Different types of doms

Is that any better? Would it be enough for someone not knowing anything about the dynamics to at least be a starting point for more "appropriate" terminology that would be more widely accepted within the community at least for use in discussion?
Well, at least for this discussion in this thread. But the dom/sub default is mighty pervasive in the main BDSM communities... Which is where I came in :eek:

But yeah, if I may, I'd like to copy-paste your lines there for the next time this question comes up. Much easier all around!

Top/bottom - What you do in action; Top acts upon, bottom is acted upon.
Dom/sub - Who you are by nature; Dominance seeks control, submission seeks surrender.
 
Well, at least for this discussion in this thread. But the dom/sub default is mighty pervasive in the main BDSM communities... Which is where I came in :eek:

But yeah, if I may, I'd like to copy-paste your lines there for the next time this question comes up. Much easier all around!

Well, I admit that when I first started reading that I thought that they were the same given the context of how they were used separately... it wasn't until I was seeing them used in conjunction that I started to question and then finally understand. Please feel free to share away, as it is a delight to think it might help someone. :)

That said, I want to loop back to the actual topic for this thread for SM and offer my thoughts. In the beginning I totally bought into the idea that Dom/Domme meant ONE thing and it actually made me question the conclusions that I was coming to about my identity and my cravings. That quote "Stereotypes save time" is a great reminder of irony and just how completely wrong and time wasting they can be given the complex nature of humans and our unique trait of desire within the animal world. It was a light bulb moment for me when I started reading posts about D/s couples that I resonated more with and finally embraced the idea that both sides of the dynamic were fallible and quite beautifully human. I stopped looking for someone "experienced in the lifestyle" as if it were some sort of certification process in a fixed curriculum, and started looking for someone who was just really in touch with who they are, what they want, and how they would compliment and challenge me. There is also a big difference between someone looking for an experience/role play vs. a relationship as well. I send my deepest admiration and respect to ALL people who are able to find and sustain a nurturing relationship or connection for themselves, regardless of the dynamics that define them. The labor of love is indeed a work of art, of which I am a huge fan. :rose:

I will also share that I am amused at how many times I have drawn a line and said, "I could never" and then later realizing given the right circumstance and connection with the right partner, I start to see that I indeed could and begin to crave what used to make me cringe in disbelief. Now, when I am surprised or shocked by something and have that "I could never" feeling, it is a flag that it has a profound effect on my sensibilities, and therefore evocative and worth exploring. I still may never crave it, or even really understand it...but releasing the judgments based on stereotypes and social norms and embracing the actual people behind the acts has helped me a heap. That said, I would offer up the thought that while in pursuit of defining what "kind of Dom you are", let go of "what other Doms are like" and just be honest with yourself about who you are and what you crave...and just claim that... you might surprise yourself and in the long run I think you will be much happier for it. Best of luck to you in your journey within SM. :)
 
Thank you for your thoughts! Hmmm, how about...

Top/bottom - What you do in action; Top acts upon, bottom is acted upon.
Dom/sub - Who you are by nature; Dominance seeks control, submission seeks surrender.

Is that any better? Would it be enough for someone not knowing anything about the dynamics to at least be a starting point for more "appropriate" terminology that would be more widely accepted within the community at least for use in discussion?
I know you are only trying to define something so everybody understands the difference, but this is one reason why I don't like labels. They are too confining. You can't define a top and bottom as ONLY actors and doms and subs as the only seekers by nature. There are exceptions to every defining template. BDSM itself is too broad to fit into any perfect box.

I also think a better choice for that natural urge is hunger. Doms hunger to control or dominate and subs hunger to be controlled or submit. And there are doms and subs who, for whatever reason, don't care to or can't live their whole lives as doms and subs. So, just their sex lives or their private time together involve the lifestyle.

