“The word service comes from the Latin word servitium, which means "the duty of service" or "servitude".

“Refers to the action of serving someone, the duty of a servant”

“related to the state of being bound to undertake tasks for someone or at someone's direction or the labor performed or undertaken for another"

“Servisen was to serve [a King or someone with power] as a knight or retainer but it seems the meaning has died with the feudal system”

“More generally: the action of serving someone or something; performance of the duties, role, or function of a servant; work done in obedience to and for the benefit of a Master, a Mistress, etc.”

Let’s start by defining what service is and how a servant may look like. In its purest most simplest form service means the work done or help provided for a person to an another or to an organization. Historically the person doing the work did it only for someone they considered superior [God, Kings, Emperaros, etc]; or because the person being served held such power that demanded to be served under threat of punishment in case of refusal [God (dude not only threatens you, but your entire lineage and land!), Kings, Popes, Dictators, etc]. The person giving service was called servant, God's servant, Crown’s servant, King’s servant, etc. Now, there are many kinds of servants, to begging, we can find the rich -power driven- volunteer servants: Knights, Lords, Dukes, Ministers, etc. They all served the same “Master”, none of them served in the same way. Some of them decide not to actually serve their Master and instead give them tribute as a way of service.There was even a hierarchy between them, and certainly they didn't serve others who were not their Master. I like to think they were kinda like Service Tops [I talk more about that a few lines down]. Then we have the poor -faith driven- volunteer servants: clerks, farmers, soldiers, etc. They were convinced that by serving their Master they were showing loyalty, hence, their Master will always take care of them, there’s a lot to unpack right there but I will let it slide. Now we find what most people picture when they hear or talk about servants, the forced unwilling servants, meaning, slaves. They serve under threat of punishment, their loyalty wasn’t born voluntarily, was enforced and their service didn’t guarantee getting something in return. Even if is very clear they aren't the same the egalitarian factor was the fact that ALL of them submited to the same Master. They ALL were required to serve their Master to prove their alliance, loyalty and above all, obedience. That’s the reason why I say, any person who calls themselves a submissive needs to enjoy serving.

Again, don't lose your marbles, hold it tight and wait until I finish my argument for you to make your own theory about this. This theory of mine it’s not in any way an intent of gatekeeping on my part, nor is it me role policing archetypes that we all know can take many shapes, degrees, intensity and so on. I’m the first one who rolls her eyes when listening someone saying: “A true sub . . .” “A true Domme . . .” FUCK THAT! I think these fixed ideas don’t belong in the scene and they are more damaging than good. Saying “a true sub does and looks like this” is equivalent to forced servitude. And in my eyes that’s very fuck up. BUT it piss me off when people take shortcuts and use labels just for the thrill of it without knowing what it means or the work that has to be done to earn them.

If we stop talking about Dominants and submissives, and we start thinking about -how it really works- Tops and bottoms, then everything will make more sense. Many people are confused about the difference between a Top and a Dom, a bottom and a sub, I guess that’s why I keep reading and listening: “I’m a service sub”, “He’s a service Dom”. Well, I will gladly set the record straight for those who are a little confused. Here I go . . .

Top and bottom can be used all round the BDSMK conversation. You can talk about a rope Top or about an impact play bottom. The gist of it all it’s referring to the one who is giving and the one who is receiving. Damn, even the gay and lesbian community used it in that way. Now, Dominants and submissives are a lot different, they belong to power dynamics ONLY. I don’t want to resort to etymology, semantics and history again because if I do this is going to be too long even for me, and will be actually boring and I promised it wasn’t. So, let’s make this very quick. A sadist may or may not be Dominant. A masochist may or may not be a submissive. A rigger may or may not be Dominant and/or a sadist. A rope bunny may or may not be a submissive and/or a masochist. And so on around all Tops and bottoms archetypes. A PE bottom will ALWAYS be a submissive because the whole dynamics requires them to agree to surrender their power and serve to a Dominant. You can see where I'm going with this, right?

