Subs serving out of obligation or barter

Subs serving out of obligation or barter (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

AAkasha -> Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 9:40:02 AM)
When subs and bottoms come here looking for advice, they almost always are told to figure out how they can serve: handiman, computer service, massage therapy, cooking, whatever. Do dominant women essentially barter either "relationship potential" (ie, the only way you have a chance to be slave to this "Mistress") or topping (ie, the only way I will consider spanking you or putting you in chastity) for services rendered? Or - for women who expect/demand this kind of service, does this service "put you in the dominant headspace" so you are more interested in topping or controlling a man? Ladies, do you ever feel that by setting these standards, you end up with men who are sort of being attentive/service-minded out of obligation - essentially to get to the carrot? Do you sense that some men are basically figuring out what services they can offer up in exchange for realizing some of his kinky dreams? Is that ok, so long as he provides the service he promised? Akasha

Politesub53 -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 10:26:33 AM)
Hi Ma`am, one of my first posts here was asking how one could serve a Pro Domme long term, without unlimited funds. Almost all of the answers i received suggested bartering some services, such as you have mentioned. I think this could be a good arrangement as long as both parties agree on the "exchange" rate,

PeonForHer -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 11:04:20 AM)
I think this could be a good arrangement as long as both parties agree on the "exchange" rate . . . I agree. Although it's not just a question of how little service one might be able to get away with in order to get to the 'carrot' (as Akasha puts it) - but how much. That is, it might take a whole day, a week, a month before a sub starts to feel 'dominated enough' for the play to 'work'. Odd, that. I've seen plenty of discussions about the question of 'how little service', but none about 'how much'. Still . . . perhaps a bit of a sidetrack on the OP's theme. And maybe a non-issue for most, as well.

AAkasha -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 11:17:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I think this could be a good arrangement as long as both parties agree on the "exchange" rate . . . I agree. Although it's not just a question of how little service one might be able to get away with in order to get to the 'carrot' (as Akasha puts it) - but how much. That is, it might take a whole day, a week, a month before a sub starts to feel 'dominated enough' for the play to 'work'. Odd, that. I've seen plenty of discussions about the question of 'how little service', but none about 'how much'. Still . . . perhaps a bit of a sidetrack on the OP's theme. And maybe a non-issue for most, as well. I guess what I can't get my head around is why a woman would enjoy/like/feel special by service that is given out of obligation in order to receive a payback of dominant affection. Just as subs (bottoms) are guilty of trying to "fast track" their way to getting dominant attention by giving their list of x, y and z fetishes (presumably without a relationship in place), femdoms are equally unfair to expect that subs should deliver energy and time in the form of x, y and z (service that is usually reserved for people in a mutually affectionate relationship) for consideration. Of course, it goes back to the simple thing people say over and over again: relationship first, power exchange second. But by offering and/or suggesting service as an introduction, I think that's as unrealistic as offering/suggesting kink as an introduction. If a man can hammer nails and give good pedicures, I don't really care; I am not having a stranger in my house doing home improvement nor would I enjoy someone hammering nails for me unless he was doing it out of affection (not obligation or in hopes of getting some action), and I am not letting a stranger rub my feet. I don't want a man touching me in any way unless we're affectionate toward each other, and that cannot be established prior to developing something ongoing. I just wonder if subs are being given bad instructions when people tell them to talk about their service capabilities or what they can "do" for a woman in their intros. Does it even matter? It matters if are you making service a transaction for kink and that's your currency. Otherwise, nothing matters other than chemistry and enjoying one another. Akasha

mnottertail -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 11:19:34 AM)
I think it is a less rude way of expressing the concepts of: get fuckin real, and, lead a more well rounded life, and, it ain't all about licking your cum off gramas silver fish spoons. Ron

