Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Illegals entering Domland at a record rate. Basic values are threatened.
Thousands without proper documentation, even the most basic 'dom' or 'sub' Deviant Status papers, are entering the BDSM forums and communities every day. Some who lack proper categorization brazenly proclaim themselves as such, and have the unmitigated gall to demonstrate on the streets, in front of legal dom/sub couples and their impressionable children.
Everyone has heard of 'doms' and 'subs', and how each person is one or the other, usually from birth. And lately there the fine PYL/pyl talk. The basic lawful categories are being brought to all corners of the earth. But now the fabric of lawful deviant society is being challenged. Some of the most dangerous of these undocumented people are calling themselves 'tops.'
They were seen years back, but it was thought that the danger had faded. The original terms (post WWII), those of the 'old guard,' were S and M. By the 80s, the newer terms, 'top' and 'bottom' were common in the leather community. Nonetheless the threat to polite society was still perceived.
Fortunately, for at least the last decade, those newer terms have been eclipsed by the proper, legal ones, such 'dom' and 'sub'. And if all goes smoothly, acceptance is on its way.
But lately all of that is threatened. It's gotten so that they live next door to respectable documented deviants. Some pair off with 'bottoms' and they all refuse to fit in. The females have an unusually high birth rate. The southern portions of Domland are threatened with becoming a kind of 'Topxico,' whose inhabitants do not speak the common language or even comprehend such simple terms as PYL.
To help everyone deal with the menace, to 'know the enemy,' it might be useful to highlight some distinctions that mark 'tops' and 'bottoms.' A starting point, a first task, is to understand their words. Most are ones that seem innocent, but in fact are a kind of code, like the term 'fuzz' that some criminals use for police.
TOP:
What is a 'top.' It is not a synonym for 'dom'.
A top is a one who--perhaps often--does something: He or she 'tops' or engages in 'topping.'
The point: A top is one with a role, like the pitcher in a baseball game. A Dom, however, is more like a "righty" (right handed person). A righty just IS a righty. It's his character, his nature, being righty. He is, so to say, born to his high and well-deserved status in Domland.
The pitcher is being (acting) a pitcher, only on the baseball field. He's just Mr. Roger Clemens off the field. He does not throw beer mugs at targets in the pub. A pitcher is the one on the baseball field doing the pitching: standing there and firing the ball right near the batter.
Topping means being in charge of a sexual encounter ("scene") , being the one who is more active. So the term 'Top', even less than the term 'Dom' (dominating), does not extend to other social interactions.
Topping, being a top, is not a 'lifestyle choice.' Hence its threat to the 'lifestyle' movement.
Does the 'Top' try to 'top' the checkout girl in the grocery store? No. He [or 'she'--I simply take 'he' of this example] --politely gives her what she says is owed. If she makes what he thinks is a mistake, does he say, "Well I am the top, here, and I say it's a mistake and you'd better listen and give me the refund." No. He politely discusses the matter.
That is the widest sense of 'topping'.
A bottom, correspondingly, is the one who, without being coerced, engages in the encounter with the top: s/he has accepted someone else's being in charge.
The top does not seize unwilling maidens or 'youth' off the street. Is he or she looking for someone saying "I want you to do me.' Not usually, more often someone who is going to accept 'being done' --to respond to the sentiment, "I want to fuck you," to be pursued and (legally) captured, so to say.
More specifically, we ask, "What is the top doing, when in charge" Well, often through restraints, causing pain, or evoking humiliation (or shame, etc)--these being sadistic acts. Why? The Sadist has a sexual motive; he or she gets off on it (hard, wet, all of the above). This is what makes the Top, in the narrow or precise sense. And that sadism is why he or she makes right-thinking deviants uncomfortable.
Q: --Doesn't the 'bottom' get off (come)?
That, 'coming,' may well happen, if there's an initial, mutual understanding about it. If the issue is unstated, the bottom may not count on it. The Top is not petty; s/he is not averse to the other's pleasure and release per se, but is often neutral. The Top, unasked, might with careless generosity say, "Go ahead and stroke yourself off, I'm finished." Or, in allowing the release, the Top may ensure that it is entirely within the specified framework (of which the bottom has gained more than an inkling, from early on), and pursuant to the top's ends. Take this example.
