Squaring the circle

I was sorry to see that Ms K has decided to retire from professional domination. I’ve never met her – it has been many years since I returned to the UK – but from her blog posts it was clear she was a thoughtful and conscientious pro-domme, and it’s always a shame to lose someone like that from the profession.  I found her follow-up post listing some of her reasons for stopping a thought provoking one.

I was finding it hard to reconcile being the Dominant woman I am with feeling a sense of having to oblige those subs who were paying for my time, with things they enjoyed even if I was beginning to find those things less interesting  …[snip]… I gave up as I only wanted to play with subs prepared to do it my way.
Ms K

All jobs require compromise at some level. It doesn’t matter if you’re the founder of a start-up or a cog in a big corporate machine, there are always trade-offs to make and boring tasks to complete. Yet most jobs don’t have the idea of dominance and control at the heart of them. As a software developer, I might not like every feature I deliver, but there’s no conflict with my inherent software developeriness. The same can’t be said for a dominant doing something she doesn’t enjoy. What does a domme do when the demands of the business contradict her reasons for doing it?

Professional domination is frequently described in a derogatory fashion as service topping, and that’s something that annoys me twice over. Firstly, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with service topping. Making someone happy and delivering a great experience is a wonderful thing. I don’t think anything less of a chef just because she decides to cook professionally. Secondly, I think both service topping and ‘true domination’ (whatever that means) can occur in both professional and non-professional relationships. Money is only one aspect of many in a relationship, professional or otherwise. But I have to agree that it can be a particularly gnarly aspect to deal with.

It’s also a problem that cuts both ways. As a submissive I don’t want someone simply running through a list of activities with me. I want a dominant who is enjoying what she’s doing and expressing her natural creativity as we play. Specifying a ‘to do’ list runs counter to the D/s dynamic, but several dommes I’ve played with in the past wanted exactly that. I’d guess that was partly to make their lives easier, and mostly because too many clients in the past started with “Oh you can do anything you want to me Mistress!” and finished up with “Well I don’t like that, and we didn’t do this, and why this? That wasn’t what I wanted.”

It’s my personal suspicion that the most financially successful pro-dommes are those who can get personal satisfaction both from one-off service top type sessions and from building longer-term relationships involving more D/s elements. I’ve also anecdotally observed that a lot of pro-dommes start with a lot of the former and evolve towards the latter as their careers and interests progress. It strikes me as a pity that both dommes and clients aren’t more open about the distinction between the two approaches. Everything gets lumped under domination, when in fact that’s simply a catch-all for anything under the BDSM and fetish umbrella.

I’m afraid I don’t have any images of Ms K to use (her website has been taken down), so I’ll instead go with another retired pro-domme, the legendary Isabella Sinclaire. It was originally shot for bootlovers.com.

Isabella Sinclaire

Masochistic posting

This is probably the most pointless post I’ll ever write. That’s a great sales pitch to open with I know, but at least I’m honest. I’m also a masochist, so I’ll persevere with it.

It’s actually a piece of advice that I want to impart. Specifically, that if you’re writing about anything complex and controversial, you need to decide what your goal is. Do you want to simply receive affirmation from people who already believe what you believe (aka intellectual masturbation, fun but ultimately unproductive)? Or do you want to reach out to others (typically the majority) and make them actually think about the issue you care so passionately about? If it’s the latter then it’s important to create all the credibility you can, and comes across as a thoughtful intellectual honest person. No matter how good your core argument is, if the rest of the text makes me think you’re an irrational idiot with an axe to grind, then you’ve already lost.

The post that promoted this chain of thought was this one on the feminist current site. It’s all about a Canadian police officer called Jim Brown who was recently outed as kinky via photographs on his fetlife account. The photographs seem pretty tame in my view (this post has a few of them), but no doubt the descriptions sound extreme to the average non-kinky person.

I’m obviously not a fan of people being scapegoated for their BDSM interests. I think it’s ridiculous that teachers, policing and politicians get regularly attacked for any kind of public sexual life. But I will agree it’s a complex issue. I can certainly think of scenarios where that public/private boundary becomes an issue. For example, a rape crisis councilor who had a fetish for rape roleplay. That’s not illegal, but it’s clearly a pretty fucked up situation.

