in tones of disgust and irritation. One of those phrases is "topping from the bottom.” The other phrase is "service top.”
"Topping from the bottom” indicates a person who exercises power in the relationship, despite being in the "bottom" position. There's nothing wrong with doing that, as long as both partners consent. But some people talk about "topping from the bottom” like it's bad -- as if power ought to belong to one side or the other; as if the bottom should never express preferences or make decisions about what's going on. Which is ridiculous.
I'll grant that it can be annoying if I'm trying to be a top, and my partner isn't listening or isn't doing what I want. But in those cases, it's important to pay attention to what is actually going on. Is my partner resisting because he actually doesn't want to do what we're doing? In that case, I should respect his preferences. Or maybe my partner is resisting because he wants me to punish him. Or maybe we just have bad chemistry! Whatever. The point is, "topping from the bottom” isn't inherently a bad thing. "Topping from the bottom" doesn't make the bottom into a "bad submissive" or whatever. It just means that either the person is trying to communicate, or the person is looking for a certain kind of push-pull dynamic.
Simultaneously, there's the phrase "service top." It's basically the same thing in reverse. A "service top" is a top who enjoys topping in line with his partner's desires. And once again, some people act like this is a bad thing -- as if service tops "aren't dominant enough.” But it's not inherently a bad thing! Ifa service top is doing things just because her partner likes them... then good for her!
I sometimes use phrases like "topping from the bottom" and "service top" to describe dynamics of a relationship: to talk about what is actually going on. But that's because I don't think there's anything wrong with topping from the bottom or being a service top. I try to avoid joking around about it unless I know that the person I'm talking to is not sensitive about the topic. And I really don't like it when people use those phrases while role policing.
BDSM can carry an incredible emotional charge, and a lot of the time, people will want comfort and snuggles after doing BDSM together. Sometimes, part of that comfort and snuggles includes reassuring the partner: "I know you just beat the shit out of me until I cried; I enjoyed it -- I still like you and think you're a good person." Or, "I know you called your safeword while I was hurting you; I still think you're a beautiful submissive and you did a great job -- in fact I love it when you call your safeword because it helps me understand you better." I think that in these cases it's totally okay to say something like, "You're such a good submissive." But it's so important to keep in mind that there isn't some kind of submission that's inherently "better" than any other kind -- or dominance that's "better" -- or sadism, masochism, whatever.
And here is the part of the entry where I pull aside the mask and reveal that even though I claimed I wouldn't talk about consent... I was secretly talking about consent all along!
The consent problem here is that role policing can be used to mess with people's consent, because role policing can be used to pressure people. If a person wants to feel like a "real submissive,” and you tell them that "real submissives" always receive anal
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018545