I remember a similar thread several years ago that got heated because those who considered themselves masters and slaves called doms and subs weekend warriors or wannabees because they didn't do the 24/7 thing and masters and slaves did. That thread turned into a sort of online fist fight just because of labels people had given themselves. There was no reason for any feud. Nobody was infringing on anybody else's territory. It was just another battle of rhetoric that wouldn't be resolved. The m/s people said they lived the life and accused the d/s group of just playing in it. Yes, gor was mentioned, too. :rolleyes:

Personally, I'm naturally dominant, but I don't care to be that way 24/7. It's just a personal choice. It fits better into my life. Call me what you want, I don't care. I'm happy without definition. :D
 
I know you are only trying to define something so everybody understands the difference, but this is one reason why I don't like labels. They are too confining. You can't define a top and bottom as ONLY actors and doms and subs as the only seekers by nature. There are exceptions to every defining template. BDSM itself is too broad to fit into any perfect box.

I also think a better choice for that natural urge is hunger. Doms hunger to control or dominate and subs hunger to be controlled or submit. And there are doms and subs who, for whatever reason, don't care to or can't live their whole lives as doms and subs. So, just their sex lives or their private time together involve the lifestyle.

I remember a similar thread several years ago that got heated because those who considered themselves masters and slaves called doms and subs weekend warriors or wannabees because they didn't do the 24/7 thing and masters and slaves did. That thread turned into a sort of online fist fight just because of labels people had given themselves. There was no reason for any feud. Nobody was infringing on anybody else's territory. It was just another battle of rhetoric that wouldn't be resolved. The m/s people said they lived the life and accused the d/s group of just playing in it. Yes, gor was mentioned, too. :rolleyes:

Personally, I'm naturally dominant, but I don't care to be that way 24/7. It's just a personal choice. It fits better into my life. Call me what you want, I don't care. I'm happy without definition. :D

Thank you. Please know that it is not my intent to label the people as much as I want to maybe label the concepts if you will... I too hate labels, and wiggle my way out of them as often as I can. I also cringe at the thought of someone belittling another persons experience in judgment or comparison of their own. I love the thought "we should always be kinder than necessary as everyone is waging their own kind of war." For me, the kind of war is irrelevant...the fact that we all war within is the resonance that breeds compassion and allows tolerance and hopefully celebration of our differences.

Hunger is a delicious word indeed, and I often use it with poetic license to describe my own sexual cravings. I considered the word hunger and did I consider the word craving...but then I chose "seeks" to allow the definition to be more moderate, less confining, and more generic..to reach a broader spectrum. Does that make sense?

Plus, for the more literal thinkers out there, hunger would be equivalent to the life sustaining need to eat...which none of us can deny as a required 24/7 lifestyle choice. ;) Admittedly, the longings for kink can be life consuming but at the end of the day, some can, like you and I, choose to indulge in it at your whim and contentedly thrive.
 
To Curious in Cali, DVS, and Stella,

My reason for reading discussion threads like this one are because of the very thoughtful comments made here and on other BDSM Talk threads. It gets me hope that human sexuality along with the relationships that occur because of those mind, heart, and body experiences brings us all to a place in our journey where a person's growth is more important than any label given. There are only so many words to describe a multitude of thoughts and feelings that are at times universal and yet very individual. :rose:
 
To Curious in Cali, DVS, and Stella,

My reason for reading discussion threads like this one are because of the very thoughtful comments made here and on other BDSM Talk threads. It gets me hope that human sexuality along with the relationships that occur because of those mind, heart, and body experiences brings us all to a place in our journey where a person's growth is more important than any label given. There are only so many words to describe a multitude of thoughts and feelings that are at times universal and yet very individual. :rose:

Yes! That is it, exactly. Thank you for your beautiful thoughts. :rose:
 
Please know that it is not my intent to label the people as much as I want to maybe label the concepts if you will
This, thank you. The concepts are applicable, if we can understand and agree on how we've labelled them. And they are not exclusive, as DVS seems to feel you've implied.

I'm a switch-- I top and bottom. I tend to dominate when I bottom, and I tend to be more service-oriented, more intent on my partner's needs when I top-- which should be no sort of surprise, since I expect my top to be more intent on my needs when they top, after all.

