RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s?

RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (Full Version)

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

Message

TheLilSquaw -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/27/2012 2:03:07 PM)
I wish it was on the BDSM lists on the profiles.

littlewonder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/27/2012 2:23:55 PM)
I have no idea if I would be considered a finsub but I enjoy buying things for Master and making him happy. I also like doing things for him to make him happy. Basically, if it makes him happy, I like doing it, be it buying him something, giving him something, making dinner for him, cleaning, taking pain, etc....whatever makes him happy.

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/27/2012 2:33:19 PM)
Littlewonder, I think we've already covered on this thread that nobody is concerned about such things in the context of a long-term relationship. There is an obvious give & take there. I think the concern is that some people feel it is incredibly lopsided in their conceptualization of a findomme relationship.

littlewonder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/27/2012 2:39:30 PM)
I've come to learn that on forums such as these, long term committed relationships are rarely if ever a concern to anyone. Most forums like this usually are in the context of casual or tit for tat or something along those lines which for me, is not a part of my life so it's not a way I ever think. It's a foreign concept for me for the past 15 years and never even dawns on me. So when people tell me they are not talking about long term relationships or relationships at all, I'm at a loss for words I guess because I can't relate.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/27/2012 6:09:49 PM)
Ok, I stopped on page 21. I prefer "dancer" not stripper. Down south, a stripper is a girl who has fucked up teeth, hair is a hot mess, has a smell, and talks like she just walked out of the trailer park. ( no offense if anyone lives in a trailer) A dancer is a girl who is very professional, and always looks her best. Do I lead men on, I'm sure so, to some extent. Is that my fault? Absolutely not. I am the most upfront, honest person ( in every job I have) you will ever meet. Now, with saying that..this is my point: I do not feel the subs I own are weak minded. Why would I want that? I do not feel the men I entertain at the club are weak minded. In both things, I am straight forward, I tell everyone what I am about beforehand, if they choose to partake in my company, then that is totally up to them. I think there are differences between the everyday fins that most people complain about and myself (and others). Differences which I have already explained. ETA: again, just bc someone might pay me for a session, do NOT mean they are in control. I have no issues turning money down. Things in sessions are My way, period. That is also explained up front.

TheLilSquaw -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/27/2012 7:30:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK ETA: again, just bc someone might pay me for a session, do NOT mean they are in control. I have no issues turning money down. Things in sessions are My way, period. That is also explained up front. THIS

LadyPact -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/27/2012 8:19:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissImmortalPain FR- Just to add something to the conversation I would like to point out that some findommes do infact meet their subs. quote: ORIGINAL: RumpusParable Yep. Hell, I live with and married to my primary one! That was My comment in response to the "charge them with prostitution" nonsense. If anything comes from this thread, I would hope that it would help people realize that this subject, like so many others, has a spectrum. The end of the scale that prompts so much complaining so on is rather well represented here on CM. Most people don't have the opportunity to see the other end of the spectrum, which is coming to light on this thread. While I can't disagree that the stereotype is, perhaps, more prominent on CM, it's good to see the other examples. Said, of course, with My apologies to Roch, who started the thread in the first place.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/27/2012 9:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK ETA: again, just bc someone might pay me for a session, do NOT mean they are in control. I have no issues turning money down. Things in sessions are My way, period. That is also explained up front. THIS Thanks. I think that is a common misconception with the whiners about pro and fin dommes. They always enjoy saying things like the sub is in control if he pays. [8\|] And I should have typed " does NOT mean they are in control...." Saw the typo too late :) And MIP is right, I have met 90% of My subs. There are a few I have over seas that I haven't met, and a few out of state. But for the most part I WANT to meet them. Things work better that way.

Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/27/2012 9:14:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact If anything comes from this thread, I would hope that it would help people realize that this subject, like so many others, has a spectrum. The end of the scale that prompts so much complaining so on is rather well represented here on CM. Most people don't have the opportunity to see the other end of the spectrum, which is coming to light on this thread. While I can't disagree that the stereotype is, perhaps, more prominent on CM, it's good to see the other examples. Said, of course, with My apologies to Roch, who started the thread in the first place. No apology necessary. That is exactly the point that I was hoping that some would see. However, it appears that there are still some who refuse to see them as anything but prostitutes. Frankly, seeing them as prostitutes seems like a really stupid way to view it (IMHO). Most financial Dommes don't meet the basic definition of "prostitute" (not even the princess Dommes). Even the scammers can't be seen as prostitutes. Perhaps they're "parasites", but they're certainly not prostitutes. Yet, some fail to understand this simple point. I think perhaps their anger toward the subject blinds them to the subtleties of it.

