OMG! An actual post on my blog! Or: I aten't dead, but I have been (sic.)

This is all in response to a post at one of my favorites blogs - NSWATM. Specifically this thought provoking gem by Ozymandias Attraction is Complicated, News at 11.

Well, in defense of evo-psychologists right here on the Evo-psyche wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

"Within-sex variations in voice pitch." are considered "Random noise."

Also, to me, human attraction being based solely on DNA coded concepts of fertility doesn't sound more based on evolution than considering a deep voice the way to 'win' at being male (which could also be based on DNA coding.)   Biological creatures aren't perfect, and if the woman's genetics are driving her to chase the 'better' male it isn't proof that society made her like deep voices just because she doesn't have anything within her that instinctively knows deep voices don't equal more sperm.  Evo-psyche takes this directly into account with ideas like  "Causal mechanism of failure or malfunction of adaptations."  Like, our genetic preference for a sweet taste, which would steer us towards relatively rare high-energy natural sugars in our ancestral environment, causing us to glut to self-debilitating levels in our current society's overabundance of sugar.

That's as far as I can get into my defense of evo-psyche, tho'. I can't sign on to it, because of lines like this (ALSO from the Evo-psyche wiki page) DIT is a "middle-ground" between much of social science, which views culture as the primary cause of human behavioral variation, and human sociobiology and evolutionary psychology which view culture as an insignificant by-product of genetic selection. 

Genetics are affected, even outright determined, by external sources, which would include culture.   If somehow you wind up in a culture that euthanizes everyone born with red hair, the genetic line for red hair could disappear from the human race.  The cultural influence is no less real than the physical influences that cause animals in cold environments to develop bodies with a focus on heat insulation.   It's a total loop:  Women start desiring deeper voices, men get deeper voices, society begins showing men with deeper voices as desirable, women starting desiring deep voices, men get deeper voices, society begins showing men with deeper voices as desirable, and so on.  I chose. “Women start desiring deeper voices,” as the starting point, but it could have started anywhere in the circle. 

Perfect example of cultural genetics: dogs.  :) Dogs have genetic behavioral differences from wolves (their ancestral species); society doesn't cause those behaviors because you can't socialize wolves to have them.  BUT a society where those behaviors were desirable (the human-canine social symbiosis) is what bred those genetics into being.   

Physical environment determines evolution determines physical form determines psychology determines sociology determines physical environment…  And you can pretty much rearrange those terms in any order you want because any one of those things can directly affect the other without any of the other steps as an intermediary. I may occasionally emphasize one of those over the other, because of my specific interest of the moment, but I’d never put it to paper (or text) that one of those thing is the one true human determiner.   It’d be like saying red is more important than yellow when you’re making orange, or that the ingredients are more important than the oven when you’re making a cake.

Squee!

As a gift for herself, my wife chose to make as sizable donation as we could afford to the Kingdom of Loathing Comic Book for Great Justice!  We got to be sexy supporters of the comic book, which included a full page, colored sketch.  Well, she decided to choose the parameters of the sketch and let me be surprised. Well, said sketch just arrived in the mail.  Boy, was I surprised!

I brought the support; she brought the sexy.

It looks surprisingly like us! Weeeell... The younger versions of ourselves.  Three kids has made Quisalas a  more substantial woman, and me- I got a goatee and a substantial amount of belly, myself.  So, these are more the 'teen' Q&J.  The artist never even saw us tho', so you can color me impressed.  Maybe all us nerds and sexy blonde dominatrices look alike.  (Plus, my sneaky wife changed her eye-color.  She always wanted green eyes.)  I love how my shirt's rolled a 20. <3  I feel like a rolled a natural 20 on my roll for Partner-Check every time I see Quis.  This picture gives me the warm fuzzies all over.

Oh, hey, the comic was pretty good too. :D  Very pretty, and pretty funny.  Although you'll get the jokes better if you actually play the game.  You do play Kingdom of Loathing, don't you?

Can You Believe This Was Going to be One Comment?

I recently made this statement on No Seriously What About Teh Menz:

I’m in a bit of mental quandary, and I think this blog is a good place to seek opinions, although this doesn’t have to be about ‘teh menz’ per se.

Various levels of gratuitous sexual displays in various media are an issue for a lot of people. It’s fair for those people look at the entertainment medium in question, and make a statement to the effect of, ‘This level of sexual display is distracting and inappropriate to the tone or form of this entertainment. It is subtracting from my enjoyment of, and/or outright drives me away from said entertainment.’

I have heard it lamented, that they’d like people to get over the sexual displays so they can be attracted (romantically) to a character for their talent. What confuses a little, and conflicts me a lot about that suggestion, is why should one insert one’s libido into a situation that amounts to someone minding their own business?

I’m not trying to be naive here. I think it was Daisy D. who suggested on a thread that I might get all hot and bothered about Ginger Rogers hoisting Fred up, or kicking out her moves with an air of hauteur. Oh yeah; guilty as charged. Ms. Rogers is only minding her business (and minding it well) when my id suddenly sits upright and turns into one heck of a backseat driver. I would argue, however, that the brass instrumentals, saucy tempo, swishy skirts, her charismatic partner, and the choreography all imply that I’m supposed to appreciate Ms. Roger’s talents on a level that might warrant more than an adjusted monocle and a gentle golf-clap. I admit, however, that it’s all subjective.

But when I have conversations that go:

Them: “Stop manipulating me into liking this character. Let me judge them on their merits as a character,”

Me: “You’d rather there was no sexual context to this piece?”

Them: “No. I’m pro-sex. But let me find the sexy in how smart, funny, or powerful they are. Stop using manipulative tactics like pov shots, skimpy outfits, exceptional physical builds, heavy-handed banter, or unatural poses.”

I kind of want to reply, “You’re why people write Transformers slash-fiction.” (Love to the slashies! Let your Perceptor/Thundercracker freak flag fly.)

In real life, interaction is what gives people permission to view each other in a sexual light. But art generally doesn’t interact, or only does so in specifically scripted ways. So the subject matter provides context. I get people when they say, ‘this is too much.’ I don’t want anyone feeling defensive about their personal levels of promiscuity/prudishness, but there comes a point for me where the sexual austerity of the medium can stop feeling ‘enlightened’ and be just as creepy for me as the sexual excess of another medium can.

