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

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 12:17:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 With that being the case, I have a difficult time understanding how someone can call that prostitution. disingenuous at best and well below your actual level of understanding and empathy. You could've just said, "you're stupid, nyah nyah" and been done with it.

Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 1:20:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 With that being the case, I have a difficult time understanding how someone can call that prostitution. disingenuous at best and well below your actual level of understanding and empathy. You could've just said, "you're stupid, nyah nyah" and been done with it. JeffBC, I hope you didn't think I was referring to you. You stated that you had called them prostitutes, but frankly, I don't remember you doing so. And even if you did, I'm sure that it wasn't done in the angry, vindictive way that some have done. You were definitely not the target of my comment.

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 1:37:57 PM)
No, I didn't think that Roch. I have a much more lively respect for you than that. Here's my point spelled out. I perfectly well understand the logic chain that gets to "prostitute". I even spelled it out on my own postings although without the venom. So even if I didn't have such a lively respect for you I'd still say that the entire logic chain was painted out for you. It is my understanding that you are trying to have a serious thread here. If you deny the very viewpoint of the "other side" then they will certainly retaliate by denying yours. And that, pretty much, is the end of anything I'd call a serious thread. So rightly or wrongly it was intended to be a kick in the pants to you for damaging your own (very useful IMO) thread. I'd prefer to see this thead stay at a more civil and reasonable level.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 2:18:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seekingreality 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. That is where you are wrong. I explain exactly how I do things, it is up to the sub if he decides to pay for the session. And yes there are others who will take that money. Point is, it isn't me. The sub then would be settling. If he approached me, then I am obviously what he wanted to begin with. My way, or the high way. Nothing in that suggests loosing or giving up or reversing control. ETA: hi Carol!!

Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 2:45:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC If you deny the very viewpoint of the "other side" then they will certainly retaliate by denying yours. And that, pretty much, is the end of anything I'd call a serious thread. So rightly or wrongly it was intended to be a kick in the pants to you for damaging your own (very useful IMO) thread. I'd prefer to see this thead stay at a more civil and reasonable level. Okay, I see your point. But I strongly disagree with the counter arguments that I've read. IMO, it doesn't constitute "prostitution" in any sense of the word. It is tangentially related, inasmuch as it is part of the erotic services industry. Much like phone sex, erotic massage, pin-up modeling, and exotic dancing are a part of the same (extraordinarily) broad industry. I definitely can see that. But I don't think anyone has shown how the typical financial domme can be convicted in a court of law for the crime of prostitution. As I stated, the typical pretty princess and/or scammer offers nothing in return. Can that be considered to be a ripoff? Yes. Can you make an argument that the "customers" might feel cheated? Yes. Does it qualify for even the loosest definition of "prostitution"? I don't think so. But that's just me. So we'll have to agree to disagree. But I do understand that some see it differently. I do agree with you that it was wrong of me to use the word "stupid" in my reply. I try to act as a moderator in any thread that I start. And as such, I should have kept my personal feelings out of my reply. But sometimes it's hard for me to keep the two roles separate. I apologize for that error. You were right for calling me on it.

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 2:52:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 But I strongly disagree with the counter arguments that I've read. IMO, it doesn't constitute "prostitution" in any sense of the word. chuckles As I myself did as I thought about them further. But for me, it was both easy to make the mistake and easy to correct it because I don't care about "prostitutes" or "findommes". I care about "good people" and "bad people" and I don't measure that with a dollar bill. So I had no skin in the game. But if my own conceptual buckets without any venom or even interest could produce the same error then it's not too hard to see how someone else with similar (and reasonably speaking, similarly poorly thought out) conceptual buckets but with a lot more skin in the game could end up looking like some of the anti-fin crowd. I didn't really reason it all out but I suspect the purpose of my initial "prostitute" post (a point I don't actually care about so why post?) was to help build that bridge of understanding.... in both directions. quote: I apologize for that error. You were right for calling me on it. ...back to "my lively respect for you" :) No worries. I'm just trying to help here because I think this is an important discussion. edited to add: And to those that have said "Hi" to Carol thanks and I've relayed them. She's always pleased by that. But as always, she's more interested in doing a painting than posting here (well, until I force her to post because I want to perv some tight t-shirt pics LOL)

kalikshama -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 4:55:37 PM)
quote: No one is REALLY being a victim here. Ah, that's where you are mistaken. The victims are the men who are missing out on their fair share of pussy because they can't find the easy Dommes due to all those evil findomme profiles.

kalikshama -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 4:57:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 If the case were to go to court, this is what it would probably sound like: [snip] 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. That was great!

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 5:09:11 PM)
Yes it was, I enjoyed it as well.

