Submission vs. Bottom

[bethpage]

Heya-

I'm looking for some clarification here. I know that being submissive and a bottom often go together, but its not necessarily the case.

Is anyone willing to expound up the difference, and the cases where they are not the same? Especially perhaps being a bottom but maybe not submissive? How does that work out in play?

After being interested for years, I'm finally deciding that I have to figure out whats in my head, and I'm feeling that perhaps I'm needing more of the 'receptive' bottom part than the submissive part, though I'm definitely attracted to dominance.

I'd love to hear from anybody with an opinion.

~Beth

 

[CutieMouse]

Think of it as a continuum:



*bottom*.....*submissive*.....*slave*.....*top*.....*dominant*.....*master*

The most control is retained around the edges -

Bottoms submit for that moment/scene/event (and bottoms are more likely to do the [perfectly acceptable] "I want to do XYZ/ABC is off limits" thing)

Submissives, well... submissives submit (insert submissives are not doormats disclaimer *here*). There's the checklist/safeword/yadayadayada stuff, but submissives retain less "control" than bottoms.

Slaves are similar to submissives, but most would argue the safeword/right to say "no" flies out the window (which is a whole discussion in and of itself).

Tops are similar to bottoms, in that they negotiate a scene/dominate someone else within a specific framework.

Dominants are similar to submissives in that they dominate (insert dominants are not overbearing assholes disclaimer *here*).

Masters are the inverse of slaves, with all the responsibilities of being in charge of another human being.

None is better than, above, more important, whatever than the other; all "definitions" are over-simplified, especially given the complexity of human nature.

 

[NALA CAYENNE]

*applauds CM's definitions*

I would also like to add that not only are the definitions subject to human complexity, in agreeing with CM that none are better than, above, etc, etc, neither can one exist without the other.

Think of it as a continuum:



*bottom*.....*submissive*.....*slave*.....*top*.....*dominant*.....*master*

The most control is retained around the edges -

Bottoms submit for that moment/scene/event (and bottoms are more likely to do the [perfectly acceptable] "I want to do XYZ/ABC is off limits" thing)

Submissives, well... submissives submit (insert submissives are not doormats disclaimer *here*). There's the checklist/safeword/yadayadayada stuff, but submissives retain less "control" than bottoms.

Slaves are similar to submissives, but most would argue the safeword/right to say "no" flies out the window (which is a whole discussion in and of itself).

Tops are similar to bottoms, in that they negotiate a scene/dominate someone else within a specific framework.

Dominants are similar to submissives in that they dominate (insert dominants are not overbearing assholes disclaimer *here*).

Masters are the inverse of slaves, with all the responsibilities of being in charge of another human being.

None is better than, above, more important, whatever than the other; all "definitions" are over-simplified, especially given the complexity of human nature.

 

[graceanne]

Think of it as a continuum:



*bottom*.....*submissive*.....*slave*.....*top*.....*dominant*.....*master*

The most control is retained around the edges -

Bottoms submit for that moment/scene/event (and bottoms are more likely to do the [perfectly acceptable] "I want to do XYZ/ABC is off limits" thing)

Submissives, well... submissives submit (insert submissives are not doormats disclaimer *here*). There's the checklist/safeword/yadayadayada stuff, but submissives retain less "control" than bottoms.

Slaves are similar to submissives, but most would argue the safeword/right to say "no" flies out the window (which is a whole discussion in and of itself).

Tops are similar to bottoms, in that they negotiate a scene/dominate someone else within a specific framework.

Dominants are similar to submissives in that they dominate (insert dominants are not overbearing assholes disclaimer *here*).

Masters are the inverse of slaves, with all the responsibilities of being in charge of another human being.

None is better than, above, more important, whatever than the other; all "definitions" are over-simplified, especially given the complexity of human nature.

Those definitions work for me.

Just remember (the OP, not CM) that just because we (and a large majority of people) define it that way doesn't mean everyone does. You'll find the occasional sub who is more like that definition of a slave and the occasional Dominant who is more like the definition of master.

That's why AA coined the phrase pyl/PYL (pick your label), because people can get very sensitive about there label.

 

[bethpage]

Thanks, Nala and CutieMouse. That helps clear it up in my head.

I like the continum way of looking at it.

 

[sweetamber]

I have to say thanks to CutieMouse for the explanation too. I have always been confused about where I fit in the BDSM world and whether it was okay/acceptable for me to desire certain things in "the bedroom" but not as a lifestyle. I feel much better after reading this!

 

[Derya]

useful explanations

I too appreciate the explanations and descriptions kind of defined as a continuum. As I've read and explored my own interests I logically assumed and understood the basics of submissive/Dominant to slave/Master comparison the understanding of which seems apparant in reading both real discussions and fictional stories. However I likewise had always been a bit green on understanding what the terms bottom and top meant exactly and where how they placed on the continuum of bdsm expression. This post helped provide a much better understanding.

 

[badgirl_lucy]

Personally I'd see it more in pairs:

Top/bottom - Dom/sub - Master/slave

I'd see it that way as there does seem to be expectations by the people themselves who identify with a certain tag.

Tops and bottoms mostly inhabit the spanking world as far as I have seen, all the ones I have met appear to just 'want to have fun' with no psychological portion i.e they are not looking for a deep ongoing experience, they both looking to entertain themselves, the 'discipline' is all. Lots of role play.

Doms/subs do want some level of psychological interaction, they want it to have an effect on them mentally, but they often consider 'this is this and real life is over there' They use discipline to ehance the mental effect, some role play

Master/slave, people looking for deep psychological immersion, the psychological effects being the most important for many more so than the physical discipline. Their relationship and dynamic is interwoven into all of their life i.e it is who they are. Role play rare.

The above is of course is a complete generalisation and life is not 'one size fits all', but I would put them in pairs as for instance I doubt a slave would find someone who identifys as a Top a very satisfying prospect and that Top would probably find the slave unfathomable, as in 'why on earth would you want to be owned pretty lady! Now have you been naughty...?"

Just my take on things

 

[Netzach]

T/b doesn't always involve roleplay and that kind of "lightness" that people want to ascribe to it.

A lot of those relationships are extremely committed and very intense. I've found just as much intensity among a pair of people who take turns putting 100 needles in one another, no "ownership" trip whatsoever, as I have among M/s, often more so. It's simply a relationship that hinges on SM more centrally than on power dynamics.

My take on it is that in an intense T/b pairing, the play becomes almost like a third member in the relationship - the play is Master.

 

[JMohegan]

Tops and bottoms mostly inhabit the spanking world as far as I have seen, all the ones I have met appear to just 'want to have fun' with no psychological portion i.e they are not looking for a deep ongoing experience, they both looking to entertain themselves, the 'discipline' is all. Lots of role play.

Spanko is just one small subset of T/b.

The most skilled Tops and bottoms I know are neither D/s nor M/s. Rope, whips, knives, needles, etc., take your pick - including edge play of the most intense kind.

How the hell you can do any of that without having a "deep experience," I have no idea.

 

[badgirl_lucy]

How the hell you can do any of that without having a "deep experience," I have no idea.

Always love it when people get soooo huffy for no good reason - you have your opinion and I have mine.

 

[Netzach]

Because people are pretty freaking sick of being made out to be the hedonistic fluff bunnies of the SM universe simply because they don't do M/s.

 

[badgirl_lucy]

Because people are pretty freaking sick of being made out to be the hedonistic fluff bunnies of the SM universe simply because they don't do M/s.

You know I have seen this very same discussion on many a board and it always goes the same way - person A identifys themselves as label X and when someone says what label X means to them person A throws a hissy fit! "Oh I'm not that - I am this!!!"

There is no getting away from labels, people like to put people into boxes in their minds, it makes some sense of life. Are they always right? No of course not which is exactly why I put "huge generalisation" and "life is not one size fits all"

I indentify as a slave and anyone can think what they like about that as I just don't care what anyone thinks of me apart from my Master. However, I fiind saying 'slave' a useful shorthand to give people some rough idea of what I am about. Their idea of slave may not wholly be mine but at least it gives a guide - nothing more.

