It has recently occured to me that tops and bottoms are roles, not personality types. This might seem to be either a) an obvious statement of fact or b) untrue, but I’m pretty sure it is true.
A Top needs to have certain qualities of course, but for the most part what makes a Top a Top is their actions. It’s an active state. Bottoming is too really. And though some people are very firmly set in their orientation there are those of us who float between being one, the other, neither or both depending on mood.
I’m very much in the latter category or lack thereof. Sometimes I do wonder if I fit at all and then I remember that I’ve been fascinated by spanking (and the dominance and submission that must go with it) since I was a small child. Also I keep writing all these stories, so I must fit somewhere, right?
Some people might think that the mere presence of lady parts makes a person a bottom, but there’s no real evidence to show that dominant or submissive traits are linked to sex organs. Some people take that sort of thinking further and say that women can’t be good Tops. Those people should go boil their heads as that’s as false and shallow a statement as can be. There’s nothing quite so fascinating or exciting as a female Top. Some are warm and vaguely maternal in their style, others are seductive and sensual, others draw on a rough and tumble kind of strength. These are all good and valid approaches and have different, though equally striking effects. (Ha! See what I did there?)
I’m not sure this post really has any kind of neat conclusion, so I’ll end this with a quote from Bruce Lee (which can be crow-barred into almost any discussion to make it seem deep):
Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.
Pondering the imponderable?
Bob Dylan was once interviewed by Time Magazine. I cannot quote the statement he made, but when he was asked if that was his position on ‘whateveritwas’, he replied “until the light changes”. It wasn’t a cop out. It was Bob being honest.
With that in mind, it seems a reasonable hypothesis that Topism or Bottomism are indeed roles that are assumed in response to ‘the moment’. Reasonable, that is, if we are talking real human beings whose individual responses to the same stimulus can vary in quite surprising and unpredictable ways.
Tops, Bottoms, ….people in general, are multi-faceted and subject to changes in mood and needs. Maybe a role is assumed in response to external conditions and internal programming and personal past experience, or maybe due to raging hormones, or how long ’til dinner vs how hungry one is, or how much sugar or caffein one has consumed, and, yes, the changing of the light. Maybe all it takes to turn a Bottom into a Top is the sight of a really lovely behind. Maybe all it takes to turn a Top into a Bottom is a moment of guilt or insecurity. To the outside observer, it all ends up the same, with somebody ending up end up. Perfect paragons of Toppiness act consistantly, correctly, as expected of their finitely defined person-ality. (Pure fiction.) Normal human Tops react, in accord with their multi-faceted real life personality. The tricky part of the Top/Bottom relationship is making sure both ‘players’ are clear on who is cast in what role and that they are playing out a scene from the same play. It simply will not ‘do’ if either party is unclear as to who is the ‘lead’ in the scene. How much of the success or failure in any relationship is due to the compatability or incompatability of the two parties’ neurosis at any given point in time when they interact. Even with the best communication of “I need” or “I want”, there is no guarentee that what one says is interpreted as what was meant. Thus, if one changes ‘position’ from Top to Bottom, or vice versa, it would seem imperative for both parties to be on the same page of that script or that show will close pretty damned quick to bad reviews.
Is this covered in Alyx’s Top’s Manual? I am so confused!
You’ve opened a can of worms here Sparrow. There’s a very interesting book called The Lucifer Principle. It’s ostensibly about group evolution and how evil happens, but it is about more than that too. The author, Howard Bloom, explores the way that humans taken on roles not as a result of personality but as a result of need – a need dictated by group structure.
For instance, take the leaders out of several groups and put them all in one group and one leader will emerge among them. The rest will assume new roles, one will become the second to the dominant, one will become the clown, etc etc etc.
That’s why every class has a clown, every school has the pretty popular girl, every office has the brown-noser. These roles seem to be determined by human group structure, and humans will fill the available space as best they can.
So too it is possible that tops and bottoms emerge in the same way. Put two tops together and they might form an alliance if there are enough bottoms around, but maybe not, maybe one will become dominant to the other.
So, if the group is very small, does that mean each individual has to assume more than one role as the need arises? Does the group construct determine the individual need, or does the individual’s need change the group construct?
Chicken -egg, egg-chicken….?? Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don’t. Sometimes you feel like a Top…and sometimes you need a Top. Sometimes you need to Bottom, and thus manipulate the top to presume they are dominant when, in fact, it is the Bottom who is in control.
I say ‘what’s the difference? Everybody still gets wet!’
Sometimes you feel like a nut. *snargle*
I wrote this. Pink posted it. Sank like a rock but I think it speaks directly to your ponder.