Teroh -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 5:26:09 PM)
I can see how selling sex appeal does on surface appear to be prostitution. In the reallity we live in though, a more appropriate term would simply be business. As I've stated before my chief issue with financial domination is the message it sends to new comers. Just like you wouldn't want a strip club next to an elementary school. Lets say for a moment that absolutely every finDomme and finsub are completely knowing and appreciative of service rendered past present and future. Lets go as far to say in some mechanism that has yet to occur or be explained to me it is even a legitimate aspect of BDSM. We all still see it enough for threads like this to be prevalent and lengthy, so it is reasonable to expect that new comers also see it. I think in all likelihood it does a great deal therefore to damage the impression an even moderately objective individual has of the site. Certainly a profitable business model for the FinDommes, although partially deteriorative for everyone else. Now I'm sure the argument will be brought up that any kink can have this potential affect. Although technically true, the fact that money changes hands as the explicit purpose of the interaction makes it business. Quite literally mixing business with pleasure is different conceptually than preferring certain pleasures and being revolted by others.

littlewonder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 5:28:17 PM)
The differnce is children are well..children and not mature and developed yet to know better. Newbies are well....adults and one would assume they are mature enough to know better and if they are NOT mature enough to know better than I would suggest that the courts appoint that person a guardian to make decisions for them. You act as if newbies are children instead of adults.

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 6:03:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Teroh I can see how selling sex appeal does on surface appear to be prostitution. In the reallity we live in though, a more appropriate term would simply be business. As I've stated before my chief issue with financial domination is the message it sends to new comers. Just like you wouldn't want a strip club next to an elementary school. Lets say for a moment that absolutely every finDomme and finsub are completely knowing and appreciative of service rendered past present and future. Lets go as far to say in some mechanism that has yet to occur or be explained to me it is even a legitimate aspect of BDSM. We all still see it enough for threads like this to be prevalent and lengthy, so it is reasonable to expect that new comers also see it. I think in all likelihood it does a great deal therefore to damage the impression an even moderately objective individual has of the site. Certainly a profitable business model for the FinDommes, although partially deteriorative for everyone else. Now I'm sure the argument will be brought up that any kink can have this potential affect. Although technically true, the fact that money changes hands as the explicit purpose of the interaction makes it business. Quite literally mixing business with pleasure is different conceptually than preferring certain pleasures and being revolted by others. I'm not sure why you would think that it would be a profitable business model for finDommes to have profile after profile of other finDommes popping up. I find it decidedly inconvenient as all the scammers seem to be the most prevalent profiles thus creating some false expectations when a sub ultimately finds a finDomme who isn't out to scam them.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 7:50:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder quote: ORIGINAL: Teroh I can see how selling sex appeal does on surface appear to be prostitution. In the reallity we live in though, a more appropriate term would simply be business. As I've stated before my chief issue with financial domination is the message it sends to new comers. Just like you wouldn't want a strip club next to an elementary school. Lets say for a moment that absolutely every finDomme and finsub are completely knowing and appreciative of service rendered past present and future. Lets go as far to say in some mechanism that has yet to occur or be explained to me it is even a legitimate aspect of BDSM. We all still see it enough for threads like this to be prevalent and lengthy, so it is reasonable to expect that new comers also see it. I think in all likelihood it does a great deal therefore to damage the impression an even moderately objective individual has of the site. Certainly a profitable business model for the FinDommes, although partially deteriorative for everyone else. Now I'm sure the argument will be brought up that any kink can have this potential affect. Although technically true, the fact that money changes hands as the explicit purpose of the interaction makes it business. Quite literally mixing business with pleasure is different conceptually than preferring certain pleasures and being revolted by others. I'm not sure why you would think that it would be a profitable business model for finDommes to have profile after profile of other finDommes popping up. I find it decidedly inconvenient as all the scammers seem to be the most prevalent profiles thus creating some false expectations when a sub ultimately finds a finDomme who isn't out to scam them. This.

Teroh -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 8:09:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder The differnce is children are well..children and not mature and developed yet to know better. Newbies are well....adults and one would assume they are mature enough to know better and if they are NOT mature enough to know better than I would suggest that the courts appoint that person a guardian to make decisions for them. You act as if newbies are children instead of adults. Don't mistake the metaphor for its implication. I notice the people on these boards have the most annoying trend of dodging the point of a post and instead attempting to pick apart its corners based on semantics. Edit: think about it a little, obviously if they were gullable children they wouldn't shy away based on seeing the clusterfuck of FinDommes. The problem IS they are adults, and therefore have the ability to perceive scams and wastes of time

littlewonder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 8:20:45 PM)
Not semantics at all. You seem to think that adults need to be protected against their own stupidity.

