Rant: Attitudes Towards Pro Doms

Enter another rant from my seemingly endless store of rants.
 

    Photographic evidence of a fuckwit in action.

Image reproduced here with kind permission.     :)

 
 
Welcome To My Rant. :)

I think this is one of my “Respect” rants, in that my main objection to what I’m ranting about involves prejudiced lack of respect and gross generalisations shown to an entire group of people indiscriminately, based on their profession and gender.
 

**Update 15 May 2008 – I now see that this rant is actually one of my hypocrism rants. (end update)

 
I think the fact that so many people share this view of pro doms, combined with the fact that the people they’re prejudiced against are not recognised by many individuals as being worthwhile members of the greater populace (another problem in and of itself) is amongst the reasons why this problem seems to be so self perpetrating and self perpetuating.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can get outraged against bigots who are prejudiced against a different group of people, and then when their own bigotry is pointed out, they say something like:

“Oh, no, but that’s different.”

“Different”, my arse.
 

Fact: Bigots never think they’re bigots.
 
(if they did, they wouldn’t be bigots. QED)

 
I just adore the way this topic is an unfailing detector of those individuals who claim to celebrate inclusion and diversity, and who claim to condemn bigotry and prejudice, and who are subsequently revealed to unequivocally exclude diversity and embrace bigotry and prejudice.

Ok, to get on with the rantfest:

There are people (for “people”, read “bigoted prejudiced uninformed inaccurate fuckwits“) who regard ALL pro doms variously as:
 

• Prostitutes / Sex Workers
• People who bring “genuine BDSM Lifestylers into disrepute”
• People who are incapable of forming any relationship whatsoever with any person who pays them
• People who are incapable of having any regard whatsoever for a person based solely on the fact that this person pays them
• People who are incapable of forming any genuine relationship with anybody

 
 
Hmmm, now, which do I address first, the large amount of factual and logical evidence I have to support my disagreement with this position, or the uninformed aforementioned fuckwits who perpetuate this bigotry?

Decisions……… decisions……………

Ok, facts first, I think.
 
 

The Facts

 
First, a definition of sex worker. The following lot of definitions are all taken from the very wonderful and multi-meritorious Wikipedia unless otherwise stated.
 

Sex worker
• A sex worker is a person who earns money by providing sexual services. The term was coined by American prostitute-activist Carol Leigh in the 1970s as a political term.[citation needed] It is sometimes used as a synonym or euphemism for prostitution, but most scholars define “sex workers” to include individuals who perform sexual or sexually oriented activities in the sex industry, such as strippers, erotic massage therapists, pornography actors and actresses, live sex shows, webcam shows, and phone sex operators (Weitzer 2000).

 
Please note: I have no issue whatsoever with sex workers, or sex work. My sole issue here is attributing accurate names for things.
 
Now, while Dominance can certainly be erotic, so can a fabulously good dinner, or a lengthy shower, or a super duper comfortable pair of shoes. The fact of the sometime presence of an erotic element does not make a person a sex worker.
 

Note:     Sensual does NOT equal Sexual

 
Restaurants indulge a sensual need, health clubs with saunas and jacuzzis also answer to sensual needs, does that make the restaurant and health club staff all sex workers? It can be very erotic to sit in a jacuzzi.     ;)
 
 

Dominant
• A dominant is one who enjoys performing any of a variety of BDSM practices upon a submissive; or one who holds a dominant position within a relationship based upon dominance and submission (D/s). This enjoyment can spring from a simple desire for dominance or an enjoyment of the interplay of wills involved in such a scenario. A male dominant is often called a Dom; a female, a Domme or dominatrix.

