RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms?

RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (Full Version)

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

Message

Reigna -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/9/2008 9:59:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist I wish people would quit seeing bottoms in some sort of stereotypical role. It's worse than stereotyping, I think. A lot of people (not you!) seem to think that bottoms are lesser beings. It follows, of course, that tops are lesser beings than dominants. Blech. Me, I don't see any difference between a bottom and a sub. I know what the definitions are, and there may well be a difference. But I just don't see it. To me, it's a distinction without a difference. As for do-me types? I kick 'em to the curb, regardless of whether they're bottoms, subs, or random assholes.

SpiderInWaiting -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/9/2008 9:59:54 PM)
If you are dealing with new subs or bottoms or slaves or whatever it is they are, then most likely they don't know where they fit in or what they really want yet vs. what they just want to fantasize about. Obviously if they don't know then they wont be able to communicate it to you. I wouldn't really say they are trying to be deceitful, just confused and in need of self exploration. Yes there are 'bottoms' out there that will talk a good line about service and submission when their only real intention is to get you to play with them but have no real interest in the D/s part bdsm. It's the ones who are purposefully deceitful that will leave you feeling frustrated and lied to. There are plenty of people out there that want to enjoy some kinky play without the D/s dynamic being involved and will be upfront about it. Unfortunately it just takes some seasoning to weed out the liars and game players.

darchChylde -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/9/2008 10:03:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TennesseeRain We are all just people...each with our own desires, needs and definitions. All as varied as the individuals. When we are fortunate enough to find one that meets our needs and we theirs, there is no need for labels or definitions. As much as i appreciate the beautiful sentiment, everything i have ever read and seen since i was first thrust into the scene 10 years ago has told me that we actually need these labels and definitions. But it is very important to work at not limiting ourselves and others with the same.

Leatherist -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/9/2008 10:05:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reigna quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist I wish people would quit seeing bottoms in some sort of stereotypical role. It's worse than stereotyping, I think. A lot of people (not you!) seem to think that bottoms are lesser beings. It follows, of course, that tops are lesser beings than dominants. Blech. Me, I don't see any difference between a bottom and a sub. I know what the definitions are, and there may well be a difference. But I just don't see it. To me, it's a distinction without a difference. As for do-me types? I kick 'em to the curb, regardless of whether they're bottoms, subs, or random assholes. I get SO tired of some people on here constantly knocking tops and bottoms. specially when "the true ones" live in thier mother's basements-and work part time at burger king.

LadyPact -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/9/2008 10:07:19 PM)
Ok. A few comments here. I just put up a post today on My specific definitions of the other side of the kneel. I'm going to do it again here. Yes, to Me, slave, sub, and bottom all have different definitions. Let Me state now that this is My opinion alone. It doesn't need to be the way anyone else views it. To Me, a slave means a person that is or has been in a M/s dynamic. There's no passing go, collect two hundred dollars if you haven't done it. A sub is someone submissive in nature. That is not to say that they are better or worse than a slave. It's just a different take on things. A bottom, by My definition, is the "do-ee" during a scene. Nothing more, nothing less. This is a person who likes having things done to them. Whether that be bondage, pain, humiliation or any other type of activity. There is nothing wrong with anyone who picks any of the above. If it is what works for them. Fay, I did want to make a comment on something you said. Actually, dc is quite the submissive. After having gotten to know him in this past year, I wouldn't doubt his submission to Ma'am for the world. Sure, he may be an attention whore (sorry for the phrase) at times, but he really is devoted. If you could see him through My eyes, you wouldn't have such a negative opinion of him. Yes, there are real (don't bastardize the word with that 'w') submissives out there. Yes, they are rare, but they do exist.

GreedyTop -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/9/2008 10:13:01 PM)
agrees with Lady Pact on the definitions, with the adendum that these definitions can and usually are refined by the people within the dynamic. ALSO, to the OP: making ad hominem comments towards people whose posts don't make you all warm and fuzzy really makes you look petty and, yes - jealous. I'm also curious what your point was in reference to Lynn.

GreedyTop -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/9/2008 10:35:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TSseduction Yeah, that was a not so subtle but clever backhand slap to her chosent profession as a prostitute. They really do give most dominas a bad PR image, sorry to say. Dominas are NOT prostitutes. Prostitutes are not dominas. Um...Lynn is NOT a prostitute.. she's a model / Pro-sub. She's been celibate for quite some time.

