RE: A Lack of Pro-Male-Dominants?

RE: A Lack of Pro-Male-Dominants? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

subboi3382 -> RE: A Lack of Pro-Male-Dominants? (3/21/2009 3:00:52 AM)
it doesn't really matter but fyi, a masseuse is a female massager quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper quote: ORIGINAL: LovingMistress45 I don't think a woman would pay to be topped. I understand the hesitation. Fiscal, moral, traditional... But I see it like a woman paying for a massage.. with spikes. Not every guy with a roller is a masseuse. Not every guy with a crop is a dominant. What forces stop women from wanting a pro-dom while simultaneously allowing them to melt at the idea of a pro-masseuse?

transfixed -> RE: A Lack of Pro-Male-Dominants? (3/21/2009 3:28:47 AM)
the idea of paying someone to 'dom' me as a submissive is obsurd. however if i could pay a non bi/gay man who was skilled in his art, was age appropriate, and met physical desired physical who was able to TOP me on a weekly basis, and I COULD AFFORD to do this , i would most likely not use sites such as cm, 'engaged' in the community and trawl night clubs on weekends lol. i have made invesigation in my little city and there are only one or 2 males who do work dom professionally. they are very visual in the gay scene. many of the male escorts i know are also gay and use a variety of tools to get the job done. while cm contacts come in its always in the quality, not the quanitity that is meaningful. get sick of dealing with married / partnered vanilla and bdsm men and those that live a million miles away, and those so called 'expereinced' masters. get sick of the internet and verbal masterbation. now expert in dom dating and dom interviews. i use to have a cm profile that was clear about such boundaries but reading appears to be a problem so have just given up.

LadyPact -> RE: A Lack of Pro-Male-Dominants? (3/21/2009 3:40:47 AM)
I'm sticking with the easiest answer, which falls into the supply and demand category. Along with the good points other folks have raised, there's another that I want to mention. The difference in the demand based on how many people of either gender are willing to play casually. There are not nearly the number of female Tops who are willing to do so as the number of males. This is what actually creates the demand for female pros while there not being as much of a necessity for males in the same field. It may sound like a stereotype, but males of either role are much more willing to engage in play without strings attached.

HeavansKeeper -> RE: A Lack of Pro-Male-Dominants? (3/21/2009 7:12:29 AM)
I'm a staunch feminist. I believe the only differences in men and women should occur when respective genitals play a factor. This thread of gender differences leaves me unsatisfied. I know there are gender differences that continue and may continue forever, but I wish there weren't. I dislike the idea of coming to grips with them - it makes me feel sexist. I don't like exemplifying differences bred in victorian (and much earlier) society as if they are truths of the gender. That said, those mindsets are still very strong and can't be ignored when considering business ventures. Also, subboi, I stand corrected. Apparently the male form of masseuse is masseur. I didn't know that. [:)]

DesFIP -> RE: A Lack of Pro-Male-Dominants? (3/21/2009 7:42:12 AM)
The reality of it is that women prefer to have attachments and intimacy. Neither of which can be gotten by handing someone a couple of hundred dollars for an hour's work. Is this caused by our genitals? No. By our hormones? Probably. There are clear connections between the hormones that allow us to become aroused and our being intimate and bonding. Our here meaning female. Beyond that are 10,000 years of clear biological imperatives. When women put themselves in a situation which may lead to sex, we are risking the next 20 years of our lives. Therefore we become aroused when the situation is such that we believe we will have a partner in raising the result of that sexual encounter for the next twenty years. And people rarely want nonsexual pain. So this is sexual even if we don't have intercourse. But we aren't as likely to be interested in you sexually if you don't appear to be a good life partner. And a pro male top is by definition someone who isn't available as a life partner since he will be going from one sexually charged encounter to another, every hour for work. Where you got the idea that the only difference between men and women exists in their dangly bits is as ludicrous as your assumption in another thread that people sit down during puberty and decide they will be gay, or bi, or straight for the rest of their lives. Maybe you ought to work on your assumptions. There are plenty of differences between the genders, just none that effects office work.

