Unclear on the Concept, chapter XVIICLMXI

Dan Savage's own paper employs a rather dumb dominatrix, whose job, I think, is to educate us normals about kink and perversion in order to, you know, make it not-so-kinky-or-perverse. Like Savage himself, the intended result seems to be to make everything fun and guilt-free and happy. I'm not sure if that's a good thing, but I'll take that up again later.

Here's Madame Whatsis' latest "column." (heh. I said "column")

She has a phone call from some guy who wants to do "forced feminization" and she's not having it. Immediately, I think we can dump on her for objecting to his use of the term "forced feminization," since he didn't just invent it on the spot. Look lady: I don't like the term "lube job," but I still use it when I call Jiffy Lube because it's immediately clear what I mean, and better than "hi, can you re-lubricate the gaskets and joints on my vehicle and also check and top off any fluids, as well as changing the oil? Thanks."

So, he isn't responsible for the discourse. Ass.

Moving on, she tries to "draw him out" so she can find out if he wants to be humiliated or if he would rather just come over, put on some women's clothes, and hang out. You know, for fun and stuff.

I thought you went by the title "dominatrix," lady? Do you not know what that means? You "don't do" humiliation? Jesus, did you pick the wrong line of work!

"Hi, I'm the plumber you called. What's the problem?"

"My toilet's clogged, and..."

"No way! I ain't touching that thing! Do you know how many germs are in there? Later, dude! Jeez...!"

Yeah, that's about right.

The kicker, if you need one, is that she justifies her decision not to play with the guy on the grounds that his fantasy is demeaning to women. Why? Because he thinks it's a "punishment" to be forced to wear women's clothing, and she thinks this reinforces female subordination images in the culture at-large. Or, it could just be a fetish that the guy enjoys, one he would never enact in public, and which isn't indicative of his values or views at all. You know, like a fantasy...? Like your fucking JOB, lady?! Hello, is this thing on??

Is it wrong to think she's having it both ways? First, he's all wrong because he, personally, can be held accountable for a popular term for a sexual fetish, and therefore he's a discourse-creator. Then, he's also wrong because he's internalized popular misogynist views of women and their accoutrements. He's both an enforcer of oppression and a creator of it--precisely the paradox that makes Foucault intolerable to me.

The reasonable way to see this situation is thusly: the guy doesn't know why he likes what he likes. And neither do you. Sex is not therapy--it's recreation, as this woman should know, since she's all happy and shit about it and wants you to be, too. Sex is also not necessarily a political statement, particularly when someone is paying someone else for it. Now, they may want to pay you to psychologically confuse them by altering temporarily--and ineffectively, since they do not actually cease to exist--the social/sexual reality, but that doesn't make it political.

And finally, her last, lame justification, that she won't do this thing because there is no equivalent fetish where women are "humiliated" by being forced to dress up in men's clothes is simply ridiculous and nonsensical. Social arrangements being what they are, it is foolish to deny them. There is a form of social hierarchy based on sex, and no amount of quasi-feminist, shallow wishful thinking changes that reality. And, of course, suggesting that you would do this thing, if only there were a "fair and balanced" fetish for women is patently ludicrous.