FOXSexpert: To Be a Dominatrix
Thursday , March 05, 2009

By Yvonne Fulbright

When it comes to career aspirations, most women don’t think whips, ropes and handcuffs. But word on the street is that many women are turning to freelance fetish work to keep up with their expenses.

With “kink” more mainstream than ever, educated, professional women are putting on their leather. And they have many wondering: What’s the appeal of being a dominatrix?

“The toughest job you’ll ever love” has taken on a whole new meaning. When it comes to sex work, being a dominatrix is no walk in the park. After all, they do have to wear spiked-heeled, thigh-high boots.

Far from the fantasy figures they enact, some are moms, employees with day jobs, consultants and freelancers looking to supplement their income for a more affordable lifestyle. Others are unemployed professionals or students needing money for food and tuition in a tough economy.

Becoming a dominatrix — a female who takes a dominant role in bondage, discipline, domination and submission — is an attractive option for these women because:

— It offers the convenience of early or nightshift work;

— It enables cute women with bodies bigger than the Barbie-esque figure desired of strippers to work in the sex industry;

— It provides a woman with the opportunity to flog some of the bankers responsible for the current financial mess.

But the fact that they are able to avoid intercourse is the main reason your “average” women in need of cash are going this route.

Plus, the money isn’t bad (though nowhere near the $500 an hour call girls rake in). A dominatrix makes up to $200 a shift, and the hours don't have to be steady. But these are definitely “don’t quit your day job” gigs. While we do hear of a few women making a killing at a fetish party ($1,000 a night), these stories are the exception to the rule.

With a number of them not even interested in kink, this is a temporary situation for many. Being “glamorized hookers,” as they’re often called, is not easy money. These women work hard. While they do get to run around in black lingerie, garter belts, and stilettos, this is no lounge-around-Victoria’s-Secret fashion shoot.

First, they need to be trained in techniques like whipping and caning. They need to learn how to use the tools for sex acts involving bondage, paddling and sexual torture.

Once with a client, there’s an interview process. They need to find out more about his expectations beyond any initial booking requests. This requires a skill set. The mistress must be:

— Sensitive to others’ sexual fantasies, thoughts and emotions;

— Open-minded and self-confident;

— Empathetic to others’ wants and desires;

— Good in the art of seduction.

And this goes for all of her clients. While many dominatrices have regular clients, they also field men who are up for the occasional sexual adventure. Clients from all professions and all walks of life come through their “dungeon” door. The one wish they all have in common: They want the full, deluxe service.

Following the interview, there’s a warm-up foreplay component. But this isn’t your typical woo me, touch me, talk sexy pre-game. The dominatrix becomes a counselor of sorts with clients who like to talk about their sexual needs, desires, fetishes and the experience to come. For most clients, she is the only safe space where they can confide their most private sexual thoughts.

It is also during this time that the dominatrix works with the client in figuring out how she can best indulge the fetish.

You can imagine that the intensity of focusing on another person — the individual’s feelings and body language — with behaviors labeled atypical by most, is exhausting. While offering the glorified, Hollywood-style dominatrix experience, these women handle what some call girls and prostitutes can’t or won’t. So is it any wonder that many mistresses and clients consider this a bonding experience?

Being a dominatrix or “pro-domme,” as they’re know in the industry, is nothing new. Some have been in the industry for years. They either freelance or work regular shifts at a commercial dungeon.

The industry stands to expand if the economic crisis doesn’t end soon. And with that, some women, although it may sound strange to others, are perfectly fine with going to a job where they're actually called “ma’am.”

House Kills Effort to Investigate Lobbyist-Lawmaker Ties

The proposal would have forced the House Ethics Committee to launch a probe into ties between the source and timing of campaign contributions by lobbyists and subsequent legislator requests for special projects or earmarks.

By Mosheh Oinounou

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

The House voted Wednesday to kill a resolution calling for an ethics investigation into potential quid pro quo between lobbyist campaign donations and lawmakers.

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., sponsored the proposal that would have forced the House Ethics Committee to launch a probe into ties between the source and timing of campaign contributions by lobbyists and subsequent legislator requests for special projects or earmarks.

While open-ended, Flake's resolution was a direct response to the ongoing federal investigation into the PMA Group, a lobbying company accused of making fraudulent donations to lawmakers using names of people who did not exist.

