A clever reader sent me this letter...

I think I can claim to have read all your blog archives, and would never presume to advise you about topics to bring up (waaaait for it!), I did want to ask you, though, if you had seen the film Holy Smoke, by Jane Campion and if you'd ever thought about podcasting/blogging about the amazing exploration of power exchange that goes on between its two main characters. Aside from the explicit message about coming into your power and learning not to abuse it, the script deftly demonstrates how fun it can be when "who's on top" is continually renegotiated, how physically overpowering someone isn't necessarily as effective as verbally cutting to the quick (Harvey Keitel to Kate Winslet: "Your physical superiority makes you unkind"), and how knowing one's own boundaries is always of utmost importance. Oh! And don't let me forget pissing as an act of submission! Just such a great film for every kind of kink - even if your kink is no kink.

Darlin', I think you did just blog about it!

And yes, I have seen the film. I thought it was well-acted, well-written, and occasionally hilarious (like the scene where the shallow flirtatious mother allows her cavorting child to do a face-plant into the dirt because she's preening for an indifferent man.) It has some hot, sexy moments, and it's generally very intense and gripping.

(Question: does Harvey Keitel demand a frontal nude scene in every role he takes? Not that I object, I'm just wondering.)

Like pretty much every movie I've ever seen that explores kink themes, I would not point to these characters and say, "Here are some great dominant/submissive role models!" No. Keitel and Winslet are playing flawed and damaged people, and a lot of the way they interact is far from emotionally healthy.

But still, it's a good movie even for the non-kinky, and I know that BDSM people will appreciate the themes woven into it. Consider it recommended!

Complete and unedited email...

Hi Mistress my name is slave X.Hi ave this fantasy from a long time to get a permanent damage in a cbt torture session from a bieutifull goddess like you .My offer is this i live in canada montreal to be more presice my offer is this i can send you a first class airplane tickets plus all your expense pay with hotel food and avery thing you need and i will pay you 10000 in canadian dollars for a 2 hours session of cbt , face kicking ,busting and body and head trample .this is a serious offer if your intresting or if its not enough money lets me no your price is my price tank you for your time slave X.sorry for my english im french and im learning

Wow, this is rather painful to read. But I give him credit where it’s due: his English is better than my French. And I have certainly heard from native English speakers who write just as badly as this.

So I am going to try, for a moment, to assume that his mistakes are in words rather than intent. The fact that he’s trying to negotiate a heavy BDSM scene in a language he doesn’t speak well is a mistake in itself, though. BDSM is a thing you want to be able to negotiate very precisely. That way, you ask NOT to get “permanent damage”.

Also – face kicking? That’s one I hadn’t heard. Unless we’re talking tiny foot-taps, that sounds like a bad idea.

Now let’s talk about that ten thousand dollars. Only we can’t, because it doesn’t exist. This is where my kind assumption that the oddities of this email are language-based break down. Either this man mistakenly tapped in one too many zeros, or – and frankly I think this is more likely – the whole thing is a crazy wanker fantasy.

What makes it crazy? To me, seriously asking for permanent damage = crazy. And also because no sane person is going to pay me five thousand dollars an hour. I’m good, but honey, ain’t nobody that good. Permanent damage? I’d have to kill you, and then raise you from the dead, to warrant that kind of tab.

There is an extremely small chance that the writer of this email, while crazy, does indeed have ten thousand dollars which he’d give me if I got in the room with him and tried to do him permanent damage. But that’s an extremely, extremely small chance indeed.

And you know what? I still wouldn’t do it. Because I don’t deal with crazy people, no matter how much money they offer me. I don't permanently damage people, either.

I get emails like this all the time. Most sex workers do. If you’re a woman who’s new to the industry, take note: If a stranger offers you a unreasonably huge sum of money for what sounds like very little in return, 99.9% of the time, you won’t get it. Chances are you’ll wind up having wasted time and energy chasing it, and sometimes even spent money of your own trying to make the date happen. (“Oh, I’m transferring funds from overseas and they got held up, can you get your own plane ticket and I’ll reimburse you….” Just like the Nigerian scams, only different.)

Note: I am not speaking of getting gifts from someone you know. I have been the fortunate recipient of some incredibly generous gifts from people I had relationships with, and I know other women who have as well. So yes, that happens. But not from a total stranger.

