Secretery of Meow!
February 25, 2005 1:52 PM Subscribe
Condoleeza Rice's Hot Dominatrix Outfit
"Rice looked as though she was prepared to talk tough, knock heads and do a freeze-frame 'Matrix' jump kick if necessary. Who wouldn't give her ensemble a double take -- all the while hoping not to rub her the wrong way?"
"Rice's coat and boots speak of sex and power -- such a volatile combination, and one that in political circles rarely leads to anything but scandal. When looking at the image of Rice in Wiesbaden, the mind searches for ways to put it all into context. It turns to fiction, to caricature. To shadowy daydreams. Dominatrix! It is as though sex and power can only co-exist in a fantasy."
(Washington Post)
OK, unless the outfit in question is grossly under-represented in that picture, it is hardly a dominatrix outfit. I can't stand Rice -- but that outfit is nice. Politicians need more style. I want a politician with crazy tattoos or piercings. This outfit doesn't go nearly far enough.
The article is actually a sad commentary on American journalism. This shit was worthy of the Enquirer, not the WaPo.
posted by teece at 2:08 PM on February 25, 2005
The article is actually a sad commentary on American journalism. This shit was worthy of the Enquirer, not the WaPo.
posted by teece at 2:08 PM on February 25, 2005
*insert rant on females in politics never being taken seriously*
but then again, *i* don't take condi rice seriously. my personal opinion is that she hasn't pooped since the age of six.
posted by salad spork at 2:10 PM on February 25, 2005
but then again, *i* don't take condi rice seriously. my personal opinion is that she hasn't pooped since the age of six.
posted by salad spork at 2:10 PM on February 25, 2005
>>"...The darkness lends an air of mystery and foreboding. Black is the color of intellectualism, of abstinence, of penitence."
This is my most favorite quote, unequivocally proving that Robin Givhan is really a 13-year old LJ blogger.
There are so many things wrong with this article, I don't even know where to begin. But since when has Condoleeza been using Beyonce Knowles's mother as her personal dresser?
posted by naxosaxur at 2:10 PM on February 25, 2005
This is my most favorite quote, unequivocally proving that Robin Givhan is really a 13-year old LJ blogger.
There are so many things wrong with this article, I don't even know where to begin. But since when has Condoleeza been using Beyonce Knowles's mother as her personal dresser?
posted by naxosaxur at 2:10 PM on February 25, 2005
I loved this article and the idea that Condi actually dressed the way a lot of stylish women do, and not in the neutral, politically correct way of most female politicians.
posted by shoesietart at 2:12 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by shoesietart at 2:12 PM on February 25, 2005
bee tee dubya, here's a link to an article (with picture!) that doesn't require WaPo registration.
posted by salad spork at 2:14 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by salad spork at 2:14 PM on February 25, 2005
Secretary of Meow? I wear boots like that nearly everyday. Of course, I'm not the Secretary of State, but far from dominatrix.
It's so sad that there are people that actually care about what she's wearing and judge her based on their misperceptions of fashion and taste.
posted by Juicylicious at 2:15 PM on February 25, 2005
It's so sad that there are people that actually care about what she's wearing and judge her based on their misperceptions of fashion and taste.
posted by Juicylicious at 2:15 PM on February 25, 2005
Hermann Goering had boots and coat just like those and... Kidding... I'm kidding!
posted by psmealey at 2:17 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by psmealey at 2:17 PM on February 25, 2005
"Where did you get that dress? It's awful!...and those shoes...and that coat?! jeeezzzee!!!11!!!"
/obligatory Johnny-from-Airplane! quote
posted by naxosaxur at 2:17 PM on February 25, 2005
/obligatory Johnny-from-Airplane! quote
posted by naxosaxur at 2:17 PM on February 25, 2005
That is an intensely stupid article and it made me very sad.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:17 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:17 PM on February 25, 2005
Hey, that's better than Dick Cheney's disrespectful frump-ass look.
posted by tpl1212 at 2:20 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by tpl1212 at 2:20 PM on February 25, 2005
Um, that dress looks like something my mother might wear, are they calling her a dominatrix too? Or only if she pairs with those naughty, naughty boots?
