Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress



Message

AAkasha -> Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 1:39:28 PM)

The first challenge is to get a man to admit and "label" himself as a bottom.  I think that bottoms are seen as selfish and self serving. They are constantly associated with terms like "do me sub" or "topping from the bottom" or seen as looking for merely a woman to be on the other end of the whip. 

Other times, it seems like bottoms are forced to position themselves, somehow, as "service oriented" in order to get their needs met.  I think they are scratching their head wondering if the prospect of a relationship will ultimately include trading "service" for BDSM.

Is there also a perception that bottoming, in and of itself, removes the element of power exchange? After all, if the person is bottoming to acts (pain, bondage, humiliation) willingly and is actually actively seeking out that kind of stimulation, how can it be called power exchange anyway?

I crave a level of "surrender" in my power exchange that drives me away from bottoms who have very specific fetishes. However, I also have found that capable bottoms really understand what I need as a "fetish top."  I find myself wondering if bottoms could better position themselves and what they bring to the table in a way that appeals to dominant tops.

For example, what qualities, experiences or capabilities would a "bondage bottom" bring to the table in a relationship?  Surely the answer isn't, "He is willing to be tied up."  For those submissives who feel they're also (or, essentially) a "bottom," what do you believe makes you special or unique?  How can you communicate that to a potential partner?

Do tops seek specific qualities from bottoms?

Do you see a difference between a masochist and a bottom? 

Do you believe that bottoms are inherently more selfish, by the nature of their wiring, than submissives?

Akasha



TNstepsout -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 1:51:53 PM)

As a newbie what an experienced bottom could bring to me is feedback so I know I'm learning to read a sub properly and to do things right. Although that may not be what you had in mind with your question. I'm pretty flexible about what I'm looking for because I have a lot to learn and a bottom is fine with me. The only thing I wouldn't want is a bottom who only wanted what he wanted and never gave me what I wanted. In other words if he liked being spanked, flogged, caned etc.... if my favorite thing of all was hair pulling and biting, well he'd have to endure a bit of that to get his flogging.




LASub4Real -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 2:12:57 PM)

I assume that by, "bottom" you mean someone who does not want to be submisive in a relationship but just wishes to bottom during S/M play?

LAsub



nephandi -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 2:30:04 PM)

Hi

Yes bottoms are often looked down on. It is an unfortunate trend that submissives are seen as more real than bottoms and slaves are seen as more real then submissives. The effect is that pepole often label themself wrong and only grief follow.

To me a bottom is somone that is just interested in BDSM in the bedroom and not lifestyle BDSM and there is nothing wrong whit that. The bottoms are in no way more shallow or less than those that want to live BDSM 24/7.

i wish you well



LadyHibiscus -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 3:01:11 PM)

I am a dominant sadist.  While I do fetishize obedience, I am very happy playing--if not happiest playing--with a person who defines him or herself as a masochist. 

A good bottom player is not someone to be sneered at, and I really do feel that they are looked on as less worthy or less serious than power exchange players.  If it's Mr Do Me, well, yes, he is not interesting to me.  Mr One Trick Pony doesn't do much for me either (ballbusters come to mind here...)  But, a person who is on the receiving end of a scene, sharing the experience, giving feedback, and giving me full entertainment value in exchange for their endorphin high is a great thing.  That experience might not be as emotionally intense as the one I have with someone that I am in a power exchange relationship with, but the elements of trust and reciprocity are still there, and the potential for a meaningful relationship is as well.

Looking at it from the outside, I see that men (and women?) are pushed into the submissive role, even if they really have no idea what it means.  It makes be nuts when a man says he is a submissive then shows by his words and actions that he just wants to play.  Well come out and SAY that, for heaven's sake.  I am sure that I am not the only woman or man who doesn't mind playing JUST for play, as long as it's worthwhile.  It's OKAY to just have FUN. 

What's not okay?  Directing the scene like a script---I didn't accept that kind of thing when I was a pro, it's not happening now.  It's not okay to not learn my name, or to speak to me disrespectfully.  It's not okay to lie there like a dead thing so the top gets nothing but aerobic exercise.  Genuine selfishness?  NOT okay. 



