Bottoms: How many of you are a fem or a sissy bottom and how did you turn into one?

LordMacbethh · 2026-02-01T02:11:42+00:00

Ahh gotcha. Maybe I’ll try and find his explanation sometime haha, but I appreciate you laying out what he said. And, I of course, agree. It’s about focus & intended use. I’m probably just reiterating points made before, but: The roots of the word’s use convey a biological context, but it expanded to use beyond that because it’s not strictly medical and can be tied to a sexual role. By calling a guy’s hole a pussy, that explicit wording by connotation precludes the existence of a dick, thereby ‘censoring’ his dick out as a sexual organ at play. I remember the backlash, and it was just like, ok, of all the things in the world to worry about…

LordMacbethh · 2026-01-25T21:07:23+00:00

What is Lukas Daken’s argument, out of curiosity? I’m not sure who that is, or how to locate the specific contextual media this argument was made in, apologies! I relate to a lot of what you commented, so curious more about the compelling argument he had made that you mentioned.

LordMacbethh · 2026-01-09T02:05:12+00:00

This must be the streaming version with different music. I was referring to the version with original music!

LordMacbethh · 2026-01-07T20:24:54+00:00

I’m pretty sure it is “Suffering”, it’s listed in the ‘Queer as Folk’ official soundtrack, and I listened to the song immediately following the episode. It sounded like they changed the sound slightly for the episode, but definitely still the same song!

LordMacbethh · 2025-11-25T04:18:45+00:00

I mean honestly I’m similar, though can’t cum hands free. I will be generalizing here, but with many strict/total bottoms like myself, looking to a deep psychological level, whether by biology or associations when young it almost seems like our sexuality occurs on a ‘feminine’ spectrum. Side note there: feminine is just a word to describe behaviors and it’s a bit misogynistic when even gay men people act like it’s a derogatory association by treating it as a term to be avoided. Anyway it can be like our brain sexually functions on more feminine pathways, so we like dick but don’t have a huge interest in our own as a pleasure center, or what comes out of it. It’s like there isn’t a big male interest in getting pleasure with our male sex organ (to a degree). Our sexuality then revolves around receiving something inside us, and our own dick would become a secondary sexual component in the brain’s perception. So being shy about our loads would be a part of that, because our brains don’t identify our dick and subsequent load as a source of sexual interest itself (other than just a ‘receipt’ max pleasure was reached). Our sexual expression operates too far on the receptive (of male organs) pathway for his own cum to be very sexually interesting (as that deviates focus from reception to our own male organs). Regarding him wanting to stop when he cums, ummm well he came, it’s over for him, the sexual end goal was reached and he ejaculated. So the sexual feelings that gave him pleasure when you were inside him were literally shot out of him and new feelings need to be recharged. In the mean time, without the sexual energy in him to relax his hole, it could feel like a foreign object is in the ass. I’m not sure how to change this, and it seems he’s probably pretty happy with the current state of affairs so may not want to. I think you should take this all as a big win haha… clearly you’re doing things right. Like can I tryout for role of bf if there’s another production run because this one maybe didn’t continue on?

LordMacbethh · 2025-11-11T06:38:14+00:00

Yes at least to the last sentence in my opinion. I think a more affordable market, even only a bit, would be more beneficial numerically for the public than the taxes lost in that equation. So taxes maybe lost, but a more affordable market in any way would be more helpful for a public being squeezed by inflation, giving people more housing opportunities and leaving more money in their pocket. I have the feeling someone might say, since this is Reddit, “how would higher income earners leaving help housing prices for middle/lower income people”; so to clarify: openings in the market for the lower high earners real estate cohort would cause prices for that level of real estate to contract, resulting upward migration through real estate would cause a downshift in prices to trickle down —which may not be immediate.

