Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

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


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress >> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 10:13:53 AM   
LadyHibiscus


Posts: 27124
Joined: 8/15/2005
From: Island Of Misfit Toys
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

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.




Oh for sure! After I hit the OK button I realized that I didn't finish my thought. Mom is having a typeA kind of day and the air is fucking VIBRATING around here.

SO anyway. I would prefer the other party to just be freakin HONEST. I have a family, we take care of business here. I have no need for anyone to perform tasks for me "just because", and having someone detail my car is nice, but somehow doesn't that make the exchange "work (often unpleasant)" for "work"?

I think many of us have dealt with the ones who want to "clean" or whatever but actually have no skills, or interest in doing a good job. What are you really bartering then?

Sorry... I am just not firing on all cylinders today!

_____________________________

[page 23 girl]



(in reply to LadyPact)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 10:36:28 AM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to LadyHibiscus)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 10:38:25 AM   
LadyHibiscus


Posts: 27124
Joined: 8/15/2005
From: Island Of Misfit Toys
Status: offline

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.



Yes, that is the issue I am having as well. That my time has to be "paid" for in some type of currency, and if I am not willing to take the payment I am what? Stuck up? FAKE??

I suspect we are preaching to the choir... us and our "have you left the house yet?" queries!

_____________________________

[page 23 girl]



(in reply to LadyPact)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 11:13:15 AM   
WestBaySlave


Posts: 501
Joined: 9/24/2008
Status: offline
Sub guy here, but just thought I'd give my perspective on this, as its something I've often thought about.

For me, any relationship will be both about getting my needs met and about meeting the needs of my partner. Just because I enjoy a power imbalance doesn't mean I enjoy inequality in the amount of satisfaction both partners receive in the relationship. I'm not looking to feel I've been shortchanged by any relationship I'm in.

I'm not a service-oriented submissive outside of sex and play. I want a D/s relationship as a part of everyday life outside of sex and kink, but I don't get weak at the knees at the thought of doing the laundry or running the vacuum cleaner. These things are just part of everyday life. That being said, if my dom really gets a kick out of something I'm apathetic about and I care for him, I'm happy to go out of my way to do all sorts of things I'm indifferent to or even find tedious to please.

In any relationship there is going to be a Venn diagram of things that people enjoy, and it's not always going to overlap fully. I don't see either party extending themselves beyond what is directly enjoyable for both as necessarily a bad thing and somehow "fake". It may not be a literal barter of so much of this for so much of that, but limiting interaction to what only both people enjoy seems unnecessary when small steps outside of the mutual comfort zone can bring great joy and meet unsatisfied desires.



(in reply to AAkasha)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 11:17:23 AM   
AAkasha


Posts: 4429
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus

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.


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?

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.

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.   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.

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.

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?"

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). 

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



_____________________________

Akasha's Web - All original Femdom content since 1995
Don't email me here, email me at [email protected]

(in reply to LadyHibiscus)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 12:14:40 PM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
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.


< Message edited by LadyPact -- 7/4/2010 12:15:25 PM >


_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to AAkasha)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 12:39:14 PM   
SnowRanger


Posts: 503
Joined: 5/25/2008
From: Sinsinnati
Status: offline
Hey A/all! Look at this strange hores I just lassoed!

(in reply to hardbodysub)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 12:47:33 PM   
CallaFirestormBW


Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

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.



What She said!!!

As one of the individuals here whose situations run the gamut from one-night temporary piercing displays to full-service Victoriandustrial house service, I think that its possible for relationships to occur for any range of reasons from mutual-benefit to as close as a human being can get to un-self-oriented yielding and have each one work just because, for that situation, it works.

I want -honesty-... If all the other person wants is casual play, I want to know so I can plan my expectations accordingly. If xhe wants to yield everything to me at my whim, I want to know that too -- not because xhe expects anything from me, but because I have certain expectations of -myself- that I want to be sure that I can meet. If that is in place, and the fit is good for everyone's needs and desires to be met within our communion, then it's all good. EVERY relationship is a give and take, so why the big deal about semantics here?

Calla


_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to LadyPact)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 1:01:24 PM   
AAkasha


Posts: 4429
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW



I want -honesty-... If all the other person wants is casual play, I want to know so I can plan my expectations accordingly. If xhe wants to yield everything to me at my whim, I want to know that too -- not because xhe expects anything from me, but because I have certain expectations of -myself- that I want to be sure that I can meet. If that is in place, and the fit is good for everyone's needs and desires to be met within our communion, then it's all good. EVERY relationship is a give and take, so why the big deal about semantics here?

