RE: cash Masters???

RE: cash Masters??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

ElaineSubmits -> RE: cash Masters??? (9/24/2009 3:53:44 AM)
quote: Speaking symbolically, in a Master/slave relationship if any one offered a payment of some sort wouldn't it be the Master? The slave is your property. If you own them, body mind and soul, wouldn't you be the one to buy them? A slave (in the litteral/historic sense, not the consensual power exchange sense) would never pay a master to obtain them.The Master would either have to capture them against their will or purchase them in some way. Of course, in that case the slave wold not receive the money. His/Her former owner or parents would! You are obviously correct, historically speaking. "Owner", "Master", and "slave" as those terms are used today are of course metaphorical expressions or terms of art. A "slave" today is "owned" for as long as she chooses to be, on the terms she chooses, which is totally at odds with the historical concept of chattel slavery. You do put your finger on something though which is very relevant to this discussion. Money is power. The provider of a service is doing the bidding of, in a sense, submitting to, the purchaser of that service. That makes the whole notion of "cash masters" or "commercial dominants" an extremely paradoxical one. But then, in most bdsm relationships, the submissive or slave has actively sought to be "dominated". Who's really controlling whom? The question is never a simple one.

ElaineSubmits -> RE: cash Masters??? (9/24/2009 4:21:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth Here's a hard fact: Our society depends on singling classes of people out, and limiting their choices so we can exploit them... You may well be right. Personally, I'm not quite that cynical, but I admit, a strong case can be made for what you are saying. Even if you are right, we don't have to endorse that state of affairs. We certainly don't have to make matters even worse. If we can't abolish it overnight, we can keep nudging society in ways that will make it more equitable, that will open up more choices.

allthatjaz -> RE: cash Masters??? (9/24/2009 4:59:04 AM)
If a blanket law was ever passed that made all prostitution illegal, things would just go underground. When things go underground we have much less control of it.

allthatjaz -> RE: cash Masters??? (9/24/2009 5:06:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElaineSubmits quote: Speaking symbolically, in a Master/slave relationship if any one offered a payment of some sort wouldn't it be the Master? The slave is your property. If you own them, body mind and soul, wouldn't you be the one to buy them? A slave (in the litteral/historic sense, not the consensual power exchange sense) would never pay a master to obtain them.The Master would either have to capture them against their will or purchase them in some way. Of course, in that case the slave wold not receive the money. His/Her former owner or parents would! You are obviously correct, historically speaking. "Owner", "Master", and "slave" as those terms are used today are of course metaphorical expressions or terms of art. A "slave" today is "owned" for as long as she chooses to be, on the terms she chooses, which is totally at odds with the historical concept of chattel slavery. You do put your finger on something though which is very relevant to this discussion. Money is power. The provider of a service is doing the bidding of, in a sense, submitting to, the purchaser of that service. That makes the whole notion of "cash masters" or "commercial dominants" an extremely paradoxical one. But then, in most bdsm relationships, the submissive or slave has actively sought to be "dominated". Who's really controlling whom? The question is never a simple one. To be honest, who cares? Lots of cash Masters/Mistresses are just good actors and not really dominant at all and even if he/she is dominant they wont necessarily enjoy the paying client. At the end of the day its a job!

ElaineSubmits -> RE: cash Masters??? (9/24/2009 5:38:25 AM)
quote: If a blanket law was ever passed that made all prostitution illegal, things would just go underground. It's not clear to me why you say "if". In the States, all prostitution is illegal, with partial exceptions in Nevada and Rhode Island. The same is true in much of the EU. In Britain, prostitution is not illegal per se. However, brothel keeping, pimping, trafficking, kerb crawling, solicitation, and letting of premises are all illegal, so in practice, it is difficult for anyone to buy or sell sexual services without breaking the law. The current Labour Government and the current Scottish Executive have both announced that they favor reform of existing laws. If they remain in power, the chances are good that Britain will move to something along the lines of the Swedish model, decriminalizing the sale of sex, but punishing the purchasers and traffickers. I'm not aware that David Cameron or the Conservative Party have taken a position on the issue. A Tory government is Edinburgh is very unlikely anyway, so a change of legal regime north of the Tweed seems highly probable. As for the "things would just go underground" argument, illegal prostitution continues in places that have allowed some kinds of legalized prostitution. In many places, illegal prostitution has increased after legalization. That may seem paradoxical, but it's not really. Legalization reduces the moral and social stigma for both potential prostitutes and potential customers, thereby increasing demand.

ElaineSubmits -> RE: cash Masters??? (9/24/2009 6:27:48 AM)
quote: To be honest, who cares? Lots of cash Masters/Mistresses are just good actors and not really dominant at all and even if he/she is dominant they wont necessarily enjoy the paying client. At the end of the day its a job! One would think that what you are saying would be obvious to potential customers, and that they would care. Granted, many submissives seek humiliation. I don't think what they have in mind is the notion that in a few hours their "dominatrix" will be giggling as she tells her friends about all the silly things those submissives wanted her to do, and how she could never put up with all the wankers if the money weren't so good. Perhaps I'm underestimating the human capacity for self-delusion, especially the male human capacity.

allthatjaz -> RE: cash Masters??? (9/24/2009 7:22:40 AM)
Elaine, All legal sexual acts are available as pornography (including hardcore) from licensed retailers in England. The making, distributing and selling of pornography is legal in England. This is a sex industry that pays people for sexual act to make videos and pictures. Are those sexual acts prostitution? In my opinion they are, just as a pro Mistress who doesn't partake in penetrative sex is still prostituting herself. Would any of these men and women be doing this if they were not getting paid? An interesting thought..... If you were to label your business pornography and you could do that by running a titillating website, then all the sexual acts that are paid for during sessions and potentially recorded to use on that website for commercial purposes would be legal. We know that in reality most people don't want to be filmed or photographed during a sexual act but it is away around the prostitution laws. There are good pro Mistresses/Masters and there are some darn right awful ones. There are Mistresses/Masters that have put in dedication and a lot of hard work to run a good chambers and they do so diligently. There are 10 a penny escort girls that have picked up on the fact that they could earn much more if they can Dominate and they will get customers (at least once) because escort girls tend to be aesthetically very desirable. Regardless of weather they are 'really into domination' or not, they would not get wound up in the semantics of who is doming who.

ElaineSubmits -> RE: cash Masters??? (9/24/2009 7:49:28 AM)
That's an interesting point you raise about the manufacture of pornography. I've not lived in Britain for almost 30 years, and I don't visit terribly often. I don't have any particular personal interest in pornography, either, so that's not an issue I've given lots of thought to. I do recall in the States in the last few years, there have been several attempts to charge pornographers under prostitution laws. On the face of it, that would seem reasonable. They do pay people to engage in sexual acts. However, courts have ruled that it's only prostitution when the person paying is also the person receiving the sexual acts. Even under that interpretation though, I don't see how it really offers any way around prostitution laws. Just filming the participants wouldn't keep it from being prostitution, as long as someone had paid to take part. Now, if the pornographer paid, and none of the participants paid, it wouldn't be prostitution, but unless a commercially attractive product resulted, that wouldn't work economically.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125