lable me this, batman:

[alexanna]

To alexanna- I misread your tone, and since I am told I come off arguemenative when I ask questions... I just wanted to be sure you didn't think anything...

Nope, didn't. I am argumenative, often just for the sake of having an argument because I find it interesting to drive a point a view to its logical and often absurd conclusion (not necessarily in this case). I get accused of "beating the dead horse" fairly often. I have a tendency to take the opposing view point just because I think someone should even when it may not be that defensible.

 

[Homburg]

*Takes the gold star bestowed kindly by Nala Cayenne and kneels to offer it to Homburg*

Aw, shucks

A side note: (I use the word LET with it meaning ALLOWS ... @ Homburg and his Oxford Dict) heh.

ROFL

 

[Life_Noir]

My car may stall out or get weird on me, but usually because something's broken and sometimes it's my fault that it's broken in the first place. If it's a nice Saab I'd put up with the hassle of having to take it to the foreign specialist and wait for parts and pay heavily, because I have a really nice status car.

It's never going to drive off somewhere I didn't drive it though.

Beating the car in that situation is rarely the right response, most cars need some support and some cash put into them when they don't work.

However, when I've fixed the car a few times and it's still an underperformer I will go scream at the dealer, trade it in, and get one that doesn't suck. Life is short and I am not put here to be frustrated.

Proving once again why we all love Netzach..

 

[Homburg]

Among the many reasons =)

 

[unfoundiamond]

Nope, didn't. I am argumenative, often just for the sake of having an argument because I find it interesting to drive a point a view to its logical and often absurd conclusion (not necessarily in this case). I get accused of "beating the dead horse" fairly often. I have a tendency to take the opposing view point just because I think someone should even when it may not be that defensible.

Sweet, me too... I enjoy hearing other points of view also...

I find I come to the best conclusions sometimes when I am trying to argue a point, and realize I can't, because it is not defendable... or wrong, those are the best points and conclusions, when you realize YOU proved yourself wrong...

No one to argue with...

Ttyl...

Btw- I love that AV alexanna, its so cute...
The cat in the picture makes me laugh...

So cute...
.

 

[magdelena69]

ok, so what about...

the term sammy? M and I think we get it, but since it's a little less common, we would love to know what everyone else thinks too.

I also always thought the bratty thing went along a bit with the Daddy/little girl relationships, but maybe that's just me....

Magdie

 

[JMohegan]

I'm on a mission to cut the shit. And for every time I have to listen to how fake and undecided the vast MAJORITY of people doing SM are, I ask people to mentally go over their resume or ask themselves what the hell they're so scared of. I'm not saying there is no "purity" I suppose, I just think it's really very minute a representation.

Like homophobes, outspoken critics of switches usually strike me as Colonel Fitts types. Protesting too much, as they say.

Nevertheless, with regard to the incidence of "purity", I think it depends where you look. From a strictly physical perspective, I'll grant you that all human beings are bisexual bottoms. Yet I have never been aroused by bottoming, or by males in any context (including fantasy). That's an honest statement, from me.

I also don't see any evidence for the idea that we're all naturally predisposed to be aroused by activity on the Top side. To say this about Topping gets into speculation as to human nature, and that ground's a lot more shaky.

 

[Netzach]

Nevertheless, with regard to the incidence of "purity", I think it depends where you look. From a strictly physical perspective, I'll grant you that all human beings are bisexual bottoms.

Dude, you're even further out on a limb than I am!

I don't think we're all predisposed to get off on doling out spankings, but I think most of us can enjoy sex in the active role and can get into getting things done to our specs sexually some of the time. Or lying back and letting our partner display their ingenuity. It's not a LOT of push in either direction before you have real live top bottom potential, and you're off the total Kinsey like poles of A and B.

It's a bell curve with little teeny ends on it, that's all I'm sayin'. I've always been hip to my *ability* to bottom even when I wasn't and am not actively doing that in any of my rels. I remain hip to the fact that I'm definitely on one side of that central hump too, for sure.

 

[Netzach]

SAM - a Dominant bottom who really can't come clean with that.

 

[magdelena69]

Thanks Netzach....btw, I have to say, I really admire your no bs views and knowledge. Hope you are all having an easier time getting out of the driveway than I am...

Magdie

 

[serijules]

I wrote this awhile back....been a few years but my opinions are much the same.

What's In a Label?

I've oft times thought that people into spanking and BDSM ought to come with labels. You know, like the nutrition labels found on packages at the store, breaking everything down to every gram, ounce and calorie, leaving little for the imagination. 50% submissive, 30% brat, 20% switch equals 100% pervert? *grin*.

Nearly all the disagreements and misunderstandings I see in this lifestyle, in person, on message boards or in chat stem from a difference of opinion when it comes to the basic labels we classify ourselves and our peers into, or a misuse of the labels to overly-generalize people in unfair or uncalled for ways. Personally, I despise labels. I feel they do nothing but generalize others in ways that we have no business generalizing them into. To say that subs are doormats, or brats are immature, is really no different than racism in its finest. Yet on the other hand to be without these labels we would be hard pressed to communicate with others where our interests and personalities lie, so to some extent they are a necessity as a base to build communication. The key is understanding the various ways people define each label and keeping an open mind about the ways in which the mold fits each person as an individual. To blatantly assume every person you meet that calls themselves a sub matches your own definition of the word will get you nowhere, fast.

No one label will likely fit one person to the T, and there is nothing wrong with being a mix of many different types and roles. Sometimes I think people get so stuck in a rut, afraid to branch out and try different things or explore different interests because of stereotypes that exist in connection with many of the labels we commonly use in the spanking and BDSM community. I have come across many of these stereotypes and misconceptions in the few years I've explored my kinky desires, and it always amazes me how the spectrum varies from person to person. My intentions with this essay are to portray some of the most common definitions of the usual labels found in the lifestyle and hopefully dispel some of the myths and stereotypes associated with them. Please do keep in mind that these are merely my own observations and opinions, and will vary as much as the next persons. It is up to you to form your own unique view regarding labels, and to use that view wisely. Every person and every relationship is extremely unique, and no one word or definition will ever fit perfectly.

