Denial goal falls two days short

“The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray” or in this case, the best laid plan of a dominant wife will have to wait for another day. I came up with what I thought was a rather creative way to allow my hubby a humiliating orgasm on March 31, ending two months of denial. However, we fell two days short of that goal due to an “accident” during his discipline session on Friday night. I probably should have postponed his weekly discipline session knowing he has been on edge sexually as of late, due to being denied for so long. But I guess you can say we flew too close to the sun and got burned. I take my share of the responsibility on this but of course he shoulders the bulk of the blame and will be punished accordingly.

Friday night I was in the mood to discipline hubby and I was in the mood to add a little flavor to it by dressing in leather bra, leather thong and my thigh high leather boots. I began with an over the lap spanking with my hairbrush (hubby in chastity) but the poor dear got too excited and started to experience some discomfort from his balls being so full and swollen and the plastic ring of the chastity device restricting the blood flow. His balls were turning purple so I had to make a decision … end the session or allow him out of chastity. I made the wrong choice and should have known better but what can I say, I was in the mood to dominate him. I put my faith in his ability to place mind over body. I thought he could hold back his orgasm if I didn’t touch his erection. I was sadly mistaken.

After I unlocked his chastity device and he painfully was able to remove it from his expanded testicles, I knew I couldn’t put him back over my lap. If his erection touched my soft thighs for a second I knew he would have difficulty not climaxing.

So I had the idea that I would place him in bondage in a stand up position and a more severe discipline session might make him go limp. It’s worked in the past. We have hooks in the doorframe of the doorway leading from my bedroom to my bathroom. James is tall so he was able to stretch his arms out over his head while keeping his feet firmly on the floor. Standing on a stool I tied his wrists to the hooks using leather wrist cuffs. Once he was secured, I began to whip his backside with my riding crop. As is normal during our discipline sessions, I graded his performance in doing his chores and his overall level of servitude over the past week. I pointed out where he could improve as well as verbalize to him what was expected of him in the week to come.

As I was whipping his buttocks with the crop, increasing the severity, I noticed he was not going limp at all. In fact, he was dripping an unusual amount of pre-cum. That should have been a red flag for me to stop, but again I wanted to see if he could resist. Besides, there have only been a few occasions when hubby has climaxed during a session without any physical stimulation.

I switched to the cane, figuring the pain from the dreaded cane would decrease his sexual excitement and as a result lessen his erection. I figured it might help if I could get his mind to focus on something else so I ordered him to count each stroke of the cane. We got to about 7 or 8 when he let out a scream and he shot his load all over the bathroom floor.

If it’s of any consolation, I can tell you it was not a pleasurable orgasm. He tried to hold back and he was feeling the brunt of my cane as he was climaxing. I was not really upset, in fact I was kind of amazed at what I just witnessed. But I gave him 5 more hard blows with the cane as a way of expressing my displeasure before I untied him and made him clean up his mess.

I felt a little sorry for him so I allowed him to worship my boots and my body (his erection still very, very stiff) and orally pleasure me. Then my kindness overflowed as I ordered him to masturbate in front of me and permitted him another orgasm if he could do it in 60 seconds. He did.

My purpose of allowing him the second orgasm was for health concerns. I wasn’t sure his plumbing got a full cleaning with the first orgasm seeing it happened without any physical stimulation. I wanted to be sure that all got properly flushed out before I placed him back in chastity.

His punishment for the unauthorized orgasm? Two more months of denial. I have a delicious plan in place for his next orgasm which if all goes according to plan will take place on May 31. And for the fun of it, I plan on keeping track of how many orgasms I have between now and then. It’s good to have goals, even if you don’t quite reach them.

Hubby closing in on two month denial mark

As I mentioned in my last non-movie review entry back on March 9th, we’ve settled into a more domestic-oriented femdom lifestyle as of late. James has been serving me domestically and sexually (massages, oral servitude) while he has remained denied, wearing his CB6000 a goodly portion of the time around the house. To be honest with you, I don’t really keep track of his orgasms. They are rare and under my supervision but I had no idea it had been so long since his last one until the other night when he came to me and begged me for relief.

James confessed to me that he has been having lots of femdom dreams lately and that it is taking him longer and longer for his balls to subside from a swollen state whenever he becomes aroused. So I inquired “how long has it been since I last allowed you an orgasm?” He replied, “January 31”.

Wow, has it really been that long? I figured it had to be approaching a month but I had no idea it’s been almost two months. James remembers it well. It was during that stint in late January when we were “playing” almost nightly. On January 31, we did another face sitting session and I had been teasing and denying him for days so I knew he had to be on edge sexually. Therefore, after I had been sexually satisfied that night, I allowed him to masturbate in front of me.

A lot has happened since January 31 so I must say that I am very proud of my hubby for holding off this long and not begging me for relief sooner than this. Of course he likes being denied. He loves the feeling of being aroused and under my control. However, two months is a long time. I remember about ten years ago I tried to deny him for longer than a month but he had a wet dream and climaxed in his sleep. I can usually tell when James needs relief as he becomes cranky. But the older he gets, he is able to go longer times between orgasms with less and less biological or mental challenges.

Anywho, he came to be the other night and begged me for relief. I was about to order him to masturbate in front of me when it hit me that we only have a few days left in the month. I realize February was a short month but nonetheless, if he can hold off until March 31, it will have been two full months, even if it isn’t technically 60 days. So to my hubby’s dismay, I have ordered him to wear his chastity device until March 31 when I will more than likely allow him relief. And to celebrate my decision to make him wait a few more days (and to add to his frustration) I had James orally pleasure my body. He came to me begging for relief and I was the one who got the orgasm. Seems only fair, don’t you think?

