Talk:Dominatrix

Plural

Out of curiosity, what is the plural of dominatrix? Is it dominatrixes, or dominatrices (as in matrix / matrices) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.48.150 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 April 2005

According to Websters/Dictionary.com, either of these forms is appropriate for the plural construction: n. pl. dom·i·na·trix·es or dom·i·na·tri·ces

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.51.122 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 10 May 2005

Latin

I noticed the article says "A dominatrix (from the Latin word dominatrix...". If the English and Latin word are identical isn't it really just the Latin word, not from the Latin word? Just a thought, I may be wrong.69.179.152.163 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

citation needed on intro?

For example, the OED, in dicussing the titular 'Dom' (eg Dom Pérignon), clearly gives the latin Dominus as the root - "[In sense 1, a. Pg. dom, a title of honour, = Sp. don:{em}L. domin-us master, ruler, chief, owner; see DON n.1, DAM n.4, DAN1. In sense 2 an abbreviation of L. dominus.] ". Similarly, it's trivial to look up a full definition of dominus/domina if the explanation there isn't enough.

The sentence in question is talking about 'dom', not 'domme', as the prior just finished explaining that 'domme' was termed from the former. If that was the question, the wrong sentence is tagged 'cite needed'.

This seems so trivial I think I should just delete the 'cite needed', since I don't usually see citations for mere latin translations, certainly not from such obvious roots. Needing a cite to explain that 'dungeon' also has the same 'dominus' root might be reasonable, but not that 'dom/dominant/domination/dominatrix' come from 'dominus' .. I mean.. honestly.

No action taken at this time since I'm anonymous and I'd rather just provide a worthless citation to appease someone. I'd do the OED cite but access there is restricted through university portals and I figure that's just as worthless.  :( 98.222.61.151 (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Who wrote this? Someone who does not scene? A Dominant role is ALWAYS written with a CAPITAL LETTER and not in lower case first of all. Example: Dominatrix, Domme, Mistress, Goddess, Master, etc. No lower case for the Dominant title. Even the word “Dominant” receives a capital letter. Second: Domme is NOT pronounced as Dom. That is how you say the MALE title for a MALE Dominant when you call him a “Dom” and not how you address a female. That is offensive to a female. Call a Domme by the title of “Dom” and see if you don’t get punched in the teeth or at the very least sneered at as a complete moron with poor manners. The proper way to say the word “Domme” is to say “Dom-A” and whoever wrote this is wrong. Domina is plural for Domme and is also capitalized. Dominatrix means the female Dominant is a Pro Domme (terms are interchangeable) and she works for money in a dungeon taking clients. A Domme or Mistress is may or may not be a pro or may be an amateur who simply plays for fun. Dominatrix is a title reserved exclusively for a pro Dominant. In a professional dungeon with pay services you will find professional female Dominants using the titles of: Dominatrix, Domme, Mistress and Goddess. This is also true when the female works freelance on her own as she selects her own title as a matter of preference. In the amateur world, just for fun, no female uses the title of Dominatrix as it is only a pro title. Titles go by profession or amateur status. Is she being paid or not for services rendered? --user:anonymous 10 January 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.224.103 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully state the above statements are not fully true. Going by what so-called "scene players" are about, this is not the full scale of what a naturally dominant Woman is about. The statement made above is in regards to people who attempt to live fantasy-ridden, contrived lifestyles, which has nothing to do with real life control, authority or domination, as a true Dominatrix would wield. Therefore, the above statement is all theorectical, and shows "original research".

Technically by definition of the word Dominatrix, She is just a Woman who has power and authority, not necessarily just in a romantic relationship or even a mere self-seeking kinkster/scene player. Any Woman who has power, authority or control over another person or a subgroup of people in general is technically a Dominatrix, such as in a Queen, or even a Female military officer, or even just merely the head of the household, for example. Therefore, to reduce a dominating Woman to a mere scene player or prostitute is not true at all. I think that looking up the etymology of the word would help to get some clearer perspective.