This is a pathetically stupid article that is much to much ado about nothing.
posted by fenriq at 2:21 PM on February 25, 2005
This is a pathetically stupid article that is much to much ado about nothing.
posted by fenriq at 2:21 PM on February 25, 2005
I wonder what the moral values voters think of their vote now.
posted by Bag Man at 2:22 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by Bag Man at 2:22 PM on February 25, 2005
This shit was worthy of the Enquirer, not the WaPo.
You must not read the WaPo "style" section very often. They publish dumb articles like this every day.
posted by casu marzu at 2:23 PM on February 25, 2005
You must not read the WaPo "style" section very often. They publish dumb articles like this every day.
posted by casu marzu at 2:23 PM on February 25, 2005
Nelson, remind me to not ask your advice on women if you honestly think she's "hot" in that pic. Or are you turned on by grimacescowlsmiles?
posted by fenriq at 2:23 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by fenriq at 2:23 PM on February 25, 2005
I think she looks hot
um ok the article was ridiculous but you're stretching it
posted by mr.marx at 2:24 PM on February 25, 2005
um ok the article was ridiculous but you're stretching it
posted by mr.marx at 2:24 PM on February 25, 2005
Politicians need more style.
I agree. since JFK's time (omg those sleek suits with narrow lapels, the Charvet handmade shirts, the subtle pocket handkerchief, that haircut, the Ray-Bans, the English shoes, the khaki pants and polo shirts in Hyannisport and the deep Addisonian tan, a style impossible to emulate even by Hollywood) no American President -- with the exception of Reagan -- has ever had style. boring, boring, boring.
Secretaries of State? lethal boredom with the exception of Warren Christopher -- the one with the crazy ties and those awful Turnbull&Asser striped shirts.
Powell is a very handsome man with a nice James Earl Jones gravitas, but as a former military guy his style was terrifyingly stiff and boring. it's not that I expected him to suddendly dress like P. Diddy -- even if that would have massively boosted his popularity -- but still, a nice Ozwald Boateng suit would have looked great on Powell (Dior Homme too, but one doesn't want to ask an American politician to subsidize French surrender monkey designers)
and Juicylicious, I agree Rice's boots are far from S/M standards, but they're still unusual for a politician. and sadly style is substance, these media-crazed days, see Dick Cheney's terrible mistake in dressing at Auschwitz like he does when he slaughters ducks in the company of his employees
posted by matteo at 2:31 PM on February 25, 2005
I agree. since JFK's time (omg those sleek suits with narrow lapels, the Charvet handmade shirts, the subtle pocket handkerchief, that haircut, the Ray-Bans, the English shoes, the khaki pants and polo shirts in Hyannisport and the deep Addisonian tan, a style impossible to emulate even by Hollywood) no American President -- with the exception of Reagan -- has ever had style. boring, boring, boring.
Secretaries of State? lethal boredom with the exception of Warren Christopher -- the one with the crazy ties and those awful Turnbull&Asser striped shirts.
Powell is a very handsome man with a nice James Earl Jones gravitas, but as a former military guy his style was terrifyingly stiff and boring. it's not that I expected him to suddendly dress like P. Diddy -- even if that would have massively boosted his popularity -- but still, a nice Ozwald Boateng suit would have looked great on Powell (Dior Homme too, but one doesn't want to ask an American politician to subsidize French surrender monkey designers)
and Juicylicious, I agree Rice's boots are far from S/M standards, but they're still unusual for a politician. and sadly style is substance, these media-crazed days, see Dick Cheney's terrible mistake in dressing at Auschwitz like he does when he slaughters ducks in the company of his employees
posted by matteo at 2:31 PM on February 25, 2005
Hmm. Sometimes Al Gore gets criticized for "suddenly" wearing boots that he'd worn often in the past; sometimes Condi Rice gets praised (almost fetishized) for a perfectly normal-looking outfit that happens to have boots. What is it with the media and footwear?
I look forward to the day that presidential debates are held on the Project Runway set.
If you don't know what Project Runway is, then you are luckier than I.
posted by davejay at 2:40 PM on February 25, 2005
I look forward to the day that presidential debates are held on the Project Runway set.
If you don't know what Project Runway is, then you are luckier than I.
posted by davejay at 2:40 PM on February 25, 2005
Politicians need more style.
