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

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



Message

AAkasha -> When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 1:29:25 AM)

The thread on the "do me" submissive is reinforcing more and more that femdoms are encouraging and perpetuating a "what have you done for me lately?" approach to topping -- in other words, subs are led to believe that if they want topping, they need to be up front to their potential femdom about what they bring to the table -- generally, some type of service is implied. 

This is all fine and good, but I think a lot of men are getting the impression that service is currency for topping.  More subs use the approach when they are soliciting potential mates, "I can do x, y and z for you" -- and really, this is just barter for S&M or being dominated.  They are looking for ways they can "adapt skills" that are useful and in demand (can they clean for you? Fix your broken things around the house?  Do your laundry? Run errands?) but not because they enjoy these kinds of things as part of a friendship, courtship or relationship -- moreso these are just tools to use for barter.

Wouldn't it be better if subs who were not "service oriented" instead were working on their skills, characteristics, mannerisms etc. that help nurture things like common laughter, enjoyed times together, romance and friendship -- instead of forcing themselves into service roles simply in hopes of getting S&M or femdom attention in return?

And femdoms, would you really enjoy having a guy do "chores" for you if he didn't like a single thing about it and did it begrudgingly, resentfully or with the entire agenda that it would lead to what he wanted in return? 

In another threads months ago I was trying to identify if a femdom actually got "femdom urges" (topping urges) toward a man more if he was doing chores for her or whatever, or if topping was simply currency in exchange for the rewards of having an attentive partner who was service minded.  I can't speak for all femdoms, but I get toppish, sadistic urges based on attraction and lust, and a man doesn't have to be super service oriented to get this kind of rise out of me.  He can be a great dancer, a super conversationalist, or simply charming.  I never find myself attracted to men who are selfish in nature, demanding or controlling; but there's a LOT of real estate between that personality type and a 'service oriented' guy.

My biggest worry is that a lot of bottoms are trying to figure out just how much, and "what kind" of "service" they have to provide in order to get their dominant partner to -- well, act dominant.  The worst thing in the world is a guy being attentive out of obligation or in hopes of getting payback; men either are generous of spirit or they aren't.  If they are doing it for selfish reason, it stinks.

Akasha



Lockit -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 1:46:36 AM)

I am turned on by a man who excels at what he is good at and hopefully that is loving me. It really is that simple... well actually it is if I love him too! The more I love, the more dominant I want to be, the more ownership I want to have... the more I want everything. I want both of us to be greedy, very, very greedy and beastly too.

It has nothing to do with washing dishes or doing laundry. I have always said... I don't trade. A trade off is disgusting to me personally. 



sunshinemiss -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 1:54:08 AM)

I think, Aakasha, it has to do with the right brain, left brain kind of thing. (Not completely, but it's in the mix). If you ask a woman the same question, she'll talk about cooking, and sewing, and whatever, and also about making him laugh, and making him feel good. For men it's more like an equation. It is in some ways the nature of the beast. We say the same thing, but we hear something different.

It's like... if you tell a man that you are upset about something, he wants to fix it. (This is broken = go to the store, get the part, make the necessary adjustments, voila you are happy). You tell a woman you are upset about something, she will sit there and commiserate, listen, pat your hand, make some tea. No fixing.

This is more of the same.

Best,
sunshine



LafayetteLady -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 3:00:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

My biggest worry is that a lot of bottoms are trying to figure out just how much, and "what kind" of "service" they have to provide in order to get their dominant partner to -- well, act dominant.  The worst thing in the world is a guy being attentive out of obligation or in hopes of getting payback; men either are generous of spirit or they aren't.  If they are doing it for selfish reason, it stinks.

Akasha


You have to think of how many femdoms on here start out asking for tributes. They aren't looking for relationships, they are looking for someone they can boss around.

You seem to be very hung up on the concept that these men want something in return for what they are providing. You mention that men are either generous of spirit or he isn't. Why shouldn't he expect something in return? No one wants to be in a relationship where all they do is give while their partner takes. It doesn't matter if it is a vanilla relationship or a D/s relationship.

We all became involved in this for our own enjoyment. No one should expect their partner to bust their ass to please their partner for just the hope that they will get something in return. That would be a very unsatisfying relationship, where only the top, or femdom, is getting something out of the deal.

In a no strings attached situation, that unequal balance is even less desirable. Is it really realistic to expect a man to want to do whatever it is you want and get nothing in return? No strings is pretty much a "fuck buddy" but with kink attached. So someone has to be off their rocker to submit, on a "play date" type of basis, without getting their "jollies" in return.

You are looking for no strings type of play that is non sexual. Why shouldn't the guy be looking to get something to get his own satisfaction out of the deal?