Decimus -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 3:18:36 PM)

Just a little of my own insight here due to the wording the previous posters used. Just semantics wise the reason why those words are thought to be more "real" is because the terminology used explicitly states how much someone is willing to do for the other with little or no thought of reciprocation. For those dom/me's that prefer obedience and pleasure they know semantically those are the best group to key into. In addition it is possible that many people would like a full time BDSM relationship, which is why they prefer those "labels" as opposed to someone who only wants this type as play.

As for non semantics based, I am sure there are a few reasons that this is done but one I am sure of is that bottoms are perceived to be more likely to top from the bottom which no one likes.



CollegeConundrum -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 3:34:44 PM)

Submission is giving of yourself.  Giving of yourself is the antithesis of selfishness.

Does the how or why matter, as long as you're both happy?



thetammyjo -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 4:51:01 PM)

If I'm with a bottom I don't expect any power or authority to be exchanged.

I see it as an artistic activity where we work together to create sensations and responses.

I had a friend who adored knife play so I used him (and he I) to practice my skills on for several months. At one point he looked back at me, his eyes a bit glazed and called me "Mistress". I didn't stop the scene immediately but I did slow things down then stop them. Afterward when we were out splitting a malt (that was our arrangement) I told him what he'd said and explained that I wasn't comfortable with that unless we were in a Ds dynamic. That got us back on firm footing for our bottom-top dynamic.



simmie -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 5:04:53 PM)

I identify more as a bottom than as a submissive.  I think we bottoms are very much looked down upon.  I’m often told I’m not submissive enough.  Duh, I always tell people right from the start that I’m mostly a bottom,  Or that I don’t have anything to offer a master or mistress.  Duh again, since I am also upfront about not looking for a master or mistress. 

I’m called selfish too.  I think it’s pretty human to want what we want.  We are all selfish to a certain degree.  A dom/me wanting obedience gets the dom/me’s needs met just as a sub/slave serving gets the subs needs met.  Nothing wrong there.  So what’s so wrong with a top and a bottom serving one another’s needs?  Or a sadist and a masochist?  It’s all selfish behavior because they are getting their own needs met, yet it is all very giving behavior too because they are serving one another in whatever way they have agreed upon.  So I’m okay with being selfish and honest about my desires, otherwise resentments can build.

As a bottom, I submit for a scene, however long that scene may last, be it an hour or five hours.  Identifying as a bottom doesn’t mean I want to top from the bottom.  I adore submitting for that time, but outside of a scene I prefer equality.  I’m not into service, I’m not into protocol and formalities.  I enjoy serving the relationship but only if my partner does as well.  For me, reciprocity is essential to any relationship. 

As for what I believe makes me special or unique?  Well, there’s no such thing as a cookie-cutter bottom any more than there is a cookie-cutter sub/dom/top/master/etc.  So what makes me unique is pretty simple really:  I’m me … smart, funny, sarcastic, moody, masochistic, kind, judgmental at times, open-minded at other times, etc.  I can communicate that to a potential partner by being honest about whatever we are talking about.  I can also communicate that being a bottom is not better or worse than being a sub, better or worse than being a dom.  It’s all a part of the same spectrum.



sodsta -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 5:38:04 PM)

Brilliantly put, simmie. I agree 100% 



RumpusParable -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 5:56:55 PM)

"They are constantly associated with terms like "do me sub" or "topping from the bottom" or seen as looking for merely a woman to be on the other end of the whip."

 
As I've said elsewhere, I've never encounterred anyone viewing or expressing the view that bottoms are selfish, or other negativities.  I am purely a bottom when it comes to play on that end and haven't gotten any bad treatment or comments from others of either sex.  Nor have I run into it with the other dominants I've spoken to in real life or here (if I have, I've missed it in the passing by).  Am not stating it doesn't exist, but that I've not yet run into personally so far as I can remember.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with being purely a bottom.  I do, however, loathe "do-me subs" and those who "top from the bottom".

Very different things than someone being a bottom.  There's a dishonesty there, an attempt at manipulation even, that is what I do not like.

If someone walks up to me and says, "Hey, I love to bottom, I'm just looking for someone I like to slap me around (pee on me, bind me, whatever) some because I'm craving it" or similar then we've no problems what so ever.  I may turn them down, depending on my mood and interest in them, but I've zero annoyance or negative thought on what they want or where they are coming from.

