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

littlewonder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/8/2013 11:45:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK Great point little wonder. I was more so just referring to the types of slaves I take on. Whiplashsmile, great answer. Tafkaa, not one fin domme on this thread was upset by anything you said. As I said, your view point is welcome and wanted. But to presume you have any bearing on My feelings is delusional. Again, do weigh in on the topic, but understand, this is a debate. People will disagree. Oh I know but it seems to have become one of those catchphrases like safe, sane and consensual or a dominant must protect. So when I see stuff like that, it just makes me cringe and roll my eyes. There's no real thinking behind the words...just people repeating what they have been fed.

TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/8/2013 11:45:50 PM)
Really? Then why was: A) A complaint made B) The post removed I find the FinDomme perspective indefensible and to find that CollarMe is now trying to legitimise this nonsense as "someone elses's kink" in an effort to shield it from criticism simply reveals the depth of their hypocrisy and self-interest. This place used to be anti-Dom. Now it's pro-FinDomme - and people are really wondering why nobody wants to hang out here except the usual desperate male subs? Fuck a duck, how stupid can people be?

seekingreality -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/8/2013 11:46:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK quote: ORIGINAL: seekingreality quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK Thank you. I'm hoping we can now get more insight from other subs/slaves about this fetish. I haven't read the whole thread, That said, I have rarely if ever found a sub on these boards who says he engages in financial domination. I've heard lots of dommes (on the receiving end of the money) eager to explain why it's good for all concerned. I've heard lots of people against it. But the wallets remain silent. And personally, they are the only ones whose opinion interests me. Two of My slaves commented. I think they are a few pages back. Feel free to look. I think it gives good insight to the thread. I saw one of them. In my opinion, he did nothing but spout cliches, and I never got a sense if a real person is behind the screenname. He may be real; he may not be. I don't know. But nothing he said gave me a sense of what someone got out of this.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/8/2013 11:52:56 PM)
Little wonder: I see what you meant. Tafkaa, I reported nocturnal stalker, not you. I assume when Chi was reading over, she erased anything that was a personal attack or what she deemed not good for the thread. Seeking: not sure what you read but if you find oceanblue's post, I think it explains somethings. Perhaps it was not enough detail for you? Not sure, but it was something. A lot more than nothing. :)

TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/8/2013 11:56:13 PM)
See this is why I find women's claims of dominance to be fucking ludicrous. In any given interaction, you have the option of hardening up, responding in kind or ignoring it. Instead, you chose to bitch to mommy to come and save you from the nasty man. Explain to me, exactly how this cry for help is congruent with a dominant nature.

seekingreality -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 12:18:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK . Seeking: not sure what you read but if you find oceanblue's post, I think it explains somethings. Perhaps it was not enough detail for you? Not sure, but it was something. A lot more than nothing. :) I guess you're talking about blueocean12's post. If that's the one, he really didn't say anything about financial domination. And iif that's who you mean, his single posting, like his recently created profile, struck me as pretty generic and cliched. He may be real; may not be. I can't tell from anything he's said here. In any case, I got zero insight from him about financial domination.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 12:20:58 AM)
So now you are saying women cannot be dominant? The reason I reported him was because the majority, no scratch that...ALL of us were attempting to have a decent convo about fin dommes, he was acting like a child. He refused to go away, so it needed to be reported. I'm very passionate about what I am and what I do, regardless if you agree or not. But in the chance that another might want to read and be open minded and learn some things, I didn't want his asinine comments to deter them from going further. Seeking moderation has absolutely nothing to do with who I am.. Wow, really?

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 12:24:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seekingreality quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK . Seeking: not sure what you read but if you find oceanblue's post, I think it explains somethings. Perhaps it was not enough detail for you? Not sure, but it was something. A lot more than nothing. :) I guess you're talking about blueocean12's post. If that's the one, he really didn't say anything about financial domination. And iif that's who you mean, his single posting, like his recently created profile, struck me as pretty generic and cliched. He may be real; may not be. I can't tell from anything he's said here. In any case, I got zero insight from him about financial domination. Sorry, not sure what more you want. In his posts, I think the last one, he explained different things and feelings of fin domme. Others saw and understood. Perhaps another will come along and break things down further. And yes, I meant blue ocean,lol. Eta: I just went looking through the posts and I only saw one of ocean's posts. I'm assuming when Chi went through she took the other ones. Sorry about that.

seekingreality -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 12:33:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK quote: ORIGINAL: seekingreality quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK . Seeking: not sure what you read but if you find oceanblue's post, I think it explains somethings. Perhaps it was not enough detail for you? Not sure, but it was something. A lot more than nothing. :) I guess you're talking about blueocean12's post. If that's the one, he really didn't say anything about financial domination. And iif that's who you mean, his single posting, like his recently created profile, struck me as pretty generic and cliched. He may be real; may not be. I can't tell from anything he's said here. In any case, I got zero insight from him about financial domination. Sorry, not sure what more you want. In his posts, I think the last one, he explained different things and feelings of fin domme. Others saw and understood. Perhaps another will come along and break things down further. And yes, I meant blue ocean,lol. You seem to be confused. You didn't know his name. And your're talking about his "posts." However, I searched his screen name and he has only written a single forum post in total at collarme. That post, in this thread, didn't address financial domination at all. It was just (to me) a fairly generic paragraph or two along the lines of "It's great to have a domme." It told me nothing about a sub's feelings about financial domination. And I it was so short and (to me) generic that I had no sense of a real person behind the screenname. As far as "others saw and understood," only a single person even commented on his post, and that comment was negative. So I don't know you mean by this "others saw and understood" either.

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 12:39:15 AM)
txslave28 is the other one that commented here and some feedback was made about his journal posts. I believe it was page 28/29.