 

or more concisely:
• Dom: Man or woman who exercises control (from dominant-contrast with sub)
• Dominant: Man or woman who exercises control – contrast with submissive
• Domme: Woman who exercies control (see also Dominatrix)

 
 

“Pro dom”, or Professional dominant
• A professional dominant or professional dominatrix is a person who performs the dominant role in BDSM activities in exchange for money. Most professional dominants do not have sex in exchange for money, and do not regard themselves as prostitutes.
• A female dominant is known as a dominatrix (plural dominatrices), and the term is often used as a synonym for a female professional dominant. A pro domme is another term used for a female professional dominant.

 
 

D/s relationship styles
 
• There can be any number of partners in a D/s relationship, with one dominant sometimes having several submissives, who may in turn dominate others, or a submissive sometimes may have multiple dominants. Relationships may be monogamous or polyamorous. Romantic love is not necessarily a feature in D/s, partners might be very much in love or have no romantic relationship at all.
  Variation in D/s is virtually limitless and the activities take many forms.
• Some D/s relationships are sexual, others completely chaste. Fantasy role play can also be a part, with partners taking classic dominant/submissive roles such as teacher/student, police officer/suspect or parent/child. Animal Play, where one partner takes the role of owner/caretaker and the other takes the part of a pet or animal, can also be D/s play.

 
 
Now, for some final words on dominance, and d/s interactions, from Domsub.info and the Domsub.info FAQ. I like these ones best, because they’re the most inclusive, and therefore I think the most accurate overall.
 

We define Dominant / submissive (D/s) as:
• Dominance (also called Domination) – In terms of BDSM [Bondage · Discipline · Sadism · Masochism] and D/s, this term refers to taking control of a person or situation through usage of some means (such as physical, mental, financial, etc), or to exercise this power. A person who exercises this power on a regular basis, outside of BDSM scenes, is called a Dominant; the gender specific titles being Dom or Master for a man, Domme, Mistress, or Dominatrix for a woman.

 
Isn’t D/s just about kinky sex?

• Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t. How much of a person’s life is effected by their involvement with D/s depends entirely on the individual. For some people, D/s is limited to sexual role-play; for others it is a way of life. Each person decides for themselves how much or how little they want to involve D/s in their lives.

 
Ok, having presented the facts as I see them, I will now do some discussion.
 
 

Discussion Of The Facts – Credibility

 
Now, I appreciate that the internet can very likely be relied upon to provide support for just about any debating position you’d care to name. However, I think Wikipedia can certainly be relied upon to care deeply about the standard of its content, and can be depended upon to fix entries which don’t conform to its rigorous standards, should irregularities be reported.

In fact, at least one of the articles I quoted has been edited for Wikipedia standards violations since I began composing this rant a few days ago. I went back to check the page I got the definition from and the definition had been edited (for the better, I feel). The version I quoted was the most recent.

So, yay Wikipedia!

(I keep meaning to send them money, I really must do that soon)
 

**Update 16 May 2008 – The articles have been modified extensively since then, as well as having been reorganised and on some occasions separated out onto separate pages. Just so you know.

Also, I still haven’t sent Wikimedia any money. Oh well. (end update)

 
I also feel that I can trust my own judgment (not that I’m asking anybody else to, but hey, this is my blog, so enh. ;) ). And in my judgment, I regard those definitions, from those sites, to be reliable, at least to me and my experience.
 
 

Discussion Of The Facts – “Power Exchange” Is Not All About Sex.

 
I feel strongly that dominance is not solely about the erotic, the way a sex worker’s job is. The fact that dominance has a significant proportion of itself outside the realm of the erotic is what makes pro doms not necessarily sex workers in my book.

It wasn’t difficult to find web pages and definitions from reputable sources to support my position on this.

I mean, just because consensual power exchange might turn some people on, does not make it inherently erotic. The existence of a safety pin fetishist or two does not ultimately convert safety pins from a mundane item into the epitomal representative of hot sexuality. Safety pins are hot to the safety pin fetishists, and to nobody else. Power exchange is hot to those who are attracted to it, and to nobody else.

