Gender demographic of the scene

[li****]

5 hours ago, clear_spring said:

Actually nobody is equating bottoms with uneducated subs. Its the opposite. Also, why would anyone need to state they are not willing to deal with newbies? It's not a education service. In the same way when you're dating or job hunting seriously, no one states 'no experience necessary'

I don't know what these two are saying anymore. First it was me being abusive without any proper justification. Now it's accusing us of using terminology in a way that we aren't using. I'm out of here.

[cl****]

2 minutes ago, liliththedivine said:

I don't know what these two are saying anymore. First it was me being abusive without any proper justification. Now it's accusing us of using terminology in a way that we aren't using. I'm out of here.

Its just a classic example of 'teaching' femdoms what to do, which is of course always fun.

[cl****]

But yes, also out of here too because this person is clearly getting off on engagement with dommes they clearly wouldn't attract otherwise.

[ey****]

I think there's a lot that's interesting here that feeds into a common issue.

I guess to go back to stuff I'd pulled

Focusing on "Male submissive" the sc*** had that 30.6% had used some form of role which indicated roles on the right of the slash

11.4% specifically used sub or slave (which *are* pretty much interchangeable.) but only 1.3% used bottom or masochist - and I don't entirely want to reframe how people identify (but am going to kinda) that a lot of those who select sub/slave would be more appropriate in bottom/masochist because their interests are ultimately play and not on any form of re-orientation of power ("I will let you spank/peg/whatever me for an afternoon" not being any form of re-orientation of power) this doesn't mean there's anything wrong with wanting to do something ad hoc and so on 

I guess the question can be is if someone is asked "what makes you a sub" when they start reeling off fetishes - or asking to be micromanaged - they probably aren't what most would view as a sub.

[Bl****]

12 hours ago, clear_spring said:

But yes, also out of here too because this person is clearly getting off on engagement with dommes they clearly wouldn't attract otherwise.

This is kind of sad. This person blocked me. If one looks at our profiles we wouldn’t work out anyways, not counting our distance. This person assumed a whole lot of things about me when I never accused them of the same. The only thing I ever had a problem with was her assuming that people are bottoms and not subs because they weren’t what she considered a true sub. My problem with her reaction in this topic is that she would disallow those people to be considered subs under this topic, when it’s important people understand just where they fit. Ah well, I can’t make people be more accepting of other people wanting to belong to this community.

[ey****]

I feel that saying to someone "you're not a sub, you're more of a bottom, masochist, etc" isn't really kinda disallowing anyone or refusing them belonging.

Like, kind of, in some ways. Helping people understand where they may fit in can help them find what they are seeking.   

It's also not really... a lack of acceptance. It's not really saying "you can't be part of the community because your behaviour is more towards that of a bottom than a sub" it is simply... a statement.

Whilst also not really the right moment for it - this can be a prompt for the person to be ok, so I'm not what most would consider a sub, and either (a) changing their approach (b) looking more at what they can do to be considered a sub and deciding if that is what they would like to do.

[Bl****]

Yesterday at 09:56 PM, gae said:

In my opinion, being dominant means being in charge/control, not being the center of the relationship, pleasure doms are a good counter example of this. Also, you can be sub without being into service (it might depend on how you define service though).

 

 

Gae, you had the right of it. She’s calling service subs “true subs” and everyone else is a bottom. That is the crux of the problem. I find that subs tend to like being service to a point but when kinks are not aligned, does that mean the sub isn’t a true sub? I don’t think so. Let’s be real, with the attitude displayed by clear, if she was into coprophagy but her sub wasn’t, it seems to me he wouldn’t count as a true sub by her standards.

[ey****]

11 hours ago, ***OfLethe said:

She’s calling service subs “true subs” and everyone else is a bottom.

"Service Sub" has another meaning altogether.   A service sub is someone who isn't really a sub, but will take it on as a role - I dunno, like they'll let a friend spank them for practice.  Though I appreciate what you mean is as in subs who are also providing a service.

11 hours ago, ***OfLethe said:

. I find that subs tend to like being service to a point but when kinks are not aligned, does that mean the sub isn’t a true sub?

So kinks not aligning doesn't mean someone *is* or *isn't* a sub - but like the issue is a bit when you break relationships and dynamics down to just kink.

This is often an issue... guy has kinks x, y, z - sees a Domme has kinks x, y, z - and that means there is kink compatability, sure, but the guy then tends to think that is enough.  And kinks, our kinks, isn't what makes us sub or not - but the all round behaviour and package.

Like, stuff like housework - the amount of 'subs' who won't do their fair share of housework because "they're not into it" when it's not about being "Into it" it's about being a fucking adult and contributing to running a household. That someone isn't willing to do a minimum towards running a household but expects to be taken serious as a sub.  The amount of things guys say they're "not into" when it's not actually really relevant to being a sub or not but being relevant about running a household and maintaining a relationship - about doing the minimum, before we even getting into... ok, so what makes you extra?

And like when asked "ok, so what makes you sub" and it's reeled off by kinks and fetishes - then yes, it is being a bottom. You're not looking for a Domme, you're looking for a session.

[Bl****]

5 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

So kinks not aligning doesn't mean someone *is* or *isn't* a sub - but like the issue is a bit when you break relationships and dynamics down to just kink.

This is often an issue... guy has kinks x, y, z - sees a Domme has kinks x, y, z - and that means there is kink compatability, sure, but the guy then tends to think that is enough.  And kinks, our kinks, isn't what makes us sub or not - but the all round behaviour and package.

