Fine line between bottom and sub?

First of all, I hope this is the right place to put that thread!

While I have been a dominant in my life, I really turned into a switch with my fiance, Keltar. Now, exploring my more submissive dimension is something that I (we) really enjoy as he is very patient with me, and I nevertheless remain a dominant when it comes to other women.

Yet, I have been wondering about the line between bottom and sub lately, as I'm not a submissive by nature, and was wondering if I might be more a bottom than a sub per se. I never thought things in terms of top and bottom before, more on the dom/sub style (and Keltar is definitely a dominant).

Yet, with stuff I read lately, I have been wondering about the difference between bottom and sub, so I was wondering about others' views on the subject.

I think the line is one of how much the bottom/sub/slave lets their lover choose what's going on.

A bottom is allowing their choices to be made by their partner, and then choosing to stay passive (go along with them) or to let their lover know it's not good for them.
A sub is giving their choices to their partner, even if the choices aren't ones they particularly like, and going with it (to the degree they're comfortable with).
A slave is relinquishing their choices, and accepting a punishment if they don't go along with the descisions made.

Bottom: Because you want to.
Sub: Because I want to.
Slave: Because there is no other way.

;}

Thanks for your input. I appreciate it, as I'm curious to hear how others perceive the whole difference between bottom and sub (as the whole slave aspect was something I knew I would never be). That gives me more food for thought.

If it works for you, great. But I wouldn't put too much care into what other people want to label you as.

Well I am actually curious about others' thoughts about the notions of bottom vs sub, as this is more about how *I* define myself, but since I mostly read about the notion of sub (or slave which isn't me) before, I was curious to see how people view the difference.

i think bottoming still means holding onto a lot of conscious control over things.. letting things happen and being passive about it.. but not really handing full control over to somebody else.. even temporarily..

Because I do love a definition:

Passive/passivity is defined as:

Quote:

---

1. not reacting visibly to something that might be expected to produce manifestations of an emotion or feeling.
2. not participating readily or actively; inactive: a passive member of a committee.
3. not involving visible reaction or active participation: to play a passive role.
4. inert or quiescent.
5. influenced, acted upon, or affected by some external force, cause, or agency; being the object of action rather than causing action ( opposed to active).

---

To submit:

Quote:

---

1.to give over or yield to the power or authority of another (often used reflexively).
2. to subject to some kind of treatment or influence.

---

To me, it seems to be the difference between "letting" another be in control, and willingly handing over control to another. It is a very subtle difference though, so I too am interested to hear what others have to say. I think whichever pleases you and Keltar, is what pleases you.

Your going to hear all sorts of definitions.

I believe its rather simple, submit or do not...how long you submit for, and under what conditions etc, are all things that can be as temporary or as permmament an arrangment as the partners involved have agreed too before hand or are feeling out as they go along...this also includes what they choose to call themselves. Anything from Lord High Dom of Hard Dicking and his slave slipswhenwet to Hi Im Albert and this is my bottom sasha can be just as aplicable .

For some traditionalists who had origins predating the influence of the leatherman there are really only two main catagories on the kneeling side of the bdsm coin: submissives (uncollared bdsm practicioners who submit on occassion) and slaves (those who have given themselves as property, IE "the collared"). Both of which are quite capable of dominating/ topping others without lossing their titular distinctions when required.

The terms top, bottom, and switch were originally derived by and used for despriptions amongst the gay community to describe roles during sex positioning, particularly among men. A top is a person who penetrates, a bottom is one who receives penetration, and a switch (taken by the gays from the baseball term in reference to a "switch hitter") engages in both activities.

Thanks mainly to exposure by the leatherman who helped bring a sort of bdsm revival to america in the 40's and 50's in their own special way and many uninitiated kinskters rising up from the straight communitty of their own voilition adopting their bdsm practices from them directly or making up whatever they wished for themselves (not having any other recourse since they hadnt been selected for inclussion by the highly secretive groups allready in existence) the terminology was adopted in part or in whole later on by some portions of the community and escewed by some others as unnessesary as each say fit for themselves.

I think these latter definitions are closer to my particular truth.

