|
AAkasha -> RE: Are many submissives really bottoms? (6/19/2007 12:07:32 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: amayos
quote:
ORIGINAL: VeryMercurial
I have just read several threads that have made me want to ask this question.
Are many submissives really bottoms? I don't see anything wrong with being a bottom, yet so few online claim that title. I would like to hear some comments on what people here feel are the differences between being a submissive and a bottom.
In its simplest meaning, to submit means to yield to the authority or will of another. The notion has nothing to do with sexual antics or the want of having fetishes top serviced; it is a word speaking in clear terms about the bending of one to another. That is the beautiful simplicity of it all, in fact. Yet as straight forward as this word submit may appear, there are many who ascribe it to themselves with a considerable amount of confusion and invention.
In my experience, the reality is most "submissives" are in fact bottoms. They are chasing a dream and yearning to submit to it in the form of a host. The host / dominant party becomes nothing more than a provider module—a gateway—for the manifestation of the submissive play actor's desires. What they give may look like submission, but they are in the end merely bartering, or to put it perhaps more bluntly, purchasing their Mistress's attentions to gratify their needs.
An authentically submissive being is set upon the path perhaps at first due to what dreams awakened and propelled him, but these dreams do not become his Mistress. He seeks the essence of a superior force in another—to kneel at the feet of one who naturally compels him to kneel by virtue of so many things, not simply to get off. There is an undeniable link to sensualism and submission, but one must keep in mind that sensualism—be it masochism or sexuality and any number of shades in between—are merely conduits through which it can be expressed. If one truly contains the spirit of submission, it will show in his actions, in his words and all the subtle, near-invisible layers that comprise him. To act submission is tremendously difficult. To be it when one contains it is as easy as breathing.
There are some people that say there is no such thing as an authentic submissive like the one you describe. That there must be something in it for the submissive or else they would not be in the relationship in the first place, and that power exchange can exist in a mutually beneficial scenario where the "needs" of both people are met on an ongoing basis. How do you respond to that?
The most "authentically" submissive men I have been in relationships with were not kinky, not submissive (self identified as such) at all, but were hopelessly in love and totally devoted. That level of devotion creates a desire to please that is totally undeniable.
On another note:
There's a type of submissive in a kinky sense, though, that does crave/desire/need a power exchange dynamic where they are challenged and persuaded to endure acts and situations they find terrifying (and alluring) and the dominant is the key to their pleasure -- but ONLY if she is taking honest *authentic* pleasure in his plight. A truly loving partner who fakes it to try to please him will not satisfy his urges. In all my soul searching and self-investigation I have come to realize that this "bottom" (if you want to label it as such because it has an agenda of sorts) is the connection that my "top" side seeks. Is it no real power exchange because his needs are being met and mine are too? Ehh, maybe. Not a big deal to me. I just know it works!
Akasha
|
|
|
|
