Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Well. I knew I'd get some responses to the "why I don't see female clients" post, but - lordy, lordy, people, ya'll had a lot to say here!
I considered not responding at all, because really, everything I am going to say has already been said by someone else. (You're all so damn smart!) But I like engaging in some dialogue, so, here we go…

The always-brilliant Remittance Girl summed it up so well that I'm going to put her first…

I think one of the answers might be found in the fact that, in our society and even on the fringes of it, paying for intimate services of this nature is still very taboo for women in general and much rarer than for men. It could very well be that the women who are driven to override that taboo, and pay to have an encounter of this sort are, essentially, rather strange birds.
The pseudo stalking doesn't surprise me at all. BDSM is VERY emotional for many women (and many men too) and women, as a whole, do not compartmentalize as well as men do. This is a bad thing and a good thing. The very same quality that allows women to spread their emotions over a vast macrocosm of daily life may be the same reason why they have a hard time paying for a session and then just letting the feelings that it evokes go.
Certainly, compared to men, very few women pay sex workers for services. It could just be a matter of acclimatization and practice - they don't have a lot of experience on HOW to react to it.
In a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks, RG.

Now then, in chronological order…

(Note: most comments have been edited for length. If you just got here, scroll down and read them in their original form in the comments box for the previous post. Make sure you get comfortable, it's a long read.)

Kim: Hmm. Matisse, how do you make sure your clients don't fall in love with you, in general?
Everyone falls in love with me – for an hour or two. And even with people who wish for a different sort of relationship with me - it's not the emotions themselves that are the problem. It's people thinking, wrongly, that their feelings are going to strongly influence my behavior, and who feel upset when that isn't the case.

If I think someone is genuinely falling for me, I will not see them as a client anymore. I've only had to do that a very few times, and in all cases the client involved kinda got to the same place I did with it at about the same time, so it was a fairly mutual decision.

Jackie: I would like to go see a professional female dominant for a session and hopefully if he's willing, have my partner attend. I've been dominant myself for most of my life but have always yearned to be dominated by the right person. Unfortunately, my partner doesn't know how and I would love him to learn through watching some sessions and/or being taught or guided by a professional. I think this is the only way I could introduce my partner to it as other ways have failed miserably…Any thoughts?
I do see couples, because that's proven to be safe and fun for me, and I'm an excellent teacher, so that would be fine. It's only women alone that have been problematic. Since you've been a sex worker yourself, I'm sure you have a crystal-clear understanding of how this all works, so that also makes everything much easier...

Reiter:I wonder if the last line in your "Control Tower" column may be coming back to haunt you — "And while I'm still a little wary, I may be more willing to open that door again in the future." If that's what some of these single women who contact you have been reading, they might well think, yeah, her website says she doesn't, but her column says she might, so why not give it a shot?
You're quite right, I do regret it. But the moving finger writes, and having written moves on. Dammit.

Teddy:I think it’s a fair guess that there are many perfectly sane and normal women in your community who would like to experience BDSM but don’t get it in their regular lives, many of whom favor a female dominant, or who would be afraid of seeing a male in this capacity, or who simply can’t find a male pro-dom who sees single women (a rare gem!). So there’s a pool of women out there dying to see you professionally and experience the joys you can provide –
No, I think you're wrong there. If that were true, I'd be getting a lot more calls and email about it. I've been in the sex industry for well over ten years, and there simply are not many women who patronize sex workers of any variety.
- but you don’t want to see them. How cruel! You ARE the nasty sadist you claim to be!
I assume you're being facestious here, but just in case: No, my having a personal preference that doesn't tab with the desires of these hypothetical women doesn't make me cruel. I have no ethical obligation to satisfy their needs.
I think that it is not so much fear of being stalked or fear that women will fall in love with you that makes you not want to see these BSDM-craving single women. I think these are minor risks that you could handle just fine, and surely do handle just fine with male clients.
You're wrong – it's exactly the reason I don't see them. Being stalked is not a "minor risk". It's a major intrusion into my private life, and I've never had it happen with a male client.
…most women don’t play the role of supplicant/sychophant to another woman as well as your boys do.
You have it backwards – the main problem is that some women clients I've dealt wouldn't stop "playing the role".
Matisse, I would respectfully ask you what makes you feel entitled not to be questioned?
The fact that I'm a free person who makes my own decisions and isn't answerable to anyone unless I choose to be. Since I am not an elected official, I am not obligated to offer "a compelling explanation" of anything I do to anyone, and I'll invoke my right to privacy early and often. Those who don't approve of that are welcome to go elsewhere.