Tl;dr – It’s hard not to feel like you’re taking the moral low road when you’re ‘mansplaining’ your artwork to someone.

I got several responses, and they were good.  One of the commenters was nice enough to link me to this article-

The Big Sexy Problem with Superheroines and Their 'Liberated Sexuality'

I’d read the article before and it’s good.  I think people should read it.  I recommend it.  I believe I largely agree with the theme of it.  And now, I’m going to pick at it because I’m like that. 

For me, the author of that article is guilty of a little dishonesty in the way she makes her case.

This is not about these women wanting things; it's about men wanting to see them do things, and that takes something that really should be empowering -- the idea that women can own their sexuality -- and transforms it into yet another male fantasy. It takes away the actual power of the women and turns their "sexual liberation" into just another way for dudes to get off. And that is at least ten times as gross as regular cheesecake, minimum 

Except, that's all that cheesecake is.  All cheesecake of any kind.  Present me an erotic image and I'll tell you how the artist took someone else's power and came at it from an angle that the viewer is supposed to get their groove on with. 

Example: People are born with eyes to see and mouths to ingest breathe, and communicated, but if I draw someone smiling at the viewer then suddenly it’s all about you.

Have a nice day!  You selfish ass.

Actually, that's what every narrative is.  When you watch Old Yeller getting shot, it doesn't matter whether you cry, laugh, or spank one out; you were using the image of someone else's life to pleasure yourself.  Of course, the artist is supposed to place context within the medium to guide the viewer towards the appropriate reaction, and this author's put all of this in a shaky context for me with that paragraph.  

Yet, even though I assert there'd be nothing bad happening if we were using women’s power as another way for ‘dudes to get off’, I have to admit that the author did say:

It takes away the actual power of the women and turns their "sexual liberation" into just another way for dudes to get off

That would mean Starfire  is rather powerless  as a character aside from her use in this storyline as a vehicle for male pleasure.  And I agree.  The author does say in the article what some of the problems are: a larger market saturation, lack of variety, a lack of revolving viewpoint that gives Starfire a turn as narrator, a lack of respect in the dialogue that discusses the character, and twenty or thirty other things I can't even think of right now.

I would not blame a Starfire fan for picking up this title, curling their lip, and returning it to the shelf, and that’s just based on the dialogue alone.   I know I would.  I also couldn’t blame anyone, especially a woman, for picking up this title, rolling their eyes and, again, returning it to the shelf after taking one look at its contents even if they’d never heard of Starfire.   

Too bad that’s not what happened:

Comic Sales in October

Red Hood and the Outlaws is coming in at #35, having picked up another 3 grand in readers since issue #1.  These numbers are not negligible – The title’s beating out Birds of Prey, every Ultimate Marvel line (if only barely squeaking ahead of Ultimate Spider Man), and running neck and neck with long-time established character Green Arrow.  Catwoman? Did even better, beating out Supergirl and breathing hot on the heels of Amazing Spider-Man,  Marvel’s flagship character.  (Who has been justifiably hemorrhaging readers for a while now.) On the bright side, Wonder Woman is still queen bee at #13, Batgirl’s right behind at #14, and relative newb Batwoman is owning at #15. 

So, one can’t exactly discount the fact that a lot of dudes like getting off and will pay good money to do so.  That or they love Red Hood so much they’ll overlook any level of sexism to see him fighting crime, maybe.  You know what, it’s probably the getting off.  Maybe we could find a way for dudes to get off on women who remain actualized women the whole time said dudes are doing their off getting. That brings me to the other criticism I had for this article.

I think the author slips up with her presentations of 'good sex!' vs 'bad sex!'   The Batman/Catwoman sex scene is crap to me, but I get what the creator was going for: a sex scene.   A scene with sex.   The author gives this one a thumbs down (so do I), but then she presents Empowered.  Empowered  is a parody of comic sexual tropes that she doesn't consider a parody because it is a sexual comic.  Well, that’s not a disqualifier. The Simpsons and Family Guy are sitcoms that parody sitcoms.  Futurama is a science fiction show that parodies science fiction. And last I checked Empowered, casts prurient male desires as the culprit of every joke (even if long suffering Emp is the butt of most jokes) and has no actual sex scenes.  

She also recommends a female POV scene between Black Cat and Spiderman that has Black Cat getting dressed and leaving Spidey in his skivvies, also largely played for laughs and Spidey-shame.  So, for her a good sex scene is a self-aware parody or joke that contains no actual sex scene.  Those are not alternative a bad sex scene, but a condemnation of sex scenes.   

If I may beat my Old Yeller metaphor to death; I don't think the best boy-to-man coming of age story would be something called "Cummin' of Age!" where Audience N. Sert turns to the camera after he shoots Old Metaphor and says "It's sad Maw, but when your beast starts spittin' foam you gotta grab yer rifle and fire one out to get it to lay down.  And that's what makes you a man."  

Funny, but meta-humor, lampshade hanging, self-parody, and genre savvy self-aware dialogue are largely used to deconstruct genres, not construct them.  Maybe I’m being petty; I also think Empowered is an enjoyable, sex-focal comic.   I contend, however, that it's not sex done right, or sex done wrong; it's sex done funny or funny done sexy.  When I’m having a nerd-rant about how much comics at large are sucking (and I have ‘em, boy howdy) I wouldn’t pause to say that my one exception is The Tick.

I think the author should just be honest and say that she's tired of male-targeted displays of overt sexuality, prefers most of her sexual scenes with diffusive humor, and that she doesn't think sex scenes belong in comics because that’s what I’m getting.  There’s nothing wrong with any of that, but some people like sex scenes, would rather the scene not be played for laughs, and would prefer to have their libidos pandered too instead of teased.   There’s nothing wrong with them either.   There’s no better mentality there, but there is a lot of sexism in comics (its not even entirely directed at women!) and it’s creating too many female characters with too little substance way too often.   Watching it derail a character I actually liked just plain hurts.

An Essay on The Societal Dominatrix Part 6. Epilogue - (or Time to Say the Safeword)

And so, I stick the Patriarchy and Feminism out in the garden to scare away inattentive birds because it’s time to bring things to an end.  As things draw to a conclusion, anyone whose read this all the way through might be thinking, “Wait. Why is it wrong to compare feminism to a dominatrix again?”  Well, if you recall, I sort of cheated my way through that question already.  It isn’t! If you frame it correctly.