I suppose somewhere in the world, there have been a few Indecent Proposal-type scenarios that were real, but I have never seen one come true. Ever. (And look at all the drama Demi Moore went through with that, anyway.) The writers are either crazy people, or it’s someone deliberately playing games with a carrot on a stick.

It’s a fantasy to have a stranger appear and offer you a large sum of cash. But remember all those children’s stories about magical creatures who offer ordinary people three wishes, or a genie in a bottle? But somehow those wishes, those magic powers, they never turned out like the user wanted, did they? There was always a trick or a sting in them. The lesson of those stories was: if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. So beware the modern-day version of trolls under a bridge.

First off, thank you to all the nice people who sent me that small avalanche of "happy blog-anniversary" emails yesterday. That was very sweet.

Here's another podcast from me and Monk. Sometimes we have letters to answer, or a specific topic to address, but on this one we got off into a discussion about fashion. Thus, it's a rarity: a podcast that actually contains no sex-with-lawn-gnomes jokes, and seems to be pretty safe for work. (Although I have no idea if anyone really listens to me at work. I mean, aren't you supposed to be working? I have never had an office job in my life, so that whole world is very strange and mysterious to me.)

Anyway, listen to us chat about style icons, rubber dresses, kilts, kimonos, and schoolgirl outfits.

A milestone: as of yesterday, I have been blogging for five years.

Five years. That feels like a long time. I had no idea, when I started, that this blog would become such a defining part of Mistress Matisse. But it has. I have often wondered what would have happened if I’d started blogging anonymously. Would I have as many readers? Would I have been outed by now, or would I have been able to remain a mystery? And what would I have said, and not said, differently? I’ll never know.

I’ve been writing for The Stranger for about eight years, and between that column and this, I have a lot of words out there in the world. (Plus there’s the podcasts, and a few video clips here and there.) There are good sides and bad sides to that. If you want to get to know me, there’s a lot of information available. If you’re wondering about an issue that might fall under my umbrella of expertise, search around a bit, chances are I’ve talked about it.

Or, if you want something to be offended about, you can just cherry-pick through the archives, and I’m sure you can find something I’ve said that you think is reprehensible. I actually don’t subscribe to the idea that “if you don’t piss people off, you aren’t doing it right.” But as even-handed as I think I’m being, some people seem determined to be offended. Which I find baffling… but hey, if that’s what you get off on, enjoy yourselves. I have weird hobbies too.

I admit that some days I think, “Oh god, I have to blog. I don’t want to, I have nothing to say, I don't feel like writing... but I have to put something up.” My relationship with this blog is sometimes a bit like the one Seymour had with his blood-sucking alien plant in Little Shop of Horrors. It’s brought me a lot of great things – and great people – but it does suck up a lot of my personal juice.

But over the years, I’ve learned to worry less about it – I don’t check my hit counts every day, like I once did, or obsess about Technocrati ranks. Internet fame is an ephemeral thing. If you try to hang your hat on it, you’ll just make yourself crazy. As a blogger, I’ve learned a lot about just doing the best I can, and being gentle with myself for not always doing moremoreMORE.

Having the Twitter feed does makes me a feel a bit less derelict in my duty when I play hooky. It also allows me to have some back-and-forth with people, without having the flood of comment-spam and hate-bombers that the comment feature unfortunately devolved into. I’m interested in doing more podcasting, too, and I’m also intrigued by this application, as brought to my attention by the clever Violet Blue: 12seconds video. So you may be seeing some of that in the near future…

It’s hard to know how this blog will end. Perhaps fashions in internet communications will evolve and render blogs obsolete. Or maybe I’ll just wake up one day and realize I’m done with it. But for now, I’m still here. We’ll see what the next five years brings.

The new Stranger column is up: Fluid Sex. Enjoy!

Today I come home from Portland and see just what sort of remodeling activity has been going on in my house while I've been away. My contractor assures me all is well, but still, color me slightly nervous.

Meanwhile, enjoy the newest episode of the web-series about a polyamorous triad, Family. Warning: there's a sex scene with a full-frontal naked guy, and it's quite charming, but probably not something to watch at work.

Am I Or Not?