I also appreciate that, having made the first point about the internet being a good source for any position in any debate, I’m sure there is just bucketloads of stuff out there supporting the assertion that all pro doms are sex workers. But I think I covered that above when I spoke of uninformed bigotry being self perpetrating and self perpetuating.

There are a ginormous amount of people out there who are uninformed, prejudiced, and who make grossly unsupported generalisations about entire populations of people.

Now, by me saying “pro doms are not sex workers by definition”, that could be interpreted as a gross generalisation too. Let me be quite clear about this:
 

I AM disputing that by definition, ALL pro doms are sex workers, simply by the fact of them being pro doms. I’m actually not disputing that SOME pro doms are in fact sex workers.

 
So, I am disputing gross generalisations, universally made about a section of the population, using gender and profession as the sole criteria, without any firm evidence to support their position

I am also disputing the premise that dominance/power exchange = sex

I dispute the assertion that dominance, by definition, is solely and entirely to do with erotic behaviour. I think I was able to clearly show above that this is not the case.

We are all human beings. As such, we are all sexual beings. However, this does not mean that every human being on the planet is either having sex 100% of the time, or thinking about sex 100% of the time.
 

(adolescent males are excused from the above comment on the grounds of, well, it’s biology, innit     :D

 
Just as every homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual person does not necessarily have erotic play on the agenda 100% of the time, neither does every dominant or submissive. Just because a person identifies with a certain erotic orientation, does not mean that everything they do is erotic.

Lesbian relationships are not accurately characterised by two lesbians constantly going at it with each other under the duvet at all hours every day. Neither are male homosexual relationships accurately characterised by gay men always doing something erotic with their cocks to each other. D/s relationships are not accurately characterised by d/s people being in erotic scene play 100% of the time.
 
 

“Power Exchange” Is Not All About Sex – Examples

 

• If a person higher up in the hierarchy of a workplace environment gets inappropriately and unconsensually sexual with a fellow employee a rung or two down the ladder from them, that is not sex, that is abuse of power.
• Just because something involves the more erogenous zones of the body does not mean that the aforementioned something is sexual.
• Is urination or defecation sexual? Is farting sexual? Is cystitis sexual?

 
 

Discussion Of The Facts – Human Needs

 
People used to think that male homosexual meant by definition, promiscuous. Some are, some are not, same as any population of people. Polyamory does not mean promiscuous, neither does homosexuality of whatever gender. And power exchange relationships are certainly defined by criteria other than how promiscuous any of their practitioners are.

However, in everything that we do, our erotic orientation forms some part of our human identity as a whole. It affects how we see things and the choices we make. Vanilla heterosexuals, as representative of the currently known majority population on the planet, can sometimes make assumptions which other groups can buy into simply out of habit and having not spent any time considering what it is they’re buying into.

I have heard many d/s people talking about setting aside their d/s predilections for the sake of a vanilla partner.

I personally find that quite shocking.

The very idea of asking a vanilla person to set aside their vanilla-ness for a d/s lifestyle seems unreasonable in the extreme. Yet many d/s people do it without even thinking about it, because they’ve been told that it’s just a hobby or something, which they can stop doing, like fishing.

Of the many d/s people I have encountered who have taken the route of pretending to be vanilla, they found that loving and being loved by their partner was not enough to meet the needs which were not being met, which was due in part to their d/s orientation.

It is true that, in the BDSM community, online and off, there are countless numbers of people who are in vanilla relationships and have been hiding their BDSM identity from people close to them for a long time.

I believe that this describes a significant proportion of the BDSM community whose sensual needs are not being met. People who are not having a need met, tend to think more and more and more and more about that need until it kind of takes them over. I think we’ve all heard about people who were stranded out someplace for an extended period of time, and there are many descriptions of being in a state of mind where they can only think about food and beverages almost 100% of the time.

There are a few basic needs we all have as human beings which are priorities over others. Food, water, shelter, appropriate body temperature, and human interaction and touch.

When any of those needs are insufficiently met, the mind prioritises them in order of importance. When intensely dehydrated, hunger is forgotten, and all one thinks of is water.

