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

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



Message

ElanSubdued -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 11:15:31 AM)

MsFay,

I realize it's useful to have operational definitions because this helps when describing general requirements, wants, needs, and WIITWD (what it is that we do).  In this spirit, a few people replied to your OP with answers that resonated with me (Pixelslave, LadyPact, and Undergroundsea come to mind).  But, this said, gee... we kinky folk sure make it difficult just to fuck one another.  I mean, if I use the word "fuck" in both the literal and figurative sense of wanting to enjoy spending time with someone, who really cares whether your partner is an owner, dominant, top, switch, bottom, submissive, slave, or some other label?  True enough, when you're a dominant type looking for a submissive type, descriptors help get conversation going and in determining some modicum of compatibility.  At best though, these are loose definitions.

It has been my experience that most of what you need to know you'll find out by actually talking to someone and determining actual voice-to-voice, face-to-face chemistry.  Case in point, your prospective partner may well identify as a bottom, but mutual chemistry seduces you both and this self proclaimed "non-slave" ends up becoming the perfect slave you were looking for.  I've seen this type of thing happen many times.  Thus, I think it's useful to have delineations, but counterproductive to hold people to these in a steadfast fashion or to judge one as being somehow better than another.  A partner you find attractive is likely someone who makes your mind think, grow, and yearn, your heart swoon, and your loins wet.  Past this, I don't think it matters what label happens to appear on the package.

Elan.



Leatherist -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 11:23:29 AM)

Amen to the evolutionary process.
 
I think rigidity of mindset and expectation kill more potentially wonderful relationships than enything else. I look more for willingness to follow through to real life.....the intelligence and creativity to make things happen-and a good heart.
 
 With those, incredible things can occur.
 
 Don't let your own stereotypes and unreasonable expectations paint you into a corner.
 
 



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 11:45:14 AM)

There is always the possibility that it may be a case of "I -am- submissive... I'm just not submissive to you." Over the years, I've had the pleasure of topping several individuals who were great, and were probably wonderful submissives for someone, but with whom I just didn't click. I can't really judge their 'twu-ness', because we didn't mesh well, so I didn't get the clearest picture of what they would have been like had they been with someone who could evoke the potential in them.

I think that there are people who are fully actualized as human beings, and who see themselves in a submissive role--who are completely comfortable in that role. To me, these are the people who are "true" submissive individuals. The interesting thing is, though, that you won't find many of these people talking about how they're "true" and everyone else isn't. They're completely comfortable in their own skin, and don't feel a need to natter on and on about how great they are. The same goes for those on the dominant end of the scale. Even if the person is fully actualized in hir submission, you -still- may end up with the occasional combination that doesn't work, and where the submissive individual just can't settle in to submitting to that dominant person (or those dominant persons). Rather than judging by what they say, it's usually much more productive to give them a chance to prove themselves -- then, if it doesn't work, it isn't over words, but over actions. (My mother used to tell me,"Your actions speak so loudly I can't hear a word you say.")

Firestorm



Reigna -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 12:36:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

... you -still- may end up with the occasional combination that doesn't work, and where the submissive individual just can't settle in to submitting to that dominant person (or those dominant persons).



Very good points in your post. I happen to think that most cases of "s/he's not really a botton/submissive/slave" actually boil down to this last one, i.e., a combination that doesn't work. YMMV.



Reigna -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 12:39:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ElanSubdued

It has been my experience that most of what you need to know you'll find out by actually talking to someone and determining actual voice-to-voice, face-to-face chemistry ... Past this, I don't think it matters what label happens to appear on the package.


Or, for fuck's sake, what label anyone else applies.



pixelslave -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 1:11:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

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.



I think I knew where you were coming from my friend. [;)]  I fully understand that it often helps to have a point of reference as well as the need to have them. 
 
I was in part playing the devil's advocate in that what you consider a bottom, vs a submissive or a slave, may be different than what another person would define them as, or more importantly any particular person in question; who may feel they are more of a submissive than a bottom along the continuum between the two. [&:]
 
 - pixel



LadyPact -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 1:48:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pixelslave
i think I knew where you were coming from my friend. [;)]  I fully understand that it often helps to have a point of reference as well as the need to have them. 
 