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 12:45:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seekingreality You seem to be confused. You didn't know his name. And your're talking about his "posts." However, I searched his screen name and he has only written a single forum post in total at collarme. That post, in this thread, didn't address financial domination at all. It was just (to me) a fairly generic paragraph or two along the lines of "It's great to have a domme." It told me nothing about a sub's feelings about financial domination. And I it was so short and (to me) generic that I had no sense of a real person behind the screenname. As far as "others saw and understood," only a single person even commented on his post, and that comment was negative. So I don't know you mean by this "others saw and understood" either. If you really want to know how a finsub feels and/or thinks about financial domination, do a quick search of profiles, find a few and ask them their thoughts on it or invite them here to participate in the discussion.

seekingreality -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 12:45:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder txslave28 is the other one that commented here and some feedback was made about his journal posts. I believe it was page 28/29. Yeah, I saw those two posts. Again, I got no sense of a real person there. Was just a generic, "I love having a financial domme!" rant. He may be real; may not. Don't know. Like the other guy, his posts in this thread are the only ones he has ever put up on collarme, so there is no track record that gives me a sense if he's real.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 12:47:49 AM)
Thank you Allison. You are mistaken seeking, I do know his name, I happen to type is backwards on here. Simple mistake. You are right about his single forum post, he belongs to Me and hasn't ever posted here. Again, I said that Chi might have removed his other post when cleaning up. I'm sorry it makes you feel that no sense of a real person, but that is purely opinion. The negative remarks were the comments that were not needed in an educational thread. To disagree is one thing but to bash someone for their kink is wrong. Both slaves belong to Me and neither one have ever posted here. Not sure how that doesn't give them a sense of being real or unreal, as I don't think posting here is any verification method.

TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 12:47:56 AM)
No, I don't find women have the capacity to be dominant. It's possible in a theoretical sense, but dommes consistently betray a lack of dominance which undermines their claims. Acting like a child isn't against TOS. Neither is holding a contrary opinion. You're all quite capable of putting him on ignore, but instead you cried for help because you were incapable of dealing with the situation yourself. In a thread in which supposed dommes are having a discussion, you would expect a surfeit of the self-discipline necessary to ignore the interloper, yet you deemed everyone in the thread incapable of this. That's a somewhat ironic indictment of both them and you. Seeking moderation - as with all actions - gives insight into who you are. The fundamental question has to be asked: Did you respond with strength or weakness? Crying for mommy is not an act of strength. Consequently, your actions have undermined your claim of dominance. It's a quite well-reasoned chain of logic and simply reiterates that dominance is not simply talking the talk, it's walking the walk.

seekingreality -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 12:49:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder quote: ORIGINAL: seekingreality You seem to be confused. You didn't know his name. And your're talking about his "posts." However, I searched his screen name and he has only written a single forum post in total at collarme. That post, in this thread, didn't address financial domination at all. It was just (to me) a fairly generic paragraph or two along the lines of "It's great to have a domme." It told me nothing about a sub's feelings about financial domination. And I it was so short and (to me) generic that I had no sense of a real person behind the screenname. As far as "others saw and understood," only a single person even commented on his post, and that comment was negative. So I don't know you mean by this "others saw and understood" either. If you really want to know how a finsub feels and/or thinks about financial domination, do a quick search of profiles, find a few and ask them their thoughts on it or invite them here to participate in the discussion. Can't say I care enough to do all that. My personal feeling is subs who engage in financial domination are kind of dolts, but that's their business. My main point was nothing in this thread gave me any insight into why any men are into financial domination. But like I said, it's there money, and if that's how they want to spend it, no skin off my nose.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 12:54:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TAFKAA No, I don't find women have the capacity to be dominant. It's possible in a theoretical sense, but dommes consistently betray a lack of dominance which undermines their claims. Acting like a child isn't against TOS. Neither is holding a contrary opinion. You're all quite capable of putting him on ignore, but instead you cried for help because you were incapable of dealing with the situation yourself. In a thread in which supposed dommes are having a discussion, you would expect a surfeit of the self-discipline necessary to ignore the interloper, yet you deemed everyone in the thread incapable of this. That's a somewhat ironic indictment of both them and you. Seeking moderation - as with all actions - gives insight into who you are. The fundamental question has to be asked: Did you respond with strength or weakness? Crying for mommy is not an act of strength. Consequently, your actions have undermined your claim of dominance. It's a quite well-reasoned chain of logic and simply reiterates that dominance is not simply talking the talk, it's walking the walk. Being that this is the Internet, you can say and feel how you choose to. Doesn't make Me any less than what I am. But I can say one thing you're right about, putting a user on hide seems to be the right thing to do. So you will now join your friend. Poof! Be gone. As of now, if you cannot discuss what this thread was about in the first place, then you can added to the hide group. Seeking: thank you for your input. I don't consider these subs "dolts" at all. But in any case sorry there wasn't enough info there for ya.

TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 12:56:30 AM)
ROFL. Say weakness and they demonstrate it. Too easy.

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 12:57:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TAFKAA ROFL. Say weakness and they demonstrate it. Too easy. How is it weak to hide a user when you're not interested in reading what they have to say?

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 12:59:52 AM)
[sm=dontfeedtrolls.gif][sm=dontfeedtrolls.gif][sm=dontfeedtrolls.gif][sm=dontfeedtrolls.gif][sm=dontfeedtrolls.gif][sm=dontfeedtrolls.gif]

TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 1:04:41 AM)
She's not hiding me because she's uninterested. She's hiding me because she knows full well that I'm stronger than she is. Plain old-fashioned fear.

Page: << < prev 32 33 [34] 35 36 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625