Topspace: Tops, what's it like? Is it sexual?

Top Space
What's it like? Is it sexual?

I don't find a thread on this, though I remember it mentioned**.
Patrick Califia gave the description below, in his essay "Top Space," at www.othersex.com:

Questions to Tops**:
[Please state your gender and that of your 'bottoms'.]

1)He describes a definitely arousing sexual impact. Do you experience it that way?
2) He links the effect to the other's pain. Does that pain, the reflexes, attempted defenses, get you sexually hot?
3) Do you come, during or right after?

4) Apart from the pain issue, Do you experience a sexual-- or more non-sexual-- 'rush' or effect from the demonstration of power?

5) Do you get, instead, from 'topping' mainly non sexual feelings? Which? For instance, pride in a job well done (you taught them to serve); satisfaction (non sexual) at being well served; joyful, like the coach who sees his or her team win?

**Those who commonly direct or control a bdsm scene [or 'erotic episode' if you prefer], typically involving the infliction of pain and/or the demonstration of power over the 'bottom' (who has consented to the infliction, voluntarily transferred or given over power to be exercised within agreed limits).

=============
Patrick Califia, "Top Space No. 1, The inner landscape of the sadist":



It’s so difficult to speak of this. My mouth goes dry and my hands falter on the keyboard. Perhaps I have internalized some of the bad press about sadists. The first time I did a formal scene as a top, I was unfortunately paired with someone who did not like the feel of a riding crop nearly as much as I enjoyed wielding it. I curbed myself, partly as a courtesy to her, but also because I was appalled at myself. There was far more going on here than the slightly smug pleasure one takes in a job well done. When I first hit her, a pang of fierce joy split my belly in two and made my sex bolt upright, like lightning in reverse. I wanted to hold her down and thrash her until I could not lift my arm for one more blow. And I knew that if I did that, I would come. Without being touched.

What kind of horrible person am I? I remember thinking. (The kind of person who stopped the instant that my bottom asked me to. But still...) Leather on bare flesh. The shock of impact that ran up my hand. The sharp sound the flap of the crop made landing on a curved white buttock. The tang of my victim’s fear, a feast in my nostrils. The involuntary cry, so piteous, the reflexive gesture of the hand to protect the body from further injury, so outrageous.



Posted by J. for discussion. Read the whole essay, it's generally quite provocative and powerful.


6) He states that the above type of experience (esp. arousal from pain) is relatively LESS common among tops. Is that your impression among the tops you know personally? [end excerpt]
========

J.

**Added: "dom space" has come up occasionally; see urls in my later posting.

If I'm correct Califia's writing more about sadism, really. He's distinguishing Sadists from other Tops.

For me, it's not always sexual, but when it's memorable, it is.

Top sexual arousal is linked to pain and expressions of pain. Wincing, flinching. I don't need it to get off at all, but I need to get off that way once in a while.

Yes, I experience a rush from effectively demonstrating power. And if I miscalculate and can't get the bottom to surrender, it's the worst impotence. And purely my own fault, my own heavyhandedness.

And with the Tops I know this was a really rare phenom. Not talked about much.

My trainer was certainly not comfortable articulating around it. Fundamentally, he wasn't a Sadist. When I explained how it felt to poke k with the fork and watch him flinch he drew a blank.

The people I've let top me, the best ones, mostly Switches, are primary-bottom switches, they are doing what they do for the benefit of the bottom, if they got sado on me, it was primarily for my benefit. I think I've only bottomed to one woman with what felt like a true sadistic impulse, and she was a dirty minded bottom who loved my love of humiliation and really knew how to work it. (I count humiliation as SM, as potentially the most SM of SM things to do)

The people I meet who crow Sadism the loudest often scare me though. Which is the intent, right, to puff oneself up and look scary. They talk about their doings with relish, talk about insanely complex scenes, toys, gestures. Totally absent from the talk *is* the bottom. There's no subtlety to it.
I distrust bravado and bullshit. I distrust people who have to play with roman candles, nine foot bullwhips, twenty five people costumed as rubber ponies.

I trust small things, moments that don't get talked about, because their owners are ashamed, or scared, or awakened and vulnerable over them.

I poked a man with a fork. He flinched, and my cunt clutched at itself, pulsed.

1)He describe a definitely arousing sexual impact. Do you experience it that way?--Yeah baby


2) He links the effect to the other's pain. Does that pain, the reflexes, attempted defenses, get you sexually hot? Not so much, bub. My sadism is an aspect of my Domination, but not its totality.

3) Do you come, during or right after? Usually, my entire being is wrapped up in it, so it is not specifically sexual.

4) Apart from the pain issue, Do you experience a sexual-- or more non-sexual-- 'rush' or effect from the demonstration of power? This is where I get my pleasure...and it is often sexual.

5) Do you get, instead, from 'topping' mainly non sexual feelings? Which? For instance, pride in a job well done (you taught them to serve); satisfaction (non sexual) at being well served; joyful, like the coach who sees his or her team win? Well, it depends on teh scene, doesn't it? Sometimes sex is my goal, sometimes not. But, it is ALL tied into my sexuality...


6) He states that the above type of experience (esp. arousal from pain) is relatively LESS common among tops. Is that your impression among the tops you know personally? Hmmmm....no clue, I'm anti-social!

My choice of words is Domme Space...I have taken My thoughts from My own site.


When My slave presents his wrists to Me for binding him to My will I immediately begin to enter a new world. The world of power and control. I feel an internal growth that radiates throughout My being and fills Me with the heat of passion. Each increase in bondage that My locks assure gives My heart a rush of adrenaline.
Having total control of My slave_and his responses excites Me beyond reason. My pleasure is emotional as well as physical. The stimulation of My intellect while taking him wherever I choose brings Me to the Domme Space I love.
I feel the intensity of the honor he gives Me by placing his trust and devotion into My hands. Knowing he feels safe in My control while realizing I may take him places he prefers not to go. This trust and devotion feeds My lust for him.
Knowing that it is his need to submit to Me gives My power over him an increased meaning. For only through his gift do I receive. Knowing he submits for My pleasure_is an erotica of it's own kind. our mutual joy in D/s makes Domme Space and sub space the ultimate mutual gift we share.
Using My body to Dominate gives a different kind of pleasure than when I use My mind.. The sensations I experience are complexly mixed in both. One soon over rides the other. Ecstasy and agony!!!

