Is there a very fine line?

Is there a very fine line? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

TearsofLove92 -> Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 1:51:05 AM)
I have been reading a LOT of profiles, and some folks on this website basically say they want money, and nothing but. Is there a line between a freeloader and a dominant person who also wants to make a buck? I was never under the impression that any slave of mine should buy me anything, but I have received many gifts, all of which were not asked for. To me, those mean more than anything I could have gotten from the person by asking for it.

BitaTruble -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 2:59:11 AM)
quote: Is there a line between a freeloader and a dominant person who also wants to make a buck? Nope, not a fine line at all. It's a big, wide chasm. A freeloader wants something for nothing. A dominant wants something for something (some want money, some want blow-jobs, some want a housekeeper.. there's always something that a dominant wants and in exchange, they give their time, energy, sweat and/or dominance.)

littlewonder -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 3:37:49 AM)
Imo if they wanna advertise and you're willing to pay...who cares? Some people do wanna pay. Some people have a fetish for this kinda thing. If you're not willing to pay then just move on as incompatible.

Level -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 3:42:45 AM)
I agree with Celeste. Now, if you had asked if there was a fine line between a pro and a hooker... [8D] And of course, some say that even then, it's not the same, if there is no sex involved. Either way, I like folks that are up front about what they want, and that includes money for fun. Nothing wrong with it.

OsideGirl -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 7:29:05 AM)
And it's really no different than the subs that want to move into a "D's" house and not contribute to the household. I can't tell you how many that we talked to that wanted us to pay for their relocation, didn't want to have a job and refused to do housework. But, somewhere out there is a "D" that thinks she's perfect for him.

Acer49 -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 8:53:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TearsofLove92 I have been reading a LOT of profiles, and some folks on this website basically say they want money, and nothing but. Is there a line between a freeloader and a dominant person who also wants to make a buck? I was never under the impression that any slave of mine should buy me anything, but I have received many gifts, all of which were not asked for. To me, those mean more than anything I could have gotten from the person by asking for it. Well there are two types of Dominant women You have your Pros who are here promoting their business seeking out potential clients. They are not seeking friends or relationships they are here for the money. This is the way they chose to make a living, which is fine. As for the other non pros who ask for tributes. You must understand that many of them receive emails from subs who simply wish to walk it, lay back and have the Dominant “Do me” which means that the sub wishes to have his or her laundry list of wants met while giving little or nothing back in return. Many Dominants take issue with this, as they should. They are not here simply to be used as a prop or an accessory for the submissives gratification. They expect to have their needs met as well they should; otherwise it is simply a whole lot of work that leaves one feeling empty, unfulfilled and definitely not appreciated. If this turns out to be the case, then I see no reason why a dominant should not be compensated for his/her effort with a tribute of some sort.

sexisubi -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 9:08:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TearsofLove92 I have been reading a LOT of profiles, and some folks on this website basically say they want money, and nothing but. Is there a line between a freeloader and a dominant person who also wants to make a buck? I was never under the impression that any slave of mine should buy me anything, but I have received many gifts, all of which were not asked for. To me, those mean more than anything I could have gotten from the person by asking for it. no it happens, yes they're called pro Doms, who rock out just to make a buck leave after they are done they arent looking for a long term commitment, or a slave or a sub, they are just that a Dom that will come over give you a good spanking/or whatever, and ask to be paid by the hour. its actually interesting the process is much like a shrink, they come in ask what you want to change about yourself, or ask what you are looking for with the money you are paying them. and the first session is mostly just you talking then after that the process begins so people drop a hefty penny on them. (no i havent done it i just was curious one time so i asked.) however, i wouldn't think of this as a line of any kind, they are just different types of people looking for different things. as one maybe looking for a realtionship others may just be looking sex, some a housekeeper, and others well.. money, gifts, and anything else they can get their greedy paws on, and im sure they're are more people on this site too.

olena -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 9:08:53 AM)
There is no this is the way and this is the reason why anyone in any role or gender are about in this life. People though like in all walks of life will take what they want in life and work back to a theory that makes them comfortable and justified in their mind to seek out and expect what that is. People in this life are no exception and of course that is going to include people that look at another person more as an ATM then anything else. It happens in normal life as well and by the way many on the opposite that are more then glad to use their money to get what they want. It comes down to being compatible and not trying to be something you are not or expecting someone else to change for you.

