Talk:power bottom

RFV
There is strong disagreement on the meaning of this term. IMHO it means a submissive bottom and all the quotations support that, especially if you read through the whole page or paragraph in the books they come from. I have heard it used to mean a dominant bottom, however that is a separate sense, and IMHO is it has not been substantiated. Another user has repeatedly edited out the definiton that matches the sources, and later added the sources to the unattested meaning so that it had three or more, then blocked me claiming I was edit warring. Whatever. So I would like others to chime in their opinion.Acdcrocks 21:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of a scene from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia where the gang goes back and forth about what such terms mean, but I wouldn't consider it a reliable source of information. ~ Robin 22:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ~ Robin 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ~ Robin 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Troy, you're just a troublemaker. As far as your claim that the original definition of a dominant bottom is "unsubstantiated", look at the very first quotation which reads: In one phrase, power bottom means, "Shut up and lie down. I'll take care of the rest." None of your quotations suggest anything different. In fact, none of them really say anything about the dominance of a power bottom or not. Periooooood —  [Ric Laurent] — 22:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ric, the point of this forum is to avoid trouble and engender consensus and cooperation. It is unsubstantiated, all the quotes I added clearly indicated a submissive bottom, or at the very least a bottom that enjoys rigorous anal penetration on his end (no pun intended). There are not three quotes to represent a dominant bottom, therefore that definition is no substantiated. That is my point exactly, a power bottom is not a dominant sexual partner, he is a submissive one, whether it be in BDSM or in sex, a power bottom or power top, the power is a modifier meaning more, bottoms are the passive sexual partner so a power bottom is even more passive partner. You're gay you should know this. Now that some power bottoms like to take charge is true but that is typically called a bossy bottom. I think you are being unreasonable and territorial since you created this entry and don't want to admit a mistake nor let me add the more common usage of this term.Acdcrocks 09:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * None of the quotes you added make any indication of the submissiveness of anyone on either side. Fact. The only quote that indicates whether a power bottom is dominant or submissive is the one I added, and it's VERY clearly pointing to a dominant bottom. The bottom is "in power" hence the name, power bottom. (I should make it known at this point that I don't expect a response from this user unless someone overturns my permanent ban of him. For the record, I've banned him for being a persistent troublemaker/drama queen.) —  [Ric Laurent] — 12:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks like an RfD candidate. power: is used attributively in this general way with many words. It is most commonly an intensifier. In some cases it converts a word usually conveying implications of weakness or insufficiency into something stronger or more adequate. DCDuring TALK 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No it's its own word, power+bottom=a strong butt, if the average person were to analyze it, and although power bottoms (good ones) can have a muscular buttocks that is not what the term means nor is it used that way. Not question at hand is that power bottom means a submissive bottom in addition to a bossy bottom.71.142.73.25 20:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Passes RFV because it is cited; sent to RFD because it may be SOP. - -sche (discuss) 19:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

RFD
This was sent to RFV (Requests_for_verification), and cited, but the question was raised there: is it SOP? I quote DCDuring: "Power is used attributively in this general way with many words. It is most commonly an intensifier. In some cases it converts a word usually conveying implications of weakness or insufficiency into something stronger or more adequate." - -sche (discuss) 19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, I don't think I'd be able to figure it out without a definition, and certainly not with any of the current definitions of power. But even with my native-speaker knowledge of the meanings of power and bottom (and as a gay man myself I am well aware of the relevant meaning of bottom), I don't think I'd be able to deduce the meaning of this term from its parts. And to judge from the citations, other people who have used the word aren't entirely sure what it means either. Also, the 2010 quote makes it clear there's a demand for "power bottom" as a dictionary entry! —Angr 21:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * per Angr. ~ Robin (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, since I am oneLucifer (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Then delete since I'm not one. :) Equinox ◑ 18:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete SOP. By the way, how is "Keep, since I am one" even an argument? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 12:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an irrelevant one for our purposes. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It's an attested set phrase that carries a specific meaning in the vernacular of the gay community. Even as someone who was already familiar with this particular meaning of "bottom," I wasn't entirely sure what "power bottom" indicated until I read the definition, as "power," used attributively, doesn't automatically translate to "dominant" or "commanding." If one uses "power user" as a basis of comparison, it's possible to interpret this as "an experienced or very good bottom." Astral (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Antonym
i'm no expert, but wouldn't another antonym of power bottom be passive bottom or something?

RFC discussion: May–November 2017
Definition is very chatty and vague. Equinox ◑ 16:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a go at this. Ƿidsiþ 14:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit – er, I mean I had a go at reediting the definition… Ƿidsiþ 14:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sense
User:Учхљёная suddenly took an odd interest in the page. Aside from [her] misunderstanding of the terms "antonym" and "coordinate", [she] seems to object to the use of "anal sex" in the definition of the term. It's my understanding that "bottom" needs to be distinguished from "top" and the equivalent definitions are all focused on anal sex.

Is this term used for women receiving vaginal sex at all? Are the male participants in hetero sex known as "tops"? That sense should be added to those terms. — LlywelynII  15:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As a lesbian, I can confirm that it is used to refer to such among women, but it is also used to refer to non-binary people and men with vaginas who fit the criteria. I still don't think I understand why you think I misunderstood antonym vs. coordinate, much less why you believe I'm a "vandal" for expressing such. I'd also like to add that I never denied that it needs to be distinguished from top, which, if anything, should support my argument of considering service top an antonym. -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja ☭/ (탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒). 15:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC).


 * It was also never my intent to consider het implications, but rather recognize that it is possible for homosexual* relationships to involve some mismatch of genitalia. -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja ☭/ (탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒). 15:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC).
 * Cool. Kindly do find some attestations when you've got a moment, since right now the page lacks them. If you're trying to make the entries more gender friendly, that's great, but the top &c. entries do seem to be focused on male anal sex at the moment. As for your continued misunderstanding of the section terms, well, go look them up. —  LlywelynII  15:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April 2021
sense: "A person who takes an active role in a sex position physically below their partner." Colin M (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I feel this can be speedily deleted. Pretty much anyone with a regular sex life is going to be below their sex partner at some point; it's a ridiculous category.__Gamren (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)