service tops redux

I agree part of your confusion hinges on how top/bottom can sometimes be used differently in queer culture than in kink culture, but I don’t think you’ve quite gotten it right yet. To use your example of penetration, both penetrating and being penetrated can be dominant or submissive, and, of course, you can be dominant or submissive without any penetration involved. It’s not about what you do; it’s about how you do it (and often who you do it with). Thus, it might not involve power exchange at all. Also, actively taking or giving (in terms of any activity, including penetration) doesn’t necessarily mean you’re submissive or dominant (but I do think it’s indicative of who’s a good partner!). I don’t think a pillow princess is necessarily submissive in the BDSM sense, either.

In BDSM, top/bottom often refers to the roles played within a scene rather than how they identify, either personality-wise or in a relationship (where we would use dom or sub, instead). Sometimes, people top and bottom (used as verbs) when they’re showing off techniques or tools because it’s about the action and not any power exchanged. Because of this, I think “service top” as a description ultimately seems like a mislabel because “top” implies temporariness. Yet most people who describe themselves as such describe an inherent personality trait–service dom seems more appropriate. A service top would simply be the person swinging the paddle or wielding the dildo against a bottom or sub who wants it, perhaps stepping up because everyone else was busy. They may really like swinging that paddle or what-have-you but not because of any power involved. But that doesn’t really make sense because many submissives crave someone who is dominant and not just topping them (a bottom who likes a paddle would be peachy, though). I’ve seen submissives in these situations who feel like having to tell their partner what to tell them to do, essentially, makes them feel more dominant than they like (especially if someone who is subby wants to introduce power exchange to their vanilla relationship and their partner just isn’t dom). It can be a major incompatibility between a couple.

On the other hand, a service dom greatly enjoys using pleasure as a means to control the situation or relationship (consensually, of course). There’s personality involved; their heart is in domination! Acting upon the sub is the means that supports the flow of power in the relationship. Some service doms wouldn’t love playing with bottoms who aren’t submissive because they couldn’t use their actions to bring out submission and enhance the interaction/relationship. And service doms may not be the best match for, say, brats… All this to say, I just don’t think service tops actually exist in the by-the-book definition.

I think, traditionally, power exchange wasn’t assumed when queer folks used top/bottom. It seems like this distinction is becoming lost, however. A quick read through some Reddit posts indicates that more gay men (I am assuming it applies generally to non-hetero situations) are equating top with dom and vice versa. It’s a shame because the nuance can be interesting, empowering, and, frankly, hot as hell (for me as a cis woman but I think many men would experience something similar).

Also, a top gives stimulation/sensation, which could include pleasure and not just pain. I think “service top” is pretty close to what some people now call “pleasure dom,” where the pleasure given to the sub is used to reinforce the flow of power. In contrast, a bottom isn’t directly giving sensation with their actions, and a sub generally provides pleasure in response to a command or expectations. “I am doing this to you” versus “I am doing this for you.” That’s the difference between a service top and service sub, honestly–who has the power.

So while a sub is typically expected or demanded (within a consensual relationship), reinforcing the power exchange, service from a top may be requested but ultimately is at the top’s discretion and contributes to their control of the situation/relationship. The expectation of the bottom playing with a service top is to receive and presumably experience and enjoy. A service top may do things entirely to bring their bottom pleasure, potentially pushing the boundaries of pleasure or ignoring their own pleasure, but they’re the conductor of the orchestra.

Can egos play a role? Sure. Have you only known smug or unkind people who call themselves service tops? Seems like it. You can congratulate yourself on a job well done without being unpleasant about it. A dom who enjoys walking their sub to the edge of their pain tolerance often gets a boost from their skills, just like a sub might get a boost because they were able to take such pain. Not being a dick about it is important in either case.

