Saturday, January 29, 2005

The Contest

It all began when Roman and I started talking about our possible plans for KinkFest, the upcoming BDSM convention in Portland. Now, he and I very much enjoy our informal, give-and-take style of SM play. Anarchist SM, I call it. But it seemed like it might be time to do something more like a traditional BDSM scene. And since we're both shameless exhibitionists, what better place to do it than in front of several hundred other kinksters? So we decided we should take the opportunity at Kinkfest to co-top someone (meaning: the two of us ganging up on one bottom).

But who? We both have a number of charming friends and acquaintances that might enjoy our evil attentions….Somehow, though, that just didn't seem like what we wanted for this.

We considered just cruising the dungeon to see what fell into our net. But that seemed a little too haphazard.

Truthfully, I don't recall which of us came up with the idea of a contest on the blogs. But, somehow, the idea that we would open this up to our readers was born. (Probably because of the all the ladies Roman has swooning over him. I'm just piggybacking here.)

We formed a concept not unlike a reality television show. We'll set out the rules and the eligibility requirements, there will be tests and challenges, and then at the end of it all, we'll pick a winner, and Roman and I will do a dungeon-stopping scene with her at Kinkfest.

The Rules, and Who Can Play

Well, obviously, you need to be going to Kinkfest. Sorry, we don't actually have a reality TV show budget, so we're not buying anyone a plane ticket.

Now I must deal a crushing blow to half the human race, because this contest is for girls only. Sorry boys, you know I love you, but Roman has this kinky-interest meter, and it doesn't go up for men. God knows I've tried to get him into some hot guy-on-guy action, but so far, he's declined. Plus, I've gotten a fair amount of complaints lately from certain people about my relentlessly Y-chromosome dance card, and it seems like it's time to address that. So, women only in this contest.

This is a big one: We cannot already know you. We're intrigued by the idea of meeting someone new. If you're a local friend of ours, and you'd like Roman and me to be mean to you, talk to us about that privately. This time out, we're looking for a sexy stranger.

Another uber-important rule: you must be an experienced, high-capacity SM player. There are times when it's charming to take someone who's brand new and slowly and carefully introduce them to the joys of kink. This ain't one of those times. I'm a safe but serious sadist, ladies, and I want to rock and roll at this party. Oh, and you have to be okay getting naked and playing in a public dungeon. We're not completely ruling out some private interaction, but it's more likely that the entire scene will be done in the Kinkfest playspace.

About sex: there will not be any with me. I'm not looking for that. Roman? Well, boys will be boys, and if you want to, and he wants to, I might be entertained by watching that. But we're definitely not expecting sex from you.

You must be willing to have your picture on the internet. Oh yeah, did we mention we're going to be posting all the entries? It'll be like the "American Idol" of BDSM scenes. Roman and I will block out your face before we post them if you insist on that, and we won't publish your name, your email address or any other identifying info about you. (Unless you ask us to.)

But in the photos you send us – and you will definitely be sending us pictures – we will have to see your face. I am quite clear that I'm not doing this scene with someone who won't show me her face beforehand.

(There will be no pictures of the scene itself, because public dungeons forbid such photo-taking. But we're certain to write about it.)

So your photos, your responses to our challenges, and Roman and my responses to them will all be posted online. Each week, we'll eliminate some contestants and some will go on.

Assuming we get any takers at all in this mad scheme, it should be a hell of a lot of fun.

And now, just because one has to say such things: The scene will be negotiated and it'll be completely safe, sane and consensual. Nothing will happen you didn't agree to. There will be other people around the whole time, so you know for sure you won't wind up in an oil drum somewhere. Obviously you know who we are, so you can check up on us, if you feel that's necessary.

If you're interested, send Roman and me an email telling us about yourself, and attach a picture, or direct us to a website where a picture of you can be seen. Spelling and punctuation will count for this email, and for all other communications you have with us, so run it through a spell-checker before you send it off.

If you'd like to hear a bit more from us about the contest and the weekly challenges we'll be putting our potential play-partners through, I'll be posting a video clip tomorrow of us talking more about it. Stay tuned for that...

Friday, January 28, 2005

People, I must tell you: if you leave me a voicemail that's longer than about thirty seconds, I'm probably going to think you're kinda weird. Okay, maybe forty-five. But if you leave me some three-minute rambling stream-of-consciousness message - especially if I don't know you – I will most likely think, "This person's gauge of appropriate social interaction is a little off. Maybe they're stoned. Maybe they didn't take their medication today. But wow, I really don't want to call them back."
I'm just saying. So now you know.

