[DD]
A couple of weeks ago Paltego emailed me to let me know he had blogged a rebuttal to a post from my archive, Power Exchange.
Since then we’ve discussed various aspects of my post, his post, and a host of sub-points and opinions. We began the conversation thinking we would cross-post the whole thing but even a much-edited version still weighed in at 6000 words. So instead, here is the Cliffnotes version of our conversation.
[PALTEGO]
When I first read your original post I came away with the very strong impression that you didn’t believe power exchange was possible in a pro-domme/client relationship.
However, having now swapped multiple emails on this topic, I suspect we’re probably in fairly close agreement on this basic issue. We both seem to believe it’s possible to have a genuine D/s dynamic in a pro-domme session, just as it’s also possible to have a fetish fantasy fulfilling top-from-the-bottom experience.
[DD]
Yes, despite some initial confusion on the point I was trying to make, my post definitely was intended to confirm that role playing— specifically by men who want to control exactly how their fantasies are played out— can result in some very sexy fantasy fulfillment. While we both agree that could be great fun neither of us classifies it as domination and submission. Of course, then in the middle of my post I wandered into that lengthy and somewhat confusing aside regarding how very annoying I find it when men suggest I dominate for money.
[PALTEGO]
When it comes to the issue of domination-for-hire as a suggested career choice I can completely understand how that would be annoying. Particularly to keep hearing it as a default knee-jerk response. In fact, I opened up my post by agreeing with that.
[DD]
Indeed you did, and that segues to the bit where we don’t share a point of view. In my post I detailed some of my opinions regarding why I have absolutely no interest in dominating for money. In fact, Kitty Stryker, Mistress Matisse and Furry Girl (in the posts linked and many others) have discussed various aspects of the client/provider arrangement that confirm their choice has no appeal to me. I did also mention my concerns about some doms for hire and their effect. Actually, the whole opening section of Kitty Stryker’s post Hurt not Harm: Prodommes and Male Submission is a great summary of what I was talking about. Her post also details how different Kitty feels she is from the stereotypical profile and includes a great description of how she regards her job and her clients. Reading this post convinced me Kitty is on the same page as me about many things.
[PALTEGO]
I have read Kitty’s post before and couldn’t agree with her more when she talks about not seeing her as the enemy.
(Entertaining aside: Mistress Matisse’s pal Lydia whom she references in the post you pointed to, is also the same Lydia who can be periodically seen on my blog piercing, suffocating and generally tormenting me).
Personally I’ve found my sessions to be incredibly educational and information, as well as being a lot of fun. They’ve taught me a lot about myself and my internal wiring. I’d like to think that there are way more guys out there who have become better submissives thanks to pro-domme sessions.
[DD]
You have consistently regarded my initial post as an attack on “pro-dommes” and I’ve insisted I was defending the validity of my own power dynamic. To paraphrase Kitty, I was saying, “I exist, so fuck you!” Not every dominant woman is willing to cater to clients. In terms of Furry Girl’s Venn Diagram, I only have to be concerned about that top circle, and really, I already KNOW we have that.
[PALTEGO]
It might not have been intended as an attack, but it certainly read that way.
When I read “quasi-sexual, submissive-esque experience for a client within clearly agreed upon parameters” I don’t think “Oh, if DD was a pro-domme that is just what her sessions would be like.” Similarly when I read “a pro-domme is not really the person with the power in an exchange with her client” that doesn’t sound like a specific statement about you as a pro-domme. It reads as a clear statement of the general case.
[DD]
I don’t see us ever quite agreeing on this point. You pay someone to provide you with an opportunity to submit and you are very satisfied with your experience.
You feel the need to defend that.
I think a dom-for-hire operates as an agent of her clients’ volition far more so than I do within my power dynamic. I have no doubt that some dominant women do enjoy their work for the most part, but on days when she would rather stay home in her jammies and read a “pro-dom” will still have to suit up and do what she is being paid to do. If she is a professional, she shouldn’t let her clients know she’d rather not be there. While I may face a similar reality in my work, I won’t tolerate it in sex life.
These are some of the elements in a professional arrangement that, in my opinion, give the client more control of the how, when, where aspects than my sub has in our relationship. I’m not referring to control within a session, but in the context of the over-arching arrangement. I understand you disagree with me but that is how I see it.
[PALTEGO]
The dynamic is undoubtedly different in a professional arrangement, but I think it would be a mistake to simply cast it as simply a play versus job scenario. I actually have had pro-dommes call me to say they were tired or rushed or just not energized for the session. No problem, we just reschedule when it’s a better time for her. Similarly I’ve also heard entertaining tales about clients being kicked or given their money back half-way through when the domme was just fed up with them. They are, after all, the boss of their own business.
I’m not saying it’s all sweetness and light. I’m sure there are ‘meh’ clients, boring sessions and times when it doesn’t quite click. But one could say the same thing about any type of play, professional or not. I see the different ways different people play as a continuum, with varying trade-offs and many shades of grey. There isn’t a single approach (suggesting pro and non-pro is equivalent) or two very strictly delineated areas (pro and non-pro). It’s a complex space, with many dimensions, and people occupy fuzzy spaces within it.
