Images
30th November 1999
What is an apropriate image of a dom?
For a long while I've thought the question a curiosity, but now I'm bgining to perceive it as the enunciation of a problem.
I suspect it far less the case elsewehere but on the gay scene, specifically that part of it usually described as "leather" is dominated (pun unavoidable) by a particular image. Although the models aren't eyesores the image is concerned less with physical beauty than standard characteristics and acoutrements. Your standard Dom will be tall, broad shouldered, narrow waisted, physically strong, booted, shirtless, dressed in leather and almost invariable wearing a Muir cap.
So all pervasive is this immagery that so far from being "Fetish, whatever that means to you", as a well known phrase has it, the "uniform" is near to mandatory. In clubs and pubs forming part of this scene the Dom is thus instantly identifiable and there is a concomitant assumption that anyone lacking the look is automatically a sub.
Now I am not seeking to scratch the scabs barely covering the "fetish dress at clubs" arguments. It's more than "making an effort", its the singularity of an acceptable image that concerns me here.
This is, by the way, a complaint. So why am I complaining?
I've been playing for... sheesh, it's not far off two decades. A little less than that knowing of the commercial scene. When I only subbed it was easy. In private anything other than nudity is likely determined by a Dom so no problem. On the scene as scantilly clad as climate and venue would allow was good enough. But as more and more I've played the Dom there has emmerged an issue: apparently I don't look the part.
Of course once one gets far enough to assure the sub that you are serious other matters are far more significant - not the least of which is competence. But that's not my concern here. How do you get that far in the first place? Periodically I've advertised, or answered ads and in either case the greatest stumbling block is the picture - be it visual or verbal description. Eventually it becomes bruising to the ego (as well as frustrating the libido).
I was interested by some of the responses to the thread instigated by Old Godz where they touched advertising and articulacy. Going through the process I would guess that a third of all initail contacts show promise enough to be followed up and perhaps a quarter of those might get as far as a meeting. Of the proportion that appear to have potential almost all stumble on the image factor. What truely puzzles is a two-fold question. In the general why should a particular image have come to have such power? In the particular what is "submissiveness" when it can only be offered to a particular image?
Oh, and in case anyone didn't notice the real question hidden in all this verbiage is how to get past the sticking point short of investing heavilly in leathers, gym subscriptions and built up heels? :-)
Matthew
--
Ecce Eduardus Ursus scalis nunc tump-tump-tump occpite gradus pulsante...
--
"Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice."
-- Foghorn Leghorn