Over your knee
I pretend it doesn’t make much difference
I don’t want to give you more advantage than you’ve already got
Put me over the bed, over a stool, over the back of the couch
I’ll still get wet
But you must sense the inner gloat when I go over your knee
Do you see how slowly I stretch myself across your lap?
Do you think it’s reluctance, contrition, fear?
It’s pure arrogance. It is sin.
I feel you tighten beneath me
I know I’m causing that
I lift to meet your hand. I feel the slightest struggle
To maintain your rant, maintain your rhythm, exact your price
To be Dominant
I love that struggle
I don’t put my hands on the floor
I wrap my arms around your legs
You feel me spasm from your ankle to your thigh
My grip is uncompromising
You own me
I own you over your knee
The best players are always to some extent channeling the other position, oui? So of course it is within us to “be” the other, whether or not we actually do switch.
The best play is for the real, the connection, the working together to create and share equally that life force that is more than the sum of us. To share that power to achieve our burning ends.
Ha, see how I did that?
I see what you did there! And that’s a beautiful poem. Well, it’s as naughty as it is beautiful – mischievous is a good word for it. And I completely agree that most of us have something of the other in us. That is a good and worthy point!
Thank you. That means a lot coming from you. Still think “arrogance” should have been “insolence” but you can argue yourself bipolar on that type of thing. Give it up, move on.
You are all a bunch of philosophical kinksters!!
Oh yes, the philosophy is strong in these ones :)
And the poem was beautiful, indeed.
Yes, the poem is smashing good!
And as far as that guy’s Lucifer Principal, some personalities would have to be boiled in oil before they would fill the role of class clown, brown noser, pretty popular cheerleader, or even leader…just because the role is open to be filled. Mr. Bloom may have used sheep to test his hypothesis. Or lemmings. One can accept a group of leaders in which one emerges as ‘top dog’, but its unlikely a leader among leaders would fill the role of clown or boot licker just to fill the role.
Nope. I vote for personality and personal need as the determining factors in choosing to switch roles. I also think that, the stronger the personality, the more likely the propensity to assume a role to meet a personal need. And I think that is perfectly OK.
I hope I am not being too obnoxiously contrary. It’s my innate bratitude showing. Apologies to Mr. Bloom. His study was probably to illustrate behavior in a business group environment. The world of Toppy Bottoms and Bottomly Tops is a whole ‘nuther planet……..yes?….no?
That’s what you’d like to think, huh? We’d all love to think that it is our own super awesome personalities that impose themselves on the world. But it’s very possible that human groups themselves have structure, and in order to exist, they need those roles to be fulfilled. People who refuse to fit into the group and therefore take a role will be pushed out, or take themselves out. They’ll feel that they ‘don’t fit in’. And they don’t – so out they go. Human groups have minds of their own – and that’s what the book is about to some extent. It’s not about business or sheep or lemmings. (Why would you leap to those conclusions?)
It’s about human dynamics and how evil exists, is tolerated and thrives. It’s fascinating and though you might read it and not agree with it, you should probably at least read it before deciding that you already don’t agree with it based on what you think it ‘must’ be about.
OK, I’ll read the book.
But I’m not leaping to any conclusion, and the business, sheep and lemmings remark was just plain snarky, for which I apologized. (Why do I feel like you just smacked my knuckles with a ruler?)
That whole premise reminds me of Lord of the Rings, Holocost concentration camps, and the KKK. These examples of groups support the existance of evil, and the human dynamics that tolerate and allow it to thrive. There are just some groups that one hopes to have the strength of character and personality to choose death rather than to fit in.
Death is always an option. And as you’ll realize when you read your assigned reading, nobody is saying that these group dynamics are a necessarily good thing. But they do exist – and one has more power when one understands them and how they work than when one thinks that one is immune to the lure of the herd.
You probably feel like you got your knuckles smacked because you sort of did. That’s my opinion as a doctor.
OK, I will read the book.
But the business/sheep/lemmings reference wasn’t a conclusion, just a snarky remark for which I apologize.
(Why do I feel you just smacked my knuckles?)
There are plenty of examples that illustrate the structured groups you mention, the existance of evil, and the human dynamics of conformity to the groups needs that ultimately tolerate and nurture the evil. There is the holocaust concentration camps, the KKK, that group of school boys in Lord of the Flies, street gangs…. But can you agree that it is better to refuse to fit in to those kinds of groups, even at the cost of ones life? That isn’t super awsome personality imposing itself on the world. Its just garden variety courage and character, attempting to thwart the evil. I’ll read Bloom’s book, but I take no issue with his premise as you defined it.