...added...

I have a sadistic streak a mile wide but it does not speak to who I am or dictate to My emotions or sexuallity. I have a soft side that floats in and out but does not remain stagnant. I do not compare My reality to the reality of others nor their realities to Mine.
I do not believe that it is the whips and chains that bind but the intellect. Screams of pain can give Me satisfaction in the moment but do not create the memories I will grow old with.
My sexuality is not dependant upon the suffering of the one beneath Me for it is stimulated by the raw submission of the one who cannot stand for want of bending their knee in freedom.

Thank you SD,

I did find your contribution at some other threads, see below.

Searching 'domme' 'space'does generate a couple good hits (among dozens of bad ones): I don't know how to limit to those postings with the two words adjacent.

Besides Shadowsdream's several contribution, I found 'zipperdiva' (Lady Catherine) quite insightful. The classic 'Mistress Steel' essay I don't think hits the deeper issues raised in the initial questions of this thread: it's all about adrenaline.


(I have always wanted to ask the dominants)
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=4083704&highlight=domme+space#post4083704

(domme for a day)
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2407837&highlight=domme+space#post2407837

(what's in it for the dom/me)
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2186777&highlight=domme+space#post2186777

[see zipperdiva, Lady Catherine]


(DomSpace)
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1232557&highlight=domme+space#post1232557

Mistress Steel's essay "Dominant Space"
http://members.aol.com/MasterNik/DomSpace.html

First I will answer your questions then I will give you my 2 cents worth on domination.

Questions to Tops**:
[Please state your gender and that of your 'bottoms'.]

1)He describes a definitely arousing sexual impact. Do you experience it that way?
2) He links the effect to the other's pain. Does that pain, the reflexes, attempted defenses, get you sexually hot?
3) Do you come, during or right after?

4) Apart from the pain issue, Do you experience a sexual-- or more non-sexual-- 'rush' or effect from the demonstration of power?

5) Do you get, instead, from 'topping' mainly non sexual feelings? Which? For instance, pride in a job well done (you taught them to serve); satisfaction (non sexual) at being well served; joyful, like the coach who sees his or her team win?

6) He states that the above type of experience (esp. arousal from pain) is relatively LESS common among tops. Is that your impression among the tops you know personally?

Click to expand...

I am male and my slave is female.

1) It all depends on the setting. I am a sadist and I get sexually aroused by giving pain. But also by having control and by humiliating my SO.

2) Yes definitely, I get very excited by pain giving.

3) I need sexual activity to cum. Control, power, pain are all very potent aphrodisiacs but not enough for me to cum.

4) Yes.

5) I have apart from the sexual excitement, a very deep and satisfying connection with my slave. The bond goes very deep and it is not only sex in whatever form. It is about commitment going both ways I feel often very proud, not of my own accomplishments but more of hers. I feel a deep sense of pride of owning her. I can be very proud when she performs a task which she finds difficult to do.

6) I do not think that is true, as I have found many dominants who in a more or less degree are sexually aroused by pain. However it seems kind of a taboo to be able to admit that you are a sadistic pig who enjoys giving pain. I have no problem admitting to that. I have found that once I admit it the other side finds it easier to admit it themselves.

My 2 cents worth:
My dominance is about being who I am, letting loose my hunger and needs and feeding them. It is about commitment with my partner, it is about love, passion, and sex as much as it is pain, control, and humiliation.

I enjoy the power and control I have over my partner as much as I enjoy giving her pain. I am the dominant part of a 24/7 couple. We are so much in tone with each other and so committed that we do not even see ourselves any more as two separated persons. We are one soul divided over two bodies.

This is what I have been looking for my whole life and what I really wanted out of BDSM. I have tried different things and have had several slaves. Catalina is not my first 24/7 but she is the one I have found this deep connection with and the only one I have married.

I do not relate to persons who can disconnect themselves form being dominant and are dominant at night and “Normal” during the day. You are a dominant always 24 hours a day 7 days a week, 12 months a year. To me there is no other way. This is of course my view on the subject. Any dominant has their own view on the matter and will see and look at it through its own rose coloured glasses.

I get great satisfaction in giving pain, great arousal from having absolute and total control, and sex. Like ‘Shadowsdream’ mentioned in her posting, it is not the pain or the enjoyment of pain that binds two people. It is the connection I have wanted and searched for and have found.

F.

To each his/her own.

I make a pretty clear distinction between B&D and S&M. Clear to me, anyhow. I'm interested in the sexual and interpersonal dimensions first and foremost, and pain only serves or augments the sexual. Pain itself is not the object for me. The object is...well, I'm not sure, but it's not just pain. It if were, I'd become a dentist and be hard all the time.

---dr.M.

Put your helmet on, Doc

dr_mabeuse said:

To each his/her own.

I make a pretty clear distinction between B&D and S&M. Clear to me, anyhow. I'm interested in the sexual and interpersonal dimensions first and foremost, and pain only serves or augments the sexual. Pain itself is not the object for me. The object is...well, I'm not sure, but it's not just pain. It if were, I'd become a dentist and be hard all the time. ---dr.M.

Click to expand...

Whoa, Doc. Be ready for some reBUTTal. Love the dentist jibe.

Perdita

dr_mabeuse said:

…but it's not just pain. It if were, I'd become a dentist and be hard all the time.

---dr.M.

Click to expand...

I am sure if the objective was only pain no sadist would ever be part of BDSM. If the only thing I wanted was pain I could just take a dog and kick the living shit out of it and no I would never do that, just giving an example. And by the way my dentist uses an anaesthetic which of course defeats the whole purpose.

And would that not mean that a masochist could just go to the dentist and wet the chair and cum repeatedly? That is until they run out of teeth that is.


F.
Reading is not only taking in words, reading is understanding what is said.

dr m said,

//To each his/her own.

