The Dominant Female & Her Message

As a confirmed lover, purveyor, and consumer of FemDom pornography I find it baffling that so many feminists are so vehemently opposed to my work. The argument, of course, is simple; that what I do, though it promotes women as objects of worship, nevertheless remains sexual objectification at the end of the day. Such a categorical stance is simply further proof that that the appeal to meta-narratives robs thinking of the very flexibility that allows it to operate as it should; freely moving in such fashion as to maximize its scope with regard to its object of consideration. And while I may be accused with some justification of regarding women TOO highly and thus placing them again outside the boundaries of those social ‘norms’ within which these feminists (generally speaking, of course) are adamant about being recognized, it would seem that I should nevertheless be credited with erring on the side of over-appraisal rather than under or non-appraisal. Well, you can’t win ‘em all.

In any case, my exalted view of the phenomenon of woman is certainly (and obviously, I think) not limited to the area of the sexual. Nor is it in any way tongue-in-cheek. I love women on every level. I believe they are quite simply God’s finest works by a staggering margin. If the ‘God’ thing is too much for you, then I am happy to replace the word ‘God’ with the word ‘Evolution’. It’s all the same in my mind. The biggest problem I see with this comprehensive mode of denouncing all things pornographic is that it first arose, in the main, out of the jealousy and indeed the contempt felt by the average housewife or working girl in the late 50’s and early 60’s for the fact that beautiful women were beginning to be rewarded JUST for being beautiful. No, no, they objected! It cannot be in any way construed as ‘fair’ that hotties make more money simply by posing for the camera than the working girl makes in her 40 hr. week as slave to the grind. And I can certainly sympathize! The feeling of being somehow cheated by such an arrangement is only natural. But the objections should be leveled at the manufacturer, not at the girl. Nature, for whatever reasons, saw fit to endow her with a certain appearance. Picketing Nature, then, or perhaps the girl’s parents for their genetic predisposition, makes infinitely more sense than picketing the offices of prurient publishers.

Before the evolution of the media, hot women only had two options, stripping and prostitution. But then came Hefner. Suddenly, beautiful women were appearing on the pages of a high-profile, professionally designed, and, no matter what anyone may say, socially viable publication. Now a girl had the option of being photographed as opposed to selling her body concretely. Those who don’t grasp the profound difference between these two modes of erotic commerce are in deeper denial than the worst substance addicts. The difference constitutes an absolute polarity.

I am well-acquainted with the con argument here as well. It runs along these lines; that selling the image is still selling the body, at least as far as the male consumer is concerned. He continues to pay his money and achieve his orgasm at the moral and ethical expense of the model. But even the most cursory analysis of this argument reveals its fatal weakness. The basis of this typical argument against any kind of pornography is that open sexuality is immoral. It’s as simple as that. And what is this but a judgment based upon whatever subjective factors its proponent wants to invoke? In truth, the problem with prostitution was and is it’s health risks to both participants, and its relinquishing of control on the part of the woman in terms of her physical safety. Whether or not general social consensus dictates that the concrete act of facilitating a man’s orgasm is immoral couldn’t be more irrelevant to the differences between physical prostitution and adult modeling. There is no point here in a lengthy exposition on the benefits of safety, anonymity, convenience, and all the other elements that create the widest of gulfs between pornography and prostitution. They are self-evident. The point is simply that modern media allows women and men to participate in erotic pleasure in ways that remove the threat of physical consequences from the equation.

What has been said thus far is applicable to pornography in general, but the real discussion here is meant to deal with the phenomenon of Female Domination specifically. So, to return to the argument, it is a fact that men who are truly submissive to dominant women do not see them as soulless, objectified entities. They see them as queens, as goddesses, as the beings most worthy of a man’s worship, unconditional love, and purest affection. The fact that there is also a raging sexual attraction at work in the mix only enhances the value of such a woman in the man’s esteem. We who worship powerful, beautiful women recognize them as our superiors in every sense. It is difficult to see how such an all-encompassing love and reverence for these women can in any way be construed as degrading or dehumanizing. Again, we recognize the fact that any complaints against this kind of reverence must come from women who are not fortunate enough to be endowed with the same physical gifts. But do not these women, in turn, generally possess gifts not granted to the dominatrix? They do, and yet we don’t generally hear the female dominant complaining that the woman who is born with a gift for, say, painting, has an unfair advantage in the art world. She doesn’t feel cheated if the woman who has a natural flair for mathematics and science can get a better job than she in the field of physics.

The truth is that the merits of our subject regarding the kinds of actions that empower women and the kinds that perpetuate servile attitudes toward men cannot be judged in accordance with any kind of comprehensive application. To coin the cliché, they do not exist in a vacuum. They depend greatly upon the particular circumstances and upon the individual(s)involved. In pointing this out, I should also clarify that I have not meant to suggest here that all adult modeling experiences are positive ones. Such a claim is obviously absurd. Female domination, as a pornographic vocation at any rate, is no different for a woman than any other job. There are good situations and bad situations. You can work with good people or evil people. And if it should turn out that you’re putting forth a message that women are objects to be controlled by men, you can at least be appeased by the knowledge that the content of that message is that a woman can and will kick the shit out of a man any time she feels like it. Of course, if it turns out that a great number of women find the content and the message to be that of empowering women to keep men in their places, and to use them for the purpose of vocational gain, how can that be a bad thing?



Well, the real bottom line to this discussion is that what is far more important than any particulars of belief is simply the reaffirmation that trying to legislate or codify morality and ethics within the tight confines of any system, particularly those systems still steeped in the anachronous puritanical standards of what are fast becoming our distant ancestors, is that we awaken ourselves and others to the understanding that each of us is a molecule in motion within the grand flow of evolution. But this understanding comes only by conscious choice. We may either open ourselves to the individual growth and progress inherent in that grand flow, or we may choose to try resisting it, kicking against the pricks, as it were. The former choice is the choice of expanding consciousness, tolerance, and ever-deepening harmony, both within and without. The latter choice will always represent the denial of inevitable change, and with it the prejudice, dissonance, and self-aggrandizement that has always and continues to manifest itself in the form of a world in the throes of utter dysfunction, and indeed, self-destruction.

So, in closing, let’s get back to the notion of a free society. If you disagree with what I’m doing, exercise your freedom and don’t read it. FemDom is not going to destroy civilization. In fact, I make the argument elsewhere in my writings that it may well SAVE civilization. I know from long experience that it is among the most difficult of endeavors to stimulate the opening of closed minds. I also know that many feminists, moralists, fundamentalists, and a few other ‘ists’ are always going to denounce me as a misogynist simply because that’s the way they’re wired. But it will always be incumbent upon me to defend my adoration of women by demonstrating at the very least that the arguments for that denunciation are at best the products of spurious and invalid reasoning, and at worst patently false.