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/27/2012 10:16:36 PM)
RochSub: I'd like to thank you for this thread. I think it's one of the most interesting threads I've read here in a long time. Now I'd like to go back and rethink some of my thoughts about "prostitutes". I think originally I was willing to go with that (conceptually not legally) because I just had this loose lump in my head "if you're selling sexuality it's prostitution". But upon further thought that doesn't make much sense. In real life there is a difference between a model and a prostitute. I suspect the only reason I was so cavalier about it was because I don't deal with prostitutes so it's not much of a concern to me and even if I did I don't have any particular negative connotation associated with the word or profession. But I think my grouping was overly broad (although not pejorative).

MissImmortalPain -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/27/2012 10:49:36 PM)
If it helps at all, Jeff, I think I am going to have a tshirt made that has the word Prostitute on it. I will hang it next to the ones I already have that say Bitch and Cunt on them. In the end words are just words. People make them mean what they want them to mean while all of us that are just doing a job just go on doing it. oh and on a side note. I would rather meet anyone that calls themself a sub, of any kind, face to face. I find it a great deal more interesting that way.

seekingreality -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/27/2012 11:24:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK ETA: again, just bc someone might pay me for a session, do NOT mean they are in control. I have no issues turning money down. Things in sessions are My way, period. That is also explained up front. To me, this is evading the key point. If the purpose of the encounter, ultimately, is to genetate money, then the real decision maker is the person with the money. You can turn the money down -- but only after it's offered. You can't, however, force the person to make the offer. I've never given a domme money, and I never would. If I was willing to do that, though, you can bet I'd understand it changes from a seller's market to a buyer's market. It can be difficult to find a domme for a lifestyle relationship; if I were willing to pay, I could find a domme in two seconds. And I would order up exactly what I wanted in terms of looks and services, You say you might turn the money down? Who gives a shit -- there are dozens of women right behind you eager for the money, And that's the harsh fact. Once a domme demands money, she becomes a dime a dozen in my book.

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/27/2012 11:27:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissImmortalPain If it helps at all, Jeff, I think I am going to have a tshirt made that has the word Prostitute on it. I will hang it next to the ones I already have that say Bitch and Cunt on them. In the end words are just words. People make them mean what they want them to mean while all of us that are just doing a job just go on doing it. LOL. Is it a tight t-shirt? Pics or it never happened. Sadly, my recanting of the word "prostitute" doesn't change much since I wasn't using it the way others were. My error was akin to a grocery store labelling everything as "food". That's really convenient until you actually need to buy something in that store LOL.

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 12:08:40 AM)
What it all comes down to is that there are lifestyle dommes, pro-dommes and findommes. There are people that play with knives, go to dungeons, play parties, munches, get paddled, suspended from the ceilings, used as human ashtrays and furniture, people that seek out pros for paid sessions and people that want to give their money away to findommes. At the end of the day, it just doesn't matter. Do what makes you happy. 23 pages of debate has only proven one thing and that's that there will always be findommes and there will always be people that hate them. If you don't like findommes, hide every profile you see and ignore the threads about them. It will save you a whole lot of trouble because we're not going anywhere.

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 12:25:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder What it all comes down to is that there are lifestyle dommes, pro-dommes and findommes. There are people that play with knives, go to dungeons, play parties, munches, get paddled, suspended from the ceilings, used as human ashtrays and furniture, people that seek out pros for paid sessions and people that want to give their money away to findommes. Actually that's how I originally saw it but I've come to a different understanding on this thread. I think this is a fascinating view of "the BDSM community" (whatever that means) sorting out whether something is "in" or "out". I've been intrigued looking at it like a sociologist might (assuming said sociologist was totally untrained LOL) and trying to deduce the measures that were being used for the judging. In the end, of course, no matter what "the BDSM community" decides life will go on for the findommes & subs. Just like M/s they'll make a place for themselves if needed. But it's fascinating to me to watch the process and thought patterns.