Trinity: Well said, sweetheart, thanks. And you are a nice girl. In a delightfully nasty sort of way.

Van: Thank you!

Lily: Another well-said comment. It's so nice to have such smart readers!

Teddy: I have spoken to other pro doms about this, but I'm not comfortable representing their opinions here.

Poohbear: You're so sweet. And yeah – Lydia is a total babe, isn't she? The kicker is she's also smart as hell. For her to look that good, and be brainy, too – well, God shortchanged somebody somewhere.

Reiter: Right again, Reiter.

Malixe: Another smart guy. No wonder I like you.

Teddy:… Please do ignore it if it is not helpful.
Well, Teddy, I don't think you're an evil person or anything, but – yep, it's not helpful, so I am going to ignore it.

Lenora: Glad to see you, darling…

Lilith: I've gotten this response from a lot of people when I ask them "why" about something, and so I often try to clarify in advance that I ask "why" because I am genuinely curious (wanting to know for the sake of knowing/learning), not because I am challenging them, arguing with them, or trying to dissuade them.
You know, if someone is this clear with me, I don't mind talking about stuff at all. But a face-to-face chat with a friend – or even a cocktail party acquaintance – is different from one-line emails from strangers demanding you explain yourself.

paul_tex: How nice! Thank you.

Patrick H.:Good posts, both of them, thank you.

Lovely Gal: You might enjoy reading this…

00Goddess: Unfair or not, I'll be blunt: the majority of women that I have encountered who identify as submissives, slaves, or bottoms were/are emotionally unstable. Does this mean that all women who identify as subs, slaves, or bottoms are emotionally unstable? No. But my sample is drawn from my local community and the online community I've interacted with, and with very very few exceptions (say, three), the women who sub have had serious problems with self-esteem, personal boundaries, and other issues.
Yeah…There's a column being written in my head on this topic, except I'm afraid of being stoned to death if I actually publish it. But I've noticed the problem as well. Perhaps I'll buy a suit of armor and write more about it.

dave: Nicely said – thank you. (I’m wondering if this is a "dave" I know or not…?)

Sherry: this is just speculation, but maybe the stalkers were already smitten with matisse before they ever asked to become clients. they were using the professional scene as a venue to meet her in person, hoping that matisse likewise would fall for them. so, she’s not seeing a random selection of submissive women as clients, she’s seeing all the ones that don’t have that little reality switch turned on! hence she sees a disproportionate number of the unbalanced…
I think that's an excellent point, Sherry, and I think you're probably right about at least some of them. Good call.
what i would like to ask matisse, is if this is also why you choose not to have female secondarys? are they generally too emotionally draining/needy/possessive for a polyamory relationship?
I have had two female secondaries – Jae was one, and the other was a wonderful butch boi (meaning: female body, masculine-leaning gender/sexual identity) who I'll call T. But while both Jae and T were de facto secondary partners, they were very much my submissives. Right now, I don’t have a personal submissive, and that's because having one is a full-time job. (At least the way I do it, it is.) Whatever I do with Jake and Roman in my bedroom or my dungeon – and there have been some really nasty and wonderful things – when we emerge from that space, we are equals, and they are my lovers.
I admit that when I was shopping for a new secondary I was looking more at men. But the right woman could have turned my head, too. I'm sure one will in the future. When I'll feel that I can take on another full-time personal submissive, God only knows.

Van: It's taken me a couple of days to realize that I feel a distinct element of, well, consternation over being labeled a cultist…
Yeah, I hear you on that…. But one has to just let it go, as I'm sure you have. It's the internet, such things abound.

Trinity: thank goodness i'm wearing a crotch rope while writing this…

No comments: