You are right in some respects. Women are sexual beings who can do the ’sistas are doing’ it for themselves’ bit just as easily as a man can. -(Odd how boys who play with themselves are derided as wankers, but girls are not. Why do you think that is, Denise?) – but expect to be paid in one way or another when they are with a partner and they expect men to be the ones paying.

Now if only Feminists could create a way for dildos, vibrators, ben-wa balls etc to pay up for the privilege of tickling a woman’s fancy. Now there’s a Government Program for Hillary to think about. Federal and State Grants perhaps, through VAWA? Maybe freely dispensed vawa-balls will replace store-bought ben-wa ones.

School lessons perhaps (save the next generation looking at the clock). “Pay attention at the back. You are inserting that sex toy the WRONG way!! and why aren’t you making a noise? Look at the board and repeat after me, O! Plus! Perge! Aio! Hui! Hem! ” **

Maybe in co-ed classes the boys can help the girls who are falling behind. Fallen women everywhere. The boys would have to hand over their pocket money of course.

BEN-wa? Too masculine.

** (Oh! More! Go on! Yes! Ooh! Ummm!)

You say:”I believe the sex industry to be a natural product of the biological facts of male sexuality”. Hmmmm. Red rag to a bull, that. Female sexuality is just, what – responsive? Just supplying a need that isn’t the female’s ? I don’t think so. What of the biological facts of female sexuality? This shucking off responsibility to men is not on. Not acceptible any more. It is a song we have heard for far too long and tolerance is wearing thin.

(Denise) Of course females are sexual creatures. As a teen girl and young woman, I was very virginal — “sweet 16 and never been kissed” — but I reached an orgasm 6-18 times a day, every day. I used to watch the clock at school because I wanted to get home to my room so badly.
Women buy romance novels, dildos, vibrators, ben-wa balls, etc. They don’t in appreciable numbers pay for sexual PARTNERS. In the absence of women — the male homosexual community — prostitution thrives. Women don’t generally pay for visual pornography but it thrives where women are absent. The sex industry can exist in the absence of women in all-male environments. That is why I say it depends on male sexuality.

So Brenda has her own muse/daemon which drives her choice and she tries to accomodate the child’s needs. So much for the child coming first. Ah well. I guess that is the reality for most people even though the mantra is ‘the best interests of the child’. I say, most people – let’s correct that. The father’s interests come way behind the child’s in our society. At least she doesn’t say ‘men are pigs’ out loud. She let’s the whip sing its own song, just as the Public Policy does in the Courts.

I would push you just a little further if I may. You say:”I believe the sex industry to be a natural product of the biological facts of male sexuality”. Hmmmm. Red rag to a bull, that. Female sexuality is just, what – responsive? Just supplying a need that isn’t the female’s ? I don’t think so. What of the biological facts of female sexuality? This shucking off responsibility to men is not on. Not acceptible any more. It is a song we have heard for far too long and tolerance is wearing thin.

The proper study of man, is man, the old saying goes. Well, let’s have a bit of equal time and consideration here and say the proper study of woman is woman. A woman does according to her nature, not his. Women are and always have been actors rather than audience or ticket booth operators. Strike that. They run the ticket booth too. They are the gender that charges for natural, loving function. Women make a handsome living from this ‘male sexuality’ onto which you place responsibility. Women’s own muse/daemon drives that. Shirley?

By the way, Denise. The Title of the article is a claim not met. I have scrutinised in vain for what you have ‘learned’ from your friend. I see you have heard her words. But that is a function of ears, not intellect.

I know enough about you from your writings and the analyses they often contain to be fairly confident that you are an intelligent and insightful woman. So…. what did you learn?

(Denise) Hi amfortas. Part of the reason I wrote this blog is that I am amused by the incongruity of Brenda’s major roles. Stay-at-home-mom conjures up images of wholesome domesticity; dominatrix brings to mind those of a kind of self-conscious decadence. I find Brenda’s combination of them — and the way she feels they fit comfortably together — to be rather funny.
As I’ve indicated in previous blogs, I believe the sex industry to be a natural product of the biological facts of male sexuality. I don’t necessarily think that is a bad thing and since I do not yearn for a single-sexed world, I believe societies should make peace with the inevitably reality of sex work. Interestingly, Brenda has told me that she DOES have occasional female customers. I talked to another woman in the same business who said she also has had women as clients. Perhaps that is worth a blog in and of itself.
I actually believe Brenda to be a fairly psychologically healthy person. She is not a “men are pigs” type and does not talk about her clients with hostility or contempt as some sex workers (and others) do. I’m also aware that some people may read about Lylah’s mother and father and conclude the little tyke is not being raised by two real winners.
Brenda did not BECOME a professional dominatrix in order to spend time with little Lylah. She had been one for over a decade before getting pregnant. She went into professional domination because her lifestyle and sexual preferences are BDSM and she decided to make money at something she enjoys doing. She was considering getting a “straight” job but put it on hold while the kid is young so she can be there with the child. What I really learned about is the funny way in which things can seem to be compatible while also being diametrically opposed.

