Dom vs. service top: your take, please

[midwestyankee]

I've been pondering a bit lately, and I'm interested in what others here think about the difference between being a dominant and being a service top. What kinds of things, be they behaviors, beliefs, or something else, do you think separate the two? How can someone know if he or she is one and not the other?

No doubt other questions will arise, but I hope this is a decent beginning point.

 

[Homburg]

I think the line is murky, indistinct. Ignoring definitional differences between "dominant" and "top" (as in one can be a "top" and not be "dominant", and vice versa) the simplest difference to me would be internal motivation. In theory, a dominant tops to sate a personal need/desire. A service top does the same to sate the needs/desires of the bottom.

To use a blatant example, a dominant in an existing relationship tells the submissive to top. The submissive picks up the flogger/paddle/etc and works it on the dominant because of the order, not because of a desire to top. The submissive in this case is a service top, as the topping is done by the order of the dominant.

Another example would be a relationship between an avowed bottom, and someone not interested in kink, but not averse to it. The non-averse party tops the avowed bottom because it is a way to please their partner, not because they have an actual interest in it.

A litmus test might be asking if the service top/dominant thinks about topping outside the scene and looks forward to it. But the line gets murky when the service top enjoys the activity because the bottom is having such a good time at it. Said service top can thus look forward to topping, thinking about it outside the scene, simply because of vicarious pleasure.

 

[midwestyankee]

I think the line is murky, indistinct. Ignoring definitional differences between "dominant" and "top" (as in one can be a "top" and not be "dominant", and vice versa) the simplest difference to me would be internal motivation. In theory, a dominant tops to sate a personal need/desire. A service top does the same to sate the needs/desires of the bottom.

<snip>

A litmus test might be asking if the service top/dominant thinks about topping outside the scene and looks forward to it. But the line gets murky when the service top enjoys the activity because the bottom is having such a good time at it. Said service top can thus look forward to topping, thinking about it outside the scene, simply because of vicarious pleasure.

Thanks for your thoughts. I think that one of the reasons this gets murky is that evoking particular types of responses from the submissive can be an important part of the appeal of taking the top or dominant role.

That said, could you explain a little further what you meant by "topping outside the scene?"

 

[Homburg]

Thanks for your thoughts. I think that one of the reasons this gets murky is that evoking particular types of responses from the submissive can be an important part of the appeal of taking the top or dominant role.

I agree, and this is why I said that internal factors were important. I think the line drawn based on *why* the top tops.

That said, could you explain a little further what you meant by "topping outside the scene?"

Poor sentence structure on my part. I was talking about thinking about topping, as in "Hmm, maybe I should get a longer crop" when one is outside of scene. If you watch football with your friends, but never think about it unless someone else brings it up, you aren't strongly a football fan. It is more of a social activity with your friends. But if you spend time following college football blogs, reading up on potential draft picks, etc, you are more of a fan.

That could be another marker. Is the topping socially based? Do the interests differ based on proximity to a given individual or crowd? A guy gets into a relationship with a kinky girl, and kinks it up with her because she likes it. They break up, and both move on, and he doesn't get kinky with the next girlfriend or any after.

 

[midwestyankee]

I agree, and this is why I said that internal factors were important. I think the line drawn based on *why* the top tops.



Poor sentence structure on my part. I was talking about thinking about topping, as in "Hmm, maybe I should get a longer crop" when one is outside of scene. If you watch football with your friends, but never think about it unless someone else brings it up, you aren't strongly a football fan. It is more of a social activity with your friends. But if you spend time following college football blogs, reading up on potential draft picks, etc, you are more of a fan.

That could be another marker. Is the topping socially based? Do the interests differ based on proximity to a given individual or crowd? A guy gets into a relationship with a kinky girl, and kinks it up with her because she likes it. They break up, and both move on, and he doesn't get kinky with the next girlfriend or any after.

Thanks for the clarification. I think you're definitely making a worthwhile distinction in the second paragraph.

 

[Netzach]

I've been pondering a bit lately, and I'm interested in what others here think about the difference between being a dominant and being a service top. What kinds of things, be they behaviors, beliefs, or something else, do you think separate the two? How can someone know if he or she is one and not the other?

No doubt other questions will arise, but I hope this is a decent beginning point.

I use the masturbation litmus test of need.

Do you sit around independent of anyone in particular and get off to the mere notion? I don't think that this kind of sexuality is something that simply never ever occurs to a person until they meet ms/mr right - either someone's not dealing with innate programming or they're being disingenuous.