I would use dominatrices as metaphors all the time if I wasn’t afraid of making folks feel unsettled.  For me it means something fun and at least a little sexy but too powerful to pretend that you’re the one who has total control of the situation.  Here! I’ll prove it.

I should've been a political cartoonist!  Except every cartoon would just be this picture with the text changed.

On that note, credit is due again to Quiet Riot Girl, my muse in this essay.  I was never trying to accuse her of a bad metaphor, just trying to work out in my head why I've seen the metaphor reoccur in various discussions.  I've been reading her work long enough to know, unless my reading comprehension skills are that terrible, that she’d never make anyone’s person-hood contingent on virginity or some other form of supplication like society tries to do to the societal Dominatrix.  Quite the contrary!  Feminism rather seems to chafe her because she often sees it either failing to recognize, help prevent, or outright furthering restraints on male sexuality.  I've also bumped into her comments on enough of the pro-kink sites I lurk around on that she does her homework, and makes her statements from a place of education, not ignorance. 

One of QRG’s favorite dragons to slay is metrophobia, the fear of the metrosexual (and not a fear of cities, in this context).  The term metrosexual was popularized to describe those men who preferred to don the suit of a cultured (or at least pop cultured) man about town as their blatantly constructed sexual identity. They were the sort of men who would have probably been described as gentleman, dandies, or slick city dudes in the past.  The term was originated by Mark Simpson, the same clever author who created Miss Whiplash, Feminism-Dominatrix incarnate.  (If QRG was my muse, I suppose that makes Mr. Simpson my Apollo.)  He’s a very smart man who noted that men were very much constructing identities for themselves (e.g. macho man, nerd, twink, bear, father, hooligan) and performing them in life, often as sexual roles.  Mr. Simpson was titling a new ascendant (or possibly reascendant) role and I know he didn’t mean it to exclude gay men, or be exclusive to gay men.   I've seen, for what I assume are homophobic reasons, the term simultaneously used to describe a man who was ‘doing gay things’ but was really for real straight, or the new epitomic gay man who may just be buried in the closet.  The word 'metrosexual' was being used as a shield to hold gay at bay, and a sword to bring accusations to bare.  For other people, either free of homophobia or at least conscious how homophobic the accusations were getting,  the word was still being used as a slur.  Suddenly it became about narcissism or a way to duck out on all the hard work it takes to be a real sexy man.  We had pure metrophobia.  People began to construct retrosexual identities in defense against the metrosexual, rather hilariously missing and enforcing Mark Simpson’s whole original point.  Metrophobia existed because, since it was new, loud, and well funded, the desire of men to be desirable had never seemed so dangerously obvious in society’s collective memory.

Society needs men to do their jobs right and has always cast its eyes around to find examples of men doing manhood incorrectly, to show people the price of failure.  One of the threats and insults that society likes to hang over men is perpetual virginity.  Metrosexuals desire to be seen as desirable and on their own terms.  If they can succeed on those terms, then the threat would become hollow.  

 Society is largely okay with kind attracting kind; it’s rather expected that the ethnic men sleep with ethnic women, poor men with poor women, dim men with dim women, shallow men with shallow women etc.   Sometimes relationships don’t follow that script.  There are also men where kind doesn’t make sense to attract kind or, if even it did, the man in question would still be winning because the trait they have is desirable in women.  For instance- Pretty men, virginal men, feminine men, shy men, submissive men, etc.

So society attempts to socially pillory such men, publicly scapegoating them.  If we can’t succeed in shaming such men into good behavior, then at least we might make everyone else afraid to associate themselves with such an obvious failure. And the whole time we’re doing it we assure everyone that he’s the threat and we’re the victims in this scenario. 

When the cobblestones and rotten vegetables are raining down on whichever male archetype has fallen into disfavor, we can always count on a certain woman to put on the best show.    She laughs the loudest. She kicks the stocks.  She really grinds her vegetables into the man’s face and hair.  She offers him a cup of water and then wantonly drinks it herself.   Her favorite  trick, and the crowd’s too, is to twirl and dangle the keys  in the prisoner’s face and casually fiddle with the locks, even going so far as occasionally slide in the wrong key now and then and test it in the lock.

That’s why society loves the Dominatrix.

Wait… Isn’t she enjoying this just a bit too much?  She’s not going to actually let him out is she?  Why would she do that?

That’s why society hates the Dominatrix.

An Essay on The Societal Dominatrix Part 5. Fear of the Submissive Man (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Domme)

Let me tell an anecdote:

I was at a party where a man, gay, was telling a story about his fun experiences with butt-plugs.  Several ladies were affirming their positive experiences with anal sex and laughing along to the anecdote.  Another man, straight, adds that he also thinks butt-plugs were a lot of fun.   (P.S. Not me! I swear. :D  If I had anything to contribute to a story like that, my wife would have happily bragged about it well before I would have.)  The ladies in attendance got creeped out, and his girlfriend got a little embarrassed.   For what it’s worth, the previous narrator rolled with it.

But what was that?  You can’t call it femiphobia, anal play was just fine from the ladies and the original narrator.  Homophobia is also out because of the narrator.  It’s not simple misandry, unless gay men don’t count as men.   That’s why I stretch for a term like hypandrephobia.  Hypandrephobia?  it’s my attempt, my work in progress, to create a word that means “fear of a submissive male.”   Why would anyone be afraid of the submissive male?

 Femiphobia, misogyny, racism, classism, and ableism do play heavily into the various prejudices against the submissive male.  As examples, the fairly disgusting term ‘gimp’ is a synonym for a submissive male, and ‘bitch’ is often used for a man who winds up as the ‘girl’ of a relationship regardless of who his partner is.   Sounds like a very Feminism-friendly narrative right?  That maybe all this submissive flack is caught primarily because of misogyny and femiphobia.   Feminism’s focus is rightfully on women, but certainly Feminism shouldn’t object to a man fighting the heteronormative narrative.  Feminism must love things like harem anime, magical girlfriend anime, and manic pixie girlfriend stories where very ordinary boys and men gain the attention of women much more powerful, intelligent, and/or capable than they are through sheer dint of character rather than Patriarchy approved exceptionalism.  Why, maybe Feminism even produces such media itself.

