On Service...

On Service... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

losttreasure -> On Service... (9/3/2006 3:42:07 PM)
I didn’t want to derail SusanO’s thread, "the "Illusion factor" in bdsm makes it less "real". Discuss.", but in it, popeye1250 made the following comment: quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Susan, a sub or slave "wants" to serve. If they enjoy serving their Dom or Master continuation of that service is contingent on rendering more service to their Dom or Master in a satisfactory manor for the relationship to continue. I don't see any "force" being used at all. Either party may "opt out" at any time. And like you said there may be an element of illusion but if it makes the two people happy where's the "problem?" I enjoy and appreciate service from a sub/slave every bit as much as they like to give said service! So, as much as it may be arousing to the sub/slave it is also arousing to me. A symbiotic relationship! While I can’t disagree at all with the gist of what he is saying and it is obviously regarding his own personal situation, it did getting me to thinking about his statement that “a sub or slave “wants” to serve. I’ve often seen similar statements made regarding the submissive nature and the need to serve, and I sometimes get the impression that dominants feel this is true and given for all submissives, or at least should be. It seems there is never a lack of commentary by dominants about the dismal understanding of submissives with regard to service. Typically musings such as these are followed by discussion of the different types of submissives and the services they perform... the “bedroom sub”, the “domestic service sub”, etc. And, it’s usually responded to with reminders that not all submissives are service submissives, which predictably leads to some kind of conversation mentioning the difference between subs who only want play and those who seek a 24/7 lifestyle. At any rate, it seems that the concept of service usually gets stuck around the idea that it relates only to performing duties that provide for (or having responsibilities that are related to) either the comfort or pleasure of a dominant. While both of these types of service have their appeal to me, I would not say that as a part of my nature that I desire or crave either. Now, I will admit that I derive pleasure from being pleasing... and if performing domestic chores results in pleasing Fhky, then it is a source of happiness for me. In the same vein and even more obviously, if in sexual service I can bring pleasure to him, again I am pleased. But at my core, there isn’t a part of me that longs to provide these services. I am not driven to my knees with need to do so. Were that the case, there are an infinite number of opportunities to provide service in this world without having to relinquish my power to another... and if I were aroused simply by the act of serving, I could take those opportunities and walk through life in a state of perpetual sexual bliss without ever having to involve another individual in my private affairs. That being said, in so much as these are sources of happiness for me and I do wish to be happy in my life, then yes, one could say that I desire and crave these types of service... but they aren’t the main type of service that “floats my boat”. Beyond these common ideas of service there is one type that may be universally understood, but I believe is often forgotten or at least not spoken of frequently. The service that I’m referring to is the kind of service that one thinks about a Knight giving his king... it is fealty. The desire to be in the presence of someone who embodies the essence of all that you hold dear in humanity. To be on bended knee (or knees) pledging all that you are in adoration. If you look up “fealty” in a thesaurus, you get the synonyms of allegiance, adherence, ardor, constancy, dedication, deference, devotion, duty, faithfulness, fidelity, homage, honor, loyalty, obedience, obligation, and piety. To me, those words describe the ultimate service... the ultimate submission... the ultimate turn-on.

bandit25 -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 3:45:52 PM)
Very well thought out and expressed. Yes, I have to agree. We are not all cut from the same cloth.

SusanofO -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 3:51:13 PM)
Wonderful thread, losttreaure, and beautifully stated. I could not agree more. It is the individual person as a Dominant, that inspires me (or not) to want to serve them, and possibly put that desire toward myriad things, due to what they desire of me, not just me "wanting to be of service" in general (that is why I do volunteer work, and that fulfills a need in me to be of "general service"). This inspiration to a Dominant is due to their personal qualities I admire, and how they use them to communicate with me, mentally and emotionally - or what they convey in general to me about their character. I think the general conception that a submissive "wants to serve" can often lead to that frequent (and not un-justified) complaint by and about submissives receiving requests from people to "serve them instantly" or who say things like: "You don't sound submissive" - as if this "wanting to serve" in general was going to save them from having to cause a submissive to agree to serve them by being inspired by them, which is going to take some relationship skill. Nobody gets an "insta-sub". Maybe they do, but my question then, has always been: How can you serve someone you don't even know? And how could they, as a Dominant, promise to "protect and care for" such a person? I for one, would not dream of expecting a Dominant to look after me if they didn't know me well, and desire to do so. Maybe Dominants are inclined to be protective, but only for certain (I think) of what is "theirs" in the long-run, and to be "theirs" means to me they've inspired someone to want to be theirs, and to submit, not demanded it without knowing someone, or earning their trust first. And vice-versa (in reverse, of course). - Susan

Tikkiee -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 3:53:24 PM)
What a beautiful post Losttreasure. Thankyou.