I make a pretty clear distinction between B&D and S&M. Clear to me, anyhow. I'm interested in the sexual and interpersonal dimensions first and foremost, and pain only serves or augments the sexual. Pain itself is not the object for me. The object is...well, I'm not sure, but it's not just pain. It if were, I'd become a dentist and be hard all the time. //

Well, the discussion was of 'top space' when a 'top' is one who runs a scene and/or does or acts out something on someone in a scene. So the relevance of B and D as you understand them is not clear. I'm sure there may be 'friendly' almost vanilla bondage, and I'd doubt it would evoke 'topspace.' But...

Yes, you may get some distinction (and mileage) by focusing on 'bondage' and 'discipline' (though isn't pain pretty commonly associated with the latter?), which are specific areas.

Where things are blurred in my opinion is between Domination and Sadism; between Submission and Masochism. (Granting of course that some domination is non sexual; and/or, in some gentle scenes, might not involve the inflction of pain.)

There are, in your terms 'sexual' and 'interpersonal' dimensions to all good domination, i.e, rigourous sexual subjection of another.
So that does not distinguish DS from SM, in my opinion.

Further what the sadist inflicts (to her erotic delight) and what the masochist endures (to his) is commonly thought to include more than 'pain', i.e., degradation and humiliation; 'psychic' pain (= shame, embarrassment, fear). So SM is not merely physical. In any case, 'pain' itself, is always psychical--e.g, enhanced by fear. So your proposed basis of disctinction collapses. In my aberrant opinion.

Coming back to the topic, the 'top', controller of scene, etc. is typicaly one with pain infliction in his/her armarmentarium, hence pain infliction is often talked about as engendering 'topspace' in the 'top.' "Catalina's" eloquent posting attests to this.

dr_mabeuse said:

To each his/her own.

I make a pretty clear distinction between B&D and S&M. Clear to me, anyhow. I'm interested in the sexual and interpersonal dimensions first and foremost, and pain only serves or augments the sexual. Pain itself is not the object for me. The object is...well, I'm not sure, but it's not just pain. It if were, I'd become a dentist and be hard all the time.

---dr.M.

Click to expand...

Yes, I love this post!

I don't like the word 'top', I prefer dom, for no real reason other than that top and bottom seem to me to be a bit too PC; a way to take the sting out of the terminology and render it innocuous in the same way that political correctness prefers chair-person to madam chair.

I'm male and my sub is female. To answer the questions:

1) Top space is definitely sexually arousing, but if one is already aroused, as is commonly the case, then heading into top space supercharges that arousal, and yes, adrenalin is definitely involved, as is my own sadism.

2) Other peoples pain doesn't, as a rule, get me hot unless they are somebody I potentially can or do have sexually, or want to have (even if only in fantasy). In these cases, their pain is my aphrodisiac and it's a powerful one.

I don't find the infliction of the pain itself especially arousing and in fact this can be quite boring. For instance I have several sub friends both male and female for whom the perfect night out involves being flogged for hours. What a yawn; boring to watch, boring to do, goes nowhere.

For me it's my sub's response to pain: The look in her eyes. The expression on her face. The small moans she issues when she nolonger has the energy or wherewithal to scream. The muted grunts through a ring gague and the thought of inserting my penis through that same ring gague at the very moment when her travail is greatest and my use of her in this way would be at it's most degrading (sorry I'm getting carried away).

To inflict pain I preffer things that are short, quick and obviously sexual, such as fisting her or striking her breasts, or which have a sexual visual appeal. For instance, the voyeuristic joy of watching her pain grow from being tied in an uncomfortable manner or in a manner that directly hurts her (such as stradling a narrow plank set at a height which prevents her taking her full weight on her feet).

So, it's the visible and psychological result of physical and psychological pain that does it for me, and infliction is merely the means to that end. Furthermore, these activities must generaly have a direct sexual nature or conotation. It's not enough to use the word, 'sadism', the term must be 'sexual sadism'. The only time I might practise sadism that isn't sexual in nature is to reinforce the subordinate role of my sub in day to day life; obviously with a long term sexual intent.

3) I come during, because and only because, I incorporate the use of her sexually, and my own gratification by her humiliating use, as part of my sadistic enjoyment of her. I'm the dom, why not indulge myself? Times when I don't come are times when rather than satisfy myself I restrain my own desire for sexual release so that I might concentrate on using her sexuality against her. For example, bringing her to orgasm in some manner that is inately humiliating for her, or despite the pain she is feeling. This is not so much a form of self restraint on my part as it is a postponement of gratification until later, so that I might savour the arousal from this sightly different activity.

4) I find the rush from exercising power to be totally sexual in situations where that is my intent, ie. in a 'scene'. I have absolutely no rush from exercising power at all in other day to day circumstances, such as in the work place.

5) I get a some joy at seeing her 'training' pay off and take hold when I use her in public or give her over to anothers use, but pride of workmanship and satisfaction of service are not things I feel sufficiently strongly to notice them in myself.

6) It is my impression that in broad outline at least, the above typifies most life style doms. Exceptions tend to be switches, who do it for the subs sake, and those who enjoy the trappings of the lifestyle, and perhaps the notoriety, but are not strictly doms (often identifying as doms because they can't see themselves as subs or percieve that the dom's role has greater power and prestige). Interestingly, it is this later catagory whom I have found to be most deeply into the over elaborate sets viewed with suspicion in a former post. Perhaps because they don't really 'get it', they go to far to make it appear that they do.

I have absolutely no dificulty speaking of this, as I am fairly comfortable with who and what I am and not being a full blown sociopath, I have a strong enough sense of the socially approriate and sufficient self control so as not to force my whims on the unwilling.

I don't like the word 'top', I prefer dom, for no real reason other than that top and bottom seem to me to be a bit too PC; a way to take the sting out of the terminology and render it innocuous in the same way that political correctness prefers chair-person to madam chair.

It's interesting, I've always felt same but opposite. Dom and sub are words, that, to me, minimize the physical. They came out of, well I don't know what section of the subculture, but Leather seems to favor Top and bottom, and Leather is where I sit.