In other news…Roman and I had a date last night, and we took time out from having rabid ferret sex to shoot some video footage about a kinky little idea we've cooked up that could, possibly, involve you. Yes, I said you. We'll be making an interesting announcement tomorrow, so watch for that.

Now I have to go change the sheets…

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Ring Ring!

Me: Hello?
Caller: Is this Mistress Matisse?
Me: Yes it is.
Caller: Yes, I was wondering if you'd turn me into a woman?

Has sort of a through-the-looking-glass sound to it, doesn't it? This caller actually isn't expecting me to wave a magic wand over him, and he isn't even expecting me to prescribe him hormones and schedule him for surgery. He's looking for a heavy feminization scene - and he's doomed to disappointment, because I don't do that. It's just not a fetish of mine, and as Roman always says, "One must play to one's strengths."

It's not that I can't enjoy a boy in high heels. If you're a guy who wants to put on a bra and a garter belt and play "naughty-girl-who-gets-what's-coming-to-her", I'm down with that. Or if you just like the silky feel of the lingerie next to your skin, I'm quite fine with that, too.

But I don't do complete transformations on people, with wigs and makeup and padded bras and girdles and their cocks duct-taped up between their legs, and that's what this caller wants. And even if one assumes it's possible for someone to teach a man how to be a woman, I don't do that. That's a sub-specialty of professional dominance, and I leave it to the women who are good at it, because I'm not.

At least he isn't asking for the "forced-feminization" thing. I can sort of deal with that game, if it's kept at a very light and playful level. But, as I've said here before, I find the idea that I would seriously punish or humiliate a man by making him resemble a woman incredibly misogynistic, so it's rare for me to even dabble in that dynamic.

Me: You know, that's not really a specialty of mine. If you want to dress for a scene, that's fine, but I don't do serious feminization training.
Caller: Oh – you don't?
Me: No, I'm sorry. I know there are some other ladies in town who do, though. Have you called Mistress X?
Caller: It's just that – oh, you're so beautiful, I really wanted you to train me.
Me: That's very sweet, but, it's just not something I'm really into, so – I don't offer it.
Caller: So you've never trained a sissy-slave?

See, even the terminology for this turns me off. "Sissy-slave". I don't like that word.

Me: No, as I said, I'm just not into it.
Caller: Well, I'm very submissive and obedient, and if you'd just give me a try I really think I could please you. And then maybe you could teach me to be your little sissy-slave.

I love how people try to get me to change my mind about not playing with them by emphasizing how submissive they are. Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in terms here?

Me: No.
Caller: But Mistress, please, if you tried it, maybe you'd really like it!
Me: Listen to me carefully, because I'm about to tell you something you apparently don't already know: you cannot talk someone into sharing your fetish. You need to find someone else who's into this – but I'm not, so goodbye.

Click. I hang up. Better luck elsewhere, Miss Thing.

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

A note to my regular clients: I had a last-minute cancellation today - bad boy! But his loss could be your gain: I would be available to do a same-day appointment today anytime after 3pm. I'm busy all morning, but I'll start returning messages at noon...

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

What I'm reading these days…

Gentleman Spies: Intelligence Agents in the British Empire and Beyond, by John Fisher. The evolution of the British foreign intelligence bureau from before WW1. Not well-written, I'm afraid, but there's lots of interesting pieces of information in the jumbled-up writing. So I'm skipping around, reading a page here and there and skimming the rest.

