RE: Bratty, Bedroom, just-a-bottom, do-me,fake, SAM, TF... - 8/7/2010 3:43:27 PM
|
|
|
CreativeDominant
Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I have this pet peeve that has been developing lately. Once in a while we have a couple of threads come up that illustrate to me that there are a myriad of labels to attach to submissives that really have no dominant counterparts, and these labels are negative ones. Now, for me, this isn't so much an issue, because I do not involve myself with people who like to label a person instead of dealing with them, but it is a reminder of just the kinda stuff submissive peoples have to put up with. I just wanted to ask, what are the negative labels that dominants get tagged with, besides maybe "wannabe" or "fake"? Where are the threads labelled with terms meant to denigrate them? I am not suggesting that we come up with them, in fact I wouldn't like it if we did. The fact of the matter is many of these terms did not start out with the intention of being a negative label. SAM is a bottom sort person that gets off on being beaten for being a smart ass. A bedroom submissive is someone who gets off submitting during sex, a bottom is someone who is not submissive but enjoys the bottom role, a do-me is someone who likes to be done on their terms according to their fantasies. TFTB is a bottom that is instructing a top while being in the bottom role. A brat is a submissive that enjoys being naughty and maybe her dom enjoys it too. Why is any of the above used as an insult to people, or used to denigrate their "realness"? I can tell you, I contain multitudes and I can envision myself doing any of the above for fun depending on my partner and what he likes. I do not understand using these labels as a way to measure the character of a person, or their orientation. They were terms used to describe different dynamics, but they have been twisted into barbs. My question is this: For those of you who think negatively about these terms because they would not be dynamics YOU enjoy, why do you need to universalize this as somehow making another person an inferior D/s partner for everyone? Just curious I think leadership pointed out something valid in his first post and this is one of those rare times when I agree with him. I would add... Perhaps because the labels that get attached to dominants most often...besides asshole...are "controlling"...because he has the obligation to lead but when he does so, most often it "should be" as the submissive wants it (the person who leads less, leads best), done in order to attain her "fullest" compliance. Attempting to lead in the manner he stated he would from the beginning and the submissive discovering that...despite her words to the contrary in the beginning...doesn't LIKE this often leads to the label of being "controlling", "domineering"...because he sets up a dynamic in which both agree that he has the final decision but, because a decision went against what a submissive wanted and she pouted and he dared to point this out to her along with her agreement to follow and let him lead, he was domineering, "abusive"...because the dynamic/relationship was set up such that discipline/correction/punishment was part of what was agreed to but then it actually happens and he actually follows through so he is now abusive, etc.? I'm not saying that this represents all threads brought to the board about all dominants but the boards have seen it.
|
|
|