Richard of Down on My Knees has restored my sense of place in the panoply of BDSM-ery with a reflection on a post by Eileen of A Place To Draw Blood Laughing on what she calls being a “service top” or, as she calls it, a reaction top.
“Service top” is one of those bugaboo phrases. Probably invented by some online wanker in order to disparage someone one disagreed with him. Another weapon for that fatuous army of people who tell others they aren’t ‘real.’
While some dominants fear they lack in compassion others fret they’ve failed to pass Fascist Behavior 101. Relationships worth sustaining are beyond slogans.
Look. If I’m a service top … It doesn’t mean I’ll let you control the scene.
But it does mean that if I like you, I might make some of your fantasies come true. It does mean I want to know your buttons, and I want to push them again, and again, and again.
“Some online wanker” sounds about right. I’ve played BDSM-ish games with partners who wanted me to be the bottom because I’m endlessly fascinated with, and extraordinarily turned on by, that which gets a partner’s motor running. Oh yeah, and also because I think it’s fair and, finally, because I think it’s healthier. But! Given my druthers I’m just so much more inclined to be dominant but dominant for the same reason — I get extraordinarily turned on by getting a partner’s motor running and there are just way, way more creative opportunities — for me anyway — to explore that when I’m on top. But I was told that that made me a mere service top and not a real top at all.
For instance, as I understood it, a “real” top wants to dominate any partner and not just those who’s pulse quickens just talking about it. And at least since puberty I’ve never had much interest in binding or otherwise topping anyone who wasn’t interested.
I know I shouldn’t feel like I need outside validation for something that given me and a handful of submissive and/or switchy partners some very good times… but it is nice to hear it from Richard and Eileen. And now that I’m feeling better about it… hmm… who’s interested? :-)
Update: When I asked “who’s interested” I just meant who thinks it’s interesting, not who wants to arrange a play date. (He said, blushing.)
Submitted by 1630 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-09-25 10:25.
Bummer on you not wanting to set a play date, because that picture sure makes it appealing! Yeow!
As a "switch" (used to prefer being dominant, now prefer submission), I don't care for either to be extreme or forced on an uninclined partner. Just seems healthier to me. Does that make it less "real?" I don't really care. It is what it is for my partner and me, other people's opinions don't matter.
["I don't really care." Exactly. For me that's why the call it *play!* Thanks, Bunny. --fl]
Submitted by 1630 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-09-25 12:28.
An awful lot of blushing going on these days ;)
It _is_ interesting (so's the picture!). How can anyone say whether it's more "acceptable" to be turned on by a relative position than by your partner being turned on? Why is one turn-on more valid than another? By whose standards?
[I think the important thing to keep in mind isn't so much what they said as what I made it mean -- I was a little unsure of myself and may have blown it way out of proportion. (On the other hand some at least nominally hard-core types do get cranky about it. But, a la the movie Strictly Ballroom, it's hard to get *too* stressed about that.) Thanks, A. --fl]
Submitted by 1630 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-09-25 16:57.
I consider myself a switch...
....but, unless my partner is getting off on what I'm doing (or what they're doing to me), I just don't have a fab time entirely.
I seem really dependent on my partner(s) enjoying the hell out of what's going on for me to enjoy the hell out of it. If they're not into what we're doing (vanilla sex, BDSM, or whatever) then I'm not either. I find myself unsatisfied and I become uninterested.
If someone wasn't interested in being topped, then I wouldn't do it. Wouldn't be a point. Very simple.
[Yeah, I guess the difference between being a "service top" and a real sadist is a real sadist doesn't care if their partner's enjoying themselves. Whether that's true, that's not us then, eh? Thanks, Quilzas. --fl]
Submitted by 1630 (not verified) on Thu, 2007-09-27 18:09.
"For instance, as I understood it, a "real" top wants to dominate any partner and not just those who's pulse quickens just talking about it. And at least since puberty I've never had much interest in binding or otherwise topping anyone who wasn't interested."
Wow, that's fucked up. My reason for being supportive of BDSM etc is because as far as I'm concerned your POV makes a true top (just not "full time" :D), and that paragraph above makes a sadist.
[Doink! Top vs. sadist! I'm not sure why but that makes it totally obvious, Dana. Yeah, I'm a total top and no, while I might be able to rev a masochist's engine I'm not a sadist at all, at all. Thank you! --fl]
Submitted by 1630 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-09-25 04:46.
Sign me up...STAT! (I do enjoy switching from time to time, though my preferences tend more consistently toward sub.)
[Thank you, Tortie! --fl]
Submitted by 1630 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-09-25 06:04.
Um, if you're really asking....
As someone who has discovered that she is much more inclined towards submissive behavior than dominant, I have no problem with my partner being a "service top". If he wants to Dom me more because he knows it turns me on incredibly and that turns HIM on incredibly, why say no to that? There's still satisfaction to be had and everyone is happy.
In other words, I don't need my Dom to be a real sadist. "I'm not a sadist, I just play one in the bedroom."
:)
Eve
[Yup. And while I tend to be very accomodating to other people's wishes in real life, I rather enjoy the focus and assertiveness of topping. Also I'm not exactly a *sadist* at all since to the extent I'm into pain at all I'm not into it just because it hurts. :-) Thanks, Eve. --fl]