|
PeonForHer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/24/2010 5:40:34 PM)
|
FR
Three points, no particular order:
The argument about clients of pro-Dommes paying not just for the latter’s' time but their investment in equipment is separate and, to my mind, resolved in favour of the pro-Dommes' position.
Beyond that:
Firstly, there are women who have a sense of entitlement that is greedy and selfish, no matter how glibly it's rationalised. There are also (would-be) Dommes who think that they're superior to men and that men should be free with their wallets in order to demonstrate their acceptance of this. But I notice that such women seldom appear on threads like this in order to defend themselves. Instead, they leave such defence to women who are anything but selfish. Why does that first sort of woman steer clear of arguments like this? I'd suggest because a) their greed and selfishness is rationally indefensible and b) because they're too selfish to care about the image of women in general, or of Dommes in general, anyway.
I agree with those who say, or imply, that a woman who comes across as greedy and selfish is going to lose her glamour very quickly in the eyes of any 'man of quality'. She just will. The fact of the (small) supply of femdoms in relation to the (large) demand by submales isn't going to make much difference to that. 'Men of quality' only go for 'women of quality', and a greedy and selfish woman doesn't make the grade.
Secondly, onto the theme of dates, to which this thread has apparently metamorphosed:
The argument that men should pay for dates (or more) with non-pro-Dommes because the latter have spent so much on equipment, or clothing, or make-up, etc, etc - is a dead end. Men could retort that such Dommes should pay because they, the men, have put the most into finding those Dommes, or because they've spent so much on their suits, their cars, their gym-classes . . . and so it goes on.
But I think that argument is irrelevant. It's interesting to recall those days of the mid-20th century - to that time so beloved of 'traditional male/female' relationships - and to imagine the scenario of an on-leave soldier saying to his female date, "You should pay, because I've just paid with my physical and mental health fighting to protect you in a war".
Quite a powerful argument on his part, I'd have thought. However, a man of those times is quite unlikely to have proffered it and were he to have done so, a woman would have been utterly shocked. Why? Because it goes against a tradition concerned with the way that men and women are supposed to relate to one another that’s far, far older.
The reason men are expected to pay for women is because it’s woven into our culture and stems from a time when men owned the wealth and women didn't. Along with that tradition came a habit of mind that seems, to me, still to have a residual effect despite all changes in gender relations and women’s increased economic power. This is that women, even today, tend to give themselves – at particular, symbolic times – a value in relation to the amount of money spent on them. This isn’t about entitlement, it’s about a certain idea of self-worth and one that should be consigned to the dustbin of history. It’s wrong and silly – but it’s a sad thing, not a bad thing.
Nick, if a woman had asked me out, yes, I’d be sure to pay for her. I’d figure that she might, just conceivably, already feel that she’d ‘lowered’ herself, in some way that nags at her mind at least a little, by doing the asking. So I’d pay for her, because I wouldn’t want her to feel that way. Women’s sense of self-worth isn’t put together in quite the same way as men’s, even nowadays.
Now here’s the thing – if there’s any truth at all in my way of seeing this particular matter – that women have this somewhat anachronous need for a man sometimes to pay for them, in order for them to feel OK about themselves – then I really do feel that it’s about time that they said so. Don’t leave it to men to ‘work it out’ because men have never had this feeling knitted into their make-up and won’t be able to relate to it, much less mind-read it.
Thirdly, women and their ‘arrogance’ and their supposed feelings of superiority that are held to stem solely from the fact that they ‘own pussies’:
Again, there are some women who act like this and write as though they actually believe it on these forums, but quite a lot more so in their profiles. But for most women, even most Dommes, I believe it’s a crock.
When I see an attractive woman, I feel her attractiveness as a power that she owns, and which she’s using over me. Or at least, I know it is as far as most women feel for most of the time. The moment they put on a couple of pounds; if they let a fart, trip over in the street, have a cold, have a period . . . the sense of power that they might, on occasion, feel, tends to go pop. And once they reach a certain age, develop wrinkles, get their first grey hairs . . . ‘I was young and hot, and now I’m old and not’ (it was so sad to read that line, from one very attractive Domme). . .
I’m rambling. The point is: I’m conscious now, in a way I never was when I was younger, that I project power onto certain women that, mostly, they don’t feel for themselves. With that consciousness I’ve come to realise that a lot of other things that I’ve seen haven’t been there, either. (Has anyone else noticed how easy it is to confuse mistake shyness for aloofness and arrogance? The physical manifestations are pretty similar.) The upside of realising that one is projecting power onto women is that one can have a lot more fun with it if one happens to be a submale. But, but . . . such fundamental errors I now know I once made in ‘reading women’.
Yes, I’m suggesting that this kind of projection of power and arrogance onto women might be going on with at least some submales - even those who describe themselves as ‘bottoms’. But I’m also suggesting that the women for whom such massive power and superiority is an objective thing about them (and which gives them uber-entitlements) rather than something men project onto them - be left to defend themselves. The real Dommes here, who are real women at the same time, owe them only what men owe them – which is to say, sod all.
|
|
|
|
