Submission vs. Bottom

[intothewoods]

Thank you for your asnwer

I understand the part where their lack of engagement is seen as a lack of desire to please you. But doesn't be a PYL also mean that you do/take what you want whether they enjoy it or not? And at times, the same activity may not cause the same reaction and the lack of engagement might have nothing to do with not wanting to please you: would you rather they find it in themselves to act it out?

I'm sorry if I am coming out a bit harsh on this. It is something I am struggling with myself. There are times that the same activity repeated a different time does not make me react the same way, or the exact way I know would please Hubby. I think it is better to me to be honest with the way I am feeling and not act the part. However I have wondered at times whether it might be better to do so than having to deal with the resentment for me not providing the experience he was hoping for ...

I'm not sure if this will be helpful at all rida, but I went through a phase where I had a mental block with a certain activity. Someone advised me to embrace the mixed feelings - I want to do this for you and yet I don't enjoy it. I don't have to fake my enjoyment, I can do it while not hiding that emotion, and yet the emotion that is the desire to please can also be there in full force.

 

[rida]

I'm not sure if this will be helpful at all rida, but I went through a phase where I had a mental block with a certain activity. Someone advised me to embrace the mixed feelings - I want to do this for you and yet I don't enjoy it. I don't have to fake my enjoyment, I can do it while not hiding that emotion, and yet the emotion that is the desire to please can also be there in full force.

Thank you ITW.
I do embrace my mixed feelings; it is just that it seems he cannot do the same.
Sometime I feel like it is presumptuous of me to judge my Hubby's reactions. I think it is one of the problem with having more layers to our relationship than D/s. I try not to second guess his intentions, but it is hard at times, especially when I can see them better than he does.

To go back to the OP: submissive VS bottom
I'm submissive to his love, but I am a bottom to his play

 

[JMohegan]

To go back to the OP: submissive VS bottom
I'm submissive to his love, but I am a bottom to his play

I'm trying (unsuccessfully, so far) to unravel what this means.

If I'm self-labeling in the context of an intimate relationship, I would describe myself as a Dom in terms of tangible expression but a switch at heart. Emotional dominance and falling in love seem mutually exclusive, to me.

 

[LilyBart]

I'm trying (unsuccessfully, so far) to unravel what this means.

If I'm self-labeling in the context of an intimate relationship, I would describe myself as a Dom in terms of tangible expression but a switch at heart. Emotional dominance and falling in love seem mutually exclusive, to me.

JM,
Thank you for saying this.

I've been reading this thread with great interest, although starting to wonder if I was the ultimate BDSM poser. Being in love adds a whole other dimension to a relationship, insofar as love actually makes one want to do a little sacrificing for the other, Dom/me or not. Love really makes us do a lot of things we thought couldn't/wouldn't do. I'm not sure that emotional dominance and love are completely mutually exclusive for everyone, but I am glad to know that they can be for some. Or for some at some times.

At least for me.


Unrelated...
ITW, we have tile floors...standard for my neck of the woods...and the dogs have adapted. Although they still slip and slide like crazy when excited. They don't mind. (Although we don't have stairs). My personal thought is not about the slipping and sliding, as much as it is about the slipping and sliding scratching those those not so inexpensive hardwood floors.

OK, maybe related....

I don't think I could be in a committed relationship where negotiation was off-limits regarding, well... living.

Or if in my most Dommely moment, I could feel comfortable enough with the man that I love, to...well, just let him.

I think I'll stop here. I feel a rant coming on.

Besides, I need to make dinner. Restless natives are milling about.

This is a very good thread, btw. Even if everyone isn't in agreement.

~LB

 

[Homburg]

Thank you for your asnwer

I understand the part where their lack of engagement is seen as a lack of desire to please you. But doesn't be a PYL also mean that you do/take what you want whether they enjoy it or not? And at times, the same activity may not cause the same reaction and the lack of engagement might have nothing to do with not wanting to please you: would you rather they find it in themselves to act it out?

For some it is about taking what they want regardless. To me, that is dull. There is precious little challenge in it. MIS weighs about 120lbs, and I weigh 2805lbs or so. Sure, she can fight like a tiger, but I will eventually overpower her (even if she weren't predisposed towards letting me win). I can take what I "want".