Dom and sub are capable of the lightest slap and tickle, but I cook Master's dinner every night. Tops and bottoms are always doing something untoward to one another. I like that.

Other peoples pain doesn't, as a rule, get me hot unless they are somebody I potentially can or do have sexually, or want to have (even if only in fantasy). In these cases, their pain is my aphrodisiac and it's a powerful one.

I don't find the infliction of the pain itself especially arousing and in fact this can be quite boring. For instance I have several sub friends both male and female for whom the perfect night out involves being flogged for hours. What a yawn; boring to watch, boring to do, goes nowhere.

Yeah, but are the people in that kind of flogging experiencing pain at all? I know what you mean, it's more like watching a tennis match. I don't object to flogging this way, it fulfills a different need, and I even enjoy the repetitious groove of it, but when I play with my buddy the stingy cats come out because I need to see him flinch. It's definitely another animal then.

I find the rush from exercising power to be totally sexual in situations where that is my intent, ie. in a 'scene'. I have absolutely no rush from exercising power at all in other day to day circumstances, such as in the work place.

I do, I'll be the first to admit it. Maybe it's because I don't get it enough at work. Maybe I am compensating. I certainly do have a "rush" when I'm doing something well. Really well. Maybe it's not sexual, but it is likely hormonal. Adrenaline certainly kicks in.

If you do any reading on testosterone actors and entertainers who are commonly reinforced have the highest levels, people who are shot down a lot, like salesmen (I'm one) have some of the lowest levels. I have no doubt that T and its aggressive, delightful, cocksure mania, floods me when I'm doing anything I know I do well.

It is my impression that in broad outline at least, the above typifies most life style doms. Exceptions tend to be switches, who do it for the subs sake

I beg to differ. Switches are not D/s lite. A lot of them understand how to fully express dominance and submission much more effectively than people who spend all their life on one end of the spectrum.

Tops who also bottom are often people who can submit but understand perfectly well, the nuanced distinction of Topping for the bottom's sake and NOT topping for the bottom's sake. When they submit they rarely top from below or exhibit that tendency because, well what's the point when you can also top from the top?

Bottoms can be the most evil and strict of Tops because they have such a painfully intimate insight into the exchange. Tops can be the best and most loyal bottoms because when they, er, we, actually admit to wanting to let go of control, power, and having to plan all our damn scenes, we really really mean it. But the thought of not returning to all of the above hassles, mind you, is unthinkable, we can't be captured and reformed.

and those who enjoy the trappings of the lifestyle, and perhaps the notoriety, but are not strictly doms (often identifying as doms because they can't see themselves as subs or percieve that the dom's role has greater power and prestige). Interestingly, it is this later catagory whom I have found to be most deeply into the over elaborate sets viewed with suspicion in a former post. Perhaps because they don't really 'get it', they go to far to make it appear that they do.

I've come across this viewpoint a lot, that people who don't exhibit healthy, reasonable, and appropriate "Dom behavior" are not "really Doms." That there's a set of "Dom standards."

As though Dom cannot ever possibly co-exist with dysfunction. Can submissive exist with dysfunction? Well, apparently it can assimilate a lot of dysfunction as long as none of it expresses itself in controlling or aggressive ways, an interesting community double standard.

My personal opinion is that a person can be a Dom, a sub, a switch, a vanilla and still be someone you don't want to go near with a ten foot pole. I think the above examples I gave out initially, overcompensating assholes they may be, are Doms. They are just not particularly adept ones.

My own understanding of Dom/sub vs Top/Bottom is that the former describes a sexual orientation or preference, and the latter is used to describe sexual (or social) behavior. (Or maybe that Dom/sub are nouns only, while Top/Bottom can be nouns or verbs.)

So you can have a sub topping a dom, but you can't have a bottom domming a top.

See?

As I say, this is my own understanding only. I'm sure that someone will straighten me out if I'm wrong, though.

---dr.M.

It's interesting, I've always felt same but opposite. Dom and sub are words, that, to me, minimize the physical. They came out of, well I don't know what section of the subculture, but Leather seems to favor Top and bottom, and Leather is where I sit.

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough the terminology ‘Dominant’ and ‘submissive’ are the ones that are older and have more history attached to them, not to mention are stronger and more inclusive of all that they are meant to represent and portray. Contrary to minimising the physical, they make it very clear what each role incorporates in all facets of the relationship. For a fuller understanding I would recommend reading the works of Marquis de Sade and the ‘Story of O’, to start with that is.

I beg to differ. Switches are not D/s lite. A lot of them understand how to fully express dominance and submission much more effectively than people who spend all their life on one end of the spectrum.

Click to expand...

Dominance and submission are not something that has to be understood, so to speak, to be expressed. It is something inside you that is as natural and necessary as breathing, not something that needs to be ‘acted out’. The notion that a dominant can switch between being a submissive and being a dominant is ludicrous to me. I can not become a submissive like a submissive can not become a dominant. The two states are at extreme opposites of the spectrum and to suggest someone who can change from one to the other is more effective in both roles suggests more a playacting scenario than a direct expression of one’s innate characteristics.

A switch, because that is what you are describing, can never truly experience being a true dominant or being a true submissive as they do not possess these characteristics and can only ever hope to mimic them in a fashion they see as believable, or learn from observing others. They have not surrendered themselves to their own nature, learned who they really are. They are neither dominant nor submissive. When you mix black and white you create grey which is neither black nor white, hence the word ‘switch’. As the saying goes, ‘you can not be all things to all people’.

Bottoms can be the most evil and strict of Tops because they have such a painfully intimate insight into the exchange. Tops can be the best and most loyal bottoms because when they, er, we, actually admit to wanting to let go of control, power, and having to plan all our damn scenes, we really really mean it. But the thought of not returning to all of the above hassles, mind you, is unthinkable, we can't be captured and reformed.

Click to expand...

