|
NookieNotes -> RE: Topping From The Bottom, Asshole-ing from the Sidelines and More (11/27/2014 4:33:55 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: littleladybug
Which goes to show...in my humble submissive opinion...(ha ha)...that the expression is a bunch of shit, and is something used by people who have no other way to express that they have no control...
I agree. *grins*
quote:
ORIGINAL: RockaRolla
When I'm on the right side of the slash, my playful side comes out and I try to get my D as worked up as I can. I like the power struggle, especially if I lose in the end.
That is a relationship dynamic, and very cool.
Here's my point: It's not 'topping from the bottom,' unless it's labeled that way, because it's really just a way of saying something is, ahem, not cool, or a specific type of play.
You are being bratty. Your Dom seems to enjoy that, and makes his own game of it with you. Therefore, not topping from the bottom.
Because he is not losing his control.
Or so it seems from your writing.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kaliko
A simple example: When I cook a meal for him that I know he likes, my focus is on pleasing him. When I cook a meal for him that I know he likes with the hope of putting him in a good mood so he'll agree to watch a certain movie with me that night, that is manipulation.
That may be so. However, I don't feel that manipulation is either inherently bad, nor is it by definition taking the lead.
In fact, manipulation is one of the least "leading" things you can do, even if it works.
And any dominant worth his/her salt will still choose exactly what he/she wants to do, even if you have put that movie idea in their head.
You can cook all you want, but there is not an ice cube's chance in hell that I will watch any of the Twilight movies with you. Period.
I may change my plans for the evening and allow you to watch why I put in my ear plugs and catch up on a good book.
I'm still leading, because I am still directing the scenario.
quote:
ORIGINAL: JeffBC
How interesting. I wouldn't perceive this as being manipulated -- at least not to my detriment. I can't imagine why Carol shouldn't do things in the hopes of putting me "in a good mood" and I can't understand why, after 20 years, she wouldn't make some reasonably accurate predictions about how that'd change our evening.
Where this example would become a problem for me is if she thought she couldn't get the movie she wanted simply by asking for it. The moment she started thinking that my love for her comes with price tags attached we've got a serious issue.... way more serious than "topping from the bottom".
I resonate with this totally.
My Pet has had an issue with not speaking up about his needs in the past. So, I told him that I would not give him things if he did not ask for them or make clear that he wants them for a while.
I also made it clear that asking would not always result in a positive response, but that he would always be heard, and would have communicated.
In the same vein, I then gave him what he wanted nearly always the first few weeks, then started backing it off, giving him more "no's," to the point where I was denying him when I would not have otherwise for the benefit of training.
Now that the pattern is firmly established, I can easily be myself and choose perfectly based on my whim, because he has learned that asking gets him more of what he wants than staying silent.
Of course, I will watch his behavior for any signs that re-conditioning is in order.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kaliko
But if I try to steer his reaction to my question by manipulating his emotions for that specific end goal, then I consider that to be attempted "topping,"...I guess.
I agree, it is attempted.
So, if/when he makes a decision AGAINST his natural intent BECAUSE of your manipulation, it is topping/leading.
In the example I gave just above, there are a few possibilities when he asks for something.
1. He asks. I say "No," because I did not want to. I am leading. No TFTB.
2. He asks. I say "No," because I am training him, even if I would have wanted to do X for myself. I am leading. No TFTB.
3. He asks. I say "Yes," because I wanted to. I am leading. No TFTB.
4. He asks. I say "Yes," because I want to shut him up, not because I really want to, or have a reason that will grow our relationship. I am not leading. TFTB.
Make sense?
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Does an action have to successful to described in a certain way? And if so, then is there room for the...perhaps...more specific descriptor it "trying to" top from the bottom?
How many failed writers, actors, race car drivers are there? How many people say "I'm a dancer"and then when you watch them, whatever they're doing is not dancing.
I get your point.
However, I see dominants using the term TFTB as an acknowledgment.
For example, let's say:
You are topping from the bottom.
and
You are not following my lead.
Are equal. And said accusingly (which is the point of this rant... using it matter-of-factly, as something non-negative is not an issue with me).
