Fine line between bottom and sub?

[thir]

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.

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.

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!

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.)

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?

[Ozme52]

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.

[thir]

. 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?

[Ozme52]

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...

[thir]

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?

[Ozme52]

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.