The top, having already come in the bottom's mouth, might say, to this bottom, whom he knows to be shy, "Stroke yourself till you cum; now, in front of me [and my friend]." So we see that the top may work with the bottom's orgasm, that is, use it as a means to his or her own ends. In the present example, the Top is sadistically using the orgasm to reinforce (reward) shame-inducing behavior.
The important point about "top" not being a thing (or 'type'), but a 'role', is that the next encounter could, in theory, be quite different. The top may bottom in the next encounter (possibly with a different person), i.e., accept the other person's control over a scene, or the top may express a continuing preference. Tops and bottoms, so to say, are 'shape shifters,' making their detection more difficult--and their threat greater.
Let's look at the old 'whose is in charge?' question? We said, 'the top is in charge of the sexual encounter.' What's the problem?
--The argument goes, Can't the bottom just walk away?
Well, maybe. Certainly after being untied, etc. he or she can. Is that control? I don't think so. It does end any further 'topping' for the time being of course.
--So then the bottom is in charge.
No, I said "in charge of an encounter." The bottom has control of his/her movements. The person who walks away from a tennis match has not 'taken over' the match or 'won' over the other, by choosing to end the match. A movie theater owner manages the theater, selects the movie, makes the 'house rules,'. Yes, a patron may 'walk out.' But that does not make him in charge of the manager or the theater. A patron may want to stay, but the manager, the one in charge, can evict him.
--OK, but if I pay a Top to, for example, flog me, am I not in charge?
First, a top may well NOT enter a commercial-sex transaction as a matter of principle. Just as Mr. Clemens may decline, after winning a game, to hawk little plastic replicas of himself. For when the Top becomes a trader of services for money, things may sometimes become a little blurry. It depends if the payer is trying to dictate the details, the nuts and bolt of the scene, when, and how it stops. Should that be the case, the payer is indeed the 'top' regardless of his physical position--e.g., getting pegged by the one he hired.
If, however, the payer enters the top's abode in a frame of mind to accept what happens, it's different. Consider how a patient enters a hospital, paying and signing the form authorizing an operation *and whatever is medically necessary.* The surgeon remains in charge. Then we may be able to say the top, at whose tender mercies, the bottom places him- or herself, similarly remains in charge. (Though of course there is an agreed plan is to perform an appendectomy, not a kidney removal.)
--Is what a (sexual) Dom does in each encounter, "topping"?
In the wide sense, yes, since a Dom is certainly in charge. In the narrow sense, 'no'; because 1) the Dom is doing more than 'being in charge,' s/he is commanding, imposing--such is his rightful, leading place in society. 2) The Dom, presumably 'gets off' on doing his 'domly' (command) practice, in and of itself; it is his lifestyle which comes from his character. 3) The Dom does not necessarily inflict hurt; The Top aims, in an accepted way, to 'hurt' the bottom.
--Well, then, is a top, a kind of weak or less harsh 'dom' for the session.
No, dominating, having someone lick your boots is not obviously harsher than topping, say, by biting their nipples or piercing them.
--If someone 'tops' all the time does that make him or her a Dom?
No, 'top' is for most, a role, like an occupation; he or she may well lack the character or character traits of the Dom. It because of the 'character' or basic quality of the Dom that s/he, as a matter of course, commands the undertakings in the bedroom---some would even say, elsewhere.
This is just a brief summary, and lots of issues remain to be debated. Should there be a "Guest Tops Program" ? How do we know they'll ever leave Domland? Should a fence be built? --But the bare bones of 'tops' and 'topping' practices should now be on the table for comment. Hopefully, from this article, they can better be identified. That is the first step in discussing how to deal with them.
===
Here is a definition of 'top' that somewhat agrees with the above:
deviants' dictionary, 1997,
Ed. Des de Moor
top
http://public.diversity.org.uk/deviant/bodyr-t.htm#TTop
Top and its complement bottom are two terms coined in the last two decades to designate the 'agent' and 'patient' roles respectively in an SM scene while avoiding the loadedness of the existing terms like master-slave; they can be used just in relation to the scene itself and don't imply anything about the participants' regular practice, though they are also used to describe people who typically take one role or the other.
Also may not imply role-played domination and submission but just who does what to whom. Confusingly some people associate them with anal intercourse, but it should be remembered that some tops like to get fucked too. A person who alternates both roles, either from scene to scene or within a scene, is known as a switch or switch-hitter.
