Talk:Top and bottom in sex and BDSM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Sexuality Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents 1 Merger 1.1 TODO 1.2 Discussion 2 Non-merger-specific discussion 3 LGBT & BDSM 4 Not Pornography? 5 Topping from the bottom 6 Daddy 7 Phalocentric societies 8 This article needs help 9 Ambiguity 10 Copyedit

[edit] Merger

See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages

Pre-merger pages:

Top (sex) (talk) Bottom (sex) (talk) Power top (talk) Switch (sexuality) (talk)

Top (BDSM) (talk) Bottom (BDSM) (talk) Dominant (BDSM) (talk) Submissive (BDSM) (talk) Topping from the bottom (talk)

Done merging all of the above. The Dom/sub stuff needs significant editing for flow / integration. Also see todo list below. If ya want it fixed, fix it yourself - this is Wikipedia after all. Anyway, that's about it for me for now at least; got other stuff to do. --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TODO

• Cleanup & meta
  • Fix double redirects
  • Clean multiple redirects to previous source pages on other pages
  • Clean up & merge translated versions; link properly to (currently split) translations
  • Add link to Top and bottom in sex and BDSM to relevant pages, categories, etc
  • Edit redirects to point to specific sections if relevant (e.g. Bottom (BDSM) -> Top and bottom in sex and BDSM#Bottom_2)
  • Find any other articles that should be merged into this one
• Writing
  • Expand the overlap section
  • Expand the contrasts section
  • Expand top and bottom in sex to include discussion of physical-sensation preferences vs psychological / role preferences (e.g. for gay or bisexual men who want to [psychologically] bottom but don't enjoy the sensation of prostate stimulation etc)
  • Expand to discuss relationship w/ "gender roles" in homosexual relationships
  • Expand to discuss top and bottom in "situational" homosexuality, e.g. jail ("punk" vs ??)
  • Expand to address possible legal or social sexual identity differences of top vs bottom, e.g. only bottom being perceived as "gay", topping being more acceptable for "straight" men, top being acceptable for ancient Greek males in pederastic relationships, etc
  • Expand to discuss top/bottom as a sexual identity or facet thereof
  • Add better compare-and-contrast of Top/bottom vs Dom/sub in BDSM
• Editing
  • Make gender neutral where appropriate
  • Make sexuality neutral or inclusive where appropriate, e.g. gay men -> gay or bisexual (or pegging-friendly straight)
  • Clean up this article for redundancies
  • Distribute content / link better with articles on Domination and submission (BDSM) and BDSM.
  • Make picture & sidebar layout prettier; it's kinda ugly right now

[edit] Discussion

Where can I read the discussion regarding the merger? Who decided to merge these subjects? The article title should be an umbrella word to describe everything within it. For example Human Sexuality or Sexual Positions. I would prefer to see the topics you've merged seperated into seperate articles. (or unmerged)Pdelongchamp 02:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I did. Nobody responded to my pre-merger suggestions, so I just did it. I don't mind a change in title, but what would you suggest? I can't think of any cleaner way to phrase it. If you take a look at the pre-merger articles you'll see they're all stubs; the point of merging them was to have a good compare-and-contrast article because clearly there are very strong connections between the various terms, and it does better as a single article. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This merger is highly contra productive! The Spanish, Italian, Dutch and German articles clearly show that at least Switch, Top (BDSM) and Bottom (BDSM) are relevant single lemmata. A closer look at the user's edit-history clearly proofs, that he doesn't seem to have edited any BDSM related articles before.

The argument about this being an "good compare-and-contrast article" is nonsense. I would like to see what would happen if merged capitalism&communism into an "compare-and-contrast article" deleting the original ones only because nobody answered to my merger ideas. Its really strange that there was allegedly no response to the pre-merger suggestions, nevertheless even the smallest amount of thoughtfulness should have prevented this. The intention to merge homosexual and BDSM topics in order to "compare-and-contrast" them while deleting the source article is at least original research if not POV.

The BDSM topics should be unmerged as soon as possible. --Nemissimo 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To the first: The articles Top (BDSM), Bottom (BDSM), and Switch are currently, and were previously, very redundant. As such, they would work better as a combined article that explains the various terms rather than a bunch of stubs.

To the second: The terms 'top' and 'bottom' are used both in BDSM and more generally in sex (not specifically homosexual), and are frequently confused. Thus, an article that attempts to a term in one context would be incomplete without giving a contrast to the other. This is not the case with capitalism and communism - they do not use overlapping terms, and the individual articles are by no means stubs.

Given all that, and that the preexisting articles were stubs, I made them into a combined article.

