|
CuriousLord -> RE: Slaves vs. Subs vs. Bottoms (4/5/2007 6:27:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DrPleasure
Do you make a distinction between these three? If so what is your definition?
Most Dominant to most submissive.
Master (male) / Mistress (female):
Very dominant. Controls and owns humans as property.
Dom (male) / Domme (female):
Dominant. Controls humans as a superior, but does not own them.
Alternate usage: Generic term for anyone who is dominant, to include Master's, Dom's, and, at times, top's.
top (male or female):
Slightly dominant and/or sadistic. Could be a temporary tag for a switch in the dominant phase.
Clarification: Dominance is more important to definition than sadism.
Example: A slightly dominant yet slightly masochistic individual would be termed "top".
Example: A slightly sadistic yet slightly submissive individual would not be termed "top".
switch (male or female):
Alternates between top and bottom roles on a regular basis.
Note: Due to alternating roles, these relationships are often hard to understand. This definition is purposefully vague, as it catches a wide range of different types of styles.
bottom (male or female):
Slightly submissive and/or masochistic.
Clarification: Submission is more important to definition than masochism.
Example: A slightly dominant yet slightly masochistic individual would not be termed "bottom".
Example: A slightly sadistic yet slightly submissive individual would be termed "bottom".
sub (male or female):
Submissive. A sub obeys orders and follows rules within boundaries the sub sets him- or her-self. The sub shows a submissive nature, yet is not property.
subs best couple with Dom's.
slave (male or female):
Very submissive. A slave obeys orders and follows rules. A slave is property- does not own itself or anything else (everything that may be considered as being a slave's is of the Master/Mistress). Ideally, a slave is without bounds, though this isn't normally found in practice (most "slaves" have some aspects of a sub in them).
slaves are best with Masters/Mistresses.
pet (male or female):
Extremely submissive. A pet obeys and follows rules. A pet is property- does not own itself or anything else (everything that may be considered as being a pet's is of the Master/Mistress). A pet is dehumanized, without rights before the Master/Mistress.
pets are best with Masters/Mistresses.
Note: There's a "pet" roleplay and a "pet" stance. This details the pet stance. Many subs and slaves may roleplay as a pet, which is not to be confused with this.
Notes:
Extreme submission appears to be uncommon. The further you go away from the norm, the less the fraction of the population you find in it.
Bottoms are very common, even (especially?) in vanilla life.
Subs are pretty common in BDSM, and not exactly uncommon in vanilla life.
Slaves are not overly uncommon in BDSM, though do not exist in considerable levels in vanilla life.
Pets can be uncommon even in BDSM, and rare to an extreme outside of it.
Despite a bit of research, I'm still unable to comment on populations of the more dominant end of the spectrum. I have far less experience and it would be, more or less, based off of conjecture. My best guesstimation would be that dominants follow a similar trend: the more dominant, the less common. However, as an extremely dominant individual, I find it difficult to believe that this could, plausibly, be the case. It's easy for me to understand why people wouldn't want to be very submissive, but I'm at a loss for understanding the reasons one might not want to be very dominant.
The definitions above work. Not all individuals, however, fall immediately into these definitions, so many are estimated as being something that they are not by definition. It is important to understand this does not change the definition, or the meaning of the word, only that, in these cases, the individual is classified as in a standard definition for the sake of ease. When it comes down to it, one simply has to get to know and understand another, as these are just basic, generic words.
Some individuals fancy themselves, for one reason or another, as being one of these terms while not fulfilling the definition, or even approximating it. For instance, a Dom may call himself a "Master", despite having a less-than-Masterly dominant aspect going on, or a sub may fancy herself a "slave", though not willing to give herself up as property. How you chose to deal with these sorts of people isn't a matter I deal with here, though, just because they claim it doesn't make it true.
For understanding "slaves", I would like to note that most "slaves" are not truly slaves, but a compromise between the slave and sub classes. As slaves in the truest sense are relatively rare, and there is a great need for a comprised term between the two, those who are not quite a slave, but more than a sub, are using the term "slave" appropriately when in reference to their stance due to late convention.
"Dominance" is often seen as a function of dominance and sadism, as many note a correlation. However, the definitions above, when referring to "dominance", mean dominance, and not a function of dominance and sadism. This said, the definitions of "top" and "bottom" are loosely enough defined that sadism/masochism may differentiate between a top and a bottom when dominance/submission is negligible.
|
|
|
|
