Bottoms - submissives, differences??

[angie19]

Stella!!! I saw a post you wrote where you talked about the difference between subs and bottoms, someone asked you to explain the difference but you didn't reply with a response. This sparked my curiosity, I've begun searching for info on the difference but a person explaining it to you is always best, since you find so many opinions.. bleh, I found you a creditable source, that's my point x)

Of course all are welcomed to jump in and explain their views on the differences.

I think I may be a bottom as I read on, I've always identified myself as a sub but now idk.. I'm not that sure at all and am trying to plant myself in an (mostly) accurate categorization. I know I'm surely one of those too. (or a switch, but not that much of one) The thing is as someone's signature on here said: My personality is alpha my sexuality is beta.. something like that. That I've known, my personality is dominant, my sexuality is submissive.

Help me find out my description! ^^
Thank you!!

P.S. I only do online play (just for additional info). Willing to answer some questions if it helps me decide in which category I fit in best.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hi Angie!
Topping and bottoming refer to relative roles in activities. Dom and sub refer to relative roles in relationships. When two people are fucking, there is usually one person who is active and one who is receptive. In SM activities, one person is doing unto, and one is being done unto.

The active person is the top, the receptive person is the bottom.

In the relationships that we define as D/s, one person's preferences and desires define the relationship, and the other person allows the relationship to be defined by their partner. We say the sub has given their power to the dom.

Now although many people are tops-- not all tops are doms. Likewise, not all bottoms are subs.

Many people know what they want to feel, and how they want to feel it, and many people get a lot of pleasure out of providing sensation for someone else. This kind of dynamic is sometimes misunderstood in current BDSM parlance, and folks who know how they want to be done are often called "Bossy bottoms," or SAM's ("Smart Ass Masochists") or "Pillow Princesses" or other things, but what they are is "Dominant Bottoms."

Tops who want to provide what such a person wants to feel get told that they are wimps, or not really Doms-- and in fact, they are not Doms. They are "Service Tops," and IMO, that's a mighty fine and honorable position to claim.

Why is this important to the BDSm community and people like yourself?

The big problem that arises from this misunderstanding and the resulting social expectations, is that people-- women in particular-- believe that they want to be submissive and owned because of their desire for sensation when what they really want is to have a whole lot of attention paid to them. And when a service top-- whose real intent is to serve-- thinks that he has to be the boss in all things, when in fact he might not be suited for that role at all.

 

[angie19]

Whoah.. Don't know what to say to all that.


How did what happen?

 

[Edith_UK]

Thanks Stella, that's interesting.

 

[kellyz_craic]

Good grief. I didn't know it was that complicated.

Now you put it like that though, I do see what you mean. A lot of my escorting clients who thought they were 'submissive' basically just wanted to be hurt and humiliated but according to their own very specific fantasy. Made me feel someone being handed a script rather than control of any kind, if that makes sense.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Sexuality is complicated! Especially when it gets all tangled up in people's identity, and their political standing, and their social status. And you know-- anyone who is the least bit deviant from the norm, or who thinks they are-- complicated is the name of the game.

We have allll these labels, see, and we all want life to be simple. If we are going to pick out one label that describes our entire person -- which is a real stupid idea but we all seem to try to do so anyway-- then we'd better know all of the labels available.

And yeah, very few prodommes or lifestyle dommes either, are truly Dominant with any of their clients. They are providing a service.

 

[txblush]

Sexuality is complicated! Especially when it gets all tangled up in people's identity, and their political standing, and their social status. And you know-- anyone who is the least bit deviant from the norm, or who thinks they are-- complicated is the name of the game.

We have allll these labels, see, and we all want life to be simple. If we are going to pick out one label that describes our entire person -- which is a real stupid idea but we all seem to try to do so anyway-- then we'd better know all of the labels available.

And yeah, very few prodommes or lifestyle dommes either, are truly Dominant with any of their clients. They are providing a service.

Thanks Stella for providing the meanings behind those terms, because they do make life a little less complicated.

 

[SmileyGirl]

Hi Angie!
Topping and bottoming refer to relative roles in activities. Dom and sub refer to relative roles in relationships. When two people are fucking, there is usually one person who is active and one who is receptive. In SM activities, one person is doing unto, and one is being done unto.

The active person is the top, the receptive person is the bottom.

In the relationships that we define as D/s, one person's preferences and desires define the relationship, and the other person allows the relationship to be defined by their partner. We say the sub has given their power to the dom.

Now although many people are tops-- not all tops are doms. Likewise, not all bottoms are subs. Many people know what they want to feel, and how they want to feel it, and many people get a lot of pleasure out of providing sensation for someone else. This kind of dynamic is sometimes misunderstood in current BDSM parlance, and folks who know how they want to be done are called "Bossy bottoms," or SAM's "Smart Ass Masochists" or "Pillow Princesses" or other things, but what they are is "Dominant Bottoms." Tops who want to provide what such a person wants to feel get told that they are wimps, or not really Doms-- and in fact, they are not Doms. They are "Service Tops," and IMO, that's a mighty fine and honorable position to claim.