Oh, stop laughing at me.  Rather than anything I suggested, Feminism has a tendency to tell men to step up and be strong with, that they have to earn female affection, with lines so similar to those of the Patriarchy you could practically hear them speaking in unison.  In the meantime, magic boyfriend movies like Twilight certainly get chastised by Feminism, but mostly for reasons like ‘stalker’ behavior and fear that a woman can only actualize her own awesomeness via men.   His hotness and power however are perfectly acceptable, even strongly recommended.   Show’s like Buffy where the main character sleeps exclusively with superhuman males are much more acceptable fare for Femisnism (it doesn’t even matter if 2/3rds of her partners are, you know, murderers.)  Ah well, it’s certainly no sin on the part of Feminism.  I’ve enjoyed that exact narrative myself, and I think I’d also enjoy it quite a bit if the genders were reversed. 

It may be homosexuality, and homophobia, that is most intrinsically bound up with the submissive male, and not just in the way one might think.

Many social structures have made allowances for men to sleep with men within the right narrative.  ‘Proper’ homosexuality is occasionally to control submissive males.   There were the Spartans, men so manly that they needed other men to be their women.  The Spartans practiced a rigorous, infant-scrutinizing eugenics program, routinely terrorized their helot serf/slaves, and in addition to making their wives cross-dress , captured their brides and locked them away to be constantly watched by a bridesmaid.  What did all these things have to do with each other?   Maybe nothing.  Or maybe there’s the fact that Spartan women, with all the free time away from Spartan men, were known to romp with helots.1   On long war campaigns it wasn’t unknown for Spartans to come home to entire generations of half-grown nothoi (children of slaves and citizens) living in their homes. (Note:  The half-breed offspring of helot women and Spartan men were just A-Ok, generally living as Periokoi – non-citcizen free men)

There are the pretty, femme bishi-boi twinks of slash-fic and yaoi 2 fame.  They’re safe for girls to cuddle and gush over before they are ushered off to have same sexual relations in some corner that is blessedly free of their penises touching vagina and all the paradigms that would threaten.    Such fetishized forms of homosexuality are perfectly awesome ways for someone enjoy their personal kink.  They may just be a way to do a little speculative voyeurism of an alternative lifestyle, or a way to get as many penises into a relationship as possible, or to just try and get in touch with your inner male.  But there’s a hypandrephobic aspect to the practice as well.  Gay porn , slash, and above all yaoi (with its seme/uke relations) consumed and produced by people who aren’t homosexual men is often a way for someone to see ‘the butch’ brutalize ‘the femme’ in a way that will leave misandrists relieved that no women are being hurt or exploited.   They are also a way for women to sexualize submissive males by letting the woman slip into their imaginary man suit so they can dodge criticism when they dominate.  The sub will touch neither breasts nor vagina, those symbols of succor and procreation, and the highest rewards the Patriarchy and Feminism propose to offer.  The dom can fuck him safely knowing that the submissive male will not reproduce or exist as a submissive heterosexual.   

Bisexual erasure 3 follows this trope as well.  Many people advocate against the acceptance of homosexuality, stating that the gay men will ‘recruit’ since they can’t reproduce naturally.   Hilariously, even if a man is 100% homosexual he is suffering from bisexual erasure, because his natural options to have children are being denied by the aforementioned homophobes.  There is surrogate motherhood, adoption, partnerships with a man who already has children, being a parental figure for children that you are not necessarily the legal guardian of (like nieces, nephews, and children of close friends) and for the less than 100% homosexual, there’s always good ol’ fashioned hetero sex.   That’s why bisexual males are even worse for the homophobic; they can submit to men and reproduce.   Submissive males bring a new kind of gay to the table, the threat of an abhorrent male that may find a way to reproduce just like a bisexual can.

The submissive male has his place in society, is even very much needed in fact.  Slavery, castes, castration, conscription, bullying, Rites of Manhood, religious condemnation of various types of sexuality, inheritance: all ways to have the submissive male, but control male sexuality and keep out the undesirables to the greatest extent possible.  Optimally the submissive male is forced into his role; he has to clearly be losing to someone else.  Societies create hierarchal protocols to constantly reaffirm the winners of their status.  The sub is allowed pride, of a sort, as incentive to submit, but he’s not supposed to have pleasure in what he is (especially not more than the real winners).  However the worst sins are those of self-actualization and avenue to reproduce without restraint.

You see, subs scare society quite a bit.  I touched earlier in my discussion of monsters on how the Dom is made scarier and more detestable by adding notes of submission to him.  Some monsters are submissive all the way.   They tend to be small and creepy.  A common theme is the avoidance of light, religion, and morality as if the creature is too weak to stand up to reality and power.    Insanity of the monster and the monster’s victims is common.   The submissive monster frequently taunts and weakens its victims over great periods as if they could not take down a safe, healthy one.  Numbers.   They frequently target children and/or are childlike themselves.   They use deception.  They twist heteronormativity.    They lack ‘valid’ sexuality and family structure (this is important).  They are frequently led by the unusually exceptional leader.   They very often come in and attack in superior numbers, and in fact it is usually the concept of the sub being able to reproduce out of control that is the truest fear at play.

Some examples of monsters that threaten from a position of weakness:

These monsters all have much more specific meanings : Gremlins - Foreigners; Zombies - Consumerism, Communism; Secret Alien invasion - Communism, Foreigners ; Orcs - Souless Industrialism, Progress without heed to consequence.  However, these monsters, like the submissive male, represent things that no one should really be afraid of because the public is dealing with them from a position of power, like foreigners, or only afflict the weak-willed, like the Industrialism and Consumerism.  It’s a fear that something that can’t really hurt you could find a way to hurt you, if it can find a way to reproduce and grow out of control.  It's the human desire to always cast oneself as the victim, even if you are in fact much more powerful and established than the impending threat.

The Dominatrix…  She is the potential naïve townie who gives her mogwai a bath.  She’s a potential Lady Sauron ready to raise an army of orcs.  She’s Ishtar decreeing, “I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion [i.e., mixing] of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of the dead will outnumber the living,” right before a zombie invasion.   She’s Pandora about to open the box, Eve about to bite the apple, and above all she’s Lilith, refusing to let Adam be on top, and mothering all the demons of hell after she’s banned from the Garden.

