RE: When did "service" become currency for topping?

RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (Full Version)

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

Message

MsMillgrove -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 12:31:25 AM)
The responsibilities that Wickad lists are the same ones I expect and have rec'd from any male that I have topped. They also clean the equipment in the room before and after play with paper towels and good quality disinfectant " provided as part of the fee for entry in our local clubs. Also< I do a tiny bit of barter in that I ask them two things in negotiation, one is that they do a little bit of role play with me (tho I don't explain it quite that way) and secondly that they rub my feet (if they are good at it.. one guy isn't so I skip it with him.) My bottoms have given me roses and a beautiful toy that I always wanted, so unexpectedly. wheee. how sweet. All this progressed with relative ease and smoothness, and they've taken time to chit chat nicely with me too before we agreed to play together. I don't expect or ask anything other than what I mention above from a bottom. Why would I think they would do any "service" for me, like chores. For what reason? We're play partners, me a top, the male or female a bottom. That's it. Of course we like each other or we'd never have met and got acquainted. For my subs, I've had entirely different expectations and our relationships were deeply grounded in the d/s dynamic. I owned them. They surrendered to me or acknowledged my authority. I took impeccable care of them to the best of my ability, guided, nourished and nutured them. All were devoted to me and served well, depending on their talents. I don't have any unhappy endings in that dept. none. In play with a sub, I do what I want--but I make certain that the play often involves their favorite kinks. I also have a pony, she doesn't do any service for me, why would she?, she's a pony. She obeys me, trains faithfully and is a champion. I adore my pony. So.. I don't see that service comes into a top/bottom relationship while it's essential to a d/s dynamic. What we need to know as dommes tho right up from males is bottom or sub?.. please dont' call yourself a sub if all you want is play. Say "I am a bottom". Then I will understand what you want.

Andalusite -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 8:58:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seekingOwnertoo But it is Your heart at risk ... not the man's ... no matter how close You might perceive service and playing will make You; or develop into. That is why i am saying .... it is not men who are getting the wrong impression. That's a very good point, SO2. I hadn't decided whether or not to take him up on his offer, when I found someone who was offering a romantic relationship, which is what I was actively looking for. Sometimes in the past, it has taken a few months to find a romantic relationship, and I did play casually during that time. It's easier for me to limit the romantic and sexual involvement if I'm the Top or Dominant, but it's very much possible to find my heartstrings all wound up in someone without realising it at first. At this point, I'm inclined to only play casually with my femsub playpartner, or my gay friend who I've topped before, or possibly another woman or couple, because I'm much less likely to be attracted to or romantically involved with them than with a single heterosexual or bi man. The main point I wanted to make was that all of the other offers of service I got came across as him wanting to use me, rather than be useful to me. I felt this particular man at least had a good attitude that might be workable.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 10:54:26 AM)
quote: I still go back to my original question though: All things being equal, are the femdom tops here more interested/only interested in men that do things for them -- and that's where it starts? Or does your desire to top men come from some place that is more self sufficient? I'd have to say either, neither or both. I'm a dominant person. I'm pushy and bossy, and will gravitate towards situations where I am in control of the situation. It's a bonus if being in control -also- makes my life a little easier. That's just the way that it is. To me, every interaction with another person is a give-and-take scenario. They want something from me, even if it is nothing more than my sometimes overwhelming presence. I want something from them, even if it's just listening to me ramble on about my rant of the day. Regardless of whether it's romance or a tattooing session, when we interact with people, we interact to get -something- out of the interaction. I guess that my response is "I am only interested in relationships in which I get some enjoyment out of being in the relationship." That's about as "self-sufficient" as it gets... if the relationship does nothing for me, and it's apparent that being with me does nothing for the other person, I'm perfectly happy to just be alone. Calla

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 10:59:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I'm having a slow to become caffeinated day, Myself. LOL. The dishonesty implied is part of the issue that I have with this. The other part of that is the well known history that this particular forum has with it's record of the automatic answer of, if someone is not submissive, their solution is the pro domme. So are we really saying that paying someone is the only answer here? Barter really isn't any different than someone paying out of pocket. The only difference is they are compensating with something other than cash. They are investing time and effort rather than dollar bills. Saying one is fine but the other isn't almost smacks of hypocrisy. I think that the reason that this comes up so much on CM is because so many people consider CM to be sort of like a kinky dating service -- most people are looking for a life-partner, and having that person meet certain fetish-y criteria is part of the process (whether the fetish is having someone to dominate/submit or whether it's wearing/inserting a horsetail and hooking someone up to a cart for a ride around the estate). There isn't much thought, though, for the folks who aren't necessarily looking for a -mate-... just someone to enjoy a fetish with. That's really overlooked (or looked down on) here, simply, I think, because of the sheer comparative volume of individuals who are looking for something long-term. Calla