This reminds me of the thread about Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko's "hipster" look.
posted by bobo123 at 3:13 PM on February 25, 2005
This reminds me of the thread about Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko's "hipster" look.
posted by bobo123 at 3:13 PM on February 25, 2005
Nice outfit. Too bad about the face.
posted by randomstriker at 3:18 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by randomstriker at 3:18 PM on February 25, 2005
Hot indeed. This outfit is the first thing she's ever done of which I can honestly say I approve.
posted by MaxVonCretin at 3:20 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by MaxVonCretin at 3:20 PM on February 25, 2005
She must not have said or done anything outrageous lately if all anybody can write about is how she looks.
posted by alumshubby at 3:30 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by alumshubby at 3:30 PM on February 25, 2005
I'd hit it....with a WMD!!! (weapon of mass deliciousness)
posted by fungible at 3:44 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by fungible at 3:44 PM on February 25, 2005
It's so sad that there are people that actually care about what she's wearing and judge her based on their misperceptions of fashion and taste.
maybe the press has just given up - the administration never gives them anything but talking points anyway, they might as well take a lesson from Joan Rivers.
posted by hellbient at 3:46 PM on February 25, 2005
maybe the press has just given up - the administration never gives them anything but talking points anyway, they might as well take a lesson from Joan Rivers.
posted by hellbient at 3:46 PM on February 25, 2005
hellbient, no one at all, anywhere, at any time should take any lessons from Joan Rivers.
posted by fenriq at 3:50 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by fenriq at 3:50 PM on February 25, 2005
It's so sad that there are people that actually care about what she's wearing and judge her based on their misperceptions of fashion and taste
Hello? Where do you live? "America's Top Model"? "Sex and The City"? We are a culture obsessed with this superficial crap and always have been.
posted by tkchrist at 3:57 PM on February 25, 2005
Hello? Where do you live? "America's Top Model"? "Sex and The City"? We are a culture obsessed with this superficial crap and always have been.
posted by tkchrist at 3:57 PM on February 25, 2005
What is it with the media and footwear?
Well, they do spend a lot of time licking the administration's boots....
posted by MikeKD at 4:16 PM on February 25, 2005
Well, they do spend a lot of time licking the administration's boots....
posted by MikeKD at 4:16 PM on February 25, 2005
I'll bet you ahe's a horrible lay.
All show, and no go..
posted by Balisong at 4:48 PM on February 25, 2005
All show, and no go..
posted by Balisong at 4:48 PM on February 25, 2005
I'd hit it.
And that Ukraine lady, <insert name here>, I'd hit that too.
posted by republican at 4:55 PM on February 25, 2005
And that Ukraine lady, <insert name here>, I'd hit that too.
posted by republican at 4:55 PM on February 25, 2005
Pathetic little article.
Fabulous boots, though. That slender heel, those not-too-pointy toes... they're amazing. The entire outfit is actually quite cleverly put together: somewhat sexy boots, topped with that vaguely military-cut coat. Very smart, especially if she was hanging out with the troops... give them some sexy boots to look at, while simultaneously subtly indicating her position of power over them. (Yes, I know, not directly over them-- but she's the chimp's right-hand).
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:27 PM on February 25, 2005
Fabulous boots, though. That slender heel, those not-too-pointy toes... they're amazing. The entire outfit is actually quite cleverly put together: somewhat sexy boots, topped with that vaguely military-cut coat. Very smart, especially if she was hanging out with the troops... give them some sexy boots to look at, while simultaneously subtly indicating her position of power over them. (Yes, I know, not directly over them-- but she's the chimp's right-hand).
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:27 PM on February 25, 2005
Boy, I was all hot to see this outfit. Meh. This best thing I can say is at least it isn't a nice powder blue.
Christ if I was Secretary of State, I would be wearing a Grey suit with a white silk shirt and a black fedora. Khaki pants with cream blouse and camelhair vest: sleek, elegant, and strong. These pussies are too afraid of the voters to be elegant.
And I can never take Condi seriously until she does something with her hair.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:29 PM on February 25, 2005
Christ if I was Secretary of State, I would be wearing a Grey suit with a white silk shirt and a black fedora. Khaki pants with cream blouse and camelhair vest: sleek, elegant, and strong. These pussies are too afraid of the voters to be elegant.
And I can never take Condi seriously until she does something with her hair.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:29 PM on February 25, 2005
This seems like the kind of exercise in overwrought analysis that was popular in college: I remember writing eight pages on the use of the foghorn in "Long Day's Journey Into Night."