It seems to me that there is much confusion in the female dominant/male submissive "world." I see posts all the time about the guys who, what does LadyPact call it? A fetish delivery system? But I also see posts from men who are talking to women who immediately ask for tribute or the whole "What can you do for me?" If you are looking for a relationship, kinky or not, the question on either side shouldn't be "what can you do for me" but rather "what can we do for each other."




littlesarbonn -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 6:21:39 AM)

A lot of this has to do with the fact that this is a non-professional area for women who are into domination. Granted, some professionals also inhabit the area, but a lot of the women are non-professional dominants. This means that a lot of the discussion centers around what they want and get out of the mix, as most men don't have the ability to come to the table with how much financial clout they have to offer into the picture. Therefore, as more and more submissives try to gain attention, there is a weeding out process, which immediately allows the women present to then look at the surplus pool of submissives from a perspective that allows them to put a market value on what they can achieve as a part of the relationship. So, if a submissive is trying to attract a dominant woman here, he's not only going to have to bring his usual fortitude and abilities to submit, but he also has to find some way to separate himself from the rest of the crowd. And unfortunately, that has translated to a lot of "what can you do for me" verbage in the discussion.

At least that's my thought on it. And by saying it, I'm not criticizing it, but just noticing how the natural tendency eventually shows up with all things considered.



OttersSwim -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 6:40:14 AM)

Reality - many many males looking to be topped.
Reality - very few Femdoms to top them

I think that given the difference in "quantity" and the pretty extreme difference in "quality" among males...we come to a situation where it has to be a barter.

If a Lady knows a guy who is looking to get beat..and they like each other...she is more likely to simply do it because they are friends, or at least fond acquaintances.  I have seen this happen a few times at parties and such.

If however, we are talking about some random male contacting a Femdom via email or chat or whatever looking to be topped.  Well now, what is in it for the Lady?   I have found that most of the Femdom's I know are the -most satisfied- when they have an emotional connection - even just being fond acquaintances - with the person they are topping.  Not completely necessary, but it seems to hold true for the Domme's that I know.  And most of those Ladies have a submissive or slave already...so if my Lady is beating "him" and not me...she's gonna want something out of the time being taken away from our dynamic for this person. 

So it comes down to the question - "What can you do for me?"  Market dynamics, supply and demand, and the ever present fact that love is abundant,  but time is not.

As for a guy who is looking for a tit-for-tat situation, doing just enough to get what -they- want...that's what carefully evaluating a potential partner is for.



LadyCimarron -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 6:43:05 AM)

I quoted on one of the threads from yesterday that women have kinky fantasies about dinner, movies, being treated like a lady by a gentleman and building a relationship.  These things are true and as a lifestyle domme I don't really consider men unless they are willing and able to build a real relationship with me and have something in common with me other than the Ds activities.

That being said, I think we should call a spade a spade. If we are saying to them that we are not interested in them unless they perform service, then they have a right to expect something in exchange for that service. There is nothing wrong with two adults negotiating in such a manner. He gets what he wants and she gets what she wants-fair trade. I think its wrong for anyone to expect a malesub to come to their home, do hours of uncompenasated housework and get nothing for it.  If they are are doing these things for a dominant woman, they deserve some sort of compensation for their time and their work. If that currency is not dollars it should be topping or attention or something in exchange for his valuable service.

BTW- YES I would enjoy a guy doing chores for me if he didn't like a thing about it. In fact, if he was doing a chore he hated doing just to help me and make my life easier; it would mean more to me than someone who said they just enjoyed the housework as a kink. See a housework kink is for him, but working at something he dislikes is for ME. It means he values me and is willing to work for my time and attention. And if he does it, he deserves some of my time and attention.  If I am not willing to give that to a man, then he should not be serving me in any capacity whatsoever.



ReginaMirus -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 6:48:44 AM)

That's the thing. To me, there's a difference between ones interested in a D/s female led relationship and ones seeking SM type of scening/bedroom play only. Not that there's anything wrong with either, it's just that I have to have the former before I'll even consider the latter.

I'm from the Ms Rika school of thought. Personally, I'm looking for the sub who's greatest joy is derived from service oriented submission with no expectation of reciprocity or reward. I don't play the "keeping points" reward system with him, nor do I allow a tit-for-tat game. I refuse, as for me it always results in a losing battle. His greatest joy comes from his offering up service from a submissive state, which I then accept from a place of dominance. If he can't conceive or understand this sort of submission, then there's really no point in continuing.

Yes, I'm game as much as the next person for male-centric play,but only when I FEEL like indulging him, and always on MY terms. But yeah, if he wants some S&M play from me, then yeah, it's going to COST him. I'll get MY pound of flesh, first. It will cost him his time, his efforts, his commitment, his dedication. He's going to consent to having a RELATIONSHIP with me, if he's going to get anywhere near me. Generally I've found that the ones that are only looking to be bottomed and/or aren't looking (or can't look) to invest in any kind of dedicated time with me usually fade away long before they make the attempt to "serve" me in their own fashion. I can generally see right through the game and will put a halt to it long before he ever performs the first ritual for me that I require.