Top, Bottom and Switch

Top, bottom and switch are the broadest labels I've found, and my personal favorites because for the most part, they are safe from the common misunderstandings that use of other labels can cause. I tend to compare them to chocolate, vanilla and twist...there is no doubt what flavor they are and no mistaking one for something it is not. No matter what flavor of BDSM you are into, these three labels exist, and you rarely find someone that does not understand the basic concept of them or define themselves as one of the three in some sense.

In most cases, a "top" can be used to describe anyone that gives the sensation in a scene or relationship, and the "bottom" is the receiver of the sensations, regardless of other labels or titles both may choose. In a master/slave relationship, the master would be the top and the slave a bottom. In a daddy/daughter relationship, the daddy is the top, the 'daughter' the bottom. When using these terms, they are usually not interchangeable; meaning, a bottom will always be a bottom and never take on top tendencies and vice versa. Which brings us to a switch.

A switch is someone who has an interest in both topping and bottoming, although not always on equal levels. Some switches have more interest in one role than the other, but still play both ways. Some have an equal level of interest in both roles, and play accordingly. However, it needs to be noted that a switch is not technically a switch in a given scene or relationship...they are either one role or the other. A switch might top one person and bottom to another, but not usually at the same time or with the same person. When they are with someone that tops them, they are very much a bottom, and vice versa. The difference is, they have an interest in both topping and bottoming at different times, which is where the use of the word 'switch' comes in.

Some tops and bottoms will switch on occasion with the right person or right setting, however, since those instances depend completely on a certain set of circumstances and are fairly rare, these people usually do not consider themselves switches.Often times, even if a top does become the bottom for a particular scene, they still consider themselves a top even during that scene. If a Dom decides he wants an erotic spanking from his sub, he would consider himself to be a 'top' in the d/s role and a bottom for the scene. Some just decide to 'switch' for that moment for whatever reason, perhaps to test a person they are teaching's skills with an implement, to participate in a game or role-play, or just because their partner has asked for it and they wish to indulge them.

There is often talk of switches not being "true" tops or "true" bottoms when in those roles because of their interest and experience in the other side, however, this is a blatant stereotype and a rather narrow minded concept in my opinion. Some of the most skilled tops I have met have admitted to being switches, and their understanding of both sides of the scales is a definite advantage when it comes to intense and memorable play. However, it is not a necessity at all, and just as many awesomely skilled tops have never felt the other side of the implements they wield.

There is also the myth that all good tops or all good bottoms should "try" the other side at least once to gain a better understanding of what the other deals with. While this certainly poses to be an advantage if you wish to explore it, I do not believe it is necessary in order to be skilled at your own chosen role. Understanding your partner, respecting limits, and communication go a lot further than a test run down a slope that doesn't curve towards your interest level. Each and every top, bottom or switch is unique in how they react and what an experience will do for them, so a trial run will likely not gain you any more insight other than to prove to yourself that your chosen role IS the one that is right for you. The act of topping or bottoming is not what makes one a top or a bottom, but the mindframe in which they do it. Playing with sensation won't change that.

On the spanking scene in particular, top and bottom can take on a slightly more defined meaning. The role of top or bottom is often used to describe someone who's only interest is loving, pleasant, sometimes sexual spanking, most limited to handspankings while over the knee or moderate variations of that. Some of the other themes such as punishment, discipline, heavier pain-centered play, most severe implements etc, are usually not a part of the scene these two roles create.

There is also the roles of top and bottom present in most domestic discipline relationships. Domestic discipline roles usually use spanking as a means of discipline only and other than pre-agreed on punishments, the top and bottom dynamic does not exist in the rest of the relationship, sometimes not even sexually. Spankings are usually given out by the top for discipline in areas that the bottom needs them, and other aspects of their lives are equal as far their roles to each other. This is mostly found amoungst romantically involved or married couples that have an interest in behavioral spanking but in none of the other dynamics of BDSM or spanking relationships, or on a separate level than the domestic discipline itself.

Domestic discipline can also exist as a type of relationship that other roles use in their lifestyle (ex: a dom and sub might use domestic discipline in their d/s relationship) however, I feel it is worth noting as a separate type of top and bottom role. Switching may or may not be involved in the relationship, or the top or bottom may switch outside the domestic discipline relationship or role with others. (aka, receive discipline from their spousal top and be submissive or dominant to other play partners outside the relationship).

To sum it up...tops, bottoms and switches are found in every flavor of sensation and desire imaginable in the BDSM/spanking lifestyle, and can be molded to fit just about any role. If in doubt about the more defined nature of the role someone has chosen or displays, using one of these three terms is likely a safe bet and plenty enough to communicate to others the general nature of your interests.

Dominant and Submissive

Dominant and submissive is one of many more defined areas of the broad subject of tops and bottoms as described above. There is a higher instance of so called power exchange here, with one role giving up a part of themselves to the other, which is where the dynamics in the relationship come from. There is no right or wrong way to define a dom or a sub, however, that doesn't make it any easier to decide if this label suits you or not.

Dominants, or Domme's as female dominants are usually called, are most often tops who's interests lean more towards BDSM, obedience and erotic sensations rather than just pleasant, nurturing spankings. There is as much focus on the emotional exchange as the physical one, and the list of ways in which a dominant exerts control over a submissive is endless. There is a thrill in being able to be so in tune with another person that you are able to demand their complete control and to have them give it without question. For some, submitting is not always about submitting to another person, but to the pain or emotions involved, even sort of like a personal challenge, with the top or dom merely being a partner or prop to the submission itself. More of a personal journey and less of a mutual one.

Submissives are often bottoms that have intense desires to please another and to allow another person to have a certain amount of control over them. Characteristics of some submissives include a desire to obey, willingness to explore where a combination of pain and pleasure can take them, and a need to be able to let go of their independence into the hands of another and be able to savor the security of being controlled in some form or another. There is much pleasure, satisfaction and personal growth to be obtained from having strength enough to trust your most intimate self in the hands of another. To be able to overcome your doubts and trust your own judgment enough to choose someone to submit to is a display of strength that really injects a lot of intensity into a D/s relationship. Subs may enjoy physical sensations to many parts of their bodies, and enjoy giving their partner as much as they are getting. Sexual play is usually a large part of a D/s relationship, as may be humiliation, bondage, and other sensations other than just spanking play.

