be a "perfect 10" dominant? Bottoming and submission are an internal process, unless you have the power to read hearts and minds you cannot tell whether a person is simply bottoming or actually submitting. The fact that a dominant, bottoms , is submissive, or is bisexual does affect his degree of dominance in a heterosexual relationship, and even calls to question whether they are dominant at all.



Rover -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 2:56:16 PM)

Please explain how bottoming affects a power exchange (ie: control).  And then what you consider bottoming.  Is receiving a massage bottoming?  A blow job?  Impact play?  Where do you draw that line?
 
John



Grlwithboy -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 3:00:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SireKane
or is bisexual



The sheer ignorance that this inclusion indicates really nullifies whatever good arguments you might have had. Unless my propensity to fuck men somehow eliminates my ability to work with female subs.




MadRabbit -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 3:35:07 PM)

Rover, you kick ass.

People confuse and mix the two endlessly and its something that ends up really screwing up these discussions.

Spending time as a Leather servant to a Dom, being a pincushion for instructionals, and performing domestic service is not a reduction to one's Domliness in his own personal intimate relationships in the future.

Nor is labeling one's self as a S/M switch have anything to do with power exchange or authority dynamics.

The activities I engage in with the girls I meet sexually to meet my fetish for control have very little to do with S/M and pain. In fact, a lot of the time I havent gotten that desire satisfied threw S/M and pain which is why ultimately, I decided to walk away from the S/M skills and keep it more as a casual hobby.

Spending time on the bottom end of the toys for enjoyment or for lessons doesnt automatically equate to an innate desire to give up authority or power in a relationship.

I know dominant masochists and sadist submissives.

Top/Bottom, Sadist/Masochist, and Dominant/Submissive all mix and coverge endlessly with people in the public scene and are not divided up into two categories of Top/Sadist/Dominant and Bottom/Masochist/Submissive as some posters would like you to beleive.



MadRabbit -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 3:42:25 PM)

I agree with you, Michael.

I think the biggest problem is people dont say "What do these words mean to me?" and instead say "What activities and experiences do I have to have to fall into the proper category?"

The words are there to express parts of ourselves and not so we can follow a certain list of activities to ensure we fall in the proper category.




needsherdaddy -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 3:43:51 PM)

Okay  Real Dominants can bottom, and they can still be in control.  It just depends on the relationship that the Dominant and submissive have.  I was trained for a long time by a Dominant, and I found that although He was very Dominant and sadistic, He also had two things that He enjoyed.  He liked pain - on His nipples only, and He liked to stay on edge without cumming, because just like with a woman, it prolongs pleasure.  He would give me specific instructions as to what He wanted me to do and when He wanted me to do it.  He also wanted to make sure that He couldn't change that at any time.  So, because He trusted me and knew I had absolutely no desire to dominate Him, I was told to have Him bound and do those series of things.  Although most would argue that I had control of the situation, it was only a physical thing, and I never actually 'took' that control.  He never wanted me to.  So, I did as I was told, and He was pleased.  It's not something He wanted often, but something more for a change of pace every now and again.

I had a very difficult time with Him wanting it, and I always struggled with the fact of physically I guessed I did have that control.  What I realized in the end is that it was a gift, in that my Dominant trusted me THAT much to do what I was told, because it's extremely important when He can't change the outcome.  Eventually, after lots of conversations, I learned that was one time that I was submitting when it wasn't convenient for me.  I hated doing it, but I loved pleasing Him in it. 

Just my two cents from personal experience. 



MadRabbit -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 3:58:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SireKane

In my opinion you can't discount the factors which you have stated. If you are a dominant who submits, not just bottoming, how could you be a "perfect 10" dominant? Bottoming and submission are an internal process, unless you have the power to read hearts and minds you cannot tell whether a person is simply bottoming or actually submitting. The fact that a dominant, bottoms , is submissive, or is bisexual does affect his degree of dominance in a heterosexual relationship, and even calls to question whether they are dominant at all.



Being bisexual has absolutely zero, nothing, nadda to do with dominance except for widening the category of people they dominate.

Having an innate desire for dominance in a relationship and being an authority figure in a relationship arent necessarily linked and one isnt affected by the other.

Does someone have to have an innate desire for dominance to be an effective and good boss, parent, seargeant or cop?

Does a submissive who has a job as a police captain automatically lose credibility as a submisisve in their intimate personal relationships?

Does a grunt in the Marines who gets ordered around all day automatically lose credibility as a dominant in their intimate personal relationships because they have a role in life where they are submissive to a higher authority?

Why does someone who spent time as a slave and enjoyed it automatically lose credibility regarding their ability to exert dominance and be an authority figure in another relationship?

Thats like saying...if you enjoyed mopping the floors and taking orders from your boss then you lose all credibility for a promotion to be the boss.

Finnally...heres the kicker...would someone who enjoys being a slave and enjoys being a dominant lose credibility and ability in both?

Anyone who takes away credibility from someone based on past experiences and not by how they explain those experiences, what those experiences meant to them, and who they are are people caught up in some crystal clear superficial image of Domliness.

I view people like that in the same light as I view people who think spending a duration in service equates to weakness as a dominant and not humility and strength.

People I dont want to be in relationships with.



AdventurousLife -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 4:32:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SireKane

In my opinion you can't discount the factors which you have stated. If you are a dominant who submits, not just bottoming, how could you be a "perfect 10" dominant?


How can you be a dominant if you don't know what submission is? How can you know what submission is if you've never been there?