OttersSwim -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 11:35:28 AM)
~Whoops - post written by SthrnCom4t accidentally under Otter's screen name.~ As a default, I do not pursue, I like to be pursued. In order to want to dominate a man, most of the time I have to like him. (Unless I am just in a cat/mouse....play for the sake of play mood.) As with anything else I focus time and attention on, I have to have an interest. My interest is not altruistic...I do not go out looking to be a Public Servant to those in need of domination to feed their desires. I do not automatically 'give' in order to receive/secure attention/energy, etc. I have a negative reaction to demand energy. Someone who feels I have to do something for them, is of no interest to me. Therefore, by giving submissives the advice of making their profiles less about them, in essence, I'm saying, take away the demand energy. When I like/love someone, I am very generous and giving of my time and attention. I set intent about creating a pleasant and inviting environment in which to welcome/coax them into my space. If someone wants my time and attention, I suggest they do the same. Create a pleasant environment......very much like landscaping. While some people get off on taking a wild, untamed piece of property and completely refurbishing/re-landscaping/recreating, I'd rather partner with someone where we can grow/evolve together. Sometimes I'll service top because I enjoy helping people discover new things about themselves. However, long-term, that is not my motivation. Synergistic/successful relationships are bartering. Each get's their needs met by the other person.Whether that is by design, or just unconscious, it has to be good for all parties involved. Sthrncom4t

LadyPact -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 11:48:06 AM)
There's another thread going in the general section that is a slight variation of this. In it, we were discussing the differences between the agreement and/or exchange concept, rather than a power dynamic. The barter idea is something I identify being associated with the top/bottom situation. The bottom does X and in return the top does Y. The top may control what ensues in the scene that has been arranged, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with power or authority. It's more equality based. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it is not what I would want in a dynamic. With a power imbalance, the boy does X, but I'm not necessarily required to do Y. It doesn't change his obligations. I just may or may not chose to reward him. It doesn't mean he gets out of doing the dishes just because I'm not going to beat his ass afterwards. Granted, if the dishes get done and I'm not the one doing them, it's more likely that I'll have the energy to beat him. I don't consider that a Dominant headspace. I see that from the perspective of any woman who has ever had to take care of a home who realizes that the less of the work that I am doing, the more time/energy I have for sex, play, or whatever. I have a very much Venus On Top mind about that. I'm very plain spoken about the fact that I am only interested in the cream of the crop of subs out there for a dynamic. Those who can't rise to that honestly don't last that long with Me. That means I'm going to be looking for the submissives who do bring something to the table as far as skill sets. No, that doesn't mean that they have to be good at everything, but they had better well be good at something. Not to sound egotistical, but I have spent years learning and improving My skills in regards to BDSM. I feel that any submissive in My life should have at least put that much effort into learning about service.

AAkasha -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 11:57:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact There's another thread going in the general section that is a slight variation of this. In it, we were discussing the differences between the agreement and/or exchange concept, rather than a power dynamic. The barter idea is something I identify being associated with the top/bottom situation. The bottom does X and in return the top does Y. The top may control what ensues in the scene that has been arranged, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with power or authority. It's more equality based. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it is not what I would want in a dynamic. With a power imbalance, the boy does X, but I'm not necessarily required to do Y. It doesn't change his obligations. I just may or may not chose to reward him. It doesn't mean he gets out of doing the dishes just because I'm not going to beat his ass afterwards. Granted, if the dishes get done and I'm not the one doing them, it's more likely that I'll have the energy to beat him. I don't consider that a Dominant headspace. I see that from the perspective of any woman who has ever had to take care of a home who realizes that the less of the work that I am doing, the more time/energy I have for sex, play, or whatever. I have a very much Venus On Top mind about that. I'm very plain spoken about the fact that I am only interested in the cream of the crop of subs out there for a dynamic. Those who can't rise to that honestly don't last that long with Me. That means I'm going to be looking for the submissives who do bring something to the table as far as skill sets. No, that doesn't mean that they have to be good at everything, but they had better well be good at something. Not to sound egotistical, but I have spent years learning and improving My skills in regards to BDSM. I feel that any submissive in My life should have at least put that much effort into learning about service. If I look at the last sentence of your last paragraph it leads me to believe that dominance and/or topping (more specifically) are things you do to a man for a return of some sort, not something that you get pleasure from in and of itself. Is that true? If (all things considered) you really have affection and/or lust for a man, are you able to take domination and/or topping off the table and not miss it at all? For me, the desire to make a man submit to me (via topping, bondage, pain and humiliation) is a drive that is totally independent of what he is doing to/for me. If I am attracted to a man, I have a lust to see him submit (physically). I cannot turn that off. The fact that men who are "generous" (of heart), courteous, classy or act like gentlemen are what attracts me to them is totally separate not and not related to the fact that when I like a guy, I want to make him submit to me - it turns my crank, so to speak. Safe to say, if I am attracted to "the wrong guy" who does nothing for me, doesn't care about me, is lazy and selfish and a prick, if I like him I still want to dominate him; in fact, to deny domination would hurt ME more than him, probably. It would make me feel very unfulfilled. I guess that's like the idea of denying sex; well, if you BOTH love sex, you really aren't punishing him, are you? However, the fact that I am not attracted to assholes or men who are selfish, or "bad boys" or men who don't treat me right is the reason I am not in one sided relationships. Case in point though, when I was younger and still developing relationship skills, late teens/early 20s, I can certainly recall men who were assholes that I was attracted to, and yes, I dominated them, and yes, I was "used" a few times - moreso, we used each other - but all that meant is that we never progressed past casual "flings" into full blown "relationships." I still need my S&M from men that I find attractive, regardless of whether or not they possess all the qualities I require in ongoing friendship or romance (as appropriate). Is topping/dominating a currency? That's what I am trying to get my head around. Akasha