Maiden of Tonnerre: The Vicissitudes of the Chevalier and the Chevaliaere D'Eon by Charles D'Eon de Beaumont, Nina Ekstein (Translator), Roland A. Champagne (Translator)
This one is so complicated I'll just let you read the publisher's blurb…
"Chevalier d'Eon de Beaumont was born in 1728. Raised as a boy, he was educated as a lawyer and entered the service of Louis XV as a diplomat. In 1756 he was sent to the Russian imperial court as a spy and was said to have dressed as a young woman to gain the confidence of the Empress Elizabeth. He later served in Russia (as a man) as secretary to the French ambassador. Returning to France in 1761, he was appointed a captain of the elite Dragoons and, after the Treaty of Paris in 1762, went to England as a diplomat and spy. During that time persistent rumors that he was in fact a woman arose, and he did nothing to dispel them. By 1777 he was officially recognized as female in both England and France. Recalled to France, he was reluctantly compelled by Louis XVI to give up his male attire. In 1785 he began to compose his autobiography, which presented much of his experience in religious terms, and he moved back to London. He lived there as a woman until his death in 1810, at which time his body was discovered to be unambiguously male." This volume includes the first English translations of d'Eon's autobiography (or "historical epistle") and other writings by d'Eon on his life, religious beliefs, and stories of women who concealed their sex to enter religious orders. As historian Gary Kates notes in the introduction, d'Eon's writing can be read on at least two levels: while it ostensibly tells the story of a woman who spent half her life as a man, it is in fact also the story of a man who spent half his life as a woman. As such it demonstrates both the construction and transgression of gender boundaries and historical narrative."

Whew. Complex - but interesting.

A Singular Hostage by Thalassa Ali. Sort of an adventure/romance novel, set in 1830's India. Good for light bedtime reading.

Elements of Fiction Writing Series: Scene and Structure, by Jack M Bickham. I like this whole series, it's very nuts-and-bolts, and while this one is almost - how shall I say, mathematical? - in it's approach, I got a lot out of it.

Chocolate: A Bittersweet Saga of Dark and Light, by Mort Rosenblum. I've just started nibbling at this one, a sort of cultural/historical look at the sweet stuff. It does tend to make one hungry.

God's Secretaries: The Making of The King James Bible by Adam Nicolson. Set a bit earlier than my favorite historical period, which is post-1750. But well-written and interesting just the same.

Mistress Ruby Ties it Together by Robin Shamburg. A short account of the author's experience as a pro dom in New York City. I'm unimpressed – she's not a bad writer, but her characters are one-dimensional and she's too eager to distance herself from the whole thing to really give us any insight into them, or herself. She's not really kinky, you see, she just did it for the money. As far as I'm concerned, that's an instant credibility-killer.

Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel: A Novel, by Susanna Clarke. Hmmn, what to say about this book? Aside from the fact that it's 800 pages and so big and bulky you could use it to club seals. The publisher says, "Susanna Clarke's ingenious first novel has the cleverness and lightness of touch of the Harry Potter series, but is less a fairy tale of good versus evil than a fantastic comedy of manners, complete with elaborate false footnotes, occasional period spellings, and a dense, lively mythology teeming beneath the narrative."
It didn't remind me of Harry Potter – those books read quickly and easily, and this book is very densely written. It is interesting, in a slogging-through-waist-high-water sort of way. But rather tiring to read, and coming from a muscular reader like me, that's saying something.

Monday, January 24, 2005

Busy girl today, so, some other things to amuse you...

Naked Girl Pics: This is what was going on in the cage in my bedroom last week. What a time to be sick! I was utterly unable to appreciate it properly, but even in my feverish state, I was pleased it was happening. Candy Girl and Rossi are not only pretty, they're cool girls...

Anyone ever tried this stuff? I hear it's big fun for those sensitive places...

Interesting article about Poly in the Denver Post. It's not bad, although it makes it sound like we're all perenially chasing new partners. Not me, I'm quite pleased with my little family.

Addendum: An ABC News story about the Extreme Associates case....

Local note: I'm looking for a plumber who does natural-gas work. I need a consult for a light-industrial application, preferably within the week. (I'm pursuing this off-line, of course, but I believe in putting what you want out to the universe. You never know.)

Now I'm off to renew my car tabs. Yes, my life is just one non-stop kinky orgy...

Sunday, January 23, 2005


I've gotten a few notes asking me about the outcome of the BOB awards. I'm reasonably sure that I did win in my category, although I still haven't heard anything official from the BOB awards folks. I'll let you all know when I do. Meanwhile, thanks to everyone who voted for me, I very much appreciate it!

As a side note...I have heard from a number of sources that some people feel I may have won this unfairly, because I have a professional site, with my own domain, as well as this blog, and they felt that I was using that site to drive traffic here.

In fact, I never mentioned the contest on And what's also true is that that site gets less than 500 hits per day, as you can see here. Here on the blog, I get between 2500 and 3000 hits a day. So if any site is driving traffic anywhere, it's this blog driving it over to my professional site. (Which is just as I expected, and was, in fact, a consideration in starting the blog in the first place. It's all about marketing, kids. I'm a very serious girl when it comes to marketing.)