(But, by my definition,) A bottom doesn't submit. S/he negotiates with a top or dom for the term of a single session, or for several session, but is only the recipient of said attentions during the individual scene(s). It is done for mutual pleasure but does not require obedience and is not about relinquishing control. A bottom retains control. For the sake of receiving pleasure at the hands of another, a dominant can even bottom to a submissive, who performs the role of top as a service. (Often called a "service top".)

A submissive relinquishes control over large portions of an ongoing relationship. Is obedient. (By that definition, you need other terms for those who are Princesses, or have Daddies. Though those fall within accepted D/s relationships, they are "sub-centric" and by my definition, that's something different. By my definition, D/s really has to be dom-centric. (N.B. I get into a lot of arguments about that.... so if you want to discuss that, start a new thread and call me out, but leave it out of this one. But I'm willing to be convinced... if you pose the right argument.)

And perhaps, the "difference" between sub and slave is that a slave relinquishes control of larger portions of their life. That of course, begs the question, where does the relationship end and "the rest of your life" begin.

But between bottom and the other two, sub or slave, the main difference is about control. A bottom really never gives it up... imo.

Quote:

---

The terms top, bottom, and switch were originally derived by and used for despriptions amongst the gay community to describe roles during sex positioning, particularly among men. A top is a person who penetrates, a bottom is one who receives penetration, and a switch (taken by the gays from the baseball term in reference to a "switch hitter") engages in both activities.

---

This is generally how I'm used to these terms as well. I don't generally consider "bottoming" to be submitting, but usually just meaning "fucked in the ass." It's very much possible to bottom in that regard, as a Dom, or for a sub to top. Depending on what flavor the Dom is feeling like, should they themselves be "versatile." Switch I've really come across primarily as a kink term, most gay men I know that are willing to be the penetrator or the penetrated refer to themselves as "vers" or "versatile." I think thats mostly a newer term though, if I asked around I'm sure I'd find more who identify as switch and mean top or bottom.

I appreciate the input, as like I said, I only recently began to read about the whole top/bottom aspect, and was wondering about it, and its history some more. It is not that I necessarily need a "label" to feel good, but it is curiosity about giving some more thought about my "non dominant" side, to put things simply, that I only explore with Keltar. So I'm really interested in seeing "definitions" and opinions, while I am indeed aware that it can vary from person to person.

I'm personally really enjoying the discussion from a semantical perspective. :}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaAugusta

If it works for you, great. But I wouldn't put too much care into what other people want to label you as.

---

Very good point. I myself find that while it can, on occasion, be useful to try to explain various needs in these terms, they often make more confusion than clarity, because there are no water tight shutters between 'catgories'. People have bits and peaces from this and that, we do not fit very readily into boxes :-)

Just find what works and go for it :-))) and never mind the labels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liushka

Well I am actually curious about others' thoughts about the notions of bottom vs sub, as this is more about how *I* define myself, but since I mostly read about the notion of sub (or slave which isn't me) before, I was curious to see how people view the difference.

---

Aha, got it. Well, to me the division in these 3 categories does not make as much sense as you'd think. I believe that the only way you can attempt to make some use of them is to say that the expressions denote some sort of continuum of submission, but that is still not really useful as I see it, as other things keep coming into it.

For example a bottom is said to have more to say, but in truth most relationships are negotiated and re-negotiated as things develope and change. What I mean is that the needs can change, but also that a BDSM life does not live in a vacum, and things can change around it, life death or birth or work or what not.

It also does not take into consideration what people need in an active sense - force, 'rape', punishment or not, breath control, age relatinships, being made to serve others or not, pushing your bounderies or not, and a host of other things. All of this happens in all 3 'categories.'

It is said quite often that a bottom is not submissive, and only thinks of their own needs, but to me that is just not true. In most relationships that are any good, both parties think of each other.

It is also said that subs/slaves think only of their D's needs, but frankly I have met none that really work like that, in that they have ONLY the need of serving and none of their own, or, that they can do = anything that their D want them to. Whether we want them or not, we have limits, as we are all results of what has happened to us during our lives.

So, I think that it is really not useful for a person's own definition to try to choose between bottom or sub at least. I realize that a label is useful in defining ourselves, but we'd need a whole lot more of them! Which might be a good thing, because we'd get rid of the more or less covert hiearachy in these matters. Very few people here idenitfy as bottoms or tops ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pegao

i think bottoming still means holding onto a lot of conscious control over things.. letting things happen and being passive about it.. but not really handing full control over to somebody else.. even temporarily..