This assumes, though, that what I want is some physical action, access to an orifice, beating or whatever. That is not what I want. I want a mindset, an emotion, a sound, an act of obeisance. I can't "take" willing surrender. I can take sex. I can force fervid, shameless, desperate need. I can force a beating.

Anal sex is okay. Anal sex where I am being fervently begged while she tries to hide her face from embarrassment at the knowledge that she desperately needs my cock in her ass is not something that can be forced. Not believably anyway.

She should want what I want simply because I want it. She might want to have some friendly cunnilingus and a nap, but if I announce that it is rope time, she should want it because she knows I want it, and that should be her primary motivation.

I'm sorry if I am coming out a bit harsh on this. It is something I am struggling with myself. There are times that the same activity repeated a different time does not make me react the same way, or the exact way I know would please Hubby. I think it is better to me to be honest with the way I am feeling and not act the part. However I have wondered at times whether it might be better to do so than having to deal with the resentment for me not providing the experience he was hoping for ...

*shrug* Your relationship is different from mine. I didn't particularly think that was harsh. I just think you are focusing on wants and needs alien to my own. Pussy is easy to come by, deep-seated need to serve is not. And the former can be taken, while the later can only be given and accepted.

 

[rida]

For some it is about taking what they want regardless. To me, that is dull. There is precious little challenge in it. MIS weighs about 120lbs, and I weigh 2805lbs or so. Sure, she can fight like a tiger, but I will eventually overpower her (even if she weren't predisposed towards letting me win). I can take what I "want".

This assumes, though, that what I want is some physical action, access to an orifice, beating or whatever. That is not what I want. I want a mindset, an emotion, a sound, an act of obeisance. I can't "take" willing surrender. I can take sex. I can force fervid, shameless, desperate need. I can force a beating.

Anal sex is okay. Anal sex where I am being fervently begged while she tries to hide her face from embarrassment at the knowledge that she desperately needs my cock in her ass is not something that can be forced. Not believably anyway.

She should want what I want simply because I want it. She might want to have some friendly cunnilingus and a nap, but if I announce that it is rope time, she should want it because she knows I want it, and that should be her primary motivation.


*shrug* Your relationship is different from mine. I didn't particularly think that was harsh. I just think you are focusing on wants and needs alien to my own. Pussy is easy to come by, deep-seated need to serve is not. And the former can be taken, while the later can only be given and accepted.

Thank you again for your explanation.
I actually think Hubby works more in your mind frame that mine, and that is why I asked for your input.

I guess my mind frame of "I'm not saying no, I'm putting myself here and letting you do whatever you wish. Just do not be up-set with me if my reactions are not what you expect" goes back to my being a bedroom bottom more than a submissive.

 

[JMohegan]

But doesn't be a PYL also mean that you do/take what you want whether they enjoy it or not?

Rida, I know you addressed this question to Homburg, but now that he's answered I hope you don't mind if I give an alternative perspective in response. Obviously there's no right or wrong here, just different ways of looking at it.

My answer is to your question is no, that's not what it means to me to be the D in the bedroom. What being the D means to me is that I'm the one in charge. On one level, this means I decide what happens, when and where.

But more specifically, it means that I get off on controlling her reaction. I deliberately *try* to generate fear, joy, embarrassment, surprise, frustration, desire, confusion, the intense struggle at the "tipping point" (as Netzach called it), and so on. I care very much how she's reacting. The fact that I can produce all these emotions is what gets my dominant rocks off.

This isn't just a power thing (although, as aphrodisiacs go, power's hard to beat!) - it's also a feedback loop. Joy is contagious. Fear is so, sooooo delicious - literally, I can taste it on my tongue. Etc.

I know that there are quite a few D-types who get off on using the s as if she were an object, about whose enjoyment/lack of enjoyment the D simply doesn't care. This describes me, occasionally - when I'm in a hurry or distracted or something. But in general, detached just isn't my M.O. - though of course, I see nothing wrong with it, and would point out that LOTS of s-types find the detached version of sexual dominance exceedingly hot.