I surely don't mind following orders for a while, or giving them, but I feel no need to dom 24/7, or sub either.

For me, D/s is an adjunct to T/b, while for many other people it's the other way around, so I have two concepts, and I understand where I am within each of them.

Anyone else can find their own places in these continuums as well-- once they understand that there are two sets of continuum to go sliding around on!
 
Last edited:
Dictionary? What dictionary?

txblush, I agree with you. In general, most of the posts are professional / caring in nature and have the goal of educating and helping, without posturing. Most of them anyway.

I've been reading this post for three days now and trying to figure it all out (as a curious newbie). It has been difficult at best.

As with Curious_in_Cali, I'm not Labeling anyone in this post and I am not downplaying anyone’s positions or titles. When researching the BDSM lifestyl, these are the definitions that I find most common. Just like Cali said, I'm just trying to identify the concepts and how they are related.
Sources were Xeromag.com and novad.org and wikipedia (so far).

BDSM
It is actually BD-DS-SM (BDSM) (Sorry midwestayankee).
Bondage/Discipline, Dominant/Submissive, SadoMasochism...
A “term” used to describe any and/or all activities which include, Power Exchange, Dominance and Submission, Pain Play, Bondage, Sensation Play, or anything related to these.
Basically, the Whole Enchilada.

Sadomasochism (SM):
The Acts of Giving or Receiving Pain for pleasure.
This includes actual Pain, Discipline and humiliation.

Top/bottom:
The BDSM roles played without power transfer or psychological control.
Two people engaging in Sadomasochism without submitting or dominating. One Inflicts Pain, the other Receives Pain but have no desire to Surrender control. Make me wonder about the articles on "Topping from the bottom".

Power Exchange:
A situation where one person surrenders control to another. The amount of control, and the duration of control are pre-defined. I could give up Just my sight, for 3 hours. Or give up Everything for 25 years.

Dom/sub:
Roles in a Relationship with Power Transfer of both psychological and physical.
These could also be used to describer personallities, but most definitions see them as positions in the relationship.

Switch:
A person that knowingly changes roles between between Dominant to submissive, or Sadistic to masochist. This is only mentioned in the Power Transfer aspect of BDSM and was never mention in Top/bottom relationships.

Total Power Exchange
Power Exchange for an indefinite duration.
This is known as a Lifestyle D/s or “Lifestylers”.

Master/slave:
Dominant/submissive roles, usually in a Total Power Exchange.

PHY/phy :
BDSM play that includes multiple Dom's and/or sub's.

So there it is. What I can make of it, safely tucked away in my vanilla world, with hot butterscotch drizzled all over her nipple clamps.

Correct me where you may, and please provide sources for differing opinions. I would love to get this right some day.

Chuckles-N-Lovin'
 
BDSM: It is actually BD-DS-SM (BDSM)

I think purists would take exception. When the term was coined, it stood for Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, Masochism. The Dominance and Submission were added as an afterthought, and the acronym wasn't coined with them in mind.

Which for those of us who are primarily into D/s, it kinda ironic.

I think it was some of Jay Wiseman's writing where I read about the origins of the terms.

Top/bottom: The BDSM roles played without power transfer or psychological control. Two people engaging in Sadomasochism without submitting or dominating. One Inflicts Pain, the other Receives Pain but have no desire to Surrender control. Make me wonder about the articles on "Topping from the bottom".

A little too specific, I think. Top and bottom are often used interchangeably with dominant and submissive (rightly or wrongly). Also, they are commonly used in bondage scenes (a rope top or "rigger", and a rope bottom for example.)

For me, I've always thought of them as just defining who is doing (the "top") and who is being done to (the "bottom").

As for topping from the bottom... if you're topping, you're topping. So technically you can't "top from the bottom" because that would make you the top. The phrase is often used in conjunction with submissives taking control, which is about D/s not about top/bottom. So yeah, if you're confused, don't worry... so are the rest of us!

Total Power Exchange: Power Exchange for an indefinite duration. This is known as a Lifestyle D/s or “Lifestylers”.