Once the thirst is slaked, hunger reappears, almost at once, and begins to obsess the mind.

When one is too cold, that can also occupy the mind to the exclusion of much else.

And, as human beings who require the safe touch of other beings, when that is missing, that can also become an obsession, in whatever form the person chooses to consider it. Masturbation can sometimes be used as a poor substitute for safe touch from another person.
 
 

Discussion Of The Facts – Safe Touch

 
When I say “safe touch” here, I refer to any kind of pleasant, consensual, non-health-or-safety-risking, non-startling touch from other humans or affectionate pets.

It isn’t uncommon for people to think they are craving erotic activity when in fact all they really require is safe touch, and lots of it.

I know that my kvetch can go for weeks without release, and not really notice it all that much. This most definitely was not the case before I accepted him under my authority. This change has come about because I spend a large amount of time sharing safe touch with him.

Babies are known to fail to thrive, develop emotional, developmental, and physical disorders, and brain damage is not uncommon, when they are insufficiently cuddled from an early age.

And we never outgrow our need for safe touch, ever. It is an inbuilt need in human beings every bit as much as hunger and thirst.

So, I absolutely will NOT accept that a pro dom’s only role is to provide sexual services for the client submissive. I feel that pro doms offer an intense overdose of safe touch which can tide the submissive over until the next chance he or she gets to have some safe touch.

I also dispute any allegations that “safe touch” is by definition, sexual. Safe touch from a mother to her child is not sexual. Safe touch between friends is not sexual. Safe touch between consenting erotic partners can be sexual, but does not have to be.
&nbsp
Now, I could at this point segue into My single most humongous ramble of all time, which is all about specifically how difficulties endured by most human beings are rooted in currently imperceptible damage done to us as children when this or that seemingly insignificant transgression against us occurred.
 
But I think I’ll save that for my book. :)
 
Now, for the rantfest on fuckwit central, yay!
 
 

Rantfest

 
I realise that making personal attacks on debaters asserting an opposing position to me is not a valid recognised debating technique. Having said that, I believe it is valid to question the validity of the information on which my opponents base their conclusions.

Of the people who have asserted to me that pro doms are the various things I listed above, almost all have not only never been to a pro dom professionally, but they have never even met a single one socially, in person.

A few of them have been to a pro dom once or twice professionally. A few have met one or two socially. I do not believe that experience of one or two people from an entire population of people is a statistically valid sample size on which to base a supportably firm conclusion. And certainly, a sample size of Zero is even less statistically valid, calling for mere speculation and/or hearsay.
 
 
Inept Counter Arguments:
 .
I love the way people counter my logical stance in a debate with stuff like references to how relatively short a time I’ve been in the BDSM lifestyle, how much longer they’ve been in it than I have (as if they got some kind of “time served” certification to be an official fuckwit or something) or allusions to my apparent “defensiveness” when I disagree with their unsupported, uninformed, inaccurate, and often misogynistic positions.

I note that it isn’t considered good debating style if assertions made apparently in support of your position do not relate to the original premise. It also, as I observed above, isn’t considered a valid debating technique to make personal attacks on your opponents at the expense of establishing a logical position for yourself in the debate. So, if a person disagrees with my position on anything, including (but not limited to) on the grounds of:

1. My apparently inferiour amount of time “in The Lifestyle”
2. Them thinking that I myself am a pro dom
3. Them alleging that I’m being “defensive” just because I disagree with them

then I couldn’t regard that as a credible opposing position to take with regards to debate.

A little logic, please? I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

Oh, and some factually supportable information would be rather excellent as well.     ;)
 
 
Some people have this strange idea that a person can be “in The Lifestyle” for twenty years (having never ventured further into it than on the internet) and somehow know more about it than a person who’s been “in The Lifestyle” for one year, and spent most of it going to play parties, BDSM events, and enjoying real actual physical in person d/s relationships.

