Training a Bottom - Do you need a Top, or another bottom?

[ErosWired]

I’m a trained sexual service submissive, shaped by experiences under several dominant Tops including a former Master/Owner. From time to time, I’m approached by other bottoms who ask if I will help train them to do the sort of things I do and react in the ways I react. I never agree to this because I don’t Top ever, at all, but I have wondered sometimes whether it really does require a Dominant Top to properly train a submissive bottom for service, or whether an experienced service bottom could teach a new bottom what he needs to know.

My personal trajectory couldn’t have been achieved, I don’t think, by anyone but a Dominant Top with Sadist tendencies, but my case isn’t really mainstream.

What do you think? Does it take a Top to train a bottom, or can bottoms train others to serve Tops?

[funpozbottom]

I don't think a bottom can "train" another bottom, but he can "teach" by offering advice, discussing techniques, and sort of acting as a coach. If you don't want to take on the role, then I'd direct them to discussion boards like this one since a lot of the topics tend to fall along those lines.

[Bttm2go]

Not all tops are good tops. In fact a lot of them don’t have a clue how to get the most out of a bottom. Some guys are natural tops and instinctively know what to do. Some have clearly watched too much porn as training.

As a bottom you can help a top grow into an amazing top. In fact in some ways it’s your duty. And you can give advice and pointers to fellow bottoms to help make them a better bottom. 

I have learned a lot from other bottoms along the way. I certainly am not the greatest bottom on earth, but I am constantly learning and growing. When a top tells me I was amazing, that’s my ultimate reward. 

[ErosWired]

3 hours ago, Bttm2go said:

As a bottom you can help a top grow into an amazing top. In fact in some ways it’s your duty. And you can give advice and pointers to fellow bottoms to help make them a better bottom. 

I have, in fact, been helping a young man discover and nurture his Top instincts. I agree that it feels something like a duty, though one that is a joy to fulfill.

 I do also, frequently, share information and advice (for what 2¢ will get you) with other bottoms, but there’s a massive difference between swapping pointers and conditioning another man for sexual service. I don’t even necessarily mean that as extremely as it sounds, or to the extent done to me, but just actual, proper training that pushes limits and builds skills.

It’s not that I don’t think anyone could go through the mechanics of training the bottom, either, but to instill the desired attitude and frame of mind... I don’t know.

[HardOneLA]

Fascinating topic and questions, bud.   I was a Top for the greater part of my life, yet always knew I was submissive, not Dom.  Then at 50 I had prostate cancer and despite successful treatments "things changed" over time.  And I had a new partner, who had I'd only had a large hard cock with.  One day at our then house in the desert he decided he was going to fuck me (outdoors where we had the best ever sex), but I "couldn't take it".  Finally he said, "Well if you're going to scream like that forget it."  Somehow then and there I, and my hole, relented and let him mount me.  From thereon it was bliss.  I've never looked back and even though we're no longer together I thank him for showing me my true role and calling which is to accept and receive cocks.  Being "older" now (60's) I may not be prime material but am a hungry hog for breeding.  Not sure that I've contributed much to answering your question, but....    😉

[tallslenderguy]

 

On 12/28/2019 at 7:49 PM, ErosWired said:

I’m a trained sexual service submissive, shaped by experiences under several dominant Tops including a former Master/Owner. From time to time, I’m approached by other bottoms who ask if I will help train them to do the sort of things I do and react in the ways I react. I never agree to this because I don’t Top ever, at all, but I have wondered sometimes whether it really does require a Dominant Top to properly train a submissive bottom for service, or whether an experienced service bottom could teach a new bottom what he needs to know.

My personal trajectory couldn’t have been achieved, I don’t think, by anyone but a Dominant Top with Sadist tendencies, but my case isn’t really mainstream.

What do you think? Does it take a Top to train a bottom, or can bottoms train others to serve Tops?