One of the most common misconceptions of submissives is that they are "doormats" or are highly insecure. Most submissives I know are intelligent, successful, and secure individuals who crave a deeper level of intensity and sensation than their everyday lives or even purely spanking relationships offer. Submissives are often more direct in sharing what they want and need with their tops, and less likely than less submissive bottoms to act out if that attention isn't granted, or to do so in more subtle ways. Being punished or disciplined shows a submissive that they have displeased their dom, and for someone who enjoys pleasing their partner, this can be a setback they wish to avoid at all costs. For others, punishment and discipline make them feel secure in the relationship, in where they stand, and in themselves; without it, don't feel as complete.

There is often a notion that Doms are all ego, and get off on having power over another. Some imagine a dom as as leather-clad, whip snapping demanding SOB. I know a few like that, I don't call them doms, usually go straight for the SOB part However, in my experience a dom that knows his experience and skill level and respects that will give just as much as they get in return, and won't need leather props and loud demands to prove their dominance.

D/s relationships and the people they consist of vary. You only get out of the relationship and the role what you put into it. For some, it is merely a bedroom game, toying with the fantasy of a strong partner to overpower them and handcuff them to the bed for a night of wild passion. For others, it is a very valid part of who they are, and take every chance they can to explore and nurture that part.

Master and Slave

I think of the master and slave dynamic as another direction of dominant and submissive, with the dynamics between the two roles being focused more so on a stricter obedience and a heightened level of control. A slave is usually a bottom who is owned by another, although the level and definition of ownership greatly varies depending on the relationship. A master is a top who claims ownership over a bottom and has control of some or all aspects of their life. The female form of master is mistress.

These roles can be very similar to dominant and submissive, with the major difference being the claim of ownership. Some such couples even go so far in making the ownership process as near real as possible by drawing up contracts, being tattooed or branded with their master's mark or name, and turning over their finances and rights to make their own decisions over to their mistresses. Many master and slave relationships are not so severe however, but the person needs or wants a level of control that the role of a dominant does not quite meet. Some masters want their bottoms to display a level of submission and obedience beyound what many submissives can give, and someone who has slave characteristics and desires are better suited to them. Thus, the roles of master/mistress and slave.

Many people discredit master and slave relationships as being role-play or fantasy, and have little respect for those that lead such a lifestyle. By history's definition, a BDSM master and slave relationship is certainly an entirely different realm, but the people involved are often intelligent, unbiased individuals that have a deep need for control or lack of control on a level that the master and slave roles are well suited to. Slaves, unlike the history definition, DO choose to be slaves and do have a say in what aspects of their lives are controlled. Once again, for some it is only 'bedroom play' where the roles are used to spice up their sex lives. For others, it is a true lifestyle and they wouldn't want to live any other way.

The roles also exist outside the ownership spectrum. Many that would otherwise call themselves submissives take on the label of slave because they enjoy serving others, either domestically or sexually. I remember one time I was a slave for a day, for a dominant friend. With the added push of pleasing him, cleaning house was a lot more fun and erotic, especially the things I had to do in the nude! In the same regard, some dominants enjoy being served but do not get anything out of the ownership ideal, so may be a master to a bottom that considers themselves submissive but not a slave. The roles are certainly not limited to their mate-roles, many labels coexist with each other quite well.

Master and mistress is also used as a title of respect and many bottoms, submissive and slave alike, use the terms to show respect regardless of the relationships.

Sadomasochists

Webster himself defines a sadist as the deriving of sexual gratification from inflicting pain, extreme cruelty or emotional abuse on others. A masochist is defined as someone who sports a willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences or whom derives sexual gratification from being physically or emotionally abuse. These roles can be summed up into sadomasochism, which is the combination of sadism and masochism, in particular the deriving of pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting or submitting to physical or emotional abuse.

Somehow I doubt Old Webster ever dabbled in BDSM.

This is perhaps one of the most misunderstood labels in BDSM/spanking. I most often hear or see the words used in a negative way, to describe someone that likes to give or receive pain at a level that is intolerable or even disgusting to them, as the dictionary itself indicates. Other words associated with sadists in particular are uncaring, heartless, dangerous, and sick. Terms I've seen associated with masochists have varied from doormats to accusations of wanting abuse. By dictionary definition, these terms might be synonymous with the definitions of the words, however, in the scene itself, they tend to take on a more humane, if not still startling definition.

Sadists are tops that enjoy giving pain or humiliation. Their motivation is creating sensations that are unpleasant or painfully intense for their partners and enjoying their reactions. It is often a turn-on to create a situation or scenario in which their bottoms have to endure uncomfortable situations for the sadists pleasure. This is not always as harsh as it may sound! A top that enjoys embarrassing a bottom might be called a sadist, even though no real physical pain is being dished out. Many people seem to be under the impression that a sadists' ONLY interest is to give pain and unpleasant sensations, and have no room in their cold hearts to enjoy giving pleasure as well, or to be concerned about the well-being of their bottoms. This is far from the truth in the case of most tops that consider themselves sadists, and a 'good' sadist lives by the creed that ANY good top does; to keep their bottoms safe, secure and happy. There just might be an awful lot of pain to endure in the process, and that is something a sadist enjoys, and would not enjoy it unless they truly knew their partner was consenting to it and enjoying it on some level as well.

As I just noted, a masochist enjoys receiving and enduring this pain from a sadistic top. Most masochists have very high pain tolerance levels, and their arousal depends upon on a certain amount of pain being involved. The type of play and sensation a masochist enjoys and desires is perhaps closer to edgy or harsher than many bottoms would want or tolerate. Masochists are no more insecure or unstable than any other type of bottom, they simply enjoy a higher level of sensation, and get a personal thrill out of enduring that at the whims of another and use pain as an arousal factor. They still require the same level of caring, attention and security that goes with any other bottoming role in the scene, and have other needs and wants that are not only centered around their masochistic desires.