Later that night as I was lying in bed thinking about it, I got to contemplating how many orgasms had I had since my hubby’s last one back on January 31? I’ve been with Thomas at least a half dozen times since then and I have had James orally service me at least twice a week and some weeks more than that. Then there was Valentine’s Day and all that went on with that. There were all those long, cold winter nights where we played. And there have been numerous discipline sessions with James that ended with me being pleasured.

I’ll be conservative and round it off to an average of three times a week. Then add in all the times I had multiple orgasms, let’s round it off to an average of five orgasms per week over the past 8 weeks. That means I will have had at least 40 orgasms since my hubby last had one. That is why I could never be a submissive. But my hubby loves it and he wouldn’t trade his place in this marriage for all the orgasms in the world. 40 to 1 ratio! Like I said, seems fair to me.

Satan in High Heels

Starring: Meg Myles

Grayson Hall

Del Tenney

Sabrina

Earl Hammond

Mike Keene

Robert Yuro 

Directed by Jerald Intrator 

Release: 1962 

Length: 90 minutes

 

"I'm the kind of woman, not hard to understand. I'm the one who cracks the whip and holds the upper hand....I’ll beat you, mistreat you, till you quiver and quail. The female of the species is more deadly than the male."

 

Those are the words Meg Myles sings from the nightclub floor, donning a leather outfit and waving a riding crop. It is the pinnacle of the movie, “Satan in High Heels”, and much like the audience in the nightclub, we the audience of this movie are witnessing the most unforgettable act of the show. Myles nightclub performance, while mild for 2013, was certainly tantalizing and ground breaking for 1962.
 

 

“Satan in High Heels” was the first fetish film made for a mainstream audience. It was produced by Leonard Burtman, the father of the modern fetish publishing industry. Burtman created the first nationwide distribution for fetish and femdom oriented magazines in the 1950’s and 1960’s and he successfully defended his publications from numerous legal attacks.

 

The screenplay for the film was based on a short story submitted to Burtman’s “Exotique” magazine. The short story did not have a title and once the movie was made, Burtman and his director, Jerald Intrator, decided to call it “Satan in High Heels” and released it in the Sexploitation genre, hoping that the title and sexy theatrical trailer would attract a male audience. Personally, I would have called it “Female of the Species” and would have tried for a wider audience, but then again I am living in 2013, not 1962. 

 

While the movie is slow in parts, the acting is very good, the cinematography is superb and today this film would get a PG13 rating at worst, as there is no cursing, no frontal nudity and the sex scenes are all implied but never shown. The film’s star, Meg Myles, was a pin-up model in the 1950’s thus there is little doubt Burtman was seeking to capitalize on her fan base. Yet, she could act and she could sing. Her physique made her a favorite of men's magazines of the era, but in 1954 she landed a small comic relief role, involving singing, in the feature film “Dragnet”, portraying a Cuban singer. The following year, she played a singer in Phil Karlson's feature “The Phenix City Story”, in which she sang the title song. Myles was also selected to perform on the national tour promoting the movie, and got a major label recording contract out of it. Myles sings two songs in “Satan in High Heels” including the show stopper “Female of the Species”.

 

 

In the present day, “Satan in High Heels” is considered by some to be a ‘1962 campy masterpiece of Sexploitation features’ as the voluptuous Meg Myles proves ‘that the wicked woman is truly irresistible.’ However, watching the first three quarters of this movie, I did not perceive Stacey Kane to be a wicked woman. An opportunist, yes, but no more sinful than the males in this film, such as her drug addict and abusive husband, or the married nightclub owner Arnold Kenyon who likes to have a woman on the side for when he visits New York, or Louie who hits on Stacey on the airplane and introduces her to the nightclub manager but only after she sleeps with him. Nevertheless, I guess in 1962, a confident and dominant woman who refuses to be a victim and who uses men instead of allowing men to use her was considered a wicked woman.

 

I’m not sure how old the character Stacey Kane was intended to be in this movie (I’d say middle to late thirties) but Meg Myles was exactly thirty in 1962 although she looks much older. Two other females of notoriety starred in “Satan in High Heels”. Grayson Hall plays the dominant and no-nonsense lesbian nightclub manager, Pepe. Hall went on to star in such films as Disney’s “That Darn Cat” in 1965 but she gained star status with the fans of the 1968 supernatural soap opera “Dark Shadows”. Grayson Hall left Dark Shadows in 1971 for a long stint on another, more sedate daytime drama, “One Life to Live”.

 

 

The other female of notoriety in “Satan in High Heels” was the British cheese-cake pinup model, actress, and cabaret star Sabrina, a beautiful British woman, born Norma Sykes, who was known by her fans as simply Sabrina. She was called the British answer to Jane Mansfield and Sabrina has a small part in this movie. She performs two nightclub songs in “Satan in High Heels” which prove two things. One, Sabrina was stunning,
 

and two, she could not sing. But that didn’t matter as “Satan in High Heels” captures the eyes and facial expressions of the male audience and it is quite apparent that they could care less if Sabrina could sing. They may have been actors but they portray the penis-led male nature quite well.
 

 

 

 

“Satan in High Heels” does a wonderful job of capturing the male nature in this film. There is some superb camera work in this movie. We see how males eye up women, how powerless they become when a woman shows a little leg or wears high heel shoes or when she wears leather. 
 