I know enough about you from your writings and the analyses they often contain to be fairly confident that you are an intelligent and insightful woman. So…. what did you learn?

Lies start as a means of gaining advantage illigitimately or avoiding the consequences of our actions. They create a false reality, usually for others, to decieve, but also within ourselves. Some are so adept at lying to others and to themselves that they do not even know they are lying. They decieve themselves. For them the division between real and unreal is eroded to nothing. Unreality pours into their mind like a Tsunami, sweeping the real and its apprehension aside and burying it under mud.

You repeat in #10, Brenda’s rationale, without comment. Brenda creates a falsehood and extends it to her child. Her ‘protectiveness’ is ertzatz. She distorts her own reality of laziness and reliance on the sexual depravities – abberrations may be a better word – of others to avoid real work to really provide for her child. She excuses with quite ridiculous claims about ‘wanting to be there for her child’. Sounds plausible on the surface but in reality a tissue.

She surrounds her child’s growing apprehension of reality with a false world of safety while she herself puts her life in moral, physical, sexual danger. She thinks she is safe because she has the whip! Deluded woman.

This self-delusion and reality distortion is the base upon which she is attempting to ‘grow’ a child’s mind.

You say little, Denise (not asked, not covered in the interview?) about Brenda’s own motive for the ‘work’ she chooses. When people have the choice, they usually gravitate toward work that expresses some deep and fundemental aspect of their personality / interest / talent. Brenda’s rationale is almost totally cast in terms of providing a safe environment for her child. She does not mention (you do not) her own proclivities.

She ‘could’ have chosen to be a tupperware agent or one of a thousand other occupations which would allow her to be a ’stay at home’. But she chose to be a whip-wielding dominatrix. A ’sex-worker’. Basically, a prostitute who witholds even sex! What does this tell you about the real Brenda?

Brenda is screwed up. She is not a ’stay at home mom’ as you say in the title. She is a deadbeat mom.

The child’s moral and intellectual health has no foundation in such a mother. Lylah is doomed.

They were talking about some guy who was arrested in Alabama (or some other bible-belt state if I remember correctly. He was insanely drunk, with a fifth an open half-empty fifth of jack daniels in the car.

His pants were down and he was using a penis pump on himself when he hit a school bus.

When I first heard this I thought:”what a jackass”.

Then later I started thinkin: somebody better help this guy, I hope they put him on suicide watch, because he has bad mental problems.

The simple fact is these dominatrixes aren’t doing these guys any favors. The overwhelming majority of these guys should be pointed to a shrink.

I think this is a major reason mental health for men is so bad in this country. When a man issues a “cry for help” it’s not interpreted as such.

If a woman had been using a dildo while driving drunk and hit a school bus, I’m sure she would have been treated through a mental health care perspective, instead of a “what a jackass through the book at him” law-enforcement perspective’s.

(Denise) Brenda wants to spend as much TIME with her little one as she can. That’s why she is a stay-at-home-mom. She doesn’t trust strangers to take care of her child and fears that leaving Lylah with strangers, whether in a day care center or with a babysitter, could expose the child to danger. You do hear day care and babysitter horror stories so Brenda’s protectiveness is at least understandable.
Brenda’s job allows her to be — most of the time — a stay-at-home-mom. She does have to have someone else care for the tot when she’s in a session but makes certain that someone else is someone she knows well enough to thoroughly trust. This is all what Brenda told me. I’m not saying it’s right, only that it is how she views it.

(Denise) I certainly hope Brenda doesn’t bring Lylah into a session on what is now “Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day.”

A ‘bad’ man, possibly, Denise, and no doubt well rid. But that is evading the point I was making. It doesn’t matter what the father is like, just as it does not matter what the mother is like. The child would be placed with the mother. If the mother is a supplier of sexually depraved services or of drugs or kills children, she gets sympathetic view and custody. “In the best interests of the child”. What Brenda did was deceive her child and wall off the reality of her being. She did not want the child to see what she was up to because of its dangers to the child’s soul. She could have chosen to do something that did not need to be hidden. Something the child could be proud of. But she chose otherwise.

In all of my comment I do not give outright condemnation of Brenda’s occupation. That is another matter. I focus on the harm to the child. I have known many, many women who have pursued variations of ‘the game’ and have had a professional as well as humane concern for their wellbeing. Many of those had children too.

(Denise) Hi, amfortas. I hope you’re doing well. I believe Brenda and the father separated by mutual consent or that Brenda broke it up. She was upset because he sometimes used cocaine. He was a large, muscular man but when he wanted money he would occasionally get dressed up in drag and prostitute himself to men, a practice to which Brenda strenuously objected. “I don’t want Lylah’s father exposing himself to sexually transmitted diseases,” she told me. Brenda claims that she is very careful to avoid any exchange of bodily fluids at her job.

