Not just a "bottom." (Full Version)

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



Message

AAkasha -> Not just a "bottom." (4/28/2011 8:47:32 AM)

As a mostly self defined "sadistic top," I am constantly redefining what I consider a "bottom." By the most common definitions, I would never get along with or desire a full fledged "submissive" in my life; most of my BDSM lusts are expressed through acts of bondage and S&M, but I have zero interest in what most people define as "bottom."

There's a whole different class of "bottom" where the person desires to submit to acts, but the acts are less important than the fact that he's seduced, coerced, overpowered or otherwise influenced. He isn't RESISTING per se, but he's not dictating the acts, and the acts themselves are absolutely inconsequential. What is absolutely MANDATORY for him, though, is that the woman is thoroughly enjoying his helplessness, his surrender, and his inability to resist. That's why a simple "top" is never a good fit for him - if he wanted a top, he'd go visit a pro in a dungeon or engage in some casual BDSM at a party. He doesn't want a woman who enjoys bondage or whipping or humiliation as mere acts, he desires a woman who wants to make him SUFFER for her, and those are some of the acts that she may employ. It's her attitude that makes him want to surrender, not the acts themselves.

This is a power dynamic that is so much NOT just simple top/bottom that it is impossible to label it as such. It's "submissive bottoming" and "dominant topping" - if I were to pick simple definitions. As a top, I enjoy making men endure acts that would otherwise NEVER endure - sure, they may have thought about it in passing, but they certainly are not lining up looking for someone (anyone) to do it, they protect it instead, and are only able to engage in it with a woman who they fully respect, trust and want to please -- and she, in turn, clearly desires it and wants it. Not just the acts, but HIS suffering.

The older I get, the more I want to redefine myself in the most simple terms - Top is fine for me, at this point, as I am not looking for a man to run errands or do my laundry or just say "yes ma'am" all the time. I ultimately seek men that are intellectually challenging, emotionally mature and from an S&M stand point, understand the nuances of power exchange that make good bdsm scenes 'mindblowing' - they understand the way a sadistic female mind works and want to tap into that, but they treasure their "submission" and don't submit easily. These men DO exist, but I think they are trapped behind the poorly defined labels that are out there - bottom or submissive? They don't have a 'submissive' bone in their body - chivalrous, yes, absolutely! Classy, a real gentleman, but more assertive, and more content to be 'equals' in relationship context, not looking for a woman to 'take the lead.'

But when it comes to BDSM, this man is clearly not a 'bottom' either, as the acts aren't relevant - what he seeks is a woman who is dominant and sadistic first and foremost, and who craves and needs his surrender, humility, and desperation.

I feel like bottoms totally get robbed in the bdsm "community." There needs to be a better range of definitions.

Akasha



ParappaTheDapper -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (4/28/2011 8:53:36 AM)

Do You really think there need to be more definitions? Does a more refined lexicon solve problems or create them when it comes to finding suitable partners?

I can see the obvious advantages in terms of convenience to having a short hand, quick and dirty way to define oneself and what one wants. But the other side of the coin is that more labels tend to create more clutter and, worse still, it seems like within the "community" there is a tendency to reverse engineer personalities. What I mean is, rather than someone trying to find a good way to articulate their interests and inclinations, they instead look for an already defined role and try to twist themselves until they fit. I sometimes wonder if the best option isn't fewer labels and more introspection coupled with harder work on the parts of all parties to communicate and negotiate with each other (everything is a negotiation, there is no getting around it).

At any rate, this is a very interesting topic.



SylvereApLeanan -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (4/28/2011 9:15:52 AM)

~FR~
 
Personally, I think submissive (or slave) and bottom are the only labels needed.  You're right; the acts are irrelevant.  It's the attitude and personality that makes someone a submissive or a bottom.  It ain't rocket science and trying to pretty it up doesn't change the fact that, as you put it "he doesn't have a submissive bone in his body" regardless of how chivalrous or gentlemanly he may be. 
 
If he's not submissive, then he's a bottom.  End of story.



SylvereApLeanan -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (4/28/2011 9:20:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParappaTheDapper

I sometimes wonder if the best option isn't fewer labels and more introspection coupled with harder work on the parts of all parties to communicate and negotiate with each other (everything is a negotiation, there is no getting around it).


QFT.



PeonForHer -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (4/28/2011 11:58:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeananIf he's not submissive, then he's a bottom.  End of story.[/size][/color][/font]


Maybe that's better formulated as 'If he's not submissive, then he's a bottom. Beginning of story'

The 'story' being that of the relationship between the two and how their dynamic evolves.



SylvereApLeanan -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (4/28/2011 12:13:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeananIf he's not submissive, then he's a bottom.  End of story.


Maybe that's better formulated as 'If he's not submissive, then he's a bottom. Beginning of story'

The 'story' being that of the relationship between the two and how their dynamic evolves.