I repeat myself here because I accidentally hit send the first time I tried to defend myself in the face of chastisement, in typical brat mode.
Mmm, a great discussion, Loki! I happen to think they’re both roles and personality types (the former more strongly). Do humans react to group dynamics like clownfish change gender, in accordance to prevailing population ratios? Sure, why not? (Btw, I particularly enjoy that example, because in the clownfish world, the top dominant is a female….quite right and natural, IMO. :D )
As a switch, I naturally think I reap the rewards of both roles. In fact I was pondering my own blog post about such a subject. But who knows when that will happen. In the meantime, I really enjoyed your discussion, Sparrow’s contribution, and Emen’s excellent poem. It heartens me to hear such balanced views being aired!
Oh, and yes, Sparrow, ’tis all covered in Alyx’s Top Manual. ;)
I used to think that they were 100% personality types, then I realized that they were actually roles. Now I reckon they’re probably a mixture – depending on the person. Being a writer, for instance, makes you sort of toppy I think. Because you’re running everything. You create the entire world. If that’s not toppy I don’t know what is.
But Alex, from some of your recent posts, I gather the rules in that manual are somewhat fluid, subject to the individual Tops interpretation, the rotation of the earth, the angle of the suns rays, etc, etc.
I have now probably succeeded in getting you both pissed off at me.
Oh, crap! Back on the fecal roster!
Nope, not pissed off at all. Why would I be? You’re entitled to your opinion, and yup, I think the best tops are flexible. Flexible not being the same as inconsistent, mind. And definitely each top should have their own interpretation, because each brat and each relationship is different. :)
What was the question? Nature vs. nurture? Paper or plastic?
You create the entire world. You’re a person of obviously extraordinary imagination. You can imagine yourself as any of these roles or personalities or clownfish complete with their attendant circumstances and backstory and medical history back to birth. An intellect of that power may very well be capable of blooming thoughts into physical reality. You think, you become. So you may not be the best example.
I didn’t say you don’t fit, I said you’re maybe not the best example.
I believe I was born Bottom. Do I want to spank a girl with a great butt? Absolutely, have done, always will. Does that make me Top potential? I don’t think so. I don’t feel the thrill in it, don’t feel a pull towards it. Of all the experiences of our lives TTWD is surely among the most visceral. You would have to feel it before you could “choose” to do it.
Maybe Sparrow and Alyx (and you) were born Switch. You move between and exist so naturally at what I perceive as opposite ends of a spectrum, and to you don’t even seem that different. That I understand. I am conpletely and deeply bisexual. There is no difference to me between men and women in terms of lust. Born that way. And born Bottom.
Given time I feel sure I can further confuse this issue. Regards.
The point that you made here, which I often forget – is that the entire world is not me. That’s one of those ‘well duh’ things, but I think lots of people forget that. People tend to forget that there are other people who really do think and feel differently about things – and that their truths are as real for them as yours are for you.
For instance, you’re a Bottom who finds no thrill in Topping. And that is great but also amazing to my brain because, well, to my brain there’s nothing like pinning someone down and just… well… reveling in their pinned downedness and doing things to them.
I’m not in any way arguing against your feelings or wiring, they are perfectly wonderful – it’s just interesting that they are genuinely different. (And yes, I think this stuff is inborn for most of us one way or another.)
See now I sound like a toddler being amazed that not all people are the same person, but it is actually quite amazing that we’re all quite different in our differenty ways.
The difference is the wonder and the marvel and the beauty. All are welcome. All are worthy.
What I find amazing is that we are all different, and yet have so many innate facets of our humanity that make us, on some level, the same.
We should celebrate our differences, marvel at them, acknowledge them, defend them and consider one another with open minds and
open hearts.
I may seem to disagree with what you say, because I am misinterpreting it thru the clouded lens of my own experiences and prejudices, or because something in the topic hits a hot button that closes my mind and I respond from my emotions, without consulting my brains. However, it never fails that, upon a second reading, I am always enlightened in some way by what you write, and am always left with a respect and admiration for your intellect and the awareness that I have expressed an opinion while you have expressed a considered opinion. I place a high value on your blogs and on your right to choose to be Toppy today and Bottomy tomorrow. Its kind of lovable…like Rigel.
What a wonderful post! You’re reminding me and showing me that posts don’t have to be long to be full of insights and depth and be exciting.
I’m grateful to newtkai for pointing me to your blog. I need to add you to my blog roll.
Awesome quote from Bruce Lee too, and aptly applied. He’s one of my heroes.
Awesomeness :-)
-Quai