I was in part playing the devil's advocate in that what you consider a bottom, vs a submissive or a slave, may be different than what another person would define them as, or more importantly any particular person in question; who may feel they are more of a submissive than a bottom along the continuum between the two. [&:]
 
 - pixel


You are right.  There is also the part about none of it is exclusive.  To Me, it's also true that one person can be all of the above, just with different people and how their interactions work.  Some of the bottoms that I play casually with are submissives, but as pointed out by in an earlier reply, they aren't submissive to Me.  It is a Top/bottom situation.

On the "Dominatrix versus Mistress" thread, I threw in My definitions of what I would call the other side of the kneel.  I'm putting part of that here to eliminate potential confusion.
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Domme.  As other people have pointed out, it is pronounced the same as Dom.  It is not pronounced "Dom-ay".  The only difference is to distinguish the difference between a male and a female dominant.

Top.  Being a Top is not necessarily connected with being a Dominant.  It means that one Tops another in a scene.  In other words, that person is the "do-er", rather than the "do-ee". 

Service Top.  This is where the Top is doing an activity specifically as a "service" to someone else, either by request or design.

Mistress.  There are two ways that people get this title.  One is that they have owned a slave and taken on all of the responsibility that the situation encompasses, OR it is a leather title bestowed by the community. 

Depending on who/what is involved, I can be any of the four listed above  Yes, I do the service top thing from time to time for certain people.  Other people, I top without it necessarily catering to them.  I am a Dominant to My clip.  The Mistress one I actually have on both counts, but I don't generally use it because clip is not a slave.



pixelslave -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 2:34:53 PM)

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.



 
It's always my pleasure to discuss things intelligently and rationally with you my friend.  I always learn from our discussions and interactions through this board. [:D]
 
 
quote:


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.



To clarify, not all submissives are masochists as I've heard many submissives express they clearly are not.  Also, in relationships people give to their partners for many reasons; which I assume was part of where you were coming from when you said there were drivers outside of submission that make the matter more complex.
 

quote:


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


It's difficult for me to imagine submission being driven entirely from masochism; perhaps that's because I'm very service oriented.  If that were the case though, if the domme desired service as part of submission to her, I can only imagine how dreary that would for one who was only driven by their desire for masochism.  I guess that leads to me a question for you.  Are we speaking of a physical or emotional masochist?  I can see one acting out of a need to fulfill something of an addiction to pain and the other acting out of more of a learned system of dysfunctional behavior as I wouldn't see an emotional masochist as likely to be capable of having a healthy relationship or posessing the positive self-esteem that a dominant would want to have for a partner. 
 
 - pixel




mettadas -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 2:36:44 PM)

bottomboy81, you don't seem to understand submissives very well.

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.

And submissives are not choosing how to live their lives?

 Just because I like certain aspects of kink, it shouldn't mean I should revolve my whole life around it.

Quite true.  Your life should revolve around the things that make it meaningful/satisfying for you.  And for those who find beauty in serving another, should they not pursue that?  If I were going to call anyone lame, I might choose someone who wanted that but was afraid to take the necessary steps/

 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?

You only live once.  Why waste it by living anything less than the most fulfilling way you can?

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.

Who says a domme has to think that you are a lesser person?

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.

Within limits, yes, you can do as you like.  Thankfully, so can those of us who want a different sort of life than you do.



mettadas -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 2:40:10 PM)

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 think I would call that person ... wait for it ... a masochist!

Why would you call that person a submissive?



pixelslave -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 3:03:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bottomboy81

I am proud to be a bottom. I am not going to BS and say I am some thing when I am not.



Good for you!  I think it's important to know who and what you are.  To be able to feel good about it is even better! [:D]
 
quote:


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.


