Dominatrixes and the "No-Sex" Class

Bitchy Jones of Bitchy Jones's Diary, a very BDSM-dominant woman, points out how thoroughly conventional stereotypes of domineering women coincide with the thickest elements of the "no-sex" class paradigm.

[Of c]ourse frustrated denial is rampant in femdom. Except that usually the thing that Goddess Marvelous (or, as I saw the other day Madame von Bitch – I am not lying, and, oh, but how this stuff is beyond my parodic skills) is denying is herself. You don’t get to touch me. That crap. Like dominant women have evolved beyond that lame human weak spot where being touched is nice. That we are so empowermented now that we cover our weak woman-skin with rubber and climb up safe on a pedestal. Untouchable, unfuckable… what misery – no wonder they never crack a painted smile.

That – The Untouchable Madame von Bitch - is just a lazy version of frustration based on mansub’s dumb misogynistic pro-and-porn fuelled ideas of what dominant women ever are. (Just like forced feminisation is such a lazy version of humiliation based on so much useless double think it falls apart with one little poke)

I like to be touched. ...

She says it here.

I mean sure, it makes sense in a couple of dimensions that professional dominant women**, might choose withholding contact for their own benefits (legality, hygiene issues with multiple partners, convenience, they're doing it online anyway.) But assuming a normal, healthy adult sex drive it's harder to imagine a dominant woman -- one who's actually *the dominant partner* -- getting all her kicks while keeping her partner at arm's length.

And yet look at most (written-for-men) pornography, look at most (photographed for men) porn sites, look at most (customers are men) pro-dom women's routines. The guy might have to act funny, or get whacked around a lot, or wind up in humiliating circumstances, or even *pay money* *not* to have sex. But except for particular narrow circumstances submission as constructed for men by men equals no sex... which by definition also means domination for women means no sex as well. Bingo! Because, you know, inside the "no-sex" class a woman agreeing to sex is *submitting* to her partner.

Oh, right, and while I promise I'm not a huge expert but in most male-submissive scenarios when he *does* get to have sex (or even just get to have an orgasm via masturbation or something) it's only after -- bingo again -- he's "earned it" performed some set of humilating, painful, or costly acts.

In both those cases, though, it would be all about him. Hmm.

I like Jones quite a bit.

[** I think if you're not a sub addressing your dom as she specifies it's probably more appropriate to speak of dominant women as, well, dominant women, or just dominants or doms instead of dragging out a gendered variant. We no longer call women doctors "doctoress" nor women pilots as "aviatrixes." We *do,* however, refer to more subservient professions by their gendered alternatives as in "waitress," "stewardess," and "seamstress." Ironic, at least in the context of Jones's article, that anyone would use a service ending for domination! --fl]