There are always exceptions of course, and I am sure there ARE people out there who are as sadistic or masochistic as old Webster defines them. However, the words are most often adapted to further define a particular desire in a top or bottom. There is rarely any real form of nonconsensual abuse present between a sadist and a masochist in the scene, and neither role has any interest in being abused or an abuser. If anything, they depend on one another to meet each others needs, and together it can be a beautiful exchange.

Like the song says, can't have one without the other.

Brats and SAMs (Smart Assed Masochist)

Brats are strong personalities who like verbal sparring and who often like eventually to be overwhelmed by 'force' from their Tops. Our old friend Webster defines a brat as a child, especially a spoiled or ill-mannered one. As adults with an interest in spanking, a brat might be more aptly defined as someone who acts like a child and tries to earn a spanking or attention by being verbally or physically rambunctious or silly. Some brats are not as forceful as others, and engage in gentler, more humorous attempts to vie for attention. Hiding a tops implement when they know they are in for a spanking, smacking teasingly or calling them a name, or being verbally disrespectful is all in a days work for a brat. Earning a spanking or some other mild form of 'punishment' for their behavior is more of a reward for a brat than it would be for a sub, and brats usually have less focus on pleasing their tops with their behavior, and enjoy the challenge of testing limits and getting reactions.

In the same way that a parent might find their bratty child's antics cute and enduring, a top that enjoys brat play will likely feel the same way about their bratty bottoms. Brats often have a deep set need to be in the center of attention as much as possible, and their behavior will sometimes worsen if they don't get the attention they seek. I find brats to be more likely to go to extreme measures to get the spankings they want, rather than admit they want them. When matched with a top that does not have the patience for childish antics, this can get very old very fast, so it is especially important for brat bottoms to focus their energies only on those tops that have an appreciation for their style of play.

A common misconception associated with brats is that they are immature or selfish. In some cases, this is true, there are always those in every role that can't or won't respect limits or keep their role in perspective. However, bratplay when done right can add a lot of cleverness, creativeness and fun to a spanking relationship, and both partners usually get a lot of pleasure from engaging in the challenge of coming up with the best ways to annoy your top or the most effective ways to keep a brat in their place! The reasoning behind most bratting antics is to give a scene more of a nonconsensual feel, the thrill of being caught and chastened for their behavior. Most brats WANT to be caught and having their behavior ignored or brushed off defeats the purpose. For others, bratting is also a way to let their top know that they are okay with the level that the scene or play is at, and want more. By acting out or being sassy, they are effectively letting their partner know they want a heightened level of play.

Being a Smart Assed Masochist to most people is just another form of bratting. This is one label I have seen a lot of debate and different definitions for. Some define a SAM as something of a cross between a somewhat masochistic sub and a brat, with the bratty nature leaning more towards sassiness and smart-assed comments than the antics or disobedience often associated with brats. Usually they have more submissive tendencies along with the bratty attitude or don't relate to some of the more childlike ways of bratting. I see this definition more amoungst spankos.

From the opinions of some, a SAM seems to be more of an insult, used to describe a sub that 'tops from the bottom' or pushes just to get punished or to get attention. Some say the motivation for a SAM most often is challenging themselves by aggravating and provoking the top. It's the battle that they get a lot of their thrill from as well as the eventual intensity of sensation. There are some tops out there that require an extreme level of obedience from their bottoms and won't tolerate anything less...and a sub that is sassy or bratty would at times be called a SAM or brat, neither term being meant positively. Once again, the key to a successful relationship if this is a label you relate to is to find someone that shares your definitions and relates to your own ideas.

Parental Role and Child

Many tops associate spanking and loving discipline with a parental role, and enjoy playing a nurturing role to a bottom such as a mommy or daddy. The bottom often takes on the role of a child (see Ageplay in Terms and Definitions for more information) in need of a dominant parental figure in their lives. These roles do not usually involve sexual play at all, with the spanking and stimulation being purely disciplinary and doting. For some however, sexual play is a part of it, depending on the people involved, but even then the play may be discipline or parental care related such as being bathed and cleaned, giving or receiving an enema, wearing a bottom plug for being naughty, etc. For some it is necessary that sexual touching and stimulation not be a part of the role at all, for others, it is not an issue.

Often people assume that these roles, especially daddy/daughter play, are indications that the top has phedophilia desires. Most of the daddy's I know have no interest in children at all, and very much expect their partners to be adults. It is the childlike qualities displayed in an adult partner that is the turn-on for them and the motivation behind the role. Not all daddy/daughter play or similar roles involves ageplay, with the bottom staying very much the adult age they are at all times, yet desiring the nurturing, caring role of a "daddy" top to take care of them and make them feel safe. The common elements of diapers, bottles and babytalk is not a part of this level of the relationship at all. There is also often the assumption that the childlike bottoms are not capable of making adult decisions or acting like the adults that they are, and this is also not true in most cases. The desire to relive some of the best parts about being a child and the innocence and worry-free mentality of childhood does not have to be an indication of immaturity or inability to cope with an adult lifestyle.

Many tops and bottoms role-play these titles without actually desiring the roles on a long term basis. Mommy, daddy, uncle, aunt, teacher, niece, nephew, daughter, son, etc...the list of role-play possibilities are endless, but some tops and bottoms take on the roles permanently in the relationship or in their spanking play and it is a part of their every day lives.

So, What's In a Label?

So, all that being said, what IS in a label?

The answer is simple. Whatever works for you.

The examples and characteristics are only a few of many many more, each as unique as the person defining them. There will always be exceptions to every case, those that use BDSM and spanking as escapes from issues in their lives in an unhealthy way, and there will always be those that hide behind the stereotypes associated with a label and use it as an excuse for inexcusable behavior. Those that truly embrace spanking and BDSM as a desired lifestyle rather than a game will not use a label to define who they are, but rather as an aid in helping communicate their desires and style with others. There is a certain amount of pride in having found and in sharing your chosen niche in the lifestyle, and this helps build a common ground with like-minded people, however loose it may be.