LadyPact -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 12:36:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact There's another thread going in the general section that is a slight variation of this. In it, we were discussing the differences between the agreement and/or exchange concept, rather than a power dynamic. The barter idea is something I identify being associated with the top/bottom situation. The bottom does X and in return the top does Y. The top may control what ensues in the scene that has been arranged, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with power or authority. It's more equality based. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it is not what I would want in a dynamic. With a power imbalance, the boy does X, but I'm not necessarily required to do Y. It doesn't change his obligations. I just may or may not chose to reward him. It doesn't mean he gets out of doing the dishes just because I'm not going to beat his ass afterwards. Granted, if the dishes get done and I'm not the one doing them, it's more likely that I'll have the energy to beat him. I don't consider that a Dominant headspace. I see that from the perspective of any woman who has ever had to take care of a home who realizes that the less of the work that I am doing, the more time/energy I have for sex, play, or whatever. I have a very much Venus On Top mind about that. I'm very plain spoken about the fact that I am only interested in the cream of the crop of subs out there for a dynamic. Those who can't rise to that honestly don't last that long with Me. That means I'm going to be looking for the submissives who do bring something to the table as far as skill sets. No, that doesn't mean that they have to be good at everything, but they had better well be good at something. Not to sound egotistical, but I have spent years learning and improving My skills in regards to BDSM. I feel that any submissive in My life should have at least put that much effort into learning about service. If I look at the last sentence of your last paragraph it leads me to believe that dominance and/or topping (more specifically) are things you do to a man for a return of some sort, not something that you get pleasure from in and of itself. Is that true? Not at all. Believe Me when I say it is My sadistic desires that drive Me in a top/bottom scenario. The thing about that is, in truth, I can find darn near anybody to beat. I don't think I'm telling you anything you're not already aware of. However, that is play time only. There is the rest of life to consider. What I am saying is, why should I settle for just a bottom when I know I can have a full package submissive? quote: If (all things considered) you really have affection and/or lust for a man, are you able to take domination and/or topping off the table and not miss it at all? Can and have. I married him. I thought you already knew that about Me. quote: For me, the desire to make a man submit to me (via topping, bondage, pain and humiliation) is a drive that is totally independent of what he is doing to/for me. Agreed, but then again, I believe you may be referring to a scene, rather than a dynamic. quote: If I am attracted to a man, I have a lust to see him submit (physically). I cannot turn that off. The fact that men who are "generous" (of heart), courteous, classy or act like gentlemen are what attracts me to them is totally separate not and not related to the fact that when I like a guy, I want to make him submit to me - it turns my crank, so to speak. I don't necessarily have that same type of lust related to every male I find attractive. There are some damn fine, hot Dominant males out there. I can recognize that attraction and yet not want to see them submit to Me. The reason for this is that it would be them going against their nature. Just the same as it would be going against My nature if they wanted Me to submit to them. quote: Safe to say, if I am attracted to "the wrong guy" who does nothing for me, doesn't care about me, is lazy and selfish and a prick, if I like him I still want to dominate him; in fact, to deny domination would hurt ME more than him, probably. It would make me feel very unfulfilled. I guess that's like the idea of denying sex; well, if you BOTH love sex, you really aren't punishing him, are you? However, the fact that I am not attracted to assholes or men who are selfish, or "bad boys" or men who don't treat me right is the reason I am not in one sided relationships. The attraction to the bad boys theory is probably too lengthy to involve in this one. Though, again, I think we're coming at this from different terms. Had I said the above, I would have specifically referred to it as topping. The lazy, selfish prick type wouldn't make it to a D/s dynamic with Me. quote: Case in point though, when I was younger and still developing relationship skills, late teens/early 20s, I can certainly recall men who were assholes that I was attracted to, and yes, I dominated them, and yes, I was "used" a few times - moreso, we used each other - but all that meant is that we never progressed past casual "flings" into full blown "relationships." I still need my S&M from men that I find attractive, regardless of whether or not they possess all the qualities I require in ongoing friendship or romance (as appropriate). Again, I would put the flings rather than relationships as topping rather than Dominance and submission. I see these as vastly different things. quote: Is topping/dominating a currency? That's what I am trying to get my head around. Akasha I do believe it can be. It most certainly can be a commodity. If it were not, the pro arena would not exist. Edited for incorrect use of the quotes.