And at times, the same activity may not cause the same reaction and the lack of engagement might have nothing to do with not wanting to please you: would you rather they find it in themselves to act it out?

Hell pissed is what I would be if I thought she were faking.

Few things turn me off faster than a feigned response.

 

[JMohegan]

JM,
Thank you for saying this.

I've been reading this thread with great interest, although starting to wonder if I was the ultimate BDSM poser. Being in love adds a whole other dimension to a relationship, insofar as love actually makes one want to do a little sacrificing for the other, Dom/me or not. Love really makes us do a lot of things we thought couldn't/wouldn't do. I'm not sure that emotional dominance and love are completely mutually exclusive for everyone, but I am glad to know that they can be for some. Or for some at some times.

You're welcome.

Love makes you vulnerable. That's a fact.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I'm trying (unsuccessfully, so far) to unravel what this means.

If I'm self-labeling in the context of an intimate relationship, I would describe myself as a Dom in terms of tangible expression but a switch at heart. Emotional dominance and falling in love seem mutually exclusive, to me.

Interesting.

I would have said "me too" at one point.

 

[JMohegan]

Interesting.

I would have said "me too" at one point.

And now?

 

[rosco rathbone]

And now?

I still see the attraction, but I've learned that it leads to situations where I experience loss of power and control, and that is not good for me.

 

[ZRT]

I still see the attraction, but I've learned that it leads to situations where I experience loss of power and control, and that is not good for me.

I believe I know exactly how you feel. In my case, there's a great deal that I have to keep under control, and emotional bonding does lead to a loss of some of that control that can be intensely threatening.

On the other hand, I can't do it any other way. I have to bond, and therefore I have to live with the difficulty in maintaining personal restraint. I'm just wired that way.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I believe I know exactly how you feel. In my case, there's a great deal that I have to keep under control, and emotional bonding does lead to a loss of some of that control that can be intensely threatening.

On the other hand, I can't do it any other way. I have to bond, and therefore I have to live with the difficulty in maintaining personal restraint. I'm just wired that way.

My previous experience sort of led me to believe that I was psychosexually sadistic and emotionally masochistic. Too much love of drama, fraught situations and all that gothic crap. To say that I had risked loss of control in order to bond would be giving myself too much credit. I liked to writhe about in romantic agony.

 

[JMohegan]

I still see the attraction, but I've learned that it leads to situations where I experience loss of power and control, and that is not good for me.

I understand this.

I don't know how to have an intimate relationship without falling in love. Once I start down the getting to know you path, I'll either get bored/turned off/whatever and move on, or things will just naturally progress that way.

It's the love itself that I can't control. That's the vulnerability, for me.

The irony for the woman is that she's got a power she can never deliberately wield. If she tries, the love dissipates and her power disappears. Romantic conflict/drama is not my thing.

 

[rida]

I'm trying (unsuccessfully, so far) to unravel what this means.

If I'm self-labeling in the context of an intimate relationship, I would describe myself as a Dom in terms of tangible expression but a switch at heart. Emotional dominance and falling in love seem mutually exclusive, to me.

JM,
Thank you for saying this.

I've been reading this thread with great interest, although starting to wonder if I was the ultimate BDSM poser. Being in love adds a whole other dimension to a relationship, insofar as love actually makes one want to do a little sacrificing for the other, Dom/me or not. Love really makes us do a lot of things we thought couldn't/wouldn't do. I'm not sure that emotional dominance and love are completely mutually exclusive for everyone, but I am glad to know that they can be for some. Or for some at some times.

At least for me.
......

~LB

The whole "what love's got to do with" BDSM is a fascinating thing.
I've read more than one PYL say that they cannot be their total bad-ass self if they love the pyl. But so far I have not read many pyl say that they cannot submit totally if the love their PYL; more often you hear the other way around, that is they cannot submit totally unless they feel love for their PYL.

What I was trying to express with my cryptic statement, is that I feel that the depth of love I feel for my Hubby makes me totally submissive, as in I honestly put his happiness before mine, I'd do anything to make him happy, and even when I'd rather not to, I still bend my will to his and learn to deal with it and not resent him for it.

