Sunday Night Cocktail Hour: 9/21/08

I completely forgot about the bottle of Bailey's Irish Creme I had in the cupboard, so tonight join me while I sip some some coffee and Bailey's, listen to some mellow tunes on the satellite radio, and ponder about the meaning of life. Ok, well...I'm unlikely to go *so* deeply into "the meaning of it all"...at least not on this night...I'm pretty wiped out, so you're safe. For now.


There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.
~Leonard Cohen

Today is the birthday of musician/poet/writer Leonard Cohen. Cohen often is referred to as "the godfather of gloom", as his lyrical style tends to be somber, smoky, and sullen. And yet, I find there is almost a liberating spiritual tone behind all the supposed lamenting. It's been reported that Mr. Cohen has battled with clinical depression most of his life. Of course, it's not unusual that the most brilliant, creative, and talented people tend to be the ones with the unstable mental health status. It almost seems a prerequisite. Look at Poe, Keats, Cobain, Plath, Woolf. A term was even coined in an attempt to link creativity to mental illness, the "Sylvia Plath" effect. On the surface, it would seem as though mental illness conditions would inhibit creative ability, but theories that open a discourse as to whether creativity actually *causes* mental illness or "madness" can be intriguing to ponder. If I had to posit, I'd lean towards a notion that suggests those with psychological issues tend to use creative outlets to a therapeutic effect...but that's just my theory anyway.

Speaking of the psychological, I came across a post in The Psychology of a Dominant Woman recently that kind of opened a can of worms for me. Maitresse S has a fascinating and philosophical-oriented blog which delves into the mind and thoughts of a dominant woman. Her insights are sometimes raw, but always hit on relevant points. In Submissive Men Are Fucked Up, Maitresse S shares a bit of a rant over an interaction she had with a sub male. It's all too common to hear the sub male's plaintive cries over never being able to find a domme to connect with, the low ratio of dommes to male subs, the difficulty meeting a domme who is not after a tribute, etc.

Says Maitresse S,

...I feel sometimes male subs feel like the ones that make these absolutes and if they don't find the perfect FemDom to fit their needs , well then they just need to move on. Even FemDom's are people and human beings and I think male subs can forget that sometimes. We are not perfect.

Well, if you are no longer interested than I will respect that. "

He actually writes back and we begin a discourse. I tell him my belief that D/s is based on care and love and not about humiliation. He writes back I THINK YOU WANT A BOYFRIEND.

This actually makes me mad.

While humiliation and objectification can certainly be a key piece in a D/s exchange, is that a mutually exclusive factor? Can there be *both* humiliation and objectification and care and love? It seems like some struggle with that notion. If a person is paying for a pro-domme service, they are paying to have a fantasy enacted, for the most part. It's a business transaction ultimately and that's a different experience. I'd be interested in hearing about what motivates the submissive males who claim they long to be in a D/s relationship. How do they view women, in general?

Axe talks about the idea of submissive men objectifying dominant women in his recent entry. It's hard sometimes not to think in absolutes, and god knows I have to rein myself in on certain topics such as these. Axe occasionally puts up sexy images in his blog which depict dominant women engaging in various acts with submissive partners. It was just a matter of time before the debate over just who is objectifying whom creeped up.

Someone suggested that these Found Femdom images make me seem like I’m objectifying women. Funny since what turns me on about them is that the women are objectifying men. Does that mean I objectify women who objectify men?

Ahh, we are entering into murky territory here. Here's how I responded to the objectification issue:

We have eyes; therefore we look, we appreciate, we gaze, we covet. And yeah, in that process, sometimes we objectify too.

I’ve heard schools of thought which posit that *most* submissive men have an objectified view toward the dominant women they interact with. When I used to work in phone sex, I came across many a “submissive” client who presented with a wholly distorted view of what a dominant woman represents. There were the guys who professed simply because I was a female, I deserved to be put on a pedestal and worshiped. That by virtue of her femaleness, a woman should be worshiped…and that goes for *all* women. That’s just ridiculous, if you ask me. And very sexist, if you think about it.

There were the clients who enjoyed being feminized to varying degrees…and those whose fetish was to emulate “woman-ness”. This definition of female almost always consisted of over-the-top, exaggerated representations of womanhood. Why was that, I always wondered? Do these men genuinely believe that in order to embody the feminine one has to wear 8 inch heels, frilly clothing, naughty lingerie, etc.? I always thought that said a lot more about what some men (submissive or not) really thought about women in general. And yeah, to me that seemed to be taking objectification to a whole other level.

And yet, I find a picture like the one in this post totally hot. Does it matter who is objectifying whom? It sometimes does simply come down to a matter of perception. And what we perceive is nothing more than a reflection of what we already desire or believe to be reality in our hearts and minds. No one is right or wrong.

***

The moderate feminist in me would say objectification is an unhealthy thing...regardless of which sex is under the objectification lens. Still, the erotic woman in me would say who *doesn't* desire to be desired at some point in their lives, on some level? Hell, it can be fucking hot to be viewed as a sex object! And just as hot to treat someone as such...in a certain context. Is it fair for a male boss to look down on his female coworker *because* she is a female and relate to her on the job in a purely sexualized way? In my opinion, no way. Would it be fulfilling for me to want a submissive male to exist solely to worship me at all times? God, no--that would drive me crazy. Does that make D/s exchanges and activities right or wrong when they carried out for what they are meant to be...consensual explorations of roles, boundaries, sexual fantasies, and perceptions? I'd like to think not. But again, those are my opinions and what works for me will not necessarily work for the next person.

Are we still so stuck in rigid concepts of sexuality that there can be no blurring of boundaries in a healthy, constructive way? For it is in the blurry, murky, muddy, messy spaces where we often are able to have the most amazing experiences.

Good god...that was quite a tangent. Apparently I lied when I said at the beginning of this post that I would refrain from getting into anything heavy! This concludes this Sunday's Cocktail Hour. Maybe next week I'll lay off the coffee and stick with straight Bailey's! To wind down, please enjoy a fantastically funky little tune I am loving at the moment...