Well, that depends on what each of them wants.  For me, it would be the end of the story because I have zero interest in a bottom.  There would be no dynamic to evolve.  However, if the woman in question wants a bottom, then it could be the beginning if they are interested in the same things. 
 
In either case, I see no point in debating the label.  Perhaps I'm hopelessly binary, but for me it's pretty clear-cut.  Either he's submissive or he's not and no amount of linguistic tap dancing such as displayed in the OP is going to change that basic foundation.



PeonForHer -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (4/28/2011 12:29:11 PM)

My impression is that Akasha's frequently tried to isolate a 'type' of partner that she's very keen on and of which she's had (good) experience. This is the latest attempt to articulate that and, once again, it seems that the usual typology - that of subs v bottoms isn't up to the job.

This bit makes me stumble:

"These men DO exist, but I think they are trapped behind the poorly defined labels that are out there - bottom or submissive? They don't have a 'submissive' bone in their body - chivalrous, yes, absolutely! Classy, a real gentleman, but more assertive, and more content to be 'equals' in relationship context, not looking for a woman to 'take the lead.'

But when it comes to BDSM, this man is clearly not a 'bottom' either, as the acts aren't relevant - what he seeks is a woman who is dominant and sadistic first and foremost, and who craves and needs his surrender, humility, and desperation. "

'Not a submissive bone in their body', but seeking 'a woman who's dominant and sadistic and needs his surrender, humility and desperation' . . . Contradiction, surely?

Relatedly, perhaps: I've sometimes wondered, we call someone who moves from dominant to submissive a 'switch'. What do we call someone who moves from vanilla to submissive and back again, enjoying both at different times and in different places?



SylvereApLeanan -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (4/28/2011 12:57:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

My impression is that Akasha's frequently tried to isolate a 'type' of partner that she's very keen on and of which she's had (good) experience. This is the latest attempt to articulate that and, once again, it seems that the usual typology - that of subs v bottoms isn't up to the job.


To me, it's just another example of overthinking the question and making things more complicated than they need to be.  It all falls under the umbrella of bottoming since the dynamic is based on kinky play rather than a general attitude of submission.  The underlying motivation is really the key here. 

quote:

Relatedly, perhaps: I've sometimes wondered, we call someone who moves from dominant to submissive a 'switch'. What do we call someone who moves from vanilla to submissive and back again, enjoying both at different times and in different places?



I've heard them referred to as bedroom players, kink lite, and weekend warriors.  I don't usually give it that much thought.  It just isn't important enough to me to analyze what they do with other people.  I'm only concerned with the type of relationship they want with me.



Wheldrake -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (4/28/2011 1:17:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

The older I get, the more I want to redefine myself in the most simple terms - Top is fine for me, at this point, as I am not looking for a man to run errands or do my laundry or just say "yes ma'am" all the time. I ultimately seek men that are intellectually challenging, emotionally mature and from an S&M stand point, understand the nuances of power exchange that make good bdsm scenes 'mindblowing' - they understand the way a sadistic female mind works and want to tap into that, but they treasure their "submission" and don't submit easily. These men DO exist, but I think they are trapped behind the poorly defined labels that are out there - bottom or submissive? They don't have a 'submissive' bone in their body - chivalrous, yes, absolutely! Classy, a real gentleman, but more assertive, and more content to be 'equals' in relationship context, not looking for a woman to 'take the lead.'

But when it comes to BDSM, this man is clearly not a 'bottom' either, as the acts aren't relevant - what he seeks is a woman who is dominant and sadistic first and foremost, and who craves and needs his surrender, humility, and desperation.


It sounds like what you have in mind is a man who is submissive in the context of BDSM play, but not in everyday life. Someone who finds it easy to step into submission when it's time to kneel at the feet of a sadist, and then step back out again after she's through with him for the moment. Maybe a phrase like "bedroom submissive" or "dungeon submissive" would capture this well.

My current relationship works this way, for the most part, but in my previous one I was more of a 24/7 (albeit mostly long-distance) submissive. I didn't just say "yes, ma'am", but any expressions of disagreement had to be polite and respectful. I seem to be able to function in either mode, depending on circumstances and on what the other person wants.



LadyPact -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (4/28/2011 5:08:35 PM)

Didn't you post a very similar original to this another time before?



Steponme73 -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (4/28/2011 6:26:27 PM)

I could not have said it better....thank you



InsaneSerenity -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (4/29/2011 8:16:54 AM)

I think Akasha is just voicing something I seem to see a lot. That is Dommes/Tops looking for guys that can be real people as well as submit when the Domme wants.

But I will agree there is a big contradiction. Someone willing to submit when the Domme/Top wants is generally going to be submissive in nature. They will have submissive bones in their body so to speak.

However there are submissive men that are successful in life and lead mostly "vanilla" lives. They are still submissive in nature. And let's face it, there have to be very successful men who like to submit on occasion or all theses dungeons and Pro Dommes couldn't exist.

The world is a very complex place, trying to put nice labels on everything is only going to make everyone feel incomplete.