An Essay on The Societal Dominatrix- Part 4. Loving and Hating The Dominatrix (or Are You a Good Witch, or a Bad Witch?)

So the Dominatrix is here in our hearts and minds, readily available whenever we to put a sexy face on a naughty fetish.  However, in those rare instances when she’s brought in do a little more than grace us with a sneer and whip crack, then suddenly there are rules for our leading lady.  Just a few conditions like: perpetual virginity,  the understanding that she’ll give up her career upon the initiation of a relationship with a male, only romantically acquiescing to peers or superiors, homosexuality, possessing  secret longings to be the submissive or a ‘normal woman,’  a  professed distaste for her job or the clients she services.  If none of these conditions are met, then you can measure an improper Dominatrix’s media lifespan in seconds.  She either suffers tragedy in the forms of:  violence, death, or death of character potency by becoming a marginalized joke character - because it is only in comedy (the loudest form of tragedy) that such a character may exist.

Dominatrices that even get speaking parts are rare but let me bring up a few to try to illustrate what I mean:

Ghost Talker's Daydream – Saiki Misaki – A virgin who is malcontent with her job as a dominatrix that part-times as a necromancer.  Oo! Subtle metaphor!  She’s someone who has the power to exert control over the scariest, creepiest, most repugnant things imaginable without them harming her.  She’s also a necromancer.

Soul Caliber titles – Ivy Valentine – A virgin who is malcontent with her status as a corrupted being. She labors to find a way to expunge herself of evil and refuses to have intercourse lest she procreate said evil.

Various Batman Titles – Cat Woman – Largely only interested in Batman, a man who is a more powerful person than she is, whom routinely defeated her when she was villainess and largely rebukes and chastises her during her anti-hero phases.

Various Batman Titles – Poison Ivy – (this one’s even a stretch to include, Ivy’s largely been more of a pure temptress) Virginal, her touch killing anyone she contacts.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation – Lady Heather – A professional dominatrix who falls in love with one of the main characters, Grissom.   Lady Heather is shown to be an anthropologist using her profession as research material.  She does not engage in BDSM with her ‘real world’ lover.  In one episode she kidnaps her daughter’s murderer to torture him to death, using her role to punish rather than reward, and Grissom switches her off with a safe word to defeat her.  Heather advises that in a BDSM relationship the slave is really in charge.  She then retires to become a sex therapist

Red Sonja’s Red Sonja- Virginal.  The prize of her sexual favor is contingent on a man defeating her in fair combat, or she will lose all of her Goddess-granted power.

What’s the reasons for these conditions?   It’s to normalize the Dominatrix.  The princess in her tower, guarded by a dragon – it’s one of the most typical narratives we have.  By defeating the challenge, and freeing the princess from her prison, we prove to the princess, her parents (or guardians, get it?) and ourselves that we deserve that attention.   The Dominatrix is only allowed to exist as another princess.  She has to either act as her own guardian, or her lifestyle has to act as her tower.   Whether she’s defeated or freed, she’ll drop the whip, assure her hero that the princess is in this castle, and rush to them for some good ol’ fashion vanilla sex, her Dominatrix outfit no longer any more meaningful than a Halloween costume.   She’s defeated, she’s trapped, or she’s a virgin.  Those are the Dominatrix’s only approved options within society.

Not that it’s inappropriate for our leather clad subject, but why the love/hate relationship? Ostensibly the Patriarch hates her for her power; that doesn’t belong to women.  Ostensibly the Feminist hates her for her lack of power, as it comes from masculine vindication.  She’s just another lust-contingent sex object to fulfill some masculine role reversal fetish.  But there’s something even more primal than that at play.

The hatred comes from the Yin to her Yang, that opposing force to complete her circle, shaping her and being shaped by her, containing some of her within itself just as she contains some of it within her.   I’m talking about her counterpart, the submissive male.    If he should force her by dint of a Patriarchal enforced fetish, or tempt her with money, power writ to paper, then that’s a little easier for the rest of the world to swallow.   What’s impermissible is the concept that her whip is just a way to make him be weaker and cry louder, her bonds a way to make him even more helpless, and all before she enjoys him exactly as he is:  a man who doesn’t deserve the reward of female sex/vagina/procreation.   That’s right; we’re looking at another kind of slut shaming.  However, she’s a particularly nasty permutation because she’s not just a free ride, like her oft maligned sister.  She’s not only letting the wrong kind of men on board, she’s seeking them out to the exclusion of the good ones, and if he’s not submissive(bad) enough when she finds him, then she’s going to fix that issue herself.   

The Dominatrix is trotting up and down the beach kicking down sandcastles of Masculinity and her victims are thanking her for it, and begging her to do it again.  Feminism and the Patriarchy may loathe each other, but they’ve shook hands and agreed on the Success Model before they decided to fight tooth and claw over it.  It’s not easy to convince people that Masculinity is such a privilege when people are paying, begging, and running for the opportunity to be free of it.   It must be a pain trying to convince someone their corset is a sexist prison when a member of the opposite sex is begging to be strapped into one.  It can’t be easy selling the concept of female hypergamy as an incentive to ‘man up’ with the Dominatrix talking about how she likes the shy ones because they’re more likely to cry. 

The Dominatrix is a metaphor for a woman doing womanhood backwards, and she’s got the strap-on to prove it.  She’s the woman who sleeps with men who are the wrong color.  She sleeps with men who are poor.  She sleeps with men who are too young for her.  She sleeps with men who are too old for her.  She sleeps with men who are pretty.  She sleeps with men who are ugly.   She sleeps with men who are dumb.  She sleeps with men who are creepy.  She sleeps with men who are short.  She sleeps with men who are thin.  She sleeps with men who are fat.  She sleeps with bisexuals.   She sleeps with men who are submissive.  She sleeps with men who are girly.  She sleeps with men who are weak.  She does it of her own free will, without penance or repentance, and she loves every minute of it.  She pity fucks without an ounce of pity, mercy fucks without a drop of mercy, and threatens to create more of herself and her partner whenever she does it.

That really, really seems to scare people, as I’ll try to demonstrate in my next post. 