Whereas you can do something sexually (or otherwise) purely to make someone else have a good time and still have a good time yourself - it's not outside the range of human behavior and its not inherently a submissive trait, it's just socialization.

I can go hiking with H, but it doesn't make me a nature nut. I can go to the gun range with T but it doesn't make me a markswoman.

I guess I'm a "service bottom" by this definition, ha.

There's another facet with this though - do you get bored with being limited by the other person's reaction? Ever? I personally take a while to get there, but eventually I want to exhaust all the other person's usual reactions and assumptions and get this blank stare of "oh shit, what am I supposed to say?"

That's when things get interesting. A pure service top won't really care. Whacking a bottom as much as it likes to be whacked is enough.

This also takes out the option of being a Top. Not really Dominant nor service top. Someone who enjoys fucking with the head in scene but really has no interest in "outside the sexual" control.

 

[JMohegan]

I've been pondering a bit lately, and I'm interested in what others here think about the difference between being a dominant and being a service top. What kinds of things, be they behaviors, beliefs, or something else, do you think separate the two? How can someone know if he or she is one and not the other?

My take on it may be clarified by substituting "control freak" for dominant.

The service top is happy to top whenever the opportunity presents itself.

The satisfaction and arousal of the control freak will be significantly lessened if he/she does not actively control the what, where, how, and when.

 

[Netzach]

My take on it may be clarified by substituting "control freak" for dominant.

The service top is happy to top whenever the opportunity presents itself.

The satisfaction and arousal of the control freak will be significantly lessened if he/she does not actively control the what, where, how, and when.

I think a lot of people exist somewhere in the gray area. For me, as long as I have an outlet for being Master of the Universe periodically I can also enjoy the rest of it on a more commonplace basis.

 

[Recidiva]

I like the concept of service top, and I've done this when people are actually asking me to be dominant. I have no dominant tendencies sexually. I just want the other person to be happy or I'm not interested at all. If they wanted me to be dominant I'd do my best to appear to be so, but in fact I'd be a service top.

I think the distinction is in motivation. Service top doesn't really get off to anything in particular, but in the cooperative act.

Dominance has lots of flavors, but I don't think this is murky at all, because I can be a service top, but I'd have absolutely no ideas of my own or interest in being dominant on my own. If someone told me what they wanted though, that I could do.

It has everything to do with service to the relationship and the emotional state of the people in it. If it's what's desired, sure, why not.

Otherwise I have zero interest and no motivation in domination until someone expresses a need for it.

 

[Recidiva]

I think a lot of people exist somewhere in the gray area. For me, as long as I have an outlet for being Master of the Universe periodically I can also enjoy the rest of it on a more commonplace basis.

I'm an observer by nature. I like seeing people tick and I like being someone who makes them happy. That's what I enjoy.

But dominance itself would be incredibly uncomfortable and pressure-filled to the point that I'd be about as relaxed and sexually motivated as I am when filing my taxes. And I do not have a W4 fetish to sustain me through that.

Master of the Universe is too damned much responsibility.

 

[JMohegan]

I think a lot of people exist somewhere in the gray area. For me, as long as I have an outlet for being Master of the Universe periodically I can also enjoy the rest of it on a more commonplace basis.

Right, and why labels rarely fit.

 

[Netzach]

I'm an observer by nature. I like seeing people tick and I like being someone who makes them happy. That's what I enjoy.

But dominance itself would be incredibly uncomfortable and pressure-filled to the point that I'd be about as relaxed and sexually motivated as I am when filing my taxes. And I do not have a W4 fetish to sustain me through that.

Master of the Universe is too damned much responsibility.

Right, see, I think that sexual dominance which is completely responsive isn't invalid or anything, just not the hardwired thing that made someone like me so miserable for so many years when I had no outlet. Well. so many being about seven. When you're 20 that's a long time.

The best prodommes are people with your wiring. "Wow, this is rewarding, but without the construct, do you think I'd be here?"

 

[JMohegan]

The best prodommes are people with your wiring.

The best male tops I know are people with her wiring.

Obvious assholes aside, they'll basically top anybody, anytime, anywhere. Their range of skill and experience is astounding. That's why they're so damn good.

 

[Recidiva]

Right, see, I think that sexual dominance which is completely responsive isn't invalid or anything, just not the hardwired thing that made someone like me so miserable for so many years when I had no outlet. Well. so many being about seven. When you're 20 that's a long time.

The best prodommes are people with your wiring. "Wow, this is rewarding, but without the construct, do you think I'd be here?"

