I’m just wondering if it’s common for pro-dom(me)s to be so precious. I get a picture of her standing over this man, in tears, yelling “but you PROMISED you wouldn’t top me from the bottom!” in best Jan Brady voice. I’m sure there are more powerful ways of getting her point across than spitting the dummy.
She doesn’t sound like much of a dominant to me, and the two of them sound like a perfectly matched passive-aggressive couple.
Miller, Antinor01: Some things you need to be certain of. In this context, public health trumps everything else and getting pissy about it is dangerously stupid for people who have never even heard of you.
When did I disagree with that?
I don’t agree that a stripper’s work is clearly not prostitution. A stripper - most strippers - undoubtedly do not engage in prostitution. I’m also sure it’s common for some strippers to go from dancing around naked to engaging in sex acts for money - so sometimes they are prostituting themselves.
In the case of the prostitute in Savage’s column, she’s clearly engaging in sexual acts with the guy for cash. That’s the only definition of prostitute I know. I reject out of hand the notion that there’s some secret definition of prostitute that only applies if there’s actual sex, but in this case you can’t even say there’s no penetration, since there would have been if he didn’t offend her.
When this prostitute has sex with men for money she only does it in the context of BDSM and they don’t get to see her vagina. So she’s a niche whore. So what?
When you said the person who expressed concern about disease risk was ‘certainly in the wrong’.
Yes. He was in the wrong at that moment. There was no risk of disease at that moment or even that day. Almost every D/s scene I’ve heard of or have been part of included a ‘cooldown’ time after for the participants to talk about what happened, what they liked, what they might change etc. That would have been the appropriate time to discuss his concerns about something that may happen in the future.
What is with all the bad analogies in this thread? Calling all people who engage in sex acts for money prostitutes is about as obnoxious as calling all people who are employed to extinguish fire firefighters.
She brought it up during the session so he’s just responding to her. And as far as violating the “contract”… BFD. he’s a john lookin for safe sex.
A person can’t legally sign away their liberty. He’s the paying customer and has every right to say and do what he wants, when he wants. The dominatrix has no “rights” except to be paid for services rendered. If she doesn’t like it she should find another line of work. The dominant/submissive relationship is purely voluntary and purely fictional. He isn’t limited to using a “safe word” or any of that bullshit. It’s fun to play those games but they’re just games.
If I hire an electrician to fix a fuse and tell him halfway through the job “Actually, I’d rather you replace it with a circuit breaker” he doesn’t have any right to do anything to my house I don’t want him to do. He can refuse to continue work, but he has no “rights” beyond that.
Unless he had absolute guarantees to that effect… well, he still would have been in the right. In any sexual* setting, he needs to be clear in his own mind that the next moment isn’t going to damage him and his loved ones and their loved ones for life. That’s all there is to it.
*(Or whatever you want to call that.)
Where in this story was anything done to anyone without their express consent?
Jesus.
Look, here’s the way it works: dom and sub are in the middle of a scene:
Right:*
Dom: Next week, you pathetic worm, I’m going to teach you how to take a dildo in the ass.
Sub: Yes mistress, whatever you say.
Slap slap, spank spank
Dom: Okay, your time’s up, Frank. Put your clothes back on. Shall I schedule you for your regular time next week?
Sub: Better make it Thursday, Shirley, I’ve got a boardmeeting on Tuesday. By the way, the bit about the dildos, can we talk about that for a minute? I’ve got some concerns about sanitation…
*
Wrong:
*
Dom: Next week, you pathetic worm, I’m going to teach you how to take a dildo in the ass.
Sub: Well, wait a minute now! If you’re going to do that, I’m going to have to insist on certain ground rules! First of all, I want etc. etc.*
The problem isn’t that the guy asked about sanitation, the problem is when he asked. Yes, RickJay, it is just a game. And the guy broke the rules of the game by asking when he did. If he’s not going to play by the rules they agreed to, the Dom is completely justified in not wanting to play at all anymore. Everyone in this thread who’s saying the guy was in the wrong, is saying he’s in the wrong because he used option 2 instead of option 1, when he asked about cleaning the dildos. No one is saying that he’s wrong for asking at all, and for fuck’s sake, no one is saying that he should be forced to take a dildo up the ass wether he wants to or not.