An Essay on The Societal Dominatrix- Part 3. The Dominator (or What About Teh Dominant Menz?)

So, I discussed how the Dominatrix got her stiletto-heeled foot into the societal door.   I also mentioned the condition being set for her entry, but before I continue in that vein, I’d like to discuss some of the company she can expect to keep.

Her masculine contemporary is the Dominator, though his name is generally shortened to the asexual ‘Dom,’ because we have a sexist tendency to assign the masculine as typical.  Although he is prolific in the media, a valid archetype in his own right, he is much less of an icon than his sister the Dominatrix because his sexuality is considered little more than an extension of what is considered normal.  Apparently, a Dom is just a man only more brutal, honest, or cruel, take your pick.   For the Patriarchy, he’s an alpha; for Feminism, he’s a Patriarch.

His imagery is little more than a man affecting smugness, coldness, or outright hostility while wielding some instrument better suited for causing pain than damage, whips and crops are the most common because of their associative use against cattle (and chattel), but the variety is prolific.  He almost invariably wears some sort of formal (often even opulent) dated, periodic clothing.  Nothing too ancient mind you, the suggestion is supposed to be that this concept of man as de facto master with free reign to cruelty is behind us (but not too far behind us).  

The Dominator’s motivation is generally for more of what he already has- control and power.  Wealth, as an object representation of both, is also quite standard.  Sex may occasionally be his motive, but that’s quite rare.   Usually if there’s a woman involved the goal is more to overpower, own, or possibly even destroy her in some fashion.  The assumption is that the Dominator gets all the sex he wants, so why should it drive him?   Sex is the de facto result of his power; the Dominator will often be disinterested in sex or outright wallow in it to excess as a simple environmental fact of his prowess.  He only bothers to focus on people who challenge him, women included.

Some examples:

Ah, but you’d point out that Darth Vader's lightsaber is plenty lethal? Really? He never deals a lethal blow in the original series.   When he tries to wield the blade against his own morally just father-figure , Obi-Wan simply ascends.  He only uses it to torment his own son as he attempts to get Luke to follow Vader’s morally unjust father-figure, Palpatine.

Captain Hook is one of the most Freudian and honest Dominator’s I’ve ever seen.  Disney’s version even has the same voice as Wendy’s father.  He is the Patriarchy, trying to torture and murder Wendy’s inner child/fantasy boyfriend/Marty Stu author avatar to get her to grow up before Time (the Crocodile) devours him.

Lex Luthor started life as just another mad-scientist throw away villain for the anti-intellectuals to enjoy being defeated .  But put him in a snazzy suit and a kryptonite ring and suddenly he’s clawing himself to the top of the Man of Steel’s enemy roster.

‘What Jay?  Are you going to tell me the cigarette is his weapon?’ Oh, I could make a case for that.  But not with Don there.  The cigarette is just a prop to stand in for his implement because it’s not easily held.  If he were a more modern Dominator of his it’d probably be a cellphone in his hand.  See, Don there is sitting in his instrument of torture.   It’s his wealth, specifically his corporate wealth.  As this picture points out, he is swimming in it (and possibly drowning in it as well.)

Do I have to explain this one? 

But Jay, you may say, two of your examples are just wearing business suits.  So?  The suit was once a well worn and standard article of clothing for any man who could afford one.  Now we rent our tuxes as prom and wedding costumes.  NSWATM: Suits Part One - Suit as Costume I don’t even own a sports jacket anymore.    Half the business owners I know (including the one I work for) show up to their meetings in shorts to show how casual and approachable they are.   In other words, they’re out of uniform. NSWATM: Suits Part Two - Suit as Uniform  Suits may be a bit of boring Dominator costume, but it doesn’t disqualify a Dominator.

It’s when we need a different sort of antagonist from the Dominator that the costume begins to change.   Let’s take the Dominator and mix him with his same-sexed sexual-opposite the male submissive.   This new creation will be collared, ‘gimp’ masked, enlarged, cuffed and/or chained, muted, leather clad, and/or display various piercings or other forms of ‘self-mutilation’.  He is made creepy and monstrous; he’s no longer the ‘sane’ and ‘natural’ sadistic male, but the completely insane and unnatural sadomasochistic male.  The sadomasochistic Monster-Dom is used in media to invoke the male sex drive, rape, homophobia, sadism, masochism, ableism, and racism; often many or all of those at the same time.   It’s the horrible thought that something powerful would debase itself with willful submission (to pain, to lust, to poverty, to solitude) or that something powerless would be escalated to a position of power. 

Unlike the natural Dominator, the Monster Dom is very, very often motivated by sex, although that’s very likely to be clouded with metaphors.   He’s tainted the beauty of the natural Dominant and so physical force is often required.  

Some examples:

From Left to Right: Dracula, Freddy Krueger, Pinhead,
Pyramid Head, Frankenstein's Monster, Jason Voorhees

I’ve tried to arrange them from left to right, to reflect their progression on the Dominance vs Submission, or Sadism vs Masochism spectrum.   Dracula’s so close to the Dominator that it’s hard to include him here, and Jason Voorhees hits very many notes of the Submissive, with only a couple of exceptions.  Pinhead and Pyramid are very much the perfect archetypes of the Sadomasochist, or Monster Dom.  They dominate, but the mix of submission makes them horrifying, in contrast to the sexy natural Dominator.  For the Patriarchy, the men above would likely be beta wannabes, perverted and excessive men who don’t understand why they should have been content with their position in life.  Discipline is supposed to be for control, and only lightly enjoyed from time to time, but the Monster Dom doesn’t know how to deal with power and hurts others when he tries to use it, usually without even getting what he may have wanted from it.   For Feminism they’d likely be personified threats, agents of the Patriarchy to frighten women into controlling their own sexuality.    I rather agree with Feminism, but Feminism tends to dismiss the inherent slur the Patriarchy is making about men because, well, it’s about men.  They’ll concede that the Patriarchy hurts men too, but the idea that unpalatable men should know their place in the hierarchy is a message Feminism isn’t above making itself.