porcelaine -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 9:11:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TearsofLove92 I was never under the impression that any slave of mine should buy me anything, but I have received many gifts, all of which were not asked for. To me, those mean more than anything I could have gotten from the person by asking for it. you've answered your own question. that's your perspective and others will feel differently. my handbag fetish doesn't permit payment for services rendered, but i'd willingly accept a contribution. [:D] porcelaine

happylittlepet -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 9:24:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl And it's really no different than the subs that want to move into a "D's" house and not contribute to the household. I can't tell you how many that we talked to that wanted us to pay for their relocation, didn't want to have a job and refused to do housework. But, somewhere out there is a "D" that thinks she's perfect for him. I am all ears/eyes! I am curious about the Dom/female sub side of this. When I grew up, my dad worked, my mom stayed at home. Almost everyone around us lived like that. My dad never felt that my mom took advantage of him. My mom never feared that my dad would leave her. They had made a commitment to each other, and respected each other's roles. A sub in another thread just wrote that he will not give up financial control over his money to his Dom/Domme (I forget which one), because if the relationship ends, he could be left without anything. I call that smart. My question is, if a Dom works (like my dad), and his sub is at home (like my mom) is the sub taking advantage of the Dom? Is the Dom making the sub dependent on him, and thus puts her at risk? Or is it that 2 people move in together despite not having worked this all out, despite not having developed trust in each other, and that therefore the division of making money and home making leads to frustration in both partners? Also, what if the Dom is the 'home maker' and the sub provides the income. Does that make the Dom a freeloader? If my questions derail the thread, please ignore. Edited to add a '.

sexisubi -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 9:43:24 AM)
[quote]ORIGINAL: happylittlepet My question is, if a Dom works (like my dad), and his sub is at home (like my mom) is the sub taking advantage of the Dom? sexisubi: this is based on opinion, however i dont think so, cause your mom, was raising you, doing the shopping the cooking the cleaning, and everything else, and if something happened and your dad needed her to get a part time job to live and let you have a good life, wouldnt she? in fact did you know the average house wife puts in 40-50 hours a week, and scholar moms (moms that went to college and graduated but decided to be a house wife) make up more then 40% of spending.. without them business would not thrive. (im a business major) Is the Dom making the sub dependent on him, and thus puts her at risk? they are filling roles that need to be filled, if they are both comfortable with it whats the issue? Or is it that 2 people move in together despite not having worked this all out, despite not having developed trust in each other, and that therefore the division of making money and home making leads to frustration in both partners? when the dicision is made that one person stays home and the other doesnt.. im sure it was thought out in some way, there were roles as i said that needed to be filled. i have met a lot of doms that say they want a house wife, but they dont want you to be a brainless sub, they want you to talk to them about financial decisions as long as they go through them or if its importent just do it. they want you to stand up for the kids if you have any. but there has to be a lot of trust. Also, what if the Dom is the 'home maker' and the sub provides the income. Does that make the Dom a freeloader? not in my eyes, but again D/s isnt about someone just doing all the work, it would get frustrating if the Dom or the sub was doing all the house work and making an income. and the other person in the relationship was just making a mess. i think thats just human nature. but its between the two people. personally a sub getting a part time job but still being the happy home maker, be it man or woman, is a fine idea. i dont know a lot of Doms that would disagree with their choice for the part time job. lets say that they say they dont but they will do the chores be a slave sometimes they have some kind of agreement to get out if they need to... like they have 30 days.. or they will be given the money to go... again it just depends on the people and what they talked about. [/quote]

SteelofUtah -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 10:39:49 AM)
I can honestly say without a doubt I do not understand why someone pays for Domination or Sex. It is amazing to me what people feel is important and a Priority worth spending money on. Steel

subtlebutterfly -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 10:44:39 AM)
As long as they are an operating dominatrix I do consider them dominant. The I'm a princess who needs to be spoilt n need slaves to take me shopping or buy me things or send me money.. those people can just go screw themselves in my opinion really.. ...but then financial domination has never been one of my understanding so..to if other people like it then fine. However if those so self-proclaimed princesses do something else than just ordering people to give them money then I might refer to them as dominants.

gracesky -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 11:32:04 AM)
It's something that i dont understand. For one, i know i'm not financially set up enough to support myself let alone another. And i certainly dont want to be dependent on someone that way either...especially with the economy the way it is...financial stability for everyone is at risk.

Rhodes85 -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 8:13:37 PM)
pro domme = borderline exploiting people. some are actual dominants, some are not. I'll give the majority the benefit of the doubt financial dommes = exploiting idiots to make money and nothing more. not dominant, only exploitive and likely a large number are sociopaths. I often wonder what they'll do when they are in their 40s/50s+ and their looks start to fade to the point where nobody will pay them for anything. Will it take that long for their wakeup call that the world doesn't revolve around them? bottom line, I don't particularly care about either. Despite the fact that financial domination is considered exploitation and is actually illegal and that offering services/'pro' domination is specifically banned here under the tos, the site doesn't seem to care either. personally if some 'pro domme' tried to tell me she was worth paying for her 'services' or a financial domme tried to tell me she was worth paying for her attention i'd look at her like she was nuts and probably laugh in her face. those people are usually pretty full of themselves.

masterlink65 -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/26/2009 9:37:44 PM)
i do require slaves to contribute to bills, room and board etc. but i do not tax my slaves for monetary gain.