Dominance is not about being evil and strict. Evil as you say it is not a word I would use in conjunction with dominance. Dominance/ submission is about feeding a hunger deep inside both parties, it is about giving to each other what the other party needs, it is about complimenting the nature of each other by answering needs. Yes I am sadist, and yes I am strict when necessary, but the word evil is to me extremely misplaced. The word evil is a judgement, a negative judgement. It is also worth noting that some Dominants do not engage in pain giving instead applying other methods so may not be able to give their submissive the ‘painful intimate insight’ you refer to.

I, being a Dominant and not a top, would never ever let someone else control me. I would never give control over myself to another; I would never give someone power over me. To do that would be to deny the dominance which is an integral part of me.

I believe BDSM is what you make of it, and I fully respect your right to your views, but I happen to think they are based on the wrong assumptions. It is impossible for a Dominant to switch roles, like it is impossible for a submissive to switch roles. Whenever I take control and exert power I really mean it, there is no other way, no halfway measures. Any other way would mean playing at being a Dominant or playing at being a sub.

F.

Interestingly enough the terminology ‘Dominant’ and ‘submissive’ are the ones that are older and have more history attached to them, not to mention are stronger and more inclusive of all that they are meant to represent and portray. Contrary to minimising the physical, they make it very clear what each role incorporates in all facets of the relationship. For a fuller understanding I would recommend reading the works of Marquis de Sade and the ‘Story of O’, to start with that is.

De Sade and O have much less to do with my life than Califia and Townsend. Just as Pope and Shakepeare have less to do with my life than Italo Calvino or Greil Marcus. Just as Gone with the Wind or The Women have less to do with my life than the Matrix or Magnolia. For certain people all the opposite will certainly ring true. I have read both Justine (ugh) and O and recommend John Preston's Mr. Benson or Califia's Macho Sluts for a fuller understanding of what I am speaking about and to. One vantage point is not better than another, they are simply different. I find D/s limiting and overly specific, you may find Top/bottom nouveau and irritating, that's great for both of us. Simply because I am standing on a different summit doesn't mean I don't know how to get up a mountain, that's a really bad assumption.

Dominance and submission are not something that has to be understood, so to speak, to be expressed. It is something inside you that is as natural and necessary as breathing, not something that needs to be ‘acted out’. The notion that a dominant can switch between being a submissive and being a dominant is ludicrous to me. I can not become a submissive like a submissive can not become a dominant. The two states are at extreme opposites of the spectrum and to suggest someone who can change from one to the other is more effective in both roles suggests more a playacting scenario than a direct expression of one’s innate characteristics.

I don't see "playacting" as so inherently opposed to one's innermost characteristics, or the idea of "theater" as something completely inauthentic, think of it as a gestalt excercise or one in a more Jungian vein. I also can't fathom an identity so fixed or so total in its orientation as to be something we can nail down in a word. But that is me. I don't find your insistance that never the twain shall meet, or your insistance on fixed essentials "ludicrous" however, simply completely unpalatable for me as an individual. If it works for you, and it seems to, grand.

A switch, because that is what you are describing, can never truly experience being a true dominant or being a true submissive as they do not possess these characteristics and can only ever hope to mimic them in a fashion they see as believable, or learn from observing others. They have not surrendered themselves to their own nature, learned who they really are.

What if their true nature is both and neither? I think it's entirely likely that the whole world does not fall neatly into Dominant and submissive any more than it neatly falls into racial category white, racial category black, both of which are things we are born with.

They are neither dominant nor submissive. When you mix black and white you create grey which is neither black nor white, hence the word ‘switch’. As the saying goes, ‘you can not be all things to all people’.

I can agree at least with this. Both and neither is indeed its own territory.


Dominance is not about being evil and strict. Evil as you say it is not a word I would use in conjunction with dominance. Dominance/ submission is about feeding a hunger deep inside both parties, it is about giving to each other what the other party needs, it is about complimenting the nature of each other by answering needs. Yes I am sadist, and yes I am strict when necessary, but the word evil is to me extremely misplaced. The word evil is a judgement, a negative judgement. It is also worth noting that some Dominants do not engage in pain giving instead applying other methods so may not be able to give their submissive the ‘painful intimate insight’ you refer to.

Apparently, levity and hyperbole are a bad idea around here. Perhaps I should consider eliminating both from my diet. Oh, wait, they must stem from my internalized self-hatred, foisted on me by a vanilla world of naysayers.

As is a failure to be completely literal, the "painfully intimate insight" is a descriptor of level of intimacy, not a connotation of physical pain. I'm well aware that there are less physical modes of controlling and holding power over another individual, and that this can be done by physical means that are less painful, as well. I'm also well aware that SM is a connection between two people finding fulfillment.


I, being a Dominant and not a top, would never ever let someone else control me. I would never give control over myself to another; I would never give someone power over me. To do that would be to deny the dominance which is an integral part of me.

Fair enough, that's obviously not a place you should go then.

I believe BDSM is what you make of it, and I fully respect your right to your views, but I happen to think they are based on the wrong assumptions.

Assuming that I am trying to do what you do and trying to live the life you see as D/s. Those, in this case, are the wrong assumptions. Not my assertion that switches might have valid insight into the dynamics of power.

It is impossible for a Dominant to switch roles, like it is impossible for a submissive to switch roles. Whenever I take control and exert power I really mean it, there is no other way, no halfway measures. Any other way would mean playing at being a Dominant or playing at being a sub.

Oh, I mean it too, I don't piss away a moment, nor accept less than I deserve, nor adore my bottom any less. However, to me, saying that it's impossible for me to *stop* or *do anything else* is like saying I'm a Banker therefore I am always Banking, and if I stop Banking for a game of tennis, I'm a fake Banker.

All I know is that there as many ways of being a Dom/sub or Top/bottom as there are people who describe themselves as such. We have no way of telling what a person's feeling inside so we judge them by their actions. If a person claims they derive equal pleasure out of either D/s role, who am I to tell them that they're wrong, that they don't exist?


---dr.M.

Before this starts becoming a flame, which is something I find an absolute waste of time, I would like to mention that I am not denying your right to see BDSM as you want to see I am not stating that the way I live or that my views of the lifestyle are the only ones that are valid or that yours are less valid than mine.

