Thanks for your concern,Mtgman but I am biting my tongue bloody on this issue. I fully realize that it is seldom if ever a good idea to criticize a friend’s partner. However, as her last suicide attempt was less than 6 months ago and she is electing to return to being a the domn, I suspect that she has not undergone an significant personality change. I also am aware that Mike is in a much better position to survive this relationship than he was 8 years ago. But I still don’t want him to have to go thru the misery that I think may be in store for him.
I wish you luck as well.
To ‘prostitute’ oneself - in the sexual sense, not the general - seems to be about prostituting one’s body, in the form of sexual relations. At least, that’s the sense of the several definitions I found at dictionary.com.
For instance: “prostitute n : a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money v : sell one’s body; exchange sex for money.”
The paid dominatrix doesn’t let the client use her body, as a general rule. Whatever sex the client experiences, there’s no question that the dominatrix is at a remove from it that, say, the lap-dancer isn’t. Whatever’s going on here, it’s not very much a physically intimate act for her, as distinct from the woman engaging in sexual or oral intercourse for money.
To me, is an important distinction, and I think it’s one that’s significant enough that our vocabulary should recognize it; I believe it already does. YMMV.
It’s well-established that prostitution and violence are closely interconnected. There are ample law enforcement statistics on the subject.
You may argue that this particular woman’s subspecialty places her at no particular risk; do you really think that catering to the sort of kinked personalities that she does puts her at no added risk compared to being a graphics designer???
Not to mention subjecting those close to her to the possibility of problems related to police enforcement/harassment (“but officer, it was all good clean fun”) and disease.
No, I don’t think the equation is quite that simple. I think the unambiguous expectations of both parties play a part. I also think that there is a difference between sexual pleasure and sexual gratification. To look at the three cases you mention:
strippers: Not whores. The dancer performs in a manner which is explicitely sexual, but is not designed to sexually gratify the audience. Far from it, the intent is to highten sexual tension so that other, more lucrative, transactions might be performed. Also, there is the nature of the monetary exchange–generally it is not a simple 2-party agreement in which a performance is purchased as work-for-hire by the audience (bachelor parties, et al, are possible exceptions to this.)
Phone sex workers: Interesting case. Here the monetary exchange is straightforward and the expectation on both sides is clear. The only factors which seem to separate the transaction from the “classical whore” model are physical distance and the concommitant lack of direct physical contact. Personally, I would still say “whore”. Money is exchanged unambiguously for a service designed to provide sexual gratification. The lack of direect physical contact does not change that relationship, though I can understand the POV of those who might argue the other side.
Nude models: Not whores. I nude photograph, even an explicitely sexual photograph, is not restricted to use solely as a means to sexual gratification. Also, the nature of the economic transaction is indirect by several stages.
No, as noted above.
Not every stripper is a lapdancer, and not all lapdances are created equal. When the act is specifically performed to provide sexual gratification to the recipient, the performer is a whore. Where it is not, she is not.
I have never known a working dom (though my sample set here is relatively small) who was not explicitely and intentionally providing a gratifying sexual experience for her clients. The “no intercourse” argument strikes me as curiously naive, as if intercourse were the only sexual contact that counted. I can’t help but recall high school “rules” like it’s okay if you aren’t fully naked and it doesnt’ really count if he pulls out before ejaculation.
It’s a sex interaction. She takes money to provide it. She’s a whore. QED
Not, as I said before, that there’s anything wrong with that.
jlzania
To focus for a moment on your questions rather than choice of terms, have you tried speaking to Mike in a carefully open and inquiring manner? I am sure that he has his own feelings, concerns, and fears about her history and her chosen occupation. If you try this, make every effort to leave your own judgments and conclusions outside. Ask the questions, and then really listen to Mike’s answers.
I can’t offer you specific questions, and I don’t think you should try to prepare any. Let him steer the conversation, what he feels safe talking about might be as important as the answers to any specific question. Remember, your main concern is not with her behavior or her proffessino, it is with Mike and how he is being/will be affected by this relationship.