Thus, I feel that is just too narrow of a perspective, since so-called scene players (or "pretenders", or persons who are into fantasy-fests, not reality) are not people who can be taken seriously anyway, though they persist in rare instances in life. I feel this article generally paints a naturally dominant tempered Woman in a very sleazy and abnormal life, as though it is not culturally right or acceptable for a Woman to have such a personality type, or even Her authorative position in life. Therefore, this article is extremely sexist and even degrading to such a Woman's power or authority that She may actually have in Her personal life. So, I feel this article needs to be associated more with Matriarchy and Progressive Femininism, not so sleazy or as though it has something to do with prostitution or so-called "scene players" or other people engaged into fantasy-fests. For if you think about it, a so-called pro-domme does not dominate anything, since She is literally paid to cater to the whims of Her clients, usually men. So in reality, a pro-domme is submitting to Her client, not really dominating him at all. So technically, by definition of the word and etymology, a pro-domme is not even a real Dominatrix at all. Basically a pro-domme is a "sensuality slave", but in most cases they are sex slaves too. And that just has nothing at all to do with dominating another person or situation or condition in life. Fantasy and real life are not the same thing. I feel this article verges more on fantasy and pretend, rather than a real-life, truly dominating Woman.

Also, I disagree with the pronouciation too, but I also realize that language evolves over time too. For example, utter hillbillies and the depraved talk in one fashion, but cultured, educated and intelligent people talk in another fashion. And at the same time, language is for human communication purposes, so if there is not a generally agreed-upon standard and structure of language, that has withstood the test of time, then human communication will eventually fail. Then no one will be able to understand anything or anyone. It will be like Babylon all over again.

With that being said, almost all established dictionaries would say that "Domme" is pronounced the same way as "dom", per se. However of course, each Dominatrix would be free to decide for Herself how Her constituents are to refer to Her, of course. Also, Dominatrix can be spelled as Dominatress, obviously, like in Goddess, per se; and the proper plural is Dominatrices. And the Latin form is Domina, which is singular. The plural of Domina is Dominae, or even Dominæ, if one uses the diphthong right. This is parallel to the singular for Succubus, verses the plural, Succubi or Succubae or Succubæ.

I feel that just because there are a small handful of so-called scene players or kinksters in the world, that does not constitute or change reality, or the proper correctness and purpose of using language. Besides, a true Dominatrix would be a Lady of control in Her personal life, so people who are not able to have control or pay attention to detail would fall outside of the scope of what such a Woman would dominate, or have authority over, or even most likely tolerate amongst Her subordinates.

This article lacks structure, and needs cleanup and copyediting. -- Karada 16:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the pictures (particularly the first one) are not needed.GolumTR 20:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased and overly focused on a Dominatrix being associated with BDSM, which is simply only partially true. The real truth is that the word in of itself simply means "dominant woman" or a woman who takes on a principle role or center stage in some arena or other, including a marriage or romantic relationship, or even in some civic event, etc. Thus, in modern-day "female led relationships", such women are also assuming the principle, central, lead or dominant role, per se. Therefore, such women are also technically dominatrices, regardless of how they dress or whether they engaged into BDSM type activities with their partner(s) or not! Therefore, a Dominatrix describes either the natural temperament of a woman or even her position within some sort of given relationship or association or other. I feel this article is extremely biased, cartoonish and sexist to some degree, and needs to be amended so that it properly reflects the fact that any woman who is center stage in whatever affairs, situations or conditions are at hand, within her domain, would be considered a Dominatrix, by technical definition of the word. So yes, a Dominatrix can describe a woman who is the dominant sexual partner, but that is certainly not the only REAL MEANING of the word or how it is used! As it is now, this article is an embarrassment and even just another discredit to Wikipedia's often-times very compromised credibility. As it is now, this entire page is subjective, extremely opinionated and overly fantasy-ridden at best. This page needs re-edited, plain and simple.

Ivy (soul calibur)

woah, hold it. I can see how Pleasure change is dominate...ing, but punishment change does almost nothing. In fact, it may be the most inconspicuous stance change in the entire game... (Please respond on my talk page.) tinlv7 21:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On User [80.78.159.210]

The Dominatrix Story Interview with a Mistress and with Guides on How to be a Dominatrix are constantly being removed by the user 80.78.159.210. However, it is a good resource and reference for this article. Please read the article and then discuss it here with the rules of Wikipedia.

Any help here?