Too much to expect Brenda to get a job, as a man would have too. Really provide and protect rather than put her child in harm’s way. Babysitters? Good grief. Where? In the middle of the freeway?

The excuses we make for ourselves in order to wall off our own conscience, spreads to include others. But which side of the wall is the child put? The open-ness of heart goes just so far and shuts the child in a false world where love is distorted beyond recognition.

So much for empathy. So much for ‘caring’. Such caring is what one expects from a nest of ants.

Maybe little Lylah will remain in ignorance for a while. Maybe she will even adopt her mother’s excuses when she becomes aware. She will know no others. Maybe she will consider the mother’s ertzatz ‘protection’ to be in her best interest and put aside any thoughts that mum is a bad’un that creep in during the night. Her mind will be as distorted as her mother’s heart by then and she will have to be creative in ’show and tell’ at school. No visits to mummy’s workplace on ‘Daughter’s Day either. Maybe a visit to the Zoo with an uncle. She will always have been excluded from a part of the being of the mother, decieved and walled off.

Virtue mentions the father. Why didn’t he stick around. Hah! I am astonished by the question. Good man, bad man, what does it matter. He could have been a Doctor like Steven’s travelling woman, or a Ghandi or a Salvation Army Major. A ‘Family Court’ Judge would consider the mother the better parent regardless. But what a mother to burden a child with.

It is easy to be enthralled by such tales of everyday depravity. There is a ‘moth & flame’ aspect. A fascination. But the little child is a reality. Her soul is being whipped along with Brenda’s customers’ backs and buttocks.

I sometimes think women enjoy wrting about or reading about male sexual fetishes because it makes them feel superior or powerful. How powerful must a female feel when she doesn’t have much money but then finds she can whip men for money, especially powerful men. I believe many American women love stories about call girls, hookers, because it shows them that men will part with money for sex. Kinky stories are even better because females can feel superior to the male gender – that females rarely pay for sex, … men often do, one way or another. .

A friend of mine, years ago, a doctor, like to travel with a highly paid stripper who was pretty, smart, and fun to be with. The two of them looked very pretty together and could stay at the best places around the world, each making a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year and able to have what they want. I am not sure if they were sexually interested in each other but that seemed likely. The female doctor liked sex with men, for sure, but never discussed sex with women.

Greeks shipping tycons (and othes of course – I just knew about the Greeks because I was invited to visit them in Greece) would line up trying to seduce them and these women enjoyed knowing that they didn’t need the money or the men and from that position could sexually taunt the men … made them feel powerful… the men who put up with it were likely the sort of men who would go to a dominatrix. They reminded me of the women who were doughnut dollies in the military, go to foriegn countries and get men to line up to dance with “round eyes”. Too many men seem so desparate or willing to go along. I think out culture breeds needy men and with the easy of which tens of thousands of mothers are willing to whip and abuse boys – likely there is a large supply of men willing to trade money for abuse. Seems odd but in social work, police work, you learn it’s not that rare.

Feminist discuss how men need power but I don’t think it’s just men who need power. How powerful would a woman feel beating a naked man who is thanking her for the beating.

In Canada, many years ago, a Psychiatrist at an APA convention discussed people who liked to be hurt by others and how for some of them early child abuse, or medical problems where as children they were hurt and for the first time their parents were loving and caring attention from parents caused some to seek that out as adults. . A child at 6 has a heart operation, another is in a car wreck, and hugs and kisses are associated with the pain. As adults they associate pain with love and love with sexuality. That conference was many years ago and I wonder if that’s how some therapist view that today.

I see some who comment on Denise’s article assuming that “her friend” is her, … that’s how I read it anyway. I don’t think so. Denise is a very curious women and knows lots of people. Those of us who are very curious and know lots of people find individuals resorting to many ways of getting by. From drugs, to selling sex, to working at jobs they hate but the pay is good, – there are many ways of being a whore.

To me a dominatrix is a whore but I don’t particularly judge them for that. This is a big country and we have room for those who are judges who sell themselves to the needds of women’s groups or individual women. Those judges who trash men so that women are happy with easy divorces, easy restraining orders, easy ways to put husbands in jail… at least whores and dominatrixes are giving the customer what they want and are honest about it. Judges pretend they are doing something else, despensing justice when they are selling out to the politically correct. Seems a stretch, I am sure, comparing judges to dominatrixes … both inflict damage and the damage seems mostly to men, but with a dominatrix the man has a choice, at least. He chooses to get a beating. IN court he just gets one and then pays for the beating he gets.

Thanks Denise, you never fail to surprise me.

SD

““Accountants and schoolteachers tend to like spankings,” she replies. “Executives tend to want foot worship. Attorneys tend to want enemas.”

Damn I needed a laugh! What about cops?

So you “interviewed” this dominatrix. How long have you been doing this job, Denise?

(Denise) These quotes aren’t from an interview or connected with a job I had. She was a friend and these are things I learned from conversations with a friend.