RE: BOTTOMS

RE: BOTTOMS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Celeste43 -> RE: BOTTOMS (10/22/2007 3:07:25 PM)
Reread the op. She says that men lie and state they are submissive when they are only bottoms. And then she says that there ought to be a category saying bottom. So how is it lying when they can't give a correct answer because it doesn't exist here? As a result many bottoms, who are only sexually submissive, do choose submissive because it is the closest available option. If someone insisted I choose my favorite color and only gave me the choice of blue or green, without a neither being acceptable, and then decided I deserved punishment for lying if I picked blue(which is my second choice) because I didn't have the option of saying pink, that would be wrong. A bottom only has no category that is correct they can pick from and thus shouldn't be accused of lying when they don't have the correct category to select.

MistressDolly -> RE: BOTTOMS (10/22/2007 3:51:49 PM)
What does your objection to the OP's opinion have to do with me?

RaynaSub -> RE: BOTTOMS (10/22/2007 3:59:34 PM)
CM does need to add the Top and bottom categories, good suggestion.

YesMistressIrish -> RE: BOTTOMS (10/22/2007 5:09:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Celeste43 Reread the op. She says that men lie and state they are submissive when they are only bottoms. And then she says that there ought to be a category saying bottom. So how is it lying when they can't give a correct answer because it doesn't exist here? As a result many bottoms, who are only sexually submissive, do choose submissive because it is the closest available option. If someone insisted I choose my favorite color and only gave me the choice of blue or green, without a neither being acceptable, and then decided I deserved punishment for lying if I picked blue(which is my second choice) because I didn't have the option of saying pink, that would be wrong. A bottom only has no category that is correct they can pick from and thus shouldn't be accused of lying when they don't have the correct category to select. *Celeste,* *Whoa! I never said anything about punishment. I am offering a suggestion so they can 'pick their favorite color', not receive any kind of punishment!* My whole point here is to give bottoms a place to call their own, because many say 'sure I'll do anything for you' when they might actually mean: 'please, make me your bottom.' [:D] Because they don't have a category, they are forced into a box where they don't fit. I am against so much labeling. My purpose with this thread was to create a solution, so we don't have to go through many emails, iming and or phone, just to find out: Gee, they want to be a sex sub only. Lets' focus on how I am trying to help dommes and subs alike by offering a suggestion that may actually help hundreds of people make easier choices and find who they're looking for without having to make a full declaration of submission. *No intention to be inflamatory on my part. Simply offering a suggestion and running it by people here on the boards.*

CuriousLord -> RE: BOTTOMS (10/22/2007 5:24:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YesMistressIrish This is what I wrote to support here on cm: Please add these categories to CM: BOTTOM: As you know, so many, many men say 'submissive' when they mean BOTTOM. So, they lie to get close and hope to be topped. BOTTOM as a category has a huge base here on cm. Certainly much bigger than submissive? TOPs: For all the bdsm fun. they will look for bottoms and not subs. Cm is unintentionally forcing men to lie. Let's give all those bottoms and dommes a break and add the category: BOTTOM Let's save hundreds of hrs and allow people get to rt much faster because the men get to say who and what they really are. For women also, of course, but it's mostly men who have to lie here. We really need to have these options for profiles and their own forums! Irish What do you all think of these as an added category and forum titles? I strongly agree. It'd be a good thing to impliment.

YesMistressIrish -> RE: BOTTOMS (10/22/2007 5:28:54 PM)
*My thanks to evreyone who replied and shared their opinion, either way. [:D]*

ownedgirlie -> RE: BOTTOMS (10/22/2007 5:33:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BRNaughtyAngel I'm gonna go with Straight, Potentially Situationally Bi, Bottoming, Female, Submissive, Paper Slave. [sm=tongue.gif] Heh.... [;)] Haha!! Here's to you, my little paper friend [sm=flowers.gif]

YesMistressIrish -> RE: BOTTOMS (10/24/2007 8:59:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie quote: ORIGINAL: BRNaughtyAngel I'm gonna go with Straight, Potentially Situationally Bi, Bottoming, Female, Submissive, Paper Slave. [sm=tongue.gif] Heh.... [;)] Haha!! Here's to you, my little paper friend [sm=flowers.gif] *I missed that before: Paper slave? [8\|]*

juliaoceania -> RE: BOTTOMS (11/4/2007 4:58:13 AM)
I understand some of the frustration of not enough choices when one wants to describe who they are. I questioned my submissiveness for a little while recently, but there were no other boxes to check... I would have picked "masochist" had there been a box. I did put it in my profile at one point, and then got very sadistic people emailing me who thought that I was also probably submissive (after all, I had checked submissive in my profile...even though there was no other choices) I think there should be only one other category added... "other". "Other" could be the catch-all for masochist, bottom, top, and just curious.

eyesopened -> RE: BOTTOMS (11/4/2007 5:23:41 AM)
Fina quote: ORIGINAL: Viridana My vote goes for this. As a bottom I can't put myself in any other category than submissive, but I'm not submissive at all.... I'm just a bottom. a person isn't "just" a bottom... a person has value regardless of how they identify. i really agree that Top and bottom should be added as categories. It could save a lot of confusion and add a lot more threads on "sub/slave/bottom what is the difference?"