The movie begins as Stacey Kane (Meg Myles) is working as a burlesque dancer in a carnival sideshow when her heroin addicted ex-husband Rudy turns up in her dressing room with $900 cash. Stacey isn't exactly thrilled to see her ex, but she is thrilled to get her hands on the $900 so she double crosses him, grabs the cash, and runs off to New York. 
 

On the plane she meets Louie (Ben Stone), and he's so taken with Stacey's sex-appeal that he asks her out, invites her to stay with him and introduces her to nightclub manager, Pepe (Grayson Hall). Stacey also meets nightclub owner Arnold Kenyon (Mike Keene) and his spoiled son Laurence (Robert Yuro). A secret love triangle commences and as Pepe observes "there's an awful lot of wear and tear when you play both sides against the middle." 
 

Burtman makes sure that Myles wears plenty of leather in this movie knowing it will appeal to the fans of his fetish publications. Myles wears leather pants in a number of scenes and she also wears a leather dress. In fact, one of the more memorable scenes to me was when the nightclub owner, Arnold Kenyon (played by Mike Keene), confronts Stacey about sleeping with his son, Laurence (played by Robert Yuro). Stacey has moved in to Mr. Kenyon’s apartment, a place he uses as a love nest when he visits New York. Mr. Kenyon thinks he owns Stacey and he is furious when he finds out she ran off with his college-aged son for a day and night at the Kenyon house in the country.  
 

Mr. Kenyon slaps Stacey but she does not cower to him and tells him that she is going to move out. Stacey is dressed in leather pants and a leather top, the same outfit she wore when she seduced young Laurence. Mr. Kenyon, a man who is accustomed to being in charge of the young women who perform at his clubs, becomes powerless in the presence of the dominant and leather wearing Stacey Kane. He falls to his knees, hugs her around her leather clad waist, grovels and begs her to stay by saying “I’ll give you whatever you want”. Stacey towers over him and in her dominant position tells him “Give me what I want, Arnold, and think how I want it.”
 

 

The next scene shows Stacey at the nightclub preparing for her big song, now dressed in her leather outfit complete with leather boots, leather pants, leather vest (her arms and neck covered by a white silk shirt, thus no skin showing) and riding crop in hand.
 

 

Mr. Kenyon seems at peace and he mentions to her that he is glad they had a heart to heart chat. Laurence comes to visit her and she confesses to him that she has also been intimate with his father. Laurence leaves her but not before she tells Laurence that she loves him. Laurence goes and talks to his father and Arnold is anxious to tell his son about the arrangement that Stacey demanded and he agreed to, but before he can, young Laurence tells his father he wants to leave for Europe in order to end the love triangle.  
 

We never do hear what the arrangement would have been. Was Mr. Kenyon going to submit to Stacey’s unspoken terms that she could date and sleep with Laurence as long as she did not leave Mr. Kenyon? (And why not choose the handsome college-aged male over the much older man when the older man is willing to pay your rent and provide you a career?).  
 

When Mr. Kenyon hears that Laurence wants to join his mother in Europe, he goes and tells Stacey, “My son is not as opened minded as I am”, which angers her because Stacey has fallen in love with Laurence. She does manipulate the men in the movie for her own gain, however she genuinely loves Laurence. 
 

Another great Femdom scene is after Stacey performs her “Female of the species” number, she returns to her dressing room and is attacked by her ex-husband, who is wielding a knife and intends to kill her. Stacey fights him off by striking him repeatedly with the riding crop. Who knows how long she would have whipped him if not for a knock on her door.
 

 

 

Stacey then decides to use her manipulation powers to get her ex-husband to kill Mr. Kenyon by promising to reconcile with him. Her hope is that once Mr. Kenyon is out of the way, Laurence will have a change of heart. The ex-husband fails and all three men find out about Stacey’s plot, forcing her to leave the nightclub and all three men. It is this final part of the movie that plays into the “Satan in High Heels” designation. 
 

The word "exploitation" gets bandied about cinema circles like a bit of graffiti to be splattered on any low-budget film that features ample amounts of either violence or sex. Even films with the loftiest of intentions usually are exploiting some facet of mass-appeal curiosity. A film like “Satan in High Heels” can today be revisited as a well-crafted, low-budget film noir. It has that salacious title and a seedy atmosphere, but in the end, it is a much better film than one would expect from a film on the “Something Weird Video” label.
 

 

 

The DVD release, part of the "Something Weird" series, is brimming with extras. The film is presented full-frame and it looks and sounds rather good for a low budget film from 1962. Accompanying the feature is a second movie, “The Wild and the Naked”, which I must confess that I did not watch, but only skipped through it and stopping to watch a few scenes. It tells the tale of a young woman who takes a nap and dreams that she's stuck near a lake wherein any time she gets a fleck of dirt on her she feels that she must take yet another bath, and is chased by a gorilla, an ugly man, and other creatures.  
 

Added to the DVD extras are eight trailers for this and other gems of the genre, along with a 12-minute gallery of "Something Weird" promo art and radio ads. There are also are two short films: “Satan and the Virgin”, which features a dancer who has a devil head on her shoulder and dances around in circles (there is an informative title card that tells us that she is doing both roles). This feature is very lame. 
 

However, the other short film on this DVD is called “Latex She-Devils” and I know the readers of “Predominant”, especially the men, will enjoy this feature. It is an early 1970's S&M reel about a male cat burglar who is overpowered, tied-up and abused by two latex-clad women. It has mild bondage, mild spanking, forced shoe worship, forced breast worship and believe it or not, forced ass worship.