Thousands without proper documentation, even the most basic 'dom' or 'sub' Deviant Status papers, are entering the BDSM forums and communities every day. Some who lack proper categorization brazenly proclaim themselves as such, and have the unmitigated gall to demonstrate on the streets, in front of legal dom/sub couples and their impressionable children.
Everyone has heard of 'doms' and 'subs', and how each person is one or the other, usually from birth. And lately there the fine PYL/pyl talk. The basic lawful categories are being brought to all corners of the earth. But now the fabric of lawful deviant society is being challenged. Some of the most dangerous of these undocumented people are calling themselves 'tops.'
They were seen years back, but it was thought that the danger had faded. The original terms (post WWII), those of the 'old guard,' were S and M. By the 80s, the newer terms, 'top' and 'bottom' were common in the leather community. Nonetheless the threat to polite society was still perceived.
Fortunately, for at least the last decade, those newer terms have been eclipsed by the proper, legal ones, such 'dom' and 'sub'. And if all goes smoothly, acceptance is on its way.
But lately all of that is threatened. It's gotten so that they live next door to respectable documented deviants. Some pair off with 'bottoms' and they all refuse to fit in. The females have an unusually high birth rate. The southern portions of Domland are threatened with becoming a kind of 'Topxico,' whose inhabitants do not speak the common language or even comprehend such simple terms as PYL.
To help everyone deal with the menace, to 'know the enemy,' it might be useful to highlight some distinctions that mark 'tops' and 'bottoms.' A starting point, a first task, is to understand their words. Most are ones that seem innocent, but in fact are a kind of code, like the term 'fuzz' that some criminals use for police.
TOP:
What is a 'top.' It is not a synonym for 'dom'.
A top is a one who--perhaps often--does something: He or she 'tops' or engages in 'topping.'
The point: A top is one with a role, like the pitcher in a baseball game. A Dom, however, is more like a "righty" (right handed person). A righty just IS a righty. It's his character, his nature, being righty. He is, so to say, born to his high and well-deserved status in Domland.
The pitcher is being (acting) a pitcher, only on the baseball field. He's just Mr. Roger Clemens off the field. He does not throw beer mugs at targets in the pub. A pitcher is the one on the baseball field doing the pitching: standing there and firing the ball right near the batter.
Topping means being in charge of a sexual encounter ("scene") , being the one who is more active. So the term 'Top', even less than the term 'Dom' (dominating), does not extend to other social interactions.
Topping, being a top, is not a 'lifestyle choice.' Hence its threat to the 'lifestyle' movement.
Does the 'Top' try to 'top' the checkout girl in the grocery store? No. He [or 'she'--I simply take 'he' of this example] --politely gives her what she says is owed. If she makes what he thinks is a mistake, does he say, "Well I am the top, here, and I say it's a mistake and you'd better listen and give me the refund." No. He politely discusses the matter.
That is the widest sense of 'topping'.
A bottom, correspondingly, is the one who, without being coerced, engages in the encounter with the top: s/he has accepted someone else's being in charge.
The top does not seize unwilling maidens or 'youth' off the street. Is he or she looking for someone saying "I want you to do me.' Not usually, more often someone who is going to accept 'being done' --to respond to the sentiment, "I want to fuck you," to be pursued and (legally) captured, so to say.
More specifically, we ask, "What is the top doing, when in charge" Well, often through restraints, causing pain, or evoking humiliation (or shame, etc)--these being sadistic acts. Why? The Sadist has a sexual motive; he or she gets off on it (hard, wet, all of the above). This is what makes the Top, in the narrow or precise sense. And that sadism is why he or she makes right-thinking deviants uncomfortable.
Q: --Doesn't the 'bottom' get off (come)?
That, 'coming,' may well happen, if there's an initial, mutual understanding about it. If the issue is unstated, the bottom may not count on it. The Top is not petty; s/he is not averse to the other's pleasure and release per se, but is often neutral. The Top, unasked, might with careless generosity say, "Go ahead and stroke yourself off, I'm finished." Or, in allowing the release, the Top may ensure that it is entirely within the specified framework (of which the bottom has gained more than an inkling, from early on), and pursuant to the top's ends. Take this example.
The top, having already come in the bottom's mouth, might say, to this bottom, whom he knows to be shy, "Stroke yourself till you cum; now, in front of me [and my friend]." So we see that the top may work with the bottom's orgasm, that is, use it as a means to his or her own ends. In the present example, the Top is sadistically using the orgasm to reinforce (reward) shame-inducing behavior.