Like, stuff like housework - the amount of 'subs' who won't do their fair share of housework because "they're not into it" when it's not about being "Into it" it's about being a fucking adult and contributing to running a household. That someone isn't willing to do a minimum towards running a household but expects to be taken serious as a sub.  The amount of things guys say they're "not into" when it's not actually really relevant to being a sub or not but being relevant about running a household and maintaining a relationship - about doing the minimum, before we even getting into... ok, so what makes you extra?

And like when asked "ok, so what makes you sub" and it's reeled off by kinks and fetishes - then yes, it is being a bottom. You're not looking for a Domme, you're looking for a session.

You’re right about the first part: I meant service-oriented sub. Anyway, the rest of what you’re talking about is a mixture of men being patriarchy-brained and unwilling to do their part (which doesn’t fit into this conversation) and the last sentence which may actually have some degree of valid argument, but lacks a useful example for me to tell what you mean. Because, once again, we’re not talking about what is actually differentiating between bottoms and subs. Fact of the matter is there are tops that are subs as well that have a litany of kinks that fall into sub territory. Calling people bottoms because they don’t fit a specific view of sub isn’t useful or even necessarily true

[ey****]

4 hours ago, ***OfLethe said:

Fact of the matter is there are tops that are subs as well that have a litany of kinks that fall into sub territory.

it's not their kinks that make them subs

Let's take a hypothetical Dominant of any gender who... also finds they like being spanked.  The fact they like to be spanked does not make them a sub.  It doesn't even necessarily make them a switch.  That within their entire dynamic with their submissive, their like for being spanked does not change this.

It MAY be that as part of the dynamic the sub will spank their Dominant.  At that second, we could say the sub is being a service top for the Dominants want. Or they are still a sub carrying out instructions.  It MAY be of course that the sub does not wish to spanking their Dominant, nor wishes to see their Dominant spanked - and it may be again in that instance the Dominant finds this play elsewhere.  When the Dominant approaches someone else and says they would like to be spanked (whether this is a Pro, a friend, or someone on a site like this) they are not offering up submission, they want to be spanked.   This is totally fine. It may well be they know someone who would enjoy spanking them, or so on.  But they are not submissive.

Hopefully this is easy to understand.

Now... if this person, say, wasn't a Dominant - but just - well - anyone.  If they're approaching someone with "hey, would you like to do this thing I like with me" then they are asking for play, not offering up submission.   Now. It MAY be this forms a basis of what becomes submission - but typically when someone approaches someone with a shopping list of kinks to try - however they phrase it, and whatever potential may exist, in that instance they are not approaching as a sub.  Because their interest is in their kinks.

 

Of course, it can be difficult. Someone of course may well know/feel they could be a sub to someone and how do you approach a stranger with a view to be their sub? Difficult. And omission of any and all kinks because you want to focus on interest in the person (a good idea) could still lead to a scenario where actually, kinks you'd like to be part of the dynamic are not their interests.   But certainly, in a lot of cases as is many points - many people are not showing they are submissive when approaching prospective Dommes. 

[Bl****]

2 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

it's not their kinks that make them subs

Let's take a hypothetical Dominant of any gender who... also finds they like being spanked.  The fact they like to be spanked does not make them a sub.  It doesn't even necessarily make them a switch.  That within their entire dynamic with their submissive, their like for being spanked does not change this.

It MAY be that as part of the dynamic the sub will spank their Dominant.  At that second, we could say the sub is being a service top for the Dominants want. Or they are still a sub carrying out instructions.  It MAY be of course that the sub does not wish to spanking their Dominant, nor wishes to see their Dominant spanked - and it may be again in that instance the Dominant finds this play elsewhere.  When the Dominant approaches someone else and says they would like to be spanked (whether this is a Pro, a friend, or someone on a site like this) they are not offering up submission, they want to be spanked.   This is totally fine. It may well be they know someone who would enjoy spanking them, or so on.  But they are not submissive.

Hopefully this is easy to understand.

Now... if this person, say, wasn't a Dominant - but just - well - anyone.  If they're approaching someone with "hey, would you like to do this thing I like with me" then they are asking for play, not offering up submission.   Now. It MAY be this forms a basis of what becomes submission - but typically when someone approaches someone with a shopping list of kinks to try - however they phrase it, and whatever potential may exist, in that instance they are not approaching as a sub.  Because their interest is in their kinks.

 

Of course, it can be difficult. Someone of course may well know/feel they could be a sub to someone and how do you approach a stranger with a view to be their sub? Difficult. And omission of any and all kinks because you want to focus on interest in the person (a good idea) could still lead to a scenario where actually, kinks you'd like to be part of the dynamic are not their interests.   But certainly, in a lot of cases as is many points - many people are not showing they are submissive when approaching prospective Dommes. 

I never said I disagreed that this was happening. I literally only said that her labelling them as bottoms was incorrect. Just like your use of ‘service top’ in the your response there is inaccurate. Top and bottom mean very different things from what you are using associatively. Spanking is not a top action. Some may view it as dominant, but in reality it is a kink that is top/bottom and sub/dom agnostic. Some kinks are deeply submissive in nature and as such signal that person is a sub, but frankly I think when these two want a ‘true sub’ they actually mean ‘submissive slave’. And that’s fine. But they aren’t saying that.