|
MsValentine -> RE: Proper conduct (7/4/2008 9:37:36 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tantriqu
quote:
ORIGINAL: MsValentine
A pro-domme advertises her time, and expertise and does not ( as far as I am aware) advertise herself as willing to be fucked orally, anally or vaginally.
Answer: nothing to do with her being the sexually receptive partner, just sexual act for money/services = prostitution. 'pro' stands for prostitute/professional/paid for sex act. Client = fee-for-service, so of course lawyers and hairdressers have them, too.
Pro-dommes do regularly and always have used strap-ons on their male subs, to fuck them and/or humiliate them... Is this also evidence of prostitution?
A: yesssss, see above <quack>.
Your view is a commonly held misogynistic take on marriages between persons of different income levels.
LOL! [sm=rofl.gif]nothing 'misogynistic' about it: remember, the men are the johns!
your view of being paid for sex as 'sexually empowering' is 'Pretty Woman'ishly naive and misogynistic, as well as would surprise a lot of prostitutes; remember, the vast majority do NOT want to do what they are doing. As for pro-dommes, let's take a quick poll as to whether any of them ever did something to/with a client they REALLY didn't want to, but did it for the money or felt coerced or were even assaulted, especially when they were starting out or before they became pro-dommes.
And soon pc'ness will prostitute the term 'sex trade worker'; what will be next? 'Comfort worker'? No, too rape-of-Nanking. 'Orgasm consultant'? Welllll, that would offend the non-orgasmic, but it has neat initials, so we'll make it an acronym.
What does your son do? He's an OC.
Quack!
Very well, we shall have to agree to differ on what constitutes prostitution. However, I still find it hard to believe that a lady who gets an extra of something sexually satisfying for herself while running a pro-domme session makes her a prostitute is ludicrous. Did she blatantly offer that as part of the session.NO. She offered it up like a discretionary cup of tea and biscuits. If the sub could not demand that service of her, she was not doing it for money. It was a free biscuit for being a good boy!
Now, on your ideas about prostitutes all being sad, coerced, unwilling victims...you are wrong. I know a great deal about the sex industry in the UK at least I can tell you for sure that many, if not most prostitutes are women in their own premises doing something they are willing to do for money. If anyone is doing anything against their will for employment, be it of a sexual or non sexual nature, then that is wrong and should be addressed as an issue about poverty, lack of education, and all the issues which go to create conditions in which people feel trapped in work they hate yet cannot leave or better themselves if they do leave.
I also happen to know a great deal about professional domination so I won't be persuaded by your rather 'horror story' attitude to them either. Pro-dommes certainly in the UK do not get forced into things for money, hurt or in any way in the course of their work. Again, they tend to be women doing what they enjoy most in their own places or well run dungeons.
I am just laughing my socks off at the idea that fucking a man with a strap on in a pro-domme session makes a pro-domme a prostitute, so they are ALL prostitutes and are we actually getting to your hidden agenda here?
Actually "Sex Worker" is a perfectly legitimate term for those working in the sex industry. Pro-dommes may well be included in that term as they deal with clients whose motivation may well be sexual in nature even if not physically realised within a session. Sex worker is already a well used and accepted term so you are a bit late if you wish to wage a campaign against it.
Of course, the word prostitute has such a nasty ring to it, don't you think. It can be used an insult, don't you think. Now, sex worker, that is well, that is neutral, quite gender neutral too. However, you call that PC rubbish. I call it being fair and decent and using words which do not automatically summon up negativity when there is no need to be negative. Or do you think being a prostitute is a bad thing?
Just because your attitude to the rich old men in marriages to young dependent women may be to call them 'johns', does not alter the fact your attitude towards those women is misogynistic. There is really nothing wrong in being a 'john' is there in that situation. Loads of money and nothing but a pretty companion to spend it on. however, calling her a prostitute as you have suggests you see the relationship as nothing but a financial transaction. It could never be just that to work and survive and from your attitude you imply she is getting more than she deserves. Of course, she is nothing but a prostitute.
|
|
|
|