As a dominant myself, I see these as equally revealing.
I would NEVER accuse an s-type of not following my lead as if it is a flaw in who they are. That would be saying I am not inspiring them to trust me and do as I wish.
Now, saying, "You are trying to top from the bottom," or "You are trying to lead this conversation (vacation, day)," is something else. It is a statement acknowledging behavior and the fact that I am still leading. I am aware of what is happening, and making my decisions the way I want to, anyway.
And I have had conversations like this before.
"You asked me a question. I gave you an answer. You did not immediately trust me on that.
"At what point in our lives together have I ever given you an answer immediately and confidently, and been wrong?
"At what time have I ever not carefully researched an answer for you when I was not sure?
"Is there ever any reason to think I will tell you something with surety, and then not double-check my facts and send you follow-up references, when it is critically important?"
This is a conversation I had yesterday with my Pet. He had been completely blindsided by something Tuesday, and it happened to be an obscure fact I had diligently researched a few months ago, so I could respond quickly and confidently.
I was disappointed he did not immediately follow my lead (although he did, later, when I folioed up with my research), and trust.
But I did not let him lead.
quote:
ORIGINAL: JeffBC
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kaliko
That's my point. (And perhaps the example was indeed a little too simple.)
Maybe. I guess my point is that I'm in a relationship with Carol. "Influencing my thoughts" and "steering emotions" sort of comes with the territory in my mind. That would be the very core of what "relationship" means to me. So my judgements on this won't be related to the manipulative action itself so much as the motive behind it.
And for me, it is the actual results that matter. Did I, as the dominate, lose my lead, my control, and my ability to steer the relationship (even with a co-driver) in the direction I want and think is best?
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Every single dominant on here is self-proclaimed. As is every single submissive.
I disagree. Most, probably.
I never chose the title "dominant" for myself. I was given it. Granted, I chose to take it on, after thinking about it, but I would still rather use the term "kinkster," as I do on Fet, and allow people to get to know me as an individual.
I am dominant in my relationships, always. That may make me the dominant, or just a partner. I don't claim the dominant role, until it is offered to me by another. I don't even ask for it.
And because I wanted to be sure I was coming at this from the right angle, here is what I looked up for the definition:
self-pro·claimed
adjective
described as or proclaimed to be such by oneself, without endorsement by others.
"exercise books written by self-proclaimed experts"
So, I would imagine that you have also been endorsed...
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Saying someone is "topping from the bottom" is talking about an action . Calling someone passive-aggressive is directly describing a facet of who they are. I know which one I find more offensive of the two. To me, there's a difference between: "You're acting like an asshole" and "You are an asshole".
I agree. However, I think someone can as easily take a passive aggressive action, without being overall passive aggressive.
And I do believe that women are just as likely to be "do-me" subs as men. Their "dos" are just different ones.
Instead of waiting kinks for their relationship, like do-me boys, women tend to want relationships for their kinks.
Gross generalization, but holds true more often than not, in my personal experience.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesFIP
I disagree that it means he isn't meeting my needs.
It's just information.
If some dude or dudette is so fucking insecure that when their partner says "Oh yeah, do it the way you did last time" that they have to invoke the dreaded TFTB, that's their problem.
Because he can say "Sure honey" or "Sorry babe, not tonight" or just have an evil chuckle. But no matter if I beg, demand, whine, plead or stand on my head, I can't force him to do what I want.
Agreed.
However, if dude or dudette puts you in the position where you constantly have to ask for (and are denied) what you need, and then try manipulation, he/she is not meeting your needs.
I believe the better choice then is to leave the relationship, instead of asshole-ing all over the place. But if one of my subs thought manipulation or trying to TFTB was the way to get their needs met, I would want to know at what point I gave them the belief that I would not respond to direct, open, and honest communication.
quote:
ORIGINAL: pleasesir88
All human interactions are somewhat manipulative. We are all trying to get a certain result from our actions, good or bad.
Agreed. It's one reason that I'm writing my new behavior modification book in two parts (vanilla and kinky), and also hoping s-types will read it. Understanding how we attempt to get what we want, and how reinforcement works is good for everyone in every part of life.
|
|
|
|