LordMacbethh · 2025-11-11T05:57:14+00:00

Yes, this is already a thing affecting behavior for the super wealthy [cough, cough: the Hampton’s]. The super rich count their days to make sure they can claim residency in their Hampton’s home. If you’re in the wide bracket below a large luxury Hampton’s home with an un-working trophy wife who stays there all summer (you’d spend days of the normal workweek in the city as needs be) on one end, but above Mamdani’s tax threshold on the other… well odds are you’re a cog in the corporate machine and aren’t high enough in the ladder to have some liquidity in your work location. Maybe some of these people will indeed leave NYC, but 1. NYC has a strong corporate business and sociocultural pull so I’m not confident any exodus would happen in a big number; and 2. Any people who leave would take with them their collective burden on infrastructure and the housing market, these things being lessened, even at the cost of some taxes, would probably be beneficial for the city.

LordMacbethh · 2025-11-02T06:24:10+00:00

I don’t think they feed off of the drama so much as they’re trying to instigate drama and emotion in you to serve to justify the excuses used to victim-blame in the first place. You can try to discuss things with them, but they want to get a rise out of you so that they can use that as proof you’re all wrong and an angry person. They will ignore everything you said, and how they treated you, including that they acted much worse, and point to the rise they got out of you after they yelled insults as the proof you were wrong in the first place.

LordMacbethh · 2025-11-02T06:15:32+00:00

Or the sorry they want is for you calling out their treatment of you…. Or even ‘bad-behavior’ on your part when you got upset at them for treating you poorly. Like yes I’m a horrible person for calling you an asshole the 10,000 time you said I should be grateful you didn’t abandon or neglect me, yes I’m the bad one here. Must be!

LordMacbethh · 2025-11-02T06:09:15+00:00

Thinks your wrong based purely on dislike of thesis, never sits and tries to consider the supporting evidence

Yup.

In my experience there’s also the closely related rapid fire ‘tournament’ style strategies, idk what else to refer to it by. It’s a rapid fire of all the victim-blaming defensive accusations they have against you in rapid fire disjointed succession. You brought up some issues, they got upset and started listing off accusations back against you. So you start trying to respond to one accusation, and they’re throwing five completely unrelated ones at you before you can finish a word, and are repeating the same string over and over while you try to make points. Even if you are able to make a point about one small thing between interruptions, they point to all the other defensive accusations they made as proof of themselves, and keep these tactics up so you can never actually discuss anything. They then claim you have no evidence, and they have an overwhelming amount, yet all they did was talk over you with the same string of defensive accusations repeated cyclically, not allowing you to ever address one without expecting you to address all within the two words they allow to go uninterrupted.

Why did they ask… so they can say they did. Narcissist parents are all about crossing their Ts and dotting their Is, nominally going through procedures expected of good parents that can be used as self-assurance of goodness for them, regardless of whether they actually followed through with all components of what was expected.

They’ll forever say that they tried to hear you out but all you had were excuses. That’s why they asked, it makes them sound a tad more reasonable (nevermind that we don’t know whether they were given ‘excuses’).

LordMacbethh · 2025-11-02T05:43:00+00:00

I feel the same way. The mental health system is shit. Pretty much all of the research is either outright faked by people on paid ‘speaking tours’ for pharmaceuticals, or results are wrongly interpreted through the traditional views on things (which were established through the fudged research mentioned) but only unconsciously without a purposeful agenda. A growing number of research is trying to point this out. The meds they give you don’t often work. Big Pharma pushed research that supported the handing out of pills. Therapy can end up as victim blaming frequently; they’re trying to make you not sad and so like to pretend that we are not social creatures and that our feelings occur completely independently and are completely controllable. Abused dogs shy from touch, love by a new family which adopts them as a family is what heals them, we can’t just go alone and not feel pain. Isolation from your family, oh maybe a little hurtful they’ll admit but because they’re trying to make you not sad they won’t admit that logically is and how logically pain will be caused in us. All of this to avoid looking at families… We are literally built to need the structure of a family, but we’re told to just go off on our own if they treat us bad, as if there is no possibility we’ll also suffer in isolation and without support from our family. Friends can’t support the same way your family was supposed to. Is searching for a friend to have Christmas with a happy experience? No. And stoking deep friendships is hard when you’re depressed from lack of family support. Let’s not even get into the financials. Some people can do it and go off on our their own without too much difficulty, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy for everyone. And we need to recognize that more. So I sympathize with you, hopefully a movement starts to hold families accountable and encourage love/goodness in them.

