Making judgements?

[Lady Anna]

Originally Posted by JustJames

I should add that I don't look down on sex workers at all, but there is obviously a strong social stigma attached, that plenty of BDSM practitioners don't wish to be associated with (see above).

It could be that in some or most cases but it could also be because they are fed up of guys asking for sex. Guys who ignore the information, ignore the advice, look at the photos and go straight to the telephone number.

Of course eventually the penny drops that these cretins also ignore the NO SEX! notices so we eventually don't bother, remove the no sex stuff, and just hang up on them when they phone.

[mikeyports]

What do escorts and pro doms have in commen?

They are both human beings real people who are doing what they want and enjoy doing.

[rubberbondagenut]

Originally Posted by Lady Samantha

1) Do Mistresses make judgements about other 'establishments'?


The feel of the OP (opening post) to me, is that some Mistresses look down on other service providers that may offer more sexual services, or who aren't as 'hard core' as them, or who aren't truly Dominant, or indeed who may not invest the time getting to know the sub before hand (and a variety of other reasons). Do they? Yes, some do, some don't. If you consider the below:

'other establishments'<--------------------------------->Twue Dominants

Most professional Dominants fall somewhere in the middle.....

Lady S

It was not only looking down their noses at other service providers that offer more sexual type services, there was a comment about the place "looking like they don't use condoms on their toys" i.e. suggesting that bad hygiene and dangerous play was par for the course at this establishment.

This then feeds into the notion that other choices subs make on the places they pick to session could be a bad/wrong one. Not exactly good for new members that may be put off posting by this attitude.

I do not want to visit the L.Retreat but I would not berate anyone else from doing so and it took a sub that had been there to set the record straight that condoms were used on toys.

I find the deliberate berating and slagging off of other Mistresses and establishments by some individuals (Mistresses who have never visited and thus do not know first hand) highly unprofessional and unsavoury.



Rbn

[JustJames]

Originally Posted by Ana

I've had both fists (even a foot on a number of occasions) inside their rectums. Is that not intimate sexual contact? Or is it only 'contact' if it's an ungloved hand beating away on a cock or labia/anus on a mouth?

Anally penetrating someone with your fist is about power rather than any more direct manipulation of their libido. I'm talking about adding flavour to the stew and I'm sure you can see the distinction.

[JustJames]

`

Originally Posted by MistressRouge

I do perversion for money, so I link it as the same. Whether I am being shagged or not, doesn't really bother Me in comparison. I still regard My sessions as sexual, even though conventional penetration does not happen to Me, I do the penetrating.

I'm kind of explaining things badly again and it's beginning to sound like I was born in a barn. I understand why women aren't rushing to have sex with every man who walks through the door (or any of them really). It's obviously a terrible way to socialise, the entire experience revolves around constructing a fantasy persona that blocks the real person, professional separation, already having partners, not actually finding the person you're with attractive and all the rest of it.

I'm not expecting penetrative or oral sex to be a likely event, because that's not how people actually work. What I just want is someone who understands how important positive human touch can be and is willing to give me that. I don't think most women would have a major problem with that in the context of the overall experience, if this desire to not feel like a sex worker didn't get in the way.

I believe that your sessions probably are more overtly sexual than some (based on what you've posted in other threads) and I think you probably understand how important engaging your subject's libido can potentially be, as part of the whole event. This is what I'm talking about with sexually literate S&M play and you don't have to have actual penetrative sex to give a good experience. Just need to have a good understanding of how men work and have the will to manipulate their desire in a more overt and human way.

So if I was to be compared to a prostitute, so be it. I don't see it as a negative.

That's an admirable position to take, but I'm sure you realise just how uncommon it is. It's really quite hard to be lower on the social rung than a prostitute and they're almost universally despised. A really noxious mix of puritanism, jealousy, pity and scorn. It's obvious why professional mistresses dislike the association, but it seems like yelling into a hurricane to try and separate the two in any case.

Edit: Right. Anyone feel like an experiment? Post on Mumsnet, explaining what you do and making it clear that sex isn't involved. I'd love to see the replies.