Saying that a bottom is by nature passive and submissive shows a lack of real experience beyond words. Same as saying all submissives are masochists and like to be tied. But saying that a submissive doesn’t need to enjoy serving their Dominant, it’s a whole different animal. For the simple fact that the very structure of a power dynamic is literally based on an imbalance of power where one [the submissive] serves the other [the Dominant]! Why the actual fuck would someone want a submissive who says: “I submit to You but I won’t serve You because I’m not a service oriented sub, so…..”

This subject really upsets me, as you can see. So often I have had conversations where I ask what kind of service they enjoy the most and people's responses are: “what do you mean with service?”, “oh, no, I don’t like to do that”, “I’m not a slave, I’m a sub”. And when I respond with: “well, if you aren’t willing to serve, what do you offer Me?” they will say: “my unconditional, unshakeable and perpetual submission, of course”. And I go: “yeah, but what can I do with that if you are not willing to serve Me?”. And that it’s almost always the end of all communication. Maybe this it’s a nitpick of mine but I don’t want lip-service submission. I don’t have any use for it. I don’t enjoy it. I don’t want it. You want Me to just give you, give and give, without you giving Me the mere thing I want in a power dynamic? That doesn’t make Me feel very powerful at all!  😡   . . .  Excuse my outburst, but need iot to be said.

Now, a power dynamic may or may not be service focus. That isn’t relevant. In my mind if a submissive isn’t willing to serve their Dominant, how do they will show true commitment, respect, loyalty and improvement? Because we need to also draw a line between service and just following commands. Following orders like a broken robot doesn't make you a submissive, it only shows you are good at not thinking by yourself. While service shows an intellectual process intended to actively demonstrate submission through actions. Do you see the difference? And hey, service can take many shapes. Not all Dommes like to be served in the same way, for somes it’s about enduring physical pain, while others are more about psychological humiliation, others have an approach more within practical assistance, anticipating needs, and/or performing acts of care and devotion. This can manifested in a myriad of ways, ranging from cooking and cleaning to running errands or providing massages. But at the end of the day a submissive’s role it’s to serve their Dominant in whatever way they can.

I think about service in two ways. Top service and bottom service. Remember, service can take many shapes. Service can empower or subjugate. Do you remember the rich power driven servants? Knights were proud of their service, Lords too. Not all services are about getting fucked in the ass or licking boots [even if that sounds fun as fuck!]. At the end of the day, service it’s an action that comes from within, isn’t passive nor submissive. It’s showing willingness to please. So, who made up all this confusion? You know who’s fault is it? Patriarchy and capitalism. Stop rolling your eyes and trust the process, it will make sense at the end. For centuries there have been certain things that have been associated with femininity, one of those things is submission and service. Because they are deemed womanly things they have been molded to fit men's desires, so submission shifted from mean "loyalty and alliance" to be proof of weakness and insufficiency, not having a mind of one's own and, my favorite, service it's best shown through sexual or domestic -in many cases both at the same time- work, and of course, as everything that comes from womanhood ALL this it's proof of weakness, as such man can't aspire to be submissive. Then came the porn industry and Hollywood [worst than the fisrt] came and not only did nothing to improve this very limited and obtuse perception but make it 200% worst!. And I get it, I’m sure having a woman in a maid outfit [giving the worst acting] pretending to clean a lamp with a duster while wearing massive high heels, to then get stopped [by the guy, always a man cus hetero-normative] form whom will either punish her through sex or reward her through sex, but will always be sex, it’s hot as fuck!. Who wouldn't want that?! Of course, she’s a very passive participant in it all. After all, she’s a submissive, right? Don’t get me wrong, there’s certainly no problem with that, I’m sure many, many, many people do enjoy this type of service. My problem is when the narrative it’s pretty much that this it’s the only kind of service. It limits popular knowledge of everything that service encompasses.

I truly believe kink folks could benefit from talking in a more realistic manner about service. Leaving the maid outfit out, the punishment, the sex, the humiliation. Let's talk about how service can be done by non-submissive bottoms. Let’s talk about how service should be at the center of submission. Let’s talk about how service can take many shapes. And please, let’s talk about the existence of power dynamics bottoms, not submissives, BOTTOMS!. Because yes, not every "sub/slave/doormat" arount PE is a submissive but certainly they are bottoms.