However, should that same person walk up to me and say, "Oh Mistress, I want to please you, submit to you, have you do whatever makes you happy with me, I have these ___ limits but otherwise please let's make this all about you...  Now stand there like ___, wear ____; I want you to whip me with X here, here and here until I feel like moving on to C, D and E.  What?  How DARE you expect me to fetch your drink, try that flogger instead of this one, or allow you to tell me at all what to do???".   As is what so often turns up, especially online.

Well, then I'm annoyed to have run into another "do-me sub".

A bottom searching for a top? We are a-okay with each other.

A bottom searching for a top while telling me that you're submissive and want me to dominate you but only how you say and only to fullfill your desires in kinks?  I've zero time or patience.

 



RumpusParable -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 6:08:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha
Is there also a perception that bottoming, in and of itself, removes the element of power exchange? After all, if the person is bottoming to acts (pain, bondage, humiliation) willingly and is actually actively seeking out that kind of stimulation, how can it be called power exchange anyway?


To this part, no, I don't believe that willingly bottoming *removes* PE in a situation.  Everything we do is willingly, unless we're not in a consentual relationship/situation.

Bottoming can be done with either or both people "in charge" of the situation.  Or one person "in charge" of the other person.  But this is foolish to waste finger or head time one as it's obvious, so I won't waste anymore of folks reading time on it... as by nature I tend to ramble on! :)

quote:

Do tops seek specific qualities from bottoms?

Do you see a difference between a masochist and a bottom? 

Do you believe that bottoms are inherently more selfish, by the nature of their wiring, than submissives?


Taken in order:

1)  Yes, I do, when I choose to top.  The person themselves has to somehow engage my interest and/or the kink(s) have to be one's I'm craving at the time.

2)  Yes.  This is a timewaster question.  Bottoming does not equal receiving pain, nor is it the same as enjoying painful acts for the pain itself.

3)  No.  And for that matter, why are we speaking of them as though they're different people?  Many folks are both submissive and bottoms, mixed together and completely separate in their lives... submitting only to some, submitting and bottoming to some, and bottoming only to others all depending on this interests, the situation and who the partner(s) in question is.



FullfigRIMaam -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 8:07:39 PM)

Both of RumpusParable's resoponses cover everything I wanted to respond to, so I defer to her words in explaining my thoughts that being a bottom is not seen as negative if one is honest about it...
I personally haven't much use for a bottom if he isn't also a match as a lover for me, but always say to each his own.    M



amayos -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 10:45:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

Do you believe that bottoms are inherently more selfish, by the nature of their wiring, than submissives?



Generally, yes. I have noticed the characteristics we identify as "bottoming" usually point to an effect-based / sensual escapist mentality, whereas those who possess the traits of a reliable servant show a greater selflessness in the ability to be happy by suffering or giving without barter.

In my mind, the popular contempt for the bottom comes not from the act of bottoming, but the dishonesty and confusion surrounding it. Words like "slave" or "submissive" or "bottom" are seen as interchangeable by many who practice BDSM, and this puts a lot of people on a lot of different pages. I would imagine many would-be slave owners have been disappointed to discover their prospective candidates are really little more than bottoms calling themselves slaves—only because it sounds so much more romantic to do so.

If someone of the bottoming (or topping) mindset has the personal accountability to be honest to others about what they seek, there is nothing selfish about being a bottom or top at all. It's pretending to be something you're not that's harmfully selfish and irresponsible. Deception and ignorance are the true culprits behind the negative stigma, in my mind.




AAkasha -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/21/2007 10:55:53 PM)


I really don't want this thread to go the path of defining labels. I think what I am getting at is one issue specifically.  For me, when I am in the mode of really satisfying my "dominant top"/fetishy side, I want a man who can scratch an itch; specifically, this requires some abilities (some learned, some seem to be very natural for others) that can differentiate a good bottom from a bad bottom (or bad match, if you want to be PC and not hurt anyone's feelings). And it's not just a matter of 'a selfish bottom' ("satisfy all my kinks first/only, Mistress!") or a "topping from the bottom" sort ("I guess I am being bad, maybe I need a spanking now!"), or even a "boring bottom" (he just sits there and shows no signs of life or turns into a "Yes Mistress! No Mistress! Anything you say Mistress!" robot).