Wickad -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 12:58:37 PM)
(fast reply) It seems I live in the hinterlands of BDSM'ville. The only 'submissive' men that I have found are those that believe 'Dominant woman' is a euphemism for 'leather clad whore who will ride me so I don't have to do any of the work'. I have only found one man that I consider well rounded enough to want to talk to .... unfortunately his 'well roundedness' also includes a wife and family - lol. Thus he is not a match for me. I have had many offers to 'barter' my services and it seems that the men doing the offering really do not understand why I find the entire idea offensive. ... And I do find it offensive. I do want a man who is well rounded, well read, interesting, inquisitive, and maybe has a skill or two that I do not possess. This does not mean that I will whore myself out for that skill. Even in a situation of Top/bottom negotiation there has to be some kind of a relationship for me. This relationship does not have to be a romantic one or even one in which I find the person sexually attractive, however, there has to be something 'there' that will exist once the scene or scenario is completed. I do not feel comfortable entering into, what I consider an intimate dynamic, with a complete stranger or someone I don't like. Hope this helps with the conversation, Wickad

Lucienne -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 1:15:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha Do you sense that some men are basically figuring out what services they can offer up in exchange for realizing some of his kinky dreams? I certainly hope so. Otherwise my search for a houseboy is doomed.

littlesarbonn -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 2:16:45 PM)
For a lot of men I think the service aspect ends up being their only way of being able to differentiate themselves from every other submissive guy. For a lot of them, they have to find some way of showing that they have something to offer, and quite often this is the easiest and most obvious example. Face it. It's really hard for a submissive male to walk into a crowded room and try to convince someone that he's a good catch without something to offer, and online no one is really able to see one's inner essence, one's ability to provide, one's ability to handle delicate relationships and other such aspects that come in these types of interactions, so the one thing that is obvious and apparent is what the person can physically have to offer that is not what everyone else has to offer. As it turns out, a lot of guys talk a lot of talk and have little ability to do the walk, so this becomes an activity where one can excel, and it has generally worked in the past, so it ends up being the right way to attract and disseminate one's services to a greater good.

