|
HeavansKeeper -> RE: A Lack of Pro-Male-Dominants? (3/20/2009 10:56:14 PM)
|
As a general reply, there's no question that men are available to women. The defense here, as it was brought up in passing, is not that men aren't available, but that GOOD men aren't. The argument can be made for pro-dommes. There are billions of women willing to take my money and be bitchy to me. I'm not looking for that as a client, I'm looking for the skills and wiles of a well trained and experienced domina. Bratty spoiled pretty girls are just as common as men willing to dominate a woman.
Another issue was safety. Men should be aware that when tied up, they're vulnerable to rape and robbery. I understand that doesn't excuse the male/female power indifference, but again - I'm talking about quality and professional service. To suggest a pro-dom is likely to rape a client is just like suggesting a pro-domme will pilfer through your home, stealing as she sees fit. The fact is "fear of" and "reality of" are different measurements, and it takes no imagination to guess which one people follow. This issue is moot when considering online or telephone interaction.
Another issue was the intimate connection. I completely underestimated this because it's not how I think. But what is it? Can it be faked? Is the intimate connection knowing he'll be there for you when you're sick? Is it built when you watch him be foolish or piggish or childish? Is it purely a matter of luck and chemistry? What factors contribute to the very praised intimate connection?
Another issue was money. Quite frankly, in the United States, there's debate among who's making more money in the 20,000-70,000 a year bracket, which is where most fall. The super-rich are dominated by men, but they make up a sinfully small percent of total population. The notion that men make more money than women is popular and antiquated. I've never seen an example of equal work but unequal pay. It's a stigma that takes time to move on from, but we're moving in the right direction.
Another issue concerned itself with the expectations. If a woman were to pay a man to dominate her, would she want to bend to his whim or does she want to have a greta amount on influence in what happens? I don't think it matters. A professional can do either. I understand many pro-dommes do not take requests (and orders only piss them off [:)]) but that doesn't exclude the value of "the customer is always right". It starts to muddy up who's in charge, but this is business. The D/s is one thing, the money is another. End of the day, one leaves with at least a fistful of cash and the other leaves with a smile. If both are satisfied with the terms, it doesn't matter if the bottom top the top what they expect to happen. I consider this aspect moot.
Another issue was "the norms of what women expect to pay for." There was a time when women found the idea of paying for the theatre just as appalling (or appealing) as paying for a pro-dom. These expectations change over time. What was true of the past (and present) will be true of the future is a logical fallacy. That said, we live in the present. It's my favorite chauvinist gambit, using examples like this to inspire women to hop on the feminism train.
I'm not surprised to the direction of this thread. It doesn't take a brain surgeon by day /rocket scientist by night to figure out women are not going to dish out cash for pro-doms. One day, I think it will be different. The idea of purchased male companionship will be a viable market in the coming decades.
|
|
|
|
