|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:29 pm
Okay, so my friends and I are having a discussion about the difference between being a bottom and being a sub, and even being a slave. The general consensus is that Bottom and Sub are the same things. That they are only on a sexual level and that a Slave will submit to power exchange.
I believe that Sub and Slave are more closely related that being a Bottom. Please feel free to interject your opinions.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:25 am
Bottoms and subs are two different things.
I do not see myself as a slave, I see myself as a sub. TPE's are my cup of tea. A bottom submits only when they feel like it, and when they enjoy it. A sub has simply no other option than to submit.
When things get tough, a bottom will walk away from the relationship. A sub won't-- that is simply not an option. It might cross their mind once or twice, but in my experience, it's almost as quickly faught down.
I don't know where a slave fits on the scale, but where I see it, the slave is completely dependent on the Master, whereas a sub is not necessarily dependent on a Dom. Also, a slave tends to be living with the Master, where a sub or bottom may be living elsewhere. On top of that, a slave usually has a position-- be it a cook, an erotic slave, a housekeeper, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:47 pm
Are you discussing what you want these words (sub, slave, bottom, etc.) to mean for future reference? Or is it a weird platonic argument about the nature of these different states? You know, the cave allegory, with the "absolute" slave or sub or whatever existing somewhere in ideal space and we just have to find the word that gets closest to it? I really mind all this categorizing. (I don't mean to say, you shouldn't do it, of course, just that I think it is counter-productive). There are way too many nuances for it to achieve anything but more confusion. Ok, these words could be used to describe broad trends, but as your own arguments show they are actually much too close together already to mark clear and obvious boundaries. Instead of searching for "the one word to bind them" why not just stating what it is you like? Describe instead of name. (Even if it leads to more text... even "walls" of it, hehe wink )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:34 pm
Honestly, I'm not sure.
What I posted was my personal ideas on the words and what they mean to me-- not so much an argument or debate (though I guess many of my posts may seem like they are), but more of a clarification as to what I've been led to believe.
A unified definition of terms, though, helps a lot. Just as top and Dom is not the same, bottom and sub are not, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:34 am
Zurah A unified definition of terms, though, helps a lot. I really don't agree with you (when do we ever, eh?). I think it presses people into categories and prevents them from finding out what they really want. Like with being gay: A hundred years ago, everybody who was had their own idea about what that meant (usually, being a criminal, I'm not saying those were better times!), but with the advent of a gay culture in the 1920s the image of the effeminate art-loving gay male and the dressed-in-dark short-haired butch lesbian came about and it has taken over 50 years for people to learn to break out of those stereotypes and just be whoever they want to be and still have sex with people of the same gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:28 pm
We can't protect people from themselves. If someone wants to play to a stereotype, getting rid of that stereotype isn't going to help. It makes no sense to rid a word of meaning because someone might take it to heart. If someone defines themselves by the definition of a word, it's not the word's fault.
Maybe you understand my point-- I don't think I explained it very well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:55 pm
To be completley honest, I do not know the difference in any of these terms really. Personally I do not know what to consider myself at all. There are times when i have intercourse that I love to be in control and force my partner to bend to my will (more so as of late) and other times when I just want to be thrown onto the bed and controlled. I really do go back and forth, wich does some times agrivate my partner im sure wink but it is just me. As far as subtle differences in the words, why label yourself? You know what you like beeter than anyone else so find someone that fits what you enjoy, and be with them, dont make up cute words for what you like. That is of course just my two cents though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:32 am
Rayler As far as subtle differences in the words, why label yourself? You know what you like beeter than anyone else so find someone that fits what you enjoy, and be with them, dont make up cute words for what you like. That is of course just my two cents though. A WINNER IS YOU!
|
|
|
|
|
|
RocketPunk108 Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:13 pm
Most folks call going between Top and bottom switching.
I really don't think that a person limits themselves when they claim an identity-- it's like saying you're mostly gay, or tend to be asexual, or that you have a foot fetish. It's a descriptor, not a title.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:23 pm
Yeah...but how do are you mostley gay imo you are gay or not. And as far as fetishes go a fetish is something someone NEEDS to get off. Not what helps. At least that is what I have been lead to believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:30 pm
On Fetishes-
I've heard (and experienced!) much differently.
A fetish isn't like a little teddy bear that the victim needs in order to get their thrills. It's more like something in particular that they like. If I had a tattoo fetish, and my partner was un-inked, they would probably still turn me on by other means. If, however, they had tattoos, I would be turned on by the ink as well as by whatever else was happening.
Also, they're not always rare or deviant preferences. Many men have fetishes about large or small breasts, fishnets, garter straps and/or belts, etc. Women, likewise, may fetishize large penises, a certain style of hair, a persona (tall, dark, and handsome, anyone?), etc.
On "mostly gay"-
There is a scale. Someone can prefer the opposite sex, but still be turned on by the occasional notable person of the same sex, and vice versa. They would then be considered 'mostly straight' or 'mostly gay'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:53 pm
Zurah On Fetishes-
I've heard (and experienced!) much differently.
A fetish isn't like a little teddy bear that the victim needs in order to get their thrills. It's more like something in particular that they like. If I had a tattoo fetish, and my partner was un-inked, they would probably still turn me on by other means. If, however, they had tattoos, I would be turned on by the ink as well as by whatever else was happening.
Also, they're not always rare or deviant preferences. Many men have fetishes about large or small breasts, fishnets, garter straps and/or belts, etc. Women, likewise, may fetishize large penises, a certain style of hair, a persona (tall, dark, and handsome, anyone?), etc.
On "mostly gay"-
There is a scale. Someone can prefer the opposite sex, but still be turned on by the occasional notable person of the same sex, and vice versa. They would then be considered 'mostly straight' or 'mostly gay'. amen! practically to me, a hole is a hole. Although for males I consider myself quite selective, either completely feminine or completely macho (ie. you best be either David Bowie, Johnny Depp, or Harrison Ford) as for fetishes though, I can list tons of things that turn me on and make things quite enjoyable, but 9 times out of 10 I'm going to get off regardless. Besides, some fetishes arn't even conductive to sexual activities, although more than likely they lead to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RocketPunk108 Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 5:52 am
Rayler Yeah...but how do are you mostley gay imo you are gay or not. And as far as fetishes go a fetish is something someone NEEDS to get off. Not what helps. At least that is what I have been lead to believe. Nah.. Fetishes help, that's it. Everything you like sexually is a fetish. Like most men have a boobfetish. And a lot of them have a fetish for big boobs. It doesn't mean they can't get off with hteir girlfriends, even if she has small boobs or vice versa. Although, mostly with these kind of fetishes (Yes, categorizing all bdsm-related fetishes here) it tends to be really very hard to get off. Without them stimulated that is. I know that although it isnt impossible for me to get off from Vanilla sex, it is gonna take a hell of a while and a lot of work xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