Cool reader Trix recently alerted me to the fact that I was quoted in this book: Yes Means Yes! Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape. Sexy blogger/author/editor Rachel Kramer Bussell wrote an essay entitled: "Beyond Yes or No: Consent as Sexual Process" in which she talks about consent as an ongoing activity.

The quote is from a Stranger column I wrote called "The A Word", which can be read in all it's ranty glory here.

This is what RKB said...

"It benefits both halves of a couple (or coupling) to know what the other is into.... As dominatrix and sex columnist Mistress Matisse wrote in The Stranger, "Some of the pleasure I take in kink is the continual seduction of consent. I love the fact that I can get my partners to let me to do things to them that they never thought they'd let anyone do--and better yet, I can make them like it. That's hot."

So I bought a copy, naturally, and yep, there I am. I'm flattered and pleased, of course. But it's sort of strange to see myself referenced in a feminist anthology. Not bad, just... strange.

People ask me, "Are you a feminist?" And I usually say something like, "Do you think I am?"

Sometimes they say, "Oh yes, definitely!"

And I smile and say "All right then, I am."

Sometimes they say "No! Women like you are antithetical to feminism."

And I shrug and say, "Then we don't have anything else to talk about, do we?"

Because I'm just not going to play that game. When I was a very young woman, I did a lot of college-based political activism. Mainly pro-choice stuff, and some GLBT issues, and then later, AIDS activism. I called myself a feminist, and I encountered other women who also called themselves feminists.

Now, no one woman - or any group of women - have sole ownership of that word. I know that. But at that time in my life, when the Feminist Sex Wars were still being fought in many circles, I met a lot of feminist-identified women who acted as if they did. And the very clear message I got from them was that I was wrong. The way I looked was wrong, the books I read, the kind of music I listened to - but most of all, the kind of sex I liked. My whole sex life was wrong, wrong, wrong.

I spent some time trying to reconcile who I felt I was with the message I was getting from those women. But I wasn't able to do that, so I walked away from the movement.

I still support the same values and causes I always did: equal pay, the right to an abortion, ect. But I decided not to devote time, money and energy to advancing the broader political philosophies of people who didn't accept me and my choices. You might say that I fight in some battles, but I decline to re-enlist in the army.

Yes, I know about the sex-positive feminist movement. I think the women who identify themselves as such are great people. But to me, if I have to qualify myself to say I belong to your club, then I don't want in. Take me as I am, or not at all.

I am not saying that I don't support feminists. I do. If you think I'm a feminist and wish to call me so, I'm fine with that. If you are a feminist, I'm happy to be quoted in support of whatever you're saying.

But if you're someone who thinks a woman like me - kinky, sex-working, high-heel-wearing me - can't possibly be part of your feminist movement... Then you're right. I'm not.

I’m Too…Something

I'm off today on a trip today, which should be delightful. I'm back Wednesday.

Meanwhile, a little something from the mailbag....

***

From an email:

Sorry. You just advertise yourself too much. I think the perfect one for you is the one you love the most. That is you. I'm not a mean person but if you are actually a woman. You are actually all that you advertise and because if so you are truly beautiful. But come on. Aren't you overdoing it just a little bit?

This letter doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, and it makes me think the writer doesn’t actually understand the nature of who I am and what I do. You don’t see too many dominatrixes openly displaying bad self-esteem. What would that look like in a scene? “Well, I’m not very pretty, am I? And I have no clue what to do with you. I guess maybe I could hit you with this thing.” Whack, whack. "I know you don't really like me, do you?" Whack, whack.

That seems like a bad idea.

Am I overdoing it? Have I conquered the entire world and been crowned Empress Of All She Surveys? No? Then no, I’m not overdoing it. Since that’s the long-term goal.

I think he’s also subtly accusing me of being transsexual. Maybe because I’m not demonstrating a properly shy and retiring feminine nature.

But it’s nice that he’s "not a mean person" - even if he has written me this letter offering me his confusing and unsolicited criticism, and suggested that I’m perpetrating a fraud about my stated gender.

He got one thing right, though, and that is: yes, I do love myself. I think that’s the trait in me that most often annoys people who don’t.

Oh, This Is Lame!