The best way to find that niche is through exploration and experience. You may have a general idea of what you want or desire, but are unsure of where those desires fit in the larger scope of things. You might find yourself to be a general mix of all the labels and roles available, and even some that no one else has thought of but you. The nature of roles and labels is that they constantly shift as you grow and experience more. A role that fit you at one stage may not work at another. There is no rule that says a brat will always be a brat, and it is advisable to always respect the shifts and changes that a person goes through in relation to roles. Part of earning respect from your peers is a willingness to respect the definitions they apply to the roles they have chosen, without generalizing them into your own opinions. There is room enough for everyone and their version of the variety of labels, that is what keeps the lifestyle fresh, interesting and ever-growing. The most successful way to avoid sinking into the rut of stereotypes and generalizations often associated with labels is to avoid dishing them out yourself.

The only one that can define what label fits a person...is that person themselves. Me? I'm a bi-sexual masochistic, submissive pony slave. *grin*

 

[JMohegan]

Dude, you're even further out on a limb than I am!

Just lucky we're not having this conversation in a locker room, or biker bar.

I don't think we're all predisposed to get off on doling out spankings, but I think most of us can enjoy sex in the active role and can get into getting things done to our specs sexually some of the time. Or lying back and letting our partner display their ingenuity. It's not a LOT of push in either direction before you have real live top bottom potential, and you're off the total Kinsey like poles of A and B.

It's a bell curve with little teeny ends on it, that's all I'm sayin'. I've always been hip to my *ability* to bottom even when I wasn't and am not actively doing that in any of my rels. I remain hip to the fact that I'm definitely on one side of that central hump too, for sure.

Oh, okay. I was thinking of Topping in the purely physical and kinky (e.g., spanking) sense.

Talking about control muddies the discussion considerably. I've done "I'm just gonna lie here, now get me off" a thousand times - and loved it. But in my head, I'm still in control - 'cause I gave her the initial instruction, and expect it to be obeyed, and could check her at any time.

Of course, bottoms negotiate sessions and could safeword any time, soooo..... the distinctions get confusing and the lines start to blur, as you say. In general, I agree with your conclusion here.

 

[callinectes]

*knowing laugh*


I'm in agreement. She's the only person I know who is as steadfast as she is about her place. To be honest, I don't think she calls herself any of the aforementioned labels except maybe slave. I think a lot of people here find if very hard to understand her lifestyle, and despite having been to their house and having an enjoyable three-hour frank conversation with her...even I don't understand it completely. She's a friend of mine, but I'm not sure I understand it 100%.

Oh, and for the labels...I consider myself a queer leathergirl. That right there summarizes me better than anything else. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't get what it means, so I still end up explaining.

I'm down with OSG as well though I admit It took me a while to wrap my brain around her situation. That's why I asked where she was when she was needed, because I would have liked her input on what I interepreted as the "only switches are honest" statement.

What's my label? Not sure other than to know it falls somewhere between submissive and slave. As my relationship with Daddy has goes through various stages, I tend to lean more one way than the other but it is still somewhat fluid.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm down with OSG as well though I admit It took me a while to wrap my brain around her situation. That's why I asked where she was when she was needed, because I would have liked her input on what I interepreted as the "only switches are honest" statement.

A Callinectes sighting!

I don't think switches are necessarily more honest. What I would say is that they are more sexually flexible and adventurous, as a general rule.

But even switches say things like: "For some reason, the idea of submitting to a woman leaves me cold" or "I love switching! Oh -- except, I could never enjoy bottoming to a straight male Top, of course."

Since everybody has limits on what types arouse them sexually, whether relating to gender, size, shape, age, appearance, personality, political preference, sexual orientation, BDSM ID, level of kink, etc., even the generalization about switches being more flexible and adventurous is sometimes off the mark.

 

[the captians wench]

*pounces JM, professes my undieing wub, then snuggles down to make my point*

Switches confuse the hell out of my mind, well some do anyway. I have met some that are very secure in their role, and truely happy to switch back and forth (when it comes to who's on top), which as I've said before, as long as i get to keep on the bottom of all that power struggle, I don't care who's on top of whom up there.

I have topped, I don't care for it, but I have done it. I have been with women, didn't arrouse me, but I did it. I'm pretty flexible when it comes to what I am willing to do for my PYL, in that I am willing to do things that don't bring me sexual satisfaction in order to please him. Of course we are talking about some one whom I have romatic feelings about as well at being my PYL, I couldn't go back to it being expected of me with no reinforcement of gratitude what so ever. That level of slave mentality was more painful for me than enjoyable.

I think that's another reason why I like the term "pet" to identify with. You own a pet, but you also love and cherish it. He would do anything for you, but you can't make him do everything. He'll so every bit and sometimes more love than you show him, as long as you do take care of him.

 

[SinfulSailor]

Here we go.

Slave- One who has such low self esteem that they'll give their entire life over to their "master/Mistress" so they can be free from life's responsibilities.

Oh yeah two addendums.

Slave- Lazy. They give up their "free will" just to get the sensations they want.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Master- An enabler to their slave.

hmmmmm

Perhaps.

Or.......

If one knows he or she will have to face that kind of derogatory defamation......

Then perhaps he or she is exceptionally self confident, and enriched by a very high level of self esteem. It seems to me that has to be the case more often than not.

And then perhaps, according to the tasks and responsibilities he or she is assigned, the slave is exceptionally "responsible" (in a business or "life" context). Certainly, the slave answers to, is "responsible" to the owner. To think that a person avoids responsibility by becoming another person's property simply shows a lack of understanding of the nature of responsibility and the workings of a slave/owner relationship.

And finally: To "give" one's "entire life over" to a cause or mission in life (such as service) is a difficult, admirable and noble thing. It is something that should be praised and supported, not ridiculed and torn down. It is far easier to be selfish and me-centric.

(Felt a need to de-lurk on this one.)

 

[Netzach]

I'm down with OSG as well though I admit It took me a while to wrap my brain around her situation. That's why I asked where she was when she was needed, because I would have liked her input on what I interepreted as the "only switches are honest" statement.

What's my label? Not sure other than to know it falls somewhere between submissive and slave. As my relationship with Daddy has goes through various stages, I tend to lean more one way than the other but it is still somewhat fluid.

