|
hawkwolf7 -> RE: Are many submissives really bottoms? (3/27/2007 9:07:16 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
Actually I love this topic. The number one response I get when I tell people I'm a switch is how I'm not confused in relationships and how my partners relate to me.
...
I gotta say, I love these discussions too.
First, there is the ongoing paradox that arises when you label some person or group. You invent a label, or slap it on someone, because the full description is too laborious to use every time you reference it. But, the only thing that accurately describes the person is the full description. And, while it may be more precise to call me "fourtysevenyearoldmalemostlyheterosexualmostlydominantsadistandsexualmasochist", my fingers got tired typing it once... and it still didn't encompass who I am. So, HawkWolf, as a shorthand is convenient. And as long as everyone understands that HawkWolf is a label, but does not encompass me, then everything is cool.
In a similar way, submissive and bottom are labels, but they cannot begin to encompass the description of a person. As a matter of fact, all that can really be said about a person who describes themselves with one of these labels is that it fits better than the other options. (Or more likely, the rest of the labels fit worse.)
Further, it is extremely rare that any individual will fit their label completely, or all the time. And even in those rare cases, there will be times when they are tired, or excited, or horny, or bored when they wont. This is just like the vanilla idea of "normal" sex... it works as a mathematical construct, but almost nowhere else.
The second issue that makes this discussion one of my favorites is the confusion between roles and personalities. Technically, bottom is a role, as applied to a particular scene with a particular person. Even the most die-hard true-hearted submissive will be a bottom in a scene with someone they have no desire to serve, or someone whose happiness is not important to them. And, in a scene with their chosen dominant, they are still bottoming, even when the scene includes lots of power exchange.
While the above example is correct, it has led to much of the confusion regarding the term bottom. For someone who is deeply embedded in the D/s perspective, the critical difference between the two cases is that the submissive includes the desire to serve. Therefore, the (erroneous) conclusion is that a bottom is a personality type that isn't into power exchange.
And while it's true that this person may be into S&M, or Bondage, or Discipline, it is also very possible they are into D/s (or some combination of all of them) and simply aren't playing with someone who triggers their desire to serve.
Finally, for those of you who are mathematically inclined, I offer a viewpoint that works for me. I didn't create it, but it helped me to understand. I invite you to take what's useful and blow off the rest. You can view the four elements of BDSM as a four dimensional space, with orthogonal axes; one for Bondage, Discipline, S&M, and M/s (the last includes D/s). To make things simple, let the axes extend from 1 to 10, where 1 indicates no interest, no desire, and 10 indicates overwhelming need. Then you could map yourself and your partners with a point in the space. Myself, I'm B=5, D=1, S=10, M=8. Clearly anyone who lives for discipline is a lousy match for me. And please note, there is nothing here that refers to Top/Bottom. For example, since I am both a sadist and a masochist, I could enjoy either role in and S&M scene.
This is where things get interesting, and is the reason there is so much confusion w.r.t the labels. Take the example of someone who self-describes as a Dominant. Based on what we are told, these people would (typically) be in the Top role in a scene. They will have a strong interest in D/s, probably an 8 or higher. But the Dominant label doesn't say anything about their interest in Bondage, Discipline, or Sado/Masochism. Since I can't do 4D, lets consider a three dimensional space (ignore Discipline for now). What we think of as the box associated with "Dominant", becomes not a line, but a plane. This means that "Dominant" is a valid label for someone who is a sadist and a bondage Top. It is also a valid label for someone who is a hard-core masochist that bottoms in rope scenes! Again, the "Dominant" label really only describes their role and interest in D/s, nothing else.
The bottom line here is that not only do we have the classic problem of labels, we have the problem that many of us (myself included) don't provide labels that define our interests in the four elements of "vanilla" BDSM. And that doesn't even address issues of sexual orientation, nor does it address how these things interact (e.g., sexual masochism). Is it any wonder we get confused???
Wow! That ended up running a LOT longer than I planned. If you made it to here, pat yourself on the back. You deserve it. And thanks for listening.
HawkWolf
|
|
|
|