I find D/s limiting and overly specific, you may find Top/bottom nouveau and irritating, that's great for both of us.

Click to expand...

Actually I do not think that Top/bottom (T/b) is nouveau and irritating, that is an assumption you make which is incorrect. T/b to me are just not what I live like, they are not views or my understanding of what I experience as being BDSM.

I don't see "playacting" as so inherently opposed to one's innermost characteristics, or the idea of "theater" as something completely inauthentic, think of it as a gestalt excercise or one in a more Jungian vein.

Click to expand...

We can of course start a philosophical discussion here and take Jungian views or go back to the classic less nouveau philosophy and take a walk along the streets of Athens together with Aristotle. However I do not think this is the appropriate thread for that. Acting is playacting and in its nature it is mimicking others or mimicking as close as possible the reality but it is never the reality. This is why Method acting is so popular with the American mainstream actors. It is becoming as close as possible to the real thing but it is actually never becoming the real thing. You see as I see it theatre is an art form to be respected and has it’s place as such, but what most serious life stylers are into are reality and truth, not performing and acting in place of that reality. Art may be a part of BDSM for some, but can never be the whole if wanting to be taken seriously.

What if their true nature is both and neither? I think it's entirely likely that the whole world does not fall neatly into Dominant and submissive any more than it neatly falls into racial category white, racial category black, both of which are things we are born with.

Click to expand...

I am a 100 % sure that the world does not neatly falls into D/s categories, never claimed that. If they did there would never be a need to define BDSM as all would be part of it. What I am sure of though is racial categories have nothing to do with innate characteristics, the difference being you are born into your race but that does not necessarily define your behaviour or who you are. Innate characteristics do define behaviour and who you are to the point that those who attempt to suppress them more often than not only succeed in living half a life full of depression, self doubt, unhappiness, and never being truly fulfilled.

Assuming that I am trying to do what you do and trying to live the life you see as D/s. Those, in this case, are the wrong assumptions. Not my assertion that switches might have valid insight into the dynamics of power.

Click to expand...

Having a valid insight into something does not make them understanding or controlling it. However I agree with you switches certainly have an understanding of the dynamics of power and control, it is just they can never reach the same level of understanding and control a Dominant can. Their understanding is coloured, and often limited by their experience as a switch in that to truly understand and experience the same, they have to be of the same ilk.

To give an analogy, in cricket we have batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders. A bowler is specialised in bowling, a batsman is specialised in batting and an all-rounder can do both to a certain degree. In cricket you will see that the bowler is a much better bowler then the all-rounder but a much worse batter. The same can be said from the batter and the all-rounder but then of course in the reverse of the bowler.

Oh, I mean it too, I don't piss away a moment, nor accept less than I deserve, nor adore my bottom any less. However, to me, saying that it's impossible for me to *stop* or *do anything else* is like saying I'm a Banker therefore I am always Banking, and if I stop Banking for a game of tennis, I'm a fake Banker.

Click to expand...

No you would not be a fake banker just a banker who plays tennis and not a professional tennis player, which is of course my point. If you are a submissive in nature and characteristic, then you might be able to play at being a Dominant to appease another or your own curiosity, but you will never be a Dominant in every sense of the word. Similarly if you are a Dominant you might be able to play at being a submissive but you will never be a submissive. Or to use your racial categorisation, if you are born white, you can bake yourself in the sun for days on end risking skin cancer in the process, but it will never make you black. And if you are switch you are neither Dominant or submissive, you are an all-rounder.

F.

Argh! I've created a monster (though I think there'd be some justification in blaming Pure for all of it)

Dear Netzach,

Thank you for your responses to my statements, many of which I agree with, if only to a limited extent, and all of which I find interesting. I would like to point out that some of your opinions are not as divergent from my own as it may seem, but that my explanation of my own thoughts on the subject was limited by my attempt to respond explicitly to the questions and my disinclination to type for any great length of time that day.

What I especially enjoy though, is that the BDSM community, if the word community does not imply too great a coherence to what is truly a wide and often disparate concatanation of persons, ideas, behaviours and preferences, is both accepting and articulate enough to make such discussion possible without it being construed as a slagging match.

And Dear Catalina,

Your defense of some of my statements, though in response to Netzach on your own behalf rather than mine, was sufficiently thorough for me to feel no need to exercise myself in the same direction. Though I don't share your opinions in their totality, they run close enough to my own so that I find myself more in accord with your viewpoint than with Netzach's

Still, these are only opinions, mine and other's, and to differ with them is not only acceptable, but quite laudable; especially if one can discuss it articulately.

And Dr M,

To me at least, dominant and submissive with their respective and accpeted contractions, are terms specific to human interaction. On the other hand, top and bottom refer to relative spatial locations. And too, I find myself sympathetic to Catalina's view of the terms. This is only a preference though, not an expresion of some deeply held belief, or a 'truth' to be imposed upon the 'wrong headed'. I firmly believe that people should be able to go to hell in whatever manner they choose.

Catalina Francisco said,


Dominance and submission are not something that has to be understood, so to speak, to be expressed. It is something inside you that is as natural and necessary as breathing, not something that needs to be ‘acted out’. The notion that a dominant can switch between being a submissive and being a dominant is ludicrous to me. I can not become a submissive like a submissive can not become a dominant. The two states are at extreme opposites of the spectrum and to suggest someone who can change from one to the other is more effective in both roles suggests more a playacting scenario than a direct expression of one’s innate characteristics.

Me, I'm anti-essentialist. Social scientists know little about 'innate characteristics', and the good ones have very short lists. Many characteristics are commonly said to be innate, like intelligence, but the fact is that measures of it (IQ tests) CAN be prepared for, and scores improved.

That said, one does hear of people saying, "From the earliest, I knew I was gay." or "As a child, I 'dominated', took charge, and was always thought of as 'natural leader.' Perhaps that fits you, CF.

I'm not sure if you're making the further claim that that's the paradigm for devt of a dom/me, but if so, you'd have to give evidence, and explain all the cases of 'subs' turning into 'dommes'
at later periods of life. (Of course there's the move, 's/he was always a dom/me but didn't know it.' but that's an unsupported claim about something, ex hypothesi, that cant be seen [the earlier 'innate domhood.'])