Anyway, that is my $.02. Spend it wisely. (Or trade it for a couple shares of enron – the result is likely to be the same.)
RT
I disagree with this evaluation. The paid dominatrix is very much selling her body. The fact that the physical interactions involved fall into prearranged “power roles” does not change the fact. The sub is using the dom’s body to fulfill a desired sexual role. The fact that he uses it to wield a whip instead of lick a dick does not alter the nature of the transaction.
And, as a friend of mine used to say, “sometimes the bottom’s on top.” Control comes in more than one flavor.
And if you think a dom is further removed from the sexual experience of a client than a lapdancer, I suspect that you haven’t had extensive experience with either form of intimacy. :eek:
Again, I think you either overestimate the intimacy of the average streetwalker, underestimate the intimacy of a dom-sub relationship, or both.
I disagree on both counts.
Lessee, seems as if a lot of my favorite people here at the SDMB have similar kinks.
Having a yen for kinky sex hardly makes one “the sort of kinked personality” that one might ought to be fearful of.
The first page of the linked paper made it clear that the author was examining traditional prostitution. The dominatrix business appears to be very different in many ways. I’ve mentioned one of those ways. Another way is that the professional dominatrix is generally running her own business; the street prostitute is pretty much the property of her pimp. Want me to go on?
In short, I’d say the burden of proof is on you to show that any part of the risks associated with traditional hooking are also part of the territory for professional dommes.
The plot thickens:
They’re coming back for Christmas and we will be getting together for drinks and dinner.
Neither one has informed me about her new career choice-I discovered it when his father called this weekend and asked me if I had seen the update on her web page.
I would post a link but it is my understanding that direct links to sexual material are verboten.
I would love to have a chat with him alone but I doubt that I will be able to separate them.
So what now?
On one hand, as I’ve stated before, I don’t want to alienate him in any way.
On the other hand, I’ll feel like a stinkin’ hypocrite if I say nothing at all.
To further complicate life, I don’t dislike her per se. I think she’s a bright attractive woman.
Hell bent on destruction and with the self-esteem of a gnat mind you, but bright and attractive in her own right.
As were Cleopatra and Messalina (sp?), no doubt.
They were just real hard on the men that they became involved with.
Indeed, that would be my argument precisely. The very nature of the interaction makes the possibility of her becoming a victim of his violence pretty remote. A great deal more remote than in any random man and woman put together in a sexualized context.
:rolleyes:
a: being a dominatrix is perfectly legal just about everywhere I know of. (Another argument against calling her a whore, BTW, since the law doesn’t see it that way.)
b: no touchy-no diseasy
stoid
There is also the fact that the Doms I knew (I used to hang out with a pretty wild crowd) often worked with an assistant. In a pinch, the assistant becomes a bodyguard.
Before anyone makes the comparison of assistant vs pimp, assistants are chosen by the dom and are payed a fixed amount determined by the dominatrix.
Look, when your SO makes a living pandering to the sexual desires of other men, it might make you a little jealous. More than a little jealous, maybe a bit angry and depressed. Things that Mike surely doesn’t need a lot of. Think about the men who date supermodels. Some are constantly insecure about how they look, because when the couple walks into a room, quite a few men will be looking at his model girfriend. Making them posessive, insecure, angry, on edge, etc.
Besides, what happens when she gets old? There are no dom retirement plans I know of, no dental or 401K. What happens when she is 45 and all she remembers is how to whip men for money?
I think the OP has a quite a few legitimate concerns.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stoid *
**
Of course, it may take quite awhile for the cops to figure out that this setup is not a front for prostitution. And for (b), of course we’re assuming that there will be no temptations on the part of the “professional” to accept money for more intimate activities, no “clients” bent on rape etc. (somehow I find it hard to believe there’s more safety involved in this setting than in dating in general).
Can anyone really believe that this scenario is healthy for a woman with severe emotional problems who’s suicidal, as well as for the individual living with her?