MadRabbit -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 4:48:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: needsherdaddy

I had a very difficult time with Him wanting it, and I always struggled with the fact of physically I guessed I did have that control.  



I'm not trying to pick on you, but just make a point.

One of the arguments I heard at munches and online regarding how bottoming is an undomly behavior is that "By not being on Top, the dominant is giving up some degree of control and that makes him less than Domly."

I wonder how many people would call me "less than Domly" because I let my slave drive my car, thus giving her control over the health and safety of my body. 



AdventurousLife -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 4:55:38 PM)

quote:

I wonder how many people would call me "less than Domly" because I let my slave drive my car, thus giving her control over the health and safety of my body.


Oh, that's just wrong. Ok, I know its not right ,but it sure feels wrong. You're not any less domly, but oh, its just wrong! :-)



robertolapiedra -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 4:57:46 PM)

Hello SimplyMichael. The way I usually explain this stuff, is with a dance analogy. One leads the other follows. If you see two women dancing (same sex for no gender stereotype) you could say in appearence, that the one leading was exerting dominance over the other being led.

But in "reality", it could be that the dominant of the two was being topped by the submissive, or that the dominant was bottoming to the submissive. It all depends on the mindset, not what it looks like from the exterior.

Another example, is a classic interpretation of the man-woman Samaritan position. The one on top is "topping", and the one on the "bottom" is bottoming. Simple, right? The one on top thinks he is in control, the one on the bottom? maybe she thinks the same thing as in her mind the top person is "on his knees" and servicing her as a sub. You would have two dominants both seeing the other as bottom and "submitting" in that "symbol". (Vanillas do this "secretly" all the time!)

I once went with a friend to pick up his daughter from dance class (competition level). We sat in, as they were finishing. As I watched the female instructor doing her thing, I sort of admired her "dominance" on the whole group, directing, instructing and "correcting" errors (she was not bad looking either!).

After a while, she started cutting in to correct "on the fly" the dancers. She would cut in and lead the ladies, she would cut in and be "in character" to be led by the men. In an instant, she would lead or "be led", all this seamlessly, bottom to top and to bottom again and "believable" in both. (Latin dances)

The one thing I realized, is that no matter how "submissive" she would act when led by men, no one doubted for an instant, that she was dominating them (and the whole group) at 10+ level. I think of her, when I get confused by the "symbolics".

What you actually do, has nothing to do with submission or dominance, it is a mind set. It may be overt, it may be secretive, perceived ambiguously but when you "dance", the best "dancers" usually know where the "dominance" is coming from. Just musing. RL.


PS: When a "bottoming" master is being whipped by his sub and yells: "Harder, you wimpy bitch! Do you want me to show you how hard?!!". You may get the impression that the one doing the "damage" is not a 10+ dominant... (Heard this in a club some years ago, everyone was laughing silly!   : )



EclipseAbove -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 5:00:44 PM)

Quite frankly, I don't see how there is even a topic to discuss.  The way I see it, there are several sets of terms to help describe people's preferences.  The terms represent the extremes along a continuum.  Take heterosexual/homosexual - there are people at each extreme and people at any number of points in the middle.  Dominant/submissive has as much to do with top/bottom or sadist/masochist as hetero/homo.  You mix and match.  Pick a spot on each continuum.

To complicate things a bit, anyone's place along any of the continuums may change based on the situation.  You can be dominant with your partner at home, but not so dominant with the police officer when you get pulled over for speeding (maybe, if you are a major masochist).  Or top when you are flogging someone and bottom when getting a massage.  Of course, there is also the factor of the other person involved.  Some people feel dominant towards some people and submissive towards others.

As for dominants who bottom?  Sure, there are plenty out there.  I'm one (depending on the person and activity) and so is my 24/7 slave (again, person and activity is very important).  And as for the dominant scale or a scale for any of these terms - great idea, certainly more informative than just picking an extreme (didn't Kinsey put scales on this stuff in the 1950's??).  Although a "perfect 10" anything is still only in a particular context (like when my slave cross-examines a hostle witness she doesn't like - 10 for dominance and 10 for sadism).  Just my $0.02.



AdventurousLife -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 5:58:07 PM)


The problem with a scale, especially a numbered one, is that it assumes there's a range here.... but Dominance is not a degree of preference.

Dominance is a description of a position in a relationship. To put a scale on it is to try and say that some dominants are more dominant based on their activities (near as I can tell) or even than dominance can be measured. This is not like kinsey--- kinsey was measureing degree of attractiveness to two genders. But a guy who has sex mostly with women is not any less of a lover when he is with men, simply because he spends most of his time with women.

Nor is (for example) the wife who submits to her Master any less dominant when her slave submits to her.




Rover -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 6:21:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdventurousLife

The problem with a scale, especially a numbered one, is that it assumes there's a range here.... but Dominance is not a degree of preference.


Often times, Dominance (or submission) is a relative term (one individual relative to another), regardless of any "scale".
 
John



Lashra -> RE: A new take on the "real doms don't bottom" deal (7/18/2007 8:15:23 PM)

I am Dominant and I like to Bottom sometimes, does that make me less Dominant? Heck no. I am telling him how I want him to do it and if he doesn't, then he gets disciplined for not obeying. Also I only allow one person to top me and that is my sub, my Dominance with him never waivers.

I've known quite a few Dominants who like to Bottom, its not about D/s, its about recieving sensations and telling someone how you want them.

~Lashra



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625