I think all the other nominees are excellent bloggers, and I was pleased to be in their company. I'm actually going to decline some of the prizes, like the free blog hosting for a year, so that will trickle down to one of the other finalists, and I hope they enjoy that.

A much bigger and more important win: Obscenity charges have been dismissed against Extreme Associates!
EA is a porn video company which makes pornography of an extreme nature. They shoot piss and scat, simulated rape, and simulated murder/snuff. They are edgy and they are nasty, no question about it. In 2003, the federal government arrested Robert Zicari and his wife, Janet Romano, the owners of Extreme Associates, on 9 counts of violating Federal obscenity statutes and 1 count of conspiracy.
I've seen one of EA's videos - Forced Entry - and I didn't particularly like it. But that doesn't alter the fact that they have a constitutional right to make it, and so I am quite pleased that the court found in their favor. Here's a quote from another blogger who knows more about the legal part of it than I do... (BEGIN QUOTE)

"On Thursday, January 20, 2005, Western District of Pennsylvania Federal Judge, Gary L. Lancaster dismissed all charges against Extreme and the individuals. The decision found the obscenity laws unconstitutional as it applied to this case, which means the laws are still technically valid on their face. However, if you read the decision, the Judge essentially destroys the government's ability to prosecute obscenity at all. You can read about the case here. The Court summarized its findings, stating:

We find that the federal obscenity statutes burden an individual's fundamental right to possess, read, observe, and think about what he chooses in the privacy of his own home by completely banning the distribution of obscene materials. As such, we have applied the strict scrutiny test to those statutes. The federal obscenity statutes fail the strict scrutiny test because they are not narrowly drawn to advance the asserted governmental interests of protecting minors and unwitting adults from exposure to obscene materials, as applied to these defendants and the facts of this case. Because the federal obscenity statutes are unconstitutional as applied, defendants' indictment must be dismissed.
In addition, the court also flatly rejected the right of the government to enforce laws to further the interest of "morality", since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned all laws which ban private consensual sodomy between adults in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Here the court said:

The Lawrence decision, however, is nevertheless important to this case. It can be reasonably interpreted as holding that public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consensual, sexual conduct even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public's sense of morality. Such is the import of Lawrence to our decision.
This decision is a huge victory for individual liberty and freedom of speech.

However, I see a huge logic gap in the Judge's decision which may make it ripe for reversal on appeal.The decision to dismiss the charges was not based on the 1st Amendment. In fact, the court conceded that the 1st Amendment does not protect obscenity. See Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). However, the Supreme Court has also ruled that the mere possession of obscenity in your home could not be prosecuted. See Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969).
Nonetheless, the government could (and did) freely prosecute anyone who distributes
obscenity. Here's what the judge did which appears somewhat curious. Judge Lancaster held that the 14th Amendment prohibits the government from prosecuting distributors of obscenity. Hence, it violates the Due Process clause of the Constitution to prosecute someone for distributing material which can be legally possessed.This means that even though obscenity is not protected by the 1st Amendment, the 14th Amendment protects an individual's right to possess and distribute obscenity. In other words, the government can make a law banning a form of speech (i.e. obscenity). However, they can't make it illegal to own it or distribute it. Under that logic, the entire concept of obscenity has become abrogated and essentially null and void. It's like giving the government a power, but not letting them actually use it.The government can choose to appeal this decision, and may have some grounds, as I've articulated.

Note: I applaud any decisions which protect freedom of speech, as this one does. However, I don't want to see good results overturned. Although there are risks for the government if they appeal. Since this is a trial level decision, it has no precedential effect on other jurisdictions. This means, that other courts can choose to ignore this decision entirely. If the government chooses to appeal and they lose in the Circuit Court or Supreme Court, then that decision would be binding on other courts.This decision may have a huge impact on the pending case of Nitke v. Ashcroft where the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) is fighting to overturn the Communications Decency Act, which is a law banning obscenity on the internet. The lead attorney on the suit is jwirenius I encourage anyone who is interested in either sexual freedom or freedom of speech to check out the NCSF website and find out more. " (END QUOTE)

Great info, all of it...I don't usually quote people at such length, but hey, he said it so well... So rejoice, lovers of free speech.