Idk.  You were "trained," so perhaps that's why it's a part of your expectation and perspective to think in terms of a bottom needing some sort of formal training?  Personally, i think you're a sweet babe with a natural bottom/sub makeup.  You experienced "several dominant Tops including a former Master/Owner who "conditioned" you with their ideas and expectations of who and what a bottom should be. i think you'd be a bottom/sub regardless of their training, not because of it.  i think we are all shaped by our experiences,  Top or bottom, Dom or sub. 

i get that there are D/s people who believe and follow a code that the Dom dictates and the sub submits, building from a foundation that the Dom is superior, stronger and the sub inferior, weaker.  Those are not the only people who identify as D/s though.  There are others who don't believe D/s has anything to do with the one being superiori, stronger and the other inferior, weaker.  

i submit  (of course i do lol) that the skills we acquire as Tops or bottoms have more to do with our openness to learn than from being forced to become. Which is not to say that we cannot be conditioned or groomed, but for me affectionate grooming is a lot more powerful and motivating and exploitive of my nature than forceful conditioning is.  To me, forceful conditioning breaks resistance (intentionally) while affectionate grooming nurtures submission (intentionally). i've obeyed and submitted to forceful Doms, but i've been possessed by and adored affectionate nurturing Doms.  

And again, i get that there are both types. i'm not suggesting that one is right and the other wrong, but that there are different D/s dispositions and approaches.  With that idea, i think a bottom/sub can learn from a Top or bottom, Dom or sub and a Top/Dom can learn from a Top or bottom, Dom or sub.  i think each brings something unique to the table, that there isn't a one size fits all category, though there are basic similarities?  

We can understand our opposites, but may not be able to relate to them if that is not the way we are. i think it's important to listen and look at everyone, to see and hear all. i think it's a mistake to say we can only learn from one or the other, because in so doing we leave out half the perspective.

 

[ErosWired]

@tallslenderguy - You reference my words “trained” and “conditioned” in quotes, which suggests that you think their usage is inaccurate or overblown. In the sense that I am talking about, and certainly in regard to my own experience, both words are apt and specific.

I think you are quite right that I have a naturally bottom/sub composition, and that I would probably have been a bottom/sub regardless of the influence of any particular man. I also agree that we are much more likely to develop from an openness to learning than to coercion.

A distinction I would like to make, however, is that between simple learning from one another through the sharing of information, and the actual training of one man by another through the use of practices and techniques intended to bring about a direct and substantial change in the subject.

 I keep coming back to my own case because (I think) it’s a bit farther toward the extreme edge of the topic, but serves as good illustration. My former Master didn’t simply encourage me to explore my natural tendencies through affection or simple suggestion; he - very consciously - employed Pavlovian conditioning methods, guided suggestibility, humiliation, physical restraint, and a complex application of forced pleasure and pain until the boundary between the two became indistinct and therefore something he could manipulate. He approached his work on me with specific goals in mind - to discover whether he could a) control another man’s orgasm on command; b) cause another man to accept the reality that he had a natural duty to be sexually used by other men; and c) instill both of the above as permanent changes to the subject.

He accomplished the first two certainly, and there is no sign that he failed in the third. Whatever sort of bottom I might have ended up being, I am absolutely certain that had I not been owned by one particular Man, I would not now believe with all my heart, as I do, that every man should be able to fuck me on demand, and that that is right and natural, and I would not have an involuntary orgasm every time another man tells me - or even texts me - “Cum.”

So my initial question relates more to this kind of training, albeit not to my extreme. You say you respond better to positive reinforcement. Some people respond more readily to negative reinforcement, and sometimes a combination is effective. The issue is whether the change that takes place is significant, would have taken place without the direct intervention of the trainer, and is of a lasting nature.

One bottom giving another tips on how to swallow a cock may make him a better cocksucker. But training him - giving him the experiential basis for proficiency - is a different matter. Yes, the first bottom could stiffen up and coach the second bottom with his own cock, but is that going to prepare him for the actual experience of accommodating a Top, with the Top’s needs, expectations and aggression?

We can absolutely all help each other get better. But in the sense of making lasting change in a man, of shaping his raw clay into a more developed form, or of honing a sexual athlete, I think both my words and my original question still have relevance.

[tallslenderguy]

58 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

@tallslenderguy - You reference my words “trained” and “conditioned” in quotes, which suggests that you think their usage is inaccurate or overblown. In the sense that I am talking about, and certainly in regard to my own experience, both words are apt and specific.