---

You are the second person to mention the passive element - I have never heard this before and I do not understand what is meant. Could you elaborate a bit?

Good way of summing things up Denuseri :-)
If I had read this before my own post, I would not have bothered trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

I think these latter definitions are closer to my particular truth.

(But, by my definition,) A bottom doesn't submit. S/he negotiates with a top or dom for the term of a single session, or for several session, but is only the recipient of said attentions during the individual scene(s). It is done for mutual pleasure but does not require obedience and is not about relinquishing control. A bottom retains control. For the sake of receiving pleasure at the hands of another, a dominant can even bottom to a submissive, who performs the role of top as a service. (Often called a "service top".)

---

A question: Do you mean by this that bottoming is always done is casual relationships, and not on ongoing ones? If so, why?

To me, this description reads to me like people I have met who are only into bondage, or only into pain, or only into both, but with no submission at all. Some can takes turns helping each other just fine, and some prefer a relationship. They are very rare indeed!

But it seems to be that the terms bottoming and topping indicates some sort of giving over control, which is why I personally find these two labels so hard to make use of.

Quote:

---

A submissive relinquishes control over large portions of an ongoing relationship. Is obedient. (By that definition, you need other terms for those who are Princesses, or have Daddies.

---

Exactly. Is it just - more complicated than that.

Quote:

---

Though those fall within accepted D/s relationships, they are "sub-centric" and by my definition, that's something different. By my definition, D/s really has to be dom-centric. (N.B. I get into a lot of arguments about that.... so if you want to discuss that, start a new thread and call me out, but leave it out of this one. But I'm willing to be convinced... if you pose the right argument.)

---

I think I will. Not to convince you of anything, but because there is something important and interesting here!

Quote:

---

And perhaps, the "difference" between sub and slave is that a slave relinquishes control of larger portions of their life. That of course, begs the question, where does the relationship end and "the rest of your life" begin.

---

Yes, that is another question hotly debated on many threads.
And just to add to the question marks: many slaves talk about how they set their limits.

I must say I honestly think that though these discussions are very useful to think new thoughts or revise the old ones, these labels are so personally defined that you can debate whether you can make use of these 'categories' of all.

I think with a developing relationship the only way forward is to take it from scratch and discuss if you are the right two. (Or more, of course.)

Quote:

---

But between bottom and the other two, sub or slave, the main difference is about control. A bottom really never gives it up... imo.

---

But does anyone?
When push come to show, do we not all have our bounderies, and isn't it much a question about how well needs compliment each other?

As I use and understand the terms, it's about the difference between the physical and mental elements. If you love to be whipped, spanked, tied up, whatever, but still remain your own person, accepting it as something done by the top for your pleasure, you're a bottom. If what excites you is to feel controlled and dominated - whether that control is expressed by beatings, bondage, or just kneeling at your Dom(me)'s feet - you're a sub.

The acid test is, how do you respond to something you don't enjoy, but your partner does? If something that never attracted you before, suddenly becomes exciting because the right person is ordering you to do it or forcing it on you, you're a sub.

The first time I was married to a switch, we could only make it as Master and slave because when she switched she was a top, with no particular interest in dominating or controling someone, just hurting them big time; and when I switch I'm a sub, pain alone does nothing for me, but pain inflicted as part of controling and dominating me is a rush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

Just find what works and go for it :-))) and never mind the labels.

---

Well, yes, that too :)

Quote:

---

You are the second person to mention the passive element - I have never heard this before and I do not understand what is meant. Could you elaborate a bit?

---

metaphor i use for that..is kinda like handing over the keys to your car to somebody and letting them drive.. you still got a say in the destination and its still your car.. just going along for the 'ride'.. topping is being the one borrowing the keys in that scene i guess..

Quote:

---

I think with a developing relationship the only way forward is to take it from scratch and discuss if you are the right two. (Or more, of course.)

---

pretty much the only way it works i think.. otherwise is just a lot of headbutting..

Quote:

---

pretty much the only way it works i think.. otherwise is just a lot of headbutting..

