|
subMan4Madame -> RE: Bottom or sub or slave (1/9/2010 11:16:35 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
I'm willing to bet you are going to be more confused at the end of this post than you are now.
There are really no official definitions though I think there are some that will resemble one another. These are my definitions and I expect someone to disagree with me gracefully and I half expect someone to flame me ;-)
Actually, I feel I can top those two altogether with a single graceful flaming [8D]
It never ceases to amaze me how even experienced people can remain so conceptually confused for so long about what are actually very basic concepts of WIITWD. I wouldn't bother about the ubiquitous "YMMV" cop out dismissal if I could believe these concepts to be just silly, but they are not. The well-known expression "One Twue Way-ism", usually about "twue" D/s, is probably the best evidence for it. (Note: the mocking "w" is intentional.)
Twue-Wayisms are typically practical and selective. That's the reason why people can easily understand them, even when they are "wrong". It's also the reason why these views can never be correct: they simply don't add up to the full set of (relevant) people characteristics.
Some of the effects resulting from this ongoing state of silliness:
- you wonder why people are still mindlessly repeating simplistic views of decades ago
- you let insults of being excluded from "twue" D/s slip as "nicey nice" is all they want anyway
- you realize some people start suffering as soon as they believe they have to live up to the practical recommendations presented in OTW-isms, even if those silly schemes don't match with their perfectly normal human qualities. That's more or less what Gloria Brame points out here.
So I'll give you my view on T/b vs. D/s. It's a rather logical one, so you can easily understand my why and what, and should you dislike the presentation, at least you'll have close to all pertinent elements for a discussion, not just another YMMV-smorgasbord.
Prelude on generic use of T/b terminology: "every sub is a bottom, not every bottom is a sub".
I.e. the use of top & bottom as generic terms for inflicting / receiving person in BDSM circles.(Just as in sexuology where the likes of us are simply referred to as sexual masochists & sadists.)
For a definition of D/s:
The following is pretty common: BDSM = B/D + D/s + S/M
And your options to engage in BDSM with a partner are known as T/b or D/s (or even M/s).
This is when people usually start mapping all the elements of both series, often in some ad hoc fashion inserting whatever concept that fancies them most ("service" probably being nr 1).
My preference? In order to keep definitions correct (adding up to the full set of relevant people characteristics), one must use the set theory concept "complement".
In my view, M/s is about TPE, which I consider to be just a subset of D/s: having all the features of D/s, but then "more (if not all) of the same". (A lot of people may not agree and consequently they will need more complex definitions. Also, I'm ignoring here any use of Master as in "an esteemed representative of the Leather community".)
Based on my view upon M/s, I can now fix a single set of criteria to define either T/b or D/s. And I say the distinction "T/b vs. D/s" is simply about the way of communicating, negotiating and organizing BDSM-scenes with a partner. More specifically, I'll say it's T/b when both top and bottom are willing to discuss an agreement on all relevant matters of the mutually satisfying acts in a scene. (I.e. the when, how long, what acts, how hard, ... )
Anything else is D/s then, T/b's logical complement: every other type of communication process about WIITWD, with typically the submissive eroticizing the removal of at least 1 significant parameter from the list of options for negotiation.
To give you an idea of how this feels to me: bottoms are a bit like people who get organized for a (regular) game of tennis with a friend (they can request to play hard, long, etc.), while submissives typically may not know in advance when they will get to enjoy their specific fetish acts (tennis).
Some special cases:
- a vanilla partner simply has no BDSM satisfaction to negotiate: such partner is a (pure) sub.
- service bottoms: in case when activity is limited to an agreed schedule.
- people who can get a kick out of the mere aggressiveness of a partner: antagonistic bottoms/subs (Submissive when it's pointless to discuss the acts because of their intrinsic unpleasant nature.)
- Scenes of consensual non-consent: bottom if negotiated up front, sub if consent given ex post.
Definitions without a clue re. "complement" are often "pars pro toto fallacies".
A few examples (focus on subs):
- "all subs are service-oriented" (no, that's just 1 type of sub, not an intrinsic quality of D/s)
- "subs have altruistic personalities: it makes them happy to see their partner happy"
In personality psychology, "agreeableness" (the tendency to be pleasant and accommodating in interpersonal situations) is a basic big 5 scale ranging from altruistic (pleasing) to antagonistic (confrontational). The fallacy is in the idea that pleasing is essential to D/s, as if the pleasing dynamics alone could represent the full set of D/s dynamics. Antagonistic personalities however, get their kick out of engaging in opposition and even struggle. They are motivated for the love of a good fight (with a strong person). Extreme example: eroticized blackmail is an antagonistic D/s dynamic, but hardly about "pleasing a partner". Why exclude people from D/s-typing based merely on their personality?
Does it matter what label to present yourself with? Yes, especially if you are a dominant.
In a T/b setting both sides can start talking very freely -- with general courtesy being appreciated -- in order to get a scene going. With a dominant, some basic checking and profiling may be required as to what kind of opening communication is suitable for that potential partner. Some of them have a preference for (over) fetishization of the opening communication already [8D]
I hope this helped [:D]
Cheers!
Rob
PS: this is not really a Mistress-specific topic is it?
Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
-- Mr Spock
|
|
|
|