LadyPact -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 11:38:03 AM)
We're agreed on that, Calla. At times the impression is given that the words top and bottom, unless used as a verb, are somehow dirty words. This is where I have issue with those who automatically feel that there is romantic associations with play have to look outside of their own personal box. While that may seem how it is for you, if you only play within a particular relationship, that isn't how it is for everyone. Again, I would ask that people remember that not everyone holds the same view regarding S/m. I hate to pull this particular parallel, but just the same as some people don't automatically equate sex with being in love, the very same can be said about BDSM. I would ask that people don't confuse the two. I'm probably going to phrase this poorly, but there is something else that I feel needs to be said. For those who have been posting here for some time, I think you might understand what I'm saying without Me calling up various past threads. Time and time again, I have heard people complain about the lack of bottoms who are willing to put in as much effort as the top. We've talked about the cost of toys, investment in learning, and all of the other things that tops are expected to do, and then bitched about bottoms that want to contribute nothing. I can't tell you how many times I've read comments about how so many bottoms just want to show up, bend over, and get their wants met. Now, here comes along a thread where there is a perfectly acceptable way to even that all out. Guess what? That still isn't good enough. Sorry to all of you casual players out there in BDSM land. Unless you do it precisely the way that other people think you should, too bad. You're just out of luck. After all of those threads that complain about what you didn't do, now if you do it, you're still coming up short because your motivations don't match those that belong to someone else.

Michael3001 -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 2:32:05 PM)
I live to be used, that's my kink. I get off on situations being unequal. I want it to be about her. She needs to be a "DO ME" dom or else I can't get into serving her. Thats what gets me hard. What doesn't get me hard is a being with a dominant who isn't really into me or the dynamic. I have needs and as a dominant, if were a match, she'll like my needs being met . My need is to be told what to do, how and when. I get off on being led by a woman, sexually and otherwise. That's why i consider myself a submissive as opposed to a bottom. My need to be used is only turned on by a woman who wants to use me. That's what I need in her. I need her to get off on the whole idea of using me. Yeah, Im all about servicing her needs and I could care less about all the toys and chastity games. Tell me you want me, tell me you want to use me, tell me you want me and I'm all yours.

Mishna -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 3:03:31 PM)
If you want a sub who is interested in service, find one; if you don't, look for someone else. It's that simple. I happen to be very close friends with a male sub who loves service and never asks for anything in return. The knowledge he is doing the activities for his domme, and she is proud of him for his commitment, is something he cherishes. Does that mean he doesn't care about play? No. He loves play, as well. But, he doesn't provide service with the expectation of getting something in return. If something isn't working for the people involved, then don't do it. Why make such a big deal about it? There's no need for a song and dance.

hopelesslyInvo -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 6:59:08 PM)
i heart you~ this is why i say i want to be useful, not to be used. used implies at the very least that it ends, but it's likely to also imply that i merely served a purpose any other person could have filled instead of taking advantage to the unique qualities i have to offer. i suppose there's the possibility of an interesting dynamic on some level, but things can't be dynamic if they're one sided. it's why i say i don't mind doing menial tasks for people that matter to me, but that i will never find myself in a relationship based on petty achievements; being nothing more than a convenience is a harsh limit on what i'd like to be to them in the end. if all i'm allowed or able to give to someone is something they could get from basically anyone else, i'll insist that they do get it from them. it's also what i'm always clamoring about when i talk about the merit of actions. i believe the reasons that we do things are almost always more important than doing them was in and of itself. it's not selfless or virtuous in the least to save someone's life if you're only doing it for reward or praise, you would easily be a bigger hero if you had noble intents but failed miserably. the discovery of an ulterior motive can shatter the significance we thought something once held in an instant. i wouldn't want to find out someone pretended to care about me, or only engaged in romantic/sensual/sexual activities because i provided some form of service anymore than they'd like to find out that a guy only does chores so that you'll do him. which touches a bit of what i get into when i rant about people's notions about what they 'deserve'. the world has and takes all kinds, but that's no reason for a 'one size fits all', and no one is going to 'have' it all.