 

So if you find “Satan in High Heels” too mild for your Femdom tastes, the DVD extra “Latex She-Devils” should increase the erotic value of the DVD. I got my copy on Amazon.

 

 

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Settling back into a more domestic-oriented femdom lifestyle

Last summer my hubby came to me and told me he was tired of straddling the fence between husband and slave. He wanted me to take him deeper into submission. He wanted me treat him more cruelly. I agreed to explore his ‘masochism’ thus I permitted him to build his own little prison in the basement. We’ve experimented with more advance D&S activities with such things as strappado, spiked mats, and intense humiliation. This has been fun, for the both of us, and definitely a learning experience. I feel I’ve gotten to know my hubby in new ways over these past 7 or 8 months.

While such endeavors have definitely added spice and intensity to our femdom play, I’ve come to the conclusion that they do not make for a sustainable lifestyle. It’s just not me. I can treat my hubby cruelly from time to time within a D&S session (and plan to continue to do so) but I cannot do it as a way of life.

What I enjoy most about femdom is how we relate to each other outside the bedroom and within our vanilla world. I love being married to a man who does almost all the housework. I love that my hubby submits to me making the decisions within our marriage. And I love that my hubby submits to my sexual independence and consents to me being intimate with other men, if I so choose, while he remains totally monogamous to me. I also like to expand hubby’s boundaries as he surrenders more and more of himself over to me. And I love it when he sacrifices his pleasure in order to enhance my pleasure.

However, I must be perfectly honest and confess that I do not enjoy hurting him, physically or emotionally. I love my husband and I have no desire to break him or force him into submission. I want his submission to always come from his willing and loving heart. That doesn’t mean we will still not utilize the confinement room or engage in occasional strappado or use the spiked mats during our D&S play. But what it does mean is that our lifestyle is starting to settle back into a more domestic-oriented femdom.

Take the past two weeks. Hubby comes home from work and tends to his chores. He prepares my dinner and afterwards, he is at my beckon call, be it to give me a foot massage, or a neck rub, or a full body massage, or to sexually satisfy me via orally pleasuring me. Hubby is on an allowance and one night he requested extra funds. He kneeled before me and made his request known. I granted it and he showed his adoration by kissing my feet. It was quite lovely.

My relationship with Thomas is also settling into a more regular routine. I really didn’t appreciate the way Thomas kind of dropped in and out of my life based on his schedule and his whims. Therefore I told Thomas that if he wanted to see me, it would be on Saturday nights. He must drive here and take me out to dinner. He is permitted to spend the night with me but he must leave on Sunday. That’s the way it will be until I change my mind. I decide when Thomas sees me. James will spend most Saturday nights in the confinement room. Whether I allow him to listen to me and my lover over the intercom will be my decision. It will not happen every time.

I am going to try my best to keep to a weekly discipline session with James, preferably Friday nights. But it will not be always be a major production involving me wearing leather. For example, last night I administered an over the lap spanking to my hubby with my hairbrush. I took off my sweater and jeans and was only wearing bra and panties, but I did not put on any fetish attire. I gave him about 25 firm smacks with the hairbrush and had him stand in the corner for 30 minutes. There was no body worship or oral servitude, just a short discipline session to remind hubby of his place in our marriage.

I am a very spontaneous person so I’m sure I will change things up but for now I am ready for some routine and structure in our lives.

The Book of Revelation

Six years in the making, "The Book of Revelation", was adapted from Rupert Thomson's 1999 novel. It debuted at the Melbourne International Film Festival in July 2006 to a sold-out audience at the Forum Theatre. Surprisingly, this controversial film was partly financed by the Australian government, probably because of the sociological significance, or at least that was the selling point.

The Book of Revelation” is about a dancer who is drugged and abducted in a back alley, before being locked up in a shipping container down by the docks. He is chained and stripped naked while three women, their faces hidden behind masks and hoods, indulge in mind games and power plays as they rape him, abuse him, then throw him back into the world twelve days later, a broken man. “The Book of Revelation” is supposed to be a psychological mystery about a man's struggle to regain his lost self. 

 

Daniel (Tom Long) and his girlfriend, Bridget (Anna Torv) are the principal dancers in choreographer Isabel's (Greta Scacchi) renowned company. In the lead up to a new show Daniel goes out to buy cigarettes for Bridget during a break in rehearsals - and doesn't return for almost two weeks. Frantic efforts are made to find him, but no one knows where to look. Bridget is devastated by her boyfriend's sudden disappearance and humiliated by the implication that Daniel was fleeing a loveless relationship.  

Twelve days after his capture Daniel is dumped, blindfolded, on the outskirts of the city. He returns home a shattered man. Unable to confide in Bridget or Isabel, he packs his bags and flees. In the weeks that follow, the events perpetrated on him by his abductors, three hooded women, begin to be revealed. Too ashamed to seek help, Daniel embarks on a search to discover their identity. With a few tantalising physical clues to go by his journey turns into a sexual odyssey fuelled by the memory of his bizarre imprisonment.  

His mentor Isabel, who has been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, enlists the help of her former husband Olsen (Colin Friels), a detective in the police special victims unit. Although he manages to bring Daniel back into contact with Isabel and the dance world, Olsen cannot bring the younger man to reveal the cause of his suffering.  

It's only when Daniel meets Julie (Deborah Mailman), a university student whose black skin rules her out as a suspect, that he begins to trust women again. The gentle love that blossoms between them is abruptly shattered when Daniel thinks he sees one of the abductors at a nightclub. He follows his suspect into the bathroom and, in a frenzy, attacks her before realizing his mistake and running out, chased by a group of men who proceed to beat him up. Landing in jail for his assault on the woman, Julie contacts Olsen, and presumably, the healing process begins.