porcelaine -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 4:01:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure At any rate, it seems that the concept of service usually gets stuck around the idea that it relates only to performing duties that provide for (or having responsibilities that are related to) either the comfort or pleasure of a dominant. While both of these types of service have their appeal to me, I would not say that as a part of my nature that I desire or crave either. Now, I will admit that I derive pleasure from being pleasing... and if performing domestic chores results in pleasing Fhky, then it is a source of happiness for me. In the same vein and even more obviously, if in sexual service I can bring pleasure to him, again I am pleased. But at my core, there isn’t a part of me that longs to provide these services. I am not driven to my knees with need to do so. Were that the case, there are an infinite number of opportunities to provide service in this world without having to relinquish my power to another... and if I were aroused simply by the act of serving, I could take those opportunities and walk through life in a state of perpetual sexual bliss without ever having to involve another individual in my private affairs. That being said, in so much as these are sources of happiness for me and I do wish to be happy in my life, then yes, one could say that I desire and crave these types of service... but they aren’t the main type of service that “floats my boat”. I'm really glad you started this thread. I find myself musing over the identical thing right now. It is so strange how someone has taken the idea of service, which is truly an individual thing and assigned a definition that is supposed to apply to all practitioners across the board. I am no domestic by any stretch of the word, yet I do enjoy keeping my own living quarters presentable. If given the option of hiring someone for the job or doing it myself, I would eagerly jump at the first. The additional time allows me to apply my attention to areas that are more beneficial. Sexual service has its appeal but it isn't the reason why I serve either. Mere bedroom antics can be gained from most willing partners. I don't need to make unpleasant sacrifices or yield control to bring this aspect into my life. I find that I am greatly drawn to the mental and emotional aspects of service. These are the largest quantifiers and typically deciding factors when I'm considering a potential suitor. If an individual is incapable of utilizing my talent and encouraging its expansion I will not be happy in the long run. I find that I am happiest when in the company of one that sees and appreciates the value of service on many levels and has chosen not to pigeonhole themselves or their servant into designated roles and ideologies. The one that can make love to my mind will have a sincere chance of touching my heart which inspires me to give of myself in this manner. It isn't his dominance, bravado, or self appointed titles that compel me to submit. It is truly the man I glimpse within. porcelaine

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 4:10:34 PM)
Excellent post. It's great to have someone who can speak so eloquently and bravely about not being service oriented, and yet still definitively submissive. Thank you so much for sharing.

SusanofO -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 4:11:52 PM)
porcelaine: I agree with the idea that I, too, seem to respond mentally whenever I read writing by Dominants that makes obvious they are going to get to know the real person, by indicating they'll want to make use of the individual's talents. Because it lets me know they look at the individual, and don't just have a cookie cutter mold they try to stuff a submissive into. That isn't to say a Dominant doesn't have his/her own needs, and have a right to have those needs filled, even if a submssive might not want to fill every last one. But it does let me know they are looking at the person vs. the role so much. And it also says something to me about their general flexibility, and willingness to really view things seriously as a relationship. - Susan

porcelaine -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 4:18:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO porcelaine: I agree withthe idea that I, too, seem to respond mentally whenever I read writing by Domiannts that makes obvious they are going to get to know the real person by indicating they'll want to make use of the individual's talents. Because it lets me know they look at the individual, and don't just have a cookie cutter mold they try to stuff a submissive into. That isn't to say a Dominant doesn't have his/her own needs, and have a right to have those needs filled, even if a submssive might not want to fill every last one. But it does let me know they are looking at the person vs. the role so much. And it also says something to me about their general flexibility, and willingness to really view it and take things seriously as a relationship. Susan, I'm smiling as I read your words. I've begun to wonder if these things are of importance anymore. In traditional relationships people usually take into account what the other brings to the table and how each can benefit from the skills and experiences. However, it does appear that idea gets somewhat lost in relationships involving a power exchange if the dominant party refuses to do this. I would suppose that is largely dependent on whether the person is growth-oriented or merely seeking the fulfillment of their needs at the expense and stagnation of another. porcelaine

SusanofO -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 4:26:13 PM)
porcelaine: There is a Dominant around these parts who is always saying: Submissives, choose your Dominant carefully (ExSteel). I can see why. There are some people who are relationship-impaired and may well be seeking, even unconsiously, what they think is a sure-fire cure for this, by simply gaining the freedom to impose their will on a girl they "know" will do what they say, no questions asked. They don't "get it". They probably don't care, either. I have extra-sensitive radar for these folks, though I rarely make that obvious. If choosing a Dominant might really be the "last decision I may ever make" then you better believe I am looking at what a person acts like, and what their words imply. If am not sure, I can always ask. And I have. I am not currently seeking, but I am very observant. I don't think this is a cheap and easy thing, we're going for here. I think it's almost sacred. - Susan

popeye1250 -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 4:52:38 PM)
Losttreasure, when I said "a sub or slave "wants" to serve" I was presuming that the sub/slave was already in a relationship. Like Susan said, who'd want to serve someone they don't even know? That wouldn't make much sense, would it? lol I like that word, Fealty. You don't often hear that these days.