But at the same time, when it comes to what can be called "play", because of who we are and the on-going dynamic of the marriage, I need to stay on top of the situation, and as such it is more bottoming than submitting.

I know, it is all semantic. And probably meaningless.

 

[LilyBart]

I understand this.

I don't know how to have an intimate relationship without falling in love. Once I start down the getting to know you path, I'll either get bored/turned off/whatever and move on, or things will just naturally progress that way.

It's the love itself that I can't control. That's the vulnerability, for me.

The irony for the woman is that she's got a power she can never deliberately wield. If she tries, the love dissipates and her power disappears. Romantic conflict/drama is not my thing.

Bolded part for my pea brain. I have to think about this. Romantic conflict/drama not my thing either.

So I must now resign myself to never being with JM, in a loverly way. Because we would never, ever get along.

But I still like you. Brain and board wise......



~LB

 

[rida]

Rida, I know you addressed this question to Homburg, but now that he's answered I hope you don't mind if I give an alternative perspective in response. Obviously there's no right or wrong here, just different ways of looking at it.

My answer is to your question is no, that's not what it means to me to be the D in the bedroom. What being the D means to me is that I'm the one in charge. On one level, this means I decide what happens, when and where.

But more specifically, it means that I get off on controlling her reaction. I deliberately *try* to generate fear, joy, embarrassment, surprise, frustration, desire, confusion, the intense struggle at the "tipping point" (as Netzach called it), and so on. I care very much how she's reacting. The fact that I can produce all these emotions is what gets my dominant rocks off.

This isn't just a power thing (although, as aphrodisiacs go, power's hard to beat!) - it's also a feedback loop. Joy is contagious. Fear is so, sooooo delicious - literally, I can taste it on my tongue. Etc.

I know that there are quite a few D-types who get off on using the s as if she were an object, about whose enjoyment/lack of enjoyment the D simply doesn't care. This describes me, occasionally - when I'm in a hurry or distracted or something. But in general, detached just isn't my M.O. - though of course, I see nothing wrong with it, and would point out that LOTS of s-types find the detached version of sexual dominance exceedingly hot.

Hell pissed is what I would be if I thought she were faking.

Few things turn me off faster than a feigned response.

Everybody is welcome to answer so thank you for your perspective.

Not being a D, I truly get lost at times trying to understand what makes them tick. And because I love to analyze and understand what makes people tick I find myself in unknown territories.

I understand your MO, and even thou I, at times, enjoy the objectification of a D that does not care, on the long haul I don't think it would work. And, with Hubby, that fact that we are married is because he cares.

But I have another question, if I may:
If the reaction you get out of the pyl is not what you expect/imagine, and it is a reaction you do not like/care for, would you resent the pyl for her honest reaction?

(Yes, faking is something that I do not like nor approve, but confess to have contemplated at times ...)

 

[JMohegan]

I've read more than one PYL say that they cannot be their total bad-ass self if they love the pyl.

I'm not interested in being my "total bad-ass self" UNLESS I am in love.

Fucking casually holds the usual interest, but D/s or sm-style playing casually just doesn't appeal to me. The more I care, the more I want to control the tangible expression of the bond in the relationship.

 

[JMohegan]

If the reaction you get out of the pyl is not what you expect/imagine, and it is a reaction you do not like/care for, would you resent the pyl for her honest reaction?

Absolutely not.

If it's my achievement when fear, confusion, delight, whatever, is generated, then the reverse is also true.

 

[JMohegan]

What I was trying to express with my cryptic statement, is that I feel that the depth of love I feel for my Hubby makes me totally submissive, as in I honestly put his happiness before mine, I'd do anything to make him happy, and even when I'd rather not to, I still bend my will to his and learn to deal with it and not resent him for it.

But at the same time, when it comes to what can be called "play", because of who we are and the on-going dynamic of the marriage, I need to stay on top of the situation, and as such it is more bottoming than submitting.

Thank you for answering my question.

That first part is a lot closer to how it feels to me than you might think.

But a long, loooong time ago, I learned that "doing anything to make a partner happy" means staying true to myself, i.e., continuing as the control freak in the relationship. NOT bending my will to hers, but instead sustaining the behavior pattern that got us to the point of love in the first place.