LotusSong -> RE: BOTTOMS (11/4/2007 5:44:41 AM)
This underscores our love and need for lables.

submittous -> RE: BOTTOMS (11/4/2007 5:47:56 AM)
Seems to me there is a real difference between Top/bottom , Dom/sub and Master/slave relationships and what they represent. It would be good from my point of view to be able to narrow searches to what we are actually seeking.... Other things that would be nice are children, what kind of relationship being sought (live-in, casual, play only, committed relationship etc.) etc. Of course the search engine here is already overloaded and damaged,( try searching for some one looking for a poly relationship) so maybe adding any complications would be counter productive in the long run. Bill

BadJezebel -> RE: BOTTOMS (11/4/2007 6:22:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YesMistressIrish This is what I wrote to support here on cm: Please add these categories to CM: BOTTOM: As you know, so many, many men say 'submissive' when they mean BOTTOM. So, they lie to get close and hope to be topped. BOTTOM as a category has a huge base here on cm. Certainly much bigger than submissive? TOPs: For all the bdsm fun. they will look for bottoms and not subs. Cm is unintentionally forcing men to lie. Let's give all those bottoms and dommes a break and add the category: BOTTOM Let's save hundreds of hrs and allow people get to rt much faster because the men get to say who and what they really are. For women also, of course, but it's mostly men who have to lie here. We really need to have these options for profiles and their own forums! Irish What do you all think of these as an added category and forum titles? *Irish* I'm in complete agreement. The only problem is that I think a lot of these guys would "lie" inadvertently anyway. --Either they might imagine themselves as submissives when they really aren't; meaning, that when they fantasize they are submissive but in real life they want all of their scenarios played out or, they don't even know the difference between "bottom" or "submissive" and "submissive" sounds SOOOO much cooler anyway. Another thing is that there seems to be a general disapproval of bottoms vs. submissives on this site. Who knows, maybe that would be ameliorated if they had you answer one question about what being a bottom/submissive/slave means to you. The same should go for Top/Domme/Misstress, etc.... Now if only we could get these shmucks to actually READ the profiles in their entirety and respond specifically to them.

TotalState -> RE: BOTTOMS (11/4/2007 8:10:23 AM)
Personally, I come here to read the opinions of others who are into D/s, not just occasional kinky sex. I suppose more categories couldn't hurt, though. After all, most of the tops and bottoms will probably stay on the other side.

azropedntied -> RE: BOTTOMS (11/4/2007 9:24:50 AM)
VERY well said .. Kudos ! quote: ORIGINAL: colouredin Gosh there are so many labels!!! Its hard to keep track of whos what with who and when and how you can tell. I think that its a good idea for people who want to define themselves in this way but i also think that sometimes we can all be a bit too preoccupied with what box we like to think we fall into and then what box others would put you into.

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: BOTTOMS (11/4/2007 10:31:28 AM)
As a bottom, I also think this is an excellent idea. However, the chance of collarme acting on it is, I think, somewhat less than the chance of a snowball in hell. If collarme paid any attention to member's suggestions, they'd have fixed their email so that it works two years ago when I and others started bitching about it.

neloangelo1227 -> RE: BOTTOMS (11/4/2007 12:06:38 PM)
Maybe some kind of profile-based distinction between interest in S&M and D/s would solve it. Look at it this way: Dom/Domme: Interested in dominating and topping (D/s play) Sub: Interested in being topped, and submitting/being dominated (D/s play) Top: Interested in topping. (S&M) Bottom: Interested in bottoming. (S&M) Switch: ?? Could be interested either in topping & bottoming, or dominating & submitting.

PsyVamp -> RE: BOTTOMS (11/4/2007 12:42:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: neloangelo1227 Maybe some kind of profile-based distinction between interest in S&M and D/s would solve it. Look at it this way: Dom/Domme: Interested in dominating and topping (D/s play) Sub: Interested in being topped, and submitting/being dominated (D/s play) Top: Interested in topping. (S&M) Bottom: Interested in bottoming. (S&M) Switch: ?? Could be interested either in topping & bottoming, or dominating & submitting. [>:] You left out total world domination... [;)] Seriously, I think top and bottom are good categories of course, by the above definitions I'd have to be The DommeTop.. since I like to sprinkle my D/s with a little S&M Psy (Lady Jag)[sm=evil.gif]

Prinsexx -> RE: BOTTOMS (11/4/2007 1:37:18 PM)
but then i would have to remember bdsmtbsd.............derrrrrrrrr ed to say bdsmtbsdsw

neloangelo1227 -> RE: BOTTOMS (11/4/2007 1:43:12 PM)
Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that Domming and Topping were mutually exclusive--generally, it seems that most doms are also tops, and most subs are also bottoms, but that the converse isn't true: just because you're into topping doesn't necessarily mean you want to dominate anyone.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125