|
MAINEiacMISTRESS -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 11:34:12 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nakhla
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. )
Personally, I think it's rather silly that prostitution is illegal. It's not called "the world's oldest profession" for nothing. As long as men lust for sex, and women have sexy bodies, prostitution will exist. The fight against it is just an hopeless as the war on drugs. Moreover, I guess I'm a bit libertarian in my views that it's not the government's job to protect adults from themselves. If a woman wants to sell her body, why shouldn't she be able to? But we digress.
IMO, the findoms who cause people the most grief are the scammers and the pretty princesses. Both ask for money, and give little or nothing in return. No attention. No cam sessions. No face-to-face interaction. And certainly no sex. With that being the case, I have a difficult time understanding how someone can call that prostitution.
If the case were to go to court, this is what it would probably sound like:
Judge: So you're charging the defendant with prostitution because she took your money.
Finsub: Yes.
Judge: Once you paid her, did she say that the money was for sexual services?
Finsub: No.
Judge: Did she give you a blowjob, hand job, or sexual intercourse?
Finsub: No.
Judge: Did she give you sex of any type?
Finsub: No.
Judge: Then what did you get for your money?
Finsub: Nothing.
Judge: Then you're not charging her with prostitution, you're charging her with robbery. Is that correct?
Finsub: Ummmm, I guess.
Judge: Okay, did she hold you at gunpoint and force you to give her the money?
Finsub: No.
Judge: Then why did you give her the money?
Finsub: Because I wanted to.
Judge: And what did you expect to receive in return?
Finsub: Nothing.
Judge: Let me get this straight. You gave her money, and you expected to get nothing in return. And you got exactly what you expected.
Finsub: Yeah, that's right.
Judge: That's neither prostitution nor robbery. In reality, you gave her a gift. There is no law against giving or receiving gifts. Case dismissed.
*blows coffee out of nose*
Too funny...but yes, VERY TRUE.
No one is REALLY being a victim here. If the finsub didn't find some "findomme" to throw his money at, he'd be throwing it at strippers (not getting anything in return, not even CONTACT info) or gambling it, or finding some other way to blow it away with nothing in return.
My only REAL objection to findommes is to the ones who aren't really finDOMMES ("respectable" FinDommes use imagination & skill to make it at least ENTERTAINING for the finsub)...but many are just teens or very young "girls" still living with her parents who don't want to become adults and GET JOBS so instead they whine and beg for someone to give them money (gimme! gimme!).
In other words, they are not INDEPENDENT, therefore they are nothing different than "KEPT WOMEN", which has NOTHING at all to do with being a DOMINANT.
I have no problem with DOMINANT, INDEPENDENT, SELF-RELIANT Women who are providing an outlet for those with this urge/fetish.
--MM
|
|
|
|