I got an email from Terisa Greenan, the creator of the polyamory-themed web series "Family" that I've been linking to.

"Ernie Joseph, who plays Ben on our Web series “Family,” recently shot a commercial for the Australian olive oil company OliVaylle. The commercial was created by Mulberry Street advertising firm and produced by Black Squirrel Productions in Seattle. Ernie was excited about this new opportunity because he was told by the producers that he was likely going to be the new face of the brand, and that there could be a series of commercials featuring him to be produced in the future. Then, suddenly, the plug was pulled on his new advertising gig and the commercial Ernie shot was actually re-shot with a different actor. Producers told Ernie that the owner’s of OliVaylle had received links to “Family” and because of the nature of the show, no longer wanted Ernie to represent them."

Read more about it here. This stinks on ice. He's an actor, for God's sake. It's bad enough to discriminate against people who actually are polyamorous. This guy got shafted for just playing one on TV, as it were.

I don't usually re-post these sorts of things.... But this is so beautiful. The music is great, the photos are moving. It's such a perfect expression of this very important human rights issue.

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Letter From A Reader

Dear Matisse,

Firstly, thank you for your entertaining and informative blog. I have been enjoying it for several years now. I understand your time is valuable, and appreciate that. As a potential contribution, perhaps you can get another entry, or Stranger column out of this...and hopefully it won't be a 'bad' one!

I am seriously looking at becoming an escort, and have read some of your advice over the years, and am having some trouble locating (and don't recall you writing about it...which, of course, does not mean that you didn't write about it) info on how to tell if an escort service listing for women is legit, and not, well, the fuzz.

I remember your other tips, thank you. I was hoping you may have some tips on this. For example, there was an ad on Craigslist for women, and I have been corresponding with the woman who runs this operation. I have asked questions regarding safety, attire, fees, payment, etc. and am wondering if it is 'normal' to have the woman host, even if the gentlemen are from out of town & are likely staying in a hotel on business already. Do you know and/or have input on this, please?

So far, everything seems on the up & up, so to speak. She runs her business through referrals only from her trusted clients (or so she says). She did make one mention of "if you could seduce and completely pamper someone you have never met before". I am really looking to protect myself. Would it be better to locate one online & "apply" there?

Oh, what a charming reader. See, I am not immune to flattery, and I appreciate the acknowledgment of my needs. I like this person already.

So, Dear Reader, because you seem very nice, I am going to give you some advice on this, somewhat against my better judgment. I fear that in the wake of this, I am probably get a slew of “How do I do so-and-so and not get arrested?” I don’t answer those questions because I am not an attorney. Telling people how to break the law and not get caught is not the focus of this blog.

But I am going to give you some general tips, and here’s what I want from you in return. I want you to take some of the money you earn as an escort, and go very soon to consult an attorney in your area. Pay her/him to tell you about the law. That is just the smart thing to do. So be smart.

Also, go read this site, and watch the videos. These girls are far more current in the escort game than I am. And make a donation, too.

Here’s a book to start you off. There are actually tons of how-to-be-an-escort books around. In my opinion you should read them all, but you must at least read a few.

And read The Gift Of Fear.

Now, a few simple, not-legal-advice remarks.

Basic Rule: Don’t discuss anything illegal when you talk to your (potential) agency. I mean it. Do not talk about sex. Talk about your time and attention - that’s what you are selling. There are some buzz words you can use – “pamper” is fine. I personally think “seduce” is over the line. You can say things like “I want to make everyone I see happy they met me.” Remember, it is not illegal to work for an escort service. It’s only illegal to agree to have sex for money.

There is no good reason why you would ever mention sex to the agency, and they should not talk about sex to you. If they do, that’s a red flag. If they are talking about illegal things to you, they will talk about them to the clients, and that’s not cool.

You should work for an agency that’s been around a long time and has a reputation for good service and fair dealings. It takes time to build up trusted clientele. And as a new girl, you should only be sent to see men who know how this works and will be nice to you.

I’m puzzled by how you say “find one online” You did find one online…?

But Craigslist? Craigslist? Dear girl. No, no, no. Drop that and walk quickly away. You do not want anything to do with anyone on Craigslist. I strongly urge you to not go any further with that. Go up to that box in the left corner and search “Craigslist” for my previous remarks on the subject. (Note: Craigslist is fine for non-sex-work things. Not fine for sex work, though.)