Maybe people should try being just a little less sensitive, if you know who you are that's all that matters isn't it?

 

[Recidiva]

Because people are pretty freaking sick of being made out to be the hedonistic fluff bunnies of the SM universe simply because they don't do M/s.

...what's wrong with being a Hedonisic fluff bunny?

I wonder if I can fit that in as my title. Hm.

 

[FantaSeaGirl]

Personally I'd see it more in pairs:

Top/bottom - Dom/sub - Master/slave

I'd see it that way as there does seem to be expectations by the people themselves who identify with a certain tag.

Tops and bottoms mostly inhabit the spanking world as far as I have seen, all the ones I have met appear to just 'want to have fun' with no psychological portion i.e they are not looking for a deep ongoing experience, they both looking to entertain themselves, the 'discipline' is all. Lots of role play.

Doms/subs do want some level of psychological interaction, they want it to have an effect on them mentally, but they often consider 'this is this and real life is over there' They use discipline to ehance the mental effect, some role play

Master/slave, people looking for deep psychological immersion, the psychological effects being the most important for many more so than the physical discipline. Their relationship and dynamic is interwoven into all of their life i.e it is who they are. Role play rare.

The above is of course is a complete generalisation and life is not 'one size fits all', but I would put them in pairs as for instance I doubt a slave would find someone who identifys as a Top a very satisfying prospect and that Top would probably find the slave unfathomable, as in 'why on earth would you want to be owned pretty lady! Now have you been naughty...?"

Just my take on things

While I can understand your take on things as far as explaining dynamics in pairs for simplicity I cannot agree.

I am submissive. It is who I am & I do not need a Dominant to make me submissive. Sure, I need a Dominant to submit to, but as I do not have one that does not detract from the fact that I am submissive.

I am married. My husband is still exploring this side of himself. As we progress we are finding that he is more "Top" than Dominant & as such I 'bottom" to him. That doesn't stop me from being a submissive.

As you said in your post your views are your own and a complete generalisation. However offence can be taken to the part I bolded above. My husband and I are using "scenes", or "play" to deepen our relationship. We don't call it this... we just say "let's go to bed". To imply that there is no psychological aspect to our bedroom activities is perhaps less of a "generalization" & more a case of "narrow-mindedness" or feeling of superiority.

 

[Adakgirl]

Spanko is just one small subset of T/b.

The most skilled Tops and bottoms I know are neither D/s nor M/s. Rope, whips, knives, needles, etc., take your pick - including edge play of the most intense kind.

How the hell you can do any of that without having a "deep experience," I have no idea.

Always love it when people get soooo huffy for no good reason - you have your opinion and I have mine.

For one thing I don't read JM as getting sooo huffy... at all with that statement. You should read him when he does get all huffy, you'd know the diff.
For another thing... what he said , in all actuality, is not his personal opinion but an honest reality.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I think CM put it best. BDSM is highly fluid and subjective as a lifestyle or practice and it encompasses a huge spectrum of physical/emotional erotica. As FSG points out, having one label for yourself does not mean that you will only engage in one type of play or relationship, with one type of person. Being a bedroom bottom for her husband does not interfere with her identification as submissive. When you throw switches into the mix (those who switch between dominant and submissive roles) it gets even more interesting.

It's possible to start out, as you are, as a 'receptive bottom' and then see where things lead you from there. That's not to say that identifying as a 'bottom' is necessarily a starting point, just that many people have strong fantasies about the S&M physical side of BDSM, while dominance and submission remain more abstract concepts until they have been tried on for size and experimented with.

Its perfectly ok not to know how far down the kink rabbit hole you intend to go. Although these roles are unique choices, rather than stages on a journey, your journey will be one of self discovery until you discover what you want/need and what you are prepared to offer a top/dom/master/whatever in return.

That's why AA coined the phrase pyl/PYL (pick your label), because people can get very sensitive about there label.

Labels mean so much here because on Lit, we're all just words on a screen and therefore how we each define our personal bundle of kinks becomes more important. In your private life however, your kink is really yours to define as you choose and enjoy as you wish.