Mavis -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 4:53:28 PM)
Yes! this is exactly what i was referring to in the "no hands" thread. to quote myself: quote: on fast reply, i don't see the issue with this, unless it turns out to be that i am actually just lazy. but i dont have this huge urge to be DOING.. i'm rather like a companion slave. Just interacting, being His company, "co-loafing" has much appeal. i love to be asked for a drink or refill, i love having it ready before asked too, but i'm also quite content to be standing at the counter chatting, and see Him refill my cup as W/we chat. i might remark "Oh, i should have gotten that" but W/we B/both know, if it had been more important than the discussion, i'd have been told so. If it sounds silly that i am fed by feeding the attention needs of my Leads, oh baby, that's what i like. and moreso if They like it too. Edited because i hit the wrong button... Of course that includes obedience and service, but only because those are more ways to show my appreciation for the Person, as much as hanging on every word and carrying thier flag.

DomSA -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 4:55:31 PM)
As a Dominant I feel it is very important to utilize a sub's skills. In my case I have an excellent cook as my sub...in essence my pet chef. One of her main duties is the complete handling of the nutritional aspect of our lives...meal planning, preparation and the like. But back to the point...a good Dominant should always look to maximize the sub's skills and encourage the person to grow in new ways. Failure to do so is an injustice to the entire D/s relationship. If a person is going to entrust their life to your control then that control must be wielded responsibly.

losttreasure -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 4:59:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bandit25 Very well thought out and expressed. Yes, I have to agree. We are not all cut from the same cloth. Which is probably a very good thing as I don't imagine all doms are cut from the same cloth, either. [;)] Thank you.

losttreasure -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 5:04:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Wonderful thread, losttreaure, and beautifully stated. I could not agree more. It is the individual person as a Dominant, that inspires me (or not) to want to serve them, and possibly put that desire toward myriad things, due to what they desire of me, not just me "wanting to be of service" in general (that is why I do volunteer work, and that fulfills a need in me to be of "general service"). This inspiration to a Dominant is due to their personal qualities I admire, and how they use them to communicate with me, mentally and emotionally - or what they convey in general to me about their character. I think the general conception that a submissive "wants to serve" can often lead to that frequent (and not un-justified) complaint by and about submissives receiving requests from people to "serve them instantly" or who say things like: "You don't sound submissive" - as if this "wanting to serve" in general was going to save them from having to cause a submissive to agree to serve them by being inspired by them, which is going to take some relationship skill. Nobody gets an "insta-sub". Maybe they do, but my question then, has always been: How can you serve someone you don't even know? And how could they, as a Dominant, promise to "protect and care for" such a person? I for one, would not dream of expecting a Dominant to look after me if they didn't know me well, and desire to do so. Maybe Dominants are inclined to be protective, but only for certain (I think) of what is "theirs" in the long-run, and to be "theirs" means to me they've inspired someone to want to be theirs, and to submit, not demanded it without knowing someone, or earning their trust first. And vice-versa (in reverse, of course). - Susan Thank you, Susan. It was one of the hardest things I tried to do when I was speaking with doms on the other side. So many of them just could not understand that I had no burning desire to serve just anyone. What they ultimately failed to do was allow me to know them for the person they were, and in turn I could never submit to them. Of course, the fates smiled on me when the one who finally did understand and agree turned out to be my match. [:D]

losttreasure -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 5:05:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tikkiee What a beautiful post Losttreasure. Thankyou. You are most welcome, and thank you.

losttreasure -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 5:12:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine I'm really glad you started this thread. I find myself musing over the identical thing right now. It is so strange how someone has taken the idea of service, which is truly an individual thing and assigned a definition that is supposed to apply to all practitioners across the board. I am no domestic by any stretch of the word, yet I do enjoy keeping my own living quarters presentable. If given the option of hiring someone for the job or doing it myself, I would eagerly jump at the first. The additional time allows me to apply my attention to areas that are more beneficial. Sexual service has its appeal but it isn't the reason why I serve either. Mere bedroom antics can be gained from most willing partners. I don't need to make unpleasant sacrifices or yield control to bring this aspect into my life. I find that I am greatly drawn to the mental and emotional aspects of service. These are the largest quantifiers and typically deciding factors when I'm considering a potential suitor. If an individual is incapable of utilizing my talent and encouraging its expansion I will not be happy in the long run. I find that I am happiest when in the company of one that sees and appreciates the value of service on many levels and has chosen not to pigeonhole themselves or their servant into designated roles and ideologies. The one that can make love to my mind will have a sincere chance of touching my heart which inspires me to give of myself in this manner. It isn't his dominance, bravado, or self appointed titles that compel me to submit. It is truly the man I glimpse within. porcelaine It is always a pleasure to know that I'm not alone in my thoughts. But you know, I wonder if perhaps a lot of dominants are somewhat intimidated by this idea; that perhaps they don't feel as if they could live up to the role.