Merge articles

I believe the article "Lifestyle dominatrix" should be merged into this one. Nevermorestr 06:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Someone has proposed merging in Professional dominant.

• Merge as it all seemed covered here already. Some bits might need to go to Master (BDSM). (Emperor 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

The name Domina may have several meanings but should most certainly not be merged with the concept of Dominatrix. There are so many beautiful meanings to the name for it to be solely affiliated with one meaning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drstamas (talk • contribs) 18:29, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I would argue against merging this article with Professional dominant, as there is a distinction between the two. One can be a dominatrix without being paid for it, while there are a small number of male professional dominants who would therefore not qualify as dominatrices. So while there may be overlap between the two, they are still distinct sets of people within the BDSM community/subculture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesmondRavenstone (talk • contribs) 15:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would argue for renaming this article to 'Domme' and transfer any dominatrix references to the article 'Professional dominant'. A lifestyle Domme may also be a dominatrix, but a dominatrix isn't necessarily a lifestyle Domme. The term dominatrix implies 'professional', with all connotations of the word, and as such may be taken as a slur by some lifestyle Dommes who do not perform for money. I don't know what meanings for the word you have been given, but if you try flinging it around at an actual munch or bondage organization, you are going to get a stern and unforgettable explanation of the difference from more than one in attendance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.77.13 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We already have Female dominance for this, and I think it is a better name than "Domme" (which doesn't seem to be a proper word). I think this article should be left to covering things like the imagery, stereotype and popular culture of dominatrices - that's what the article is currently mainly about, after all; not every female dominant dresses up in the stereotypical dominatrix way, and it would be POV to imply that. Mdwh (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Domme" is the term that's been used in lifestyle BDSM at least since the 80's. Understand that there's a firm distinction between the terms Domme and dominatrix. It's not just a stereotype that dominatrices are professionals, the definition of a dominatrix is a woman who dominates clients for money, as opposed to a Domme, who dominates her personal submissive(s) in her personal relationship(s). If there is a separate article on Female dominance, then much of the material dealing with non-professional lifestyle BDSM should be moved there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.77.13 (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also understand that as a professional, the connotation with prostitution is unavoidable, even if the dominatrix does not have sex for money. Because of this, even though Dommes who are also dominatrices may be some of the most respected members of a bondage community, the term dominatrix can be taken as an insult by Dommes who do not perform professionally. 97.81.77.13 (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that dominatrix has different connotations - that's why I suggested the Female dominance article, rather than starting a new article Domme. However, I disagree that dominatrix means for-payment by definition - that's not the dictionary definition. I don't think this article has much coverage of lifestyle domination, it mainly only covers it to explain the differences. Mdwh (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam

The photo, most of the external links and some of the media references are all just spam. This article is not in any way approaching any kind of professional standard.

How is the photo spam? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A free image has been obtained from a notable French dominatrix. Why do you call that spam ? Hektor 21:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The image is definitely no spam. It makes sense to illustrate the topic and thats what it clearly does. Since dominatrices don't wear masks, I strongly doubt that we will get a much better picture soon. -Nemissimo 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, this photograph is spam, although I do agree that She is a very sexy and beautiful Woman. However, this picture, along with Her name and links at the bottom of the page constitute spam, because She is a sex slave for hire. And if someone wants to debate what spam is, then at least we can all agree this is adware. Really, Wikipedia should not be used for someone's personal agenda in prostitution, whether they are selling their own sexual or sensual slavery to men for a fee.

Which also brings me the next point. A "Dominatrix" is a Woman who controls and dominates and has authority over another person(s), even control and authority over situations and conditions in life. Fantasy-fests are not real life control and domination. Thus, whoever this Woman is, who has submitted a "free picture" in order to advertise Her "business", is not really a real Dominatrix to begin with. She is merely pretending out a fantasy, where She serves and caters to the whims of Her very self-seeking clients, who actually have full control over Her, because they paid Her to submit to what they want. Therefore, She is basically a sex slave, or at least, She is a sensuality slave. That just has nothing at all to do with Female Domination or even a Mistress or Dominatrix.

