|
LadyPact -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 12:14:40 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AAkasha
Yes, but that person - if there's great chemistry and he's a fantastic "bottom" (for lack of a better word) but doesn't have a service-oriented bone in his body, is he not worth the time of day then?
If this is the situation, I don't see the problem. You're topping, he's bottoming. There ya go.
quote:
The negative stereotype you spoke of - the guy just looking for (any) chick with a whip, well a man can be offering his "service" to (any) femdom too, because that's what he's read he needs to do in order to enter into a BDSM or topping relationship. To me that's just as bad and objectifying.
Then it would seem to Me that such a situation wouldn't work out for you. I actually tend to feel less objectified when someone sees that a play situation is quite a bit more draining physically (from an energy spent angle) for the top and is willing to step up to even that out a bit.
quote:
But are most femdoms "aroused" or "attracted to" a man that does chores? Cooks? Cleans for her? Sure, I am, but that's not why I top men. It's never been what gets my "juices" flowing. Chemistry with a man is more about us clicking, him making me laugh and being attractive in some manner, having similar interests we can enjoy.
And if that is the case, those are the types of casual play scenarios that you should participate in. Not everybody involved in BDSM is only actively engaging in S/m with people who are also involved with them in some way aside from the kink interest.
quote:
There are unattractive men who are also simply lazy and selfish and do nothing to improve their lives or the lives of those around them - this has nothing to do with being "service oriented" or not, it's just a guy who's lazy.
It's exactly the male bottom who is willing to barter who is the prime example of not being lazy. Again, this just screams of 'go the easier route and throw money'. Which one is really teaching more?
quote:
This expectation for service has (and now service as currency) has also led to a subset of subs who want and need direction, attention and sometimes dominance in order to perform these (formerly selfless) acts of charm, devotion, whatever. An example would be my vanilla girlfriend hooks up with a guy and he spends the night for the first time (whether or not they have sex, irrelevant - they just shared wine and maybe got physical). In the morning she woke up and he cooks a really nice breakfast, just because he likes to do that kind of thing. You turn this to the BDSM new relationship, and the man in the scenario may consider this act, but only if he is provided instruction or understands it as part of a bdsm dynamic that is flowing. Or taken to the other extreme, he would not do such an act without direction or orders because it requires a level of initiative or risk taking (will she think it's pushy? what if she doesn't like eggs? what if I burn the food?) that he won't adopt unless he's being provided guidance and instruction.
So, now because someone isn't service oriented, they lack initiative? There isn't a possibility that someone acknowledges that the top was the primary energy giver during the scene and the bottom might recognize that the following day? The bottoms that I tend to play with more are exactly the type that would be those who would ensure that would be making breakfast. They know that if they treat Me well and help to assure that I am in a good place after playing (hydrated, not hungry, rested) that I'm more likely to play with them again the next time.
quote:
Remove the "naturally service-type guy" from the scenario prior, the one who got up and cooked breakfast. I think that's sweet; at the same time, I like a guy who takes initiative and it doesn't mean he has to be a cook. He could also just say, "Let's order out, what sounds good?" or "I would cook for you but unfortunately I am a disaster in the kitchen - we can go out to breakfast if you feel like it, or I can go pick something up if you want to lounge for a bit?"
You and I obviously have experiences with vastly different types of bottoms. The above scenario isn't that unusual and it has very little to do with being service oriented or not.
quote:
In a sense, it's as if "being attentive" or "being proactive" (in both service and non service contexts) are now factored into BDSM courting as part of the process (that in many cases is already fairly standard in vanilla dating, but by formalizing them, all of a sudden they become part of a transaction rather than authentic).
Right. Because nobody out there would just be a caring individual. Topping and bottoming isn't viewed by everybody as some sort of mating ritual. Some of this doesn't even go more than being a good friend or a good guest.
quote:
If a man isn't into behaving in this manner, as part of his nature, there's nothing to be gained by him forcing it because he believes that's what flips the "femdom switch" into the "ON" position.
Akasha
Obviously, I completely disagree with this. The smartest thing that any casual play bottom out there can do is to be the one who stands out and shows that he isn't in it just to take. If he gives a bit too, that is precisely the bottom that the top is going to want to play with again. That can be anything from helping out with chores so her energy is conserved for the play later or being the kind of guy who will rub her feet the next day because she spent the night before in boots playing with him. That makes him stand out from the crowd and those are the types that get more casual play because, even if it is the play that motivates him, more tops are interested in partnering with him because he's not some kind of energy drain.
Edited for the quoting feature.
|
|
|
|
