Submission, Service, and It's Complex Role in Kink

My first memory is of an act of service. I was sixteen months old and my mom had been put on bedrest the last two months of her pregnancy with my little sister. My father had placed the toaster and some canned drinks on my play table (so I could reach). I made my mom a piece of dry toast and brought it to her in bed. She nibbled on it while we watched television.

Service is a core tenant of my submission. It is for a lot of folks. Much of the time when we talk about service in the BDSM communities, we equate it with submission. The connection is both powerful and real for many subs. Some of us even identify as “service submissives.”

The conflation is problematic. I want to parse out the discussion of “service” and “submission” here. Partly because I have been accepted to present at the Service Oriented Conference (very excited to do so) and partly because of the rise of trad wives, labor diggers, and more in this late-capitalist, fascist hellscape we live in.

To Serve

Service in BDSM and power exchange relationships takes many forms. Classically, submissives provide labor to their Dominants. This may be physical labor (e.g., cooking, cleaning), sexual labor (e.g., engaging in BDSM play, free use), or emotional labor (e.g., comforting their Dom, taking on the organizing for a D-type with ADHD). Many dominants come to expect a submissive to provide some form of service to them in the relationship.

The service, ideally, should be negotiated and agreed upon between partners. I have read and sat through so many conversations where people extol the benefits of power exchange relationships because partners don’t assume roles (and the labor attached). That we are free to create the relationships we most desire. I myself have pointed out this as a potential benefit of these types of relationships.

Freely consented to labor can (and is occasionally) a thing in power exchange relationships. Service, in this sense, isn’t just a thing for submissives. Dominants provide service as well. Not all D-types want to hang back, content to have their subs do all the work. The vast amount of service we see in the BDSM world does not meet the “freely consented to” version. That is what I want to explore.

Subby Indispensability

There is a concept called “queer indispensability” I am stealing from here. With queer indispensability, people who realize they are queer and fear rejection from friends and/or family if they come out often seek to “serve” these groups in ways which would make their rejection a loss for the group. Think of the closeted lesbian who organizes all her friends’ bridal showers, babysits on a moment’s notice, and hosts the annual cookie exchange or the gay man who is always there to give you a ride to the airport, to help with the cookout, and who helps with your weekend chores. Creating a dependency from people you don’t want to reject you may feel like creating a “safety net” in case someone finds out you are gay.

Translated to the BDSM world, submissives may seek to provide service to D-types so that if something is discovered that might make their D-type reject them, the rejection is less likely because it would cost the D-type with loss of service.

I see this a lot when it comes to financial services. A sub asks their D-type to move in with them when the D-type is experiencing financial difficulties. It seems like a freely agreed upon move because the sub initiated it. The sub may really enjoy having a D-type living with them. The D-type may not even realize that the offer was made out of a sub’s insecurity about the relationship. The problem that underlies this is not the act of providing shelter to a financially stressed D-type. It is what drives the offer- feelings that the sub can “secure” the relationship with an act of financial generosity.

This type of service may not even be framed as “service.” Instead, both parties may see this as a commonsense response to a financial predicament. However, the imbalance in power (due to an imbalance in financial assets) impacts the calculation of people on both sides of the slash.

Service Because “I’m Not Worthy”

Service may also be a go-to for people who feel that they lack the qualities needed to be desired simply for being the person they are. Many of us feel that we have something to “make up for” in relationships. This may be shame around our bodies (e.g., being fat, disabled, older); it may be residual trauma from past relationships (e.g., parent who made you earn their approval/love, prior abusive partner), or stem from some other lack of self-worth. Feelings of inadequacy abound! Our entire financial system is based on making you feel bad about yourself unless you look a certain way, buy certain products, go to certain events.

When we engage in acts of service to “make up” for our perceived flaws, this is not freely given service. We are trying to assuage our feelings of inadequacy by doing anything and everything for a partner.

Service Because it is “Expected” or “Required”

In kink communities, the conflation of “submission” with “service” has created an expectation that subs will “serve” their D-types in the way the D-type demands. This may be engaging in sexual service, household service, or other acts as a “precondition” of being someone’s sub. The “show me how you serve me” as a requirement for being in a relationship with a D-type is a common requirement before being collared or considered a “real” partner to some dominants.

This is where acts of service become particularly fraught. Power exchange relationships often negotiate acts of service as part of the agreement between partners. For example, the submissive will make themselves sexually available when the D-type wants without challenge or they will get up an hour early to make coffee and breakfast as part of their agreement. This is well within the norms of power exchange relationships.

This demand for service as a requirement for a relationship also opens up a lot of opportunities for abuse. Most of us have seen relationships which start off as freely negotiated power exchange relationships which then descend into abuse.

Adding Guardrails to Our Collective Conception of “Service”

Collectively, we do not talk enough about how to protect folks in power exchange relationships. Sure, we discuss the initial negotiation process and have consent models, but when it comes to on-going consent and power exchange, there isn’t much.

We need to acknowledge that bodies, brains, and situations change over time. For all of us. In every relationship. There needs to be ways to account for these changes and adjust to them without breaking power exchange relationships.

Adding ways to escalate and de-escalate service agreements is one way to build in some protections against abuse. Both partners need to be able to honestly communicate about their reality and negotiate changes in a relationship as needed. For example, if a partner lives with a mental illness, there needs to be ways to change the service parameters to accommodate changes in health.

