Female led relationships discussion

I’m sharing a post from my blog that I wrote several months back. Since chastity and the narrower definition of FLR often go together, I want to use this opportunity to recognize those who embrace a wider view of D/s with all its depth and variety.

Why do we still cling to the idea that FLR has only “one true way”? The broader BDSM world moved past such narrow definitions ages ago.

I don’t usually issue formal declarations, as I’m often ambivalent about most things. But this phrase bothers me enough that I have a strong stance on it. It might cost me some friends, but validating the experiences of the many in FLR who struggle to define their roles correctly is worth it, especially since what they hit upon may be the real culprit.

Here goes:

Honest and thorough communication forms the foundation of BDSM. Being afraid of ‘topping from the bottom’ or accusing others of doing so doesn’t help create a healthy, happy relationship.

“Topping from the bottom” is tossed around in many contexts for various reasons. Critics note that it’s often used to silence submissives unfairly, which is valid. I’ve also heard subs hold back communication because they fear being accused of topping from the bottom. In both cases, communication gets blocked.

However, merely communicating isn’t enough on its own to constitute topping from the bottom. Within BDSM roles denote physical action; thus, for someone to top from the bottom, there must be physical action involved. Communication alone isn’t an action in this sense (unless you get overly technical). In BDSM, action follows negotiation—meaning it follows communication—so communication itself is not yet action.

I believe the phrase stems from a very narrow interpretation of D/s: one where roles are explicit, negotiated, and mutually understood. Here, the dominant is always the top, and the submissive is always the bottom. Google defines “explicit” as: “stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.”

Understanding what a top and a bottom actually means matters. A top is primarily ‘one who acts,’ while a bottom is ‘one who is acted upon.’ For gay men, the top penetrates and the bottom receives penetration—different distinctions from dominant/submissive.

Traditionally, the penetrating partner holds power as they are acting and in control. The receiving partner yields power by accepting that action.

In this framework, top=dominant=actor; bottom=submissive=receiver. If these roles are explicit, negotiated, understood, and agreed upon, then if a submissive acts outside those defined boundaries with the intent to change or control the dominant/situation, they are topping from the bottom. The key phrase is “with intent.”

If you’re a sub who stepped outside your agreed-upon role intending to keep power you gave up, or take control of something meant for the dominant, congratulations—you’ve topped from the bottom.

But if you acted without that specific intent, you haven’t topped from the bottom.

Again, topping from the bottom requires the relationship to adhere to top=dominant and bottom=submissive. Communication alone doesn’t count as action here.

Consider everyone in your kink/BDSM circle. How many truly fit this strict definition of D/s? How many have such explicit roles? Now think about how often you hear “top from the bottom” used outside that strict context, or simply in response to communication rather than physical action.

So why do people keep using it? It seems largely meaningless and rarely applicable. Here is my take: In most relationships, top isn’t always dominant, nor bottom always submissive. Roles evolve because actions gain new meanings based on context. Communication can be hard and painful; life gets messy; sexuality is complex. The phrase serves as a shortcut or helps avoid continuous negotiation in healthy ties.

Recall Google’s definition of explicit: “Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.” Negotiating fully explicit roles sounds daunting but possible, and some commit to it entirely. It’s also feasible to structure things so that further negotiation counts as action—meaning one could top from the bottom just by talking.

For most relationships, enforcing strict explicit roles without allowing more negotiation leads to disaster or unsustainability because people change over time. Negotiation becomes inevitable even if communication happens via breakup.

Buddhists cite annica—the concept of impermanence—as a core trait of existence: nothing lasts forever. This suggests role evolution is natural and healthy; stifling it isn’t. Limiting communication through rigid negotiation harms the bond.

Thus, topping from the bottom by simply communicating happens only in unhealthy dynamics. Fellow kinksters, I believe “topping from the bottom” as commonly used is nonsense, and perpetuating this phrase (and its implied relationship style) benefits no one.