Many men (or women) would love to date a Goddess. She is attractive, not necessarily conventionally so, but She has an energy about her that is alluring. She is intelligent, confident, capable. She loves her body and knows how enjoy it, unapologetically. She doesn’t need a man (or a woman)…but might consider one, if they’re on Her level.
Look at this specimen. An unkempt slob with dirty socks, cleaning his teeth with his finger. If you’re not aware, one of my talents is my ability to read minds. His is saying that he doesn’t understand why these bitches won’t fuck him. Or even talk to him. He makes a joke to himself about a hot chick getting one of his ball hairs stuck in her teeth while they’re in her mouth.
Now, look at this specimen. He is showered and you can’t see this but he trimmed his pubes. He obviously cares about his appearance. He appears to have collared and leashed himself. (He already did his research and knows She likes red fuzzy slippers in size 8.5. The order is on its way.) If you listen you can hear him quietly ask, “Goddess, how can I serve you today?” Good boy.
The interview will be loosely structured, so I’m unsure about everything that will be discussed, but some topics mentioned are: power dynamics in BDSM, “topping from the bottom”, the influence of Patriarchy on BDSM and gender play, and more.
It will be a live video feed.
UPDATE: Due to my illness, this discussion will be postponed. A new date will be announced shortly.
When speaking of power exchange relationships in BDSM, such as Dominance/submission (“D/s”), you may occasionally hear some people claim, “it’s the sub who truly holds the power.” Often this is followed with the assertion that submission is a “gift”. While there is truth to this, it’s not the whole truth.
The first error is the implication that power is held by one person: the sub. Just like outside of our kinky play, everyone has power. It’s just up to you whether you’re going to exercise it or give it up.
So, while the submissive does in fact hold power, so does the Dominant. Both roles involve having and expressing power. The sub can be controlled only as much as they allow and the Domme will control only as much as they are willing.
This is a symbiotic relationship. It’s characterized by interdependence. One is defined by the existence of the other.
In other words: while it’s true that without a sub the Domme has no one to control, it’s also true that without a Domme the sub has no one to be controlled by. They are both receiving benefits from — and giving “gifts” to — one another.
Aside from the ad for the new 50 Shades movie at the top, I also have a criticism about:
“The researchers randomly assigned a person in each pair to the “top” role—the person who gives orders—or the “bottom” role, the one who follows them.”
This is a common error, as it conflates the role of top with Dominant and bottom with submissive. These often pair, but not always. Being a top does not inherently mean you are the Dominant (“person who gives orders”) and being the bottom does not always mean you are submissive (“the one who follows them”).
Bonus: a brief interview with Dr. Shirley Zussman, a 100-year-old sex therapist!
Update: The iReluctantlyAdult website has since gone offline. However, I uploaded a copy of the interview on My site. It’s located on the bottom of My About page.
Note: I want to clarify some points that have come up with regard my interview. That is the way that “prostitution” is presented and discussed here. First of all, people usually don’t use the word “prostitute” unless it is pejorative; the more common way to describe this work is “sex work”, which I do mention in the interview, but do not advocate for as a preferred term. (My usage of the term was not with pejorative intent.) Before the interview was aired, I was not told the interview would be framed as a way which sounds like it’s about putting Dominatrices against “prostitutes”, when some people have different approaches to the work they do and blend professions. Once the interview was aired, I tried to express my concern for the title, but I didn’t do a good enough job explaining why I felt it was problematic. Another issue is — and I feel especially badly about this — is that by not advocating for all sex workers (which I have actually done multiple times in the past), which includes my belief that all forms of erotic and sex work should be legal, that I almost appear to encourage more stigmatization of this work. The irony is not lost on me. That said, I do believe that a distinction in services is necessary and valid, and that we should all have the right to identify in ways which is comfortable for us and clear to our clientele. Still, I apologize for any errors on my part and for not being clear about the above points.