LadyPact -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 8:23:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Teroh I can see how selling sex appeal does on surface appear to be prostitution. In the reallity we live in though, a more appropriate term would simply be business. As I've stated before my chief issue with financial domination is the message it sends to new comers. Just like you wouldn't want a strip club next to an elementary school. Lets say for a moment that absolutely every finDomme and finsub are completely knowing and appreciative of service rendered past present and future. Lets go as far to say in some mechanism that has yet to occur or be explained to me it is even a legitimate aspect of BDSM. We all still see it enough for threads like this to be prevalent and lengthy, so it is reasonable to expect that new comers also see it. I think in all likelihood it does a great deal therefore to damage the impression an even moderately objective individual has of the site. Certainly a profitable business model for the FinDommes, although partially deteriorative for everyone else. Now I'm sure the argument will be brought up that any kink can have this potential affect. Although technically true, the fact that money changes hands as the explicit purpose of the interaction makes it business. Quite literally mixing business with pleasure is different conceptually than preferring certain pleasures and being revolted by others. Wait. We have to 'save the newbies' because money is changing hands? Are you also of the mind that people new to the lifestyle don't understand pros booking sessions? This position of how people new to BDSM have to be protected from kinks or practices that some people don't like is rather self-righteous.

Teroh -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 8:23:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder Not semantics at all. You seem to think that adults need to be protected against their own stupidity. In addition to my edit, and as I've mentioned before in this thread. Adults also must be protected against things they are ignorant of. Such is the way of the world we live.

littlewonder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 8:27:59 PM)
In this day and age, the only reason for ignorance is stupidity imo. I still stand by that if you are an adult and you cannot figure out how to take care of yourself, I hope a court is able to appoint a guardian for you.

Teroh -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 8:30:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: Teroh I can see how selling sex appeal does on surface appear to be prostitution. In the reallity we live in though, a more appropriate term would simply be business. As I've stated before my chief issue with financial domination is the message it sends to new comers. Just like you wouldn't want a strip club next to an elementary school. Lets say for a moment that absolutely every finDomme and finsub are completely knowing and appreciative of service rendered past present and future. Lets go as far to say in some mechanism that has yet to occur or be explained to me it is even a legitimate aspect of BDSM. We all still see it enough for threads like this to be prevalent and lengthy, so it is reasonable to expect that new comers also see it. I think in all likelihood it does a great deal therefore to damage the impression an even moderately objective individual has of the site. Certainly a profitable business model for the FinDommes, although partially deteriorative for everyone else. Now I'm sure the argument will be brought up that any kink can have this potential affect. Although technically true, the fact that money changes hands as the explicit purpose of the interaction makes it business. Quite literally mixing business with pleasure is different conceptually than preferring certain pleasures and being revolted by others. Wait. We have to 'save the newbies' because money is changing hands? Are you also of the mind that people new to the lifestyle don't understand pros booking sessions? This position of how people new to BDSM have to be protected from kinks or practices that some people don't like is rather self-righteous. Everyone has a vested interest one way or another in a growing community. As far as pro Doms go, I'm not nearly as opposed to them as I am financial ones for these reasons: 1) I perceive on a percentage basis they have a greater legitimate interest in BDSM. 2) the subs theoretically have a better idea of what they're paying for 3) services rendered are more tangibly evident

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (12/28/2012 8:32:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Teroh quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: Teroh I can see how selling sex appeal does on surface appear to be prostitution. In the reallity we live in though, a more appropriate term would simply be business. As I've stated before my chief issue with financial domination is the message it sends to new comers. Just like you wouldn't want a strip club next to an elementary school. Lets say for a moment that absolutely every finDomme and finsub are completely knowing and appreciative of service rendered past present and future. Lets go as far to say in some mechanism that has yet to occur or be explained to me it is even a legitimate aspect of BDSM. We all still see it enough for threads like this to be prevalent and lengthy, so it is reasonable to expect that new comers also see it. I think in all likelihood it does a great deal therefore to damage the impression an even moderately objective individual has of the site. Certainly a profitable business model for the FinDommes, although partially deteriorative for everyone else. Now I'm sure the argument will be brought up that any kink can have this potential affect. Although technically true, the fact that money changes hands as the explicit purpose of the interaction makes it business. Quite literally mixing business with pleasure is different conceptually than preferring certain pleasures and being revolted by others. Wait. We have to 'save the newbies' because money is changing hands? Are you also of the mind that people new to the lifestyle don't understand pros booking sessions? This position of how people new to BDSM have to be protected from kinks or practices that some people don't like is rather self-righteous. Everyone has a vested interest one way or another in a growing community. As far as pro Doms go, I'm not nearly as opposed to them as I am financial ones for these reasons: 1) I perceive on a percentage basis they have a greater legitimate interest in BDSM. 2) the subs theoretically have a better idea of what they're paying for 3) services rendered are more tangibly evident So what if one is Pro AND fin?

Page: << < prev 23 24 [25] 26 27 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625