Esinn -> I do not think there is a fine line (8/27/2009 12:39:53 AM)
To me it seems $$$$Fem Dommes$$$$ violate the laws of my city when they accepts gifts of cash for beating boys. It is a good thing the law clearly defined nudity for me. In section 2d *If Fem Domme ads are posted on a public form which I can view from my home in Indianapolis does my apply in any way? Or is the jurisdiction the city which the server is located?* IC 35-45-4 Chapter 4. Indecent Acts and Prostitution IC 35-45-4-1 Public indecency Sec. 1. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally, in a public place: (1) engages in sexual intercourse; (2) engages in deviate sexual conduct; (3) appears in a state of nudity with the intent to arouse the sexual desires of the person or another person; or *(4) fondles the person's genitals or the genitals of another person;* commits public indecency, a Class A misdemeanor. (b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who knowingly or intentionally, in a public place, appears in a state of nudity with the intent to be seen by a child less than sixteen (16) years of age commits public indecency, a Class A misdemeanor. (c) However, the offense under subsection (a) or subsection (b) is a Class D felony if the person who commits the offense has a prior unrelated conviction: (1) under subsection (a) or (b); or (2) in another jurisdiction, including a military court, that is substantially equivalent to an offense described in subsection (a) or (b). (d) As used in this section, "nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. (e) A person who, in a place other than a public place, with the intent to be seen by persons other than invitees and occupants of that place: (1) engages in sexual intercourse; (2) engages in deviate sexual conduct; (3) fondles the person's genitals or the genitals of another person; or (4) appears in a state of nudity; where the person can be seen by persons other than invitees and occupants of that place commits indecent exposure, a Class C misdemeanor. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.76; P.L.189-1984, SEC.1; P.L.215-1997, SEC.1; P.L.121-2000, SEC.1; P.L.123-2003, SEC.2. IC 35-45-4-1.5 Public nudity Sec. 1.5. (a) As used in this section, "nudity" has the meaning set forth in section 1(d) of this chapter. (b) A person who knowingly or intentionally appears in a public place in a state of nudity commits public nudity, a Class C misdemeanor. (c) A person who knowingly or intentionally appears in a public place in a state of nudity with the intent to be seen by another person commits a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction under this subsection or under subsection (d). (d) A person who knowingly or intentionally appears in a state of nudity: (1) in or on school grounds; (2) in a public park; or (3) with the intent to arouse the sexual desires of the person or another person, in a department of natural resources owned or managed property; commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction under this subsection or under subsection (c). As added by P.L.123-2003, SEC.3. IC 35-45-4-2 Prostitution Sec. 2. A person who knowingly or intentionally: (1) performs, or offers or agrees to perform, sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct; or (2) fondles, or offers or agrees to fondle, the genitals of another person; for money or other property commits prostitution, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has two (2) prior convictions under this section. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.77; Acts 1979, P.L.301, SEC.1; P.L.310-1983, SEC.3. IC 35-45-4-3 Patronizing a prostitute Sec. 3. A person who knowingly or intentionally pays, or offers or agrees to pay, money or other property to another person: (1) for having engaged in, or on the understanding that the other person will engage in, sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with the person or with any other person; or (2) for having fondled, or on the understanding that the other person will fondle, the genitals of the person or any other person; commits patronizing a prostitute, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has two (2) prior convictions under this section. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.78; Acts 1979, P.L.301, SEC.2; P.L.310-1983, SEC.4. IC 35-45-4-4 Promoting prostitution Sec. 4. A person who: (1) knowingly or intentionally entices or compels another person to become a prostitute; (2) knowingly or intentionally procures, or offers or agrees to procure, a person for another person for the purpose of prostitution; (3) having control over the use of a place, knowingly or intentionally permits another person to use the place for prostitution; (4) receives money or other property from a prostitute, without lawful consideration, knowing it was earned in whole or in part from prostitution; or (5) knowingly or intentionally conducts or directs another person to a place for the purpose of prostitution; commits promoting prostitution, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony under subdivision (1) if the person enticed or compelled is under eighteen (18) years of age. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.79; Acts 1978, P.L.148, SEC.6.

Esinn -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/27/2009 12:42:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: masterlink65 i do require slaves to contribute to bills, room and board etc. but i do not tax my slaves for monetary gain. As they should if the law of the house is they earn an income.

pompeii -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/27/2009 4:34:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah I do not understand why someone pays for Domination or Sex. If you had too little air ... would you pay for air? ... If you had too little warmth ... would you pay for warmth? ... ... If you had too little water ... would you pay for water? ... ... ... If you had too little food ... would you pay for food? ... ... ... ... If you had too little sex ... ... ... ... ...

porcelaine -> RE: Is there a very fine line? (8/27/2009 5:29:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rhodes85 pro domme = borderline exploiting people. some are actual dominants, some are not. I'll give the majority the benefit of the doubt financial dommes = exploiting idiots to make money and nothing more. not dominant, only exploitive and likely a large number are sociopaths. I often wonder what they'll do when they are in their 40s/50s+ and their looks start to fade to the point where nobody will pay them for anything. Will it take that long for their wakeup call that the world doesn't revolve around them? it is simply supply and demand. you wouldn't have an industry for the service if people weren't willing to pay for it. i find it ironic that a woman's proactive efforts are being demeaned. it is merely entrepreneurship and no different than those that operate similar services. kind of interesting there's little flack about topless bars and such. but that's entertainment. [8\|] porcelaine

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125