Service Top

I very much like the word "bestiary," to illustrate the notion that there are all sorts of interesting and amazing "creatures" in the realm of BDSM. I understand that technically, the word comes from Medieval Latin, and really refers to a, usually illustrated, book which is a collection of descriptions of mythical and allegorical beasts. So, in a true medieval bestiary, one might find pictures and descriptions of griffins, dragons, basilisks, and centaurs, along with a host of others. Even my "swan" shows up in many bestiaries.
In the BDSM world, we find tops and bottoms and switches and submissives and dominants and masters and slaves and little girls and daddys and bois and sissies and babies and mommies and fetishists and masochists and sadists and goths and gorians and... There is an almost endless, and often fascinating list of permutations, within the lifestyle, of ways that people manifest their desires and drives. All good.



One of the variants that sometimes shows up in my thinking/writing, and that I am often somewhat perjorative about, is the "service top." I tend to reflect the "sound" that Master makes when He uses the phrase, and it is seldom complimentary. However, as I contemplate it, a service top is not necessarily a "bad" thing; anymore than a switch is "bad," or a sadist is "bad." Wickipedia says:


In a BDSM context a service top is a dominant who is dominant because the bottom desires or even requests it. A service top does not need to be dominant in general. The bottom, in many cases sets the rules.



Fair enough. I don't have a problem with that sort of arrangement, as long as everybody knows that is the game, and everybody is cool with it. I've played the "service top" role myself upon occasion; so has T. There have been times when Himself has been interested in bottoming, and has requested/required that I take on the role of "top." It is not my natural mode, and I don't pretend to have anything approaching His level of skill in that role. When that has come to be our "play style," my entire goal becomes to please Him as I top. That is, surely, the essence of service topping.

I have actually enjoyed the occasions when we've related that way. It has been, for us, a very intimate and playful context that allows us to touch and share in ways that do not come to the fore in our more "usual" Master/slave power exchange. However, and I believe that this is extremely important, I have never ever believed for any fraction of an instant that I was ACTUALLY "in charge" of anything in that scenario. I have always understood that, while I might set the tone and the pace, and make the choices as to what "we" are doing and experiencing, it is all ultimately in His control -- and that if I should, at any point, cross the threshhold of His comfort and enjoyment, it would all end most abruptly. There is real skill to being a good service top.

I think that the "negative" connotation that I sometimes sense when the descriptor is applied comes from the recognition that there are many relationships that are nominally grounded in some kind of consensual power exchange, where the roles are stood on their heads and no one will acknowledge the fact. When that occurs; when the "bottom" partner is calling all the shots, defining all the boundaries, making all the rules; AND then putting the burden of blame and responsibility on the "top" because, after all, he or she is in charge, that feels wrong to me.

Let me be clear. I was once guilty of this exact behavior. The former husband was never a dominant in our relationship, AND I desperately wanted and needed him to act that role. I knew about his feelings and his views and his aversion to the whole business. I also understood his flaws and failings and insecurities and utter lack of dominant qualities -- BUT I had to have that in my life, and so I pushed, cajoled, and sold it until he acquiesced. It was a dismal failure for us both. It was terribly unfair to him. I simply used him to try and get what I needed. Wrong. Bad. Completely non-consensual in the worst possible sense.

He has since escaped, and moved on to something that I hope is much gentler and better for him. I have grown, evolved, learned -- and found the Dominant who can and will match me, and nurture the truth of my submission. We are all better for the changes.

Perhaps it is that history that causes me to bristle when I read about dynamics where one partner claims to submit, and then refuses to do so, while blaming the other for all that is amiss in the relationship. It is a path that leads only to frustration and disaster for everyone concerned. It is cowardly and dishonest. It means that there is most likely an attempt being made to turn the relationship into something that is is not, and probably cannot become.

Determining what lies inside of us, learning ourselves well enough to understand what we are and what we need is an important first step. As adults, as people of character, we ought then to have the courage to define our path to the life that can be meaningful for us. That should never, ever entail forcing someone else to live as "other" than their most authentic self. Too often, pushy, selfish bottoms, in relationship with "service tops," do just that.

There can be honor in the role of "service top;" and pleasure and joy and great intimacy. If that is truly the reality of one's inclinations, either in the moment or in general, then I believe that a good service top is a wonderful partner for some. Not for all. If the desire and need is for a true dominant partner, forcing another person to play at that role when they are not inclined is simply unfair, exploitive, and possibly abusive. I know. I've done it.

swan