Your most interesting claim, is this


Having a valid insight into something does not make them understanding or controlling it. However I agree with you switches certainly have an understanding of the dynamics of power and control, it is just they can never reach the same level of understanding and control a Dominant can. Their understanding is coloured, and often limited by their experience as a switch in that to truly understand and experience the same, they have to be of the same ilk.

To give an analogy, in cricket we have batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders. A bowler is specialised in bowling, a batsman is specialised in batting and an all-rounder can do both to a certain degree. In cricket you will see that the bowler is a much better bowler then the all-rounder but a much worse batter.

It seems to be a claim about the possible 'level of understanding' of someone not fully, innately, and exclusively dom/me or sub. Is that correct?

The question comes up, what is your evidence? Shall we look at books and novels about dom and sub, and see if the authors 'understand' deeply? and if so are they exclusively dom/me? What method do you use to support such a claim?**

As far as your analogy goes, it may not go to your point about 'understanding.' You say the bowler is a better bowler, than the all rounder-- the latter being like a 'switch', I believe.
Arguably, however, the 'all rounder' understands cricket and its roles better than the specialists. Being a decent batter, instead of a lousey one, gives him 'understanding' as a bowler.

But in any case, other analogies might fit equally well. I'm no sports archivist, but I'm sure it's easy to find someone who was 'world class' in one event, but who 'switched' and became 'world class' in another event or even sport. This is as we should expect, since I don't see any evidence that 'batsman ability is something that's 'innate'. (which is not to deny that _some_ great batsmen showed a knack for it, since their childhood games.)

In any case, I appreciate youf articulate contribution. I hope you do not feel there's any animus; you're able to oppose a stance without it becoming personal, I'm sure. I admire your postings, in general. Here, though, I'd like to hear about evidence.

Best,

**In considering _understanding_ you neglect the role of imagination. Since you have recommended Story of O to learn about domination, I would point out it's evidence againstyour thesis about having to be a true, innate dom/me or sub to understand in depth. The book was written by a woman who, so far as publically known, was pretty 'vanilla.' She drew upon religious writings, and was almost certainly not a fulltime sub. Sade's works too count against your claims, but maybe I'll take that up later.


J.

We can of course start a philosophical discussion here and take Jungian views or go back to the classic less nouveau philosophy and take a walk along the streets of Athens together with Aristotle. However I do not think this is the appropriate thread for that.

Pure, correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the feeling any thread you start could hold up to such abuse.

Additionally, pardon me if I've apprached flaming, I tend to come on rather New York. it's not intentional, nor would I want to discourage someone with intelligence and convictions, as Catalina_Francisco clearly is.

Acting is playacting and in its nature it is mimicking others or mimicking as close as possible the reality but it is never the reality. This is why Method acting is so popular with the American mainstream actors. It is becoming as close as possible to the real thing but it is actually never becoming the real thing. You see as I see it theatre is an art form to be respected and has it’s place as such, but what most serious life stylers are into are reality and truth, not performing and acting in place of that reality. Art may be a part of BDSM for some, but can never be the whole if wanting to be taken seriously.

See, perhaps the conceptual fracture here is that I do not and cannot equate art and artifice. Artifice, or the surface of things, is always about what's driving it, what's behind it.

I'm a working artist, art is not less real nor more real than the world, it's a model for *viewing* and understanding the world. It's a lens, much as, well...game theory, or Judaism, or, in my personal opinion...SM can be.

Orthodox Jews in the fold would berate me for that assertion, for the religious, the religious experience is the reality behind reality, when you scratch the surface. I am not an Orthodox Jew, nor a "lifestyle D/s er" D/s is integrated into my life, it's not a sexual game only, however it is only one grid through which I view my world, not the dominant one, nor the only one. It's a factor, it's not THE factor.

To give an analogy, in cricket we have batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders. A bowler is specialised in bowling, a batsman is specialised in batting and an all-rounder can do both to a certain degree. In cricket you will see that the bowler is a much better bowler then the all-rounder but a much worse batter. The same can be said from the batter and the all-rounder but then of course in the reverse of the bowler.

What about a contemporary painter with an MFA, a 5 page CV, and a Rome Prize who decides to do a video project, and a wet behind the ears undergraduate video art student? I can tell you whose project is going to be better, unless the undergraduate is some kind of prodigy.

The painter is going to have a better visual, critical, and social framework from which to operate. Even though she needs to learn final cut pro from the start.

No you would not be a fake banker just a banker who plays tennis and not a professional tennis player, which is of course my point.

To belabor a bad analogy, true. However, simply because I am playing tennis badly, for pleasure, we don't call what I am doing "riding a pony" or "deluding myself into thinking I am playing tennis" I am still playing tennis.

Some interesting points have been brought up which probably deserve a more in depth answer than my poor intellectual capabilities are capable of. However that does not stop me in trying of course.

Many characteristics are commonly said to be innate, like intelligence, but the fact is that measures of it (IQ tests) CAN be prepared for, and scores improved.

The fact that you can fine tune certain innate characteristics does not mean they are not innate. It is a documented fact that social, cultural, and environmental influences can have an impact on intelligence, but the reality is there has to be a particular level of intelligence present in a person to allow them to develop it to higher levels. However even nowadays Science is still not sure how intelligence occurs and how in reality it is developed.

If I may give a reference to an interesting article about just this subject.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020017191357data_trunc_sys.shtml

But in any case, other analogies might fit equally well. I'm no sports archivist, but I'm sure it's easy to find someone who was 'world class' in one event, but who 'switched' and became 'world class' in another event or even sport. This is as we should expect, since I don't see any evidence that 'batsman ability is something that's 'innate'. (which is not to deny that _some_ great batsmen showed a knack for it, since their childhood games.)

There are many examples of sportsman changing from one side of the game to another and succeeding or excelling in it. Babe Ruth used to be a pitcher before becoming on of the most known batsman in Baseball. But you see he used to be a very average pitcher, it was once he found his true talent in the sport that he excelled and changed the face of Baseball forever.