AAkasha -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 7:15:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mishna If you want a sub who is interested in service, find one; if you don't, look for someone else. It's that simple. I happen to be very close friends with a male sub who loves service and never asks for anything in return. The knowledge he is doing the activities for his domme, and she is proud of him for his commitment, is something he cherishes. Does that mean he doesn't care about play? No. He loves play, as well. But, he doesn't provide service with the expectation of getting something in return. If something isn't working for the people involved, then don't do it. Why make such a big deal about it? There's no need for a song and dance. The problem is this: Bottoms or kink-centered (act-focused people) ask "How can I meet a femdom who will dominate me?" Femdoms give the advice, "Oh you need to have something to offer in return. Here are some suggestions (points the bottom to resources about acts of service he's not really interested in at all, but he says fine, I guess if that's what it takes) Bottoms engage potential partners in possible meetings and relationships and lists his skills/interests as (a list of services he isn't really interested in doing but thinks this is what he has to do in order to get his kinky needs met) Bottom then provides service and is attentive, just for the sake of being in a dynamic, and finds that he's resentful and 'expected her to be more dominant' Femdom is shocked when he expects domination in return Both parties are unsatisfied Meanwhile, men who genuinely enjoy being of service get lumped into this category of bad apples My point is that service given out of obligation or in hopes of getting something in return is crap for both people. If a man wants to get kinky sex or acts, he shouldn't be told he "needs to offer something in return" and given a list of skills/service type things, so he can go try to figure out how to get a woman to dominate him "in exchange" for service (unless they flat out agree to a transaction up front, which is totally different). Instead, bottoms who are interested in meeting femdoms for no-strings kinky fun or kink acts as a flavor of intimacy need to be told that they should: a) be honest with potential partners b) understand that they are simply courting women who have tastes for kink, but ultimately, they must have chemistry and mutual interests -- he should not be told to brush up on his housecleaning, cooking, or errand-running if those acts hold zero interest for him. Let the service subs who enjoy that do it. Akasha

Mishna -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 7:27:30 PM)
Out of curiosity, Aakasha, why does it bother you what other dommes do? And, how do you know that the "services" a male sub has listed are things that he has no interest in doing? Why do you feel it is up to you to decide what people "should" do, or how these interactions "should" take place? I don't disagree that both parties should be honest and up front, but it is up to those people, engaging in the relationship, however short or long-lived it is, to determine the parameters of that relationship.

AAkasha -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 8:23:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mishna Out of curiosity, Aakasha, why does it bother you what other dommes do? And, how do you know that the "services" a male sub has listed are things that he has no interest in doing? Why do you feel it is up to you to decide what people "should" do, or how these interactions "should" take place? I don't disagree that both parties should be honest and up front, but it is up to those people, engaging in the relationship, however short or long-lived it is, to determine the parameters of that relationship. It bothers me because there's an increase in the number of men (probably bottoms) who approach femdoms (me and my friends) offering all kinds of service, when you dig deeper you find out they have no interest in service, but this is the advice they are being given. It's a disservice to the subs who legitimately offer service and cheapens what makes them unique, and at the same time sets up expectations that service = S&M play & dynamic for reward. It's a trend that has been increasing and I think it's pretty sad. So I think rather than encourage kink-curious men to "find out how you can be of service/useful/helpful" (as a way to get S&M), more emphasis could be placed on being clear about expectations. At the end of the day, you are right, it's not a huge impact on me. I am happily married and enjoy the bottoms I have as play partners. But when kink-curious people come online to get information, it's a shame to see them walking away thinking the way to achieve a kinky relationship is to become "service submissive" in genre when it's of zero interest to them Akasha

seekingOwnertoo -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 8:38:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact those who automatically feel that there is romantic associations with play have to look outside of their own personal box. While that may seem how it is for you, if you only play within a particular relationship, that isn't how it is for everyone. Again, I would ask that people remember that not everyone holds the same view regarding S/m. Guilty as charged ... on all accounts ... You are right on target ... no question ... i admit to bias ... even though i know, the casual viewpoint ... quite intimately ... [;)] All i can say is .... always be honest ... up front and through out ... so i don't have to console Your weeping ... when it doesn't work ... the way You want, now that You changed with someone. Honesty .. is always .. the best explanation ... and incidentally ... the only valid excuse.