MissImmortalPain -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 12:52:27 AM)
I will take that pic....as long as Carol doesn't mind ( there are no dominant men in my world....so you have to ask the wife [:-] ) What you said about stores labeling things really is much like what I said about people making words mean what they want them to mean. If everyone would stop thinking with their dick, or their vag, or what ever other body part has them all bent out of shape they would understand that the word means something other than just what they think it does. (define a word here) A person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way, usually for money. (end doing the seasame street version of a dictionary) Understanding the word as I just explained it I would be willing to bet there isn't one person on these forums that I couldn't call a prostitute. Not one person that has wanted to tell their boss to fuck off but didn't because they needed their job. Not one person that hasn't at some point or another taken a job they didn't really like so they could keep their bills paid. The truth is we all do it. We are all nice to our boss. We have all cut grass, flipped burgers, washed windows, etc. at some point or another in our lives. And unless those points really were the height of our talent we were prostituting ourselves. Apologizes to the wealthy here who were raised by wealthy parents and have never had to work a day in your lives. This is not directed at you any of you

Nakhla -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 1:23:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 Frankly, seeing them as prostitutes seems like a really stupid way to view it (IMHO). Most financial Dommes don't meet the basic definition of "prostitute" (not even the princess Dommes). Even the scammers can't be seen as prostitutes. Perhaps they're "parasites", but they're certainly not prostitutes. Yet, some fail to understand this simple point. I think perhaps their anger toward the subject blinds them to the subtleties of it. I don't have an axe to grind with findommes but I am one who feels some of that spectrum are akin to prostitutes in some sense, although outside of the strictly legal definition. Then again, I have a rather broader conception of the sex trade that would also extend to erotic massage ( not all of which crosses the line to "legal" prostitution ), strippers and lap dances ( similarly clothed low-touch erotic service ), etc. Basically a service sold for its sexual appeal. Honestly, the legal conception of prostitution always struck me as terribly reductive ( though understandable given that insertive sex is proportionally much riskier ), and on a strictly personal level, I would find BDSM bottoming to someone for money far more personal/invasive than simply having sex with them for money. ( In either case, all of them are legitimate to me. As it happens so is prostitution, but then the law and me don't see eye to eye on that in most locales. )

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 1:25:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissImmortalPain I will take that pic....as long as Carol doesn't mind ( there are no dominant men in my world....so you have to ask the wife [:-] ) Do I get to tell her what the right answer is first? [image]http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/i/innocent-emoticon.gif[/image] LOL... actually it wouldn't matter. When she wakes up tomorrow morning I'll just point her at this thread and leave it at that. quote: Understanding the word as I just explained it I would be willing to bet there isn't one person on these forums that I couldn't call a prostitute. Not one person that has wanted to tell their boss to fuck off but didn't because they needed their job. Not one person that hasn't at some point or another taken a job they didn't really like so they could keep their bills paid. Actually, I might be that person and I'm sure my career would have prospered more were that not true. I think that statement has more to do with "lucky" than some sort of character assessment of me though. Certainly if push came to shove I WOULD do those things. But your point remains valid. Again, my sloppy labelling was mostly to do with the fact that none of the distinctions being made actually mattered to me. Prostitute? Who cares? I'd prefer to know if they are a good person or not. I tend to grade people and relationships on their smile:frown ratio more than some random attribute like "BDSM trueness" or "includes financial considerations". If it's making folks happy then I like it.

MistressZaraUK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 5:35:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder What it all comes down to is that there are lifestyle dommes, pro-dommes and findommes. There are people that play with knives, go to dungeons, play parties, munches, get paddled, suspended from the ceilings, used as human ashtrays and furniture, people that seek out pros for paid sessions and people that want to give their money away to findommes. At the end of the day, it just doesn't matter. Do what makes you happy. 23 pages of debate has only proven one thing and that's that there will always be findommes and there will always be people that hate them. If you don't like findommes, hide every profile you see and ignore the threads about them. It will save you a whole lot of trouble because we're not going anywhere. Superbly stated Allison The only only thing 23 pages of debate seem to have proven is that there is as much bigotry and bias in the BDSM world as you will ever find in the vanilla world. People on this scene should be adult enough to accept that simply because a kink is not to their personal liking, they have no right to criticise the people who practice it. Honest and constructive debate is a good thing in life, trying to demonise people is not Zara

TheLilSquaw -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 5:55:47 AM)
"as much bigotry and bias in the BDSM world as you will ever find in the vanilla world" This is because we are still individuals with our own standards and believes. Simply because we participate in the BDSM lifestyle doesn't mean we loose our sense of self.

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625