Well, Jack, then it is evident you have virtually no experience with the dom/sub trip. Because as hard as it may be for you to believe, that’s the way it is. The dom refusing to do or be done in any physical way is part of the scene. (And the cops can barely be bothered trying to make a case when there is so much blatant prostitution going on elsewhere.)
As for this particular woman, who knows? If she’s that messed up, this probably isn’t the wisest career choice. But hardly the end of the world, and it’s not going to destroy HIS life.
jlzania, if you don’t express your concerns to this man who is like a son to you, it will continue to eat at you and possibly ruin the very relationship you are trying to protect. It is my own opinion that you sit both of them down and explain your concerns, calmly and without insults and expressing genuine concern for Mike’s happiness. It’s always been my opinion that compassion and honesty can solve a lot of problems we all make for ourselves. Since Mike has chosen to let this woman back into his life, like it or not, you have to respect her position in his life, even if you don’t approve of her personally. I think it’s a bad idea to try to “get him alone” to talk about her. Why not ask her directly why she has chosen such a profession? Maybe if you open a dialogue with her you can both learn from each other.
I wish you lots of luck. This is obviously a very difficult thing for you to deal with. You are to be commended for helping Mike in the first place and taking him under your wing. I hope everything works out for the best.
Marlowe or Shakespeare? I can’t remember whether that’s Othello or The Jew of Malta.
See, and I thought it was a John Ford play. I need to brush up on my classical references.
Okay, so it’s been a few years since my last class in Jacobean drama.
Rooting for the Red Sox is my major masochistic outlet.
Whip me, Dan Duquette.
Next year, next year.
We’ll have to disagree then. What’s going on is commerce, in both instances; and both businesses are unquestionably sexually oriented businesses. Those are the similarities.
What’s different is what’s being sold; in the instance of what had always been regarded as prostitution, what’s being sold is the use of the prostitute’s body, or at least one or more of its orifices. In the case of the dominatrix, what’s being sold is her ability to act a particular role, without any necessity of physical contact of a sexual nature.
I’ll admit my lack of firsthand knowledge of either form of sexual commerce; I have to rely on what I’ve read in the popular press, in novels, and on the Web. But still. Recall that I was discussing specifically the physical intimacy of the tasks involved. (To expect psychological intimacy of sexual commerce is to expect too much, of course.)
It’s generally known what a lapdance involves: they’re generally performed by the workers at a strip joint while they’re not dancing on the stage. They consist of the stripper, usually wearing some minimal clothing, writhing around on the customer’s lap until he comes in his pants. I regard that as a fair-to-middlin’ level of physical intimacy.
I’d rate the physical intimacy of a fuck or a blowjob to be pretty substantial. The prostitute has the customer’s penis in her mouth or vagina, and he ejaculates inside her. From a strictly physical perspective, that’s pretty damned intimate.
Like I said, my reading of the nature of the dominatrix’ profession is all I have to go on; I’ve never, to my knowledge, even met one. So I could be way off. But what I’ve read indicates that the level of bodily contact is fairly minimal, and doesn’t involve genital, oral, or anal sex, handjobs, or any rubbing up against the customer’s penis in a manner designed to stimulate him to orgasm. (As Stoid said, “The dom refusing to do or be done in any physical way is part of the scene.”) I’d personally rate that as being less physically intimate than a lapdance, and way less so than a fuck or blowjob. YMMV.
Actually, it is John Ford. Published 1633.
It seems we are applying a different standard. “Physical intimacy” as a measure of body proximity did not occur to me. Intimacy, to me, is meaningful only in an emotional context. I was reading “physical intimacy” as “physical actions with intimate emotional content”. As in, He was looking for physical intimacy, but she just wanted sex.
I’m not sure how to evaluate using your standard. Does a dry hump provide more physical stimulation than a scrotum clamp? Is licking a mistress’ boots a phyically intimate act?
shrug
I agree with you that both encounters represent commerce. I guess where we disagree is in identifying a dom session as a clearly sexual encounter. To me it is, so to me she is a whore. (I dislike th eterm, actually, but it is the one around which this debate has been framed.)