---

Unless part of the pre-agreed upon activity includes headbutting. :}

I appreciate all the input in this discussion, as it allowed me to continue to think about things, while I agree that labels aren't always a helpful thing. It really helped me gain perspective about how I viewed my "non dominant" side, at lack of better words.

As weird as it might sound (and I'm very interested in reading more in that thread and discuss things further as I realize that *I* didn't give much input there myself) I believe it kind of confirmed my realization of those last few months that while I am a switch in the way that my fiancé is more dominant than I am, I really think that my own dominant side is the most important and how I consider myself, while some activities I enjoy with Keltar would make me on the bottom side. I know that beside my relationship with him, I'm the dominant, but I think that what sums up the thrill I have with Keltar is that basically he's even more dominant than me, and it makes it fun to be two alphas.

I hope I made enough sense, as I know I have only been working on expressing it properly lately, but I know that it helps knowing who I am in a more accurate way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

A question: Do you mean by this that bottoming is always done is casual relationships, and not on ongoing ones? If so, why?

To me, this description reads to me like people I have met who are only into bondage, or only into pain, or only into both, but with no submission at all. Some can takes turns helping each other just fine, and some prefer a relationship. They are very rare indeed!

But it seems to be that the terms bottoming and topping indicates some sort of giving over control, which is why I personally find these two labels so hard to make use of.

---

No, I wasn't implying it was only in casual relationships. I think, within my definiton, a lot of "in the bedroom only" bdsm between long term couples is also topping and bottoming. And you're right, vis-a-vis your second statement, because not all bdsm is D/s. I think you're also agreeing with me, (or I with you,) in your third statement. Yes, control is given, but that doesn't equate to submission imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

As I use and understand the terms, it's about the difference between the physical and mental elements. If you love to be whipped, spanked, tied up, whatever, but still remain your own person, accepting it as something done by the top for your pleasure, you're a bottom. If what excites you is to feel controlled and dominated - whether that control is expressed by beatings, bondage, or just kneeling at your Dom(me)'s feet - you're a sub.

---

The truth is, that definitions are really difficult to pin down and formulate! Just ask the scientists ;-)

You say, if you like things done to you, but you are still your own person, you are a bottom?

Are subs not their own person??

Am not splitting hairs or anything like that dear Lord, but it seems important to me.

Quote:

---

The acid test is, how do you respond to something you don't enjoy, but your partner does? If something that never attracted you before, suddenly becomes exciting because the right person is ordering you to do it or forcing it on you, you're a sub.

---

So, if your partner does something you cannot react to in a sexual way, you are not a sub?
Do you mean that if the sub (or whatever) can do it gladly, or want to endure, even if it is something sie does not enjoy, sie is a sub?
I think demanding a sexual response is a bit much to ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

. Yes, control is given, but that doesn't equate to submission imo.

---

I think we are at the (excuse me;) ) bottom line here: If giving control away is not submission, what is submission?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

I think we are at the (excuse me;) ) bottom line here: If giving control away is not submission, what is submission?

---

A good question and perhaps it's a bit like art... I know it when I see it.

But I can give you several examples of control that definitely isn't submission. I give up control to airline pilots and bus drivers. I give up control to dentists and doctors (for the length of the visit at least.) I give up control to my masseuse... and I've even given some machines total control over me, elevators come to mind.

But none of that qualifies as submission...

And yet you have "submitted" to giving up control in those instances as well as many others...

is it the same kind of "submission" given by the slave on her knees before her Master?

Of course it isnt. But it is a type of submission none the less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

A good question and perhaps it's a bit like art... I know it when I see it.

But I can give you several examples of control that definitely isn't submission. I give up control to airline pilots and bus drivers. I give up control to dentists and doctors (for the length of the visit at least.) I give up control to my masseuse... and I've even given some machines total control over me, elevators come to mind.

But none of that qualifies as submission...

---

But we were in fact talking about bottoms giving up control to tops, weren't we?

Ozme said: "But I can give you several examples of control that definitely isn't submission. I give up control to airline pilots and bus drivers. I give up control to dentists and doctors (for the length of the visit at least.) I give up control to my masseuse... and I've even given some machines total control over me, elevators come to mind. But none of that qualifies as submission... "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

And yet you have "submitted" to giving up control in those instances as well as many others...