Money in this context for you seems to be a very dominant (pardon the pun) component, where for me it’s just one of many complex components that have to be considered. That doesn’t make you (or me) wrong, but I think it helps account for some of the difference in our perspectives.
I’ll also point you at a couple of relevant (IMO) posts by pro-dommes around this topic. There’s one by Lady Anna List and one by Mistress Crimson, both of which talk about their relationships with their clients and the financial aspects (among other things).
[DD]
Neither of us is likely to change our point of view on the matter so let’s move on. In your rebuttal you objected to my use of prepositions and their implications but I absolutely do things TO my fucktoy, things he longs for me to do to him. Inherent to our dynamic is a level of intimacy and mutuality built over 21 years of friendship, love, sex, and play. I absolutely agree with you that mutuality is important; I disagree that it precludes me from doing things TO him.
[PALTEGO]
My point around the prepositions was very much tied to the context in which you used them. Let me quote the full paragraph again:
In my clearly not very humble opinion, a pro domme is not really the person with the power in an exchange with her client. When I play, I do something TO my eager fucktoy. If I am being paid to perform that act though, I am now doing it FOR him.
I think there was a very clear statement there that doing it TO him = power for the domme and doing it FOR him = power for submissive/client. The point I was trying to make in my response (probably not very well) was that this is a false dichotomy. You do it both to him and for him. Some things might be satisfying on a simple physical level, others work on deeper D/s levels. The same thing can be said for a pro-domme session – it’s both TO and FOR. Mistress Rex wrote an interesting post about pushing limits in sessions, which I commented on, and I think is applicable here. It’s on the thresholds that this balancing act takes place, and this is true for all types of play.
I should add that I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said in your response here. I just felt it was important to expand and clarify my original point.
[DD]
…and just to clarify mine ~ I can’t imagine wanting to engage in kinky play if sexuality and intimacy were not a part of it. Getting back to those prepositions, in that situation I think it would feel like something I am doing something to my client for my client – not appealing to me. Please remember though, my personal lack of interest in domming for money has nothing to do with your experiences, it has everything to do with my preferences and perspective.
[PALTEGO]
I think that’s a perfectly reasonable personal point of view. Everyone has their own way to play. Even setting aside the money aspect, some people enjoy playing casually with multiple people at different times. Some enjoy playing at parties. Some only enjoy playing with someone they love in a intimate setting. There’s no need to involve professionals in order to see a wide variety of preferences when it comes to BDSM.
[DD]
Another of the statements you took umbrage to was a culinary comparison;
There are some interesting implications about the fact that if a woman likes to be in charge of men, some terribly clever man (it is invariably a man) will promptly suggest she should do so in a way that will shift the power dynamic back toward men. What the hell is that about?
Oh and it is not the same as,
“You like to cook? You should become a chef!”
which is, I know, the sort of comparisons people would like to use to defend the suggestion, but it is actually much more like this,
“Oh, you like to do native South American Indian cooking? You should go get a job at Taco Bell!”
Uhhh, because it’s really NOT the same…at all!
The detail you were meant to be focusing on there was that South American Indian cooking ISN’T Mexican food. Peruvian cuisine, for example, is very different. When I think of domination I picture the man I love and our cozy bedroom outfitted with subtle bondage tools. I know it is going to involve a lot of sex, some laughter, and I am going to wake up the next morning in his arms, the arms of a man who knows and loves me. Compared to that, for me, the idea of dominating for money has the appeal of Taco Bell.
[PALTEGO]
I may be being too precious about this, given I’m a huge fan of great food, but the Taco Bell analogy still sticks in my craw (so to speak). I accept you’re trying to illustrate multiple degrees of difference (both types of cuisine and commercial cuisine), but whether it’s intentional or not, it does equate pro-dommes with the food equivalent of cheap, unhealthy, manufactured, disgusting, lowest common denominator junk food. I think if we simply change it to “Oh, you like to do native South American Indian cooking? You should really open a little French Bistro place!” then it works fine for me.
[DD]
Reading Paltego’s post last month I felt very much as if he had misinterpreted most of what I’d said (by misunderstanding what I’d been trying to say, and by misapplying what I’d said). Initially, I wanted to post something along the lines of return fire but then better judgment kicked in and I remembered all those interpersonal communication principles, so I invited Paltego to have a conversation via email.
After much discussion I think he better understands where I’m coming from, and I know I have a greater insight to his position. I hope by sharing this conversation some of our readers will find some useful information and that more conversation will happen.
[PALTEGO]
It has certainly been a very interesting discussion. I’m sure it’s a topic that’ll continue to provoke many differing viewpoints in the future.
I’d like to finish by thanking DD, both for her positive approach to the conversation and for doing a fine job on editing down our original sprawling email thread into something readable.