 

[Homburg]

Thank you again for your explanation.
I actually think Hubby works more in your mind frame that mine, and that is why I asked for your input.

I guess my mind frame of "I'm not saying no, I'm putting myself here and letting you do whatever you wish. Just do not be up-set with me if my reactions are not what you expect" goes back to my being a bedroom bottom more than a submissive.

To me, this puts me in the mind of a great pic I saw once, and wish I could find. It is a porny pic, probably eastern european by fixtures in the room. Some guy is going at this woman like crazy, red in the face, veins standing out. The woman is laying on her back looking up over this guy's shoulder with the most bored look imaginable. The photo has been captioned with "Beige. I think I'll paint the walls beige."

If I wanted that sort of non-reaction, eh, I'd buy a fleshlight.

--

But I have another question, if I may:
If the reaction you get out of the pyl is not what you expect/imagine, and it is a reaction you do not like/care for, would you resent the pyl for her honest reaction?

(Yes, faking is something that I do not like nor approve, but confess to have contemplated at times ...)

JM nails it with his comments about achievement. I will say that I don't resent the honest reply. I resent the lack of engagement. It's a fine point, but an important one. Be honest. I expect that, but don't be surprised when I am irritated at lack of service that I associate with no emotional response.

--

Thank you for answering my question.

That first part is a lot closer to how it feels to me than you might think.

But a long, loooong time ago, I learned that "doing anything to make a partner happy" means staying true to myself, i.e., continuing as the control freak in the relationship. NOT bending my will to hers, but instead sustaining the behavior pattern that got us to the point of love in the first place.

This. Very, very much.

 

[rida]

To me, this puts me in the mind of a great pic I saw once, and wish I could find. It is a porny pic, probably eastern european by fixtures in the room. Some guy is going at this woman like crazy, red in the face, veins standing out. The woman is laying on her back looking up over this guy's shoulder with the most bored look imaginable. The photo has been captioned with "Beige. I think I'll paint the walls beige."

If I wanted that sort of non-reaction, eh, I'd buy a fleshlight.

--

JM nails it with his comments about achievement. I will say that I don't resent the honest reply. I resent the lack of engagement. It's a fine point, but an important one. Be honest. I expect that, but don't be surprised when I am irritated at lack of service that I associate with no emotional response.

I'd say that if all I'm doing is thinking about redecoration, what's wrong is something deeper than the lack of emotional response

I would accept my own responsibility for the lack of emotional response and can deal with the irritation that it causes. Chances are that if I know it is going to turn out that way, there is something big going on in my mind and I'm going to say something in advance to warn of the possible negative outcome. Sometime thou the mind plays tricks and unexpected reactions happen.

 

[rida]

Thank you for answering my question.

That first part is a lot closer to how it feels to me than you might think.

But a long, loooong time ago, I learned that "doing anything to make a partner happy" means staying true to myself, i.e., continuing as the control freak in the relationship. NOT bending my will to hers, but instead sustaining the behavior pattern that got us to the point of love in the first place.

Thank you too

 

[Homburg]

I'd say that if all I'm doing is thinking about redecoration, what's wrong is something deeper than the lack of emotional response

I would accept my own responsibility for the lack of emotional response and can deal with the irritation that it causes. Chances are that if I know it is going to turn out that way, there is something big going on in my mind and I'm going to say something in advance to warn of the possible negative outcome. Sometime thou the mind plays tricks and unexpected reactions happen.

*shrug* I'm bastard enough to not care in the moment about extenuating circumstances.

 

[myinnerslut]

*snip* I'm bastard enough to not care *snip*

aint that the truth

and back on topic...
ive had that "beige" look on my face, ive been bored out of my mind, and i have had to fake interest. (none if this in my current relationship.) note i said had to, becuase it was far better to fake interest then to deal with the fallout of not being interested. all and all a bad situation.

in the past 11 months i have not had this problem. the rules changed and i know now that faking interest is not an option. if i truly am not into it, it will piss Master off, btu he would be livid to know that my reactions werent real. fortunatly, i dont have that problem.