Different types of doms

[FungiUg]

I don't hate labels, either. They are indeed necessary for us to understand each other. But, not all labels are as succinct and defined as others. The problem is, if we were to make them all as succinct and understandable, some wouldn't be labels...they'd be paragraphs.

"Top" and "bottom" are nicely succinct and fairly easy to understand. However, they are in use in the English language in many ways. Context is important, and thus we do indeed come to paragraphs.

Labels need context.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't hate labels, either. They are indeed necessary for us to understand each other. But, not all labels are as succinct and defined as others. The problem is, if we were to make them all as succinct and understandable, some wouldn't be labels...they'd be paragraphs.

Well, if that's what it take, that's what it takes. The goal isn't brevity, it's understanding.

There are people who think soundbites equal wisdom... we call them "the sheeple."

 

[midwestyankee]

I don't understand where you're going with this. Sorry.

Let me try again, using the same example.

You and I get into a discussion of rock music. I say I am a fan of classic rock and you say, "Great, me too." But the difference is that when I say classic rock, I include The Temptations and The Supremes and Madonna. You probably don't include The Temptations or The Supremes because they're more accurately classified as Motown and not rock. Similarly, Madonna hardly can be called classic rock because of the different time period in which she did most of her recording.

We'd be talking apples and oranges and neither one of us would know it.

 

[FungiUg]

We'd be talking apples and oranges and neither one of us would know it.

I think it's a good example. And I agree, the conversation over what a "dominant" is has similar issues.

I remember another conversation (with a fellow Kiwi on Fetlife) not so long ago where I proclaimed "well, of course, the crux of dominance is control" (or words to that effect), only to have a reply that "control has nothing to do with dominance!" Two very different viewpoints using the same word.

 

[DVS]

Let me try again, using the same example.

You and I get into a discussion of rock music. I say I am a fan of classic rock and you say, "Great, me too." But the difference is that when I say classic rock, I include The Temptations and The Supremes and Madonna. You probably don't include The Temptations or The Supremes because they're more accurately classified as Motown and not rock. Similarly, Madonna hardly can be called classic rock because of the different time period in which she did most of her recording.

We'd be talking apples and oranges and neither one of us would know it.

I do understand better, now. But, to take this even further, none of the groups you've mentioned above really fit into the "rock" classification. They do fit into the larger classification of "rock and roll" but are really in the area of pop. And Madonna would never be considered classic rock, even if her recordings were in the appropriate time period. But, none of what I've just said means anything, unless you knew I was talking about grapes. Then, I'd have to include that I was referencing green grapes and also the seedless variety. If I need to, I think the crop was probably grown in California, but I'd have to get back to you on that.

Getting back to your first post on the subject of who would be categorized as classic rock, neither the Beatles nor the Stones would be included. Of course, I've already clarified that the Temptations and the Supremes are in the pop area, with Motown being the sub classification of that. Madonna is also pop and more current than the other two. All three would be also included in the "vocal groups" category and with the minor exclusion of Madonna, the other two fit another category that lists those who don't write their own songs.

The Beatles are considered mostly a pop group as well as a group who preforms their own music. The Stones also preform their own music, but some of their critics consider them to be mostly a rock group, but they have some music that is so intrenched in the main stream or MOR that they would be played on a pop radio station. This is how some people define the category of pop versus rock.

Listeners can define a group and pigeon hole them into a certain style. The Beatles are also victims of this, even more so than the Stones. It's not at all uncommon to hear Beatles tunes in elevators or on what's defined as "Easy Listening" stations. But, don't be confused with a term used in the music business. "Elevator music" does not define the Beatles or the Stones, even though you could hear tunes from both groups in an elevator.

In fact, you could even hear versions of "A Stairway to Heaven" in an elevator, but I would consider Led Zeppelin as a classic rock band. As baby boomers get older, their listening style moves with them. So, more and more we'll hear rock tunes in places that wouldn't 20 years ago. But, while "A Stairway to Heaven" might be main stream enough for Musak, I doubt "Black Dog" will be heard in an elevator any time soon. But everything evolves with time.