QuietPeppermint -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/9/2008 11:01:08 PM)
... I need to read more. I had no idea there was much of a difference between a sub and bottom. But I guess it depends on who you talk to. I suppose one refers to mindset, and one refers to action ? But to the OP : Maybe there are people like me who don't think there is much of a difference or don't realize it. In that case, they have no idea that they are supposed to be a sub or bottom ? [ No, I'm not a mistress but I give most parts of the forum equal attention ! ]

RedMagic1 -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/9/2008 11:08:15 PM)
Okay, totally serious: QP, I consider myself to be a dominant who sometimes bottoms. There are dominant masochists, too, though that's not part of my deal. Think of it like driving. Sometimes you want to be behind the wheel, and sometimes you want to be chauffeured around. I am more comfortable being in control, but it can be a lot of fun to be surprised. Being topped by someone you trust is like Christmas -- you never know quite what's going to be inside the box today. Dominant/submissive = who determines where the car ends up Top/bottom = who is driving for this part of the trip

pixelslave -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/9/2008 11:14:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: ORIGINAL: MsFay My personal belief is that the most out there are bottoms that just like being dominated and really not interest in being a sub so much as the feeling of being submissive. A sub to me is someone that really is about the other person's needs and reconciles himself with that whereas a bottom is inherently self-centered in that his needs are the motivating factor. In my opinion, a bottom is someone who enjoys being at the receiving end of an activity (usually some form of physical play)without exchanging power. The gratification here usually comes from the body's physical response to the physical activity versus a psychological exhiliration of being in a submissive role. Thus, one can speak of a dominant bottom. A bottom may be selfish and focused on his needs alone, or he may be compassionate and take interest in needs of his topping partner. I'm very inclined to agree with you Sea. Lady Pact's definitions also had a familiar ring I'd be somewhat comfortable with if one had to force labels on everyone; categorizing them such that they fit into nice and neatly labeled slots regardless of whether they were fully comfortable wearing those particular labels or not. My problem is that doing that doesn't allow for the continuum of variations that normally exists between polar extremes. quote: I define a sub to be someone who enjoys feelings of submission to whatever degree. I don't think there is a dichotomy of either sub or not sub, but rather a continuum that defines degrees of submission. Exactly! There are other variables as well. I'm not going to fully submit to a woman I barely know compared to a woman I have an established relationship with! quote: I think a person who enjoys the feeling of being submissive but is self-centered and focused on his needs only is a selfish sub, not a bottom. That thought has a great deal of merit. Narcissism could indeed be part of the issue. As an aside, it could also be an issue of a person who wants to give, but only in the manner they wish to, thus making them a 'controlling giver'. LOL! As this lifestyle is also known for predatory behavior, consider the situation of a submissive who has an 'empty tank'. Perhaps he's been submissive to an ungiving partner for such a great length of time, that the submissive's unmet needs have become so immense he's not presently able to give to another in the manner that he normally would be until his tank has been at least partially refilled. Is he selfish, needy, or merely in need of appropriate nurturing or attention of some kind to refill his 'tank' so he can be the submissive once again that's part of his normal nature? Perhaps that's something to consider that may help explain why some subs are a bit too eager to have their needs met. It doesn't mean they don't want to give every bit as much as the dommes who want to receive what they have to offer; perhaps a case of everyone involved having had unmet needs for far too long... quote: As I ponder this topic, I am wondering if a desire to please is essential to being submissive. While it is commonly thought to be, I am not convinced it is a necessary component of submission. For instance, a prisoner may be in a submissive role to a prison guard but does not necessarily have a desire to please the prison guard. Similarly, it's conceivable that there is a sub whose submission comes from a place of emotional masochism (it's not the same as bottoming) and has little to do with pleasing. Cheers, Sea That's an excellent question and is something along the lines of things I've been pondering of late myself. I believe there are some who give or do things for others in the hope of being rewarded. As such, they give with hidden "strings attached", then are disappointed when their manipulative behavior doesn't give them what they desire. There are also those who do good things for others hoping they will be liked; in essence using it as a means to prop up their self esteem. I'd like to think a submissive does things for others because the act of doing things to make things better for another brings them joy and happiness from the act of their giving. If it's for any other reason, to me, they are clearly creating an internal expectation for themselves they will receive some other reward; something that may never come, causing resentment to build within. Yet, if the people they give to never show their appreciation, eventually the submissive's other basic needs as a human being will not be met. Regardless of what is said, a flesh and blood submissive is still human and can't possibly give endlessly of himself without receiving *something* from their dominant that fills their other needs as a person. That's why I continue to say it can't be all about the dominant, but instead must be about "us". - pixel

