My husband and I hired an electrician, whom I will call "Sparky." We hired Sparky once before, and he was completely professional. One quirk: He would call me "Ma'am" instead of my name.
Halfway through Sparky's four-hour rewiring marathon in our kitchen, he handed me an envelope and asked me to fill out a survey regarding his service. I read the following: "My name is Mistress [REDACTED] and I control the male who just gave you this letter. He and I live the lifestyle of Female Supremacy. In our lifestyle of Matriarchy, women issue direction and men obey."
The letter ended: "To obtain the best possible service, order this male to give you his key. Keep the key until you are completely satisfied with his attitude or work. Use him as you wish. He must obey."
I don't know much about Dom/sub culture, Dan, but I can't shake the feeling that by hiring this particular electrician, I was unwittingly included in his sex life, and that totally creeps me out. Am I wrong?
Apparently Naive Housewife
You weren't dragged into Sparky's sex life when you hired him, ANH, but when he made the choice to hand you that envelope. At that point, he involved you in his sex life, which was rude and unprofessional.
Most women who aren't interested in sharing an erotic moment with Sparky would feel uncomfortable reading that letter, which suddenly sexualized a nonsexual exchange of goods and services. Some women would feel deeply violated. Making women feel uncomfortable or unsafe in their own homes by springing your erotic submission on them is sexual aggression masquerading as erotic submission.
And it's not okay.
Professional Dom, sex bomb and sex blogger Mistress Matisse (www.mistressmatisse.com) agrees with me: "That's totally inappropriate," Matisse said in an e-mail. "Those folks did not agree, either overtly or by any action, to be involved in topping that man. If his Mistress really exists, then they are both complicit in creepiness. It's also quite possible that he has no female partner, he just says so as part of his fantasy."
If I were you, ANH, I wouldn't hire Sparky again. Not because I wouldn't mind having a submissive electrician around the house, but because I wouldn't want an electrician around the house, submissive or not, who displayed poor judgment and had no boundaries.
Three months ago, my sociopathic girlfriend dumped me because I was going into the military. Afterward, I found out she was cheating on me with a married man. The one great thing about her was that she opened me up. At 22, I'd been in only a few other relationships. The sex with her was amazing, and she opened me up to different things (kinks, dirty talk, foreplay). I now have two problems: 1. I am going into the army and don't want to get into a serious relationship, and 2. I'm having a hard time finding people willing to have casual-yet-kinky sex. I tried online, but the minute someone sees the "going into the army" portion of my profile, they assume I'm some sort of conservative prick. But I am liberal and open-minded and just looking to have some NSA sex before I leave for the army. Help!
Kinky Open-Minded Soldier
If the "going into the army" portion of your profile is preventing you from finding kinky NSA sex partners, KOMS, omit the "going into the army" portion of your profile. Your NSA sex partners may, after meeting you, inquire about your future plans. But you don't need to disclose your hopes, dreams, and political leanings to potential NSA hookups, particularly if you feel that your plans are prejudicing kinksters against you.
But I'm not sure the army portion of your profile is the issue. There are a lot of conservative kinksters out there, and there are a lot of liberal/hippie/NPR-listening kinksters out there who are attracted to military guys despite their politics.
Drop the army portion of your profile, KOMS, but also have a kinky and/or adventurous friend take a look at the rest of your profile. It could be that some other part is giving off a creepy, unsafe, or inept vibe and it's that part that's turning off otherwise up-for-army-boy kinksters.
This article appears in Mar 24-30, 2011.