But like I said, She is very beautiful, so if the motive here is just to make this article attractive, rather than to inform, then Her pix is great. But if the motive here is to depict real-life Women who truly have power and control, even over men, and not just sexual power and control, but control, power and authority in other or even all areas of their lives, then Her picture is sales spam advertisement/adware, since via Her picture, name and even the embedded links, someone can go find Her and pay Her to submit to them for some sensuality or sexuality services. I think we just need to keep this article about truly dominant, authoritive and controlling Women, not scene players or wannabe kinksters or other riffraff out to pretend in their self-centered, very contrived, meaningless, purposeless and pointless fantasy-fests.

Jadis, etc.

I am again removing Jadis and similar characters from C. S. Lewis's work from the examples. They do not fit the definition of the article itself, and share almost no characteristics with the examples mentioned. Being evil does not in itself make one a dominatrix. Anyone remotely familiar with Lewis would scoff at the notion that he intended to portray sexual domination in his children's books. Elphion (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

Dominatrixes are so common in popular culture, that this list will never be complete and will simply keep growing. I suggest removing the list and in its place leaving a brief overview of the roll dominatrixes play in popular culture. -Neitherday (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any resources to write an overview, and with the trivia tag having been added recently, I suggest the section be removed wholesale. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarah and her slave

"[...]the Australian dominatrix Sarah~{owner of slave kylie; note the lower-case "k")[...]"

I don't think that Sarah and the spelling of her slave are of any relevance for the subject. -62.178.1.52 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm removing that whole sentence shortly. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry to put this here; i'm new here and have not yet figured out how to create a new topic in the discussion. however, i cancelled gnr's pretty tied up from the song-list because it deals with a female submissive and not with a dominatrix. hope, this is okay... —Preceding unsigned comment added by R1334w (talk • contribs) 17:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the word?

The article needs some information about the origins of the word. Assuming the word is authentic Latin and not a neologism: When did it acquire the sexual connotations it has today, and how was it used before that? SpectrumDT (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll add what's in the OED in just a sec. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Someone has proposed merging Female dominance into this article.

• Support merge and free this title up for potential articles about social organization in various animal species. A lot has been published about "female dominance", and not the BDSM type. Lemurs are a classic example. – Maky ^« talk » 07:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Major source cited is self-published eBook that lacks scholarly integrity

"The History & Arts of the Dominatrix" seems to be a self-published eBook on Amazon. It reads more like a long blog than scholarly work and takes wild liberties interpreting Mesopotamian literature and art.

The repeated use of "The History & Arts of the Dominatrix" as a cited source in this Wikipedia article undermines the integrity of this article and allows it to contain misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boudiccalicious (talk • contribs) 17:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The book 'The History & Arts of the Dominatrix' is well-regarded and has received positive academic reviews.

What is the alleged 'misinformation' you are concerned about?, as all her references seem to be meticulous and check out. It seems like you may have scanned the sample beginning of the e-book rather than seen the whole book, which is overall excellent by anyone's standards. It's been well-reviewed academically and recommended for academic libraries. See: http://www.bookverdict.com/details.xqy?uri=Product2014-03-15-6049845.xml

I note your concern that it is self-published but would highlight that so is almost every book on BDSM. (Janet Hardy & Jay Wiseman publish their books through their own Greenery Press etc, 'SM101' self-published book, 'The Bottoming Book' and 'The Topping Book' are self-published. Gloria Brame's book 'Different Loving' is self-published, etc)

The reason vitually all BDSM titles are self-published is that mainstream publishers don't publish BDSM non-fiction books, only erotica. So the criteria for resources needs to be regard within the industry, industry magazines, and academic / sociological reviews. -Scholarlyfemme (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Dominatrix in Print and Other Media

"The Dominatrix in Print and Other Media", cited in the External Links section, is an important bit of Usenet/BDSM history, but has sadly disappeared from the Web at place we have linked. The Internet Archive has excluded it from searching, presumably by request of the site maintainers, and I can't find another source for it that looks reasonably authoritative.

The original document, which dates back to at least 1996, isn't completely lost, as it should be possible to find on any of a number of Usenet archives. -The Anome (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dominatrix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004182757/http://www.theworld.org/2010/09/29/canadian-prostitution-law/ to http://www.theworld.org/2010/09/29/canadian-prostitution-law/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)