First of all, the title doesn't work. I suppose the author of the book, Rupert Thomson, was trying to grab people with the Biblical and Apocalyptic title. However, the title has no connection with the content of the story. Director Anna Kokkinos said she kept the title because she wanted to stay true to the book. But what exactly was Daniel's revelation in this movie? 

The revelation in this film, I suppose, could refer to Daniel's loss of both innocence and self-regard after he is sexually abused by three female abductors, but that is not really a revelation. Ana Kokkinos said she wanted the film to force us to look at abuse with "fresh eyes", as "human beings" instead of from either side of a gender divide. So maybe she wanted the audience to have a revelation after watching this film. Kokkinos particularly hoped the film provoked empathy in men. She sought to make a movie about sexual abuse, with the roles reversed hoping that a man being the victim might bring new insight into the psychological and emotional toll sexual abuse can take on its victim. 

Does it deliver? I think not because I have a strong feeling that men went to see this movie not because they want to ponder the sociological significance of the film, but rather because the image of a man being abducted and sexually abused by women will no doubt arouse the submissive nature in man. It is the femdom elements that will appeal to the male audience, not the feminist goal of starting a dialogue about rape and sexual abuse.  

There are moments of power play in the rape/ abduction scenes that are truly interesting, like when Daniel is forced to jerk-off in front of the women while he watches one of the women masturbate in front of him, or when he is masturbated by force by one of his female captors, or when he is raped by a strap-on by another one of his abductors while he is chained to the floor.

 

 

This is heavy-duty stuff for a so-called mainstream movie but I must warn those interested in femdom that these sex scenes are rather short, and they're revealed through a series of flashbacks.  

The scenes of Daniel's captivity make up about 15 minutes in the nearly two hour movie and there are really only four brief sex scenes, the three I mentioned above and one where all three women suck Daniel's cock against his will, shown via a shadow on the wall, the short cut aways and the fading in and out giving the impression that the hooded women abused Daniel this way for a long extended time, making the experience humiliating and not pleasurable. (If only Daniel were into femdom, his ordeal would have been twelve days of pure bliss. All the same, the movie is about abuse and not femdom).  

After he is released by his captors, Daniel begins to seek the three hooded women who abducted him, humiliated him, degraded him and sexually abused him. Because they wore hoods and masks, Daniel never saw their faces, however all three had identifiable marks on their bodies. One woman had a birth mark on her ass, one woman had a tattoo and another woman had a small circle on her breast. Daniel sleeps with as many women as he can, hoping he can find at least one of his captors. He sleeps with a lot of women, by the way.  

Naturally, no one would believe Daniel’s story (a handsome heterosexual man captured by three young women and forced to have sex with them) and he knows this, thus he keeps the incident to himself, eventually only telling the police and his girlfriend. The police laugh when Daniel tries to tell them what happened.  

Why do these women need to humiliate and degrade him? No doubt the director Ana Kokkinos wants us to ask this question but we are not provided with many clues towards an answer. All we are told by the hooded women is "it is for our pleasure" and "most men would pay to be in your position".

 

 

It does sound like every man’s fantasy, doesn’t it? And that is why, in my opinion, Kokkinos ultimately fails in her goal that such a role reversal in the film will bring new insight to the subject of sexual abuse. If a woman were to be treated the way Daniel was by three men, the audience would be shocked and would be rooting for the woman to gain justice and retribution. But a man that is used for the sexual pleasure of three women cannot overcome the femdom elements and the ever popular male fantasy to be dominated by women. Despite the films attempt to show the great emotional pain that Daniel struggles with throughout the film, most of the men that were interviewed after viewing this movie, and surprisingly a large number of women, said they had trouble being sympathetic toward Daniel.  
 

This makes me wonder if perhaps Anna Kokkinos did not stumble upon an important sociological discovery after all. Perhaps the significance of this film in the end is not what takes place on the screen but how the audience received it. Abuse is wrong and immoral, no matter who is abusing who, and all sex must always be safe, sane and consensual. However, that does not change the fact that some men went to see this film purely because of the potential femdom scenes of a man being abducted, bound and used for the sexual pleasure of women. And women, by their own admission after seeing this film, did not experience the same kind of discomfort watching a man being raped by women that they do when they see a woman who is raped by a man. These are interesting sociological truths that this movie brings to the forefront, whether that was its goal of not.  
 

As far as the quality of the movie, the acting is good in parts but the slow movement of the film makes it drag to the point of being boring in segments. Tom Long (Daniel) gives a rather interesting, and at times, wonderful performance. However, I thought he tried too hard at times to look pained. Anna Torv's performance as his gilrfriend is flat, her character is underwritten and her impassive good looks convey little but emptiness. Deborah Mailman puts in a good performance in a small role as the girl who helps Daniel recover from his ordeal. Greta Scacchi was excellent as the ballet director confused by her lead's sudden disappearance and subsequent dramatic change in personality.  
 

The melodramatic soundtrack got on my nerves at times and I think the movie could not decide if it wanted to be artsy or did it want to appeal to a wider audience. I think when a movie tackles a subject that is primarily about sex, it is only natural for the film makers to try to overcompensate in other areas, being afraid that the film will be branded as soft porn. With scenes showing masturbation and strap-on sex one can understand the director's desire to go for a more artistic tone. But in my opinion, this movie would have been more powerful if we could have seen more about those twelve days when Daniel was the helpless victim to the sadistic and sexual whims of three women.  
 