PeonForHer -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (4/29/2011 8:44:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: InsaneSerenity

But I will agree there is a big contradiction. Someone willing to submit when the Domme/Top wants is generally going to be submissive in nature. They will have submissive bones in their body so to speak.


They will, and I have. But I also have non-submissive bones. And I don't get troubled by the contradiction, nor even just put up with it. I enjoy it.




seekingOwnertoo -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (5/1/2011 5:40:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

There's a whole different class of "bottom" where the person desires to submit to acts, but the acts are less important than the fact that he's seduced, coerced, overpowered or otherwise influenced. He isn't RESISTING per se, but he's not dictating the acts, and the acts themselves are absolutely inconsequential.


I do not want to appear to be piling on here ... but are You way overdoing Your analysis?

Frankly, I have never considered myself (nor heard myself described) a bottom!

Even though i will submit to a Lady ... without resistance ... when She appeals to my heart!

In my mind, there is not any label ... for the heart! It simply is what it is!



AAkasha -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (5/1/2011 8:18:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: seekingOwnertoo


quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

There's a whole different class of "bottom" where the person desires to submit to acts, but the acts are less important than the fact that he's seduced, coerced, overpowered or otherwise influenced. He isn't RESISTING per se, but he's not dictating the acts, and the acts themselves are absolutely inconsequential.


I do not want to appear to be piling on here ... but are You way overdoing Your analysis?

Frankly, I have never considered myself (nor heard myself described) a bottom!

Even though i will submit to a Lady ... without resistance ... when She appeals to my heart!

In my mind, there is not any label ... for the heart! It simply is what it is!


It is something I analyze frequently because I think it's an important issue, and more and more the BDSM community discourages people from labeling themselves as bottoms, and I think "kinky sex" is more of an afterthought. Subs are told that 'service' is the way into a woman's heart, and there are women who are sadistic and actually value men who take a very proactive role in their physical surrender. I think it is a skill set that is highly underrated.

Akasha



sunshinemiss -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (5/2/2011 6:48:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

I feel like bottoms totally get robbed in the bdsm "community."
Akasha


Hello Akaasha,

This part I sort of agree with. There is a tendency on this board and in some communities I've been involved with to consider anything less than ALL as, well, less than. Robbed? No. Dismissed, ridiculed, ignored, talked down to? Yes. But robbed? No. The kind of people you describe in your OP, Akasha, are people who will stand up to people who hurl (or whisper) the prejudiced insults or they will merely roll their eyes. Why is that? Because of the self-esteem and self-understanding that is part and parcel of being a bird of a different color within a group.

best,
sunshine



AttendToYou -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (5/2/2011 10:56:59 AM)

I think the original post is wonderful and really does tap into an important nuance in D/s relationships.  Perhaps it does not speak to everyone (as evidenced by some of the comments) but it speaks to me loud and clear.

I would not want to engage with a professional domme for many reasons, but the main reason (and to me, obvious reason) is that the true joy of a power exchange is pleasing the woman!  Sure, I have my list of kinks but the deep satisfaction in submission is doing what the woman wants.  I do it because it makes her hot that I do it.  Paying a professional can be seen as just another way of topping from the bottom.

HER attitude is what commands the surrendering, not the acts themselves.  Great post!



leadership527 -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (5/2/2011 1:09:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha
I feel like bottoms totally get robbed in the bdsm "community." There needs to be a better range of definitions.

Yeah, that's one answer. In my opinion the mistake isn't in the definitions, it's in the value judgements that go along with them along with their overly simplistic nature (or perhaps the simplistic nature in which they are applied). I mean seriously, does ANYONE actually think that ANY human sexuality is "simple"? I expect a label like "bottom" to be (to use an old analogy from these very boards) the equivalent of the sign in the grocery store that says "Soup". From your description, your desired men would absolutely fit my definition of "bottom" -- a person on the receiving end of WIITTD in sex only. It wouldn't have occurred to me to try to slice and dice the WIITTD part.

More simply, I agree with SylvereAptLeanan -- two labels would work for me and then discussion to clarify beyond that.



SlaveSubtoserve -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (5/10/2011 2:21:07 PM)

great post AAkasha as it heartens me for you to recognize this category as i have often fallen into it over the years.........it really is a dungeon or BSM submissive i think in that he submits completely to her will in the areas of bondage and sm activities and does NOT determine how those actions are played out unlike the standard bottom descriptor........ great post.!....but is definitely not a lifestyle submissive.



nashdude -> RE: Not just a "bottom." (5/10/2011 8:43:03 PM)

Being very new to this site ane lifestyle some of your points really help me define what my submissive desires are about. Thank you for the thought provoking comments.



the acts are less important than the fact that he's seduced, coerced, overpowered or otherwise influenced. What is absolutely MANDATORY for him, though, is that the woman is thoroughly enjoying his helplessness, his surrender, and his inability to resist.








Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875