You seem to be making a great number of assumptions about what a D/s lifestyle entails, particularly in regard to being submissive to another.  While each dynamic is unique, you've assumed that submissives don't have an enjoyable life of their own.  You've also assumed that for those who do give more control over to their dominant of many aspects of their life, that they're wishes and best interests aren't given consideration by their dominants.  Why would a dominant want an unhappy submissive serving them?  Wouldn't that be illogical and likely to be a short-lived relationship?  If a sub isn't happy, how long will he want to serve his domme before his tank runs empty and he decides to move on?
 
You've acknowledged your choices and the discoveries you've made about what makes you happy.  I'm happy for you, yet your words would attempt to diminish me as a person for what I've discovered within me that makes me happy.  I believe there's room for all the variations in this lifestyle.  When one of us fails to support the others who live this lifestyle differently than we do, we risk the freedom we currently have to make the choices we've already made for ourselves. [image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m23.gif[/image]
 
I hope you'll contemplate about how your words reflect upon you and your tolerance toward others who've made other choices who read them.  We all hold different opinions here to which we're entitled, but there seems no cause or gain to be made in belittling those who hold different ones than we do; nor to do the same to those who make different choices in this lifestyle than we'd choose to make for ourselves. [&:]
 
I wish you well on your journey as you discover how your choice of words affect the way others interact with you.
 
 - pixel
 




Leatherist -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 3:03:59 PM)

Nodding....a submissives gets thier charge from pleasing. It's a need for a validation fix I guess. The really *hardcore* ones don't even need a lot of external validation. Only to see that thier actions have a positive outcome for the health of thier relationship status.
 
 I'd call those ones "keepers".
 
 I know that *I* could never manage it. But to keep that type? You had best be up to par as a Dom..They aren't going to waste thier time on a do-nothing *loser* who wastes what they have to offer.



undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 10:17:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mettadas

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 think I would call that person ... wait for it ... a masochist!
Why would you call that person a submissive?


My definition of masochism is rather broad. It does not simply mean that one likes to receive physical pain, but that one wishes for physical or emotional suffering, or one wishes for that that lessens the ego by societal standards.

Thus, I consider a want to have a lower status and be a servant (for wish to have a lower status), and to make one's ego subordinate to that of another to come from masochistic roots. In my opinion, the desire to serve can come from a desire to please (devotion) or a desire to experience a lower status (masochism), or a mix of both. And in my opinion masochism can be expressed without the desire to serve. I consider a want to be told what to do (versus doing by initiative to please) to be a want that is submissive and masochistic (to experience a lesser status that lessens the ego). A want to be please in itself is not submissive (dominants and vanilla persons also like to do it out of affection) but I consider a want to please in a submissive to be devotional more than masochistic.

As I define the terms, one who seeks an activity only for the physical response of the body to the activity is a bottom. While there is overlap between a physical masochist and a bottom, I don't think a masochist is the same as a bottom, especially if one enjoys the emotional aspects of masochism.

I have answered your question and now it's my go. Do you think a prisoner is submissive to a prison guard? I assume yes. Do you think a prisoner wishes to please a prison guard as one might by bringing breakfast in bed? I assume no. Well unless the prisoner sees it as an opportunity to spit in the guard's food ;-) If my assumptions are incorrect, please elaborate. If my assumptions are correct, how do you explain a submissive role that does not include pleasing? Why do you think pleasing is essential to submission?

Cheers,

Sea



undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 10:22:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist
a submissives gets thier charge from pleasing.


In my opinion, a submissive who likes to please gets his charge from pleasing. Not all submissives get their charge in this manner, however.

Also, the desire to please does not come from simply a need for validation. While for some submissives it may be the driving motivation or, perhaps, one of the motivations, it is not simply that.

Cheers,

Sea



undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/10/2008 11:38:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pixelslave
To clarify, not all submissives are masochists as I've heard many submissives express they clearly are not.  Also, in relationships people give to their partners for many reasons; which I assume was part of where you were coming from when you said there were drivers outside of submission that make the matter more complex.

 
I agree not all submissives are masochists. But then why should all submissives be service submissives or wish to please? That is the point I am pondering in this thread.

When I say that drives outside of submission make the matter more complex yet I mean that the sum behavior of a submissive (in my case, at least) might be the collective expression of his masochism, affection and devotion, romance, spirituality, and ego.