However, what’s pretty much guaranteed to obscure the genuine complexity of the situation, is to throw in a bunch of stupid assumptions and assertions about BDSM, as the feminist current article does. For example, a male dominant clearly enjoyed degrading women. It’s abuse. It’s misogynistic. Consensual is put in quotes, because obviously it couldn’t really be consensual. The fact that all genders and sexualities enjoy BDSM is conveniently ignored. I particularly liked this quote – “Is his fantasy of abuse and domination erased the minute he shuts off his laptop or leaves the brothel?” – implying that it must be porn or paid for. No ‘normal’ women would freely participate.

The original story raises some interesting issues. But sadly they’re all lost beneath the faulty logic and unproven assertions. No doubt the regular readers to the site cheer something they already believe, but I’m just going to flip the idiot bit and move on.

I’ll leave you with a shot of a little knife play, given that was apparently one of the horrible scary thing the police officer photographed.

Knife shot

When a session goes bad (part 1)

My experience of playing with pro-dommes has been an overwhelmingly positive one. I’ve had many great sessions, and I’ve documented a few of them on this blog. In all the time I’ve been playing I’ve only had one really bad session. While that session was clearly an aberration, it struck me that it’s probably worth writing about. After all it’s easy to find lots of posts eulogizing great dommes and amazing sessions. It’s much harder to find discussion on the effect of play that turns sour. Looking back at the session the physical interaction itself doesn’t seem particularly significant, but what was interesting was the way it left me feeling for days afterwards.

I should start by saying that this session wasn’t with anyone I’ve named here in the past. Dommes like Lydia and Yuki have been unfailingly enjoyable to play with and I’d never hesitate to recommend them. The domme in question here will remain unnamed, as she’s still active and I don’t particularly want to get into a back and forth with her or any of her fans.

We’d played together a couple of times previously and I’d enjoyed those sessions, but I had been a little surprised at her reactions when things hadn’t gone as planned. In my experience a good domme is always able to adapt and modify the flow of a scene based on the feedback she gets. She’s always in control, but that doesn’t mean everything has to happen exactly as she originally envisioned. This particular domme seemed to become frustrated and react with a touch of anger when things didn’t work out. That struck me as a bad sign. Being in control of the scene means being in control of yourself as well as the submissive.

The unpleasantness started about an hour or so into our third session. She had me spread on an X-frame and had spent 20 or so minutes working me over with various floggers and paddles. At a natural break, while she switched implements, she asked how I was doing. My fingers were going numb thanks to the overhead position and tight leather wrist cuffs, and I mentioned this fact. This was apparently a mistake. I’m not sure what feedback she was looking for, but this clearly wasn’t it, as she got rather vexed. I actually hadn’t asked to stop, but she did stop and unhooked my hands in an angry fashion.

What followed was a quite surreal conversation/argument. I was naked and still shackled to the X-frame by my feet, but with my hands free so I could work the feeling into them. She was sulking in a chair across the room complaining how I was wasting her time. Apparently I shouldn’t be doing such long sessions (we were scheduled for 3 hours) if I couldn’t take it. This struck me as ludicrous. The length of overall session was irrelevant to this particular issue, and if anyone was missing out on active play time it was me. She also tried to make some bizarre point that if this was lifestyle play I wouldn’t be getting the option to stop. That didn’t seem a particularly convincing line of reasoning.

I’m normally not someone to let a stupid statement slide without comment. When my friends describe me the expression “Doesn’t tolerate fools gladly” is often in there somewhere. The problem was that just seconds before we’d been in a D/s mode, which made for a very confusing dynamic. I wanted to talk through the situation, but still had a submissive mindset. The intellectual bit of my brain was saying “Fuck this. She’s out of line.” where the emotional part was saying “She’s in charge. Don’t argue.” Suddenly all the tools of dominance that I enjoyed seemed to conspire against me. Being naked, bound and vulnerable is normally wonderful, but when the energy turned bad it made it hard to be assertive and take back my submission.

In hindsight I should have simply stopped the session at this point. I never want to play in an angry negative context. However, at the time it never occurred to me to try and stop. I was too busy trying to deal with my conflicting instincts of arguing versus submitting. The end result was a confused discussion that only made her more stroppy.