Now this one I would take exception to. I don't believe that TPE need be related to duration: it's quite possible to conduct TPE within a session of very finite duration, for example.

I also believe that "lifestylers" need not be related to TPE at all. A better definition of a "BDSM lifestyler" for me would be someone who bases their lifestyle on BDSM in some form. That could be any of the many variants that come under BDSMl it needs to be the central aspect of someone's lifestyle. It need not be related to TPE (although it often is.)

As a related example, consider the difference between "gay" and "the gay lifestyle". The former is a sexual preference. The latter generally includes how you walk, talk, dress and the clubs you attend.

Master/slave: dominant/submissive roles, usually in a Total Power Exchange.

Hmm. I think it would be hard to find a "master" who isn't dominant, or a "slave" who isn't submissive. On the other hand, M/s is usually regarded as more than D/s. Defining exactly what that more is becomes interesting. From my point of view, M/s adds the concept of "ownership" (which isn't necessarily present within TPE).
 
Last edited:
I know of a lot of couples (gay mostly) who have a top/bottom preference between themselves, and call their relationship dynamic an Alpha/beta one, meaning that each one has strengths within particular parts of their life. A lot of hetero couples have this as well-- often in the traditional marriage roles way, but many times along other divides.
 
[...] relationship dynamic Alpha/beta

I like the terms "alpha" and "beta", largely because they are not overladen with other implications. They do tend to crop up in psychological and anthropological descriptions too.

I'm not sure if they are in any way specific to BDSM; I'd posit a more generic descriptor for relationships in general.
 
I like the terms "alpha" and "beta", largely because they are not overladen with other implications. They do tend to crop up in psychological and anthropological descriptions too.

I'm not sure if they are in any way specific to BDSM; I'd posit a more generic descriptor for relationships in general.
That's why I like them as well. Beyond certain specific roles, I don't think that BDSM defines as many relationships as the novels and our wishes would have us believe.
 
Beyond certain specific roles, I don't think that BDSM defines as many relationships as the novels and our wishes would have us believe.

Alternatively, D/s can describe more relationships than just those of whom practice BDSM.
 
Alternatively, D/s can describe more relationships than just those of whom practice BDSM.
Well maybe resembles. But as I said before, the limits we place upon ourselves within the context of BDSM define the practice. That means that an abusive relationship conducted without prior negotiation and consent-- is an abusive relationship. NOT a D/s one.

the violent attack that we call "Rape" isn't the same as forced sex in a BDSM context which it closely resembles.

A ritual cutting is not a knife attack.

Sorry... getting away from myself again...
 
Last edited:
[...]A ritual cutting is not a knife attack.

Wow Stella. D/s is a natural part of most human interaction, it need not be "abuse" (or rape or attack or...) and is often beneficial. A lot of relationships, including intimate relationships, have D/s elements. Most people don't pull those aspects out and focus on them however, and hence are not BDSM practitioners. But a relationship having D/s elements doesn't automatically equate to abuse.
 
...
Anyone else can find their own places in these continuums as well-- once they understand that there are two sets of continuum to go sliding around on!

And then you get the fun of trying to find a partner who's in a complimentary place on the continuums!

Yay.

I do enjoy reading these discussions, but it always makes me question where I fit in. Then I realise I don't really give a toss. I'm in a happy relationship, that's what matters.
 
Wow Stella. D/s is a natural part of most human interaction, it need not be "abuse" (or rape or attack or...) and is often beneficial. A lot of relationships, including intimate relationships, have D/s elements. Most people don't pull those aspects out and focus on them however, and hence are not BDSM practitioners. But a relationship having D/s elements doesn't automatically equate to abuse.
yeah, I know.

You get those D/s goggles on and everything looks like your favorite fun and games-- go the the hardware store and all you see is the rope and tackle, and you wonder if you can find a pervertable way to use sandpaper...

And sure there are unequal power dynamics in every relationship, and you see them so very clearly because you've been educated to them.