PeonForHer -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 7:00:58 AM)

As a sub, I'd be looking for a situation that was unfair, but in a fair way. What could be simpler than that? [;)]



LadyPact -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 8:16:09 AM)

I actually don't have an issue with the idea of barter when it comes to S/m.  As long as everybody is up front and honest about their motivation, I don't see a thing wrong with it.  Not everyone is a service oriented individual and not everybody is submissive material.

The thing is, I don't think we get to have it both ways.  We don't get to sit and complain that a bottom gets to come along for just play and do nothing in return and then in the same breath, complain that what they are willing to do isn't based in motivation of pleasure in service.  The other problem that I have with the issue is, the automatic negative connotation that seems to be coming across here.  That if somehow the bottom is doing things more or less in exchange for their play time, that there is automatically some kind of begrudging nature on his part for doing them.  That isn't necessarily the case.  Just because the motivation of doing service isn't based on the Domme, and is barter instead, it doesn't mean the guy can't stand what he's doing or has a bad attitude about it. 

What I'm getting from the OP is that it is somehow preferred that dishonesty take place in such an arrangement.  That we want bottoms to lie about their real reasons for being interested in play or that somehow the only way this can work and be beneficial for both is that if it's romance based.  That they have to be pigeonholed into the submissive role if that isn't who they are.  While I completely understand that people should have a higher expectation of a primary partner, that doesn't have to be the way it is for a casual S/m scenario.



hardbodysub -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 8:17:36 AM)

quote:

Personally, I'm looking for the sub who's greatest joy is derived from service oriented submission with no expectation of reciprocity or reward.


And they say that "do-me" subs are being unrealistic! Just kidding, but there's a grain of truth in it. Such men are about as common as the proverbial unicorn. And if you actually find one, how are you going to convince him that his service should be to YOU, and not somebody else? If his joy is derived from service, why does he care who he does if for?

quote:

Yes, I'm game as much as the next person for male-centric play,but only when I FEEL like indulging him, and always on MY terms.

The vast majority of subs, even so-called do-me subs, would understand that, and be fine with it. Although, frankly, when you describe it as simply "indulging him", you give the impression that you don't enjoy it, and do it only grudgingly. I think most subs would prefer a domme who enjoys "play".

quote:

He's going to consent to having a RELATIONSHIP with me, if he's going to get anywhere near me. Generally I've found that the ones that are only looking to be bottomed and/or aren't looking (or can't look) to invest in any kind of dedicated time with me usually fade away long before they make the attempt to "serve" me in their own fashion.

Well, that's no surprise. You've built a "Catch-22" situation around yourself. To earn playtime, a sub has to be completely service-oriented, and not need playtime.



hardbodysub -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 8:29:01 AM)

LadyCimarron, your comments are like a breath of fresh air.

I'm not a proponent of tit-for-tat, and think that a domme should only do what she enjoys, when she enjoys doing it. However, it's unrealistic to expect a sub's desires to be fulfilled from service alone. What is needed for the relationship to endure is that the domme enjoys some of the same things that the sub enjoys. It's not really that hard to understand.



ReginaMirus -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 8:32:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardbodysub

And they say that "do-me" subs are being unrealistic! Just kidding, but there's a grain of truth in it. Such men are about as common as the proverbial unicorn. And if you actually find one, how are you going to convince him that his service should be to YOU, and not somebody else? If his joy is derived from service, why does he care who he does if for?


Good question. Hence the reason why I personally seek to build a meaningful service-based relationship. The very "vanilla" foundational concepts of a basis in attaction, love, caring, compassion HAVE to be there, otherwise you do end up with a service sub who will sub to just anyone.

quote:

The vast majority of subs, even so-called do-me subs, would understand that, and be fine with it. Although, frankly, when you describe it as simply "indulging him", you give the impression that you don't enjoy it, and do it only grudgingly. I think most subs would prefer a domme who enjoys "play".


Not at all. I very much enjoy it. But more often that not, do-me subs can also come off as being only about the playtime, and I become merely an object to scratch his fetish itch. It leaves me feeling very used, which is why I lay these ground rules down as a basis for my D/s relationship. I know you've been told this many times by other dommes here on this forum, not quite sure why it still hasn't sunk in, yet.

quote:

Well, that's no surprise. You've built a "Catch-22" situation around yourself. To earn playtime, a sub has to be completely service-oriented, and not need playtime.


I never said anything of the sort. Perhaps you're reading into it and projecting your own experiences where they simply aren't there.



ourmsbetty -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 8:47:49 AM)

I think it may be a reflection of current trends throughout society at large.

We aren't as secure as we used to be. More people are looking for certainty. They want a guarantee that they'll get what they're hoping for and as such have tried to cobble together a formula that ensures they will.

Risk isn't as fun anymore (Correction, vanilla risk isn't as fun. ;) )

The trend could likely be reversed. I don't think we'll have any more luck re-educating the male population on this subject than we have on any other the other constant misconceptions, however, it can be used as one more way to cull out the most compatible partners. If a Domme makes it clear she is not interested in barter or makes it clear her "what I want" list is made up of intangibles likely at least some men will adapt to that.

Hopefully.





hardbodysub -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 8:52:38 AM)

P.S. I forgot about this passage, which begs comment:

quote:

His greatest joy comes from his offering up service from a submissive state, which I then accept from a place of dominance.


This presents a view of dominance as a passive notion, with the dominant person merely existing, merely accepting submission. Dominance shouldn't be viewed as a place, but an active role, and this is where I think a lot of the disconnect happens between some dommes and subs. A domme needs to actually do something to get a sub to want to submit TO HER.

If a sub gets his greatest joy from offering up service, and he doesn't care who he serves, there's not much of a relationship there. You might as well hire a butler. A lot of subs COULD get great joy from serving a woman with whom they have a relationship, a woman who is something special to them, a woman who triggers his submissiveness. Expecting him to offer complete, no-strings-attached, unqualified service-oriented submission, prior to establishing a relationship, is putting the cart ahead of the horse.



hardbodysub -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 8:56:15 AM)

quote:

I never said anything of the sort. Perhaps you're reading into it and projecting your own experiences where they simply aren't there.


Yes, you did, although maybe you didn't mean it that way. And please don't talk to me about projecting my own experiences when you know nothing about them. You couldn't be more wrong.



ReginaMirus -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 9:03:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hardbodysub
This presents a view of dominance as a passive notion, with the dominant person merely existing, merely accepting submission. Dominance shouldn't be viewed as a place, but an active role, and this is where I think a lot of the disconnect happens between some dommes and subs. A domme needs to actually do something to get a sub to want to submit TO HER.

If a sub gets his greatest joy from offering up service, and he doesn't care who he serves, there's not much of a relationship there. You might as well hire a butler. A lot of subs COULD get great joy from serving a woman with whom they have a relationship, a woman who is something special to them, a woman who triggers his submissiveness. Expecting him to offer complete, no-strings-attached, unqualified service-oriented submission, prior to establishing a relationship, is putting the cart ahead of the horse.


And I'm STILL not sure where your getting that I seek to completely eliminate play altogether. I never said that, and am just curious where you think I actually made that implication. I'm also not certain where you view "accepting submission" as being a passive role. You've no idea what standards of ritual I have in place that demonstrate that acknowledgement and acceptance. I think you're once again projecting something in your brain that really isn't contained in anything I said.

I would expect that he would need that confirmation from me of a job well done, a review of his work, corrections as necessary, direct acknowledgement of his service to me, otherwise he might as well just be submitting to fence post.

and if he doesn't care who he serves, then he might as well BE the fence post.



hereyesruponyou -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 9:42:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss

It's like... if you tell a man that you are upset about something, he wants to fix it. (This is broken = go to the store, get the part, make the necessary adjustments, voila you are happy). You tell a woman you are upset about something, she will sit there and commiserate, listen, pat your hand, make some tea. No fixing.




Dang, so this proves I am male inside....always thought so



LadyHibiscus -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 9:46:30 AM)

D/s relationships are not quid pro quo. Inequity is buiilt in to the system, and to think that barter will solve that is plain silly.

But I don't think Akasha is referring to relationships here. I love to play. LOVE TO PLAY. A play-only relationship would be a fine thing IF the playmate was an active person, reacted to what we were doing, made the play fun and worthwhile for me. If he is just looking to get his rocks off with any chick with a whip, or disappear into his own little subspace planet within thirty seconds, who needs it?

THAT person isn't filling his half of the equation.



LadyPact -> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? (7/4/2010 10:06:29 AM)

Hib, I don't actually see us talking about D/s here.  That isn't what play is to Me.  It isn't always relationship based and topping and bottoming doesn't automatically equate Dominance and submission.  Some people don't play unless there is a relationship involved and there isn't anything wrong with that.  At the same time, there isn't a thing wrong with casual play for some of us either.

Like you, I love to play.  At the same time, I'm not going to fool Myself and say that I'm "Dominating" every person that I've ever taken a flogger to their ass.  It works the same in reverse.  I don't consider every bottom that I've ever played with as submitting to Me.  I'd much rather someone be willing to barter for play time than some supposed feigned interest that they are doing it for less than honest intentions.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125