Calla



"Honesty" is not encouraged or nurtured if bottoms are told they have to have something to offer in return, and then are asked constantly, "what kind of service can you do? What are your skills?"   Femdoms know that subs and horny bottoms alike will say/do whatever they think they need to, in more cases than not, to get a foot in the door.  How many subs just agree or say anything in the initial stages of getting to know a femdom in order to keep things moving?  As a result, more men who aren't interested in "service" are now trying to become "service slaves" thinking that this is the currency female tops deal in.

No sub or bottom is going to say, "I don't really have much to offer in the way of service but I am really a lot of fun to be around - trust me!" -- they are going to probably just pick something on the list they think they can stomach.

When "Bottoms" come along and ask how they can meet a femdom to do x, y and z to them, they are not told to improves their bottoming chances, they are told that they need to identify what they can 'offer' - this, to me, sounds like currency. 

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?

Akasha


_____________________________

Akasha's Web - All original Femdom content since 1995
Don't email me here, email me at [email protected]

(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 1:25:49 PM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
Both.

Am I going to chose the bottom who helps to pack the toy bag in addition to being fun to talk to on the patio?  Yep.  Same thing goes for any other type of exchange.  I'm definitely going to want to be involved on a casual play situation with someone who understands that, as the top, I find them not only fun to be with, but he's willing to do something in return.

In effect, all relationships, the give and take, can be labeled as currency.  Is anybody interested in loving someone romantically who doesn't love them back?  Even in service situations, there is fulfillment on both sides or the person serving wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

If we're really talking about what helps bottoms get connected to tops, give them a chance to get some experience in wiitwd, I don't understand why someone would be opposed? 




_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to AAkasha)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 1:56:08 PM   
LadyHibiscus


Posts: 27124
Joined: 8/15/2005
From: Island Of Misfit Toys
Status: offline
What LP said, mainly.

I am just not interested in what someone can "do" for me other than being a decent human being. Is it that difficult to show some consideration to the top, make sure she has what she needs, clean the equpiment before waltzing off to do whatever?

_____________________________

[page 23 girl]



(in reply to LadyPact)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 2:38:19 PM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ReginaMirus

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.


Meaningful for who? Him? You? Both of you? Because it does sound as though you want him to show the attraction, love, caring, and compassion for you, but that he isn't getting anything in return, or "with no expectation of reciprocity or reward." That is not how a meaningful relationship is built in my opinion.

quote:


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.


But the point that is being made, I believe, is that while it is understandable that no one wants a "do me sub," a "do me domme" ain't all that appealing either, especially when it is a relationship that is sought. Contrary to what seems to be the current belief, it isn't all about the dominant.

quote:


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.



No you didn't say that. But you are expecting someone to prove to you that they are worth your time while expressly stating that they should expect nothing in return. It is another proverbial unicorn. When seeking a relationship, both sides need to be able to bring something to the table. Unless I am expressly missing something, what you bring to the table is the offer to let him serve you.

(in reply to ReginaMirus)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 2:59:36 PM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
Yes, D/s relationships are naturally unequal, but as WBS said, it shouldn't be unequal in terms of satisfaction within the relationship, which is a lot of what is being said by some here.

If you are looking for a Playmate, a No Strings Attached, Fuck Buddies, No relationship partner, why in the world would he NOT expect to get some pleasure out of the deal? There is not one woman on this site, top/bottom, dom/sub or anything else that is so superior to everyone else that she should think she can expect a man to delight in providing her every whim when she offers nothing. No relationship, no satisfaction, no fulfillment.

I've said it countless times, we all get into this for OUR OWN enjoyment and satisfaction, regardless which side of the kneel you may be on. Even a sub who is purely service oriented, does it because it brings HIM/HER pleasure to do so.

Certainly we all know that in a D/s relationship, the s-type is not necessarily going to be getting their kink desires met every time they want them met. We here all the time about dommes not wanting to be a "fetish delivery system," but if you are expecting the s-type to serve with no expectation of reciprocation, especially in an NSA situation, then isn't the domme expecting the submissive to be their "fetish delivery system?"

(in reply to LadyHibiscus)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 3:33:59 PM   
seekingOwnertoo


Posts: 1323
Joined: 8/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyCimarron

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.  .


Lady C,

You are giving away the sO2 secrets to success here! Be careful, otherwise i will lose my originality!

Truthfully, i have done exactly this for years, with both vanilla and Dominant Ladies.

Has always worked well for me in initiating a potential relationship, and attempting to learn about a Lady.

But the service thing ... i really don't do it ... unless ... i am mentally, emotionally and physically involved ... THEN it happens naturally.