Black is the color of intellectualism, of abstinence, of penitence
??
Only the desperate need to fill blank space could produce this. Total bs.
posted by margarita at 5:44 PM on February 25, 2005
Black is the color of intellectualism, of abstinence, of penitence
??
Only the desperate need to fill blank space could produce this. Total bs.
posted by margarita at 5:44 PM on February 25, 2005
They're called "FM boots" where I'm from in Oz. A senior US pollie wearing FM boots??! Classic.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 5:55 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by uncanny hengeman at 5:55 PM on February 25, 2005
Lame article.
Lame thread.
Is this really "best of the web"?
posted by tommyc at 6:16 PM on February 25, 2005
Lame thread.
Is this really "best of the web"?
posted by tommyc at 6:16 PM on February 25, 2005
Uncanny, that phrase is used here in the states as well. I wish I could find a link that was SFW. ;)
posted by malocchio at 6:19 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by malocchio at 6:19 PM on February 25, 2005
I can never take Condi seriously until she does something with her hair.
Wouldn't it be AWESOME if she just shaved it bald!!
/she can't do anything with her hair, I'm sure she's fired people for not trying hard enough.
posted by Balisong at 6:46 PM on February 25, 2005
Wouldn't it be AWESOME if she just shaved it bald!!
/she can't do anything with her hair, I'm sure she's fired people for not trying hard enough.
posted by Balisong at 6:46 PM on February 25, 2005
Oh, and her straightened hair is a self-loathing, if subconscious, tactic to retain the acceptance of her white peers. Not that I blame her -- despite all pretenses America is still a fucking racist place, Washington D.C. no less so.
posted by randomstriker at 6:55 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by randomstriker at 6:55 PM on February 25, 2005
hardly hot... she still looks like the grinch to me... i guess i'd consider the grinch to be a dom, though...
posted by cusack at 7:13 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by cusack at 7:13 PM on February 25, 2005
/she can't do anything with her hair, I'm sure she's fired people for not trying hard enough.
Well she can start by cuttting that little dipppity doo thing she's got going on-- that curl in the back like some half-assed "That Girl" or Brady Bunch mom. It is unspeakable. Why not go natural? Or do an Oprah-type thing?
Yeah, yeah, I know. I shouldn't care so much about how she looks as what she does and says. But really. That hairstyle is a joke. It would be like Bush earing a flat top and long sideburns. Or a duck's ass.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:14 PM on February 25, 2005
Well she can start by cuttting that little dipppity doo thing she's got going on-- that curl in the back like some half-assed "That Girl" or Brady Bunch mom. It is unspeakable. Why not go natural? Or do an Oprah-type thing?
Yeah, yeah, I know. I shouldn't care so much about how she looks as what she does and says. But really. That hairstyle is a joke. It would be like Bush earing a flat top and long sideburns. Or a duck's ass.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:14 PM on February 25, 2005
Oh, and her straightened hair is a self-loathing, if subconscious, tactic to retain the acceptance of her white peers. Not that I blame her -- despite all pretenses America is still a fucking racist place, Washington D.C. no less so.
You're joking, right? Most African-descended women I know who straighten their hair do so because it, y'know, looks good. Also easier to style.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:35 PM on February 25, 2005
You're joking, right? Most African-descended women I know who straighten their hair do so because it, y'know, looks good. Also easier to style.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:35 PM on February 25, 2005
no one at all, anywhere, at any time should take any lessons from Joan Rivers.
fenriq, sorry, I meant Starr Jones...
posted by hellbient at 7:54 PM on February 25, 2005
fenriq, sorry, I meant Starr Jones...
posted by hellbient at 7:54 PM on February 25, 2005
The rituals of domination and enslavement being more and more practiced, the art that is more and more devoted to rendering their themes, are perhaps only a logical extension of an affluent society's tendency to turn every part of people's lives into a taste, a choice; to invite them to regard their very lives as a (life) style. In all societies up to now, sex has mostly been an activity (something to do, without thinking about it). But once sex becomes a taste, it is perhaps already on its way to becoming a self-conscious form of theater, which is what sadomasochism is about: a form of gratification that is both violent and indirect, very mental.