I'm not sure if you're making the further claim that that's the paradigm for devt of a dom/me, but if so, you'd have to give evidence, and explain all the cases of 'subs' turning into 'dommes'

In fact in science it is generally accepted that every rule, every measurement you take has flaws and exceptions in it, it is a statistical law.

If I might make a bad translation of a Dutch saying:
That's the exception rather than the rule

However having said that, there is no conflict between my statement and the fact that there are dominants out there who have been submissive. There could be several reasons for such a change. They might have repressed their true nature and only later in life realized what their true path in life was, simply have been exploring to find their true nature, trying to please someone they were in a relationship with, or they might be switches, or maybe they are players in the scene.


The question comes up, what is your evidence? Shall we look at books and novels about dom and sub, and see if the authors 'understand' deeply? and if so are they exclusively dom/me? What method do you use to support such a claim?**

As you might have guessed by now my views come very close to those of people represented by the internal enslavement or those who believe in total power exchange. Most, but not all of my own convictions come out of that stream, or using a ‘Netzach word’, subculture inside BDSM.

I do not claim that my truth is the only truth out there; it is the truth as I see it for me. The method I use is that one of logical reasoning based on my own views. There are books about BDSM which I find to be extremely good to read and very educational. Some of those I do not agree with and with some I do, but with most of them there are parts I find extremely interesting and can relate fully and with other parts I cannot. This is how I approach any subject. I read several points of view, I discuss several viewpoints and then I make my own conclusions and follow my own thread of understanding. I am an individual by nature and tend to make my own ideology instead of following others for the sake of feeling comfortable in the crowd.

Going back to the subject of being an innate slave or dominant more widely known as the Natural Slave or Natural dominant, it is a very old discussion point. We can go as far back as Aristotle to find the first documented analyses

The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man; for then they are preserved. Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.
Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature.
Aristotle, Politics, 1.V (translation by Benjamin Jowett)

Not that I agree with his views, just an example that innate capabilities of dominance/submission is an very old discussion point and not just something I have plucked out of thin air.

But to be honest, there is no real proof about being a Natural dominant or an innate Dom, at least as far as I know of. I know I am a Natural Dominant. I know in it in every fiber of my being. In my professional life I lead a small team of very highly technical persons. I used to lead a group of about 150 technicians. In my personal life my friends always come to me for advice. Yes I feel that I am a natural leader and a natural dominant person.

In considering _understanding_ you neglect the role of imagination. Since you have recommended Story of O to learn about domination, I would point out it's evidence againstyour thesis about having to be a true, innate dom/me or sub to understand in depth. The book was written by a woman who, so far as publically known, was pretty 'vanilla.' She drew upon religious writings, and was almost certainly not a fulltime sub. Sade's works too count against your claims, but maybe I'll take that up later.

I must admit that by choosing these two popular works, I have made a mistake. Although we could argue about Sade’s work, the story of O is completely misplaced to defend my viewpoint.

I'm a working artist, art is not less real nor more real than the world, it's a model for *viewing* and understanding the world. It's a lens, much as, well...game theory, or Judaism, or, in my personal opinion...SM can be.

My own viewpoint comes out of a completely different view on the world. I live in a cold scientific mathematical world where everything that takes place has it place in the order of the universe.

simply because I am playing tennis badly, for pleasure, we don't call what I am doing "riding a pony" or "deluding myself into thinking I am playing tennis" I am still playing tennis.

I fully agree you would still be playing tennis just not on the same level as a professional tennis player would. This again reinforces my point.

Hi Catalina Francisco, Netzach, and all. Esteemed colloquists, cunninglinguists, cafeteria-style munchers on this and that---

I have put the 'natural dom/me/dominion' issue into its own thread.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=174794


I'd like to keep this thread on 'topspace' --or 'dom/me-space' if you prefer-- which is to say

the subjective (and interpersonal) experience of topping/ commanding/ subordinating/ inflicting-pain/ causing-humiliation, within an intense episode(s).

dr_mabeuse said:

To each his/her own.

Pain itself is not the object for me. The object is...well, I'm not sure, but it's not just pain. It if were, I'd become a dentist and be hard all the time.

---dr.M.

Click to expand...

This post is funny, and humor is always better when enveloping truth.
I remember the old days, when going to the dentist was very close to a horror story. Being a kid, you had no rights, and you just had to take what the evil dentist had to give.

I remember many times when I was told to not be such a baby, when the pain got to be too much. Was the dentist a sadist? Quite possibly. Was I a submissive? NOT AT ALL! Even today, I have memories of the pain. I would love to meet up with him now, and give back some of what he gave, as I am no longer the child who had to take it.

The times when he would pull a tooth, giving me only ether to smell before hand. I would go out for a few seconds, and he would then quickly pull the tooth. Then, I would wake up to extreme pain and a mouth full of blood. Ah, the good old days.

He also gave me a root canal many years before they were supposed to be done. Yes, that was back when people believed doctors, when they said we needed something. And, talk about gullible parents...he said I needed a gold crown. They bought one. Then, he told them the tooth above now didn't meet up with the gold tooth, and it needed a gold crown to fix that matchup. They bought one.

The pain was unbearable! Pain medications of the day were less than effective. I could feel every bit of that drill going into my tooth, and his ripping out of the pulp. Many years later, X-rays showed he broke off a piece of a tool inside one of the canals. Of course, he never mentioned it, at the time.

I could go on and on about this guy. I truly hope he is dead and gone, and experiencing some of the same pain he created in Purgatory! The only plus was he saved the tooth. That is if it even needed saving in the first place.

A dying breed, painful dentists. Dentists today know patients won't stand for it. Mine goes out of his way to make each and every visit painless.

He gets his jollies from not causing pain, perhaps?

You know, it troubles me to think that the dentist from my childhood was quite possibly HARD during my horror visits. It troubles me a lot!

Oh, sorry for commandeering this thread to remember a horrible time. But, I do feel better, now. Oh, see my pearly whites ----->