Sub Tops

[londaybaaz]

Is there any category of tops on the earth which consider it as sub top, who likes humiliation, but at the end penerates his cock

[Phallarchist]

It is abomination.

[londaybaaz]

1 hour ago, Phallarchist said:

It is abomination.

There are many activities on the bottom's side which fall under this category; there should be a slut category on top's side too, but why it does not appear on the forum

[Davidc]

Tops are tops , bottoms are bottoms- Simple 

[cockfun69]

2 hours ago, Davidc said:

Tops are tops , bottoms are bottoms- Simple 

And vers? Life is never simple. I have had 'tops' fuck me then ask if I'm always btm. They can't wait to ride me after!

[Davidc]

Versatile, just greedy ( he said enviously)

[funpozbottom]

On 12/21/2024 at 1:39 PM, londaybaaz said:

Is there any category of tops on the earth which consider it as sub top, who likes humiliation, but at the end penerates his cock

If you can imagine it, someone is into it.

I know of a couple guys who fall into that category. One in particular has certain toilet fetishes and likes to be tied up, humiliated, used, edged, and cock ridden til he cums. He considers himself a top since he does not get fucked and doesn't suck, but on the fetish side, he likes things that might usually be thought of as a bottom's role. On the other side, there are power bottoms who like to be aggressive, take control, and make a top cum.

So yes, there are tops who like to be passive or humiliated in some way. People are complicated and not everyone fits neatly into arbitrary categories. There can be a lot of overlap and reversal in roles -- particularly when it comes to kinks and fetishes. 

[Starrrcream]

My first FB was a sub top.  He is the son of my parents' friend and a few years older than me.  He obviously got interest in me but he was so timid and closeted.  So I initiated the first move and eventually got on top of him..  He never got on top of me...

[blackrobe]

Let's not conflate terms here. Urban Dictionary has a simple take on submissive tops:

"A submissive top is a top that likes it when the bottom is in control. Dominant bottoms can be just as powerful as dominant tops."

I've run across a few (closeted/latent) sub tops in my time. It usually happens when a top accidentally presses my kink/switch buttons and I get aggressive and growly, and pound my hole onto his dick. Sometimes I lay claim to his dick, balls, and every drop of seed in him. Suddenly they need to be used and objectified like a human dildo or a bull milked to provide me with the virile cum I need deep in my ass.

In most cases they get so freaked out by a) finding out they want to be controlled and used and b) by how intensely they orgasmed when they got it, that I never hear from them again.

If I'm honest, I'd love to nurture and grow a submissive/switchy top as a FB/FWB. I'd enjoy helping him find the shape of his own submission.

[Rillion]

The current term for this is a Service Top. 

[blackrobe]

18 hours ago, Rillion said:

The current term for this is a Service Top. 

I don't agree.

Service top is another one of those terms that's been conflated with being dominant *and* being submissive. While a service top may be somewhere on the power dynamic spectrum, the litmus test of a service top is one who is focused on the bottom's *pleasure*. 

I reject the idea that a top who wants to pleasure his bottom is inherently submissive or dominant. Service tops take great pride and satisfaction in their ability to read a bottom and give them a memorable and pleasurable fuck. 

We don't talk about service bottoms because bottoms are already expected, by their natures, to serve and cater to the pleasure of breeder tops. This is why the idea of dominant bottoms going against that perceived norm melts so many people's brains. The same is true for submissive tops.

A submissive top can be motivated by being objectified, used, demeaned, dominated, and controlled without any agency being exerted on giving pleasure at all. Any pleasure for the man using them is a by-product of their obedience and submission to that man's will, and not a first order goal.

Language is always in motion, but when words lose the precision or essence of their meaning, the ideas they express become confused or lost completely.

Inevitable digression, but perhaps illustrative:

The term "side" is a great example. For a long time there was a group of men who didn't identify as top, versatile, or bottom because they didn't have penetrative anal sex - at all. There was a missing term that defined these people that did everything but fuck ass, and Dr Joe Kort came up with "side" to capture it. 

Today, hook-up apps have implemented "side" as an option along side the top to bottom continuum, but the apps have allowed it to be multiple choice. Today, we have top, bottom, and versatile men who are also sides. As a result, the term "side" has lost has its defining essence of having non-penetrative sex *exclusively*. As a bottom I'm not at all interested in men who don't have penetrative sex, so being able to filter out "side" men potentially has great utility in a hook-up app for people who *want* penetrative anal sex.

There's a line of logic that says instead of top, versatile, bottom, and side being thought of as identities that signify activities, they are actually activities themselves. I'm sympathetic to that line of thought up to a point. Where it falls down for me is that it was a missing and unacknowledged sense of identity that Joe Kort was looking to name and allow people to claim that got us here. The crux of the issue is that Dr Kort was looking to capture people who *exclusively* have non-penetrative sex. This was needed because, for everyone else, the non-penetrative sex stuff was already on the table. To borrow and expand on Dan Savage's schtick about oral, the non-penetrative sex stuff "comes standard".

Instead of "side" being a useful way for people who *don't do anal and do the other stuff exclusively* to identify themselves to similar folks, everyone who does the other stuff as well as anal is, in my opinion quite erroneously, using it too. 

As with "side", so it is with terms like "service top" - precision matters or we all end up meaning different things with the same term.

[backtails]

2 hours ago, blackrobe said:

Service tops take great pride and satisfaction in their ability to read a bottom and give them a memorable and pleasurable fuck. 

I fuck that way. I've always fucked that way. It doesn't make me less dominant, and I'm not taking a label for it.

Maybe straight men and assholes really do just use bottoms for their own pleasure. Maybe some subs like to pretend it's all about the top's pleasure, as if they don't like sucking dicks.

But something's wrong if we have the idea that a top caring about a bottom's pleasure makes him less dominant.

It's an illusion and a fantasy that tops don't care about their performance. Or that doms always take what they want. Doms always give a sub what they want, unless they ignore a safeword and make the session non-consensual.

This is how I see it: when I fuck, I'm competing with other men who have fucked that bottom. If I fuck better than they did, that's a way of dominating not only the man I'm breeding but (some of) the other tops who have shot in that same hole. So caring about my performance, and doing what I want to do to him in the way he likes it done, isn't being submissive.

Sub tops exist. A lot of them are mentally submissive but have a block over being penetrated. Bi men who identify as straight might be that way. But I think most genuine top men are proud of their ability to satisfy bottoms at the same time they satisfy their natural urge to dominate, penetrate and breed.

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, backtails said:

But something's wrong if we have the idea that a top caring about a bottom's pleasure makes him less dominant.

It's an illusion and a fantasy that tops don't care about their performance. Or that doms always take what they want. Doms always give a sub what they want, unless they ignore a safeword and make the session non-consensual.

EXACTLY.  And beautifully expressed and explained. 

Thanks.