I hope this helps explain why I didn't understand your thought direction in the first post. I would like to add that there is a mild parallel in how music is defined and categorized and how sexual kinks are categorized. Rock and Roll could be seen as the music label similar to BDSM in the sexual kink area. And then pop, rock (with its subs of hard rock, classic rock, acid rock, 80s rock, metal, etc.), Motown and others would be sub categories as would S/m, D/s and B&D. And there are also subs of each of those categories, too. For instance, pop has a very wide variety of sub categories. As with kinky sexual urges, nothing in music is that easy to define with a label.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think it's a good example. And I agree, the conversation over what a "dominant" is has similar issues.

I remember another conversation (with a fellow Kiwi on Fetlife) not so long ago where I proclaimed "well, of course, the crux of dominance is control" (or words to that effect), only to have a reply that "control has nothing to do with dominance!" Two very different viewpoints using the same word.

I think your fellow kiwi needs to know the term "top."

 

[DVS]

Well, if that's what it take, that's what it takes. The goal isn't brevity, it's understanding.

There are people who think soundbites equal wisdom... we call them "the sheeple."

But soundbites, texting and things like Twitter have come to be the shortcuts we all use to define life. I think it first began with emails, taking the place of letters. Shorter, faster, taking less time out of our busy lives, more and more our lives are defined by labels, so confusion is just going to continue.

It would behoove us to always make sure that no matter what topics we discuss on these forums, we remember these words on the screen are just glorified labels. And as such, no matter how involved and descriptive we think we get with a post, there will always be someone who will read it differently than we intended. So, while brevity isn't the goal, understanding might still be difficult.

 

[Stella_Omega]

But soundbites, texting and things like Twitter have come to be the shortcuts we all use to define life. I think it first began with emails, taking the place of letters. Shorter, faster, taking less time out of our busy lives, more and more our lives are defined by labels, so confusion is just going to continue.

It would behoove us to always make sure that no matter what topics we discuss on these forums, we remember these words on the screen are just glorified labels. And as such, no matter how involved and descriptive we think we get with a post, there will always be someone who will read it differently than we intended. So, while brevity isn't the goal, understanding might still be difficult.

Oh, sure, we see plenty of that right here in this one. Chuckles saying that now he understands my point that "dominant' can mean plenty of things but he isn't going to bother using "top" because that's too specific-- when in fact I was saying, as explicitly and repeatedly as possible, the exact opposite thing.

So what-- we shouldn't bother to try? Because we will be doomed to failure some of the time?

On the other hand several other people seem to understand what I'm saying. So maybe I'm pleased enough with the outcome.

Or the soundbite version; "you can't win 'em all."

 

[midwestyankee]

I do understand better, now. But, to take this even further, none of the groups you've mentioned above really fit into the "rock" classification. They do fit into the larger classification of "rock and roll" but are really in the area of pop. And Madonna would never be considered classic rock, even if her recordings were in the appropriate time period. But, none of what I've just said means anything, unless you knew I was talking about grapes. Then, I'd have to include that I was referencing green grapes and also the seedless variety. If I need to, I think the crop was probably grown in California, but I'd have to get back to you on that.

Getting back to your first post on the subject of who would be categorized as classic rock, neither the Beatles nor the Stones would be included. Of course, I've already clarified that the Temptations and the Supremes are in the pop area, with Motown being the sub classification of that. Madonna is also pop and more current than the other two. All three would be also included in the "vocal groups" category and with the minor exclusion of Madonna, the other two fit another category that lists those who don't write their own songs.

The Beatles are considered mostly a pop group as well as a group who preforms their own music. The Stones also preform their own music, but some of their critics consider them to be mostly a rock group, but they have some music that is so intrenched in the main stream or MOR that they would be played on a pop radio station. This is how some people define the category of pop versus rock.

Listeners can define a group and pigeon hole them into a certain style. The Beatles are also victims of this, even more so than the Stones. It's not at all uncommon to hear Beatles tunes in elevators or on what's defined as "Easy Listening" stations. But, don't be confused with a term used in the music business. "Elevator music" does not define the Beatles or the Stones, even though you could hear tunes from both groups in an elevator.