I’ve even heard one person identifying as a dominant who claimed to have been “in The Lifestyle” since she was 15 years old, all because she unconsensually spanked some neighbourhood boy when she was that age, who then ran home crying afterwards.

That’s not BDSM, that’s abuse.

I have to laugh, really.

(hollow laugh)
 

(it’s these same people who tend to assert that pro doms are prostitutes)

 
When somebody puts forward what I regard as an uninformed, inaccurate point of view, and I offer an alternative view, supporting my position with facts and figures and examples, the most commonplace response I get is the kneejerk reaction slyly attemtping to put me in my place because I’m apparently more of a beginner than a 20 year submissive in a vanilla relationship who’s never even seen anybody in person doing BDSM anything.

Oh, and I forgot one of my favourites, when I see males identifying as dominant who have REAL issues accepting the idea of female authority with any grace whatsoever.

I mean, come on males, a dominant woman is no threat to you. She isn’t going to bust your balls (not unless you ask nicely, of course :p ). Unless the reason you’re afraid of her because her very presence causes your dick to shrivel up and drop off like in leprosy?
 

Fact: Dominant Women Are Not, Nor Do They By Definition, Cause Leprosy.

 
Even if the offending males are now realising they’ve been a submissive all this time and want a dominant of their own, they seem to have trouble with female authority. But noooooooooooo, they can’t go to a pro dom, because if they pay her, that will show them that they value her and her services, and they can’t have that, no sir.

Their dick will surely shrink and drop off, and most undoubtedly the fact that their Porsche/Mercedes/BMX/Skateboard will suddenly and irrevocably turn into a Reliant Robin is too horrible ( for “horrible” read “fabulously amusing” ) to contemplate. ;)

And now, (as if this post wasn’t long enough) for some self examination:
 
 

Navel Gazing

 
Ok, I’m going to ask myself this question:

Why am I getting so utterly disressed about this topic?

I’m going to list a couple of reasons I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Not Feeling Heard – I have a really strong emotional trigger reaction to feeling I’m not being heard. So if people carry on as if I’ve said nothing, or if they simply disregard, dismiss, and/or invalidate what I say, I get a really intensely unpleasant flashback of pain and distress.

 

2. Unfair Blame – Having somebody accuse an entire group of people of something they’re not, reminds me of another trigger I’m susceptible to. Being unfairly blamed for being/doing/saying something for which I have no legitimate responsibility brings on another intensely unpleasant flashback of pain and distress. It also connects to the “not feeling heard” trigger. So it’s a double trigger. Perhaps I’m identifying with the pro doms (and dominant women generally) being accused of being something they’re not.

 

3. Feeling Disregarded – I think there’s something about when I feel so strongly that I’m in the right, and have strong evidence to support my position, and all that is just disregarded because
• The other people don’t care about details, accuracy or facts
• The other people don’t care about learning anything or improving themselves
• The other people give Me no credibility at all because
• I’m a woman
• I’m a dominant
• I’m too inexperienced/young/female/tall/short/pale/dark/whatever for their tastes
• They desperately want me but can’t ever have me because I’d never dominate them in a million billion trillion years (maybe longer), and they blame and resent me for that

 
(none of which is my fault)

 
What I think all that is leading up to is that I end up being treated as if I and my thoughts and ideas are utterly unimportant, even when I have evidence to the contrary. And whoooosh! Another triggered flashback of pain and distress.

Gosh, who knew I was this neurotic?

(well, me, but enh)     :p
• (and kvetch)
• (and all my friends)
• (and most of my acquaintances)
• (and their dogs, cats, goldfish, and hamsters)

Ok, so everybody knew I was this neurotic. Just as well this is not a Breaking News blog. ;)
 
 

ps:     I vote for the best line of this entire post to be

 

Fact: Dominant Women Are Not, Nor Do They By Definition, Cause Leprosy.

 
Votes in the comments section, please. ;)