I did NOT delete any content from the original articles, as you imply; it was all added into the merged article, and the stubs made to be redirects. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 09:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems extremely obvious to me that Top/Dominant and bottom/submissive should have their own separate articles, and I'm going to be working on them as separate articles along with the slave (bdsm) article, consensus appears to agree with me, any objections leave them here. Restepc (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; There shouldn't have been a merger of these articles, but rather the individual terms should have each received their own short articles, to allow readers of the larger articles ( BDSM for example) to find information on each term as they come up. In fact, there's enough of a difference between Top and Dominant, and bottom and submissive to warrent articles of their own, as a top and bottom will have very different significance to the gay community, than it will to the BDSM community, and the motivations behind a bottom and a submissive, and a top and a dominant are often very distinct. Many dominants don't top, many tops don't dominate; to lump them together would be like scooping up a pile of sand, and declaring it to be all one type of rock.Stephannn (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-merger-specific discussion

• I changed 'switch' to 'versatile', since I believe that is a much more common term. I have often heard someone called versatile, but never called a switch. -BrianGa
  • I have commonly heard both (SF Bay Area, CA, US). Changed to be "switch or versatile". Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 05:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• I typically have heard switch as the most commonly used term, both in Texas and the LA area.Stephannn (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT & BDSM

I noticed that this page is part of the LGBT portal. I do not understand why, as I am part of te LGBT community and the majority of people I know are as well, and the majority of the people I know in the community would not want it linked to BDSM. However I am also a member of the BDSM community, including this as part of a Human Sexuality portal makes sense, but the primary theme of this article does not explore the aspect of a Top/Dominant in a LGBT relationship but in general human relationships of any gender and orientation, perhaps this would be better left off and a separate article created for LGBT Dominance? I am not meaning to step on any toes or egos here, far from it, I just wish to help with the 'wiki guides' and consistency/continuity in articles. Just an idea that might create some clarity and help those looking for specific information easier. Der.Gray 00:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to see it expanded to cover more LGBT top/bottom issues. (See TODO list above.) E.g., the idea of "who wears the pants" in a homosexual relationship should be addressed. It's on the LGBT portal because some of its pre-merger pages, namely those about top and bottom in sex. The BDSM part isn't LGBT related, but since this is an omnibus compare/contrast article, that's just part of the deal. It's better than having a lot of short & fragmented ones. I don't think that having a separate article for LGBT specific Top/bottom or D/s discussion would be more helpful than just expanding this one. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 22:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the exact opposite: I'm a submissive, but I don't want to be associated with homosexuality. In all other respects, however, I agree. I don't think its focus is specific enough to warrant the LGBT topic template. Blast ^{[improve me]} 22.06.07 0328 (UTC)

Does its focus need to be *specific* to LGBT or BDSM to merit tagging? It seems to be that so long as it addresses both fairly & substantively, it's worth the tag. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 07:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been part of the BDSM community of one of the largest cities in the US for many years and the community has a very strong hetero element - very probably over half. This has held true in many other cities from what I have heard from others. Is it possible to see more definition of the BDSM elements from the POV of both preferences? There is much more than penetration/reception to dominance and submission. Kimslv 19:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is addressed as is - the BDSM part of the article is fairly sexuality-neutral. But if you disagree, well, this is Wikipedia. Edit it yourself. ;) Improvements are always welcome. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 04:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Pornography?

What are the specific guidelines on depictions of graphic sexual acts on Wikipedia? Apartdata 16:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that any images are acceptable if they serve a valid illustrative purpose and are the most informative images available for that particular article. WP is not censored, so whether it is "graphic" or not is irrelevant; c.f. most articles on sexuality, which have valid needs for illustrative images. If you have a suggestion for something more appropriate for this article, please let us know. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 21:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topping from the bottom

..."is usually considered poor practice amongst lifestyle BDSM devotees". Why? I'm not into BDSM myself so am probably missing something, but if the people in the relationship like it that way, why is it any business of other "devotees"? 86.136.248.0 00:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of anything being considered "poor practice" among BDSM devotees except if you violate the basic ethical standards of safety and consent. Other than that, I think it's about exploring sensation and pleasing your partner, not about adhering to any rule book about what people can or cannot do in bed. I mean it's not a religion or anything that tells people how to live their lives. So unless someone has proof that there is consensus on this issue from "BDSM devotees" (and who qualifies as one of those is also highly debatable), I'm going to take it out.Rglong 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hiya; as a BDSM enthusiast who incorporates D/s in my daily life, I can suggest that Topping from the bottom actually does violate the basic ethical standards of consent. When I engage in activities with a bottom, I do so with the understanding that she is choosing to adopt a certain role; much like if I am to go practice batting with a friend. If my friend tells me they want to throw the ball and I hit it, and then immediately picks up the bat, I never consented to this activity. Topping from the bottom is rarely a conscious act; it's usually something that the bottom does unintentionally and unknowingly. It disrupts our activities, and can be the cause of termination of our activities. I hope this sheds some light on that; I have to say, the word 'devotee' doesn't seem to fit, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephannn (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daddy

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (July 2007)

The disambiguation page Daddy points here and says this term is a synonym for "top" in BDSM. But the term is not mentioned on this page, and some additional explanation is needed.