LadyPact -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 9:20:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seekingOwnertoo Guilty as charged ... on all accounts ... You are right on target ... no question ... i admit to bias ... even though i know, the casual viewpoint ... quite intimately ... [;)] All i can say is .... always be honest ... up front and through out ... so i don't have to console Your weeping ... when it doesn't work ... the way You want, now that You changed with someone. Honesty .. is always .. the best explanation ... and incidentally ... the only valid excuse. I know you're trying really hard here. At the same time, you're missing it. There is no weeping! Don't you see what is happening here? Is there no clarity? There are at least two women on this thread who are willing to say that they are perfectly fine with such a situation. We're not trying to trick someone into feigned interest. We're not asking anyone to conform. We're sitting here telling people how to improve their chances for casual play and there really are women out there who want to do it. This whole thread is about the concept of barter. My position has been that the barter of service is fine. Look carefully at the original. It is nothing short of barter of another kind. It has everything to do with faking interest in the actual woman. Learn how to fool her. Even better, we'll teach you how for just $19.95! All you have to do is be appealing. It's just a little box. You can fit. Open your wallet. Visit the pro. Go to the site. Let's convince you in that is all you have to offer. Nobody wants you, so shell out the cash. Bullshit.

LafayetteLady -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 9:51:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha quote: ORIGINAL: Mishna Out of curiosity, Aakasha, why does it bother you what other dommes do? And, how do you know that the "services" a male sub has listed are things that he has no interest in doing? Why do you feel it is up to you to decide what people "should" do, or how these interactions "should" take place? I don't disagree that both parties should be honest and up front, but it is up to those people, engaging in the relationship, however short or long-lived it is, to determine the parameters of that relationship. It bothers me because there's an increase in the number of men (probably bottoms) who approach femdoms (me and my friends) offering all kinds of service, when you dig deeper you find out they have no interest in service, but this is the advice they are being given. It's a disservice to the subs who legitimately offer service and cheapens what makes them unique, and at the same time sets up expectations that service = S&M play & dynamic for reward. It's a trend that has been increasing and I think it's pretty sad. So I think rather than encourage kink-curious men to "find out how you can be of service/useful/helpful" (as a way to get S&M), more emphasis could be placed on being clear about expectations. At the end of the day, you are right, it's not a huge impact on me. I am happily married and enjoy the bottoms I have as play partners. But when kink-curious people come online to get information, it's a shame to see them walking away thinking the way to achieve a kinky relationship is to become "service submissive" in genre when it's of zero interest to them Akasha While I agree that these men are being given advice that may not be applicable to every domme they encounter, it isn't going to stop. Sadly, there are, judging from the posts I've read, a significant number of dommes who ARE expecting this kind of thing from men and will continue to encourage the behavior. I would say you and your friends would be better served (pardon the pun) by putting something about that in your profiles. Yes, I know so few actually read them, but then you could at least direct them back to read your profile and to contact you again after they have read it if they are still interested.

hopelesslyInvo -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/5/2010 10:16:31 PM)
quote: Out of curiosity, Aakasha, why...? Out of curiosity. why does it bother you what other dommes do? why does it bother you what other dommes do? how do you know that the "services" a male sub has listed are things that he has no interest in doing? a male sub has listed... things that he has no interest in doing Why do you feel it is up to you to decide what people "should" do, or how these interactions "should" take place? both parties should be honest and up front... to determine the parameters of that relationship. Why do you feel it is up to you to decide what people "should" do, or how these interactions "should" take place? sorry, couldn't resist~ =p you're simply misunderstanding though, and assuredly she and most of the rest of us merely enjoy discussion; most forum-goers outside of help and support do. also, saying something like 'people sleep during this time of night' isn't stating 'the entire human race collectively passes out at a certain hour', it simply states 'during this time of night, it occurs that people do indeed sleep'. you only need one example to prove that this isn't a false statement, and we certainly have no short order of people telling others exactly what they have no interest in doing on these forums. - the use of the word "should" also acts more like a double negative than a definitive; canceling both shoulds out to make room for a new should. for example; "i should think, that you should stop telling people what they should or should not do."~ "yes i should, shouldn't i?" should isn't an evil oppressive word, "should do" and "should not do" are opposites, but both state you "should" something, and you will always be capable of being said to be one or some other; debating the use of the word 'should' is more or less a debate of what use of the word "should" you approve of. if the statement 'i should kill annoying people' was deemed false, then it might be true that i should not kill people, or maybe that i should not discriminate in who i kill or let live, or that i should not be concerned with whether people die or not, even possibly that i'm free to kill but am not obligated to feel like i should have to. many other statements may be said to plausibly be true, but all of which could and probably would make use of the word should. to give you a new spin on your words on last time... quote: ...it is up to you to decide what people "should" do... it is up to those people... to decide what people "should" do... in other words, humanity invented the word and concept of "should", and to be able to use the word with any meaning outside of "probability" you must have a set of morals/beliefs/opinions/etc. in all honesty it's preposterous to think anyone "should"... anything at all, as no one has anything aside from their opinion to base such a claim on, but we "should" all be entitled to our own opinions. right?~ i think that people should just realize that using the word should doesn't make someone a nazi, and that all this thread is saying is that should a person find them self in relationship that was formed based on deceptive information when they should have been truthful and forthcoming, then they should expect one or both of them to be met with unnecessary disappointment; but that this should not have to occur nearly as much as it does. i should shut up for now.