They have submissive monsters too, and I’ll talk more about them later, which will help explain why some of the sadomasochists made the grade.   But the dominant monsters show the sort of archetypes the Dominatrix can expect to rub elbows with when it comes to grabbing for a societal representation of sexual power.  Of course her acceptance to the club is contingent on certain conditions…

An Essay on The Societal Dominatrix- Part 2. The Herstory of the Dominatrix (or Education is Awesome for More Reasons Than You Think.)

The Evolution of the Dominatrix

This whole comparison of Feminism to a dominatrix seems to come from the idea that the male feminist, or any male seeking to court women for his product, is hungry for the approval of Feminism.  Feminism is not easily impressed, but is easily offended and is quicker to hand out discipline than approval, and what approval Feminism does hand out is patronizing and condescending.   It matters little because many of her most ardent supplicants enjoy the lambasting as much as the praise.  Men who court Feminism are considered weak by Feminism , and men who don’t are considered outright antagonists; the supporters of Patriarchy if you will.

The Dominatrix has been around for centuries, and has cemented herself as an archetype and an icon, but as an icon that represents what?   An evil woman?  Something you thought would be wonderful, but hurts instead? Something tempting that wise people avoid?  Something that hurts, but you sort of like it despite that pain (like spicy food)?   Something  that only freaks would be into?  I’d say yes to all of the above as the need fits.  The Dominatrix is alternatively presented as a mistake to be made (whether by herself or the persons who would partake of her charms) or an indulgence that hurts so good (this one’s usually limited to the audience, rather than the dom herself).   In other words, a Dominatrix is, for the casual narrative, a mistake and/or vice.

The look of the Dominatrix has become fairly standardized.   She’ll most likely be in black to mark her as dark and evil, high heels to make her tall and sexual, and her uniform’s material typically involves something unorthodox like leather or rubber.  It’s an attempt to balance the intimidating and the tempting.   They will vary this a bit, either feminizing her to make her more tempting, or blurring her gender with masculine garb because of our society’s obsession with associating power and masculinity.  She has the power to hurt, but she must be sexually tempting, or she would have no power.  She must have bait to bring people to her switch.   People love to use the Dominatrix because she is, in her own way, a symbol for the societally acceptable form of the worst sort of woman- a woman who realizes her sexual prowess and will either painfully ward people away from it or use it to control others.

The Dominatrix standardized look is the first clue to her origin.  Picture, if you will, her pointed bustier, corset, and stocking height high-heeled boots.  From the Georgian Era to the 1960’s all one needs to turn an image of a western woman in her formal underwear into the Dominatrix is a black marker.   I don’t choose those times lightly.  The word ‘dominatrix’ itself was popularized in the 1960’s. 1  Before that, the terms varied a bit, female flagellant was common, but the title that really betrays the truth of things is ‘governess.’

 Europe had been fighting for some manner of public schooling for centuries.   The church mandated free education for the poor in the 12^th century which resulted in major universities seating scholars who could teach students too poor to pay university fees.  In the 16^th century Lutherans began advocating compulsory education so that Protestants could read the Bible for themselves.  Scotland passed several acts in the 17^th century decreeing that a school be established for every parish.  Still, the whole movement was a mixed success . 2  Children were still too important as a labor source for society to commit their time to schooling.  It wasn’t until the early years of the industrial revolution in the Georgian Era, and the resultant blow to an agrarian and skilled trade based society, that households began producing children with too much time on their hands (at least, in major metropolitan areas). Attendance in dame schools and charity schools became de rigueur for English families.  Boys and girls from even the lowest social strata were able to experience en masse what had been restricted to nobles, the wealthy, families with children to spare, and children lucky enough to land jobs as household servants.  Prior to this, for more years than I can count, boys had been yanked from their homes to grow up as laborers and apprentices in the monosexual work environment.   Female relations were largely limited to whatever literal female relations they might have had.  Now, boys and girls alike were able to experience educated, authoritative, female disciplinarians that they were not related to, and during their formative years no less.   The Enlightenment and The Industrial Revolution came hand in hand with freeing people in body and soul, and what many of them  got with their education was a taste of female authority that they hadn’t even known they were starving for and they became fast addicted to it.

Although there were accounts of men hiring prostitutes to cane them as far back as the 16^th century (you know, back when the Lutherans thought that the church should start getting out of education? Or is that education should start getting out of the church…).  Femdom would explode into a full blown kink (or ‘lech’ as was the term at the time) without any signs of stopping after the spread of education.   Luther wanted people turning to God, but many of them had gotten a hint of Goddess. Governesses were featured more and more in brothels, books, theater and art.    Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, would write ‘Venus in Furs.” 3 It is a book about a man who attempts to cultivate a woman up into a harsh goddess.  He’s rather successful for a time, but his goddess falls for a dominant man, who then humiliates the protagonist.  Having no taste for male-dom, his passion withers and he abandons his Venus to her new role as submissive.  Although Leopold’s character is specifically attracted to femdom, his enjoyment contingent on his dominant being female, Leopold’s name would become the source of the word ‘masochism.’   Masochism is the condition in which sexual gratification depends on suffering physical pain or humiliation.   It eliminates any and all references to male submission or female domination, to become the answer to Sadism.  It is very much the start of a trend.

Athena was one of several Greek representations of Ishtar, or Astarte, the Babylonian goddess of many things, among which were war, knowledge, and sex.   When their Patriarch (Zeus Pater, lit. God Father) swallows Thought (Metis) his mind is constantly tortured until he calls the Outcast God of Skilled Labor (Alternately Prometheus or Hephaestus)  to crack his skull open to let the pain out; Athena, a beautiful dominatrix of education and victory, is born when the Outcast Skilled Laborer kills the Father who can’t handle Free Thought.  The Greeks took one look and removed her most dangerous power, her sexuality, sentencing Athena to an existence of virginity.   We weren’t smart enough to the same thing when the Dominatrix happened to us, and we’ve been trying to fix that since.

  

An Essay on The Societal Dominatrix- Part 1. The Introduction (or Quiet Riot Girl Said a Thing on the Internet)

So, a couple of days ago Quiet Riot Girl went and rattled my brain-cage and set my thoughts a-squawkin' (You know, I’m beginning to suspect that she isn’t even really all that quiet?  Maybe she just really liked “Cum On Feel the Noize.” I’ll have to investigate further.)   She started it all when she compared feminism to Miss Whiplash, a hypothetical dominatrix that punishes the Average Joe who doesn’t tow the feminist line, and rewards the Average Joe that does tow the feminist line.  Rewards him, that is, in ways that would practically count as punishments themselves for a saner man. Observe. (Edit: QRG pointed out a big gaffe on my part! Ms Whiplash is originally the creation of the very brilliant Mark Simpson.)