Sadomasochism has always been the furthest reach of the sexual experience: when sex becomes most purely sexual, that is, severed from personhood, from relationships, from love. It should not be surprising that it has become attached to Nazi symbolism in recent years. Never before was the relation of masters and slaves so consciously aestheticized. Sade had to make up his theater of punishment and delight from scratch, improvising the decor and costumes and blasphemous rites. Now there is a master scenario available to everyone. The color is black, the material is leather, the seduction is beauty, the justification is honesty, the aim is ecstasy, the fantasy is death.
Susan Sontag, 'Fascinating Fascism'.
posted by riviera at 8:31 PM on February 25, 2005
Sadomasochism has always been the furthest reach of the sexual experience: when sex becomes most purely sexual, that is, severed from personhood, from relationships, from love. It should not be surprising that it has become attached to Nazi symbolism in recent years. Never before was the relation of masters and slaves so consciously aestheticized. Sade had to make up his theater of punishment and delight from scratch, improvising the decor and costumes and blasphemous rites. Now there is a master scenario available to everyone. The color is black, the material is leather, the seduction is beauty, the justification is honesty, the aim is ecstasy, the fantasy is death.
Susan Sontag, 'Fascinating Fascism'.
posted by riviera at 8:31 PM on February 25, 2005
Okay, it's off topic, but I'm absolutely cringing over here, so...
"Dominatrix" is a word popularized by a media that can't be bothered to do any actual research. The bdsm community, with maybe an occasional exception, doesn't use the term. A female dominant is either a domme, a femdom, a mistress, a top, a female top, or some variation there on, depending on the individual and the context. You generally hear "dominatrix" in advertisements for pro doms (women who offer to engage in domination/topping in exchange for money) and they only use the term because it'll get them google hits. I know several such women and, while their web sites and ads might contain the term, they themselves never use it in conversation with other kinky people.
I'm sorry. I hear that ridiculous word all the time and it drives me right up the wall. I just couldn't hold it in any longer.
But to speak to the topic at hand: Rice's clothing is a bit too tame to be considered at all kinky, but I know probably half a dozen femdoms personally who either have boots very similar to Rice's or would be only too happy to own and wear a pair. Of course, these aren't the most outlandish things I've seen on the feet of a femdom; not by a long shot. But they're well within acceptable parameters.
In general, mainstream female footwear has gotten a heck of a lot more kinky in the past three or four years. In the late nineties, if you wanted something high heeled and evil to wear to a play party or a fetish ball or during a foot worship scene, you often had to order it online or buy it in an adult store. Now, I'd say about a third to half of the footwear I see at such events comes from the local chain stores. Still, there's a pretty clear boundary, at least in my mind, between vanilla shoes and fetish shoes.
posted by Clay201 at 8:31 PM on February 25, 2005
"Dominatrix" is a word popularized by a media that can't be bothered to do any actual research. The bdsm community, with maybe an occasional exception, doesn't use the term. A female dominant is either a domme, a femdom, a mistress, a top, a female top, or some variation there on, depending on the individual and the context. You generally hear "dominatrix" in advertisements for pro doms (women who offer to engage in domination/topping in exchange for money) and they only use the term because it'll get them google hits. I know several such women and, while their web sites and ads might contain the term, they themselves never use it in conversation with other kinky people.
I'm sorry. I hear that ridiculous word all the time and it drives me right up the wall. I just couldn't hold it in any longer.
But to speak to the topic at hand: Rice's clothing is a bit too tame to be considered at all kinky, but I know probably half a dozen femdoms personally who either have boots very similar to Rice's or would be only too happy to own and wear a pair. Of course, these aren't the most outlandish things I've seen on the feet of a femdom; not by a long shot. But they're well within acceptable parameters.
In general, mainstream female footwear has gotten a heck of a lot more kinky in the past three or four years. In the late nineties, if you wanted something high heeled and evil to wear to a play party or a fetish ball or during a foot worship scene, you often had to order it online or buy it in an adult store. Now, I'd say about a third to half of the footwear I see at such events comes from the local chain stores. Still, there's a pretty clear boundary, at least in my mind, between vanilla shoes and fetish shoes.
posted by Clay201 at 8:31 PM on February 25, 2005
"Dominatrix" ... The bdsm community, with maybe an occasional exception, doesn't use the term.