---

I do not see that as submission, rather availing yourself of the services of people and machines. In our technically (backwards) societies this is unavoidable.

Quote:

---

is it the same kind of "submission" given by the slave on her knees before her Master?
Of course it isnt. But it is a type of submission none the less.[/COLOR][/B]

---

I can't see these two things as having anything to with each other..

But the question arose because a number of people claim that bottoms (if there is such an animal) have no submission in then whatsoever.

I mean, how is that known?? Most of the people answering with such clarity do not claim to be bottoms or tops:je

Granted, we all give our opinions and so on, but I am surprised at the absolute belief shown here and, meaning no disrespect to anyone, it seems to me to have more to do with trying to make life more simple than it is in order to make things easier, than with acutal experience.

The op wasnt asking about submission...but if you want to get technical about it thir...everyone submits to someone somehow some of the time no matter who one is in real life.

In other words both "dominance" and "submission" exist, just as they have throughout all of known human history, outside of it's bdsm context.

The hierarchy of dominion model universally applies during all human interactions even when said humans are not consciously aware of it. It's part of who and what we all are, despite the best attempts of some to live in denial of it.

Some forms of submission are more subtle than others, just as some forms of dominance are.

Just becuase its not overtly sexualized and in one's face as it is sometimes during one's practice of the art (bdsm) doesnt some how make it disapear or change the meaning of the words dominance and submission all of the sudden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

And yet you have "submitted" to giving up control in those instances as well as many others...

is it the same kind of "submission" given by the slave on her knees before her Master?

Of course it isnt. But it is a type of submission none the less.

---

Nice denu... "using" the same sort of semantical argument I might propose... but as this conversation is trying to differentiate between a submissive and a bottom, it is all about context.

I think that context lies in the concept of a continuum, as thir and I have separately pointed out in other related and non-related threads. The "boundary" if you will, between the definition of bottom, sub, and slave, is different for each of us. So you can play with the word and use it at the far end of the continuum but you can't use it as an argument against my statement and in the same breath agree it isn't the same.

I'd argue that few people would equate my willingness to relinquish control in one arena as being the same as submission. It's just control of the airplane (or other venue) that I relinquish. In fact, having done so, if the pilot said he now intended to break covenant with the terms of the "contract" negotiated for this event, the flight, I would have every right to end his control, whether by leaving or wresting away his control. Far more like bottoming in a scene than submitting to a dominant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

But we were in fact talking about bottoms giving up control to tops, weren't we?

---

No, we were talking about the difference between bottoms and submissives, in both scenes and in the longer term relationships.

Yes Sir,

...context is most certiantly important...all I was pointing out was that dominance and submission exist in all aspects of life as biologically natural components to human interaction and are not limited or confined to a contextual side bar within a strictly "bdsm" sexual relationship alone.

I was not sugesting that one's "identity" as a dominant or submissive majically becomes diminished somehow just becuase situations require one to dominate and or submit to one extent or another outside of said bdsm identity inclussive context.

All we are doing by hashing around about the differences between a bottom, a submissive, and a slave, or a top, a dominant and or a master/mistress (each of which have their own history within the community that the politically correct world of the internet consistantly attempts to change including the development of "new" terms that actually have no real purpose in actual practice of the art) is attempting to define the paramaters in intensity and or duration as well as mental and physical orientation/ intent of the participants yes?

In the end it doesnt really matter what one calls one's self in so far as titular distinctions go; especially since in actual practice there is always at least one who holds the whip and at least one who kneels to kiss it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

...context is most certiantly important...all I was pointing out was that dominance and submission exist in all aspects of life as biologically natural components to human interaction and are not limited or confined to a contextual side bar within a strictly "bdsm" sexual relationship alone.

I was not sugesting that one's "identity" as a dominant or submissive majically becomes diminished somehow just becuase situations require one to dominate and or submit to one extent or another outside of said bdsm identity inclussive context.

---

That was a very interesting observation, as while it isn't truly related to my original question, it was a worthy tidbit of food for thought.

As for the various answers generally speaking, I admit that while I have some better ideas of how I might define (or leave labels aside) myself, I appreciate the input since it's true that depending on what you read "definitions" of certain terms can be confusing, which was why I thought that asking people who are into BDSM (which in itself is a very large umbrella word) might offer good info. :)