|
MaleSlaveAnon -> RE: Financial Domination (9/17/2008 3:55:23 PM)
|
Seems this thread became about aspects of professional (fem) domination, its presence on this site, and who wouldn't use their services, so i'll weigh in on some of what i've read.
It was an interesting point someone made, about the insulted attitude of pro-dommes in their profiles about people contacting them on this dating site for dating, instead of apologizing for advertising commercial services only on a dating site. It might help for them to open with something like "Commercial Services Only" in all caps to appears in the header quote so as not to waste the time of people looking for dating. But I suspect they get more business by not doing that so people will read their ad and get interested and contact them anyway. And if it is ok for them to try people out to see if they'll go for a commercial relationship with their ad in a dating venue, what's wrong with people trying them out to see if they'll go for a dating relationship with their responses, especially since this IS a dating venue? (Personally, i'm fine with their presence, because they're pretty much the only ones who respond to me, therefore the only game in town for me, so i've been trying to begin commercially to get them to know me, from which i hope for a relationship.)
Interesting the girl who equates pro-dommes with whores and the counter arguments. It seems to be taken for granted that a whore is an undesireable (no one said "sex-worker" or surrogate) and not as good a person as someone like a Domme or a therapist (as pointed out by one therapist), who does not have sex with their clients. Is it a point of view that exchanging sex for money damages or degrades sex, or sex workers? (I'm not saying there aren't widely occuring cases of this, as with abduction into prostitution or pimps.) Is it a stereotype about the class, education, and responsibility of the sex worker, or willingness to do something illegal? Why wouldn't the customer be equal regarded? Because they're most often men, so non-emotional sex is felt to be less a betrayal of their nature than a woman whose role is seen as monogamous bonding and motherhood? (Of course a sex worker might still have a husband and children.)
It is a whole topic on its own but I think can bring to our awareness our cultural view of sex as negative vs a part of life and positive. In BDSM there seems to be a defensive righteousness about not having sex, on the part of ProDommes and at parties. I think it would be better for everyone to enjoy the sex, or in the case of the ProDommes, i'd appreciate their inner honest and (hopefully) positive attitude toward sex being expressed. i don't mean have sex with clients, but have their pride in their profession something that stands on its own, not partly on righteousness of not having sex. i think it warps the subs to have this view that there's something better or right about a Domme not having sexual contact with a sub consistently associated with their (professional) BDSM experiences.
This fits in with financial domination as discussed in this thread because there has been a lot about domination for pay, which I think has been pointed out is different from the "fetish of financial domination."
What is the "fetish of financial domination?" It could be arousal from a sub's spending being controlled without giving money to the Dominant, it could be the sub being made to give money to the Dominant is strong control and arousing, and/or it could be giving money to the Dominant is sexually arousing to the sub.
My issues with financial domination is using the latter two fetishes for harmful financial exploitation, especially by purposely seducing and training someone to the fetish who didn't have it before. Many aspects of training may have the same result, making the sub dependent upon the Dominant (and sessions or dominance) for arousal, but aren't so egregiously focused on money.
|
|
|
|