And if the mainstream media started calling dominant females by the terms they favor, then dominant females would decide to call themselves something else, because one of the points of the lifestyle is that it's not mainstream. The jargon is a shibboleth that keeps the subculture separate.
When someone says "dominatrix" everyone (including those who don't use the word themselves) understands what is meant. That's good enough for a newspaper story.
posted by kindall at 9:05 PM on February 25, 2005
And if the mainstream media started calling dominant females by the terms they favor, then dominant females would decide to call themselves something else, because one of the points of the lifestyle is that it's not mainstream. The jargon is a shibboleth that keeps the subculture separate.
When someone says "dominatrix" everyone (including those who don't use the word themselves) understands what is meant. That's good enough for a newspaper story.
posted by kindall at 9:05 PM on February 25, 2005
kindall;
"one of the points of the [bdsm] lifestyle is that it's not mainstream."
That simply isn't true. Both logic and history say otherwise. First, the logic; BDSM, like homosexuality, is a sexual orientation. Suppose you went up to a group of homosexuals sitting in a gay bar or at an AIDS outreach meeting and told them that one of the reasons they were there was "to be non-mainstream." They'd look at you like you were nuts.
If you did the same at a bdsm play party, you'd probably get an even more negative reaction. I don't go to play parties or munches to be "non mainstream" (whatever that might mean). I go there to be around people with whom I share a common interest, to see my friends, and, hopefully, to meet people with whom I can have kinky sex.
As for the history... well, just take my word for it that it simply offers no evidence to support your hypothesis.
However, ideas like the one you express are a really good argument for trying to get the media to put forth some sort of effort when it reports on subcultures and other things about which it knows precious little. Invariably, incorrect assumptions go hand in hand with bad information. Correcting the latter will, hopefully, make a real dent in the former.
posted by Clay201 at 9:32 PM on February 25, 2005
"one of the points of the [bdsm] lifestyle is that it's not mainstream."
That simply isn't true. Both logic and history say otherwise. First, the logic; BDSM, like homosexuality, is a sexual orientation. Suppose you went up to a group of homosexuals sitting in a gay bar or at an AIDS outreach meeting and told them that one of the reasons they were there was "to be non-mainstream." They'd look at you like you were nuts.
If you did the same at a bdsm play party, you'd probably get an even more negative reaction. I don't go to play parties or munches to be "non mainstream" (whatever that might mean). I go there to be around people with whom I share a common interest, to see my friends, and, hopefully, to meet people with whom I can have kinky sex.
As for the history... well, just take my word for it that it simply offers no evidence to support your hypothesis.
However, ideas like the one you express are a really good argument for trying to get the media to put forth some sort of effort when it reports on subcultures and other things about which it knows precious little. Invariably, incorrect assumptions go hand in hand with bad information. Correcting the latter will, hopefully, make a real dent in the former.
posted by Clay201 at 9:32 PM on February 25, 2005
Most of you are missing the story. I have lived in DC my entire life, the Washington Post is foremost a local paper. This is not a "lifestyle" town, unless your lifestyle is to do nothing but work. People in power wear suits and ties and if you wear something out-of-the-ordinary, it means something. As the article says Rice's coat and boots speak of sex and power -- such a volatile combination, and one that in political circles rarely leads to anything but scandal. The Post is making an observation, one that very well may lead to a bigger story later on, perhaps one they already have a lead on and are laying the foundations for. Or it could simply be normal DC gossip. Either way this is typical, the color of your tie and if you wear hunting boots to a funeral are news. It is not a statement about America or women or fashion, it is politics in DC.
posted by stbalbach at 9:35 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by stbalbach at 9:35 PM on February 25, 2005
First, the logic; BDSM, like homosexuality, is a sexual orientation.
To the extent that it is an actual orientation rather than merely a fetish, it is one geared toward having "kinky" -- i.e., non-mainstream -- sex. If it were mainstream, it wouldn't be kinky anymore, now would it? I am certain that there are those who are specifically predisposed to the B, D, S, or M aspects, and would find such activity arousing even their kink was mainstream, but I am just as certain that a large part of the attraction for most participants lies in the frisson of forbiddenness, of being one person during the day and another during the night.
