|
sirjake1379 -> RE: ..Inquiring minds want to know.. (1/20/2012 6:26:15 AM)
|
I hate labels because they tend to get tossed around on the assumption that everyone holds the same definition. In My journal, I posted some 'definitions' from My point of view, if only to make it easier to chat / correspond with people. What follows is drawn from that posting - and please note that I am NOT suggesting that everyone should adopt My definitions.
A ‘bottom’ – in My view – is a more-or-less vanilla person who takes pleasure from engaging in the receiving end of BDSM activities. There needs be little or no emotional attachment to whoever is ‘topping’ or conducting the activity, and in fact in many cases anyone will do. The psychological element of serving another is not part of the bottom’s motivation. The bottom may or may not be a switch – meaning that they alternate between the ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ roles as their mood or the situation dictates, and they may or may not also be masochistic.
Again – in my view - I see different ‘levels’ of submissive. Without any prejudice intended, I will label them as ‘level 1’ and ‘level 2’.
Both level 1 (L1) and level 2 (L2) subs have an inherent psychological need to submit to another person. For the L1, this need to submit may be satisfied in a truncated fashion – brief, specific time periods with a detailed and lengthy set of limits, rules and caveats to which they expect the Dominant to adhere. For the L2, the need to submit is stronger and the time periods tend to be longer with a shorter list of limits, rules and caveats. The L2’s submission may spill over into time periods which are primarily ‘vanilla’ in nature, with certain aspects of their behaviour still controlled by (and for) their Dominant. Generally speaking, there is a partnership or level of ongoing commitment between the submissive and their Dominant. That commitment may or may not include a collar.
The slave – again, in My view – has the need to submit in a fashion beyond that of the L2 submissive. The slave’s submission is closer to, if not completely, limitless. Their offer or gift to their Dominant is complete, so they are therefore subject only to the Dominant’s personal limits. To Me, the key to this relationship is the extremely close nature of the partners' needs, and the slave’s overwhelming desire to serve / satisfy the desires/needs of the Dominant. Some see the slave as a live-in arrangement with a complete focus on serving the Dominant partner, but I do not see that as a determining factor. To Me, it is the need to serve and the absence of limits that are the hallmarks of the slave.
Let Me repeat what I said at the outset – My purpose in writing this is to simply put down in words what these particular terms mean to Me, and even so I do not see hard and fast boundaries between these definitions. I do this for no other reason than to provide a context for those who choose to communicate with Me without misunderstandings.
|
|
|
|