When you frame it right, it’s an apt enough metaphor and one I hear quite a lot.  I’m rather used to dominatrices being compared to things unfavorably, and I’m used to feminism prompting people to find something unfavorable to compare it to.   As for why those things happen, especially the former, well … I’m unsure.  But after bothering my keyboard for days I have, much like a long-haired cat who licks himself too often, come up with something.  Unfortunately for everyone involved, dominatrices are rarely far from my mind.  Or the rest of me, when I can help it.  (I mean, I married one and everything. )  So the end result was rather long.   Before sallying forth, I’d like to set down a couple of disclaimers.

 I don’t lay claim to the title ‘feminist.’  I never took a single class on the history or structure of feminism.  I’ve never attended a political rally aiming towards feminist goals.   My blog, my art, and my fiction frequently involve gender tweaking, and I don’t like most forms of sexism I run into; so I frequently find myself running alongside a self-identified feminists. However, I’m also pro-kink, pro-sex (y’know- perverted?), a huge nerd, into a lot of boyish pursuits (cartoons, baby!), rather meek, shy, and submissive, have some psychological issues, and some actual higher education in the field of psychology.  I’m a big unapologetic advocate of Free Speech, and I’m very anti-censorship.  Those aspects of my nature also frequently have me running alongside a lot of self-identified feminists!  Aaaand alongside some self-identified anti-feminists.  And non-feminists.  And also running against a lot of self-identified feminists.  Like, a lot of them.  Often. 

How frustrating, that people can be so hard to categorize.  Like we’re complicated or somethin’.

I prefer to just limit my internal definition of feminism to, “a movement that continually advocates for the establishment and/or protection of human rights for women,” while acknowledging that a mindset with those goals can operate in many, many different ways and, like any movement, it can frequently be used to great effect, or misused to ill effect.

I present a lot of opinions in the following posts about how the society I live in views several different things in the culture I live in.   I occasionally specify two opposing opinions.  I could call one side the feminists and the other side the anti-feminists, but I’m going to use - The Patriarchy and Feminism (with a capital F).   Why? Because the two opinions actually, to me, exist in our cultural/societal subconscious, but aren’t very likely to be held by any actual person.  So I use the more respectful names each side has designated for the other to represent these non-persons (who both contain more than a little bit of straw.)  I am not talking about you, your Feminism 101 professor, any major historical feminist figure, the president, your favorite AM radio conservative talk show host, your mom, or your dad.  Honest.  

The Patriarchy, Feminism, and The Dominatrix

Domination isn't just an excuse to be mean.

Domination in a healthy, committed relationship is a difficult concept to delineate. If I tell Jay to do something, am I being dominant, or just pushy? If I don't want to do the laundry and I force him into doing it, am I reinforcing our consensual domme/sub relationship, or merely taking advantage of him to enable my laziness? When Jay and I get into an argument, rare as that seems to be these days, I do not automagically win just because I wear the strap-on in the relationship. If I treat him genuinely poorly and he objects to it, I can't just use the cop out of scolding him for being a bad sub and always get my way. Domination isn't a position of power, it's a position of trust. When I have him tied to the bed, he has to trust that I will make the right decisions about his well being, both emotional and physical. Submissives, by their very nature, are very easy to hurt. They've put trust into their dom/domme and that trust can be so easily lost or broken and it's a damn hard job getting it back.

But wait, I just said domination isn't a position of power. Isn't it? Oh, I get to order him around, step on him as it suits my fancy, force him down to the bed and tell him how to please me, but he has boundaries that I have to respect and I have to communicate with him. You can't just walk into the room with your sub and then yell at him when he doesn't know what it is that you want. If I tell Jay to feed me and he makes fettuccine alfredo when I was in the mood for baked chicken, he hasn't disobeyed me. He may have displeased me, but he hasn't disobeyed and if I don't communicate my wishes to him, I can't hold him accountable for not fulfilling them. Now, obviously, there are lots of little things that I don't have to say because he and I have been together for almost 10 years now. He knows I don't like for my cheese to touch my mayo on sandwiches, but he still usually asks how I want my sandwich done because I am particular about it. He knows I don't like for my breasts to be sucked hard anywhere except the nipples, so if he does that wrong than I am free to discipline him for the slip-up. But by and large, if I don't communicate to him what I want, than I have failed to dominate him, he hasn't failed to submit to me.

There are things I don't and won't do as a domme. I don't physically dominate him in front of other people whatsoever because it embarrasses him. I'm not the psychological/humiliation type of domme and he is definitely not that type of sub. Because of his history of abuse and bullying at the hands of his peers, it's not a fun sexual game to him, it's just more meanness. I avoid being mean to Jay because he is, far and above being my sub, my partner. My mate. My other half. He's not my pet or my slave as the primary delineation of our relationship, that is simply our private play and enjoyment. He is a human being first and my plaything a distant third to fourth. When I cross a line, he tells me I've done so. That isn't him acting out of hand as a sub, and me allowing him that freedom isn't me being a lax domme. It's human dignity. When he calls me on something, I back off and jot that down in my little mental list of boundaries.

Whenever I talk to people about having boundaries in a relationship, they go one of two ways. Either a relationship should be so perfect that you should never have to put anything into the “off limits” category, or they feel that openly talking about what you like and what you don't like takes all the mystery and romance out of a relationship. I can see both perspectives, and in my crazier days I have ascribed to both schools. But it's not about writing down a list or rules or just obeying whatever the other person says. Communication is a beautiful and very necessary thing in all relationships. When you put on your turning signal while you are driving, you are communicating to the people around you your intentions, and this communication makes everyone a little bit safer and a little more aware and understanding of each other. Without that communication, when you swerve into my lane I don't know if you've fallen asleep and are drifting, suddenly spilled coffee in your lap and are apt to do some more crazy shit while dealing with it, or if you were just changing lanes. Communication establishes expectations and understanding, both of which – when reasonable and sane – help to facilitate a good relationship and a comfortable foundation from which to build on.