There really is a huge difference, and that's why I don't think it's murky. I really do get the difference because I'm so much in the minority that I'm aware how different I am. If you're in the majority, it might not be that easy to pick out because most people look just like ya.

Dominance is very specific and is self directed. Remove the specificity and the self direction and there's just no fun to be had.

For me, you can remove all the specifics and all my self direction and I can still have loads of fun. I will NOT have any fun if you pin me down to being one thing only. And I think dominants are THAT ONE THING and it doesn't change. Not to say it's a fetish, just saying it's immutable in ways I can't approach and could never be.

Paradoxically, try to MAKE me be dominant and make things more and more specific or self directed and I lose all my amorphous joy. But my husband is one of those immutable people and I find that grounding in a way I need and can't provide for myself.

If we're gonna compare this to chemistry, some chemical reactions are very specific. If you're an immutable element, there are only a few things that are going to spark naturally.

I'm more like someone who likes to jump all over the periodic table and figure out what someone reacts to. Doesn't matter what it is, as long as I can figure out the reaction. But I won't be the real thing and I won't be as strong as the real thing. I can fake it, but I won't ever be "the real thing" because I'm really a card catalog of reactions, not the reactions themselves.

I'm a chemistry set. Not the elements themselves.

 

[Netzach]

The best male tops I know are people with her wiring.

Obvious assholes aside, they'll basically top anybody, anytime, anywhere. Their range of skill and experience is astounding. That's why they're so damn good.

Hm. Really?

Guys who would never think about topping unless they were faced with a person wanting topping?

I think that makes a great pro. Detached enough and engaged enough.

I think as a lifestyle or a sexuality there's got to be a bit more of a driver installed. Even on the physical level that T/b operates on.

Again:

Top doesn't equal service top.

 

[Netzach]

There really is a huge difference, and that's why I don't think it's murky. I really do get the difference because I'm so much in the minority that I'm aware how different I am. If you're in the majority, it might not be that easy to pick out because most people look just like ya.

Dominance is very specific and is self directed. Remove the specificity and the self direction and there's just no fun to be had.

For me, you can remove all the specifics and all my self direction and I can still have loads of fun. I will NOT have any fun if you pin me down to being one thing only. And I think dominants are THAT ONE THING and it doesn't change. Not to say it's a fetish, just saying it's immutable in ways I can't approach and could never be.

Paradoxically, try to MAKE me be dominant and make things more and more specific or self directed and I lose all my amorphous joy. But my husband is one of those immutable people and I find that grounding in a way I need and can't provide for myself.

If we're gonna compare this to chemistry, some chemical reactions are very specific. If you're an immutable element, there are only a few things that are going to spark naturally.

I'm more like someone who likes to jump all over the periodic table and figure out what someone reacts to. Doesn't matter what it is, as long as I can figure out the reaction. But I won't be the real thing and I won't be as strong as the real thing. I can fake it, but I won't ever be "the real thing" because I'm really a card catalog of reactions, not the reactions themselves.

I'm a chemistry set. Not the elements themselves.

I don't think you're in the minority at all, that's the funny part. I think a lot more people fit this profile than not, but people have made it shameful to want to be anything other than Master of the Universe.

I always played for the Big Reaction, myself. That turns me on. To no end at all.

I just also, in addition, too, have this facet of my personality that wanted its own robot dog made out of a human male. Would not be happy without that in play.

 

[Recidiva]

I don't think you're in the minority at all, that's the funny part. I think a lot more people fit this profile than not, but people have made it shameful to want to be anything other than Master of the Universe.

I always played for the Big Reaction, myself. That turns me on.

I just also, in addition, too, have this facet of my personality that wanted its own robot dog made out of a human male.

That's entirely possible. I just don't give a damn whether or not it's shameful to be me. I'm not prideful about it either, just sorta "this is what you get." I'm not disdainful of master of the universe. I admire it. I just couldn't sustain it.

I just like orgasms. They're fun. Heading that way is good. But I can get my own, too, if it's looking to be like too much work otherwise.

I have no response to the robot dog than being kinda sad I lack imagination and specificity.

I just always wanted a bubble bath nearby. Not as exciting.

 

[JMohegan]

Hm. Really?

Guys who would never think about topping unless they were faced with a person wanting topping?

I think that makes a great pro. Detached enough and engaged enough.

I think as a lifestyle or a sexuality there's got to be a bit more of a driver installed. Even on the physical level that T/b operates on.

Again:

Top doesn't equal service top.