[Lady Anna]

Originally Posted by JustJames

`

I'm kind of explaining things badly again and it's beginning to sound like I was born in a barn. I understand why women aren't rushing to have sex with every man who walks through the door (or any of them really). It's obviously a terrible way to socialise, the entire experience revolves around constructing a fantasy persona that blocks the real person, professional separation, already having partners, not actually finding the person you're with attractive and all the rest of it.

I'm not expecting penetrative or oral sex to be a likely event, because that's not how people actually work. What I just want is someone who understands how important positive human touch can be and is willing to give me that. I don't think most women would have a major problem with that in the context of the overall experience, if this desire to not feel like a sex worker didn't get in the way.

I believe that your sessions probably are more overtly sexual than some (based on what you've posted in other threads) and I think you probably understand how important engaging your subject's libido can potentially be, as part of the whole event. This is what I'm talking about with sexually literate S&M play and you don't have to have actual penetrative sex to give a good experience. Just need to have a good understanding of how men work and have the will to manipulate their desire in a more overt and human way.



That's an admirable position to take, but I'm sure you realise just how uncommon it is. It's really quite hard to be lower on the social rung than a prostitute and they're almost universally despised. A really noxious mix of puritanism, jealousy, pity and scorn. It's obvious why professional mistresses dislike the association, but it seems like yelling into a hurricane to try and separate the two in any case.

Edit: Right. Anyone feel like an experiment? Post on Mumsnet, explaining what you do and making it clear that sex isn't involved. I'd love to see the replies.

After reading this I'm beginning to wonder if you know anything about what we do at all.

It's quite clear from replies on this forum, and on our websites, that all Mistresses know the difference between 'sexual' and 'sexually available'. We're all sexual. We all know the power of touch, or tease, or temptation.

Why on earth are you trying to tell us what we do? Talk about teaching granny to suck eggs!

[JustJames]

Originally Posted by Lady Anna

It could be that in some or most cases but it could also be because they are fed up of guys asking for sex. Guys who ignore the information, ignore the advice, look at the photos and go straight to the telephone number.

Of course eventually the penny drops that these cretins also ignore the NO SEX! notices so we eventually don't bother, remove the no sex stuff, and just hang up on them when they phone.

This again reinforces the point that a none-trivial part of the population just can't tell the difference between this and prostitution anyway (regardless of what you say).

I kind of suspect this may also be more about social class than anything else. Both me and the 'ow much luv?' people may be looking for someone to fulfil our rather uncommon psychosexual desires, but I'm the only one of us who ends up succeeding. I can phrase the question tactfully enough to negotiate what I want, without being angrily rejected.

We're both driven primarily by sexual urges, but he's giving a more direct advance than I am, because that's the way he expresses his sexuality and the starting point is a desire for penetrative sex of some form. For S&M newbies this is probably going to be understandably common. It may also be the case that he's simply learnt that he has a better chance of successfully obtaining intimacy by being bold with potential partners.

Perhaps I'm being slightly naïve, but I suspect they haven't totally ignored what you you actually do and may be just as interested in your services as the people who pass through vetting. I'm sure trying to explain would be rather draining, but I'd be interested seeing the response to some of these phone calls, where you give a more gentle push in the right direction and don't instantly make them feel rejected.

[JustJames]

Originally Posted by Lady Anna

We all know the power of touch, or tease, or temptation.

Not convinced and my experience is that there is a none-trivial degree of sexual incompetence about. Every website uses phrases like 'sensual domination' and the like, but the actual event can be quite different.

[Lady Anna]

Originally Posted by JustJames

Perhaps I'm being slightly naïve, but I suspect they haven't totally ignored what you you actually do and may be just as interested in your services as the people who pass through vetting. I'm sure trying to explain would be rather draining, but I'd be interested seeing the response to some of these phone calls, where you give a more gentle push in the right direction and don't instantly make them feel rejected.

Perhaps I'm naive but I thought no meant no.

None of us should ever feel obliged to explain the meaning of the word no.

[JustJames]

There is a difference between.

-no *slams phone down*
-no *explains services and tries to establish their interest in what you're actually providing*

I don't actually expect anyone to have the patience to ever attempt the second and this is just a hypothetical really.