SurrenderForMe -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/9/2008 11:14:36 PM)
A true sub is the sub that satisfies your definition of a submissive. I came to believe that any number of things generally leads to lack of submission (as percieved by me) from the espoused submissive. 1. Online you meet someone, in person, no chemistry, no urge to submit. If they are desparately in need of play, they roleplay and it sucks. 2. The person is new and doesn't know enough to define themselves. 3. The person has convinced themselves that saying what you want to hear will get them laid. 4. The person is not the right submissive for you, but is perfect for someone else. 5. Kinky books should be banned until people have 5 years experience. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I have met too many people who read a book and then tell me how to behave. 6. Depending on if this is a first meeting, they are not your submissive. They are people who are meeting you and are acting normally for meeting a stranger for the first time. I have had the misfortune of acting like someone should be a sub at first meeting. I have had the misfortune of acting like someone should be following just common courtesy at first meeting. Now, I try to address that before meeting, that it will be a straightforward meeting, but that if things feel right for both, then we can dive deeper. It takes one of the myriad of issues off the table. 7. I know there are more reasons, but I can't think of them right now.

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 4:34:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TennesseeRain there is no need for labels or definitions. Labels and definitions are useful when used as communication tools rather than absolute ideas. These terms are useful to convey the general ballpark of what one is like, which is useful for self-awareness, general BDSM understanding, and gauging compatibility. For instance, when I identify myself as a BDSM enthusiast, it gives the general ballpark of where I am in the broader spectrum of sexuality. When I identify myself as a heterosexual sub, it suggests that for relationships I am compatible with women who enjoy dominance. All that said, since the labels under discussion here are not universally defined, it is a good idea for two people engaged in a relevant discussion to compare their respective definitions. Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 4:52:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pixelslave I'd like to think a submissive does things for others because the act of doing things to make things better for another brings them joy and happiness from the act of their giving. If it's for any other reason, to me, they are clearly creating an internal expectation for themselves they will receive some other reward; something that may never come, causing resentment to build within. Yet, if the people they give to never show their appreciation, eventually the submissive's other basic needs as a human being will not be met. Thanks for responding to my post. I agree with the point that a submissive's needs must be addressed for hapiness or longevity of the relationship. I think submission comes from different places, of which masochism and devotion are two. I think these two are different for the type of behavior and interests they produce. And I do not consider them to be mutually exclusive; I think different people have different combinations of how the different drives of submission come together. Drives outside of submission make the matter more complex yet. The point I raised in my prior post is that the desire to please is commonly thought to be an essential trait of a submissive. What about a submissive whose submissive drive comes primarily or entirely from masochism? I was pondering the validity of the point and think it is more a cultural expectation than a trait that is essential to submission. Cheers, Sea

bottomboy81 -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 5:44:59 AM)
I am proud to be a bottom. I am not going to BS and say I am some thing when I am not. I actually think its pretty lame to be a sub/lifestyler. I have a life of my own and ONLY I choose how to live it. Just because I like certain aspects of kink, it shouldn't mean I should revolve my whole life around it. Life is precious, you are only young once, you only live once, why waste it away on some twit that thinks she can boss your whole life around because you like certain aspects of kink? What a sham. Not to mention, the domme believes you are a lesser person than her and yet, you are expected to waste your freedom of life on that particular person who thinks this about you. I like to be controlled in the bedroom but other than that, its my life and I can do what the hell I want. I am not going to waste it on a controlling chauvinist.

Dari -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 6:28:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: ORIGINAL: pixelslave I'd like to think a submissive does things for others because the act of doing things to make things better for another brings them joy and happiness from the act of their giving. If it's for any other reason, to me, they are clearly creating an internal expectation for themselves they will receive some other reward; something that may never come, causing resentment to build within. Yet, if the people they give to never show their appreciation, eventually the submissive's other basic needs as a human being will not be met. Thanks for responding to my post. I agree with the point that a submissive's needs must be addressed for hapiness or longevity of the relationship. I think submission comes from different places, of which masochism and devotion are two. I think these two are different for the type of behavior and interests they produce. And I do not consider them to be mutually exclusive; I think different people have different combinations of how the different drives of submission come together. Drives outside of submission make the matter more complex yet. The point I raised in my prior post is that the desire to please is commonly thought to be an essential trait of a submissive. What about a submissive whose submissive drive comes primarily or entirely from masochism? I was pondering the validity of the point and think it is more a cultural expectation than a trait that is essential to submission. Cheers, Sea Both of you raise excellent points. For me, to ignore the needs and welfare of my subs means I'm failing them as a Domme. I'll let this secret out - I love it when my subs are happy and content. I love giving things to my subs, taking care of them in my own way. I love it when their needs are met, and I love being the one meeting their needs. I love giving things to people in general, I love taking care of them. But it's not driven from a submissive place, it's driven from a place where I want to lead them to be stronger, lead them to be happier. I control, I always will - but it's for their own good, I swear! (yes, even when I'm beating them). The need to give, to care for - that's driven from a lot of different places. The need to submit - that's driven from many places too. I think there are as many motivations and reasons to be submissive, or to like giving, or caring for, or dominant, as there are people to be that way. I don't think a bottom is inherently less or more "true" or "real" than a sub - it's just a different way of looking at life. If you are a bottom, and that's what floats your boat - great! Go and do, enjoy the hell out of it. If you are a submissive, and it makes you happy to submit - fantastic! If you want a life away from the lifestyle, that's your choice and what works for you. If you don't, then that too is your choice. Judgment is just too time-consuming. If it's not hurting someone else, why bother getting upset if another person makes a choice you wouldn't?