It is my understanding that the book did a much better job in portraying the sexual and psychological interactions between Daniel and his captors during those twelve intense days of his captivity. Rupert Thomson even manages to give the reader insight into the rivalries between the three women. Little of this is present in the film.

 

This movie is hard to give an overall rating because while I cannot say that I enjoyed it, the film was mesmerizing in parts and I think there is enough there to provoke thought and discussion. I think people who are into femdom will enjoy the brief scenes of Daniel’s captivity, especially the strap-on scene where a naked woman wearing a mask has her way with a man who is shackled to the floor.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Another interesting thought I had when I watched this film, and in particular the scenes of Daniel’s captivity, is how a woman can dominate a man with her eyes. Most of the time these three women were dressed almost like Monks or Islamic women who live under strict Patriarchal societies. The purpose was to hide their identity from their victim, but I found a sexiness and a dominance when the camera would show the women’s eyes as they were having their way with their male victim.

The eyes are truly windows to the soul and when you cover the female up and are forced to only look her in the eyes, one can almost see the entire female nature, the Dominator and the Nurturer, radiating from her at the same time. I think submissive men who watch this film will find their submission stirred from viewing the eyes of these women, with the knowledge that they are dominating, humiliating and abusing a man. I hope to read the book in the future.

 

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Strap-on Marathon

Not much to report femdom wise the past couple of weeks as our lives have been rather vanilla. However, last night I felt James needed to be dominated. Whenever we go several weeks without ‘playing’ hubby’s level of servitude definitely slips. I don’t think he is mindful of this but it happens. Some dominant wives stress the importance of a weekly discipline session and I tend to agree with this philosophy. Nonetheless, it is not always easy to incorporate a D&S session when other life situations arise. That is the reality.

Anywho, last night I was in the mood to dominate hubby but I wasn’t in the mood to administer a spanking or corporal punishment. It’s been awhile since we engaged in strap-on play and as I was going through my “toy box”, fooling around with my harness, I was pondering which dildo to use. I laid out several of them and that’s when I had an epiphany. Why not use them all?

Hubby got home from work and I was waiting on him. I was fully clothed, wearing jeans but I had my strap-on harness firmly in place. His eyes lit up when he saw what I had in store for him.
 

I marched him upstairs to the office where I had the massage table set up with the wrist and ankle restraints tied to the legs of the table. I ordered James to undress and I bound him over the table.

I lubed him up with KY Jelly (I always use lots of lube) and I carefully guided the dildo into his waiting rectum. I was still totally clothed and I began to dominate him by thrusting my hips. As I was doing this I lectured him about his slippage in doing his chores and I added plenty of verbal humiliation as I reminded him of his place in our marriage. When I talk like this it gets us both excited. After a good ten minutes of pounding his ass, I began to get over heated. I took off the harness and stripped out of my jeans. I placed the next larger in size dildo into the harness and I took up where I left off by taking my hubby with my strap-on.

 

 

I dominated him in this manner for another ten to fifteen minutes and his body language and his deep moans and sighs told me that he had slipped into subspace. I made him repeat back to me all that I had lectured him about. By this time hubby was most compliant.

I withdrew the dildo and I sat down in a chair to take a much deserved break. I eyed up James and he was a sight to behold, draped over the table with his hands and ankles bound, his well fucked ass sticking up in the air.

I contemplated releasing him but I wanted to dominate him some more. I put an even larger dildo into my harness, one he usually fears due to its size, and I walked behind him and slowly eased it inside of him. I teased him, “You gonna take it for me, slut?”

And with that I continued on with the marathon session as I administered a long, slow, methodical fucking with the large dildo. Hubby’s gasps and heavy breathing signaled to me that it was both painful and pleasurable for him. I could sense he was on the edge of climaxing from the dildo hitting his prostrate but I forbade him to orgasm and ordered him to let me know if he couldn’t hold back. He did his best but finally he admitted he was about to cum. Therefore I withdrew the dildo to prevent him from climaxing.

I untied James from the massage table and I took off my harness. I climbed onto the table and ordered him to orally pleasure me. It didn’t take me long as I was very turned on from our marathon strap-on session. After I was satisfied, I dismissed James and ordered him to prepare dinner. I denied him an orgasm and he had to go about his nightly duties sexually frustrated. Nonetheless, he was very loving toward me and he was eager to please. The tone for the weekend had been set.

Best rendering of a Dominatrix in a movie

Starring: Gudrun Landgrebe

Mathieu Carriere

Hanns Zischler

Gabriele Lafari  

Released: 1983 

Language: German

(also available with English dubbing) 

Length: 106 minutes

Here on this Oscars Weekend I got to thinking, what if there was an awards category for “Best rendering of a Dominatrix in a movie”.  

Over the years I’ve seen some very good portrayals as I’ve reviewed movies for “Predominant”. And I’ve seen some really bad depictions as well. But if I had to choose a winner for “Best rendering of a Dominatrix in a movie”, regardless of the year, I believe I would go with Gudrun Landgrebe in the 1983 German film “Die Flambierte Frau”.  

Gudrun Landgrebe was a little known German actress but “Die Flambierte Frau” gave her instant international fame. While her Domination scenes were short and they only made up a small portion of the film, Gudrun was truly remarkable to watch. Her look, her intensity, her seduction and her raw female power were absolutely captivating.

