Lost Another One
April 23rd,After TES last night (excellent class by the way), I buttoned my cardigan all the way up and beat a hasty retreat. It was Awkward Encounters, Inc. in there. When I tell kinky men I’m a pro-domme, their reaction’s often “Lost another one!”. Or “Of course you are, the good ones are all pros!”
They mean it as a compliment. I think. It’s awfully backhanded. Maybe I read too much into everything it, but here are the assumptions I hear:
1. Quality. They don’t know me, but they want a chance with me. In my opinion, being young, pretty and thin is only a recommendation of worth if your tastes run that way and you want a passive partner. But even then, I have to talk sometimes.
2. Availability. They don’t know me, but they had a chance with me. If you think women lack agency and desire, any woman with a compatible sexual orientation is available, if you can only convince her.
3. Exclusivity. They lost that chance they wanted. If women aren’t interested in sex for its own sake, I never have sex I’m not paid for.
I’d go on and work myself into a froth, but I have weeks of back posts to get to. So I’m going to throw out some answerless, and not-entirely-related-to-the-preceding, questions:
Are there male fantasies (namely the ones served by pro-dommes) that are largely/entirely unreciprocated by women? Why? (Are there female fantasies no men want — or why not?) Are there male fantasies that ought to remain unreciprocated? I.e., is there such a thing as a fantasy that is always and unavoidably degrading to women, one you shouldn’t even be able to pay for?
There are things I don’t touch at work and things I’d rather not, but in all cases I find myself thinking about it from their perspective. I know, it’s not a popular thing to think about, but if I were the one with the shit fetish (or Nazis, or toenail clippings, or armpit hair) I hope to God someone would be willing to take my $400 and take pity on me. Think about your favorite thing to do — what if it were forever-and-always denied to you?
For this reason among so many others, I do think sex work should exist.
For a little balance, I want to include this genius quote from Andrea’s Sex Geek where she talks about The Mistress Manual. I too have read the Mistress Manual, because it was floating around at work when I got the job (where else?). Actually, I read about half the Mistress Manual before it burnt my eyeballs. I really wanted to be great at my job, I did, but if that involves improper capitalization I will accept mediocrity.
… I’m not sure I understand how all the things Lorelei describes in her book are supposed to be empowering to women when her entire concept of female dominance, and the entire book as a result, is structured around the five archetypal fantasies of the male submissive and how women can best embody them. Sure, she takes the time to say how if this stuff doesn’t turn you on, don’t do it; you are the dominant after all. In fact I really like how she phrases it:
“It is scarcely my intention to oppress Women with yet another duty owed to males. If, after listening to my suggestions and giving the fantasy a reasonable trial, you find that you do not enjoy Female Domination, don’t do it! If your male still insists, dump him. No one has the right to force you into sexual acts that make you feel uncomfortable.”
But there is no chapter on “figuring out what pleases you as a dominant,” or “choosing the fantasy role that best suits your personality independent of what others’ expectations might be,” or “serious questions to ask yourself about what attracts you to a dominant role and what you want to get out of it.” She does do an excellent breakdown, in chapter 2, of the reasons why a woman might be freaked out about the idea of taking command – in fact, had I read it a few years back, it might have helped me through a few of my own dilemmas at the time. But when she goes on to the nitty-gritty, the how-to of female domination, she focuses entirely on a framework defined by the desires of the male partner. As a female dominant myself, while there are certainly elements here and there in her descriptions that fit with how I do things, I don’t find any draw to the archetypes as models for dominance, let alone a draw to embodying some guy’s fantasy right down to his preferred scripts and costumes. I’ve tried it and it has just felt completely contrary to the experience of taking up actual dominance. And it irks me that there’s theoretically room in her paradigm for women like me to depart from the guidelines and make our own path, but zero information about or validation of what those departures might look like, why they’d happen, and how the idea of dressing up and acting nasty to please your man exactly as he desires might not resonate with a genuinely powerful woman. Of course, if you’re a powerful gal and something in these five fantasies works for you, well, you go, girl. But what about the rest of us?
Ba-ding! There’s a big difference between learning to be a good pro-domme — something Mistress Lorelei might be able to teach you — and learning about your own dominance. They are not always interchangeable. This is why I think the pro-domme adulation in the scene is misplaced.
To put it another way: would you ask a prostitute to write the book on sexuality? Not that a prostitute couldn’t be the self-actualized sex guru of choice (please, we are certainly not crippled in that regard; if anything we have a head start, and a lot of insight and experience) but if being good at getting paid for sex was her only qualification, it would be a little weird. You’d end up with a book on how to have sex for money really well, not how to have sex. And (surprise!) it would probably be about how to embody various male fantasies. Which, while it might coincide with someone’s sexuality, and might not be an objectionable role to play, is not What It’s Like to be a sexual woman.
Just some thoughts while I’m inside at the dungeon on this lovely, warm evening.
April 23rd, at 5:19 pm
This is a great post, Calico. I think it’s one of your best. Of course, pro-dommes have never gotten the flattery treatment from me in any case, so I guess that’s one reason why I like it.
But, seriously, not to be snide, I’m sort of amazed that there is so much literature on “femdom” and so little of it actually speaks to dominant women. For all the supposed introspection about sexuality feminism is supposed to bring, it certainly hasn’t done so for the dominant woman in the mainstream.
April 23rd, at 6:42 pm
Oh no! I’m flattered! I’ll try to keep it in check for your sake.
I’m amazed about the crappy state of femdom literature, too. Probably for the same reason that femdom porn still sucks — it’s all marketed toward “what submissive men want”. Even when it’s marketed toward would-be dominant women, it’s for the benefit of what people think submissive men want, and their women by proxy. And the people making it, however genuine they may be, must feel they need to warp it to the existing paradigm. Or maybe they don’t think what they do is correct, or hot to other people. Who knows?