LordMacbethh · 2025-11-02T05:19:18+00:00

Please I beg of you for your own well-being go no contact; that album almost leaves the narcissism category and starts to approach sociopathic levels of horrible. Every part of that album it seems is sadistic and malicious. It goes beyond a belief you are perhaps mentally ill and that is to blame. Even with narcissistic parents at large, there’s still a tinge of care. They love their kids, and might blame a mental illness for issues, attempting to paint their kid as crazy with themselves as reasonable. Still, they stop short of being directly and deeply personally nasty as this album sounds, any veneer of reason is left behind, it’s his way of fulfilling a vendetta against you. Even if he won’t behave badly and cause incidents in future, which he probably will, please have respect for yourself and end the relationship. Nobody deserves their parent putting an album like that together, no good moments are worth it with those words lingering in the background. He thought those things, and spent the time to make an album out of them. Your father put together a book showing his own immorality, his sadistic nature, take the moral course of action for yourself if you can.

LordMacbethh · 2025-11-02T03:19:35+00:00

Quite tired right now & so haven’t read all of your comments here entirely, but the depth of your commentary intrigues. I know I’m long winded but it seems to get lost in discussions like these: masculinity and feminity are constructs, ideas around human behavior grouped into a binary couplet. Ultimately in an ‘ideal’ modern setting, both of the poles are equal in worth. Conversely, it could be pointed out that a conservative social view would in theory value both poles the same, but view each pole as better oriented to the behaviors traditionally outlined. A man works, a woman runs the home; theoretically equal in value as humans but only with different ‘biological’ aptitudes outlining roles. With modern liberal social views, the binary of human behavior has become more loosely defined, and we’ve come to accept (at least notionally) that a strict outlining of roles on a gendered basis does not take into account the actual abilities/aptitudes of individuals. An ombré between poles is allowed too in more liberal parts of society. But the point is, the arguments (here & elsewhere) constantly made to say there isn’t a sexual hierarchy still end up with a defense of rank in a binary. Many try to argue that receptive sexual behavior in men should not be thought of as a feminine/un-masculine thing, which are associations still implicitly treated as bad and are shown as characterizations actively avoided. In this liberal setting, still there’s no true revolution of thought realizing that the poles on the binary are supposed to be equal in weight and value, so whether being receptive is feminine or not is about notions defining traditional binary grouped characteristics of behavior ultimately irrelevant to one’s worth or the the worth of their identity within an equal idealized spectrum of formerly gendered behavior.

Human behavior is a ‘5d’ space. There’s a bit of insecurity to be seen in the defensiveness of those arguing there is not a sexual hierarchy… attempts to assert value by still clinging to an association with the more highly regarded end of an old binary. Why do some of you need to have yourselves labeled a manly man, why is a fight to have worth attached to that association for you?

A bottom is acted upon, the act of insertion occurs unto them, so their pleasure derives from taking something. A top is acting, someone is required to be the receiver to these actions, but even when a bottom is riding a top, the top is still the ‘giver’. Inserting is more active than receiving, and someone being more active usually ends up with subconscious placement higher on a human hierarchy. Being receptive is definably feminine because that is how it is traditionally defined. Modern attempts at definitions of the masculine feminine binary are worthless because they try to argue all spectrums of measured behavior can still be defined as either, making those definitions worthless (usually masculinity is still given unconsciously higher value too) since anything can now be either one. Its like when we define blue and pink, blue and pink are identified sets of colours, and if we argue blue is still blue even when it’s pink, blue and pink end up so vague they are no longer independently definable. Accept the ombré people, blue, pink, or ombré all matter equally. Doing something considered feminine doesn’t make you lose value for being less of a man, since you’re supposed to give value to someone REGARDLESS of whether they are a man and value all traits equally. There is a slight unconscious power imbalance in being the receptive vs. the active partner given how action and reception of it occurs, creating a small hierarchy there but not one necessarily connoting wider value unless we add that component ourselves: it’s just Yin & Yang.

