Real Service

by Raven Kaldera

  Real Service

  Raven Kaldera and Joshua Tenpenny

  Alfred Press

  12 Simond Hill Road

  Hubbardston, MA 01452

  Copyright

  Real Service

  © 2011 Raven Kaldera and Joshua Tenpenny

  All rights reserved.

  No part of this book may be reproduced in any

  form or by any means without the permission of

  the author.

  Distributed in cooperation with

  Lulu Enterprises, Inc.

  860 Aviation Parkway, Suite 300

  Morrisville, NC 27560

  Dedication

  Dedicated to all the new M/s folks out there who believe that yes, this life can really work.

  We were where you are once.

  We assure you that you’re right.

  Introduction: Basic Assumptions

  When we began to assemble this book, we assumed that our readership would be entirely composed of service-oriented submissives. By that, we mean individuals who have (or want to have) a relationship where they put a substantial portion of their time and energy towards rendering personal service of some kind to someone else, under that person’s direction and guidance, and with the desire to conform to their will. (If you are a servant of some sort and don’t identify with this label, we apologize.) As we wrote, however, we realized that this information was also relevant to people who are not particularly submissive or not particularly fond of service, but are nevertheless involved in service-based relationships where they serve or are under the authority of another person. We don’t specifically address the unique challenges faced by people in those situations, but we do hope that what we write will be of some use to them.

  In addition, we also realized that people on the receiving-service and giving-orders end needed to learn about service as well, and we began to write sections that were specifically geared toward dominants, masters, mistresses, and the rest of the People In Charge. There are many M-types out there who would like to receive better service, but they’re not sure how to manage things in order to get it. They may also not be quite sure what it looks like, depending on the social group they grew up in. That’s why there are some sections addressed directly to them.

  We are not addressing the issues involved in rendering service to people over whom one has no authority or control, or service rendered reciprocally. The type of service covered in this book is a decidedly inegalitarian type of service which defers to the will of another person, at least with regard to the manner in which service is provided. As such, any statements about what service is or isn’t should be understood in that context, and may not apply to more dominant styles of service.

  The other labels we will use are “servant” and “master” to refer to individuals actively engaged in a service relationship, and “s-type” and “M-type” as umbrella terms for people who are involved in some kind of a power dynamic. That’s our term for a negotiated inegalitarian relationship – power dynamic. We use the term “relationship” without intending to imply romantic or intimate connection. We do not assume for any particular gender combination, and unless clearly specified, gendered references throughout the book are arbitrary. Unless we are specifically addressing issues of relationships involving three or more people, for simplicity we will generally refer to relationships between one master and one servant.

  The style of service we describe may seem excessively deferential or submissive to suit some servants, and we generally imply the servant should be entirely willing to do everything exactly as the master wants. Obviously, different service relationships have different boundaries. We make no assumptions, unless otherwise specified, about the degree of authority or control a master ought to have over the servant’s life. We are well aware that power dynamics come in a wide range of control and limits and intensity, and we hope that our observations about service will hold true for all the points on that continuum. The servant is only assumed to sincerely desire to conform to the will of the master with regard to the topic under discussion, if that topic is relevant to their service and within the scope of their service relationship.

  While we hope that, in theory, this information might be useful to a wide range of individuals interested in service-based relationships, our focus is really on people who approach this subject from the perspective of some type of BDSM or M/s (Master/slave) subculture, which we will refer to collectively and generically as “the scene”. We have neither the time nor inclination to cover the basics of involvement in these activities, or the many differences between these subcultures, or between the peripheral subcultures also engaging in power dynamics, and that’s really beside the point. We invite the reader to explore the many non-fiction introductory books available on BDSM and related topics if our examples of relationships, roles, or activities are confusing (or intriguing).

  We are also aware that not all people who call themselves submissives or slaves are necessarily service-oriented, or interested in service at all (and, in addition, not all those who call themselves dominants, masters, and mistresses are necessarily interested in having skilled servants). On the contrary – our informal polling seems to have shown that more individuals on both sides of the slash are drawn to these lifestyles because of their attraction to control rather than service. Controlling others, or feeling the control of others, seems to be more popular as a motivation than service. However, even control-oriented masters require their slaves to do practical work sometimes, including tasks that they are interested in having done correctly and would prefer not to see screwed up, even if it’s fun to “punish” someone.

  The idea for this book came after we attended a workshop labeled “Service” at a BDSM conference which turned out to be almost entirely about caring for an M-type’s leathers and boots, a bit about cigars, and little else. We were incredulous, but after some time we ceased to be surprised. There is a huge gulf between people who actually want to be useful and people who want to play at serving someone while only focusing on activities designed to arouse them. Around the same time, we were counseling a married couple that was new to M/s. The s-type was concerned that her husband wasn’t interested in her serving him anymore, and she wanted to know what she could do make her service more appealing to him. It turned out that she was performing a range of “services” that she’d selected from fantasy depictions of M/s, and while he’d been humoring her for a while, they weren’t especially appealing to him. For example, she had a special “service” routine worked out that she wanted to perform for him when he got home from work, but most nights, he was just too tired. When we asked the M-type what he’d ideally like from her when he came home from work, he sheepishly said, “Well, I’d like her to bring me a sandwich and a beer, and leave me alone for an hour.” She’d only ever offered him heavily fetishy “service” activities, and despite her assurance she’d do “anything” for him, it never occurred to him that he could ask for simple real-world tasks.

  We’re a master/slave couple who both focus heavily on service – giving and receiving – and for whom it must be useful in a real way, in real life. Joshua might offer sexual service and clean Raven’s boots, but he also drives Raven to doctor’s appointments, maintains Raven’s websites, does the taxes, makes homemade mayonnaise, scrubs out the bathtub, shops for groceries, runs errands, formats manuscripts, feeds the goats and sheep on our farm, and does a hundred other services both large and small that allow Raven to run his life in a more efficient way.

  It’s taken a decade to get the quality of his service to this point, and we still strive to improve it. Our description may not sound all that sexy, but it is hugely fulfilling for both of us. Raven gets another pair of hands to do almost anything h
e might want help with, and Joshua gets to feel competent and useful. He also knows that his work is making a difference beyond that of fetish activities. Both he and his master are proud of his service, and his favorite compliment from his master is to be called “My Resourceful Boy!”

  This book was written for M-types who would like to develop a multi-skilled tool to help them live more effectively, and s-types who love to serve and know that there’s so much more they could do, or at least would like to learn better service to please their M-type, regardless of whether it’s their thing. It’s not as hard as you think it might be … and parts of it are more complex than you know. Welcome to the world of Real Service, among the folks that Get Shit Done.

  Figuring Out Service

  Service Porn and the Butler Fetish

  Perhaps in your fantasies, you fancy yourself as an English butler serving a wealthy master in a large manor on some remote scenic hillside. Or maybe you’re a French maid in one of those fussy little dresses, serving high tea. Maybe you are a courtesan or a geisha. However, the chances are high that this will forever remain a fantasy role, not your real life. Fantasy is wonderful. Fantasy lets us express deep parts of ourselves that aren’t nurtured by our day-to-day lives, and sometimes we can be more “real” in our fantasy than we can in normal society. We highly encourage people to explore and enact their fantasies in whatever ways they find mutually agreeable … so long as they keep in mind that it isn’t real life.

  Some people have so much enthusiasm for these fantasies, or find in them such a deep expression of their core self, that they choose to make space in their lives for their favored roles on a day-to-day basis. When people in the scene say that “24/7” M/s relationships aren’t possible, or aren’t practical, or never work out in the real world, they are thinking about doing this kind of role-play all the time. We won’t say that you can’t live your entire life in a narrowly defined role, because some people actually do, in the scene and outside of it. We will say that it is a lot of work, and often breaks down when circumstances cause the demands of the “real world” to increase.

  A service relationship can be role-based, but it doesn’t have to be, and more often than not, it isn’t. It can just be two (or more) people who have an arrangement where one has dedicated a substantial portion of their time and energy to the service of the other. There doesn’t need to be any protocol, collars, or kinky sex. There doesn’t need to be anything formal about it.

  And we cannot say this emphatically enough: there does not need to be anything “high-class” about it. It doesn’t need to involve any activities beyond what normal people in your usual social circle engage in. Too many service-oriented submissive become fixated on a perceived high-class role, and think that the way to prepare themselves for a service position is to learn what sort of wine goes with what, how to store and prepare cigars, how to serve a formal dinner, and perhaps how to dock a yacht. Personally, we don’t know anyone with a yacht, and if you don’t either, then your chances of ending up in service to someone who needs you to dock one are pretty slim. If formal dinners, tea service, and yachts really are part of your normal everyday world, then go ahead and throw yourself into that style of service. If not, it is best that you come to terms with this being a fantasy role. Accept that you have a butler fetish, and enjoy it for what it is.

  This book, however, is not about fantasy roles. It is about regular people offering normal, everyday services to other regular people. If that isn’t what you are looking for, no problem. This book isn’t for you. But if you are looking for ways to incorporate real service into your everyday life, I hope this book gives you ideas about the wide variety of ways that any sincerely interested person can be of service to another person.