 

 

 

“Die Flambierte Frau” was a big box-office hit when it opened in Germany in 1983. However, when it was released in the United States under the title “Woman in Flames”, it failed to catch on. Perhaps the poor job of dubbing the English voiceovers contributed to the lack of enthusiasm in the United States. The film may have done better with subtitles. Or just maybe it was lost in translation when it came to the films content. The German audience and movie critics were much more fervent in their appreciation of the film, even if they couldn’t agree on the film’s meaning. One thing is for certain, if you were at all interested in female domination, “Woman in Flames” was must see art.  

The movie begins with housewife Eva (Gudrun Landgrebe) walking out on her possessive husband after a dinner-party. Eva is bored with her life. As a stay-at-home housewife, she has few skills. Prior to moving out, she confesses her boredom to her husband. She also lashes out about her frustration of feeling helpless; 

“I can’t boil an egg … I can’t drive a car.” 

Lacking both money and a career, the beautiful Eva meets up with a Madame and inquires about becoming a call-girl. She triumphs over her initial nervousness and becomes a successful call-girl with an upscale clientele. Soon she has plenty of customers. 

Eva hangs out with the other call-girls and through them she meets a charming man named Chris (Mathieu Carriere), who works as a Gigolo. Chris is bisexual and he offers his services to both men and women. Eva falls in love with Chris and the physical attraction is mutual. The primary plot of the film is about the relationship between Eva and Chris. One of the numerous sub-plots (and what I will focus on in my review) is Eva’s journey into the world of FemDom.  

Chris and Eva decide to share an apartment, he works downstairs and she works upstairs. Eva does both In-calls and Out-calls. It is one of her Out-calls that changes both her career path and her life.  

A client requests an Out-call and Eva shows up at his house. He has Eva wear his wife’s apron over her lingerie and he has her do the dishes. He orders her around, playing the part of a chauvinistic male. Perhaps this scene reminded Eva a little too much of her former marriage and her ex-husband, but regardless of her motivation, Eva turns the tables by taking off the apron and ordering the male client to put on the symbol of domestic housework, i.e. the apron.

 

 

The man is surprised but he is also excited by her dominance. He puts on the apron and Eva begins to order him around. She puts lipstick on him and begins to feminize him. He loves it. So does Eva.  

And with that, she has discovered her niche in the world of high-class prostitution. She would no longer have to sleep with her clients. Eva becomes a Dominatrix as she quickly realizes that FemDom is a way to obtain a higher income than a regular call-girl.  

Gudrun Landgrebe gives a wonderful performance as Eva. Her provocative smile lights up the screen yet her dominant persona is both chilling and arousing when she dons her Dominatrix garb. Gudrun is both beautiful and sophisticated, a perfect combination for the character of Eva.  

One of the best scenes is when we see Eva doing an In-call at her apartment. Eva is wearing a leather outfit but it’s covered by a see-through negligee. At this time, we are still in the dark to her metamorphosis. She leads her client up the stairs to her section of the apartment.

 

 

“Get undressed” Eva commands with her hands on her hips. She looks over her client and begins to verbally assault him in a seductive yet firm voice.  
 

“You like to accost women at bus stops and whisper to them how sexy you think they are until they begin to blush. You make obscene phone calls at night to women you don’t even know.” 
 

Walking towards him, hands still on her hips in a dominant posture, she continues. 
 

“Now tell me what you’ve always dreamed of. What excites you?” 
 

She walks away, squats down, teasing him, revealing her ass through the negligee.  
 

“You’ll get nothing from me. Nothing! You’ll never possess a woman like me.” 
 

Walking toward him again, she examines him, staring intently at him.  
 

“And when you leave here. You will not even have touched me.” 
 

She removes her negligee, revealing her leather outfit which consists of spiked heel boots, leather gauntlet gloves, a leather bra that traces the outline of her exposed breasts, a leather garter that attaches by a small chain to her leather panties, with her ass and thighs covered in fishnet stockings. Eva is sexy and desirable yet also intimidating.
 

 

She walks ever so close to him, teasing him but being in total control, thus he knows not to dare touch her.  
 

He begins to confess his secret to her. He tells her of a German barmaid he once met and how he fantasizes about her. In his fantasy he wants the barmaid to take him behind the bar where she would force him to orally pleasure her while she tramples on his hands with her wooden clogs.  
 

Eva looks at him with piercing eyes as he confesses his submissive desires. He gets down on the floor, laying prostate under a foot-table as he continues to tell her of his secret. Eva commences to trample on his hands with her spiked heels. He moans in pain yet it is pain mixed with ecstasy. 

In a later scene we see Eva posing in a mirror in another Dominatrix outfit complete with leather corset, gloves and boots, awaiting her next client. Once he arrives, we see her placing a collar on him.  

We later see her whipping yet another client who is bound. It is now obvious that Eva is specializing in Female Domination.

 

 

The movie cuts back and forth and while we see Eva dominating her clients, we also see Chris having sex with both men and women. Chris knows women. The women that pay for his services are not seeking anything wild or kinky. They want to be touched and romanced. They are married but they want to be unfaithful because their husbands are unfaithful, if not literally then emotionally.  

Chris is bi-sexual and he has a gay lover, Kurt (Hanns Zischler), a close friend he’s been involved with for twelve years. Kurt must keep their relationship private.  Eva knows of Kurt but she is in love with Chris. She hopes they have a future beyond sharing an apartment. Chris likewise has feelings for Eva, so much so that he tells Kurt that he wants to take some time off from seeing him. Kurt is upset and asks Eva to leave Chris, because from his point of view, Eva doesn’t know Chris or understand Chris the way he does. Eva ignores Kurt’s plea.  

