|
LadyNTrainer -> RE: Did anyone else notice .. (7/31/2011 10:24:46 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Where do you feel it from, LnT? Do you feel it in your personal, real life interactions?
Munch, not so often. Online, all the dreary fuckin' time. It's a lot less common in face to face interactions, but it does happen. I have some pretty funny stories from many years of going to BDSM events, though mostly they were just annoying at the time.
quote:
When was the last munch that you attended that somebody bent over to you and paraded his asshole?
Couple of months ago at a local femdom party. *chuckle* That wouldn't have gone over real well at Cracker Barrel. He managed to not be obnoxious about it, and it was a play party where nudity was perfectly acceptable, so no harm no foul. That's not actually the kind of thing that makes me feel that someone is pressing a weight of expectation, demands, entitlement or judgment on me or trying to fit me into a Procrustean mold of what he thinks a femdom should be. Someone asking for sex or play in an appropriate environment is really not a problem for me, unless it's done in a way that dehumanizes or objectifies me, or violates a boundary that has been clearly communicated either by me or by the party organizers. If I consent to come to a play party, then I consent to see nudity, so showing it to me doesn't feel like a boundary violation. Now if someone violates my personal space with his private parts as opposed to showing them from a reasonable distance, I'd have a problem. Otherwise, not.
For me, it's boundary violation and being socially ignored while sexually pursued that is an issue, not male sexuality or male nudity per se. When guys send me dick photos on a "friends only, no explicit solicitations please" social profile, that does feel like a boundary violation. They are ignoring my wishes and my personal boundaries, essentially saying that they do not care about me as a person or about what I say I want, but they want to use me for their sexual gratification. That's definitely one of the things that can push my buttons. I do think one of the underlying causes of this behavior is the stereotypical porn culture of woman as packaged object for the entitled male gaze.
At a public restaurant Munch where no one sane is going to take their clothes off, the people who *have* pushed those buttons for me have done so by making remarks about how dominant women are "supposed" to act or dress (including the lesbians, for fuck's sake) that are clearly all about entitled male gaze. They didn't get that dominant women in the scene, especially the lesbians, are not there to entertain men or be sexy for them. And THAT pushed those buttons for me a hell of a lot more than the guy who just wanted to bend over for us at a play party.
quote:
Yes, that pro shingle changes your perspective. Perhaps, had you not, you might see things differently.
I'm not so sure it's a hard and fast line. If I had to graph the amount of time I've spent on professional interactions as opposed to personal and social interactions that are BDSM related, it would seriously be something like 5% vs 95%. Making myself available as a professional has certainly exposed me to men who are very much fetish bottoms seeking service tops for very narrowly defined interactions, but I've never had an issue with anything about service topping except the requirements that I dress and appear a certain way. That's the only part I dislike and resent, and it's what caused me to stop doing pro sessions for many years before deciding to enter the field again in a very limited and narrow-focus capacity (fitness training only, no generic pro sessions). Waving the pro banner works for me. Marketing myself as one, in the usual sense, less so.
The straightforward client-pro service topping relationship does work well for me. It is fair and honest, you pay X and you get X. Both people get to set their boundaries and communicate them clearly up front. One of my personal boundaries is that I don't play dress-up and I don't ever want to feel like an object for male gaze. As the dominant, I am the looker, not the lookee. That doesn't work well for marketing if you do generic pro sessions, which is why I don't.
I am absolutely not disrespecting women who do enjoy displaying themselves sexually, I am just setting my own personal boundaries and defining what is and isn't my kink. Being looked at and feeling sexually objectified is not my kink. Looking at the male body and sexually objectifying it is my kink. I don't think anyone should feel required or expected to do kinks that just aren't theirs, whichever way around you happen to be wired. I have no problem with women whose kink it is enjoying their kink their way. I do have a major problem with the arrogant, entitled expectation that all women have to do it this way.
If I had never done a pro session in my life, I seriously doubt my annoyance level over entitled male gaze would be any different. The really cool thing is that since I nixed my friends-only social profile here and returned only with a professional profile, I get *less* of the stuff that annoys me in my mailbox. I care less about actually getting clients (my vanilla work keeps me pretty busy) than about how well the filter of a professional profile works for me. As a no-nonsense pro, I can say, "If you want these things, you must give me a fair exchange for them, this is what they cost. No pay, no put up with." And oddly enough, that filter works a lot better than trying to explain that yes, I am looking to enjoy those things with a personal partner, I just don't want YOU as a personal partner. If they do pay, then we have a fair and honest exchange of my time and energy for their money. If they do not want to pay, they go away and I get neither their money nor their annoyance. This is also totally cool with me, because reducing the annoyance and setting my boundaries of fair exchange was partly the point of going pro in the first place. It has other upsides, but that's definitely a big one for me.
|
|
|
|