In any event, all subcultures enforce their boundaries with shibboleths. If reporters started using "correct" terms like "femdom," I have no doubt we'd be seeing outraged screeds from dominant females taking the media to task for daring to use terms they have no hope of understanding. Because that's how people work.
posted by kindall at 9:59 PM on February 25, 2005
To the extent that it is an actual orientation rather than merely a fetish, it is one geared toward having "kinky" -- i.e., non-mainstream -- sex. If it were mainstream, it wouldn't be kinky anymore, now would it? I am certain that there are those who are specifically predisposed to the B, D, S, or M aspects, and would find such activity arousing even their kink was mainstream, but I am just as certain that a large part of the attraction for most participants lies in the frisson of forbiddenness, of being one person during the day and another during the night.
In any event, all subcultures enforce their boundaries with shibboleths. If reporters started using "correct" terms like "femdom," I have no doubt we'd be seeing outraged screeds from dominant females taking the media to task for daring to use terms they have no hope of understanding. Because that's how people work.
posted by kindall at 9:59 PM on February 25, 2005
"but I am just as certain that a large part of the attraction for most participants lies in the frisson of forbiddenness"
I'm sorry, but again you're making incorrect assumptions. Believe you me; you don't let someone spank you more than once or twice unless you're really a masochist. Spankings fucking hurt. I have run across the occasional thrill seeker type, but they never hang around for long. People who don't have a genuine and active interest in getting tied up or working someone over with a cane very quickly get bored with such activities and move on to other things. There are types of bdsm play in which I don't have an interest, and I find watching them to be mildly interesting the first time and pretty damn dull every time after that.
In addition, the community as a whole has evolved to the point that thrill seeker types are pretty much weeded out without us ever having to lift a finger. When they subscribe to our email list or talk to one of our members, they very quickly get an idea of what we are and we aren't. And, basically, what we are doesn't appeal to that type. If they do show up, they're pretty sorely disappointed. One such guy asked me, "uh, why are there so many overweight women here?" I'm not kidding. He lasted about six days, I think. And certainly people like that aren't going to put in the effort - showing up at events semi-regularly, making and keeping friends, getting involved in group politics, etc. - that it would take to become and remain a part of the community.
"If reporters started using "correct" terms like "femdom," I have no doubt we'd be seeing outraged screeds from dominant females taking the media to task for daring to use terms they have no hope of understanding."
If they use the term incorrectly, perhaps some bdsm folks will correct them, (although I doubt anyone will pay attention we do). If they use the term correctly, we'll probably be too stunned to speak. It's hard to imagine that we'd react negatively to even an inept attempt to portray us more accurately. That's just my subjective impression, but I can tell you that, right now, there's no shortage of inaccurate portrayals of wiitwd on TV and we've made virtually no noise about any of it. Indeed, many regard any attempt on the part of the mainstream media to discuss this topic - even the nonsense you see on shows like CSI - to be progress. And progress is something we definitely want to see more of.
posted by Clay201 at 11:20 PM on February 25, 2005
I'm sorry, but again you're making incorrect assumptions. Believe you me; you don't let someone spank you more than once or twice unless you're really a masochist. Spankings fucking hurt. I have run across the occasional thrill seeker type, but they never hang around for long. People who don't have a genuine and active interest in getting tied up or working someone over with a cane very quickly get bored with such activities and move on to other things. There are types of bdsm play in which I don't have an interest, and I find watching them to be mildly interesting the first time and pretty damn dull every time after that.
In addition, the community as a whole has evolved to the point that thrill seeker types are pretty much weeded out without us ever having to lift a finger. When they subscribe to our email list or talk to one of our members, they very quickly get an idea of what we are and we aren't. And, basically, what we are doesn't appeal to that type. If they do show up, they're pretty sorely disappointed. One such guy asked me, "uh, why are there so many overweight women here?" I'm not kidding. He lasted about six days, I think. And certainly people like that aren't going to put in the effort - showing up at events semi-regularly, making and keeping friends, getting involved in group politics, etc. - that it would take to become and remain a part of the community.
"If reporters started using "correct" terms like "femdom," I have no doubt we'd be seeing outraged screeds from dominant females taking the media to task for daring to use terms they have no hope of understanding."