On that same disambig page you also find a link to age disparity in relationships, which is most commonly what is being referred to when women and gay men call their partner a "daddy" - usually it's because the guy is older than his partner. In fact, that redirect appears first, as it should. The lesser known use of the word "daddy" just as a cute slang name to call whoever is topping you at the time doesn't need much mention, because the disambig page already explains exactly what it is: it's sometimes another name for "top".Rglong 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phalocentric societies

Not sure how to go about this, but I think some mention of historical attitudes toward sex should be focused on here. For instance, the ancient Greeks essentially had a bisexual popular culture, and divided their society into "men who penetrate", and "everyone else who gets penetrated". So women, young boys/submissive men, and slaves were all seen as inferior "bottoms" and the macho men who dominated everyone else were the superior "tops". (of course they didn't use those exact words but I'm sure there were Greek equivalents).

This happened and still happens in other cultures and subcultures as well. Some men believe they aren't gay unless they are penetrated anally or orally, even if they are being "serviced" by another man. To quote Soldier's Girl, "the freak getting the blowjob isn't a freak; the freak on his knees giving the blowjob is the freak". (that's not an exact quote, but it's damn close). In this context the character in question claims to be heterosexual, but really he divides society up in terms of penetrator and penetratee.

Also the same things go on in prison subcultures, where heterosexual men will take on a "bitch", and whatnot. Social heirarchy and authority begins to be based on whether you are giving it or receiving it.

These concepts of who is penetrating and who is getting penetrating have much wider implications for culture beyond just two people having sex with each other.Rglong 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though I wouldn't be one to write it. ;) One comment to add though - it's interesting to note which partner is considered the 'bottom' or 'submissive' in oral sex. Is it the person performing the action (because they are the penetratee) or the person who's the physically more passive? Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 09:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs help

So many unverified claims. Who are these alleged experts in BDSM, and who represents the "minority views" that appear on this page? What is there a degree in BDSM from a major university or something that qualifies somebody as no longer just an amateur? And who is conducting these opinion polls of members of the BDSM community? These statements feel like commentary or opinion, not encyclopedic at all.

However I HAVE encountered the belief that BDSM can compensate for people's anxiety in their daily lives, in other words that overworked or always-in-charge people benefit psychologically from being the bottom (the weight of the world is taken off their shoulders for a short time, bringing relief), or that normally timid people get to feel self-esteem and worth by being the top (wow, someone's actually listening to me for a change!).

So not everything here is garbage, some needs to be deleted, but other claims just need to be backed up by evidence.Rglong 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutly right, this field of topics needs much more sources and references in order to check the related articles. For a start I suggest:

• Person, Ethel S. / Terestman, Nettie / Myers, Wayne A. / Goldberg, Eugene L. / Salvadori, Carol: Gender differences in sexual behaviors and fantasies in a college population, 1989, erschienen in: Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, Bd. 15, Nr. 3, 1989, P. 187–198
• Breslow, Norman: SM Research Report, v1.1, 1999
• Janus, Samuel S. / Janus, Cynthia L., 1993 The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior, Wiley, New York
• Thomas S. Weinberg: S&M – Studies in Dominance and Submission (Ed.), Prometheus Books, New York, 1995 ISBN 0-8797-5-978-X
• Robert Bienvenu, The Development of Sadomasochism as a Cultural Style in the Twentieth-Century United States, 2003, Online PDF under Sadomasochism as a Cultural Style
• Charles Moser, in Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality 1988, (7;1, P.43-56)
• Gloria G. Brame, BDSM/Fetish Sex:Overview and Study, online gloria-brame.com

Regards --Nemissimo 21:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Added. Also, please note that the formatting is : and :* not * and ** for prettiness. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 09:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity

I'm a bit concerned at the extent of ambiguity on this page. Odd disconnects, like listing "BDSM practitioners," then following it with the phrase "and some opposite-sex couples." Because opposite sex couples don't practice BDSM? I did a little bit of trying to clarify that, and I may have edged into overprecision (if so, my apologies, but I found some of the original language very confusing).

The bit I haven't figured out how to address cleanly though, is this disconnect between "Tops and Bottoms in sex" and "Tops and Bottoms in BDSM." It seems like there should be a better way to differentiate the two, without seeming to imply that BDSM is inherently nonsexual. I wonder... if you're going to combine all these topics into a single post anyway, does it make sense to just handle tops as a section (with subcategories: gay community, BDSM, history, etc.), then another section on bottoms (same subcategories)... ? Kelsied 09:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is probably the best way to go about it - have definitions for each in the order: general, then culture-specific variants. I'm not sure if there are any sex-but-not-bdsm definitions; all I can think of offhand has BDSM adding on to or more specifying the default case. I like the edits so far; I'll try a pass at moving it further along in the same vein. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 10:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

A request was made for this article, or a prior version of it, to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors on 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC). Unfortunately, the request was denied – the reason for its refusal is given below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping. Proofread denied by Esprit15d • talk • contribs (21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)) – No intro, too many lists, no in-line references, and boatloads of orignal research. This article is in very rough form..

No intro, too many lists, no in-line references, and boatloads of orignal research. This article is in very rough form.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)