In fact, you could even hear versions of "A Stairway to Heaven" in an elevator, but I would consider Led Zeppelin as a classic rock band. As baby boomers get older, their listening style moves with them. So, more and more we'll hear rock tunes in places that wouldn't 20 years ago. But, while "A Stairway to Heaven" might be main stream enough for Musak, I doubt "Black Dog" will be heard in an elevator any time soon. But everything evolves with time.

I hope this helps explain why I didn't understand your thought direction in the first post. I would like to add that there is a mild parallel in how music is defined and categorized and how sexual kinks are categorized. Rock and Roll could be seen as the music label similar to BDSM in the sexual kink area. And then pop, rock (with its subs of hard rock, classic rock, acid rock, 80s rock, metal, etc.), Motown and others would be sub categories as would S/m, D/s and B&D. And there are also subs of each of those categories, too. For instance, pop has a very wide variety of sub categories. As with kinky sexual urges, nothing in music is that easy to define with a label.

You're proving my point precisely, which is why I chose an example from music. You have much more closely defined boundaries around the terminology used to describe sub-categories of popular music and/or rock and roll than I do. So if you and I were to try to talk this kind of music, as we did here in trying to clarify this example, you would become frustrated with me because I would use terms like "classic rock" too loosely for your taste. You would start to think that I was an idiot or, at least, very poorly informed.

By the way, show me a radio station that classifies itself as "Classic Rock" that never plays a Beatles or Rolling Stones song and I'll show you a radio station that's about to go out of business.

 

[ChucklesNLovin]

I will try to ignore the insult and read it for what it was. You are using me as an example of someone that doesn't get it, and a example of someone that will never learn (Kinda funny actually). I accept that role in this tread with honor, as long as you continue to teach me, oh mighty mentor... .-) (You know what that is? A One eyed Smiley face, but that's another story).

Stella, I understand what you are saying. You say that a top is the person "Doing" and the Bottom is someone "Being Done". It is that simple. A Top can be a Dominant, Sadist or Master. A bottom can be a submissive, masocist or slave. Do I have it right?

Here's the issue. Under the catagory of "What I have Learned", I said:
5. Top/bottom and Master/slave are still confusing, but I plan to never use the terms because they can be adequately described using various levels of B/d, D/s and/or SM. [O.K., never is a long time and an exaggeration]
Notice I said it was confusing to ME and I certainly didn't say it was "too specific".
You may be wondering why it is still confusing to me, after you explained it to me [explicitly and repeatedly]. Well, of the five different sources I found, literotica Forum being only one of them, three (60%) of them say that Top and Bottom do NOT contain elements of Power Transfer. Those sites go on to say that D/s is a Power Transfer relationship that does NOT necessarily have elements of B/d or S/m. So, Top/bottom would be for B/d and S/m only and not D/s.

About BDSM, Stella you stated that BDSM has always contained D/s, while MidWestYankee says it initially didn't (and so do 4 of 5 other sources). So again, do I throw out the rest of the opinions out and simply go with your opinion? Would you?

I do respect this groups opinions a little more than other sources, but they have not pushed my scale far enough for me to use these terms in confidence. And 40% confident is not good enough for me to lay my dick out on the table. Because in this room, someone is gonna chop it off, skewer it and mount it on a Sabian!

.-)
-"You'll shoot your eye out with that thing"

 

[Stella_Omega]

again:

The way these words work means that, "top/bottom" doesn't have to include power elements-- but is certainly flexible enough to include them, whereas the terms "dominant/submissive" cannot include people who do the exact same things minus power transfer. And what we see is people who feel someone isn't a "true dominant" because in fact, they don't dom, and they can't understand how someone like that can be truely BDSM. That's why I keep bringing this up.

It isn't that top/bottom should be used universally instead of dom/sub, but that dom/sub should not be the universal default.

Midwest Yankee says that the term "BDSM" originally didn't include D/s. I can agree with that.

I say that the practice of BDSM has always included D/s. And that the reason the term now includes the D/s designation is because people began to recognise the fact.

This happens with many acronyms. In BDSM we were lucky because the d and the s were already lined up correctly... Do you KNOW how many new letters have been added to GLBT? Everytime someone comes up with a new way to be queer, another letter gets added-- We're drowning in alphabet soup!