One of the things your post made me reconsider is how I see service by a sub versus a dom. I usually thought of service by a sub as task-oriented, perhaps with a hint of eroticism (making tea or picking flowers fits in here, as does polishing someone’s boots in the nude). A service sub can easily do a non-sexual/kinky task for their partner in public that reinforces their relationship with no one else realizing it, such as serving someone tea when requested because the request is really a command. Often, there’d be some expectations about how it’s served (what kind, how hot, which mug, where placed, whether they should serve guests, etc.).

Also, I typically think of a dom enacting their service more actively in the bedroom/a sexual way. But I think that’s my limited experience. A top’s service could reinforce power exchange by forcing a sub to do things that are good for them. Providing a glass of water, for example, which would be acceptable in any vanilla/non-sexual situation. It’s not really an offer, however. It’s a command or expectation that should ultimately invoke a sub’s submission and a dom’s dominance. So offering a bouquet with expectations about how they’re displayed or add to a room’s/home’s general ambiance also expresses power when serving someone.

Regarding the thinking/talking about writing, you’re correct that it’s your blog, it’s small potatoes, as you say, compared to many, and it’s also about exploration versus being polished. I think changing a few words in your previous post on the topic would have made a huge difference. I’m not saying that you should change it now or even think about this in the future but you might find my reaction interesting.

The line that specifically got to me was: But they might be missing something inside. If you said “All the ones I have met seem to be missing something inside,” you’re talking about the people you know specifically. And I couldn’t argue with you that you’ve only met selfish service tops. There may be room to discuss if service topping attracts more selfish people than other types or why these people might be attracted to you, etc. As it stands, your line felt broad, seeming to apply to every service top based on your experience with a few. I’d bet this is what most people reacted to, as you mention here, because while you weren’t speaking -to- those folks who commented, it could be read that you were speaking -about- them.

On top of that, the condemnation
of service tops as “missing something inside” implied, to me, a deficiency that made them less than human. I think what you’re actually talking about is an excess–of selfishness or ego, perhaps. They’re still humans but maybe shitty, whether in general or in this specific way. And that adds to your confusion because you don’t know any decent service tops! Some commenters explained how their “service topping” is deeply entwined with their care for someone. I hope you one day get to personally meet a “service top” like that!

Maybe this distinction (or the association I made) doesn’t really exist for you. Could be the autism that you pointed out or that we all assign some personal meaning to language. Or a little from pile A and pile B.

It absolutely inspired some interesting comments and a lot of my own thoughts. But as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What is beautiful to you could be hideous to someone else.

Cheers!

The web has a few (not many!) attempts at defining the service top and let’s assume they all have some validity in the absence of some formally agreed definition.

One definition, to paraphrase, goes something like this:

Sub: I demand that you top me in a dominant fashion!

Service Top (in a submissive voice): yes sir, I will provide you this service. (changes voice) Now shut up and bend over.

I can see where the idea that the service top might be a submissive role might come from.

A significantly different definition of service top is provided in this article:

https://vptsmi.com/service-top-understanding-role-dynamics-and-consent-in-relationships

Gentle reader, if this article does not resonate or make sense to you at a cellular level, then please take this to mean that there may be a type of service top out there that you do not understand or that you have not yet met.

For me, being a service top is a mental state of extreme focus on the experience of my partner of the moment, sensitive to any conscious or unconscious communication indicating that what is happening is being enjoyed (or not) and where we might go from here to give them the best experience.

Notions of control being granted not taken, focus on and satisfaction gained from the partner’s satisfaction, need for emotional intelligence and empathy, sensing and responding to evolving boundaries, mutual respect for boundaries, check-ins, clear (not necessarily verbal) communications, and also the need for self-care to avoid emotional burnout: These aren’t just buzzwords; they are an integral part of being a service top (of this type at least). In the same way that many people psychologically are specifically wired to be tops or bottoms, a service top is what I am, not a role that I switch on given an appropriate scenario.

(using his best submissively hopeful voice): Does anyone out there relate to this?