MsMillgrove -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/6/2010 1:31:20 AM)
Well I guess I reiterate my own point again. I play to play. The bottom usually does basic tidy of room before and after and helps me pack up toys and out to car. This is manners, not service. For service from a bottom--there isn't any. Why would there be? It's play, just that. As LadyPact keeps saying the need is for honesty, up front, about what you as a bottom want: namely play. And that is the rub because so many people are under the impression they have to say they are "sub" and act sub in order to get some play. Which is bs, but since they are constantly asked, "what can you offer me." they are pressured by dommes to "offer" something. And this is probably becuase they presented themselves to a domme as a sub candidate. It's perfectly acceptable to me to ask a sub candidate what he has to offer to see if it meshes with what I need. With a bottom, i am more interested in why I want to play with him. There is another group of bottoms or subs, who seem to think that telling you how great they are at oral sex is going to somehow tip the balance in their favor... some also like to display their penis. That's another topic actually. Because many of the dominas in Ask a Mistress are attempting to help subs, this would be those who want a d/s relationship, find a mistress--a good deal of the advice (which is excellent: see the FAQs) is based on developing relationships suitable to the d/s dynamic. It's not appropriate for the bottom to feel he/she has to offer service in order to get play. Play is play. Gosh, when is this going to be ok? That you can say, "I'd like to play, how about you?" Maybe I should get back to my mailbox where the male doms are begging me for a spanking, at least they understand the value of being upfront and honest about what they are looking for. Bottoms: go out into your community. If you're polite, presentable and a honest person, a kind domina is going to play with you!

LafayetteLady -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/6/2010 1:39:31 AM)
Honestly, was there some point to that ridiculously long grammar lesson that had nothing to do with the thread? Other than to try to impress us with your grammar opinions?

hopelesslyInvo -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/6/2010 6:06:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Honestly, was there some point to that ridiculously long grammar lesson that had nothing to do with the thread? Other than to try to impress us with your grammar opinions? you mean a point like; "it's hard to communicate with people when the meaning behind someone's words isn't clear to them." yeah... there might have been, or am i mistaken in my observation that 'what is being discussed' has very much to do with miscommunication between people? it's not difficult to notice the impact it has on people, you can see its effects pretty clearly right in the flow of this discussion; with posts getting explained, and then re-explained more than once. i can at least assure you that the point wasn't to intentionally annoy people who are daunted when met face to face with upwards of 10 sentences at once; i merely favor comprehension over being succinct. in the meantime, i shall try to live with the tragic news that people may not have haphazardly been impressed with my... "grammar opinions".

Andalusite -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/6/2010 9:36:19 PM)
I've suggested that submissives on the forum learn various skills. I think that if someone is representing themselves as submissive, they should have skills to offer, and will have more potential interest. Even if I'm dating a Top or a Dominant, I find competence and wide-ranging interests very attractive. I won't necessarily expect him to make me something in his woodshop, fix my car, or fix my computer, but I'll think it's great that he knows how to do those things. For me, someone being a bottom doesn't rule out a LTR. If someone is a potential playpartner, I wouldn't expect or demand service, but I don't have any reason to look online for casual play. It's too easy to find locally from people I already know and have at least some comfort level established. Right now, I already have a femsub playpartner, and am not actively looking for anyone to play with.

submissivemale22 -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/6/2010 9:57:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha It bothers me because there's an increase in the number of men (probably bottoms) who approach femdoms (me and my friends) offering all kinds of service, when you dig deeper you find out they have no interest in service, but this is the advice they are being given. It's a disservice to the subs who legitimately offer service and cheapens what makes them unique, and at the same time sets up expectations that service = S&M play & dynamic for reward. It's a trend that has been increasing and I think it's pretty sad. Excellent post Akasha. This does inspire a question though: Are there really subs that have zero interest in service, or just less of an interest relative to their peers? I would think that a desire to serve is part of the core that makes one identify as submissive.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875