LadyPact -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 6:31:47 AM)
quote: Original: pixelslave Lady Pact's definitions also had a familiar ring I'd be somewhat comfortable with if one had to force labels on everyone; It really has nothing to do with "forcing" labels on anyone. It has to do with a beginning concept so people can identify to each other. Nothing more. Nothing less.

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 6:46:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bottomboy81 If you think you should be able to enjoy kink as you do without being thought less for it, I think the comments you direct at those who enjoy dominance and submission to a different degree are incongruent with that expectation. Cheers, Sea

misterbananafish -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 7:34:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SurrenderForMe A true sub is the sub that satisfies your definition of a submissive. I came to believe that any number of things generally leads to lack of submission (as percieved by me) from the espoused submissive. 1. Online you meet someone, in person, no chemistry, no urge to submit. If they are desparately in need of play, they roleplay and it sucks. 2. The person is new and doesn't know enough to define themselves. 3. The person has convinced themselves that saying what you want to hear will get them laid. 4. The person is not the right submissive for you, but is perfect for someone else. 5. Kinky books should be banned until people have 5 years experience. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I have met too many people who read a book and then tell me how to behave. 6. Depending on if this is a first meeting, they are not your submissive. They are people who are meeting you and are acting normally for meeting a stranger for the first time. I have had the misfortune of acting like someone should be a sub at first meeting. I have had the misfortune of acting like someone should be following just common courtesy at first meeting. Now, I try to address that before meeting, that it will be a straightforward meeting, but that if things feel right for both, then we can dive deeper. It takes one of the myriad of issues off the table. 7. I know there are more reasons, but I can't think of them right now. well said. i am new to this community, the bdsm community in general. i consider myself a submissive male, but for years i have had mostly vanilla relationships with some kink thrown in for flavor, none of those women had experience being a domme, so i have a lot of experience 'topping from the bottom' so to speak (but as i read the definitions of 'bottom' people are posting, perhaps i was just a bottom...) chemistry has a LARGE part to do with submission, for me anyhow. if i could be utterly submissive to anyone i met, i might fear for my own safety, that's just not wise. if a bottom is someone who is concerned about how the scene plays out and what is done 'for' them, what's different about a submissive who's owner enjoys doing all the things the submissive/bottom likes having done? by that logic, isn't a submissive the bottom with the right dom(me) ?

Reigna -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 9:00:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea The point I raised in my prior post is that the desire to please is commonly thought to be an essential trait of a submissive. What about a submissive whose submissive drive comes primarily or entirely from masochism? I was pondering the validity of the point and think it is more a cultural expectation than a trait that is essential to submission. I really appreciate this post, particularly your pointing out that the desire to please "is more a cultural expectation than a trait that is essential to submission." You realize, of course, that your "hypothetical" submissive whose drive comes primarily or entirely from masochism is commonly considered not to exist? Because everyone knows that submission is about pleasing, and masochism is about all that other stuff. As a matter of fact, I don't know that, and it's great to hear from another person who doesn't know that, either.

Reigna -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 9:10:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bottomboy81 Just because I like certain aspects of kink, it shouldn't mean I should revolve my whole life around it. That's true. Life is precious, you are only young once, you only live once, why waste it away on some twit that thinks she can boss your whole life around because you like certain aspects of kink? What a sham. Not to mention, the domme believes you are a lesser person than her and yet, you are expected to waste your freedom of life on that particular person who thinks this about you. I like to be controlled in the bedroom but other than that, its my life and I can do what the hell I want. I am not going to waste it on a controlling chauvinist. You are very much mistaken if you think that all dommes are like that. I say this not because I personally am interested in proving it to you, but because I am in a benevolent enough mood to point out that you need to calm down. You're projecting an angry and defensive attitude that will repel the decent-but-kinky woman you need--yes, need--to attract.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875