The thing that peeves me off about people saying Alastor would never bottom because of his EGO (besides everything you said about Lucifer's ego) is that it also shows such a patriarchal-ly drenched heterosexual view of sex, that they then apply to a MLM ship that drives me INSANE.
They think Top means big, strong man domineering over the small, soft, gentle woman (the bottom) and it's like, that's such a regressive view of heterosexual sex to begin with but now you're trying to apply that to two dudes. Especially two dudes like Alastor and Lucifer, who both have massive egos and other personal hangups that would shine through during an intimate moment with the two of them.
Like, if you think Alastor wouldn't bottom cause he always wants to be in control, but you think control and manipulation can only happen as the top? That the bottom has no power or control over the act? Maybe because I'm ace, but the idea that the bottom doesn't have any control is so weird to me? I'm not even talking about power bottom dynamics either, the bottom controls so much of the act (if it's consensual) cause if they don't like something, it ain't happening.
I dunno. I think it's perfectly fine to have a preference of top or bottom, lord knows I only interact with bottom!Alastor content (I see Al as ace and generally disinterested in sex, so he'd take the position that requires the lease work (in his view)), but I think it's a whole 'nother beast to take that preference and try to force it on other people. I think the people who claim a character in an MLM (or even WLW) ship would ONLY ever top or ONLY ever bottom strictly on the idea of "control" or "ego" need to reexamine their view of sex.
Sorry if this was all over the place, I have so many thoughts and frustrations on the whole bottom!Alastor thing, due in part to the amount of people that comment stupid shit on bottom!Alastor content, but you don't see anyone saying that shit on bottom!Lucifer stuff. ugh
"...is that it also shows such a patriarchal-ly drenched heterosexual view of sex..."
THIS! This here ⬆️ That is exactly it. Everything you wrote is 🤌excellent, but this line. THIS LINE sums it up so perfectly.
Because that's exactly what it is. In almost every patriarchal, heteronormative relationship, the man is seen as the top and always portrayed as big, dominant, and strong. Wheras the women is seen as the bottom, and portrayed as soft, submissive, sweet, and--a lot of the time--naive and innocent.
I hate the patriarchal, heteronormative view's of sex as it is, but GOD, I forget how messed up it is sometimes. It is, as you said, incredibly regressive. More often then not, it creates this unhealthy, pre-established dynamic between two people (usually a man and a women) that completely disregards how they might actually feel about a relationship and what their sexual preferences for a relationship is. And anything OTHER than this pre-established dynamic is seen as "other," or "not normal."
So taking THAT and putting it onto queer relationships just ljsfnlsjgbl it makes me want to rip my hair out.
"Like, if you think Alastor wouldn't bottom cause he always wants to be in control, but you think control and manipulation can only happen as the top? That the bottom has no power or control over the act? Maybe because I'm ace, but the idea that the bottom doesn't have any control is so weird to me? I'm not even talking about power bottom dynamics either, the bottom controls so much of the act (if it's consensual) cause if they don't like something, it ain't happening."
Anon it's like you're reaching inside my brain and pulling out all of my thoughts, and I love you for it.
One of my biggest pet peeves is when people use power dynamics interchangeable with top and bottom. Those two things are not the same. Submissive and bottom are not the same thing. Dominant and top are not the same thing.
Top and bottom (and switch!) is a preferred sexual position. Submission and Dominance (BDSM) is a consensual power-exchange in a pre-determined scene between two or more people.
Someone being a top does not automatically give them more power over the bottom. Or, at least, it shouldn't. There is no agreed upon power exchange. The person topping doesn't have more control than the person bottoming, nor should they.
And I completely agree, Anon. I've always been so weirded out, and unnerved, when bottoms are portrayed as not having as much control in sexual situation than tops. It grosses me out, honestly. I find it very icky, especially when it's perceived as the norm.
"I dunno. I think it's perfectly fine to have a preference of top or bottom, lord knows I only interact with bottom!Alastor content (I see Al as ace and generally disinterested in sex, so he'd take the position that requires the lease work (in his view)), but I think it's a whole 'nother beast to take that preference and try to force it on other people. I think the people who claim a character in an MLM (or even WLW) ship would ONLY ever top or ONLY ever bottom strictly on the idea of "control" or "ego" need to reexamine their view of sex."
Not me copy-and-pasting nearly all of your ask (LMAO) but I just love the points you're making. I have no problem with people having a preference for who tops and who bottoms. Fandom is supposed to be fun, and I want people to have fun. Like you, I generally only interact with bottom!Alastor, and so, I leave top!Alastor content alone.
It's when people try to argue that certain characters can't or won't top/bottom, because of a list of stupid reasons they make up, that I start losing my patience. Especially when their basis for who tops and bottoms is judged on ego or how much of a control freak a character is. People are not that black and white. People are complex and multi-faceted.
And, I know, sometimes people just want to read smut. They want pure filth (amen to that 🙏), and enjoy having a specific character be a submissive bottom and the other a dominant top. Just don't try and push that onto other people by arguing against a dynamic that you don't like. It's weird.
Thank you for the ask, Anon. It's everything to me.
68 notes
·
View notes