 

[FungiUg]

"top/bottom" doesn't have to include power elements-- but is certainly flexible enough to include them, whereas the terms "dominant/submissive" cannot include people who do the exact same things minus power transfer.

I think that's a good way to put it, Stella. Personally, I tend to use "top" and "bottom" for things that specifically don't include power exchange. Not because they can't (they most certainly can) but because I find other, more specific terms for those behaivours.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think that's a good way to put it, Stella. Personally, I tend to use "top" and "bottom" for things that specifically don't include power exchange. Not because they can't (they most certainly can) but because I find other, more specific terms for those behaivours.

Actually, I use them that way as well, and for the same reason.

"I want you to top me in a bondage, spanking, and forced orgasm scene" is pretty specific and doesn't lead someone to think I'm handing them my heart and soul for the sake of getting the yummies.

Although.. it could happen afterwards... or the next time...

 

[FungiUg]

"I want you to top me in a bondage, spanking, and forced orgasm scene" is pretty specific and doesn't lead someone to think I'm handing them my heart and soul for the sake of getting the yummies.

Although.. it could happen afterwards... or the next time...

Here's hoping, eh?

I do my playing within relationships, thus my heart is caught up already. So I think that's not something I've had to deal with, although your approach sounds wise.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

To help clarify it for you, I'm not trying to put her down or anything, I'm just saying her views can also be someone else's views. It's all in how you see things.

Oh, I know.

I just found it odd for someone who was jumping up and down about how they hated labels, is all.

 

[DVS]

You're proving my point precisely, which is why I chose an example from music. You have much more closely defined boundaries around the terminology used to describe sub-categories of popular music and/or rock and roll than I do. So if you and I were to try to talk this kind of music, as we did here in trying to clarify this example, you would become frustrated with me because I would use terms like "classic rock" too loosely for your taste. You would start to think that I was an idiot or, at least, very poorly informed.

By the way, show me a radio station that classifies itself as "Classic Rock" that never plays a Beatles or Rolling Stones song and I'll show you a radio station that's about to go out of business.

Wow. While proving my point, I can also prove yours? Am I great or what?! And if I did, I'm OK with it, because that means we must both be on the same page. I'm just saying I don't like labels because I don't fit into any as they are structured in the BDSM world.

I don't care if some like labels, but to force others to fit into a structure that only works for a few levels is not for me. And it has to be nothing but confusing for a newbie, trying to fit in. What do they do when they are awakened to the fact that they have these new feelings? They go to a web site, read the text and find that there are labels for people who enjoy BDSM. When reading the description of these labels, they might fit partly into one, and partly into another, but none of them fit just right. It's partly The Little Red Riding Hood syndrome and Goldilocks and the Three Bears Syndrome. Yes, it's true. Neither of them fit exactly...because of labels.

In the area of music, this fits even better (or worse). There are hundreds of categories of music and each category has more than its share of sub categories. Still, I have music that doesn't fit any category. People ask me what my music sounds like and while I can tell them what a few of my songs sound similar to, I have no category that I can fit some of them into.

Some say it's good that I'm a versatile writer, but how can I put my music somewhere so those who might like to hear it can find it? If I had already made a name for myself, I'd just put my name out there and people would flock to my site like moths, and I was the brightest light they'd ever seen. But that isn't happening. And any music site I go to wants me to categorize myself into one cubbyhole or another...nice and neat. Thank God for the word "other" because I fit into that category very nicely.

Oh, and for the record, I never said the Beatles and the Stones were not considered classic rock by anybody. In fact, they are in quite a few categories, because they are well liked by many listeners. I said they would be heard in elevators because of how well their music translates to most any listening taste. You will hear songs from both bands on easy listening stations, pop stations and of course, classic rock stations.

 

[DVS]

Oh, I know.

I just found it odd for someone who was jumping up and down about how they hated labels, is all.

I'm old. I doubt you'll see me jumping up and down for anything. Now, in and out...that's a whole different set of muscles.

 

[DVS]

Oh, sure, we see plenty of that right here in this one. Chuckles saying that now he understands my point that "dominant' can mean plenty of things but he isn't going to bother using "top" because that's too specific-- when in fact I was saying, as explicitly and repeatedly as possible, the exact opposite thing.