Masochism has me enjoy or wish for that that is considered to cause physical or emotional discomfort by vanilla standards. Affection and devotion drive me to please. Romance aligns with affection and devotion and has me seek a relationship that balances submission, masochism, and companionship--it creates a want in me to have a companion and to go through experiences of life as companions do. I consider devotion and the desire to please to have spiritual value--I sometimes feel a meditative calm when serving. I think there is a gratification most humans find upon devoting self to something (a cause, person, a religion), which I consider spiritual in nature. And ego is what makes me want to be respected and loved. Sometimes ego conflicts with drives that come from masochism and submission. A given act might span multiple drives.

 I do not seek a subservient or subordinate status to escape the burden of responsibility but simply because it arouses me. I consider this response to be counter-intuitive to what one might expect of an ego and consider it to come from a masochistic place. That is, I enjoy that that would lessen the ego for a vanilla person and consider this response to be masochistic.

The point I wish to convey here is that submission and masochism are not mutually exclusive and that some desires for submission are masochistic in nature.

To tie this point to the discussion we have been having, one can imagine a submissive who wishes to be submissive  not for the desire to please but for reasons that I consider to be masochistic. How would you characterize a desire to be subservient and subordinate, to be given orders and have to comply, to be powerless before the will of another, and to otherwise be in a state that would lessen the ego by vanilla standards?

quote:

Are we speaking of a physical or emotional masochist?  I can see one acting out of a need to fulfill something of an addiction to pain and the other acting out of more of a learned system of dysfunctional behavior as I wouldn't see an emotional masochist as likely to be capable of having a healthy relationship or posessing the positive self-esteem that a dominant would want to have for a partner. 


Typically, a masochist is defined as someone who receives emotional or physical discomfort. I am broadening the definition of masochist to include one who wishes for a situation that ordinarily lessens the ego. I consider this masochism to fall under emotional masochism, or, at least, be a mental form of masochism.

There is a woman from Arizona who used to post on b.com who makes me feel like a newcomer to BDSM when she speaks of emotional SM. She and her dom have a healthy relationship that has lasted for longer than I have been in BDSM. And she seems to have a healthy esteem. I don't see emotional masochism to exclude positive self-esteem or a healthy relationship. I think the interest in itself does not define whether it is healthy or not but rather what all is behind the interest.

Thanks for engaging me in discussion.

Cheers,

Sea



Vendaval -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/11/2008 12:32:14 AM)

Where and how are you meeing potential submissives?
What is your definition of submissive vrs bottom traits?
Is their motivation or the end result more important to you?
 



SaraZeal -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/11/2008 12:44:03 AM)

quote:

When I say that drives outside of submission make the matter more complex yet I mean that the sum behavior of a submissive (in my case, at least) might be the collective expression of his masochism, affection and devotion, romance, spirituality, and ego.


I think that's a great summary of how I feel about submission personally.

It's not only a desire to please, nor is it only a masochistic desire. I'm also not really a fan of pain, so the typical masochism (of liking physical pain) probably doesn't apply to me. I'm not only a service sub, and I still like to please some.

Doing 'service-only' would feel sort of empty for me, I need the caring, loving of my Dom to feel whole and I see this in a more traditional way than not (what being cared about, and loved, represents).I also like the mental domination. Both as something practical (I'm rather undecisive, and having Asperger doesn't exactly help), and because I get off on helplessness. So I combine the two facets, and in this way, I'm not entirely a burden, I also have perks that I hope make out for my shortcomings (as a partner in a long term relationship).

A Daddy/daughter type of relationship suits me more in that it appeals to the caring/loving dimension, and lets me express my submission while also being healed psychologically (from childhood stuff). It also would make me see the relationship as pretty deep. Play wouldn't even be near it, it would be deep (as in making me deeply involved), and loving (romantically as well) and extremely trusting.



Vendaval -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/11/2008 12:53:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietPeppermint

... I need to read more.

We all do. [8|]

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 ?