No, I'm not talking about the notion that the idea of topping would never have occurred to her otherwise. It's her description of herself as "an observer by nature. I like seeing people tick and I like being someone who makes them happy." That's what fits. They love observing people, all kinds of people, and learning how to satisfy them with their skill.

"Satisfy," in a T/b context, may mean: bring them orgasm, make them sob as release, and so on.

As for the difference between a top and a service top, see my take on service top vs. control freak, above. I'd say that a top who needs control to be satisfied is a control freak. The difference between service top and control freak top is the need for control.

Looking at it that way, the opposite of the guys referenced in bold would be guys who get off on topping even if the person being topped isn't satisfied by it, asking for it, or necessarily in the mood.

 

[Recidiva]

No, I'm not talking about the notion that the idea of topping would never have occurred to her otherwise. It's her description of herself as "an observer by nature. I like seeing people tick and I like being someone who makes them happy." That's what fits. They love observing people, all kinds of people, and learning how to satisfy them with their skill.

"Satisfy," in a T/b context, may mean: bring them orgasm, make them sob as release, and so on.

As for the difference between a top and a service top, see my take on service top vs. control freak, above. I'd say that a top who needs control to be satisfied is a control freak. The difference between service top and control freak top is the need for control.

Looking at it that way, the opposite of the guys referenced in bold would be guys who get off on topping even if the person being topped isn't satisfied by it, asking for it, or necessarily in the mood.

It could be a very controlling thing. In my case I'm very inflexible about emotional tone of a person. I am not demanding about it, but I'm inflexible in that I will simply leave if someone isn't emotionally doing okay, happy, sorta humming along for extended periods of time.

I'll either leave or do just about anything to attain that hum. So in a way, I'm entirely inflexible and controlling of one specific thing that I need. A particular emotional pitch. It's not about approval or admiration or anything except someone being comfortable inside their own skin and happy where they are. Without that, and it's like having to listen to screeching feedback. Even if nobody else feels it, I do. Even if a person has absolutely no insight into how to process their emotions, there are some people that are naturally at this pitch and some people who can't ever get there and I'm incompatible with them.

So it might be a fetish in that way. I need that one thing. Most people do not know how to get there for themselves. It's like tuning a piano. Getting a person in tune with themselves so they're not emotional noise.

It's not particularly sexual, but for a lot of people, they're out of tune with themselves sexually, thinking they want something they don't, or being afraid to go somewhere on their own.

Not everyone wants to be in tune, and in fact you can make a case that that level of control is entirely boring. But it's what I'm after.

 

[midwestyankee]

So the consensus seems to be that having an innate need for control of the situation and not being limited to single individual are among the determining characteristics of a dom rather than a service top. That's making sense to me.

 

[Homburg]

So the consensus seems to be that having an innate need for control of the situation and not being limited to single individual are among the determining characteristics of a dom rather than a service top. That's making sense to me.

I think the bolded portion is on shakey ground linguistically. The concept is solid, but the language leaves it open to discussions of polyamory, infidelity, etc. JM, for example, has made clear that he is strictly monogamous in his dominance. You might change "limited" to "responsive".

--

I'm mulling around an idea of reactive vs proactive too. A person who is reacting to another needs could be seen as service topping. Whereas proactively asserting their own needs might fall more into dominance/topping. I'm not solid on the language though, and feel like it pigeonholes.

There is also the issue, as mentioned above, that tops aren't brought into the equation. We're discussing the difference between service tops and dominants, and tops are sort of lost in the shuffle. I mention this as, looking at the guidelines offered above, a top does not necessarily have that controlling impulse, but is not topping as response to external needs.

I think it still lies on the basic question: Are you doing it for yourself, or because the other person wants you to? Likewise think that the answer to that question can be different on different days or with different partners, and it will not change who you are. This question only really speaks to whether one is a service top or not, and does not make comment on dominant vs top.

If you don't mind me asking, what inspired this thread?

 

[midwestyankee]

I think the bolded portion is on shakey ground linguistically. The concept is solid, but the language leaves it open to discussions of polyamory, infidelity, etc. JM, for example, has made clear that he is strictly monogamous in his dominance. You might change "limited" to "responsive".

--

I'm mulling around an idea of reactive vs proactive too. A person who is reacting to another needs could be seen as service topping. Whereas proactively asserting their own needs might fall more into dominance/topping. I'm not solid on the language though, and feel like it pigeonholes.