…To be continued in part 2…

Picking a picture for this post wasn’t easy. People typically don’t post pictures of bad sessions. Instead I’ve gone with a shot of some play from Men are Slaves that features both corporal and a cuffed X-position. I’m sure the participants below are having a lot more fun than I ended up having.

Whipping from Men are Slaves
Whipping from Men are Slaves
Whipping from Men are Slaves

When I was a lad…

In yesterday’s post I wrote about a heavy bondage and hooding session I’d just done. I was happy that I’d managed to conquer what was for me a difficult style of play. However, the real surprise of the session wasn’t dealing with the hoods, but a strange memory of childhood that was triggered. That was a new experience. I know a lot of people can trace their kinky roots back to particular childhood events or relationships. That has never been the case for me, and I’ve never really thought much about childhood when playing.

What made it particularly odd was the heavy and intense nature of the experience. Some session can be kinky while still have a recognizably playful sexual element. Stuff like light rope bondage, nipple pinching, teasing, spanking, etc. These aren’t sex, but they are sex adjacent. You start in Sensation Avenue, and rather than a left into Sex Drive, it’s a right turn into Kinky Fun Terrace. In yesterday’s session I was wearing leather chaps and gauntlets, wrapped in a leather sleep sack, fastened with leather straps to a wheeled hospital trolley and isolated under a thick leather hood. The only exposed bit of me was the cock, and that was only there so Lydia could slap it around. To the casual observer that’s not sex adjacent. That’s down Bizzaro Highway, along the You Need Help Freeway and straight into the heart of Freakytown. And I’m happy to say that my childhood didn’t overlap with any of that geography.

The moment in question occurred when I was left unmolested for a period, free to relax and float in the bondage. It was dark, only faint noises could be heard, and the smell of leather was all around. As I lay there I flashed back to being a young boy in the back of my parents car. After visiting relatives we’d drive back late at night, and I’d often stretch out to sleep on the back seat. It would be dark and peaceful, with just the light of the instruments and the quiet murmur of my parents voices from the front. It felt safe and comforting, which is kind of ironic given the lack of safety features compared to the cars of today.

There are some obvious physical parallels between the two situations. Darkness. Limited background noise. The leather smell from the car seats. But I think the main trigger was the sense of security and lack of responsibility. As a child I trusted my parents to get me home safely. I didn’t have to worry. I could just relax and drift away. The bondage and sensory isolation created a similar emotion. I couldn’t do anything. I was safe. Wrapped up. Nothing to worry about. At least not until Lydia decided it was time for a little cock torture. That gave me something to worry about.

For an accompanying image a shot of the young paltego would be kind of appropriate. But since I’m not into humilation or emotional masochism, I’ll give that a pass. Instead I turned to the Serious Bondage site and an article they did on Darla Kincaid (sadly now retired). Not quite the same setup as my scene, but it does look very intense.

Bondage shot with Darla Kincaid
Bondage shot with Darla Kincaid
Bondage shot with Darla Kincaid

For Science!

The io9 site recently published an article discussing four fascinating papers on the subject of measuring pain. The studies in question were all done back in the 1940’s with the goal of coming up with a reliable and reproducible method for quantifying levels of pain. The scanned versions of papers can be read online: Paper 1 (1940), Paper 2 (1947), Paper 3 (1947) and Paper 4 (1948). They’re fairly readable and easy to understand, assuming you having a grounding in basic maths and science.

Pain in itself is a curious topic, as it’s such a uniquely subjective experience. We normally build understanding by shared references. Yet, if I tell someone my back hurts, how do we establish a common reference point? With external stimulus, like color or sound, we can measure the spectrum or the loudness irrespective of a person. Something like taste or smell is a little more complex, but there’s at least an external object (the food itself) to breakdown and analyze. It’s also possible in those cases to construct a common language from more primitive elements (sweet, bitter, salt, etc.) Just look at wine tasting notes for an example of that approach in action. But with pain? How do you measure something that’s completely internal, and can manifest at any point in the body, to a huge range of stimulus, or sometimes to no apparent stimulus at all?

The scientists behind these papers tackled the problem by proposing a scale for measuring pain, with a unit called the dol. They created it using controlled doses of heat on volunteers, and measuring when they could detect a difference between the heat intensity levels. They discovered that on average people could distinguish 21 levels of different intensity between nothing and maximum pain. This maximum wasn’t some safety limit set by the scientists. It turns out that there’s an upper limit on pain, a maximum beyond which increased intensity isn’t detected as greater pain. Working with this 0 to 21 detectable level changes, they assigned 1 dol =equals 2 levels, and created a 0 to 10.5 pain scale.