 

[badgirl_lucy]

Discussing tags soon becomes a pretty pointless task which I pointed out just up there - some people do just get all huffy about how important it is what they do or what they percieve they know and how someone else is always just plain wrong.

Well, no one is wrong, everyone on this thread is 100% correct , because everyone is entitled to an opinion though you wouldn't believe it the way some carry on.

But why do people give a monkeys cuss what other people think about them? If you know who you are [my opinion] what does it matter what someone else thinks? Just don't get it myself.

 

[intothewoods]

I'm going to post this here, rather than on the other active thread in Talk right now about whether someone is a submissive or not.

So, where does a submissive's preferences fit in? Does the sub (not slave) have a right to express his or her preferences? I've always said yes, but to me it seems like the articulation of preferences by a submissive gets a tsk, tsk around here.

Now, I know, it only matters what my PYL thinks, and who cares what anyone else thinks, yada yada. I totally got it. I'm just curious.

Mister Man and I are figuring out the nitty gritty of moving in, and it does sometimes make me think about our power dynamic and how it plays out. I tend to be the one who overanalyzes things - he basically says, do the things you're supposed to do (cooking, sex, etc), I have final say and that's that - but I do see how going from dating to getting married/living together makes it more difficult. I mean it's one thing to make sure you cook your boyfriend the dinner he wants, and it's another to figure out how much of your budget will go to a new stove or whatever. Or whether I should see an OB or a midwife (just hypothetically).

 

[Recidiva]

I'm going to post this here, rather than on the other active thread in Talk right now about whether someone is a submissive or not.

So, where does a submissive's preferences fit in? Does the sub (not slave) have a right to express his or her preferences? I've always said yes, but to me it seems like the articulation of preferences by a submissive gets a tsk, tsk around here.

Now, I know, it only matters what my PYL thinks, and who cares what anyone else thinks, yada yada. I totally got it. I'm just curious.

Mister Man and I are figuring out the nitty gritty of moving in, and it does sometimes make me think about our power dynamic and how it plays out. I tend to be the one who overanalyzes things - he basically says, do the things you're supposed to do (cooking, sex, etc), I have final say and that's that - but I do see how going from dating to getting married/living together makes it more difficult. I mean it's one thing to make sure you cook your boyfriend the dinner he wants, and it's another to figure out how much of your budget will go to a new stove or whatever. Or whether I should see an OB or a midwife (just hypothetically).

I think the submissive's preferences have to be considered by the dominant and that's part of the whole dynamic IF the submissive appreciates having their preferences considered.

IF however the dominant has noticed that the submissive personality is actually looking for conflict and then looking to be ignored or convinced, that's another dynamic entirely.

So yeah, the answer is..."Depends"

Over time in a long-term relationship my attitudes change and my preferences change. Some can be reasonably ignored as seasonal moods. Some really aren't, and result in me giving warnings like earthquake tremors, distant and gentle and not disruptive, and then over time turn into full-fledged cataclysmic shock that tips Atlantis into the sea.

There are things that you can become accustomed to, and then things that are galling and destructive in any relationship. And these can be entirely arbitrary and personality driven and have little to do with reason or "how things should be."

It has to do with how things ARE and whether or not the tremors come from settling in like a house, or an earthquake on its way, building up slow pressure until everything's trashed.

 

[Netzach]

You know I have seen this very same discussion on many a board and it always goes the same way - person A identifys themselves as label X and when someone says what label X means to them person A throws a hissy fit! "Oh I'm not that - I am this!!!"

There is no getting away from labels, people like to put people into boxes in their minds, it makes some sense of life. Are they always right? No of course not which is exactly why I put "huge generalisation" and "life is not one size fits all"

I indentify as a slave and anyone can think what they like about that as I just don't care what anyone thinks of me apart from my Master. However, I fiind saying 'slave' a useful shorthand to give people some rough idea of what I am about. Their idea of slave may not wholly be mine but at least it gives a guide - nothing more.