So what-- we shouldn't bother to try? Because we will be doomed to failure some of the time?

On the other hand several other people seem to understand what I'm saying. So maybe I'm pleased enough with the outcome.

Or the soundbite version; "you can't win 'em all."

More and more, we find ourselves repeating phrases like "you can't win 'em all" and "better luck next time". We also say things like "almost got it" and "just missed it". And there are times when I shake my head and mutter to myself "nobody seems to understand me any more". Go figure. We even have a smiley for it. And there's another one that I use a lot, too.

 

[Stella_Omega]

More and more, I find myself repeating phrases like "you can't win 'em all" and "better luck next time". I also say things like "almost got it" and "just missed it". And there are times when I shake my head and mutter to myself "nobody seems to understand me any more". Go figure. We even have a smiley for it. And there's another one that I use a lot, too.

I'm sorry for that. I personally think I'm doing fairly well in the communication skills. It's true that I can't win them all, but I seem to be able to win an awful lot of them.

 

[DVS]

I'm sorry for that. I personally think I'm doing fairly well in the communication skills. It's true that I can't win them all, but I seem to be able to win an awful lot of them.

But see? You swing in so many ways. You're like a shotgun. When you shoot, you're bound to hit something you like or are at least familiar with. Me? I'm a one bullet kind of guy. When I shoot, if my aim is just a little off, I totally miss out.

 

[Curious_in_Cali]

.....

 

[Stella_Omega]

But see? You swing in so many ways. You're like a shotgun. When you shoot, you're bound to hit something you like or are at least familiar with. Me? I'm a one bullet kind of guy. When I shoot, if my aim is just a little off, I totally miss out.

Ummm...we aren't talking about discussion anymore, are we.

Yeah, for some purposes, a scattershot mindset is really handy.

 

[neci]

okay. i have been reading this thread since the beginning, and i have read several parts over and over. i am not even going to try to pigeonhole myself into one label. all the more power to people who feel they should be micromanaged by labels, and get their feelings hurt when their labels are questioned. am i natural, USDA approved organic, pesticide free, eco-friendly, just some organic ingredients, or down right contaminated? as long as i get to suck cock, i really don't give a shit. does that make me a sub with a big bottom or a bottom with a submissive suck? when defining terms based on the emotional intention, you are bound to fall into the wide world of grey.

i'm curious, Stella, you appear to have very concrete views as to the separation of top and dom. one or the other. do you also believe that there is only gay or straight? one or the other? or do you believe that as complex beings, we can fall somewhere in the middle? should every variation in-between also be defined?

 

[Stella_Omega]

...

i'm curious, Stella, you appear to have very concrete views as to the separation of top and dom. one or the other. do you also believe that there is only gay or straight? one or the other? or do you believe that as complex beings, we can fall somewhere in the middle? should every variation in-between also be defined?

I'm almost positive I never said "one or the other" about people.

I

repeat

again

and

again

and

again:

I have very definite views as to the accuracy of the definitions of the words "top" and "dom". I have a very strong opinion that dom/sub designation is misused more often than not, especially in het BDSM circles.

And I have very definite views, I say once again, about the perniciousness in the hetero world, of using ONLY dom/sub to describe every BDSM dynamic, and never even knowing that another set of terms exist. I object to this misuse for feminist, humanist, and sexiness reasons.

The terms top and dom don't describe opposite ends of a spectrum, like gay and straight do. They are complimentary spectrums. We slide along both scales. Just as we slid along the gay/straight spectrum and, for that matter, the male/female spectrum. Don't I know it.

I really hope this clarifies my position...

 

[neci]

I have very definite views as to the accuracy of the definitions of the words "top" and "dom". I have a very strong opinion that dom/sub designation is misused more often than not, especially in het BDSM circles.

And I have very definite views, I say once again, about the perniciousness in the hetero world, of using ONLY dom/sub to describe every BDSM dynamic, and never even knowing that another set of terms exist. I object to this misuse for feminist, humanist, and sexiness reasons.

i'm following you. i don't run in BDSM circles, so i'm not familiar with how the words are being used or misused there.

do you find that the terms are misused by male PYL/ female pyl peoples as much as female PYL/ male pyl peoples?