The firm, which has contributed millions to politicians in the last decade, has close ties to senior Democratic appropriators including Reps. John Murtha, D-Pa., and Pete Visclosky, D-Ind. The FBI raided PMA's headquarters in November and is investigating the group's founder and president, Paul Magliochetti, a former Murtha aide.

"Whereas numerous press reports and editorials have alleged several cases of influence peddling between members of Congress and outside interests seeking federal funding‚ the House of Representatives should respond to such claims and demonstrate integrity in its proceedings," the resolution read.

The House decided to set aside the proposal by a mostly party-line 226-182 vote, though 17 Democrats joined Republicans in support of considering the measure.

The vote came just after the House approved a $410 billion spending to fund the government this year, which also contained $8.8 million on projects sought by client of the PMA lobbying group.

"Our own ethics committee may say that's OK. The Department of Justice may see it another way," Flake said following the vote. "Until we bring our Ethics Committee guidelines in line with the Justice Department, our members are exposed."

Asked why he voted with the majority to table the resolution, Murtha said, "no comment."

FOX News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report

Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

Sen. Barbara Boxer is pushing the Obama administration to move forward with ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a controversial treaty that has never gained much support in the U.S.

By Joseph Abrams

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.

The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.

Critics say the treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.

Nearly every country in the world is party to it -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not -- but the convention has gained little support in the U.S. and never been sent to the Senate for ratification.

That could change soon.

Boxer has made clear her intent to revive the ratification process under the Obama administration, which may be amenable to the move. During a Senate confirmation hearing last month, Boxer said she considers it "a humiliation" that the U.S. is "standing with Somalia" in refusing to become party to the agreement, while 193 other nations have led the way.

The U.S. is already party to two optional pieces of the treaty regarding child soldiers and child prostitution and pornography, but has refused to sign on to the full agreement, something which has rankled members of Congress, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said.

The convention has established a Committee on the Rights of the Child, an 18-member panel in Geneva composed of "persons of high moral character" who review the rights of children in nations that are party to the convention.

But legal experts say the convention does nothing to protect human rights abroad -- and that acceding to the convention would erode U.S. sovereignty.

Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered "the supreme law of the land," superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States.

"To the extent that an outside body, a group of unaccountable so-called experts in Switzerland have a say over how children in America should be raised, educated and disciplined -- that is an erosion of American sovereignty," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Parental rights groups are similarly stirred; they see in the U.N. convention a threat that the government will meddle with even the simplest freedoms to raise their children as they see fit.

"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision," said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. "It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes."

Groves said that erosion has already begun, as the Supreme Court has referred to the wide acceptance of the child-rights law in conferring legal protections on minors in the U.S.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion in the 2005 decision banning the death penalty for minors, noted that "every country in the world has ratified [the convention] save for the United States and Somalia."

Proponents of the convention in the U.S. stress that it will help secure human rights abroad.

"Now, all you have to do is look around the world and see these girls that are having acid thrown in their face," Boxer said in January, implying that the U.S. refusal to come aboard has led to abuses elsewhere.

But when acceding to the convention, countries are able to sign so-called RUDs -- reservations, understandings and declarations -- that can hinder or negate responsibilities they would otherwise be bound to follow.

Most majority Muslim nations express reservations on all provisions of the convention that are incompatible with Islamic Sharia law, which takes much of the teeth out of the treaty. Acid attacks on girls continue in Afghanistan, which is already party to the convention.

The U.N. itself admits that there is no way for it to enforce its own laws and protect children.

"When it comes to signatories who violate the convention and/or its optional protocols -- there is no means to oblige states to fulfill their legal obligations," said Giorgia Passarelli, a spokeswoman for the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights, which oversees the child-rights body.

Passarelli said that the committee has kept a constant spotlight on rights violators and fed into decisions made by the Security Council, especially involving child soldiers. But even then, she added, such pressure does not always prevail.

Despite these obstacles, Boxer has made clear that she intends to ramp up pressure to get the treaty ratified, a passion that may be shared by the Obama administration.

During the Oct. 22, 2008, presidential youth debate, Obama promised to "review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

During U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's January confirmation hearing, Rice called the convention "a very important treaty and a noble cause," and said it was "a shame" for the U.S. to be in company with Somalia, which has no real government.

Rice told Boxer that "there can be no doubt that [President Obama] and Secretary Clinton and I share a commitment to the objectives of this treaty and will take it up as an early question," promising to review the treaty "to ensure that the United States is playing and resumes its global leadership role in human rights."