For me, a capable/exceptional "bottom" (or, submissive, depending on your label) does a variety of things in response to pain/restraint/humiliation, namely:

* He reacts - and he reacts in a way that communicates what he's feeling.  An exceptional bottom will also figure out which reactions push which buttons of mine, so he can make the activity more stimluating for me.
* He is sensual.  He knows how to use his body to communicate on a variety of levels - his eyes, his lips, his fingers, his hips.  He oozes emotion, but not in a campy, overly-melodramatic or goofy way.
* He is intuitive.  He can read my emotion and feed into it, and respond keenly and accurately to my signals.
* He conveys core emotions like fear, vulnerability or desperation with either complete honesty (he can get to that place with or without my sadism or passion), or he can roleplay it so believably that I cannot tell the difference. The former requires a tremendous amount of courage and humility; the latter takes keen skill.  I find both to be incredible and one is not better than the other. I also find that the inability to do either of these will make it all lacking for me.

Those are the main ones that come into my head. If you read them, they are all decidedly *proactive*.  They require a man to be paying attention, thinking ahead, and focussing his attention on me; this is not "bottoming" in a sense that he is just a recipient of acts that I crave doing.  I get no "pleasure" from simply dominating a man; I need a man that can push my buttons.  This requires action on his part, and action that is not obvious.  Some men seem to get it right away, others learn it, and then there are others that are useless (no offense to them) when in this situation because they are too overwhelmed with their own head to pay any attention to what's going on with me.  I think most men can "get it" with some work and practice; the question is whether or not this work is worth it to them or if it ruins the experience.

With that in mind, I have a hard time seeing "good bottoming" as *passive*.  So is good bottoming "submissive" because his attention, desire, and need to please -- even while being on the receiving end of acts -- is focused on me? 

But more importantly, do femdoms place value on "good bottoming" -- or it is pretty much my own neurosis/kinks/desires?   Are the three qualities I listed above fairly universal?  Or, are they just specific to me?  Do male tops desire the same in female bottoms?

Do you see bottoming as inherently proactive -- or, is it just the opposite?

Akasha



DiannaVesta -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/22/2007 6:59:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha
With that in mind, I have a hard time seeing "good bottoming" as *passive*.  So is good bottoming "submissive" because his attention, desire, and need to please -- even while being on the receiving end of acts -- is focused on me? 

But more importantly, do femdoms place value on "good bottoming" -- or it is pretty much my own neurosis/kinks/desires?   Are the three qualities I listed above fairly universal?  Or, are they just specific to me?  Do male tops desire the same in female bottoms?

Do you see bottoming as inherently proactive -- or, is it just the opposite?

Akasha



I understand what you’re getting at and I think there are tops to match the bottoms that are not submissive. I remember many many years ago in NYC someone telling me that this girl was a bottom but she wasn’t submissive. I found that really strange because back then anyone that got their ass beat was slave. That was my ignorance. As the years went on I began to understand and appreciate the labels, however I feel that labels/words are still far to inadequate to describe a dynamic.
  When someone as me what I’m into my first response is “control”. That is a dynamic for me. Everything happens under that umbrella of female domination. In order for me to have control I need submission. Everything else is secondary and changes depending on the foundation you place it on. A good bottom that wasn’t submissive wouldn’t do anything for me. A good submissive that also happens to be a good bottom will definitely float my boat!



LadyPact -> RE: Are bottoms seen as selfish? (or, "Reinventing bottoms") (10/22/2007 10:11:50 AM)

Hey, Rumpus, weren't We talking about something like this the last time We had a f2f opportunity?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being either a Top or a bottom.  There's nothing wrong with play just for play's sake.  If that is what a person is wanting to experience, why should they feel like they are more or less than someone else who is pursuing something different. 
 
From My own definitiions, I am a Mistrees.  I am clip's Dominant, and I still often Top.  These things all have benefits in their own rights.  I may refer to them in different situations, but it doesn't make one better than the other or less than the other.  My trips to space as a Top aren't rivaled by those I experience as a Mistress.  There's nothing wron with that.
 
Much like Rumpus said, I have a greater difficulty dealing with those who go on and on about what a wonderful submissive they are, when all they really want to do is have a good scene and an exciting experience.  I'm much more likely to Top someone for casual play who is honest about the matter.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.3515625