  Joshua’s Rules Of Service

  The First Rule of Service is: If the master doesn’t want it, it isn’t service.

  I’ll say that again: If the master doesn’t want it, it isn’t service.

  Even if you are doing it for their benefit. Even if you think they ought to want it. Even if you think it needs to be done. Even if bad things will happen if it isn’t done. Even if you are really good at it. Even if your last master loved it. Even if your mother taught you it is the way things are done. Even if doing it is traditionally associated with your role. Even if people in the scene expect you to do it. Even if you find it deeply fulfilling.

  It isn’t service. That doesn’t mean no one should ever do it, or that it is wrong to want to do it. It just isn’t service.

  We’ve seen discussions about this on various online forums and in real-life groups, and often a harried M-type will admit to accepting service that they didn’t want (or that they found unsatisfactory) in order to make the servant feel better. The more experienced servants have generally been horrified by the idea. They have pointed out that humoring a servant, and not letting them know that you don’t want or like the service they’re giving, is unacceptable in many ways, including:

   It’s dishonest – the master is basically lying to them.

   It assumes that they are too emotionally fragile to handle any correction.

   It assumes that they are not competent enough to be worth training to do a good job.

   It does not give them accurate feedback on their service, and thus they cannot improve – and a good servant wants to constantly improve themselves and their service.

   It means that they’ve wasted their time on something unappreciated.

   It means that the master isn’t really the one in charge. The servant’s emotional reactions, or the master’s fears about the servant’s emotional reactions, are what’s really in charge.

  While acquiescence may seem like a favor to the bright-eyed well-meaning servant, in the end it is no favor. Honesty is the best option. Many masters find that having very high and exacting standards brings out the best in their servants, and I don’t know any service-oriented submissives who dream of finding a master who has low expectations. But while the majority of s-types interested in service relationships have the emotional maturity and self-confidence to handle constructive criticism, many others have long-established patterns of emotional neediness in order to fulfill their desire for service or submission. Also, many think that being emotionally devastated by the slightest criticism shows the sincerity of their submission, and that to accept criticism without distress would be inappropriate for their role. It may take a firm and skilled master to break through this type of servant’s established role to reveal their genuine strength and emotional resilience. They may benefit from a formal training program where they begin in a very restricted role with no duties and extremely limited free expression, and gradually earn the right to render service to their master and express themselves more freely.

  On the other hand, some s-types really do need a more emotionally supportive situation, and would be devastated by firm handling and strict rules. With a truly emotionally vulnerable servant, a master might praise them enthusiastically for their effort, and then offer them guidance in how they can more appropriately direct that effort into effective service, or praise them for how much progress they’ve made while still making it clear that there is room for improvement. However, once a behavior pattern like this is established, breaking out of it generally involves a significant shift in the basis of the relationship. For example, in a “Daddy/boy” type relationship it is not uncommon for the “Daddy” to be extremely emotionally nurturing in the early stages of the relationship, and over time the “boy” is helped to “grow up” into a more adult role where they don’t require such extensive caretaking.

  The Second Rule of Service is: Contempt has no place in service.

  If either person feels contempt for the other, something has gone very wrong. A service relationship should ideally be one of mutual respect – the servant respects the master or they wouldn’t be serving them, and the master respects the servant’s calling as a worthy and honorable one. Contempt in either direc
tion will become apparent in even the most careful and formal of dynamics, and it won’t take long for both parties to slowly begin to dislike each other and their interactions.

  Even in extreme cases where the master and servant are both comfortable with the idea that the master is in some way inherently superior to the servant, if the master has contempt for the servant or their role, it shows that the master is not secure in their “superior” role. They should fully understand both their own right to give orders, and that following orders is not an act of degradation. When this is understood, service can be managed and received with graciousness, not disdain or condescension.

  In most cases where contempt is flowing from the top down, it’s usually not so much about the servant personally as it is contempt for service roles in general. We’re taught – at least in many parts of modern Western society – that service jobs are degrading, something to be avoided unless you clearly can’t do anything better, to be abandoned as soon as you get a “better” job. From this point of view, someone who actively seeks a service role must have something wrong with them as a person; perhaps they are so pathetic that they can’t do any better. At the same time, many masters who have unfortunately absorbed this way of thinking do want to be served, so they are faced with an internal conflict between the joy of receiving good service and the discomfort of depending on someone who is, by their measure, worthy only of contempt for their choices. It’s the reason why many people treat waitstaff badly or verbally abuse cashiers, and it has no place in a healthy service relationship. A good servant is both a valuable resource and a skilled worker doing what they enjoy.