If a D-type lives with depression and part of their service is engaging in decision making protocols (e.g., dictating outfits for the sub, telling a sub what to cook for dinner) there needs to be a simple way to indicate when these services become overwhelming. Depression limits the energy we have for decision-making. So, being able to let your partner know that for the next several weeks the sub is going to have to make their own decisions about clothing or food without breaking the service relationship protects both parties.

For the submissive, if their situation has changed at work and they need more time in the office, they need to be able to change their service to the D-type to accommodate their new hours without breaking the relationship. If the relationship between partners is so tied to the initial forms of service negotiated and there are no ways to de-escalate service demands, it sets up the partnership for two outcomes: abuse or breaking.

Unacknowledged Service and Labor Diggers

I love (LOVE) the substack by Uppity Negress. She coined the term “labor digger” a few years back and, man, what a way to name what happens too often in relationships. A labor digger is (most often) a cis-man who expects their partner (most often) a cis-woman to provide emotional labor as a pre-requisite for a relationship. This shows up in relationships as women holding space for their man’s emotional processing, helping them with relationships at work and home, and serving as ersatz therapists.

Labor diggers expect their partner to do a tremendous amount of emotional labor and give nothing in return. This dynamic, couched in terms of “consensual power exchange” is growing if Fetlife writings are to be considered reflective of our communities.

Part of this stems from the increase in discussions around mental health in our communities. There is a tacit acknowledgement that “mental health” needs to be discussed and addressed in BDSM relationships. This is a good thing.

Labor diggers have spotted this and co-opted the discussions. Instead of looking at partnerships as mutually supportive relationships when it comes to mental health, they begin to demand “My mental health needs must be met by my person!” When coupled with the very real fact that accessing mental health services is difficult and often fraught with systematic classism, racism, homophobia, and abuse, the demand that your person meet your emotional labor needs because they are “safe” and a mental health professional is not, seems reasonable.

Don’t Sleep with Your Therapist. Don’t Turn Your Sex Partner into Your Therapist.

This is the warning I bring up every time I teach about mental health and BDSM. Your partner cannot be your mental health practitioner. It is not safe. It is not ethical. It is also super common.

Some folks have embraced the idea of becoming their partner’s therapist. Search “healing dominant” or look at a selection of profiles on Fetlife from D-types in the “mental wellness” area and you will find those who promise that playing with them can help resolve your trauma. There are reasons for this.

Yes, there are actual trained professionals (LCSWs, MFTs, Ph.D.’s) who are exploring using BDSM as a conjunctive therapy for dealing with specific types of traumas. There is even a professional working group looking at the research and working to create professional guidelines as to how to appropriately engage bodyworkers with their clients. It is still a very new area and there are a lot of ethical landmines which have yet to explode (they will. Give it time).

For those of us who have played for a while, we know that a scene can be transformative. We can reach places of transcendence and healing. This makes it very tempting to help others reach the same forms of transcendence or healing we have. The thing is, the vast majority of players have neither the training nor skills needed to do this.

Labor diggers work to push their partners into the role of therapist or healer. Recently, I saw a D-type post that they were sick of subs expecting him to turn their play session into a therapy session. It is not fair to the person being asked to provide emotional labor. It is not safe for the person seeking a free therapy session.

To create some guardrails in your own relationships, begin asking what is the difference between healthy support and discussions in a relationship and when you or a partner is trying to turn this into something more. Are you or a partner asking the other to process feelings and trauma and provide feedback more appropriately sought in a therapy session? Are you giving “therapeutic” advice to a partner rather than letting them do their own emotional work?

White Supremacy, Trad Wives, 1950s Role Play, and Kink

The “1950s Role Play” has been around in the kink world since... well 1960. This is the role play where one person plays a 1950s housewife- cooking, cleaning, all while wearing pearls and heels to please (her) partner. The (man) receives these services and basks in (his) dominant role. It’s fun. Pearls, apron, and butt plug donned while vacuuming as a D-type watched on can be sexy.

In the past decade, however, the rise of the “trad wife” has hit the interwebs, social media, and television. These are often cis white women engaging in traditional home maker roles: preparing elaborate lunches for their children to take to school, roasting a slab of beef for their man, and crafting all with a smile. They promote the idea that the woman returning to “homemaker” and “mother” role is superior to going out into the work world or having opinions of her own. Her womb and labor are to be freely given to men.

Trad wives have inundated kink sites and conflate it with 1950s role play. It is presented as a form of 24/7 “1950s role play” and consensual. In reality, these are traditional shield maidens, making white supremacy and fascism look appealing.

The rise of these trad wives has made consensual queering of 1950s role play in the kink vernacular difficult. I say this as a person who loves 1950s role play. I get a kick out of polishing silver, baking bread, and ironing my partner’s shirts wearing nothing but an electrified butt plug. However, I never want to be perceived as part of the current slide into Handmaiden territory.

Service is Complex, Fraught, and Should be Talked About a Lot More

People serve for so many different reasons. Sometimes joy. Sometimes it’s transactional. Sometimes from guilt or shame. Sometimes to promote the subjugation of women and racial minorities. We are in a time where service and submission need to be decoupled. We, as kink communities, need to find ways to explore WHY someone serves, what that service means, and who they are in service too in much more nuanced ways.

So… why do you serve? How do you know you are freely offering service? Is any of it driven by personal shame? What service brings you joy?