1. It was "like everyone else, but more honest"

2. Levity. Levity was injected to this, it usually is when I'm making a bold and rather pig headed gesture.
Just because it's funny doesn't mean it's not true. If I were a more honest version of myself I'd think it worth mentioning that I bottom even though I don't much or out of specific relationship - like an eager overshare. People who start sentences with "TMI, but..." are like everyone else but more honest.

Also I'm sure that OSG pretty much would say that swtiches are fakes and/or confusing. As a FDom I also don't exist within her philosophy, I'm not speaking for her so much as summarizing things found in a history of reading one anothers' posts. I've fought with people who agree with me over various points on the board often and passionately - osg never really. I know excatly where she's coming from and vv - she sometimes tickles me when she says "you sounded just like my Daddy when you said that!"

I respect her position and sometimes I think her rel. distills and pushes certain conceptual buttons in my own head about mine with H. When I talk about certain views I have of my slave it often induces a milder version of a lot of the upset and guff that osg's rel. does.

 

[Netzach]

A Callinectes sighting!

I don't think switches are necessarily more honest. What I would say is that they are more sexually flexible and adventurous, as a general rule.

But even switches say things like: "For some reason, the idea of submitting to a woman leaves me cold" or "I love switching! Oh -- except, I could never enjoy bottoming to a straight male Top, of course."

Since everybody has limits on what types arouse them sexually, whether relating to gender, size, shape, age, appearance, personality, political preference, sexual orientation, BDSM ID, level of kink, etc., even the generalization about switches being more flexible and adventurous is sometimes off the mark.

1. There really are people who can do and will flag orange (anyone, any time, anywhere) And they're rare like whooping crane but not fake like unicorn.

2. My point is that you can say "Oh I'd never eeeeever top" to yourself but 90 percent of the time that person is too scared and too lazy in the scene to ever challenge that idea or have it challenged FOR them or dwell on it long enough to make it about more than their superficial precious self-image. Or it just hasn't really occurred to them or they haven't got a chance and outlet, to be fair - not everyone is scared and lazy, just a lot of people.

About five percent of the time the person is brave enough to give it a spin and then go "Ew!" if it's ew and settle into a perfectly honest assessment of "not for me." You have there your brutally honest NOT versatiles. Additionally you have people going "this will never work for me" based on self-awareness that extends past "I won't like it" to "this will damage me" very FEW people who think they would be damaged by things actually will be if the world outside SM is remotely a model for the one in the scene, yes?

About another five percent of the time their Dom is smart enough to make them do it anyway. Or smart enough to know *never* to force the issue.

And I know the het man thing doesn't light my fire because I picked one as my trainer, I submitted to a few, not just bottomed but did actually submit and the result was "meh." Not because I have some kind of issue - the issue I have was forged in trying to play this way. A way for which I am unsuited AND the Dominant temprement of the other was unsuited.

Bottom line - I know I dislike mushrooms based on having eaten them - my mother didn't let that shit fly at dinner so I don't let it fly in my world where it really really counts to me.

As for "I don't submit to women" I hear that a lot, often as the beginning of a lengthy and flattering flirtation because I'm somehow different. Further proof of my boy brain really, more than stud appeal, and the extent to which I must be a dude stuck with a nice pair of tits on some level.

I fell in love with a woman once, which I thought utterly outside the sphere of likelihood for me. Generally they're great sex partners and solid friends, but I mean the kind of romantic love that makes me cry when I'm wounded and write things and see only her face in front of me. I took this as proof that I really have little idea of what I am and am not capable of, faced with the right person.

 

[intothewoods]

Switches...

A lot of people I know could, if pressed, be characterized as "switch," in that they can top or bottom, and while they lean heavily in one direction or another, they will go the other way for the right person, scene, situation, etc.

I've become sort of turned off by labels (fwiw, in all my vast experience ), because I feel as though I just don't want to be defined, even romantically or sexually, in terms of bdsm. Does that make sense? Look, I like the scene, I love the forums at lit, and I do identify as sub/bottom/whatever when pressed, but I feel like in my relationship, the D/s is just one aspect, and a hard one to define at that. It may also be that as soon as you say "Dom" "Master "sub" "bottom" blah blah, many people will make assumptions about you that ain't necessarily so. And you know what happens when you assume...

ETA: cross-posted with Netzach and all of her brilliance...

 

[Netzach]

A lot of people I know could, if pressed, be characterized as "switch," in that they can top or bottom, and while they lean heavily in one direction or another, they will go the other way for the right person, scene, situation, etc.

I've become sort of turned off by labels (fwiw, in all my vast experience ), because I feel as though I just don't want to be defined, even romantically or sexually, in terms of bdsm. Does that make sense? Look, I like the scene, I love the forums at lit, and I do identify as sub/bottom/whatever when pressed, but I feel like in my relationship, the D/s is just one aspect, and a hard one to define at that. It may also be that as soon as you say "Dom" "Master "sub" "bottom" blah blah, many people will make assumptions about you that ain't necessarily so. And you know what happens when you assume...

ETA: cross-posted with Netzach and all of her brilliance...

I'm more interested in my potential as a lover these days, as a wife. Not that I'm disinterested in H and my role there, but I used to think of it as what defined me, and I heaped all these traits onto "what is Mastery" and looked at myself and wrung my hands because I fall short on a lot of them. BDSM was work, pleasure, philosophy, really extremely all-encompassing for me. Most people who live as I did at this time will experience a final fatigue or burnout. Some people can find balance and dwell happily there, but I'm not one of them. I'm still thinking and writing at Lit and still playing with M, but I really really am stoked about thinking of myself in many other terms beyond "Domina" or "chronically ill person"

 

[JMohegan]

1. There really are people who can do and will flag orange (anyone, any time, anywhere) And they're rare like whooping crane but not fake like unicorn.

2. My point is that you can say "Oh I'd never eeeeever top" to yourself but 90 percent of the time that person is too scared and too lazy in the scene to ever challenge that idea or have it challenged FOR them or dwell on it long enough to make it about more than their superficial precious self-image. Or it just hasn't really occurred to them or they haven't got a chance and outlet, to be fair - not everyone is scared and lazy, just a lot of people.