There’s all sorts of interesting bits of data in the papers. For example, mood and fatigue made no difference to the perception of pain, but gripping an iron bar tightly or hearing a very loud sound did. That fits the common intuition that being distracted from pain lessens it. They also showed that pain did not sum over an area. In other words, the intensity of the pain was purely related to the intensity of the heat energy applied, not the size of the area it was applied to. Initially that seems a little count-intuitive, but it does fit to the idea that being distracted can help reduce pain. One thing that can distract you is a different pain. That wouldn’t be true if pain was additive.

The most interesting finding is one that I think the io9 article misunderstands, or at least misrepresents. It says…

The study’s authors concluded that 8 dols of pain equaled four successive two dol experiences. This arithmetic aspect of the dol contrasted existing beliefs of the subjective nature of pain.

That seems to suggest some sort of progression in time, where you can reach very high pain levels by repeatedly applying a low pain stimulus. That’s not what the study found. What they discovered was that the scale is linear. So the increase in intensity between 1 and 2 dols, is perceived as the same increase in intensity when moving from 8 to 9 dols. I think most people would think of a pain scale like the Richter scale for measuring earthquakes. That’s a log scale, and so going from a magnitude 4 to 5 earthquake is basically nothing, where going from a magnitude 7 to 8 is huge. Similarly, you might expect that a 1 to 2 change in pain isn’t much, where going from 8 to 9 is very scary, but it’s actually perceived as the same change in intensity. This also means that the standard 0 to 10 scale doctors often use, where 0 is no pain and 10 is worst pain you can imagine, actually makes sense. There is an upper bound to pain and the scale between zero and that maximum value is a simple linear one.

The io9 article has a sense of ‘Wow, look what these crazy scientists used to be able to get away with.’ To me it didn’t seem that bad. As a masochist I may have a distorted view on this, but it’s only temporary pain. I suspect if they’d hired an attractive female doctor with an authoritative attitude to perform the tests, as in this artwork by Waldo, then they’d have been inundated with volunteers. Although that might have thrown their experimental results off. They claimed mood didn’t make a difference, but I doubt they also considered or induced sexual arousal.

Waldo ArtworkWaldo Artwork

Hot or not

I enjoy deconstructing. Doesn’t matter if it’s a relationship, a conversation, a social event or a BDSM scene. I like to figure out subtext, expose hidden motives and deconstruct complex interactions into underlying ideas.

The images below got me thinking about porn, and deconstructing why certain shots work so well. Figuring out exactly why being beaten or forced to drink piss turns me on is a level of analysis beyond my primitive tools. I suspect even a tag team of Freud and Jung working around the clock might be defeated by that particular conundrum. But I can look at porn and see some of underling ideas that are important. Plus, it gives me an excuse to do a kind of ‘best of Femdom Resource’ post and re-run a few images.

One important idea is that of connection. There needs to be some, either within the scene or between me and the scene, but typically not both. For example, this shot and this shot are nice examples of connection between the actors in the scene. They’re posed for the camera, but there’s also a spark between the people. It’s easy for me to suspend my disbelief and image the scene unfolding without the camera. Alternatively, there’s the classic femdom POV shot, where I can put myself into the scene. For example, this shot or this shot. Here the connection is an imaginary one between myself and the mistress. Where porn often goes wrong is sending mixed messages on the connection. For example this shot or this shot. In both cases it feels like I’m interrupting something. They’re not connecting with their partners, and yet the style of scene doesn’t invite a connection to me.

Another idea is that of my role as viewer in the scene. Am I a fly on the wall? Imagining myself as one of the participants? Or is my role unclear? For example this shot is a definitely a fly on the wall case, where this one makes me want to be the man. Both work well. A good role can even play with the connection aspect of the scene. For example, this shot seems to suffer from the mixed connection message problem, but I like it because it has a ‘You’re Next!’ feel to it. Alternatively, in a shot like this I’ve no idea what my role is supposed to be. It’s a weird studio setting. She’s presumably supposed to be shopping but is wearing an unsuitable outfit and shoes for it. She’s in the domme role, but is wearing cuffs around her arms and a spiky slave collar type thing. I cannot create a role for myself and make sense of the scene, so it doesn’t work for me.

