Dom vs. service top: your take, please

[Homburg]

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?

The top enjoys the reaction the same way a dominant does. I would assume that a top likes that yelp, squeal, squirm, etc. Response from external is not what I was getting to in that sense. It is response to external motivation vis a vis the service top.

Drawing a line between top and dominant is tough, but, looking at sweeping generalities here, the wants to be "on top" in the scene, and doesn't particularly care outside the scene. The dominant wants control, period. Broad generalities, of course, but how I see the fine distinction being drawn, and, in scene, they're probably going to look similar.

In both cases, the top and dominant are engaged in toppy activities due to their own internal motivations. The service top is motivated by the needs of the bottom.

And there's also the performance aspect. Sometimes do what they do for the show, and thus get toppy, or bottomy, in front of an audience. It is a role, nothing more. In that case, they're not swinging for the reactions of the bottom/ They're looking for the reactions from the audience.

 

[Recidiva]

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?

This might have to do with degees of objectification. Responses might be irrelevant as long as participation is continued.

Whatever the need the dom has, if it's fulfilled in that scene, objectifying or not, the sub's needs can be handled some other way. (After care, bribery, part of the deal, payoff, whatever. You do this, I'll do this...but later, not now.)

It's more likely that a service top has no needs that have to be reconciled later or out of the scene. (Maybe credit card. Maybe the satisfaction of being that good and getting it right. Maybe bragging rights. Maybe power rush.) The scene's there for the need of the top's target, though. Getting the scene to fit that need is the payoff.

 

[midwestyankee]

This might have to do with degees of objectification. Responses might be irrelevant as long as participation is continued.

Whatever the need the dom has, if it's fulfilled in that scene, objectifying or not, the sub's needs can be handled some other way. (After care, bribery, part of the deal, payoff, whatever. You do this, I'll do this...but later, not now.)

It's more likely that a service top has no needs that have to be reconciled later or out of the scene. (Maybe credit card. Maybe the satisfaction of being that good and getting it right. Maybe bragging rights. Maybe power rush.) The scene's there for the need of the top's target, though. Getting the scene to fit that need is the payoff.

I like these bolded points. Seems to me that a dom's needs do continue on beyond zebra and would generally involve caring for how the sub has dealt with the scene, even if it takes a few days to get to the point of being able to debrief it.

 

[Netzach]

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?

Topping:

I want to elicit a reaction, the one that I particularly enjoy. Maybe you do too, maybe we've negotiated around that to some degree, but whatever. You entrust me with making this an interesting time and I don't want to tell you what kind of underwear you have to wear tomorrow morning.

Service topping: I want to elicit the reaction you want to have and have told me about and I'm aiming for THAT particular reaction.

Topping is top-driven activity and no necessary power play after the hosedown.
Service topping is bottom-driven.

 

[JMohegan]

Topping:

I want to elicit a reaction, the one that I particularly enjoy. Maybe you do too, maybe we've negotiated around that to some degree, but whatever. You entrust me with making this an interesting time and I don't want to tell you what kind of underwear you have to wear tomorrow morning.

Service topping: I want to elicit the reaction you want to have and have told me about and I'm aiming for THAT particular reaction.

Topping is top-driven activity and no necessary power play after the hosedown.
Service topping is bottom-driven.

Oh, okay, I understand this distinction.

Personally, I see a clear need for control in your "topping" definition. If you can't be happy sexually without ever engaging in that type of topping, then I'd say that you fall in the control freak category, at least sexually.

Of course, there are differences of degree and switches and grey areas, as you say. But if you need control - even just bedroom/dungeon control - that makes you at least partially a control-driven top, to me.

 

[BiBunny]

I fluctuate a LOT on the amount of dominance I happen to be in the mood to exercise. I CAN be dominant over pretty much everybody if I want to be. But, to be honest, I'm too lazy. Somebody has to really, really trip my trigger to make me want to exercise it.

But I'm always a sadist, even when I'm the submissive one.

I was going somewhere with that, but I got distracted and lost it. Now I'm not entirely sure that anything I wrote has anything to do with the OP. Dammit. Sorry about that. I'll leave it, anyway, in case the rest of what I wanted to say comes back to me.

 

[Netzach]

Oh, okay, I understand this distinction.

Personally, I see a clear need for control in your "topping" definition. If you can't be happy sexually without ever engaging in that type of topping, then I'd say that you fall in the control freak category, at least sexually.

I think it can be totally mutualistic. No huge drama over power, just "I've seen you do your thing, surprise me, have fun with my ass."

When it's bottom driven is my defining issue. I would like for you to do your thing to my ass until I sob, I need some catharsis. Ok.

 

[midwestyankee]

I think it can be totally mutualistic. No huge drama over power, just "I've seen you do your thing, surprise me, have fun with my ass."

When it's bottom driven is my defining issue. I would like for you to do your thing to my ass until I sob, I need some catharsis. Ok.

Thanks. I think this last sentence is the one that defines it best for me. There are times when I don't give a damn what the bottom wants or can bear (up to a hard limit, of course). But I also need to be around to make sure that the bottom comes back to reality in one piece.