MarcEsadrian -> RE: A Lack of Pro-Male-Dominants? (3/21/2009 8:27:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper Is the market for pro-doms too small to warrant attention? Does it go back to that same "Men buy it because they can't get it, but women can get it any time" argument? That law seems both inherent and amplified by culture. Often the principle of least interest favors the female—in the beginning, at least. I believe this is due to our natural mating proclivities, which are so often inextricably linked to sensualism (Darwin's ardent male vs. coy female hypothesis). Obviously, there are exceptions, but the way the sexes relate to each other mantles such exchanges. Among non-heterosexual members of the same sex, any party may be object and objectifier, so it makes sense the "market" for a male being sought after with gifts and attention is stronger there. The question you raise in this thread puts a finger upon how vital sexuality often is in D/s, whether or not it's overtly acknowledged. It's a good question, and can lead to a lot of fascinating discussion.

HeavansKeeper -> RE: A Lack of Pro-Male-Dominants? (3/21/2009 11:55:04 AM)
DesFIP, I've made peace with the fact that the world isn't what I want it to be. I don't know how I feel about the female condition, as you state it. Humans, as a race, need to procreate and maintain society. The society we live in deals with the fact that people make babies awkwardly. Perhaps its the western emphasis on equality of unequal things which produces this discrepancy (encompassing the need for political correctness). I admit, I've always struggled with the human connection. I'm vastly intrigued by emotional connection, as I scarcely understand the irrational connections which certain people make. I find love easy to master, but difficult to understand. Most of the acts make sense, but I fail to see how someone becomes more than the sum of those acts. Re-reading my previous post, "I believe the only differences in men and women should occur when respective genitals play a factor" should be changed to "I believe the only difference in the treatment of men and women should occur when their biology produces fundamental differences in behavior." In my mind "respective genitals" was figurative for the being of a man or a woman, inclusive of other biological differences. I see why that doesn't carry, and should have been more specific. Additionally I'd like to clarify that I do not, and have never, suggested sincerely that sexual orientation is a conscious choice. I may have made the point sarcastically to emphasize the absurdity of the claim, but it is not my stance. For the record, I believe nature and nurture play rolls spamming from 0-100% of the inspiration, different for each person. By and large, I feel sexual orientation is a natural occurrence, in which only minimal changes can be made by nurture.

LovingMistress45 -> RE: A Lack of Pro-Male-Dominants? (3/21/2009 12:54:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper I'm a staunch feminist. I believe the only differences in men and women should occur when respective genitals play a factor. This thread of gender differences leaves me unsatisfied. I know there are gender differences that continue and may continue forever, but I wish there weren't. I don't think the only difference between men and women will ever only occur when genital play a factor. Nor do I really think that is what being a feminist is about. To me it is not deciding something about person solely based on gender. It doesn't mean there are not differences between genders. There is and there always will be, some are biological and some are societial.

IronBear -> RE: A Lack of Pro-Male-Dominants? (3/21/2009 4:05:02 PM)
I know one Pro Dom and according to him the market here for a Male Professional is very small. Most of his clients are gay but he does have several female clients...

nhite -> RE: A Lack of Pro-Male-Dominants? (3/21/2009 4:33:39 PM)
ts easy to say theres no market for something when its not offered/marketed. there ABSOLUTELY are women who would want and would pay for the service if as was touched on, such a dom focused on what SHE wanted and if he had exceptional people skills.

allthatjaz -> RE: A Lack of Pro-Male-Dominants? (3/21/2009 5:07:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: transfixed the idea of paying someone to 'dom' me as a submissive is obsurd. What you have to remember is, not all women have discovered sites such as this. many still don't know it exhists The women that do tend to go to pro Doms are the spankee types. They are not really into any scene but may have the odd fantasy of being spanked over a good looking guys knee. People keep talking about safety issues but lets remember that women often use male escorts who they don't know from Adam! Steve and myself have both pro Mistress/Mastered together and although we got a lot more men, we also got the occasional woman and quite often got submissive couples. Steve has also worked as a male escort that offered spankings and he got regular work from city women with busy lives who thought it would be exciting to experience a spanking.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.929688E-02