Chris can hear what goes on upstairs when Eva is entertaining a client. He doesn’t understand the sounds which are being transmitted from her room because they are different than the normal sounds of sex. Chris is becoming jealous of Eva’s clients as he can sense the chemistry she has with them. Chris starts to question Eva about her money. He wants to know why her clients pay her more than what is normal for a call-girl. He wants to know why her clients tip her so generously. Chris wants to know what Eva is doing with these men, what stirs them to such depths of financial gratitude?  

For his part, Chris understands the sex business as he’s been a Gigolo for many years but he is baffled at Eva’s success. When he questions her about it, Eva tells Chris that she merely treats her clients cruelly and they love her for it. Chris is perplexed.  

Eva’s best friend is a call-girl named Yvonne (Gabriele Lafari). Eva confesses to Yvonne “the other day I was whipping a client who was chained down. It started very harmlessly, as always, but then I couldn’t stop, it was just like a compulsion. Have you ever been scared of yourself like that?”  

Yvonne doesn’t know how to answer Eva other than to say “I refuse to see masochists”. But not Eva. She specializes in dominating men and she loves doing it.  

Chris uses an audio tape recorder to record one of Eva’s sessions. When he plays back the tape, he is shocked at how cruel she is with her client. The client begs her to go light because he can’t tell his wife that he fell down the stairs again (which was meant to explain his bruises). Eva shows no mercy and orders him to prepare to receive his punishment. From the tape we don’t know what she is doing to him but by his groans we can surmise that whatever it is, it is quite painful.  

Although he outwardly acts shocked and upset at Eva’s brand of “professional sex”, inwardly Chris is curious and, whether he admits or not, he is aroused.  

Chris sneaks upstairs and watches Eva dominate one of her clients. Eva notices that Chris is watching, she makes eye contact with him, but she just ignores him as she continues to place her client in tight bondage. She attaches weights to her client’s nipples and chokes him with a chain that she forces in his mouth.

 

 

Chris watches and is fascination but he is also scared. How can the beautiful Eva, the woman with the winning smile and sweet personality, be so cruel? Chris can’t stand it any longer, so he runs out of the room. Unfazed, Eva continues with her session. 
 

After the session, as the client thanks Eva and begins to exit the apartment, Chris attacks him and warns him to never come back again as he throws him out the door.  
 

Eva confronts Chris by saying “Did you see everything you wanted to?” 
 

The next night, over dinner, Chris tells Eva that he wants to marry her and have a child with her. Eva is open to the idea of having a child with him but she tells him she is no longer the marrying type. Eva then describes to Chris a dream, a dream she had where she was whipping him. Chris asks whether or not he liked it. Eva tells him that in her dream, he most definitely enjoyed it.  
 

I found this scene to be the most pivotal part of the film. It signaled a significant change in Eva. Before, she would have jumped at the prospect of marrying Chris. But her dream reveals her new attitude. Any man in Eva’s life would have to submit to her. No man would ever possess her again.  
 

The roles become reversed. Before it was Eva desiring Chris but now it is Chris wanting Eva, yet Eva begins to resist him. What she is in fact resisting is another man trying to control her. Chris wants to know where she is going when she leaves the apartment and Eva begins to resent him. Eva starts to believe that perhaps she doesn’t love Chris but rather what he represented to her, a charming man who is a great lover, in other words the man of her youthful dreams. But things have changed for Eva. She no longer wants to marry the man of her youthful dreams. She is now an independent woman who enjoys dominating men. What she tells her clients also applies to Chris. No man is worthy of her and no man will ever possess her.  
 

Without telling her, Chris invests all their money in the art gallery-restaurant of his dreams. For Eva this is the absolute end.  
 

''I fell in love with a gigolo,'' she says with disdain. ''I don't want to grow old with the owner of a restaurant.''  
 

Eva decides to leave Chris. He becomes desperate and begs Eva to kiss him. She refuses and he hits her. The movie takes a bizarre turn when we see Chris pouring alcohol on Eva and lighting her on fire. The movie is headed toward a horrible ending until we see the next scene. We see Eva meeting Yvonne at a bar. We realize that Chris was only fantasizing that he had killed Eva. Although the film is not clear, I believe Chris was visualizing his internal feelings that he was deeply hurt because Eva had rejected him. Some critics came to the conclusion that he had actually tried to kill her but she escaped. That to me is impossible because she would have suffered major burns all over her body. The next time we see Eva, she is as beautiful as ever.  
 

The movie ends with Eva getting the last laugh (literally) as Chris has Eva and Yvonne physically removed from a Gay bar he has opened with Kurt. Eva finds it amusing and her laughter signals her victory. The independent woman has won. 
 

Director-writer-producer Robert Van Ackerman billed “Die Flambierte Frau” as a romantic drama. The film was popular in West Germany and its critics delved into what they perceived as the cultural and sexual politics of the film. Some said the film describes an obsessive love story where love is nothing but a commodity. Others said the film was a look at modern Berlin and the complexity of the new psyche in West Germany, where money can buy anything except true love. 
 

To me, “Die Flambierte Frau” is about a beautiful, intelligent and sexual woman who grows tired of male dominance and she uses her sexuality to gain the upper hand. It is no accident that Eva requests to become a call-girl. Eva wasn’t dragged into this profession kicking and screaming. She chose this profession and she used it as a means for self-examination and self-discovery.  
 

What she discovers is that sex needn’t place her in the submissive position to men. Eva discovers that sexual power can turn the tables and instead of selling her body for money or affection or love, she could make men pay her for what they really needed, namely female domination. In the end, Eva found the greatest commodities of all; self-worth and self-respect.

 

 

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars