Given the length of the last few posts, I’ll keep this one short and pithy. The quote of the day is:
Anyone who thinks a woman who’s being paid to cane and sodomize people is vulnerable and exploited? Has never caned and sodomized anyone.
That’s from the twitter feed of Mistress Matisse. Feel free to discuss that amongst yourselves.
I was hoping to finish with an image featuring both a cane and a strap-on. Unfortunately I couldn’t find anything I liked, so I’ll double down with an image for each. In both cases the ladies in question seem to be tending less to the exploited and more to the happy.
The first image has had the watermark annoyingly chopped, but I believe it’s from Young Dommes. I found it on the Who’s Sorry Now tumblr. The second image is from the Strapon Dreamer site. I found it on the Pegging with a Smile tumblr.
May I humbly disagree with Mistress Matisse? Because the premise of power reversal in professional F/m BDSM that drives the commercial market is male centric, providers remain women exploited for client entertainment. The pithy point to the line, Any man who allows himself to be whipped deserves to be whipped, is the iinternalized gender bias of our culture. The exploitation of women by men in western society is not lessened by the fact that a few men crave domination in whatever form they fantasize.
The reversal of the opposition penetrator/penetrated is a fantasy devoutly to be wished, but sadly in our culture still the subject of objectification of the female body, vulnerable to the male gaze.
Just my opinion – and clearly one deserving of a ‘good’ caning by M. Matisse.
Peace,
Pat
Wow. Tricky to know where to start unpicking this one.
I’m assuming you’re not against the fundamental idea of exchanging money for goods and services. If you think that’s inherently exploitative then that’s a much bigger discussion outside the scope of BDSM. Assuming that’s not the case, then we have to deal in the specifics of this particular situation. There seem to be two alternatives.
Option 1. You believe that although Mistress Matisse doesn’t think she’s being exploited she actually is. Her writing clearly indicates she finds her chosen profession enjoyable, profitable and fulfilling. But presumably that’s some sort of false consciousness on her part and we know better.
Option 2. You believe that although Mistress Matisse isn’t being exploited, other women in that situation are, and therefore we should remove her agency on that basis. The theoretical exploitation of somebody somewhere should trump the actual example we have.
I can’t say either of these options are particularly persuasive.
If you think your money would give you the power in a session with Mistress Matisse, I’d suggest setting one up and seeing just how far that power gets you. Good luck with that!
-paltego
Sorry to be gone over the weekend.
Perhaps there is a third, more complx option: the economic oportunity enjoyed by Mistress Matisse is is found in the intersection of the penetrator /penetrated and culturally defined gender role reversal. Exploitation is made more difficult to define by the internalization of the performance of gender.
So, yes, the money transaction contaminates the quetion of exploitation.
Yes, Mistress Matisse’s twitter quote works precisely because the voyure knows more than the words say.
Yes, there are many who are exploited, witness the concern about ‘male owned’ houses common on Max and other boards.
Yes, money does give the client power in relation to the provider, if only to be in the presesnce of an object of desire/fantasy and enact a roleplay of submission.
IMHO, A parallel (metaphorical) sex worker discussion of the complexity of exploytation can be found in Stoya’s comments in Vice: http://m.vice.com/read/stoya-on-ethics-porn-and-workers-rights
Peace,
Pat
Actually I Mistress Matisse’s twitter works so well not because it relies on external knowledge, but because it contrasts the reality so hard with the theoretical. Lots of anti-sex-worker people like to talk about theoretical harm and potential exploitation. Mistress Matisse anchors it in her reality and drives the point home (so to speak) with a coarse description that matches the act.
As for the power of the client, power is only meaningful if it can be used. And it’s only exploitation if people have no choice but to bend to that power. As I said in my previous response, try booking a session with Mistress Matisse and then exercising your power. Let’s see how far you get. Once again you’re talking about theoretical clients and providers, where she is starting from the reality of her world.
The best analogy I like for the situation is booking a table at an exclusive and high end restaurant. You have the power to go or not go. After that it’s a submissive experience. Trying telling a chef like Eric Ripert or Pierre Gagnaire how they should cook their food and you’ll quickly find yourself out on the street. Money buys you entry to the experience. It doesn’t give you ownership of the experience or of the people concerned.
The concern about male owned houses on MF tells you nothing about exploitation. A female owned house might be equally exploitative. A male owned house might not be. The only thing that points to is the concern about MF readers about maintaining a suspension of disbelief.
I had read the Stoya piece. I liked it, but it seems orthogonal to this discussion. She’s concerned about the forgotten people behind the camera and the potential for exploitation as the industry changes. That doesn’t correlate with pro-dommes, where there are very few people not directly involved in the visible work. Most pro-dommes are either independents (so there’s nobody but them to worry about) or work on an hourly basis in a house (with a fairly minimal support and management infrastructure). There is no ‘big domme business’ moving in and exploiting pro-dommes.
-paltego
Taking the top picture – she’s looking at the camera, and might well be obeying the photographer’s instruction to “Smile”. On the other hand, she is clearly not having a bad time. And she likes the feel of the cane in her fingers. So….who knows what may happen now.
When it comes to what might be happening in pictures I post, I always think back to this post on eros blog. It’s of course possible that all sorts of strange things are happening off camera, but so far all evidence points to behavior varying from bored but professional to enjoying the work. I’ve no idea where this image falls on that range, but it seems unlikely she’s being exploited, given how many people will do these kind of shots and enjoy them.
-paltego