Go look on Eros-Guide, if they have one for where you live. Find the agency with the nicest and most expensive-looking website. Then Google “escort reviews” and the name of your city. Search that agency name on the local escort review board. See what you get. If there is no Eros-Guide, search the board for the best-liked agency.

There is no normal in the escort business, there’s only what you do or don’t wish to do. It seems like you’re being asked to have the guys come to your place. It used to be that "escort" meant "outcall", but the term is more flexible now. If you want to do incall, that's all right, but I don’t recommend it in your case. If you’re going to let this agency owner give people your home address, I think she should first prove her good-client chops by sending you on outcalls for a while. Her idea of “a really nice guy” might differ dramatically from yours. You’ll want to find that out someplace besides your own doorstep.

Best of luck to you, and be careful!

So, I'm currently banging my head against the keyboard of my computer, trying to make a Stranger column come out of it. I'm not sure if the magic words are lodged in my skull, or if they are trapped somewhere between the keys. But I feel that some percussion is required somewhere, and quickly, because it's due today.

That's all exactly as much fun as it sounds like it would be, so I'll spare you further description. Until I'm done with my impact-play scene, perhaps you'll amuse yourself making up captions for this Flickr shot.

I have arranged a large part of my life around the fact that I am not a morning person. As in, seriously not.

However, sometimes one has to do things one does not like. So this morning I am up at 7am to go meet a designer at a showroom - down south of Auburn, for god's sake - to pick out stuff for the remodel.

Seven-a-m. That's the middle of the night, as far as I am concerned. I really believe that each person's body is wired to want to sleep at certain times and be awake at certain times, and it's hard for us to change that. My body? Wants to stay awake until 2 or 3 am, and then sleep until 10 or 11am. That is what feels normal to me.

So the Mistress is a bit cranky this morning. But I'll try to be amused by faucets and tiles and so on. Check the Flickr feed, I'll send some snapshots.

But really, who put the morning people in charge?

It's a new edition of The Stranger and a new edition of me talking about sexy stuff. Enjoy!

Wow, there's a lot of kinky stuff going on this weekend. The perma-fabulous Midori is in town! She's hosting the annual Bang For The Buck Party Friday night, for all the hot women in Seattle. It's at the Wet Spot/ CSPC, and it will be wild, and full of hot women. Check the sexy flyer out here.
She's doing some workshops at Babeland as well!

***

Having such cool events and such a great social scene, it's easy to forget that it ain't so easy everywhere. Right now in the UK, kinky people are struggling with the so-called "extreme porn ban". As of January 2009, it is illegal for anyone in England and Wales to possess an "extreme" image, even if the activity itself is legal.

What the hell is that? Besides utter bullshit, I mean. It's not illegal to be kinky, but it's illegal to have a picture of it?

But there's a group called backlash. backlash was created in 2005 by the Libertarian Alliance, the Spanner Trust, the Sexual Freedom Coalition, Feminists against Censorship, Ofwatch and Unfettered to collate evidence for an informed debate on censorship and to fight plans to criminalise ownership of material the Home Office finds abhorrent.
It is committed to raising awareness about why the plans are wrong, won't work and about the inevitable unintended consequences if government plans go ahead.
Go here to read all about this ban and what you can do to help backlash!

It's another episode of the polyamory web-cast series, Family. In this one, Gemma meets some of the neighbors...



I'm enjoying these very much, and I know other folks are too. I have only one critique of them. I want more, now!

You see, I am trying to be patient while the filmmakers build what is obviously going to be a layered story-arc, but I am not naturally inclined to patience. I want to learn some more about the main triad. Thus far, we haven't seen any exposition about how they came to be, and how the relationships work. Were two of them in a couple before the third came along, or did they all get together at more or less the same time? We understand that Gemma is sexual with both Ben and Stuart, but are Ben and Stuart sexual with each other? There are references to Stuart having other partners, but it's not totally clear if that's true, and what about Ben? I feel like I don't know these people very well, and I'd like to.