youngsubgeoff -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 6:13:05 PM)
As a male sub, I could not serve someone as some sort of barter. My submission grows out of love, not out of what Im getting from it.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 6:18:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha When subs and bottoms come here looking for advice, they almost always are told to figure out how they can serve: handiman, computer service, massage therapy, cooking, whatever. Do dominant women essentially barter either "relationship potential" (ie, the only way you have a chance to be slave to this "Mistress") or topping (ie, the only way I will consider spanking you or putting you in chastity) for services rendered? Or - for women who expect/demand this kind of service, does this service "put you in the dominant headspace" so you are more interested in topping or controlling a man? Ladies, do you ever feel that by setting these standards, you end up with men who are sort of being attentive/service-minded out of obligation - essentially to get to the carrot? Do you sense that some men are basically figuring out what services they can offer up in exchange for realizing some of his kinky dreams? Is that ok, so long as he provides the service he promised? Akasha (I'll take the first paragraph....) I've seen this. It's somewhat typical (sadly).

CaringandReal -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 6:37:36 PM)
Does anyone find it odd how different this issue is if it's a male-dom/female-sub relationship? When I'm seriously interested in someone I offer my sevices (I have a number of them and I love to be of use) but male dominants are seldom interested in these or see them as the main attraction. I feel a dominant should know what I bring to the table, so I offer them when or where appropriate. But they aren't what are decisive to most male dominants about whether to take me as a slave or not. Later, they can prove to be quite useful, but initially they don't add to the relationship draw. Are we looking at differing level of hormones at work here? Or what, I wonder?

Reform -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/23/2009 8:48:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: Is topping/dominating a currency? That's what I am trying to get my head around. Akasha I do believe it can be. It most certainly can be a commodity. If it were not, the pro arena would not exist. I agree with LP here. Topping can be a currancy, but it's certainly not how it works in my relationship. He serves out of devotion, regardless of what I do in response. Coming from the other side of things, when I submit I prefer not to have all that attachment. I want to come in, do my part, do it well, and I'll see you next time! It is a kind of barter when you look at it that way. I am playing my part and he's playing his, and hopefully we're both having fun. Otherwise, why barter in the first place?

LadyAngelika -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/24/2009 4:15:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha When subs and bottoms come here looking for advice, they almost always are told to figure out how they can serve: handiman, computer service, massage therapy, cooking, whatever. Do dominant women essentially barter either "relationship potential" (ie, the only way you have a chance to be slave to this "Mistress") or topping (ie, the only way I will consider spanking you or putting you in chastity) for services rendered? Or - for women who expect/demand this kind of service, does this service "put you in the dominant headspace" so you are more interested in topping or controlling a man? Ladies, do you ever feel that by setting these standards, you end up with men who are sort of being attentive/service-minded out of obligation - essentially to get to the carrot? Do you sense that some men are basically figuring out what services they can offer up in exchange for realizing some of his kinky dreams? Is that ok, so long as he provides the service he promised? Akasha Now that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate when boys offer up to do something nice to help me out! But I'm not expecting it. I much rather see a boy saying "please let me carry those bags for you" rather than me have to say "don't you think you should be carrying those bags for me?". That is how I distinguish the ones that really want to be in this dynamic as opposed to the ones that are, as you put it, bartering. Also, I expect my partner, in this case my boy, to help me out as I will him. If he's not in tune with my needs, not paying attention to them, then it is likely he's not the boy for me. - LA PS - Nice to see you're still here AAkasha! I just had a flash of us abducting a the Montreal Canadians hockey team together ;-)

AAkasha -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/24/2009 9:03:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika PS - Nice to see you're still here AAkasha! I just had a flash of us abducting a the Montreal Canadians hockey team together ;-) Where do I sign up!? Akasha

LPslittleclip -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/24/2009 9:09:37 AM)
for me i serv my MIstress and my reward is Her grattitude and happiness, the beatings are for Her to met out when and if She so feels. now i am a service oriented slave so im a bit diffrent than most but the exchang it a common thing for the top/bottom casual play. for the M/s dynamic ti dosent work as the interplay involved is diffrent

LadyAngelika -> RE: Subs serving out of obligation or barter (11/24/2009 3:05:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika PS - Nice to see you're still here AAkasha! I just had a flash of us abducting a the Montreal Canadians hockey team together ;-) Where do I sign up!? Akasha Well first, we must devise a plan... ;-)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875