Yes, it’s the tabloid press again, mortal enemy of the working Dominatrix. I should know better than to ruffle their folded newsprint feathers. One of these days, I’m likely to have my home burnt down by strangers who have read some spurious headline that Sick Hooker Slide is an immigrant, gypsy, child-murdering, headscarf-wearing, carcinogenic vice girl who regularly leaves messages on Andrew Sachs’ voicemail whilst pissing over war veterans and popular footballers. Until then, I’ll blog and be damned.

Today’s Jan Moir Award for Shoddy Journalism goes to Tom Newton-Dunn and John Kay of the Sun. It’s not that their journalism is shoddy exactly. Quite the opposite. These journalists have done an excellent job at achieving exactly what they set out to do, as evidenced by the deafening response from the hand-wringing, skim-reading masses.

The URL for the Sun’s “Justice For Jamie” petition appeared on the board at Dommes.co.uk. “Please sign and let there be some real justice for Jamie and his family,” wept the OP. This was followed by a stream of messages by those who had hastily entered their details at the Sun’s website, adding such sentiments as “evil little bastards should rot”, “the scumball should be locked up this time for life” and “Venables is protected just because of his bloody human rights”. Much as I’m sure that the intentions of everyone there who signed were entirely noble, I believe it’s been a huge mistake.

It’s an emotive subject, but this petition is certainly not going to result in justice for James Bulger or anyone else. The exact wording is: “Sign our petition calling on the Government for transparency in the case of Jon Venables and the scrapping of the rules protecting killers who reoffend. If you give us your postcode we can use it to lobby your local MP.”

The Sun know that they can’t publish the story about Venables’ upcoming trial now because they’re not legally allowed to and it will almost certainly cause the case against him to fail in court. Yet if enough people get behind the Sun’s decision to publish it regardless, the News International solicitors be able to use the “public interest” defence. With enough support from well-meaning readers, the Sun will release this information and its sales, web clicks and advertising revenue will soar, but ultimately any criminal charges against Venables will be jeopardised as a direct result. When Venables’ case inevitably collapses amidst rabid press coverage, taxpayers will have to fund a whole new identity for him, which the Sun will then drum up a brand new campaign about, thus appearing heroic and raking in yet more money from those they’ve ultimately betrayed.

It’s a cynical marketing ploy by News International to exploit the grief and anger of people who think they’re doing the right thing and, in my opinion, that’s far sicker than any new crime that The Sun could promise to publish details of. I haven’t put a link to the article or petition here as I don’t want to generate any lucrative extra clicks for their site, but you’re welcome to search for it if you feel the need. In the meantime, here’s Private Eye’s celebration of 40 years of the Sun, via SepticIsle.info.

The message board at Dommes.co.uk is an interesting place. A few days ago, I posted the blog entry “Power” with an extract from AlterNet’s Open Letter to Women. The responses were interesting. One male submissive wrote this:

“I think this must be coming from someone with an deep insecurity and jealousy toward the superior female. I am not sure if it is penned by a male who is reluctant by his standards of society to accept the inevitable about his station or by a female who has not embraced her true feminine self. Somehow i am inclined to think it is the former. How sad to think that Female supremacy comes from wearing high heels…..its actually laughable.

To even presume the superiority of all females is down to an item of clothing is actually sad. Feminine women wear feminine clothes because it accentuates what makes them dominant…their femininity. If they choose to wear a hoody over their pjs and slippers are submissive men less likely to obey and worship them….i dont think so. Not worth caring about…thats my answer.”

I couldn’t help but reply:

Did you read the whole article at AlterNet? It’s not really about the clothing but about the assumption in society that a woman is only truly powerful if she’s turning men on while she’s doing it.

You say that “feminine women wear feminine clothes because it accentuates what makes them dominant… their femininity” but isn’t that exactly the problem the writer is talking about? Is a woman’s dominance all about her sex appeal to men? Shouldn’t it be based on her own intellect and achievements, regardless of whether anyone wants to fuck her?

I often wonder what the hell I’m doing when I’m out at a fetish club, caked in make-up and squeezed into a corset and stilettos to assert my dominance over a bunch of blokes who get to crawl around comfortably in their pants and have their fantasies pandered to. I’m all for forcing men to walk around in high heels and uncomfortable, impractical outfits. It’s boiler suits and slippers for me from now on!

Conventional Femdom still bothers me, and I’m aware that I’m part of the problem. Women do use sex to manipulate men, especially in this industry, and there are times when I let it define what I do. It’s hard to be a Dominatrix without having to use feminine wiles to lure the subs in, but I still have this (optimistic, but probably unrealistic) notion at the back of my mind that my own dominance over a sub is based on something deeper and more profound than whether he fancies me.

When a dominant man succeeds in education, business or sport, other men don’t assume that this is because he is sexually attractive to women. His strength isn’t defined by whether his masculine clothes accentuate the shape of his shoulders, cock and arse, or whether his flat shoes make his manly walk irresistible to any ladies who fancy a gawp. If he can hold court in a room full of people, it’s because they’re listening to what he’s saying, not because they think he’s particularly shaggable. Why can’t the same apply to dominant women? Why does it have to be her femininity that defines her dominance?

Any thoughtful feedback on this will be welcome.

We’re officially normal… Well, in Scandinavian countries at least!

Fetishism, fetishistic transvestism, sadomasochism, multiple deviations of sexual preference and dual-role transvestism have finally been removed from the official list of “illnesses” by the Norwegian Directorate of Health. For over a hundred years, guidelines for doctors have remained relatively unchanged on the subject of kink as a medical condition. Due to a lack of understanding and openness on fetish and BDSM since the early days of psychology, many common sexual peccadilloes have remained stigmatised and are still misdiagnosed as psychiatric disorders by some in the medical profession. Yet after Denmark, Sweden and now Norway have removed these archaic rulings, it is hoped that the World Health Organisation (WHO) will follow suit in forthcoming revisions to its diagnostic manual. Kinksters across the globe are celebrating – apart from those disappointed subs who were looking forward to the straitjacket and intimate probing.