One of the rules of writing dialogue is: never have your characters talk about things they already know. Thus, backstory can be hard to do without sliding into this kind of thing: "As you know, Gemma, I was poly for a long time before we met, but Stuart is new to this..." Bad. It's the dreaded "info dump" that you'll see unwary writers do, usually about chapter two, in novels.

So they aren't falling into that trap, which I appreciate. I'd simply like to add more to my understanding of the characters. However, this episode ends with one of the previously-hostile neighbors making a friendly overture. Maybe if that storyline develops, we can get some history and outline, as they explain it to the new people.

I read an article in the New York Times recently, about scientific studies of the nature of women’s sexual desires. It’s a long piece, but I think it’s well worth reading. So go do that, and then come back and read this, because this is not intended to be a review or a summary of the article, but rather some thoughts of mine in response to it.

My first thought about Meredith Chivers was: how come I never get to volunteer for studies like this? I suppose one has to answer those “research subjects needed” ads. But it just sounds very interesting to be shown different kinds of porn, and then have your responses measured. Of course, I’d be wild with curiosity to know how my reactions compared with other people’s, and I imagine they don’t tell you about that.

This is interesting. (Emphasis mine.)

“Richard Lippa, a psychologist at California State University, has employed surveys of thousands of subjects to demonstrate over the past few years that while men with high sex drives report an even more polarized pattern of attraction than most males (to women for heterosexuals and to men for homosexuals), in women the opposite is generally true: the higher the drive, the greater the attraction to both sexes, though this may not be so for lesbians.”

So according to this, women who are not lesbians, but who do have naturally higher sex drives, are more likely to be attracted to both men and women? That would explain a lot.

It may be be that I have done an injustice to some of the dominant men who said they could train their submissive female partners to come on command, without any physical stimulation. Although I will point out that it still doesn’t happen instantly, at the snap of a finger. Also, note the keyword: rare.

“Barry Komisaruk, a neuroscientist at Rutgers University, has subjects bring themselves to orgasm while lying with their heads in an fM.R.I. scanner — he aims to chart the activity of the female brain as subjects near and reach four types of climax: orgasms attained by touching the clitoris; by stimulating the anterior wall of the vagina or, more specifically, the G spot; by stimulating the cervix; and by “thinking off,” Komisaruk said, without any touch at all. While the possibility of a purely cervical orgasm may be in considerable doubt, in 1992 Komisaruk, collaborating with the Rutgers sexologist Beverly Whipple (who established, more or less, the existence of the G spot in the ’80s), carried out one of the most interesting experiments in female sexuality: by measuring heart rate, perspiration, pupil dilation and pain threshold, they proved that some rare women can think themselves to climax.”

All of Marta Meana’s remarks are very interesting:

"For women, “being desired is the orgasm,” Meana said somewhat metaphorically — it is, in her vision, at once the thing craved and the spark of craving…. She recalled a patient whose lover was thoroughly empathetic and asked frequently during lovemaking, “ ‘Is this O.K.?’ Which was very unarousing to her. It was loving, but there was no oomph” — no urgency emanating from the man, no sign that his craving of the patient was beyond control.”

Yes, I dislike that, too. I mean, it’s all right to ask occasionally, but I have been with lovers who ask over and over, and it is a turn-off.

“And within a committed relationship, the crucial stimulus of being desired decreases considerably, not only because the woman’s partner loses a degree of interest but also, more important, because the woman feels that her partner is trapped, that a choice — the choosing of her — is no longer being carried out…. “

Speaking only for myself, I agree with this, and I think this is one of the many reasons why polyamory is the right thing for me. I continue to feel chosen by my lovers, and to feel that I am choosing them. And that if I wish, I can choose someone in addition to them, and feel the pleasure of being chosen by the new partner.

"A symbolic scene ran through Meana’s talk of female lust: a woman pinned against an alley wall, being ravished. Here, in Meana’s vision, was an emblem of female heat. The ravisher is so overcome by a craving focused on this particular woman that he cannot contain himself; he transgresses societal codes in order to seize her, and she, feeling herself to be the unique object of his desire, is electrified by her own reactive charge and surrenders. Meana apologized for the regressive, anti-feminist sound of the scene."

As is acknowledged in the article, this is a very tricky subject to talk about. So let me say also what the researchers said: rape is very very wrong. I do not condone rape, ever.