Clothes are often a good way to screw a shot up. For example, everything about this shot works for me, apart from her outfit. It looks uncomfortable and takes away from her dominant role. A more elegant and normal dress would actually be a lot more erotic. In contrast, this shot and this shot both have great outfits working very successfully but in totally different ways.

In the case of the Divine Bitches shots below, the clothes aren’t really a factor, but there’s clearly a good connection between the participants and I absolutely want to be the guy Mistress Dragon Lily is slapping around.

Mistress Dragon Lily slapping slave
Mistress Dragon Lily pulling slave's tongue

Alpha to Omega

Peroxide put up an interesting post recently about the desire for a man who is both a submissive and an alpha male.

I’ve been seeing a familiar refrain when dommes describe their male partners, usually along the lines of: “you would never know he’s submissive outside the bedroom” or “in his professional life he’s a real alpha male, but to me he’s submissive.”
Peroxide

He makes some interesting points and the post had a number of thoughtful and positive comments, so it’s worth reading the whole thing. It caught my attention because I’ve also noticed similar themes in blogs and forums, but I decode them slightly differently. Of course I’m not a dominant woman, and have no special insight into this particular desire. But I’ve never let a silly thing like an absence of facts or a lack of domain knowledge get in the way of my opinions before, and don’t see why I should start now.

I should begin by saying I really hate the alpha/beta terminology. It’s a reduction past the point of absurdity. No person is one thing in all situations at all times. I recently saw a comment about Ted Conferences, where someone claimed that they used to be all about the alpha males, the CEOs, but now it was full of the beta VPs. That’s perhaps an accurate description from a purely biological perspective, but it’s ludicrous given the common usage of the word. The alpha to omega classification might make sense when you’re a pride of lions, but doesn’t map at all to the kind of fluid dynamic social structures humans inhabit.

Peroxide attributes part of this common desire for an ‘alpha’ as a reaction to very non-alpha associated kinks.

Part of it I think is pushing back against the over-prevalent, sissy/forced-femme/cuckold submale fantasy that that is being pushed as the way that Femdom works.
Peroxide

I agree with the reaction part, but I’m not sure I would assign it narrowly to that specific stimulus. For one thing I don’t think that particular set of kinks are ‘being pushed’ as widely as sometimes gets attributed. They also sound like perfectly reasonable ways to play for couples that enjoy it. The use of ‘submale fantasy’ suggests those are purely male driven desires, when that’s clearly not exclusively the case.

What I’ve observed from these kind of discussions is that the desire isn’t typically for an extroverted, aggressive, alpha group leader (although it can be). It’s more to avoid a passive, unimaginative, needy wet blanket who needs to be micro-managed. I think some men interpret submissive as ‘You need to tell me what to do, I no longer should need to think.” That’s isn’t an attractive quality for most women, dominant or not.

I remember one female blogger (although I don’t remember exactly who) relating how she’d gone for dinner with a prospective submissive and he’d insisted on having her order for him, and then when that didn’t go down well, ordering exactly what she’d ordered. That was his idea of being a submissive. In many ways that kind of behavior reminds me of guys who think emailing penis shots is an appropriate introduction on a dating site. It’s a way of treating the other person as simply a delivery mechanism for their personal sexual fantasy.

I’d suggest that confidence, competence and empathy are three of the most desired characteristics. That’s the ability to understand what the other person wants, and the ability to provide it in a drama free fashion, no alpha chest beating required. Of course, I haven’t exactly been tearing up the kinky dating scene recently (or ever), so caveat emptor.

Painting Nails
Male submissive holding an umbrella

For images I’ve gone with some shots of men making themselves useful. The first came via the GeekDomme tumblr. The second is another image from Domina M.

A dangerous image

Having mentioned Mitt Romney in a post last week, in the interests of being fair and balanced, I thought I should also devote a post to the other leading light of the GOP – Rick Santorum. Apologies to my readers from outside the US for whom this may not be all that interesting. I know the US primaries get a fair amount of coverage in the world press, so at least this shouldn’t be completely devoid of context for most people.