Maybe people should try being just a little less sensitive, if you know who you are that's all that matters isn't it?

Because you're not the first person to come along and imply that a whole class of relationships have less weight and importance and seriousness than another class and then go wimping out behind the skirt of "it's just my opinion" then blaming people for pointing out the fallacy of your argument and telling them they're overly sensitive.

It's an insulting and inaccurate assertion. Period. You want to make it, deal with the heat.

If someone was making pronouncements that an M/s relationship can't really mean as much as a relationship of equals, because a slave is just a slave and chattel I imagine there'd be hissyfits, usually first thrown by people who "only care what Master thinks."

 

[MisterSir]

So, where does a submissive's preferences fit in? Does the sub (not slave) have a right to express his or her preferences? I've always said yes, but to me it seems like the articulation of preferences by a submissive gets a tsk, tsk around here.

Yes and no.

In the sphere of negative preferences, really that's what limits are for and why communication is important; I know where K sets her limits and what the things she doesn't like are, so I can avoid them. Simple. When it comes to positive preferences, on the other hand, things the submissive likes that the dom isn't so keen on or maybe that the dom likes but doesn't feel like doing...isn't giving those things up that part of submission? Putting the power in the dominant's hands?

Admittedly, I'm a dumbass, I've misread the question and answered like it was asking if the sub has the right to insist on their preferences, but I'll keep that there because I think it does still provide something to the discussion. So...yeah.

 

[Netzach]

I'm going to post this here, rather than on the other active thread in Talk right now about whether someone is a submissive or not.

So, where does a submissive's preferences fit in? Does the sub (not slave) have a right to express his or her preferences? I've always said yes, but to me it seems like the articulation of preferences by a submissive gets a tsk, tsk around here.

Now, I know, it only matters what my PYL thinks, and who cares what anyone else thinks, yada yada. I totally got it. I'm just curious.

Mister Man and I are figuring out the nitty gritty of moving in, and it does sometimes make me think about our power dynamic and how it plays out. I tend to be the one who overanalyzes things - he basically says, do the things you're supposed to do (cooking, sex, etc), I have final say and that's that - but I do see how going from dating to getting married/living together makes it more difficult. I mean it's one thing to make sure you cook your boyfriend the dinner he wants, and it's another to figure out how much of your budget will go to a new stove or whatever. Or whether I should see an OB or a midwife (just hypothetically).

I still take H's preferences into account all the time. The decision to override my slave's preferences is a constant weighing of whether it adds value or is value-neutral to the relationship, or whether it detracts value.

It's not something I do very often, even though I totally can whenever I want according to the rules and parameters we've agreed to. Some people are constantly going against the grain of preference to keep this constant state of tension - that's not really my main fetish, so it's not my style. I punctuate with it at most.

It's sheer trust of my desire to add value rather than detract it that fuels this agreement.

With my husband there's no agreement like this. I consider him s to my D, but in a simple dissection of our personalities and how they mesh. There are times I follow his lead in basic stuff, it's just that if you broke it down the percentages would be 80/20, and a large chunk of them compromises organized around what I want which meets no objection.

This whole notion of "does the sub have the right" seems kind of strained to me - the "rights" are determined by you and your dude, you know? If it's in the parameters of what you guys figure out I don't think any and every assertion of will instantly breaks down the notion of one partner being submissive. I think of it as a sum of averages.

 

[intothewoods]

If he says to me, this is the way it's going to be and that's final, I will listen. But if there is wiggle room, I admit I will continue to make my case.

 

[intothewoods]

I didn't mean to be coy, btw, I'm just pondering the responses. Of course I have a right to say whatever I want, and then he has the right to dump my ass and then I have a right...sorry, work brain took over.

I think he's clear on the whole thing. I just tend to overanalyze - there are things I want, and then I also want to make him happy and be a good partner and submissive. Sometimes we negotiate. Sometimes he vetoes. Sometimes he just looks at me like I'm nuts and says, baby, I really don't care either way.

I mean, no one's going to take away my submissive society membership card, so it's really all semantics. I just keep kicking it around in my head for some reason.