But unless the principles are aware of them themselves, they are not experiencing what you or I would experience in a D/s relationship.

For most people, a cigar is a cigar.

Lizzie_Borden said:
And then you get the fun of trying to find a partner who's in a complimentary place on the continuums!
Well it's better to know that not every top is a dom, right? Seems to me that would save some anguish right there... Not to mention all the folk who come here wondering why their partner can't just TAKE CHARGE FOR EVERRR because "dom/me" is the only word they've ever heard.
 
But unless the principles are aware of them themselves, they are not experiencing what you or I would experience in a D/s relationship.
Really? So what were people experiencing before they called it "D/s"?

I think people may not be experiencing exactly what we do, but then do they ever? We all differ, after all. But on the other hand, there are aspects of commonality, and I don't think it's false to look for those.

No, I'm not wearing D/s coloured glasses. :D But dominance and submission are natural parts of human interaction, and not limited to BDSM practitioners. So sometimes the terminology can be useful.
 
Really? So what were people experiencing before they called it "D/s"?
Hmm... That's a bit like asking what people were playing before they called it "football?"
Answer, they were playing something that hadn't been codified yet. Something that didn't have scoring systems, or rules or standards. Something that was a precursor.

I think people may not be experiencing exactly what we do, but then do they ever? We all differ, after all. But on the other hand, there are aspects of commonality, and I don't think it's false to look for those.

No, I'm not wearing D/s coloured glasses. :D But dominance and submission are natural parts of human interaction, and not limited to BDSM practitioners. So sometimes the terminology can be useful.
Actually, I think to call the fluctuations in human interactions by the limited and standardised terms of BDSM is less than useful. D/s has commonality with those other interactions. But BDSM sexualises and contextualises those interactions in ways that make them specific and ritualised and far less flexible, broadly speaking.

Ooog, I'm not making myself very clear tonight.
 
D/s has commonality with those other interactions. But BDSM sexualises and contextualises those interactions in ways that make them specific and ritualised and far less flexible, broadly speaking.

Yeah, for "values of BDSM". We don't all ascribe to the ritualised nature of it, after all.

Ooog, I'm not making myself very clear tonight.

You're doing fine. I'm just being picky. :)
 
Yeah, for "values of BDSM". We don't all ascribe to the ritualised nature of it, after all.



You're doing fine. I'm just being picky. :)
Well, I do assume you subscribe to consensuality. Which, to me at least, is the single thing that defines BDSM in current practice. I mean-- you know ahead of time that the games will be on-going and ad hoc, right? Kinda like an "I Do." that's ritual right there.

See-- I remember the days before consensuality had been codified and made common knowledge. When people thought that De Sade was actually a proper sadist, and Sacher Masoch, that poor miserable soul, actually defined masochism, and death or damage was the logical outcome of kink.

Those days were scary. I could deny my desires, or be terrified about what might happen if I put myself in someone's power. There was no way to tell if someone knew what they were doing. I certainly didn't-- I hurt someone's wrists pretty badly with rope bondage.

There were no mentors. I KNOW the difference between being able to talk about what you want, and just-- jumping in wishing you knew. or suckering someone into doing something they don't even know why.

Hmm.

I guess I have some good reason for being emphatic.
 
Last edited:
Well, I do assume you subscribe to consensuality. Which, to me at least, is the single thing that defines BDSM in current practice.

I absolutely ascribe to consensuality, although I think that would be a somewhat succinct definition of BDSM. We'd all go around... consenting at each other!

I believe it's possible (and in fact, I have seen it) to be in a consensual D/s relationship but without applying those labels.
 
I absolutely ascribe to consensuality, although I think that would be a somewhat succinct definition of BDSM. We'd all go around... consenting at each other!
As opposed to forcing ourselves and our kinks on each other regardless?
I believe it's possible (and in fact, I have seen it) to be in a consensual D/s relationship but without applying those labels.
I totally believe you. Some people don't use the labels-- but If the relationship is consensual, consent is there. Yes? No?
 
Back
Top