What is topping from the bottom?

[cookiecat]

This thread should be a sticky!

This, and another thread on the same thing, opened my eyes to different ways to interpret "topping from the bottom."

Coming in to the discussion, I had a pretty negative idea about it. Not slut-shaming but definitely the sub or bottom manipulating the situation. Placing all the blame on pyl.

It occurs to me I played in to the cliche of the brat pyl able to steamroll her PYL into whatever she wanted. It takes two to play... and really - as many others have stated - it's all about communication. It really doesn't need the label.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[FknNemesis]

I cannot begin to express how strongly I disagree with this.

If everyone is on the same page re: "no no don't throw me in that briar patch!", it isn't Topping From the Bottom; it's two like minded people enjoying the psycho-drama of sex. No harm; no foul.

But there really are instances when pyls non-consensually manipulate the shit out of their partners to get the kind of kinky sex they want, instead of using their words. And THAT is Topping From the Bottom.

If a PYL manipulated, ghosted, or non-consensually coerced a pyl to get what he or she wanted, instead of openly communicating their wants/needs, the kinky universe would implode with rage over what an abusive asshat the PYL was. Screams of "RED FLAG! RUN AWAY!" would come so hot & heavy the resulting windstorm would be reported on the nightly news.

Like I said, if both PYL and pyl understand the game being played, no biggie; not Topping From the Bottom. But manipulation is manipulation, and PYLs are just as vulnerable as pyls.

Own your shit, communicate, get on the same page and kink on.

This.



Know what you are, what you want/need, communicate and make your minds up. I for one am very clear in things. I will surrender but not submit - some will call it switch for switch. Having, setting, and communicating/agreeing boundaries isn't 'topping from the bottom'.

'Topping from the bottom' is actively defining the flow, the outcome while being in the submissive position. The bottom is the one truly in charge. Whether that is manipulation, wanted by the top (takes two to tango, maybe they don't roll merely subconsciously with it), or something else is up to them to define.

I often notice that people aspire to adhere to societal/scene expectations coming from labels, but often don't actually live the life or role. That also goes back to communication - or lack thereof.
The mere possibility of topping from the bottom does too. Unless it is blatant manipulation it wouldn't be possible without the top approving of it. If it is manipulation I think the PYL still has work to do and continue their evolution and mastery. Pun intended.



Aside: I'm going to go on a tangent here and am going to claim that a majority of people who define themselves as sub/DOM(ME) nowadays... aren't. It's a label for many and our society just fkn loves labels.

 

[FknNemesis]

Topping from the bottom cake style!

( not my cake though pictured through photobucket...)

This just gave me a craving for bacon & egg cupcakes. For whatever reasons.

 

[Conager]

...cause a twue DOM would never allow bad behavior to exist.

One look from his steely gaze and a twue sub would melt into a puddle of submssion.

 

[FixJets]

Like it was said before "Backseat driver" is probably the best word for it. The Bottom telling the top what to do.

 

[yellowrocket]

The phrase makes me think of a couple passive partners I've had in the past. Where they dictate what gets done, how their needs are to be met. They expect their needs to be met and if you push beyond what they like they stop everything. Also where they expect you to initiate sexual behavior, and aren't really in it for your needs.

 

[SpunThings]

The phrase makes me think of a couple passive partners I've had in the past. Where they dictate what gets done, how their needs are to be met. They expect their needs to be met and if you push beyond what they like they stop everything. Also where they expect you to initiate sexual behavior, and aren't really in it for your needs.

Expecting someone to stop before they go beyond something you like is not topping from the bottom. It is called discussing consent. Just because someone is a sub, doesn't mean they automatically revoke the ability to consent or not to activities.

 

[yellowrocket]

Expecting someone to stop before they go beyond something you like is not topping from the bottom. It is called discussing consent. Just because someone is a sub, doesn't mean they automatically revoke the ability to consent or not to activities.

It is when the limits of activities are "touch me like this, here, when and how I want and only like that, but have your fun too. Oh and why don't you ever want to try anything new?"

 

[SpunThings]

It is when the limits of activities are "touch me like this, here, when and how I want and only like that, but have your fun too. Oh and why don't you ever want to try anything new?"

The problem with this idea of topping from the bottom is when dominant partners play along. If you want to be in charge, and they don't let you be in charge, why keep trying? Make your expectations clear, and only engage as the dominant partner when they're ready to follow through. I'm not talking about leaving a submissive out of the negotiations, or "my way or the highway" mentality. I'm thinking more along the lines of, "Do you want to submit or not? This and this behavior is not submitting. If you have a problem you should communicate it in this way instead. Otherwise we will not do this. "

Also it may be that some people identify as submissive, but might find the label of bottom fits them better without realizing it. All of this can be worked out with talking, rather than throwing out manipulative language such as "topping from the bottom ".

 

[yellowrocket]

The problem with this idea of topping from the bottom is when dominant partners play along. If you want to be in charge, and they don't let you be in charge, why keep trying? Make your expectations clear, and only engage as the dominant partner when they're ready to follow through. I'm not talking about leaving a submissive out of the negotiations, or "my way or the highway" mentality. I'm thinking more along the lines of, "Do you want to submit or not? This and this behavior is not submitting. If you have a problem you should communicate it in this way instead. Otherwise we will not do this. "

Also it may be that some people identify as submissive, but might find the label of bottom fits them better without realizing it. All of this can be worked out with talking, rather than throwing out manipulative language such as "topping from the bottom ".

This was a very vanilla sexual relationship, but the circumstances can still apply. The phrase applies to someone who wants to dictate things, with out seeming to. A passive aggressive approach if you will.

And maybe that's it. That it's not topping from the bottom, it's trying to be in charge passive aggressively.

 

[SpunThings]

This was a very vanilla sexual relationship, but the circumstances can still apply. The phrase applies to someone who wants to dictate things, with out seeming to. A passive aggressive approach if you will.

And maybe that's it. That it's not topping from the bottom, it's trying to be in charge passive aggressively.

Actually it doesn't apply at all if you don't have an already agreed upon d/s dynamic. In a vanilla relationship I'd call that someone who doesn't meet your needs. Maybe selfish by what you described, or just not interested enough in what you want.

Topping from the bottom only works if someone has agreed to be on the bottom in the first place.