Why this is important to the BDSm community and people like yourself;
The big problem that arises from this misunderstanding and the resulting social expectations, is that people-- women in particular-- believe that they want to be submissive and owned because of their desire for sensation when what they really want is to have a whole lot of attention paid to them. And when a service top-- whose real intent is to serve-- thinks that he has to be the boss in all things, when in fact he might not be suited for that role at all. This problem is exacerbated by the heteronormative assumption that Man is the boss and Woman is his helpmeet and all of that stuff, and the Beaver Cleaver life is what BDSM is all about. Speaking for myself, I gotta wonder-- how did that happen?

I think I maybe understand myself a little better after reading that And I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels confused at times!
Thanks Stella

 

[Pelagie]

Interesting definitions, Stella. Do you think that once someone identifies as a dominant bottom or service top, that they are stuck in that role? Or is it dependent on the situation?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Interesting definitions, Stella. Do you think that once someone identifies as a dominant bottom or service top, that they are stuck in that role? Or is it dependent on the situation?

It depends on the person, I would say. I identify as both at the same time!

And things change, people change.

Some people start off needing to bottom, then learn that they get as much pleasure out of topping-- or vice versa.

Some people identify as dominant, then meet someone they feel submissive towards-- or vice versa. For some people there is only one person that they feel any particular dynamic with, and someone else that makes them behave otherwise.

Does that make sense?

 

[Curious_in_Cali]

Sexuality is complicated! Especially when it gets all tangled up in people's identity, and their political standing, and their social status. And you know-- anyone who is the least bit deviant from the norm, or who thinks they are-- complicated is the name of the game.

We have allll these labels, see, and we all want life to be simple. If we are going to pick out one label that describes our entire person -- which is a real stupid idea but we all seem to try to do so anyway-- then we'd better know all of the labels available.

And yeah, very few prodommes or lifestyle dommes either, are truly Dominant with any of their clients. They are providing a service.

Yup!

I think studying labels really helped me put language to concepts that I had been unable to communicate or define before. Big fan of the discussion.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=765786&highlight=labels

If the definitions that make sense to you resonate and are helpful on your journey of self discovery then that is wonderful, but if they feel like you are trying to wedge yourself into someone elses old favorite pair of jeans then that is not helpful at all. Keep shopping until you have found the perfect pair of jeans that fit you JUST right and then try not to care if someone else just calls them pants.

Good luck!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Omidog that thread, that dude.

 

[Loverskitten]

Some people identify as dominant, then meet someone they feel submissive towards-- or vice versa. For some people there is only one person that they feel any particular dynamic with, and someone else that makes them behave otherwise.

Does that make sense?

Yes this makes sense! And describes me perfectly!

 

[Pelagie]

Some people identify as dominant, then meet someone they feel submissive towards-- or vice versa. For some people there is only one person that they feel any particular dynamic with, and someone else that makes them behave otherwise.

Does that make sense?

It does. I really the term "service top." Having these terms is so useful.

Now what you call a someone who is involved with a service top but isn't a dominant bottom?

 

[Loverskitten]

Actually I have a question, did the terms top and bottom originate from the gay community? That's where I first heard them. Or was it the BDSM community?
Anybody know?

 

[Stella_Omega]

It does. I really the term "service top." Having these terms is so useful.

Now what you call a someone who is involved with a service top but isn't a dominant bottom?

Umm...
frustrated?
You would call them whatever it is that they are I guess!

Actually I have a question, did the terms top and bottom originate from the gay community? That's where I first heard them. Or was it the BDSM community?
Anybody know?

I think they were gay terminology first. They make good sense even in hetero sexuality, when you think about it-- which many hets never do, but there's nothing like a little kink to get a person thinking!

 

[Curious_in_Cali]

Umm...
frustrated?
You would call them whatever it is that they are I guess!

I wouldn't worry about that problem too much as in my experience labeling tends to um, not be the problem for long. *sigh*

 

[Pelagie]

Umm...
frustrated?

Ha!

I heard top and bottom in reference to gay people before I heard it in reference to BDSM. Before that I think it was typically Dom and sub. Even if they people in question were really tops and bottoms.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I wouldn't worry about that problem too much as in my experience labeling tends to um, not be the problem for long. *sigh*

which is why it's nice to have the right label or anyway, a more righter label, in the first place, don't you think?

The normative idea that there is only one way to play BDSM is really problematic and hurtful.

