|
simplyserves -> RE: Pro-stitute? (no flames please) (11/23/2007 6:06:16 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eldritchdancer
"If a Dominant, be they male or female, demands tribute to meet with them at all... how are they different from a prostitute/giggilo? In both cases you are giving something of value just for the pleasure of their company."
Another question might be if I'm offering domestic service and a dominant takes me up on it, since it could cost anywhere from 100 to 200 dollars an hour to hire a maid, are they now a prostitute? They know that one of my motivations in cleaning for them is it turns me on, so they're accepting something of monetary value while I'm getting some degree of self gratification above just serving them for it's own sake.
I think, clearly, this wouldn't make them a prostitute but the differences between this and asking for an initial tribute are only there in an ethical sense, which is very relative. Practically speaking, no one wants to spend time with someone who isn't offering them something and money is just a much more overt way of expressing that, which in my opinion is the underlying problem people really have with it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eldritchdancer
...as I don't ask for tribute. I LOVE meeting new people.
This suggest more then that you don't agree with asking for a tribute. The implication is clearly that they don't love meeting new people as much by asking for a tribute up front.
I think first we need to ask, what differentiates a prostitute from anyone else that might view intimacy or their company as a commodity? First, a prostitute is someone that you pay to have sex, legally speaking and in common usage except where it's used as a slur against one's character to suggest they'll do anything for money. The definition of sex differs, both legally and between individuals, but the definition of prostitution is not that hard to find common ground on.
Then we should ask, is it an important difference if we don't see prostitution as having a negative conation? You could ask whether or not a dominant who asks for tribute is the same as a life coach, but then the implication of whether or not it's negative is lost and people would instead discuss the merits of D/s as it relates to life lessons. Prostitution is often seen as negative because it overtly requires money for physical intimacy and most people would prefer to pretend that this some how uncommon or a marginal motive when it seems the real problem is simply with the overtness of it. With out the negative conation your question is really a pretty different beast.
I would say that they aren't prostitutes because there isn't an implied promise of sexual gratification involved and because their motives are entirely different. Dominants who ask for a tribute, by and large, do it either out of a misguided attempt to test a persons seriousness and create a barrier to flakes or because they're interested in financial domination.
If prostitution does have a negative conation then it must come from the idea that they are selling or degrading themselves or that they're expressing, too overtly, an uncomfortable yet common reality. Dominants aren't selling themselves nor are they degrading themselves by asking for a tribute, though they may be expressing the underlying commodification of intimacy.
Dominants, by the nature of D/s, intend to be in control and to direct how the submissive interacts with them. Even when speaking of professional domination, where the promise of sexual gratification is implied, that's a key difference in the attitude of a prostitute and a professional dominant. A prostitute is selling sex, and the closest analogy in D/s would be the pro dom/me who is being paid for their time - there is a difference even when the particulars may overlap and blur.
Regarding your specific question, I would say of myself that meeting with a dominant is something just as valuable to them as it is to me. Saying that a tribute is giving something a value just for someone's company, suggests that the company itself isn't valuable. It doesn't mean their prostitutes, but it does imply regardless of any practical reasons they may have for doing it that they feel it's not valuable in it's own right. It doesn't mean they don't feel it is, it's just implied.
For myself, I wouldn't pay someone just to meet them because in my mind it suggests that they aren't really that interested and that I owe them something. In fact many dominants, particularly online, feel that by speaking to a submissive at all they're giving them something and are owed something in return other then the same. I can understand that way of thinking and have, in the past, accepted that idea but experience has shown me that it doesn't actually make any sense.
|
|
|
|
