quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw

"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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressZaraUK

Quite correct, but having a sense of self and your own beliefs is never an excuse to denigrate people on a personal level, something that seems to happen a little too often on threads like this one.

Zara

quote:

FinDommeXtina

Not to mention all of the money we have wasted on porn videos!

quote:

I consider myself EXTREMELY open minded. However, damn skippy if I know someone is a pedo I am going to denigrate and attack them on personal level. I am going to be vocal. I am going to scream my feelings about them and their actions from the highest mountain with a bull horn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FinDommeXtina


What better definition than to replace Masochist with Financial Slave?
Take for instance John Smith who is going through a nasty divorce to Jane Smith. Jane cheated on John, racked up his credit card bills and still wants 50% if not ALL of what John has left. Instead of John paying his horrible ex wife off, what if John could find a way to get rid of all his money to more deserving woman who does not use smoke and mirrors regarding what she is all about?
John can't buy a hummer. He can't buy a house. He can't (err.. well maybe) hide his money in off shores accounts. His wife will surely want half of that too! What John CAN do is spend all his money on a pretty young girl on the internet and stick it to his bitch of an ex wife. Hey - true story.

What do you think?

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. )

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I consider myself EXTREMELY open minded. However, damn skippy if I know someone is a pedo I am going to denigrate and attack them on personal level. I am going to be vocal. I am going to scream my feelings about them and their actions from the highest mountain with a bull horn.

This, for me, is totally out of context. Not only is this illegal, but there is no ability to consent. At least with most fetishes, two, or more, people consent to the actions. As long as there is consent between legal, mentally competent adults, I dont denigrate people for doing what they do.

Your example isnt a case of adults making a conscious decision to have one tribute the other, or pay for time, to piss on the other, or the thousands of other things we, as adults, consent too each and every day as part of our relationships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarolBC
Wow... I get to be the one to sign the permission slip? By all means, you have my permission to permit Master to permit you to fork over those pics...providing there's no copyright that would be used without permission.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MAINEiacMISTRESS

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