Depends on who you ask, but that is part of my definition. [sm=book.gif]

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 ?

That is frequently the case. [sm=meh.gif]

[ No,  I'm not a mistress but I give most parts of the forum equal attention ! ]


[sm=welcomewave.gif]           to the CM Forums.




mettadas -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/11/2008 6:36:53 AM)

Hmm, a deliciously thoughtful response.  Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
My definition of masochism is rather broad. It does not simply mean that one likes to receive physical pain, but that one wishes for physical or emotional suffering, or one wishes for that that lessens the ego by societal standards.
There's a difference in our thinking right there.  I do see masochism as a desire for emotional or physical suffering.  I don't see a desire to let go of ego as masochistic at all.  A meditation practice may have this as a goal, for example, but I don't think the meditator is necessarily a masochist.
quote:

Thus, I consider a want to have a lower status and be a servant (for wish to have a lower status), and to make one's ego subordinate to that of another to come from masochistic roots. In my opinion, the desire to serve can come from a desire to please (devotion) or a desire to experience a lower status (masochism), or a mix of both.
I agree with all of that, except where you call it masochism.  I'm on of those that likes to subordinate my will to another's.  That subordination does not cause me any emotional pain.  In fact it can be quite comforting, or even blissful.

Now here is where it perhaps gets a bit more complicated:  I do enjoy humiliation play, which quite clearly is emotional suffering.  But I like the suffering because it brings about feelings of submission, not the submission because it brings suffering.  Feel free to challenge me on that ... I haven't considered the topic from this angle before.
quote:

I have answered your question and now it's my go. Do you think a prisoner is submissive to a prison guard? I assume yes. Do you think a prisoner wishes to please a prison guard as one might by bringing breakfast in bed? I assume no.
I think our hypothetical prisoner submits but is not a submissive.  He does not wish to submit, he simply wishes to avoid the consequences of not doing so.
quote:


Well unless the prisoner sees it as an opportunity to spit in the guard's food ;-) If my assumptions are incorrect, please elaborate. If my assumptions are correct, how do you explain a submissive role that does not include pleasing? Why do you think pleasing is essential to submission?

I'm no sure that a desire to please (or perhaps to be found pleasing, which is not the same thing) is or isn't necessary for submission, though it is common among submissives, including myself.



Reigna -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/11/2008 8:01:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

I do not seek a subservient or subordinate status to escape the burden of responsibility but simply because it arouses me. I consider this response to be counter-intuitive to what one might expect of an ego and consider it to come from a masochistic place.


Of course it does. You enjoy this one-down position precisely because you're a masochist.

quote:

How would you characterize a desire to be subservient and subordinate, to be given orders and have to comply, to be powerless before the will of another, and to otherwise be in a state that would lessen the ego by vanilla standards?


You didn't ask me, but I'd characterize the desire you posit as a cultural expectation. Also, I'd note that some definitions of submission take it a step further and demand that the submissive get nothing--zero, zip, nada, nor the teensiest tingle up the leg--from the exchange. It's yet another cultural expectation, and a chimeric one, at that.

quote:

Typically, a masochist is defined as someone who receives emotional or physical discomfort. I am broadening the definition of masochist to include one who wishes for a situation that ordinarily lessens the ego. I consider this masochism to fall under emotional masochism, or, at least, be a mental form of masochism.


Er ... do you mean that a masochist is aroused by receiving emotional and physical discomfort? That's my working defintion; just checking. You are aware, of course, that some (not me) will advise you that religion lessens the ego, therefore submission is religious in nature. Just sayin'. Me, my eyes glaze over when I hear the "r" word. I much prefer to whip someone and then fuck him silly, as profanely as possible. I let the gods sort themselves out.

quote:

I don't see emotional masochism to exclude positive self-esteem or a healthy relationship. I think the interest in itself does not define whether it is healthy or not but rather what all is behind the interest.


We here had all better hope for the best, anyway. My bias is that understanding what all is behind the interest helps bring the best about. By definition "what is behind the interest" generally is out of view, and posts like yours, sea, really help shed some much-needed light on what normally is hidden. Thank you.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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