It turns out that Rick is not a big fan of pornography. That isn’t much of a shocker given his position on other social and sexual issues. He’s also not big on gay marriage, sodomy, contraception, pre-marital sex or abortion. His website contains the following:

America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography.

Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.
Rick Santorum

That first sentence is a sly one. At first I read it as ‘a pandemic of pornography’, which given porns prevalence on the Internet isn’t too extreme a position. But he’s actually saying a ‘pandemic of harm’, which is far less obvious and calls for a much greater burden of proof. Unsurprisingly that proof is not supplied. He believes in a far stricter enforcement of the US obscenity laws. This old interview with ex-federal prosecutor Bruce Taylor should give you some idea of what is meant by that approach (I’ve linked to this interview before). This blog and pretty much every tumblr site on my images page would be in the firing line as obscene.

I wonder how they feel about images like the one below? It definitely causes me to have prurient sexual thoughts, and I’m publishing it with the intent of creating the same effect on others. I’m also not sure I can make a case for it having redeeming social value. It’s beautiful, but I’m not sure simple aesthetics really count in these matters. Otherwise that’d be a obvious get-out-of-jail card to always play. So, from my perspective at least, this is pornography.

It would seem that this is therefore causing me harm. And possibly creating misogyny, violence to women and sex trafficking. After all it can’t simply be the sight of naked flesh that causes harm. Otherwise it’d be dangerous to look in the mirror when getting changed. Similarly sex itself can’t be toxic to relationships, otherwise the human race would be extinct by now. So it must be something special about the sexual thoughts created when looking at images or movies. This ladies elegant profile, her piercing gaze and her strict governess style outfit are destroying my brain and/or morals as I type. Damn.

If later tonight you find that your relationship has been destroyed and you’ve been forced into prostitution as a result of this image I do apologize. I promise not to post such filth again. At least until tomorrow anyway.

Portrait by Ilya KokorevThis is by the photographer Ilya Kokorev. I found it on the Continuous State of Desire tumblr.

Spanking theory

When I look back over my posts it strikes me that I’ve featured a surprisingly small amount of traditional style spanking. I have to go all the way back to last year to find a posted image that even alludes to it. This isn’t a deliberate choice on my part, but clearly there must be a degree of subconscious selection going on here. I also don’t think I’ve ever directly asked for a spanking, although I have enjoyed them when a session has naturally evolved in that direction.

In some ways I find spanking an odd activity. I don’t mean that it’s weird or wrong, but just that it seems to possess unusual characteristics that other activities don’t share. It has a historical and a cultural meaning that doesn’t exist with other types of physical D/s interaction.

One thing that held me back for a long time from doing my first pro-domme session was the idea that it’d feel weird. I imagined that I’d be embarrassed by the scene or start laughing when someone tried to tie me up. In the event that didn’t happen. I’ve done scenes that most non-kinky people would think were very unusual, and found them entirely normal, at least for my strange measure of normality. In hindsight I think that this is down to the lack of context. I have no cultural conditioning around how two people should behave when doing play piercing, breathplay or heavy bondage. I just do it and enjoy it. And yet when I get pulled over someones lap for a spanking there is a passing moment of discombobulation. It has a meaning and wider context that come along with it, despite the fact I was never spanked in that fashion as a child.

I got to thinking about this while reading Red Rump’s entertaining tale of his early yearnings for a little babysitter spanking action. Like Red Rump, and a lot of kinky people, my desires started when I was young. However, I didn’t focus on a particular activity. Instead I fantasized about very general ideas of control and restraint. The idea of pain and punishment was always subservient to this broader sense of being dominated. For a lot of spanking fans it seems to be the other way around, where the specific activity is the focus and the elements of domination flow from that. I think it’s telling that the two activities with the most cultural context, spanking and bondage, also attracts the most dedicated and focused followings.

Personally, despite rarely having them, I have always enjoyed a traditional spanking. The sense of closeness to the dominant and the physical communication between the two bodies make for a very unique experience. But I think for me it’s in spite of the cultural background. That’s something I have to overcome in order to simply enjoy the raw activity for what it is. I suspect for a lot of spanko’s it’s the reverse situation, and a lot of the enjoyment comes from the broader context it has and the personal meaning they bring to the act.

Anyone managing to make it through all that random wurbling from me deserves at least a good spanking picture, so here you go. She certainly seems to be enjoying applying that hairbrush with some serious force.