The important point about "top" not being a thing (or 'type'), but a 'role', is that the next encounter could, in theory, be quite different. The top may bottom in the next encounter (possibly with a different person), i.e., accept the other person's control over a scene, or the top may express a continuing preference. Tops and bottoms, so to say, are 'shape shifters,' making their detection more difficult--and their threat greater.
Let's look at the old 'whose is in charge?' question? We said, 'the top is in charge of the sexual encounter.' What's the problem?
--The argument goes, Can't the bottom just walk away?
Well, maybe. Certainly after being untied, etc. he or she can. Is that control? I don't think so. It does end any further 'topping' for the time being of course.
--So then the bottom is in charge.
No, I said "in charge of an encounter." The bottom has control of his/her movements. The person who walks away from a tennis match has not 'taken over' the match or 'won' over the other, by choosing to end the match. A movie theater owner manages the theater, selects the movie, makes the 'house rules,'. Yes, a patron may 'walk out.' But that does not make him in charge of the manager or the theater. A patron may want to stay, but the manager, the one in charge, can evict him.
--OK, but if I pay a Top to, for example, flog me, am I not in charge?
First, a top may well NOT enter a commercial-sex transaction as a matter of principle. Just as Mr. Clemens may decline, after winning a game, to hawk little plastic replicas of himself. For when the Top becomes a trader of services for money, things may sometimes become a little blurry. It depends if the payer is trying to dictate the details, the nuts and bolt of the scene, when, and how it stops. Should that be the case, the payer is indeed the 'top' regardless of his physical position--e.g., getting pegged by the one he hired.
If, however, the payer enters the top's abode in a frame of mind to accept what happens, it's different. Consider how a patient enters a hospital, paying and signing the form authorizing an operation *and whatever is medically necessary.* The surgeon remains in charge. Then we may be able to say the top, at whose tender mercies, the bottom places him- or herself, similarly remains in charge. (Though of course there is an agreed plan is to perform an appendectomy, not a kidney removal.)
--Is what a (sexual) Dom does in each encounter, "topping"?
In the wide sense, yes, since a Dom is certainly in charge. In the narrow sense, 'no'; because 1) the Dom is doing more than 'being in charge,' s/he is commanding, imposing--such is his rightful, leading place in society. 2) The Dom, presumably 'gets off' on doing his 'domly' (command) practice, in and of itself; it is his lifestyle which comes from his character. 3) The Dom does not necessarily inflict hurt; The Top aims, in an accepted way, to 'hurt' the bottom.
--Well, then, is a top, a kind of weak or less harsh 'dom' for the session.
No, dominating, having someone lick your boots is not obviously harsher than topping, say, by biting their nipples or piercing them.
--If someone 'tops' all the time does that make him or her a Dom?
No, 'top' is for most, a role, like an occupation; he or she may well lack the character or character traits of the Dom. It because of the 'character' or basic quality of the Dom that s/he, as a matter of course, commands the undertakings in the bedroom---some would even say, elsewhere.
This is just a brief summary, and lots of issues remain to be debated. Should there be a "Guest Tops Program" ? How do we know they'll ever leave Domland? Should a fence be built? --But the bare bones of 'tops' and 'topping' practices should now be on the table for comment. Hopefully, from this article, they can better be identified. That is the first step in discussing how to deal with them.
===
Here is a definition of 'top' that somewhat agrees with the above:
deviants' dictionary, 1997,
Ed. Des de Moor
top
http://public.diversity.org.uk/deviant/bodyr-t.htm#TTop
Top and its complement bottom are two terms coined in the last two decades to designate the 'agent' and 'patient' roles respectively in an SM scene while avoiding the loadedness of the existing terms like master-slave; they can be used just in relation to the scene itself and don't imply anything about the participants' regular practice, though they are also used to describe people who typically take one role or the other.
Also may not imply role-played domination and submission but just who does what to whom. Confusingly some people associate them with anal intercourse, but it should be remembered that some tops like to get fucked too. A person who alternates both roles, either from scene to scene or within a scene, is known as a switch or switch-hitter.
Last edited:
And aren't we all in this top/bottom area more than in the Dom/sub area if we meet in a place called 'BDSM forum' which stands mainly for the activities you just said belong to the top/bottom part. 