If they use the term incorrectly, perhaps some bdsm folks will correct them, (although I doubt anyone will pay attention we do). If they use the term correctly, we'll probably be too stunned to speak. It's hard to imagine that we'd react negatively to even an inept attempt to portray us more accurately. That's just my subjective impression, but I can tell you that, right now, there's no shortage of inaccurate portrayals of wiitwd on TV and we've made virtually no noise about any of it. Indeed, many regard any attempt on the part of the mainstream media to discuss this topic - even the nonsense you see on shows like CSI - to be progress. And progress is something we definitely want to see more of.
posted by Clay201 at 11:20 PM on February 25, 2005
"To the extent that it is an actual orientation rather than merely a fetish"
BDSM is for sure an orientation, but it's like a meta-orientation because it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with which gender you prefer. For example, I know a fair number of bottoms who wouldn't have sex with a specific gender but love to scene with them.
I'd say a fetish is a more narrowed down thing. With the community I'm involved in, one wouldn't talk about having a fetish for spanking, but having a fetish for being spanked with a something or by a someone wearing a something, you see?
There's a decent write up here that explains that it had to do with worshipping "a thing".
posted by jackiemcghee at 12:16 AM on February 26, 2005
BDSM is for sure an orientation, but it's like a meta-orientation because it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with which gender you prefer. For example, I know a fair number of bottoms who wouldn't have sex with a specific gender but love to scene with them.
I'd say a fetish is a more narrowed down thing. With the community I'm involved in, one wouldn't talk about having a fetish for spanking, but having a fetish for being spanked with a something or by a someone wearing a something, you see?
There's a decent write up here that explains that it had to do with worshipping "a thing".
posted by jackiemcghee at 12:16 AM on February 26, 2005
BTW, nice boots but they don't quite fit her legs.
posted by jackiemcghee at 12:16 AM on February 26, 2005
posted by jackiemcghee at 12:16 AM on February 26, 2005
Anyone taking that article seriously (and therefore as "sad commentary on American journalism") is being a bit thick. It's a fashion piece from the "Fashion and Beauty" section of a newspaper, printed alongside stuff like "A dog is an easy excuse for fantastic accessories" and "For the last few years, designers have spent much of their time thinking of new ways to make clothes sparkle."
posted by pracowity at 12:46 AM on February 26, 2005
posted by pracowity at 12:46 AM on February 26, 2005
Mrs. Vader, I say.
posted by pekar wood at 5:46 AM on February 26, 2005
posted by pekar wood at 5:46 AM on February 26, 2005
Jawohl, mein Kommandantin! Praktisch, hübsch, und böse! Wunderbar!
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:17 AM on February 26, 2005
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:17 AM on February 26, 2005
They're called "FM boots" where I'm from in Oz.
Where I’m at, if the boots are red, then; "ComeFM boots.”
posted by thomcatspike at 10:32 AM on February 26, 2005
Where I’m at, if the boots are red, then; "ComeFM boots.”
posted by thomcatspike at 10:32 AM on February 26, 2005
Hugo Boss? Du spinnst! Ich bin sicher, dass sie einen Albert Speer aufhabt.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:50 AM on February 26, 2005
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:50 AM on February 26, 2005
Well, I think the boots are fabu. I would wear them. Of course, I would wear them with a different hemline, but that's because I hate the look of just exposed knees. Bleh. There should either be more leg, or less leg...but not that band aid sized stretch that breaks up the body line in a weird spot.
Also, the coat isn't bad...although, I would have liked to see it a little more fitted on the top, and with more flair towards the hemline.
As to the "press" about her outfit...it's the fashion section for goodness sake. That's what they do.
Black is the color of intellectualism, of abstinence, of penitence
Yes, that's exactly why I've been wearing black for 15 years. Because I'm a witty, well read nun. *rolls eyes*. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that I'm voluptuous and black is slimming. Silly fashion writers.
posted by dejah420 at 12:36 PM on February 26, 2005
Also, the coat isn't bad...although, I would have liked to see it a little more fitted on the top, and with more flair towards the hemline.
As to the "press" about her outfit...it's the fashion section for goodness sake. That's what they do.
Black is the color of intellectualism, of abstinence, of penitence
Yes, that's exactly why I've been wearing black for 15 years. Because I'm a witty, well read nun. *rolls eyes*. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that I'm voluptuous and black is slimming. Silly fashion writers.
posted by dejah420 at 12:36 PM on February 26, 2005
« Older ArtClass Filter | Now THIS is a shopping cart Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:05 PM on February 25, 2005 [1 favorite]