Happy SpankerI found this on the lash kisser tumblr site.

Kink, sex and money (concluded)

So here’s what I promise is my third and final post in this mini-series. Having talked about different types of sex work and the way I believe the law has shaped them into their current forms, I though it’d be interesting to mull over what would happen if the laws were liberalized. Would that be a good thing?

On the face of it this seems like a dumb question. Removing the legal risk for both sex-workers and clients would seem to benefit them both. I think that’s certainly true for escorts and their clients, but the picture is potentially a little more complex in the kinky domain.

Lets assume that I was right about the impact the law has had on the shape of the commercial BDSM industry. Lets also assume if the laws were liberalized that we’d see a similar evolution to what happened in the pornography industry. The two current distinct markets of sex and BDSM would intermingle and the intersection between them become a far more significant factor. That not only mirrors what happened in porn, it would also more closely reflect how a lot of kinky people play in non-commercial settings. What might the effects of this be?

Firstly, it means pro-dommes could set boundaries based on their personal limits rather than legal constraints. For some, probably a majority, this wouldn’t change anything. But undoubtedly a non-trivial fraction would be open to incorporating more sexual play (which is not necessarily the same thing as conventional intercourse). At the same time the way would be open for escorts to more easily contact and market to current pro-domme clients. The forums and boards that only allow discussion of legal kinky activities would be able to host a much wider range of topics and sex worker views. The end result of all that would be a more complex and varied market place. The (almost) universal rules about not requesting any sexual activity would be out the window.

You could argue that this wouldn’t matter. A session setup is always a negotiation between two individuals anyway. Not all dommes do the same set of activities today, so what would be different? I suspect that one difference might be the hassle factor. With a fuzzier definition of what’s acceptable, clients would have much more varied expectations, and more to negotiate about. The “…but mistress x let me do this…” factor would rise significantly. Another difference might be pressure to compete in the marketplace against more sexual providers. Would we lose experienced and expert mistresses who couldn’t remain commercially viable at limits they were comfortable with?

It might also affect the intake of new pro-dommes. I think the current barrier to entry to the profession is lowered by the fact a domme remains clothed and sexual activity is not an option. Arguably this attracts too many women without a kinky bone in their body who see it as an easy way to make good money (see this article for example). I think that’s a very misguided approach, as being a good pro-domme requires immense skills and talent (as I’ve said in the past). However, I wonder how many pro-dommes got involved because traditional sexual activity wasn’t required, and then discovered a kinky dominant side that they enjoyed exploring. How many potentially great dommes would be lost in a more sexual market space?

My final point is a kind of obscure one, and a little bit of a personal one. At present I suspect that there is a hidden subsidy that flows from one group of pro-domme clients to another. Today a guy into body worship, verbal humiliation and tease and denial may well visit the same pro-domme as a guy into heavy leather bondage and electrical play. The latter requires expensive equipment while the former requires very little. So those clients into the lighter side of kink are helping to subsidize the guys who enjoy all the custom furniture and expensive toys many pro-dommes own. If the market was more finely segmented that subsidy might vanish. Maybe a kink savvy escort would be a better fit for the body worshiping verbal humiliation guy? As someone who indulges in a pretty broad spectrum of play, but definitely enjoys all the toys and tools of a well equipped pro-domme, that change wouldn’t be a welcome one. It’d potentially reduce the number of pro-dommes with well equipped playrooms.

Of course at the end of the day, all this is idle speculation. As far as the US is concerned, there’s little chance of having a sensible political conversation about legalizing sex work. The political system is far too screwed up for that to happen. As someone who tends to the socially liberal point of view, I think that’s a shame. Despite my speculation on possible downsides in some areas, I think when considering the bigger picture then legalization would be without doubt the right thing to do.

Picking a picture for this post was hard. The future repercussions of sex work legislation doesn’t lend itself to kinky photo fun. In my last post I mentioned Mistress Matisse, and given her varied career in sex work I thought she might be a good candidate for an image. She’s worked as a dominatrix (obviously), as a stripper (described here), as a peep show dancer (at Seattle’s now defunct Lusty Lady) and as an escort (memorably captured in her essay ‘The Whore on Christmas‘). Here’s a nice shot of her about to paddle the hell out of some lucky guy’s ass.

Mistress Matisse swinging a paddle