You’ve just gotta wonder how some of the more backwards shit gets perpetuated — like all the submissive=worthless stuff. It goes against all logic. There are two short ends to the stick, and honestly, submissive men and dominant women each get one.
This is where I devolve into asinine mutterings like “We all just want to love each other and be loved for ourselves!” so I’m a-gonna stop now.
Much love to you and yours in Australia, by the way.
April 23rd, at 9:31 pm
I’ll admit. When I meet someone I’m interested in, and they say the are a Pro, I always think “nooooooooooooooooo” or “damn, there goes that dream” but always say “ah cool, how do you like it?” or something along those lines.
Why wouldn’t I think that?
I’ve never heard of an attractive pro domme who said “oh I met the guy I’m dating at TES”. Most say “he was a client”.
I also know more pros who are dating dominant or vanilla men than are dating submissive men.
To (briefly) go through your points:
Quality: Who doesn’t want to be with someone who’s attractive? Who approaches someone they’re repulsed by? When people approach someone they’re usually doing it because they’re attracted initially.
Availability: I hope for availability. Ok..pray. But have yet to meet a pro who wasn’t dating someone or a number of people.
Exclusivity: What could I possibly offer a pro that she doesn’t get offered a thousand times a day? I just assume that she has plenty of options for sex. Doesn’t she? Why would I want to be one of “those guys” who makes yet another unwanted advance?
April 24th, at 2:48 am
It’s okay, you don’t have to try too hard. I don’t.
There’s no doubt in my mind that the these two are linked. Better literature for dominant women will, invariably, bring better femdom porn into existence. And this isn’t just because when the literature is good I can get off to it.
My overarching theory is something like this: “Most people are stupid. Stupid people are worthless. Therefor, most people are worthless.” It just so happens that worthlessness is a common (and valid) submissive fantasy, and since most people are stupid, they can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality, so they end up declaring themselves worthless as if that’s what they really want to be. Whether or not they actually are is another story entirely.
But I’ve been told I’m exceedingly arrogant and harsh, so perhaps I shouldn’t cast the first stone.
Thanks, we miss you!
April 24th, at 6:54 am
axe:
It seems to me that what you (or any theoretical person) could offer a pro that she doesn’t get offered a thousand times a day is the chance to be herself and get her own desires met, instead of working to meet others’ desires while pretending that they are hers. Just a thought.
April 24th, at 11:16 am
Axe, as for approaching: I feel a little like we’re talking over each other. I understand that people approach each other when they are attracted, but I think something a little deeper than “you’re cute and breathing” is required. That kind of attention is as complimentary as a catcall. It’s like when women go to Paddles and get swarmed by men begging to give footrubs to anything, anything at all with a vagina. It’s uncomfortable and impersonal.
Also, it means nothing that pros “have options”. We are attracted to the same people we would be attracted to, were we not pros. All these “options” (aka people indiscriminately throwing themselves at us) can be confusing, overwhelming, unsuitable and unwelcome. To add to it, those people we WOULD like to date can get freaked out by sex work. If anything, sex work makes it much harder to date.
So as for being one more of “those guys” who throws themselves at pros, well… don’t be! We’re on the same page there. Make a wanted advance. Be one of those guys who gets to know women as people before deciding to pursue them as sexual partners. Don’t treat them “like dominant women” — if you haven’t asked what that means to them, you’re just treating them like sex objects.
I also know more pros who are dating dominant or vanilla men than are dating submissive men.
I know more women, period, who are dating dominant or vanilla men.
I’ve never heard of an attractive pro domme who said “oh I met the guy I’m dating at TES”. Most say “he was a client”.
True story… I met my ex at TES!
None of the pros I work with are dating clients. The two I know who are dating submissive men met them through friends, as have I.
I feel like it would be a gigantic boundary breach for me to date a client. I don’t take on “slaves for pay” or hold out personal service as bait for long-term client relationships. I try to be excruciatingly honest. Other people may have… other theories.
April 24th, at 12:14 pm
The problem with mos scene literature Femdom or otherwise is the majority is told from someones needs and wants and fantasy’s rather than how to actualize what it is you want to do or be.
Essentially they are about how to service the bottom how to make the bottoms kink work. Ive yet to see anything that purportes to be a training manual or instructional in the scene actually tell someone how to find what it is they want and to structure themselves to get it. Its as if being yourself as a Domm or even a sub isn’t enough you have to take on some sort of external behavior that makes you palatable like a soft cushy friendly clown face so no one gets turned off or away by the real Dom or sub inside.
The Demo was very good tho could have been a bit better on the technical side however seeing people do it who love it and how they get enjoyment from it was refreshing and in many ways more instructional than if it had been to clinical.
Unfortunately during the class the person who really knew all about it was off in happy land being administered to.
I was a bit humored when the question was asked if you could use sounds on a woman and all the Domme women in the room did the most incredible imitation of Dom men that you usually see when the question is asked at more male centric meetings “can you do that to a guy”.
April 28th, at 6:04 am
And I think the flipside of this phenomenon is just as awful, where as an amdom woman, the moment you do some non-crappy domming, you will get some stretchy puppy eyes and the proclaimation that ‘god! You’re *good*. You could even be a prodom.’
(Actually that doesn’t happen to me so much lately…)
May 4th, at 2:32 pm
I’m reminded of that scene from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where she sleeps with Angel for the first time.
Buffy: Was it me? Was I… not good?
Angel (sans soul): No, really, you were great! I thought you were a pro.