In theory, I'll agree that type 1 people could exist - though I've never actually met someone who claimed to have eagerly played with, and been sexually aroused by, literally everyone who crossed his/her path.

As for #2 - I'll grant you the 90 percent if you add "totally disinterested" to the list. As in.... some are lazy, some are scared, and some simply don't feel the need or desire to experiment.

This is part of my point when I say it depends where you look. Not everybody is into "the scene" that celebrates public performance, kink level, variety of experience and skill as status, etc.

About five percent of the time the person is brave enough to give it a spin and then go "Ew!" if it's ew and settle into a perfectly honest assessment of "not for me." You have there your brutally honest NOT versatiles. Additionally you have people going "this will never work for me" based on self-awareness that extends past "I won't like it" to "this will damage me" very FEW people who think they would be damaged by things actually will be if the world outside SM is remotely a model for the one in the scene, yes?

About another five percent of the time their Dom is smart enough to make them do it anyway. Or smart enough to know *never* to force the issue.

And I know the het man thing doesn't light my fire because I picked one as my trainer, I submitted to a few, not just bottomed but did actually submit and the result was "meh." Not because I have some kind of issue - the issue I have was forged in trying to play this way. A way for which I am unsuited AND the Dominant temprement of the other was unsuited.

Bottom line - I know I dislike mushrooms based on having eaten them - my mother didn't let that shit fly at dinner so I don't let it fly in my world where it really really counts to me.

As for "I don't submit to women" I hear that a lot, often as the beginning of a lengthy and flattering flirtation because I'm somehow different. Further proof of my boy brain really, more than stud appeal, and the extent to which I must be a dude stuck with a nice pair of tits on some level.

I fell in love with a woman once, which I thought utterly outside the sphere of likelihood for me. Generally they're great sex partners and solid friends, but I mean the kind of romantic love that makes me cry when I'm wounded and write things and see only her face in front of me. I took this as proof that I really have little idea of what I am and am not capable of, faced with the right person.

Netzach, you're definitely on the short list of Most Sexually Flexible and Adventurous people with whom I have ever spoken. I respect that greatly, and trust that you've read enough from me to know that I would never imply otherwise.

But I'm not sure I buy "I've tried mushrooms so I know I don't like them" as valid justification for the brutally honest not versatile badge. Have you had them raw? Cooked? In wine sauce? Any time in the past five to ten years?

I'll use myself as an example. I have bottomed, multiple times, with multiple partners and varied equipment, for the purpose of being a responsible Top. The experiences were neither arousing nor even pleasant for me.

Yet I know how the human body works, and readily acknowledge that my aversion to bottoming is all in my head. Intellectually I would say that wiith enough time, the right person, etc., I could be taught to enjoy it.

But I'm not gonna go there - because I'm just not interested. And even though I technically meet your standards for the brutal honesty badge, I'm not willing to claim it and assert that most other people are more scared or lazy than me.

Everybody does some sort of cost/benefit analysis and decides whether to experiment with something. Whether the idea just leaves you cold, or you've had multiple Eww reactions to it, the result is the same. At some point, you simply decide to spend your time and energy on something else.

 

[Netzach]

In theory, I'll agree that type 1 people could exist - though I've never actually met someone who claimed to have eagerly played with, and been sexually aroused by, literally everyone who crossed his/her path.

As for #2 - I'll grant you the 90 percent if you add "totally disinterested" to the list. As in.... some are lazy, some are scared, and some simply don't feel the need or desire to experiment.

This is part of my point when I say it depends where you look. Not everybody is into "the scene" that celebrates public performance, kink level, variety of experience and skill as status, etc.

Netzach, you're definitely on the short list of Most Sexually Flexible and Adventurous people with whom I have ever spoken. I respect that greatly, and trust that you've read enough from me to know that I would never imply otherwise.

But I'm not sure I buy "I've tried mushrooms so I know I don't like them" as valid justification for the brutally honest not versatile badge. Have you had them raw? Cooked? In wine sauce? Any time in the past five to ten years?

I'll use myself as an example. I have bottomed, multiple times, with multiple partners and varied equipment, for the purpose of being a responsible Top. The experiences were neither arousing nor even pleasant for me.

Yet I know how the human body works, and readily acknowledge that my aversion to bottoming is all in my head. Intellectually I would say that wiith enough time, the right person, etc., I could be taught to enjoy it.

But I'm not gonna go there - because I'm just not interested. And even though I technically meet your standards for the brutal honesty badge, I'm not willing to claim it and assert that most other people are more scared or lazy than me.

Everybody does some sort of cost/benefit analysis and decides whether to experiment with something. Whether the idea just leaves you cold, or you've had multiple Eww reactions to it, the result is the same. At some point, you simply decide to spend your time and energy on something else.

*chuckle* I don't expect everyone to like green eggs and ham. I just respect people who reject things based on trial rather than fear as a genre. I was like that in art class, I was like that in dance class, I was like that on the job, I am like that in bed.

Sam I Am is just not ever gonna be my type. Scratch that, my husband drives me insane with Sam I Am tendencies, just not about sex, thank God. Nothing but nothing makes me sigh and hold my head like the phrase " Yes....but...." and limitation I feel premature is a cold shower.

I'll eat button mushrooms, they just suck no matter what you do to them, they don't make me sick like they did when I was a kid, but I've never thought of them as enhancement. Portabello and oyster are good though. The only reason I've ever evolved to the point where if someone around me wants mushrooms on pizza and I don't have to be a big pill and go "ewwwww" is because I basically trained myself to eat them.

Oddly enough I see myself as a very sexually UNadventurous person, very cautious in a lot of ways. That's kind of interesting.

Am I the last person standing who thinks that doing things you may not *enjoy* per se, is good for you at times?

If this applies in life, why does this suddenly not apply to our own sexual development? Does this only apply to slaves and subs, or can we be expected to have self control self-possession and self-awareness beyond hunches and our own gut?

I don't see myself as the ne plus ultra of experiential learning, but it's enough of a value to me that I *need* it in my personal relationships and I can't really mesh with someone who doesn't value it enough to say "it's not really for me" based on having been there to *some* extent rather than distaste or fear. Whatever that "it" is, not just top/bottom.