 

[missgiter]

Hm. Quite a bit to ponder. Thanks for clarifying, Stella. Very interesting to read, and puts a lot into perspective. I might have some things to think about.

-a

 

[RuReal]

You know I was going to protest this post because I do not really buy into the whole label thing as there is so much variety when it comes to people interactions. That being said I do roughly agree with your Top and bottom dynamic even though that tends to throw the switching element out of things.

I believe that people should define their own relationships and things should be determined via negotiation, but I cannot really fault what you have stated.

 

[intriguedwriter]

Good grief. I didn't know it was that complicated.

Now you put it like that though, I do see what you mean. A lot of my escorting clients who thought they were 'submissive' basically just wanted to be hurt and humiliated but according to their own very specific fantasy. Made me feel someone being handed a script rather than control of any kind, if that makes sense.

See, that's interesting to me. I consider myself submissive as well as being ''a bottom" but am definitely NOT into humiliation. Or any severe kind of pain.
It would be more about what the other person wants and providing it for them. I rarely for example give BJs and never volunteer for them but the idea of a man (or woman) teaching me exactly what they like and how for oral pleasure, along with practice, and with men eventaully slowly to full deep-throating totally turns me on.
As does being tied up for someone to do what he or she wants to do to me. A few things I would say no to before anything would start but the rest would be up to them.

But no corny dirty talk either.

 

[BiTodd]

See, that's interesting to me. I consider myself submissive as well as being ''a bottom" but am definitely NOT into humiliation. Or any severe kind of pain.
It would be more about what the other person wants and providing it for them. I rarely for example give BJs and never volunteer for them but the idea of a man (or woman) teaching me exactly what they like and how for oral pleasure, along with practice, and with men eventaully slowly to full deep-throating totally turns me on.
As does being tied up for someone to do what he or she wants to do to me. A few things I would say no to before anything would start but the rest would be up to them.

But no corny dirty talk either.

Not even a few, " take it all. suck it, oh yeah you know you like my cock"?

 

[Brunne]

See, that's interesting to me. I consider myself submissive as well as being ''a bottom" but am definitely NOT into humiliation. Or any severe kind of pain.
It would be more about what the other person wants and providing it for them. I rarely for example give BJs and never volunteer for them but the idea of a man (or woman) teaching me exactly what they like and how for oral pleasure, along with practice, and with men eventaully slowly to full deep-throating totally turns me on.
As does being tied up for someone to do what he or she wants to do to me. A few things I would say no to before anything would start but the rest would be up to them.

But no corny dirty talk either.

I think once you get past the more general 'submissive-bottom' aspect, what you enjoy or not is almost entirely driven by who you are - your unique and innate likes and dislikes, what drives and motivates you, etc.

I would hope that claiming to be a 'submissive-bottom' (or any of the other role/relationship variations for that matter) doesn't ever mean that a specific checklist is automatically assigned of what one must do or what one should like. As you say, it depends on who it is, and why you're doing it as to whether it's a turn-on or not.

 

[intriguedwriter]

Not even a few, " take it all. suck it, oh yeah you know you like my cock"?

That is fine. But some people I know just don't shut up It was more the cheesy "call me master" or 'be a little girl' type stuff. Not big on role-playing along those lines as I have seen in some personals ads. I prefer to concentrate on other senses.

I think once you get past the more general 'submissive-bottom' aspect, what you enjoy or not is almost entirely driven by who you are - your unique and innate likes and dislikes, what drives and motivates you, etc.

I would hope that claiming to be a 'submissive-bottom' (or any of the other role/relationship variations for that matter) doesn't ever mean that a specific checklist is automatically assigned of what one must do or what one should like. As you say, it depends on who it is, and why you're doing it as to whether it's a turn-on or not.

I hate the idea of a checklist... It would be more along the lines of - these are the things I don't want anyone to ever do (before anything even starts and it isn't much) and after that, go nuts with whatever you want to do. The choice is yours. And hope that they are adventurous and like to try new or different things. I am not comfortable pushing other people's boundaries but am comfortable with mine being pushed.
That and hygiene - don't go from ass to anything else without a wash or change of condom.

I noticed that some doms talk about 'training' and that was what I was referring to with the deep-throating - but it would be what that person likes, not me. The idea of 'being trained' turns me on...

My understanding is that the decision regarding what sexual activities are done is decided by the DOM and the submissive goes along. And more importantly not asking me, just doing it.

A bit of background: I was in my early 20s while there was all kinds of media outrage about date rape. Some legitimate in my opinion (no always means no) but some not.
So many of the guys I went to bed with were paranoid and with each next thing they did it was 'can I touch you there?' 'Can I put it in now?' 'Can I take your shirt off?'

I found it to be SUCH a turnoff. I do not even enjoy being assertive in bed.

I like whoever I am with (male or female) to take charge from the get-go. With everything.