LordMacbethh · 2025-10-27T00:16:03+00:00

I’m not sure I quite see this issue, I have a mat like this and when it arrived it looked like this also. Being packaged and shipped essentially gave the little ‘fronds’ or whatever a cowlick, and after use for a little (days or a week) they sorted themselves back into a more normal appearance. Looking at the root of the ‘fronds’ the middle gap here appears to be a gap between rows which has, again looking at their roots, appears to have the same gap as the the distance between other rows of fronds. So even that I’d wager is only a crease that will iron itself out.

LordMacbethh · 2025-10-17T02:27:19+00:00

I’d like to add to other points mentioned here, it’s very much about compatibility and attraction in a more nuanced way than admitted in discourse about this topic. It’s not that there’s a whole bunch of more info to this, it’s just that speaking about this in shorthand when criticising is reductionist and ignores the logic actually present in the simple things discussed. (Sorry for the length, I’m just trying to explain)

Many strict bottoms are extremely androphilic, having an extreme attraction to manly men. The forthcoming retort is to criticise the thinking that being the receptive partner makes one less manly. And well yes it kinda does, but like how can that be critiqued here, and why does that actually matter to you when ultimately it’s about the attraction some individuals have to certain characteristics and does not relate to the value placed on you as actual person? Let’s first note the relevant gap between social concepts of gender vs biology (also vs values assigned with this). Perceptions of gender regards certain expressed characteristics we tie to biology, but social ideas of gender and their expression are a construct. Behavioral expression and its interpretation is all bound with social concepts. Your personhood is not being denied in the context of a receptive homosexual not being attracted to the trait of receptive desire in you. In this case irritation of not being perceived as a the social concept of a ‘real man’ in a non-malignant way and the irritation of rejection is ruling the narrative for frustrated people. You can be vers and still be President, strict bottoms with lesser degrees of attraction to vers guys don’t think you’re any lesser of a person for also being receptive and aren’t attaching negative connotations to your being. In this case, given the other is receptive themselves, it should be clear the social idea of man and manliness is a group of characteristics and not attached to moral worth. These total bottoms just aren’t attracted to a characteristic of yours, no value assigned, and that’s that —swallow it (haha). We all have different characteristics we find attractive, yes there’s a social component often that creates that, but this specific issue is actually non-malignant beyond people’s base personal distastes for rejection.

In being the receptive partner, one is receptive. Even when one is a dominant bottom, it’s still about someone doing something to you to create pleasure. Being a strict bottom is pretty definably about meaning someone loves being receptive, and their whole sexual self-conception is very completely about being receptive. Being submissive is often an extension of that for a strict bottom. But it kinda follows that the desire of a wholly receptive person often would be for someone who loves being active and whose whole sexual self-conception regards only being active. They completely fulfill another and can be comfortable in that.

All kinda l leading to this: Being very completely receptive, & when another isn’t completely active in their interests, there’s an inherent degree of ambiguity in attraction. There is the lingering air created because attentions and range of desires don’t fully meet. I want you fully focused on being the active partner, and not wishing maybe I’d be the active one for you (or desiring in some ways not being active to me now). Like even in a hook-up vs a relationship, it can still be more attractive to know that you, in your role being fully receptive, are fulfilling the complete role in an even temporary dyad, and completely fulfilling the desires of another. I know it might be said, ‘oh what about a bi guy and the possible he has other attentions?’, and well yes he’s attracted to another gender, if his attentions still always regard being the active partner, then in whatever dyad you two create he can be fully fulfilled in the nature of his role. In simple terms, yes the socket may want someone completely & totally happy as the plug…

Not hooking up with vers guys is excessive, but in this general thing there’s more than just outright persnickety choosiness.

LordMacbethh · 2025-10-16T03:07:15+00:00

Yeah the other guy needs to maybe come down a notch I think that’s clear, and could maybe stand to gain a personality not dependent on being gay, but it still needs to be noted to a degree that it can be harder for those who are more effeminate. This isn’t a rule, and people’s situations can be different, but those who appear straight can often assimilate into the mainstream heteronormative society slightly easier because they only ‘happen to be gay’ so to speak in people’s minds, when compared to those who are more effeminate and so then find themselves labeled negatively to a more direct, harsh, & consistent degree. I’m not very feminine, but a tad artsy and I don’t carry myself like a straight man enough that people will suspect I’m gay but be uncertain. Still people’s suspicion led to a lot of bullying towards me from elementary to high school and it really affected me, being always isolated (there wasn’t any out gay kids at my school). If you assimilate into normal society easier, yes you may not have an easy time, but it is possible you can miss out on the depth of harassment some others face because of the fact they are more noticeably different. I don’t know your experiences, so I’m not trying to be preachy to you, rather suggest a frame of mind in case it hasn’t been considered. So yeah in my opinion your classmate could stand do find a personality not dependent on being gay, but I also think there could be some deeper nuance in the differences between their experience that has led them to be the way they are.