Let us talk instead of how I have felt with people – both men and women – that I was attracted to and wanted to have sex with. In the chapter that precedes the sex, where you have not said it aloud but both of you are thinking it, the part where you are both dancing and feinting and flirting, every sense you have trained on the other – their smile, their scent, the timbre of the voice as they speak to you – in that moment, it is extremely arousing to feel that they want you so much that they wish to transgress, that they would seize you if they could, and that you would be consumed in that passion.

You can’t manufacture that electricity if one of you isn’t willing. But if there’s even a slight tingle, it is possible sometimes to turn up the juice. I have a dual perspective - I have seduced and ravished other women myself. I know how I conveyed with my eyes, my words, the angle of my head and my body, that if she would only say yes, I could burn us both up in passion, and that we would enjoy that burning. I know what it feels like to have the electricity in me run through my hands and mouth and into someone else, and electrify her. I have seen the pleasure that women took in surrendering to me in that way.

And the pleasure that I took in doing that was very different from the pleasure I took when it was my back to the alley wall, being electrified by someone else’s charge.

It’s not that you must always be either the ravisher or the ravished in sex. But it’s a potent dynamic of desire. I think that it’s one of the things that can draw both men and women to dominant/submissive sex: the wish to experience the role of either the one who dares to transgress, and thus wins his/her desire - or the role of the one who is so desired that a lover dares all for them.

Thank you, dear readers, for your outpouring of clever ideas and suggestions about lighting. Great minds apparently think alike - or Google alike - because several of ya'll sent me links to this site: Y Lighting. I think their stuff has a lot of promise. It's not exactly what I was envisioning, but lots of it is close, and it's all very cool.

Several folks made brilliant (heh) remarks about LED lights.

Other suggestions included using photo gear, which is where I got the idea to begin with. I used to do a lot of photography. I miss it, but I really don't shoot anymore - no time, I blog instead! However, I still have a couple of softboxes designed for hot lights, and I'm not above re-purposing them if need be. (If it could be done safely, of course.)

And lots of you also took the opportunity to say sweet things to me about the blog and the column and the podcasts, which is always very nice to hear, so thank you for that, as well.

Hey, clever readers - give to me your vast store of knowledge about lighting. Because it may be that what I want already exists, and my Google-fu has failed me.

What I want is a light box I can install in my wall. I don't mean to display images on, I mean to use as a light source. Let me explain what I think I'm going to do, and you tell me if you've seen anything like this...

In my lighting fantasy, Jerry The Super-Contractor cuts a rectangle out of the sheetrock of my wall. Size? Oh, just say roughly 24 inches tall by 18 across. That’s just off the top of my head, the size is flexible. Not much smaller than that, although bigger could be cool. Height? Oh, say starting from slightly above my eye level.

In the open space, we wire in sockets for several standard light bulbs. Wattage TBD, but something like three 60w bulbs, so around the 180w total. On a dimmer switch, naturally.

I’m fond of the warmth of incandescent bulbs but I suppose I might be talked into color-corrected, non-flickering fluorescents.

Over these bulbs, we place white fabric, of the type that is used for lampshades and photographer’s softboxes, so it’s designed to withstand heat. It would be intended to lay flat, flush to the wall, not protruding at all.

Obviously I need to be able to open this up and change the bulbs. So the fabric – the shade, essentially – would need to be on some sort of frame. Perhaps we might frame in the hole and then design the shade-frame to fit snugly into that hole. I’m open to ideas about that, as long as it works and looks cool.

In sum: I want a large soft light source to wash the area, and one that's recessed into the wall so that it's flat. I want to clear up the floor space of the various floor lamps I’ve got going on now. (Do not speak of overhead lights to me, overhead lights are evil.)

Can you visualize what I'm saying? I can make these if need be, but I have no desire to re-invent the wheel if that’s unnecessary. Has anyone seen anything like this already made and commercially available? I’ve looked and looked and seen nothing like this.

A new podcast! In which Monk and I talk about sex work busts in Seattle and what not to do if you're operating a store-front sex work business. We're such entrepreneurs ourselves that we're fascinated by other forms of sex-oriented businesses, and how they succeed or fail. We'd do a great sexy-business-advice radio show... except that we're too busy running our various businesses.

Have a lovely weekend!