So the only currency i use ... is US (or whatever country i happen to be in).

Just thought it might be informative, to say this ... from my male point of view.

(in reply to LadyCimarron)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 5:11:27 PM   
seekingOwnertoo


Posts: 1323
Joined: 8/1/2009
Status: offline
While i cannot speak for all bottoms, subs, men in general ... or however you choose to label us;

i can speak for myself ...

Women, i know (vanilla, Domme and switch) have been telling me lately .... you seem to have lost your personality ... (there are reasons) ...

no one cares you are a nice guy ...

but when you turn it on ... you are adorable ... get it back! Work on it!

So i really know that working on: common laughter, enjoyed times together, romance and friendship; is the real secret;

regardless of the Ladies preference, or orientation; or what they say posting or on profiles.


It's the real life ... interaction ... that is the real deal; whether casual, relationship in process or relationship in bloom.


i think most men, know this! Intuitively! ...

IMO, asking for service, is just a currency, that is not as "spendable" as in US dollars.

men are not long confused by this ... and we will play the "game", especially when in search of casual encounters.

But if a Woman, is looking for something real ... saying service ... is a BAD way for Her to go.

Even i will play the game, and walk away, the moment i get what i want! Especially since i will simply justify it as ... i paid for my pleasure.

So i wouldn't worry about men getting the wrong message ...

(in reply to AAkasha)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 5:22:53 PM   
Andalusite


Posts: 2492
Joined: 1/25/2009
Status: offline
I had considered someone as a service-submissive, specifically because he was interested in doing things to make my life easier without a "tit-for-tat" attitude. If we had, I most likely would have played with him as often as time allowed, sometimes while he was serving me. The men who wanted to exchange service for playtime left me cold and rather creeped out.

In a relationship, I'm fine with an egalitarian kinky relationship with a bottom/masochist, but I couldn't call him my submissive unless he did service-oriented things for me and enjoyed some aspect of making my life easier/making me happy. If he did those things but begrudgingly and with a lot of complaining, I couldn't think of him as submissive, so we simply wouldn't be compatible for a D/s relationship. If I liked him enough, we might renegotiate to have S/M and bondage without D/s, but it would feel like a lie to call him my submissive when there was no service, or if I had no authority in his daily life.

(in reply to seekingOwnertoo)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 10:48:18 PM   
seekingOwnertoo


Posts: 1323
Joined: 8/1/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

If we had, I most likely would have played with him as often as time allowed



my point .... and trust me, men know this, just like a shark senses blood in the water ...

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

more and more that femdoms are encouraging and perpetuating a "what have you done for me lately?" approach to topping


It is these Ladies ... who are opening themselves ... to getting scorched ... like Sherman through Atlanta!


When people are looking for something real, and more meaningful than service ... there is one, sure path ....

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

skills, characteristics, mannerisms etc. that help nurture things like common laughter, enjoyed times together, romance and friendship --


Otherwise ... count on getting taken.






< Message edited by seekingOwnertoo -- 7/4/2010 11:20:45 PM >

(in reply to Andalusite)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/4/2010 11:24:09 PM   
Wickad


Posts: 428
Joined: 3/12/2005
Status: offline
(fast reply)

Strangely enough, when I came into the public scene I was taught that a bottom carried his/her Top's bag, cleaned the toys after play, and re-packed the bag and took it to the car. I was told that the bottom did this because the Top had spent the time, money, and energy to ensure a fulfilling scene for both parties and that these were my (yes, I started as a bottom) duties to ensure the continuation of an ongoing play relationship. It was a show of respect and gratitude for the Top from the bottom. It was not expected but one could be sure that if they neglected their bottoming duties it wouldn't be too long before every Top in the area knew how selfish you were.

Sometimes things are just simpler when they are what they are.

Wickad

(in reply to seekingOwnertoo)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/5/2010 12:07:51 AM   
seekingOwnertoo


Posts: 1323
Joined: 8/1/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wickad

(fast reply)

... I was taught that a bottom carried his/her Top's bag, cleaned the toys after play, and re-packed the bag and took it to the car. ...

edited .. no need to repeat


<chuckles> i call this courtesy .... whether vanilla or BDSM ..

Certainly not ... service as a currency ..

< Message edited by seekingOwnertoo -- 7/5/2010 12:11:21 AM >

(in reply to Wickad)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: When did "service" become currency for to... - 7/5/2010 12:15:00 AM   
MissSepphora1


Posts: 669
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline
I have a fair deal for you... when you want a little kink or pain just take that shirt off and show those abs. We'll both get something out of it!
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

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



_____________________________

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress >> RE: When did "service" become currency for topping? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.240