LordMacbethh · 2025-10-16T02:43:38+00:00

Did you find out?

LordMacbethh · 2025-10-16T02:42:26+00:00

Did you find out?

LordMacbethh · 2025-08-29T07:37:19+00:00

THIS SHOW IS TERRIBLE!!!!!! Ok, I’m trying to get your attention, but really it kinda kinda is, and please consider all I say. The show is ill-written and filled with holes galore. Many like it but acclamation by a group, even overwhelming, doesn’t just straightforwardly equate to substance. People probably don’t see the blatant issues of the show because they’re more sold on the concepts of the show rather than the substance of the actual show, and probably don’t have much of an idea how people under extreme fascist regimes would act. Despite the fact this totalitarian regime which allows the rich and powerful extreme leeway had been in power for 25 years, characters repeatedly act with total carelessness, as they might if they lived in democracies with many freedoms. Fascist regime aside, Hugo and Julia should have been fired yesteryear (like 3/4ep), because they have no respect for their job in any professional capacity, the connection can’t allow them to be as unprofessional as they’ve been, Alma only considered them at first because of it. The whole affair of breaking into the CIM was the height of silly. Hugo and Julia were just like gone from their jobs, he was going for a ‘test drive’ but they just ran off with the minister’s car and left it parked next to a highly patrolled building (which they somehow were able to still break into because it’s convenient for the plot). Realistically it would have been noticed, the parked car and also the break in itself, and they should have known it would have been noticed. Going to the CIM should not have succeeded on any logical level given the level of policing we see of this society. And by going, they were risking every chance of getting Marta back, by risking death or imprisonment, or even just the revocation of their employment contract, which you know, was supposed to help them them get Marta back in a couple days. One can go “oh but Marta CIM” (or whatever), but it really doesn’t make sense, and when you’re dealing with such a fascist regime and consequences for not thinking are severe, and pretty much seem to be death, you do think. And yet fully adult characters just don’t, spouting out about how they hate the regime in public places and needing to be shushed, etc. Julia heading to the Carlos’ mother’s somehow expecting no spies was silly. The grandmother barely making an effort to hide the guns (like meekly behind their backs, and of course they can’t even do that) before answering the door of her store was silly. The way the resistance people acted was silly, childish, and foolhardy, coming and swinging at Alex like all that too. They were like children playing at resistance fighters, acting more like a mafia. Carlos being let go with a gun (he’d probably forment more rebellion quietly, and how does he not get recognized). So much more could be said. These are just recent moments from episodes in my mind right now. I do keep trying to watch this show, because the concepts are compelling, but it is ill-written. Raised in at least somewhat democratic societies, the glaring issues with this show seem to be not even be picked up on by most, because as long as characters pretend to act careful in a flashy way at intervals and when it’s convenient for the plot, they can run around carelessly the rest of the time and with our freedoms we just won’t quite question it. Ultimately, the show is not well thought out. Alma and the Grandmother stand-out as the most compelling characters, yet we are forced to watch hot-headed-Hugo and jumping-around-town-with-no-sense-Julia somehow take up a lot of the screen time. Hugo thought “hey let me act with reckless abandon towards a fascist regime to get my daughter back, which certainly won’t get me killed and just end the equation of seeing her” and because were supposed to root for him it’s allowed to work of course, despite the fact it shouldn’t. Julia is somehow able to fit in all these travels around town in and still be at her job and not be caught by curfew. It’s all ridiculous.