SusanofO -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 5:15:18 PM)
losttreasure: Well, I do like that saying: "To whom much is given, much is expected" (or something like that. You probably know the one I mean). I do think many Dominants do realize this, and many don't - at all. I think the concept of "you get what you give" isn't restricted to vanilla relationships. I know that a submissive will eventually make a comittment to a Domiannt (or a Master, if it's an M/s relationship) but not without trust, and it needs to be inspired. As far as a Dominant fearing not "living up to" the role: Maybe that is a fear (it is for some submissives, too). But honestly - I'd rather worship a human I can really feel honored to know, who occasionally screws up, than worship some mannequin-God. P.S. FirmHandKy is a great guy. You really did well for yourself (and so did he)! [:)] - Susan

losttreasure -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 5:25:17 PM)
laughs I feel as if I'm going to single handedly drive this thread into another page. Perhaps I'd best try to combine my comments. quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Excellent post. It's great to have someone who can speak so eloquently and bravely about not being service oriented, and yet still definitively submissive. Thank you so much for sharing. I am honored, LA. You are welcome. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Losttreasure, when I said "a sub or slave "wants" to serve" I was presuming that the sub/slave was already in a relationship. Like Susan said, who'd want to serve someone they don't even know? That wouldn't make much sense, would it? lol I like that word, Fealty. You don't often hear that these days. I understand, popeye, and I'm not accusing you of anything wrong. Your comments just prompted my thoughts. I've had quite a few experiences with doms who thought that subs just naturally had this overwhelming need to perform duties for others and drew sexual satisfaction from doing so... that miraculously the mere task of ironing his clothes or preparing his drink would somehow have us dripping with passion. [;)] And yes... "fealty" is a great word. quote: ORIGINAL: Mavis Yes! this is exactly what i was referring to in the "no hands" thread. to quote myself: quote: on fast reply, i don't see the issue with this, unless it turns out to be that i am actually just lazy. but i dont have this huge urge to be DOING.. i'm rather like a companion slave. Just interacting, being His company, "co-loafing" has much appeal. i love to be asked for a drink or refill, i love having it ready before asked too, but i'm also quite content to be standing at the counter chatting, and see Him refill my cup as W/we chat. i might remark "Oh, i should have gotten that" but W/we B/both know, if it had been more important than the discussion, i'd have been told so. Of course that includes obedience and service, but only because those are more ways to show my appreciation for the Person, as much as hanging on every word and carrying thier flag. Absolutely, Mavis... and I love the image that "companion slave" brings to mind. Yes, I wanted to make sure that all service was included because I do see it as different ways in which I can show my appreciation. quote: ORIGINAL: DomSA ...a good Dominant should always look to maximize the sub's skills and encourage the person to grow in new ways. Failure to do so is an injustice to the entire D/s relationship. If a person is going to entrust their life to your control then that control must be wielded responsibly. Thank you, DomSA. Until you and popeye commented, I was worried that no dominant would be adding his thoughts. Edited because I forgot I was compiling all my responses and hit OK too soon. [8D]

Homestead -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 5:29:59 PM)
The real question here is.......... Exactly what are you serving?

popeye1250 -> RE: On Service... (9/3/2006 5:45:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO losttreasure: Well, I do like that saying: "To whom much is given, much is expected" (or something like that. You probably know the one I mean). I do think many Dominants do realize this, and many don't - at all. I think the concept of "you get what you give" isn't restricted to vanilla relationships. I know that a submissive will eventually make a comittment to a Domiannt (or a Master, if it's an M/s relationship) but not without trust, and it needs to be inspired. As far as a Dominant fearing not "living up to" the role: Maybe that is a fear (it is for some submissives, too). But honestly - I'd rather worship a human I can really feel honored to know, who occasionally screws up, than worship some mannequin-God. P.S. FirmHandKy is a great guy. You really did well for yourself (and so did he)! [:)] - Susan "To whom much is given, much is expected." Susan, that's the one! That's what I say to myself everytime I cut a check to a charity. I'm just glad that I'm "able" to do so and not on the other end of that check. My mother used to tell us that all the time. Catholic school.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875