I think you are quite right that I have a naturally bottom/sub composition, and that I would probably have been a bottom/sub regardless of the influence of any particular man. I also agree that we are much more likely to develop from an openness to learning than to coercion.

A distinction I would like to make, however, is that between simple learning from one another through the sharing of information, and the actual training of one man by another through the use of practices and techniques intended to bring about a direct and substantial change in the subject.

 I keep coming back to my own case because (I think) it’s a bit farther toward the extreme edge of the topic, but serves as good illustration. My former Master didn’t simply encourage me to explore my natural tendencies through affection or simple suggestion; he - very consciously - employed Pavlovian conditioning methods, guided suggestibility, humiliation, physical restraint, and a complex application of forced pleasure and pain until the boundary between the two became indistinct and therefore something he could manipulate. He approached his work on me with specific goals in mind - to discover whether he could a) control another man’s orgasm on command; b) cause another man to accept the reality that he had a natural duty to be sexually used by other men; and c) instill both of the above as permanent changes to the subject.

He accomplished the first two certainly, and there is no sign that he failed in the third. Whatever sort of bottom I might have ended up being, I am absolutely certain that had I not been owned by one particular Man, I would not now believe with all my heart, as I do, that every man should be able to fuck me on demand, and that that is right and natural, and I would not have an involuntary orgasm every time another man tells me - or even texts me - “Cum.”

So my initial question relates more to this kind of training, albeit not to my extreme. You say you respond better to positive reinforcement. Some people respond more readily to negative reinforcement, and sometimes a combination is effective. The issue is whether the change that takes place is significant, would have taken place without the direct intervention of the trainer, and is of a lasting nature.

One bottom giving another tips on how to swallow a cock may make him a better cocksucker. But training him - giving him the experiential basis for proficiency - is a different matter. Yes, the first bottom could stiffen up and coach the second bottom with his own cock, but is that going to prepare him for the actual experience of accommodating a Top, with the Top’s needs, expectations and aggression?

We can absolutely all help each other get better. But in the sense of making lasting change in a man, of shaping his raw clay into a more developed form, or of honing a sexual athlete, I think both my words and my original question still have relevance.

No,  i do not mean to imply your usage of those words is "inaccurate or overblown,"  i am sorry if i came across that way.   From things you have written, it is my impression that your training and conditioning were of the sort i describe further down, "forceful and coercive."   Types of Dom;'s and methods i do not consider "right or wrong," but people and ways i would have personally fled from had that been my situation.  

No, i've stated before and i still believe that the things you relate are real and well articulated. I like and appreciate your "dense" sentences ❤️

Regarding affectionate grooming, i don't think i am communicating what i mean by that, maybe because you just don't relate or perhaps haven't experienced what i refer to, or maybe you just aren't the kind of person that responds to that kind of manipulation (for lack of a better word).  "Grooming" is the best i can come up with. Yes, i do respond better to affection and did and do grant that some people respond to and even want negative reinforcement. I felt i tried to say that evenly. 

Yes, i think one bottom can provide training to another, will that result in universal preparation for all "actual experience?"  i don't think so.  That question makes me wonder if the type of training you have received prepares you for accommodating the affectionate type of Dom i describe?  That's a real question, not a challenge. 

Just as you can claim real and lasting change from your experiences with particular Dom's/Masters you have been with, i too believe i have been changed, lasting deep change, by my experience with certain affectionate Dom/s.  

[ErosWired]

9 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

I like and appreciate your "dense" sentences ❤️

LOL!  - Guilty as charged. 

9 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

Regarding affectionate grooming, i don't think i am communicating what i mean by that, maybe because you just don't relate or perhaps haven't experienced what i refer to, or maybe you just aren't the kind of person that responds to that kind of manipulation

I understand what you’re expressing by affectionate grooming. I alluded to it when I mentioned those who respond to positive reinforcement. I suppose ‘affectionate grooming’ could also be applied to less targeted or less change-driven actions. In that sense, ‘affectionate grooming’ makes me think of brushing my cat to maintain her coat. Which in turn puts a very strange image of you in my mind with a Top... kinky... 😉

No, I probably wouldn’t respond as readily to that kind of attention. First, I’m not a very emotion-driven person, and secondly, I’m a shorthair. 😺