[ SECRET POST #5703 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5703 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 27 secrets from Secret Submission Post #816 .
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I get the feeling that for a lot of people top/bottom roles are even more important and meaningful that d/s roles? Outside of physically liking one type of sex more than another, I'm not sure why people are so into these roles?

I think a lot of people get very, uh, intense about top/bottom roles because to them it's not just a question of whose outie goes into whose innie. To them it's about things like who is more vulnerable and who is more in control, who is more active and who is more passive, who is being taken care of and who is doing the caretaking (or in darker iterations, who is being used and who is doing the using/who is being punished and who is doing the punishing), and how all of those things dovetail into one's personal concept of the characters and of their broader relationship.

Is it problematic to mentally conflate top/bottom roles with things that aren't inherently connected to top/bottom roles? Sure. But a lot of people do. So there's that. Also, lots of people-- *raises hand* --don't rationally conflate top/bottom roles with anything beyond the physical, but when it comes to our kinks (both emotional and sexual), top and bottom absolutely come prepacked with all sorts of co-occurring elements and dynamics.

So yeah, when people get intense about top/bottom roles, it's usually because what they're actually being intense about is characterization and relationship dynamics. (I am not arguing for or against the validity of this viewpoint, I am just explaining it as I see it.)

Plus, when it comes to fanfic, it's very common for the way the characters are depicted and the way their dynamic is depicted to be recognizably different depending on who tops and who bottoms in the fic. I know that in my fandoms, I can usually tell which character will primarily top and which character will primarily bottom very early in the fic, just by how they're written. So even if someone sees topping and bottoming as purely about whose innie goes into whose outie, once they start reading fanfic for a pairing, they may well find that they prefer the characterization they tend to get from top!A/bottom!B over the characterization they tend to get from top!B/Bottom!A or vice versa. *shrug*

[(Anonymous)]

"I think a lot of people get very, uh, intense about top/bottom roles because to them it's not just a question of whose outie goes into whose innie. To them it's about things like who is more vulnerable and who is more in control, who is more active and who is more passive, who is being taken care of and who is doing the caretaking (or in darker iterations, who is being used and who is doing the using/who is being punished and who is doing the punishing), and how all of those things dovetail into one's personal concept of the characters and of their broader relationship."

Yeah, I kind of figured. I think I don't WANT to find that kid of meaning in top/bottom roles because, well, I hate being submissive, I don't want to be the vulnerable one with a more in-control partner, I don't like being passive, I don't want to be taken care of OR punished or used. But, well, not having a penis means accepting those roles or only having sex using toys (which obviously excludes the possibility of "using" someone (consensually, of course)).

As far as I can tell, most fandom people just... accept that if you have a certain type of body and don't like the vulnerable/passive/cared for/used/punished role, you just use dildos/strap-ons to have sex. Every dominant female character gets people making strap-on memes, because of course every dominant female character accepts that about her body and doesn't experience any... discomfort or body hatred (I guess?) because of it. They all just love and embrace using strap-ons as an expression of dominance.

Which is fine, nothing wrong with using toys, but I don't like that I just have to accept that my body is inherently submissive/vulnerable/passive/meant-to-be-cared-for and that physical stimulation has to come with an interpersonal role that I would hate so much that it's not even worth bothering to have sex. I can't see NOT resenting a partner whose body can experience physical stimulation without having to be in that interpersonal role.

And of course you don't have to be physically passive to have penetrative sex, I know there are sex positions where the penetrated person is on top and all, but then... well, one of the characteristics I see attributed to "bottoms" is "needy." So is doing that avoiding being passive or is it just being so NEEDY for penetration that you'll like, actively take charge of putting yourself into the inherently-passive role? Only because you NEED it in a way that penetrators don't need sex - and of course you'd be thrilled if the penetrator stopped being lazy and took charge and slammed you down and started pounding you, right?

I secretly kind of wish it weren't so prevalent and universal, but you can't really get away from it.