 

[BiBunny]

I'll use myself as an example. I have bottomed, multiple times, with multiple partners and varied equipment, for the purpose of being a responsible Top. The experiences were neither arousing nor even pleasant for me.

Yet I know how the human body works, and readily acknowledge that my aversion to bottoming is all in my head. Intellectually I would say that wiith enough time, the right person, etc., I could be taught to enjoy it.

But I'm not gonna go there - because I'm just not interested. And even though I technically meet your standards for the brutal honesty badge, I'm not willing to claim it and assert that most other people are more scared or lazy than me.

I'm not trying to speak for Netz here, but I just wanted to point out something that I've noticed myself.

There is a huge, huge, huge difference between the carefully thought-out, experimented, and studied "not interested" that you claim and the off-the-cuff BS that a lot of people (particularly het male PYLs, though you see it pretty often in het female pyls as well) spout about their orientation.

All the parts of your post I've quoted are important, I think, the part I bolded, especially. The difference between you and the generally insecure nutball PYLs who fanatically proclaim that they could never lower themselves to ever bottoming to anyone is that you recognize that most anyone can be "trained" to enjoy something they may or may not have been initially interested in.

That's what happened to me, actually. I started out as a pyl, myself. Then, I Topped some, mostly because Kitty and an old boyfriend wanted to try the things they did to me. The first few times, I felt clumsy and awkward. Eventually, with Kitty, I learned to actually enjoy what I was doing. With the ex-boyfriend, not so much (which was more a matter of his idiocy than anything). So I decided that while I enjoyed Topping women, I wasn't interested in doing it with men.

Time dragged on, as it always does, and I changed my mind again after I had some more experiences Topping men. I decided I liked that as well. Now, I've basically gone away from bottoming altogether, though I imagine I'll come back to it eventually. I've essentially trained myself to enjoy things I didn't initially care for, hence the switch label. Some call me confused, but I call me honest. Heck, the first time I had sex, I didn't like that, either. It hurt like the devil. That hasn't stopped me since, though.

Anyway, the point of this long and rambly post is that the only real difference between someone like you and someone like me is that you tried it, didn't care for it, recognized that you could possibly be taught to enjoy it, and said, "Oh, well, screw it, I'm not interested enough to go there." I tried it, didn't care for it, recognized that I could possibly be taught to enjoy it, and said, "Ok, I'm going to see where I can go with this." So, essentially, you and I have the same mindsets; we've just gone to two different places with it. That totally separates us from the people who are too insecure to recognize that capability within themselves.

And I'll still argue that someone who's bottomed before will make the best Top. Flexibility and the versatile flowiness (is that a word?) of sexual energy is where it's at, at least for me, but I suppose that's another thread.

 

[Netzach]

I'm not trying to speak for Netz here, but I just wanted to point out something that I've noticed myself.

There is a huge, huge, huge difference between the carefully thought-out, experimented, and studied "not interested" that you claim and the off-the-cuff BS that a lot of people (particularly het male PYLs, though you see it pretty often in het female pyls as well) spout about their orientation.

All the parts of your post I've quoted are important, I think, the part I bolded, especially. The difference between you and the generally insecure nutball PYLs who fanatically proclaim that they could never lower themselves to ever bottoming to anyone is that you recognize that most anyone can be "trained" to enjoy something they may or may not have been initially interested in.

That's what happened to me, actually. I started out as a pyl, myself. Then, I Topped some, mostly because Kitty and an old boyfriend wanted to try the things they did to me. The first few times, I felt clumsy and awkward. Eventually, with Kitty, I learned to actually enjoy what I was doing. With the ex-boyfriend, not so much (which was more a matter of his idiocy than anything). So I decided that while I enjoyed Topping women, I wasn't interested in doing it with men.

Time dragged on, as it always does, and I changed my mind again after I had some more experiences Topping men. I decided I liked that as well. Now, I've basically gone away from bottoming altogether, though I imagine I'll come back to it eventually. I've essentially trained myself to enjoy things I didn't initially care for, hence the switch label. Some call me confused, but I call me honest. Heck, the first time I had sex, I didn't like that, either. It hurt like the devil. That hasn't stopped me since, though.

Anyway, the point of this long and rambly post is that the only real difference between someone like you and someone like me is that you tried it, didn't care for it, recognized that you could possibly be taught to enjoy it, and said, "Oh, well, screw it, I'm not interested enough to go there." I tried it, didn't care for it, recognized that I could possibly be taught to enjoy it, and said, "Ok, I'm going to see where I can go with this." So, essentially, you and I have the same mindsets; we've just gone to two different places with it. That totally separates us from the people who are too insecure to recognize that capability within themselves.

And I'll still argue that someone who's bottomed before will make the best Top. Flexibility and the versatile flowiness (is that a word?) of sexual energy is where it's at, at least for me, but I suppose that's another thread.

Yes, that. Thank you. This is super articulate.

JM's point is ,I think, who the hell I am to decide when someone's done enough "work" and when someone's just being a dumbass sheep.

I think he's also doing modesty. It's patently clear that he's done the work and put in respectable thought and isn't coming from a place of being paranoid about his butthole.

Just lil ol' me really, no authority at all.

 

[JMohegan]

Oddly enough I see myself as a very sexually UNadventurous person, very cautious in a lot of ways. That's kind of interesting.

Jesus, woman! You've gotta be kidding. Relative to whom?

Again - I think one's perspective depends a lot on where one usually hangs out.

In some settings, I'm practically vanilla. In others, I'm the wildest, most controlling and sadistic so-and-so that anybody's ever seen.

Am I the last person standing who thinks that doing things you may not *enjoy* per se, is good for you at times?

If this applies in life, why does this suddenly not apply to our own sexual development? Does this only apply to slaves and subs, or can we be expected to have self control?

I expect a partner of mine to do something she might not find enjoyable in order to please me, period.

I'm not in it to train her to reach some abstract sexual milestone or goal, or because I think her sexual development has any value beyond the training that occurs simply because I find it hot.

I just don't see sex that way. I'm mood driven - passionate in the moment, rather than driven to achieve some sort of long-term sexual life plan.