Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Ascendant One,
Pure said,
//At the same time I don't think all sexual self discovery is 'submission', or that 'submitting' is discovering wondrous 'tastes' one didn't have, like learning to like 'bubble gum' ice cream. Maybe discovering leanings one can't master, AND that render us vulnerable, is how I'd put it. //
Netzach:
Whew, ok, well, I guess "revelling" is too self helpsie a way to put it for you. I still maintain my position, that I prefer a submissive who owns the desire, loves the desire, doesn't need to pawn the desire off on me or outside forces. That's the spark that I saw in the Gylenhaal character, and I found it exciting because it's something us "insiders" don't talk about much.
And maybe you are right, maybe that person is not *submissive.*
In fact, I agree. They are not submissive, in the D/s purist sense of the word. But what are they then? Dominant? Vanilla? A Switch? I don't think Switch is a default term for anyone who is capable of excercising power, I think it requires the desire to Top. This type of bottom may have NO desire to top.
They aren't submissive or dominant, imo and in my lexicon. Just as rain is neither friendly or unfriendly. The person does not 'place' on the dom/sub dimension.
I doubt very strongly that I'm Dominant in the comparitive definition. All I know is that I like to inflict pain, both pleasureable and NOT pleasureable pain. I like to be in charge, not all the time, nor even every single time I want to be, but the majority of the time I want to be. I like to be in control, mainly of myself. I admire a person who can give up control in a controlled manner.
So am I a switch? Vanilla?
Besides, I was not calling this thread or this theory the *submissive's* credo, was I?
There's sixty versions of that to be read, at least. This is about *bottoming* I normally refuse to be that fussy about the distinctions, but dialogue with people who do draw hard lines necessitates my adopting that vocab in order to make sense. And *bottoming* is something we don't talk much about here. Or when we do we wax all poetic about submission, as though bottoming is a simple subset thereof. It's not. And I, for one, am glad that it's not.
I did a search for 'bottom' definitions at many sites. Some proposed that the only difference whether it's a person's acts (of subjecting herself) in just one scene, or continuously. I myself think you can define 'bottom' as the one undergoing pain, degradation, etc. in a scene. That leaves open the question 'who's in charge.' It could be either or neither.
In a Sadeian sense, I can set up a session in which I'm whipped for a certain number of times or till the whipper feels like stopping. Thus I'm in charge overall, but I'm the 'undergoer' in the scene of which I am controller. In this sense a 'bottom' is not really a subset (of subs) at all, though some bottoms might be subs.
I like to be in charge, not all the time, nor even every single time I want to be, but the majority of the time I want to be.
And the question of your label.
I think the problem is that 'being in charge' does not exist in the full sense with a 'noodle', an overly compliant type. It's hard to 'boss' someone who's sniveling and groveling.
If there's simple sharing of a kinky practice, it also makes little sense to try to say, 'who's in charge?' Just as one cannot say who's in charge, based on the woman sitting astride the man for fucking. Maybe no one is. Maybe he is. Maybe she is.
So, my friend I think I'd label you a sexual sadist--"S"--with toppish tendencies, and a few 'bottomish' ones. An intriguing combo, indeed.
As far as the movie goes, maybe 'bottom' is a good label for her, since she's so damned assertive and controlling (and as per above, scene bottoming may go with overall control.)
Pure said,
//At the same time I don't think all sexual self discovery is 'submission', or that 'submitting' is discovering wondrous 'tastes' one didn't have, like learning to like 'bubble gum' ice cream. Maybe discovering leanings one can't master, AND that render us vulnerable, is how I'd put it. //
Netzach:
Whew, ok, well, I guess "revelling" is too self helpsie a way to put it for you. I still maintain my position, that I prefer a submissive who owns the desire, loves the desire, doesn't need to pawn the desire off on me or outside forces. That's the spark that I saw in the Gylenhaal character, and I found it exciting because it's something us "insiders" don't talk about much.
And maybe you are right, maybe that person is not *submissive.*
In fact, I agree. They are not submissive, in the D/s purist sense of the word. But what are they then? Dominant? Vanilla? A Switch? I don't think Switch is a default term for anyone who is capable of excercising power, I think it requires the desire to Top. This type of bottom may have NO desire to top.
They aren't submissive or dominant, imo and in my lexicon. Just as rain is neither friendly or unfriendly. The person does not 'place' on the dom/sub dimension.
I doubt very strongly that I'm Dominant in the comparitive definition. All I know is that I like to inflict pain, both pleasureable and NOT pleasureable pain. I like to be in charge, not all the time, nor even every single time I want to be, but the majority of the time I want to be. I like to be in control, mainly of myself. I admire a person who can give up control in a controlled manner.
So am I a switch? Vanilla?
Besides, I was not calling this thread or this theory the *submissive's* credo, was I?
There's sixty versions of that to be read, at least. This is about *bottoming* I normally refuse to be that fussy about the distinctions, but dialogue with people who do draw hard lines necessitates my adopting that vocab in order to make sense. And *bottoming* is something we don't talk much about here. Or when we do we wax all poetic about submission, as though bottoming is a simple subset thereof. It's not. And I, for one, am glad that it's not.
I did a search for 'bottom' definitions at many sites. Some proposed that the only difference whether it's a person's acts (of subjecting herself) in just one scene, or continuously. I myself think you can define 'bottom' as the one undergoing pain, degradation, etc. in a scene. That leaves open the question 'who's in charge.' It could be either or neither.
In a Sadeian sense, I can set up a session in which I'm whipped for a certain number of times or till the whipper feels like stopping. Thus I'm in charge overall, but I'm the 'undergoer' in the scene of which I am controller. In this sense a 'bottom' is not really a subset (of subs) at all, though some bottoms might be subs.
I like to be in charge, not all the time, nor even every single time I want to be, but the majority of the time I want to be.
And the question of your label.
I think the problem is that 'being in charge' does not exist in the full sense with a 'noodle', an overly compliant type. It's hard to 'boss' someone who's sniveling and groveling.
If there's simple sharing of a kinky practice, it also makes little sense to try to say, 'who's in charge?' Just as one cannot say who's in charge, based on the woman sitting astride the man for fucking. Maybe no one is. Maybe he is. Maybe she is.
So, my friend I think I'd label you a sexual sadist--"S"--with toppish tendencies, and a few 'bottomish' ones. An intriguing combo, indeed.
As far as the movie goes, maybe 'bottom' is a good label for her, since she's so damned assertive and controlling (and as per above, scene bottoming may go with overall control.)
Last edited:
