|
Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/9/2013 9:18:42 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TAFKAA
I'll answer your question RochSub, although I doubt you'll listen.
The question you're really asking is this: "Is financial domination a form of kink."
The answer is no. Financial domination is a business model. Dommes who engage in this practice are not finding fulfillment in the exercise of their kinky predilections, they're simply driven by money. Consequently, attempting to define it as their kink is a dishonest attempt to shelter under the umbrella of kink tolerance - shelter to which they're in no way entitled.
The domme is simply exploiting the weakness of certain men in the same way a Dom might exploit a sub with low self-esteem and pimp her out for money. I personally can spot a low self-esteem sub a mile away and I'm simply not interested. Whereas the financial domme sees such people as suckers to be exploited.
You could argue that subs see financial domination as a form of service. That's a valid view, however the desperation of the male sub sees both a lack of discrimination and the corresponding acceptance of nothing in return beyond the satisfaction of a sexually-driven fetish. Consequently subs who subscribe to this transactional interaction are the male equivalent of a female sub who'll suck just anyone's cock.
If you're a male sub who seeks to serve a woman who deserves it, then for fuck's sake develop some standards and some discrimination. A sub who accepts the crumbs of pseudo-affection (or simple humiliation) from a financial domme is simply settling for a transitory transactional experience which does nothing more than inhibit his own ability to go out and find true fulfillment with a woman who's not driven by filthy lucre.
In other words, male subs settle for financial dommes because they lack the belief they can do better and by continually indulging that fetish, they actually retard their ability to - one day - actually DO better.
You started out your comment by saying that you doubted that I'd listen. But I did listen, and I actually agree with what you wrote. I think that you accurately described a subset of the financial domination universe. But I don't think your comments represent the entirety of financial domination.
Are there too many bratty princesses who simply want to "wallet rape" gullible saps? Yes, I think there are. And I've noticed that at certain times of the month they seem to emerge by the dozens. Just a few days ago there were over 20 new financial domme profiles that appeared in my feed. Of course, I hid them all, and now I will no longer have to be bothered by them. To me, that is the simplest solution to the problem.
The concern that I have with your comment is that it doesn't seem to acknowledge that there are other ways of executing a financial domination dynamic. Many have been talked about in this thread. Yet you haven't shown any indication that you accept that there could be more than one type of financial Domme.
quote:
Kink is more than simple fetishism. One universal constant amongst male subs seems to be their consistent desire to serve their cock. You all do it - I've seen both you and Peon do it, despite the plaudits you both receive on these boards as being superior examples of what a male sub should be.
I think this comment gets a bit off the subject. I'll simply say that I have no need to defend myself, and if Peon chooses to, he is more than capable of defending himself, so I'll leave it up to him to reply if he so chooses.
But the one obvious thing that you missed in your comment is that it applies to MALES, not just male subs. Males are driven by their cocks far too often. Male Doms, male subs, vanilla males, male elephants, male spider monkeys, male mosquitoes. We are all led by our little head far too often. So why make it seem like this behavior is the exclusive territory of male subs?
quote:
Ask yourself this: If it was possible to get what you desire without turning it into a transaction then why *should* you settle for a lesser experience from a woman who cares naught for you except as an ongoing contributor to her lifestyle?
I don't participate in the type of financial domination that you described, so I'm probably not the right person to answer this question.
But in my opinion, men have been paying women since the dawn of time. We pay for dates. We buy them expensive flowers that are going to die in a few days. We buy expensive cars simply to attract women. We spend two months salary on engagement rings for women. As males, we are going to pay women one way or another.
IMO, financial Dommes (yes, even the bratty princesses), pro Dommes, and prostitutes may be the most honest women out there. At least they're honest and upfront about their intentions. How many poor vanilla schmucks have had their wives or girlfriends leave them simply because they lost their jobs and fell upon hard times? Isn't that far worse than financial domination? That poor guy thought that she actually loved him, but she left him when the money dried up. And that was despite the "for richer or poorer" crap that she said in their wedding vows.
Say what you want about it, but financial domination is honest. But many vanilla relationship.....not so much.
quote:
Regardless, even if we completely accept the idea that male subs engaging findommes is an entirely valid outlet for their fetish, this doesn't change the fact that FinDommes are simply engaging in a transactional interaction. They have no stake in this beyond the transaction. They're being compensated for their time which means they're being bought and paid for. And them attempting to dress it up by claiming they build deep interactions with clients is just window-dressing on an ugly truth. If the money stops, the interaction stops. Period.
But aren't most men guilty of the same thing? If the woman stopped giving him sex, he'd be gone in a heartbeat. Replace "findom" with "man", and replace "money" with "sex", and you'll find that the exact same dynamic applies.
Sex and money are analogous, yet I don't see anyone calling men names for "using" women for sex. Moreover, I don't see anyone starting threads to blast "Johns" who take advantage of poor prostitutes. After all, many prostitutes are victims of abuse, or they have psychological issues. Yet nobody derides the Johns who take advantage of them. So why do financial Dommes who may (or may not) take advantage of men draw so much hatred?
quote:
It might be kink - if foolish kink - for the subs. It's nothing more than a business to the findommes and pretending otherwise is monumentally dishonest. That's worthy of condemnation.....
You're making a huge generalization here.
Hell, I've paid "tribute" to a Domme before. But I wasn't being abused or taken advantage of. Nor was the relationship purely transactional. Rather, I viewed it as a tangible way to thank her for her time and attention. It was no different than buying flowers for a vanilla girlfriend, or allowing your wife to stay at home as a "stay-at-home mom". IMO, it's simply a part of male chivalry.
quote:
The kink world is a whirlwind of dysfunction and abuse.......
On that, we agree. Only I don't think that financial Dommes are the most abusive members of the kink community. (But that's a topic for another time) ;-)
Thanks for your comment. I thought much of what you wrote prior to this was demonstrating trollish behavior. But this part was well thought out, and definitely contributed to the overall discussion. Thank you for your input.
|
|
|
|