Boxer, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pushed for a 60-day timetable to review the convention and report back to the Senate -- which would have left the Obama administration a March 23 deadline to move toward ratification.

Rice politely sidestepped and refused to agree to the timeline.

"This is a complicated treaty, in many respects more than some others, given our system of federalism, and so we need to take a close look at how we manage the challenges of domestic implementation and what reservations and understandings might be appropriate in the context of ratification," she said.

Boxer's office, which ignored repeated calls and e-mails seeking comment, has not spelled out what if any reservations the senator would like to assert in ratifying the treaty. The State Department also refused to comment on timetables.

Daschle Withdraws Nomination for Health and Human Services Secretary

Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination for health and human services secretary, and President Obama has accepted.

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination for health and human services secretary Tuesday, after fielding mounting criticism over his failure to pay more than $130,000 in taxes.

The move marked a stunning turnaround from the day before, when Daschle mounted a campaign to retain allies on Capitol Hill and President Obama told reporters he "absolutely" stands by the former South Dakota senator.

But the president accepted Daschle's withdrawal with "sadness and regret" Tuesday morning, according to a White House statement.

"Tom made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I," Obama said. He added that the "mistake" should not diminish the "many contributions" Daschle has made to the country.

It was unclear whether Daschle, with his deep network of ties in the Senate stemming in part from his time as majority leader, would have been able to weather the criticism over his tax problems in confirmation. Sources told FOX News that concern was growing that even if Daschle was confirmed his tax lapses would detract from the drive for health care reform.

Daschle said in a statement that his presence would have complicated that effort.

"If 30 years of exposure to the challenges inherent in our system has taught me anything, it has taught me that this work will require a leader who can operate with the full faith of Congress and the American people, and without distraction," Daschle said. "Right now, I am not that leader, and will not be a distraction."

Daschle had also been tapped to be Obama's health czar but he apparently will not be taking on that role either.

"I will not be the architect of America's health system reform, but I remain one of its more fervent supporters," Daschle said.

Daschle was one of Obama's earliest and most fervent supporters on the campaign trail.

Senators were reluctant to state publicly any opposition to Daschle's nomination in recent days. But that started to crack Tuesday morning, as Republican Sen. Jim DeMint called for Obama to withdraw the nomination -- becoming the first senator to say that the former majority leader's tax problems are disqualifying.

DeMint told FOX News that Daschle's failure to pay $134,000 in federal taxes reflects a "problem with integrity" that the government cannot afford to tolerate. DeMint spoke out against Daschle as a number of prominent newspapers, including The New York Times, called for the South Dakota Democrat to drop his bid.

Daschle has since paid $146,000 in back payments and interest, and apologized on Monday for what he called income tax errors.

Lawmakers on Tuesday expressed surprise at Daschle's decision to withdraw.

"I'm too emotionally upset to answer," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, when asked for his reaction.

"I think he would have been confirmed," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., the man charged with navigating Daschle's nomination through the Senate. "I'm surprised."

Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin said Daschle did the "honorable thing" by preventing an "arduous political struggle."

"It's just the kind of class move you'd expect from a person like Tom Daschle," Durbin said.

The New York Times, in its editorial, complained that Timothy Geithner was already confirmed as treasury secretary despite his tax problems.

"It would send a terrible message to the public if we ignore the failure of yet another high-level nominee to comply with the tax laws," the Times wrote.

Several other newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, Boston Globe, and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, also called for Daschle to withdraw.

But Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer earlier said Daschle's own admission that he had failed to pay the taxes was reason enough to forgive his sin.

"Clearly it was a bad mistake, and Daschle was the first to come up with this in June 2008," Schumer said. "It wasn't discovered by the administration's vetting team but rather by Daschle himself much earlier and he brought it to the attention of the administration's vetting team when he was chosen as a potential nominee for HHS."

Obama's pick to be the White House's first performance officer, Nancy Killefer, also withdrew her nomination on Tuesday because of her own tax liabilities, namely a $946 tax lien imposed by the D.C. government for failure to pay $298 in unemployment compensation tax on household help.

Noting the importance of the post, Killefer wrote in her withdrawal letter to the president that "my personal tax issue of D.C. unemployment tax could be used to create exactly the kind of distraction and delay those duties must avoid."