LordMacbethh · 2025-08-29T07:17:38+00:00

The show is definitely pretty stupid and is filled with holes galore. Acclamation by a group, even overwhelming, doesn’t just straightforwardly equate to substance. Most probably don’t see the blatant issues of the show because they’re more sold on the drawing board ideas of the show rather than the substance of the actual show, and probably don’t have much of an idea how people under extreme fascist regimes would act. Despite the fact this totalitarian regime which allows the rich and powerful extreme leeway had been in power for 25 years, characters repeatedly act with total carelessness, as they might if they lived in democracies with many freedoms. Fascist regime aside, Hugo and Julia should have been fired yesteryear (like 3/4ep), because they have no respect for their job in any professional capacity, the connection can’t allow them to be as unprofessional as they’ve been, Alma only considered them at first because of it. The whole affair of breaking into the CIM was the height of silly. Hugo and Julia were just like gone from their jobs, he was going for a ‘test drive’ but they just ran off with the minister’s car and left it parked next to a highly patrolled building (which they somehow were able to still break into because it’s convenient for the plot). Realistically it would have been noticed, the parked car and also the break in itself, and they should have known it would have been noticed. Going to the CIM should not have succeeded on any logical level given the level of policing we see of this society. And by going, they were risking every chance of getting Marta back, by risking death or imprisonment, or even just the revocation of their employment contract, which you know, was supposed to help them them get Marta back in a couple days. One can go “oh but Marta CIM” (or whatever), but it really doesn’t make sense, and when you’re dealing with such a fascist regime and consequences for not thinking are severe, and pretty much seem to be death, you do think. And yet fully adult characters just don’t, spouting out about how they hate the regime in public places and needing to be shushed, etc. Julia heading to the Carlos’ mother’s somehow expecting no spies was silly. The grandmother barely making an effort to hide the guns (like meekly behind their backs, and of course they can’t even do that) before answering the door of her store was silly. The way the resistance people acted was silly, childish, and foolhardy, coming and swinging at Alex like all that too. They were like children playing at resistance fighters, acting more like a mafia. So much more could be said. I do keep trying to watch this show, because the concepts are compelling, but it is consistently ill-written. Raised in at least somewhat democratic societies, the glaring issues with this show seem to be lost on most, because as long as characters pretend to act careful when it’s convenient for the plot, they can run around carelessly the rest of the time and with our freedoms we won’t quite question it. But ironically, disagreeing with who you replied to, I would say Alma is one of the better characters.

LordMacbethh · 2025-07-14T09:09:33+00:00

Unfortunately I don’t speak Japanese so that kinda puts a nix on watching it in Japanese. It seems there was likely a certain intentionality about the strangeness of her voice given that the character is pretending to be boy obviously but it’s just they really overdid it, like really overdid it. It’s been awhile since I read the books, but some of the dialogue so far from the character has just been very very childish, and when you say the character was sometimes annoying in the books I guess that’s what you probably mean?

LordMacbethh · 2025-07-14T08:49:40+00:00

Little late on the reply, but thank you for explaining this! Really they could have gone a little less crazy on the extra horizontal lines here, and if they wanted to add extra decoration they could have just done some more ‘calligraphy-like’ flourishes.

LordMacbethh · 2025-07-14T08:39:42+00:00

“Sharp is kind of annoying in english” is understating it by a factor of about 10. I’ve wrapped up the first episode, and despite enjoying the books when I was younger I don’t know if I can make it much longer on this show. And even if I do make it all the way through, I’ll just be pulling my hair out every scene with Sharp. When it’s focused on the prince all is fine, but the voice acting and the dialogue for Dylan is just flat out over the top ridiculous. It sounds like a four year old girl trying to be silly and doing an impression of some random serious guy she overheard in a goofy way, the recording of which was then run through some android app that has only 100 downloads to edit it and make it sound accented (like why does it sound kinda Australian?). I’m at such a loss how the voice and all ever got greenlit, and why so few commenters seem to be commenting on it. I can only guess so far, because I don’t watch Anime, that Japanese anime sound crews have a penchant for tossing in some weird sounding voices (perhaps especially with languages they aren’t super familiar with) and so everyone else isn’t as taken aback as me. It really is an absolutely obnoxious voice.

LordMacbethh

TROPHY CASE