Let’s play hypotheticals, then.
Imagine, for a moment, that this is not the first time he’s done this. Let me set the scene:
The dom prepares for an hour and a half beforehand, cleaning all the equipment, putting on her desired clothes, making sure everything is perfect for the allotted scene. (This is not an uncommon time frame or practice.) She tailors her mindset and persona, donning a mask that is harsh and unforgiving and unrelenting, because that’s what the client is paying for.
The client arrives, and the scene begins. Partway through, she teases him with a portion of her plan for the next session, so he can stew on it in between appointments, giving him something to look forward to. Instead of looking forward to it, he immediately begins to question the details - how will she do it, what will she use, will she be doing it the way he likes so that he can get his money’s worth? The tone of the scene is lost, the experience is lost, and now they’re negotiating business, because she allowed it. This goes on for 20 minutes or so, hammering out details.
She manages to bring the conversation back to the scene politely, and begins to re-create the headspace necessary to have a good scene. By the time that is done, there are only 30 minutes left in the allotted time, barely enough to squeeze in the bare minimum that they had agreed on for this session. She cannot extend the scene, because she has another appointment booked with only enough time to do the prep work for a completely different scene.
When the session is over, the client does not leave; instead, he complains that the time spent negotiating was not “scene time,” because they were not in role, and she was far too forgiving of his “saucy mouth.” He is unhappy, and wants to know what she will do to correct this situation. Having good customer service skills, she promises that next time she will take no backtalk, and that all scene time will be spent in role. He wants a discount on this session, because he didn’t get his full time, he feels - and even worse, she is now wasting time on him that she can’t afford, because she’s losing time for preparation for her next client.
So what does she do? Next time, she takes no questions and no backtalk, and when he becomes a problem AGAIN, she decides he is no longer profitable as a client, and terminates the relationship. If he had addressed his concerns in a timeframe that was not limited (in between appointments is usual, by phone or email), he would not have lost the business relationship. But because he chose to be a pain in the ass, she decided not to do business with him anymore.
There was never (in my reading) a threat of using any toy he was not comfortable with on him in that moment, or in the duration of that appointment. He had ample opportunity to stop the action at any point, and chose not to take it. He was within his rights to do so, and she was within her rights to choose not to do business with him anymore because of his negative impact as a client.
Now, all this is guesswork and extrapolation, and it could have happened totally differently. But professionals do not give up paying clients lightly, not if they are decent clients, and it seems simply likely to me that he was no longer coming out positively in a cost/benefit analysis.
What I’d like to know is he new to this? Because otherwise, it seems like he’s pretty inept at following the basic instructions he agreed to… which in this case would be having a question and either (A) using a safe word to opt out of the current scene to ask about it or (B) wait until the end of the session to do so.
Was that really too difficult for him, seeing as how apparently the upcoming situation wasn’t immediately imminent? It would appear at that point, he could’ve negotiated anything, like bringing his own dildo or paying to see her sanitize the one she’d use in the way he’d like or whatever. Otherwise, given the scenario as presented, I can’t imagine she’d want him as her headache if even such simple guidelines couldn’t be followed.
Er, he actually IS paying somebody to give him a bunch of grief. That’s kinda the whole point of the thing.
I admit it - I LOL’ed. Loudly. 
I find it very hard to feel any sympathy towards some phony ‘dom’ who gets paid, but who doesn’t know how to deal with a bottom who steps out of line. If all you want to do is be the ‘big girl who takes no shit from a guy’, try to get a job in middle management in a bank or something. S&M has no place for you.
The guy’s paying, he can set any damn rules he likes. She has the option not to play, but let’s not pretend this is some sort of situation, as KneadToKnow describes it, of his agreeing to “submit his will to another’s.” He did nothing of the sort. He’s PRETENDING to submit his will to someone else, not actually doing it.
If she doesn’t want to continue the business arrangement that’s fine, but is the guy a “manipulative peice of shit”? Well, he may or may not be elsewhere, but his hooker doesn’t have anything to complain about.
I still don’t get why the fuck he has to follow any “instructions.” Since when do paying customers have to follow instructions? Fuck her instructions.
When paying customers pay to have someone give them instructions.
Just because they ask for them doesn’t mean they have to follow them, or can’t interrupt them.