There is also the issue, as mentioned above, that tops aren't brought into the equation. We're discussing the difference between service tops and dominants, and tops are sort of lost in the shuffle. I mention this as, looking at the guidelines offered above, a top does not necessarily have that controlling impulse, but is not topping as response to external needs.

I think it still lies on the basic question: Are you doing it for yourself, or because the other person wants you to? Likewise think that the answer to that question can be different on different days or with different partners, and it will not change who you are. This question only really speaks to whether one is a service top or not, and does not make comment on dominant vs top.

If you don't mind me asking, what inspired this thread?

Point well taken. My pondering was at least partly about responding to others.

To answer your last question: introspection.

 

[JMohegan]

There is also the issue, as mentioned above, that tops aren't brought into the equation. We're discussing the difference between service tops and dominants, and tops are sort of lost in the shuffle. I mention this as, looking at the guidelines offered above, a top does not necessarily have that controlling impulse, but is not topping as response to external needs.

Here's what I don't understand, though. (Not saying you're wrong, I'm saying - literally - I'm confused about how to define a "top" without referencing either service or control.)

What is topping, without a response to/from the external?

I'm trying to think of what that would be, and the only answer I've got is: me, in my backyard, with my bullwhip and scarecrow.

That's not really topping, to me. That's playing with toys.

As I see it, the whole point of topping is to elicit a reaction. It's either a reaction that the bottom wants, or the reaction you want the bottom to have, or some combination thereof. But you're not just swinging for nothing. Know what I mean?

 

[Recidiva]

I think the bolded portion is on shakey ground linguistically. The concept is solid, but the language leaves it open to discussions of polyamory, infidelity, etc. JM, for example, has made clear that he is strictly monogamous in his dominance. You might change "limited" to "responsive".

--

I'm mulling around an idea of reactive vs proactive too. A person who is reacting to another needs could be seen as service topping. Whereas proactively asserting their own needs might fall more into dominance/topping. I'm not solid on the language though, and feel like it pigeonholes.

There is also the issue, as mentioned above, that tops aren't brought into the equation. We're discussing the difference between service tops and dominants, and tops are sort of lost in the shuffle. I mention this as, looking at the guidelines offered above, a top does not necessarily have that controlling impulse, but is not topping as response to external needs.

I think it still lies on the basic question: Are you doing it for yourself, or because the other person wants you to? Likewise think that the answer to that question can be different on different days or with different partners, and it will not change who you are. This question only really speaks to whether one is a service top or not, and does not make comment on dominant vs top.

If you don't mind me asking, what inspired this thread?

My understanding of dominant is someone who has internally determined needs. Not subject to change from external input. A hard wired internal process. Typically a dominant has this need and if seeking a sub, finds someone who will provide that need. The needs of the sub are generally respected, but mostly because otherwise if the sub is misused or abused or unhappy, they will no longer be able to provide that need. It's the need that drives the actions. I don't think the hard wired dominant character and requirement is responsive to will or choice, which is why a circumstance where the character and requirement are not questioned, is ideal. Because otherwise you'd spend your time trying to "fix" the unfixable. A dominant is aware of what's unchangeable in themselves and isn't going to fuck around with anybody who wants to change them. They know if it could be done, they would have done it themselves, so here's the ground rules. Deal or no deal.

In service top, it's a response to someone else's need, or just circumstance's need. That need might change and doesn't have to be immutable or required. It might be curiosity, it might be novelty, it might be a different thing every time. If we're talking a "hard wired" service top, then all that is required is that that need be discovered and satisfied. If they set out to create purple, and they create the most kickass red ever, it's still a failure. They were after purple. Accent is on performance of a set of circumstances, whatever those are. The only hardwired anything is the challenge of those circumstances.

 

[midwestyankee]

Here's what I don't understand, though. (Not saying you're wrong, I'm saying - literally - I'm confused about how to define a "top" without referencing either service or control.)

What is topping, without a response to/from the external?

I'm trying to think of what that would be, and the only answer I've got is: me, in my backyard, with my bullwhip and scarecrow.

That's not really topping, to me. That's playing with toys.

As I see it, the whole point of topping is to elicit a reaction. It's either a reaction that the bottom wants, or the reaction you want the bottom to have, or some combination thereof. But you're not just swinging for nothing. Know what I mean?

I get this completely. The topping, whether done by a dominant or someone else, only has real meaning within the context of the whole scene, and the whole scene includes the responses of the bottom, or submissive.

Could another distinction have to do with the sorts of partners that a dom or top chooses? For example, would a service top really give a rat's ass if the bottom were submitting to him/her because it's him/her?