RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

FinDommeXtina -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 9:54:37 AM)

FinDom is not one sided at all. Not the way I do it. I am a FinDom and a femdom. I spend countless hours watching my subs on cam, chatting with them on my own cam, talking to them on voice services like Skype, sending them pictures and in general giving them lots of my attention. To say FinDom is one sided is simply just not true.



MariaB -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 10:27:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FinDommeXtina

FinDom is not one sided at all. Not the way I do it. I am a FinDom and a femdom. I spend countless hours watching my subs on cam, chatting with them on my own cam, talking to them on voice services like Skype, sending them pictures and in general giving them lots of my attention. To say FinDom is one sided is simply just not true.


I said its a one sided kink. You wouldn't do it if it wasn't for the gifts and money with all these men. Its a job like any other but please don't try and persuade me you get turned on when they give you gifts and money because I won't believe you.
Saying you don't get turned on by gifts and money is just bad for business!!



TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 10:53:25 AM)

But wait, how can you honestly say she doesn't? I can say the gifts aren't turn ons but the power is. I just get excited and happy when I receive gifts. I guess that could be better classified as turned on rather than off,lol. But really who knows what others feel?

I guess we should open a thread about "Gorean for dummies" cause I'm so lost about the whole thing" - NOT IT!!!!
Actually I might do that because I seem to be the only one uneducated about it,lol.



TheLilSquaw -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 10:57:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB


Saying you don't get turned on by gifts and money is just bad for business!!



I do NOT get turned on by the gifts or money.
I do get turned on and enjoy the power, the willingness of my sub/slaves to spoil me and how they TRY hard to do things that please me.




FinDommeXtina -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 11:39:54 AM)

The gifts are wonderful. The gifts help me to become a better Dom (for example, specific toys and outfits requested by my subs). But it is not my "job". I have always been a Dominant, before I even knew what FinDom was I was still living the same lifestyle. I am a business owner and I do not rely on subs to pay my rent. Do I get turned on by Gifts? No, I don't masterbate to cash or gifts. I am turned on by the fact my subs request specific videos or cam sessions using their gifts because THEY are turned on by it. Why would I go buy an 80$ nice strap on to entertain a bunch of time wasters online when someone who is perfectly willing to buy it for me to continue our fun. It just makes sense. Acting like you have me all figured out while not knowing me or spending the time to talk to me is offensive to say the least....

To sum it up, what really turns me on is knowing my subs are turned on by me, even if its only because I'm wearing the dress they picked out or the slippers they gifted me. The kink is not one sided either. I'm not sure where you are getting this information from. You can be a femdom as a FinDom, why do you automatically assume that I am only about the gifts?

Subs do not buy my groceries, they do not pay my rent, they do not buy me new cars. They buy me toys, makeup, outfits to share with them. That's about as legitimate as it goes with sharing a d/s lifestyle without involving actual sex. But... What is "actual sex" - I guess it can only be defined person to person. It's just wrong to assume that I'm in it just for the gifts. I adore each and every relationship I make with my subs. If the gifts stopped coming tomorrow, I would still be a Femdom. Gifts do not define my sexuality.



MariaB -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 11:44:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB


Saying you don't get turned on by gifts and money is just bad for business!!



I do NOT get turned on by the gifts or money.
I do get turned on and enjoy the power, the willingness of my sub/slaves to spoil me and how they TRY hard to do things that please me.





which is giving you money and gifts.

I remember being in a FemDomme club some years back. Its the kind of place you go to get pampered and looked after by the male subs.
This one older guy, who we all knew, had a habit of putting a £10 note in an envelope and asking a Domme if he could kiss her feet. If she accepted then he would dutifully do so before handing her the envelope.
Most of us were aware that this guy worked at the supermarket down the road. That he was on a minimum wage and probably/possibly had a family to feed.
I was standing with another Domme having a chat when he approached her and asked her if he could kiss her feet. She pointed to her left foot and after he had kissed it she took an envelope off him. 'How many envelopes do you have boy?' she inquired.
'Seven' he replied. 'Then you may kiss my feet seven more times' she told him. As he handed her the seven envelopes she turned to me, rolled her eyes and said, 'sucker' and at this point I grabbed the envelopes off the protesting bitch and gave them back to him. He scurried off but later came and thanked me, telling me that he often brought along £100 but quite often didn't get beyond the first fin Domme. I asked him why the fuck he brought money with him and his answer was that these women wouldn't let him anywhere near them without a money contribution. It wasn't his fetish, he was just desperate to kiss the feet of someone he deemed dominant.
I have absolutely nothing against fin Dommes but so many times I have seen this bad behavior. I won't tar all with the same brush. I know there are some good ethical fin Dommes but its nothing to do with it being their fetish. On that we will just have to agree to disagree.




FinDommeXtina -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 11:55:52 AM)

I agree Maria

The bad behavior of some cant define all. If that was the case, any fetish or d/s relationship would have to be considered. I've met far more unethical regular Doms than I have FinDoms. I can't base my opinion about a fetish or relationship because of a few bad eggs.

I am sorry you had to witness that. The man could have lied though and said that was all he had and it would have been the end of it. I don't know why people do the things they do, I can only work on myself and how I represent myself - and hope it affects some opinions out there for the better (I hope)



Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 12:11:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NocturnalStalker
So you made this topic without thinking that it would never become heated up with vehement stances taken from both sides? I truly wish you'd just admit that it isn't so much an open view you want but a controlled one.


Nocturnal Stalker,
Have you read the thread? We're approaching 40 pages, and I can assure you that the financial Dommes on here will agree that they've taken their share of punches in this thread. And the financial subs have essentially been called idiots.

Jeff even called me out for being unbalanced in my approach earlier, and I agreed with him. I'm only human, so I may sometimes allow my bias to slip in. But I think all sides of this discussion have been well represented. The only thing that I wish I could add is more input from financial subs. But I really don't think the thread lacks comments saying that financial dommes are fakes, prostitutes, whores, bloodsuckers, scammers, etc. In fact, the financial dommes would probably say that this thread (and CollarMe in general) has far too many of those negative comments.

Negative comments are welcome. I just ask that people support their arguments. IMO, it doesn't really add much to the conversation when people post things like "Financial dommes are all whores!", or "Only idiots or losers would ever pay 'tribute' to a findom!" To me, post like those are really nothing more than name calling.

IMO, it's okay to say that you think that only an idiot would pay tribute. But please tell us WHY you think that. That way, we can attack the argument, and not the person.



AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 12:11:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB


Saying you don't get turned on by gifts and money is just bad for business!!



I do NOT get turned on by the gifts or money.
I do get turned on and enjoy the power, the willingness of my sub/slaves to spoil me and how they TRY hard to do things that please me.





which is giving you money and gifts.

I remember being in a FemDomme club some years back. Its the kind of place you go to get pampered and looked after by the male subs.
This one older guy, who we all knew, had a habit of putting a £10 note in an envelope and asking a Domme if he could kiss her feet. If she accepted then he would dutifully do so before handing her the envelope.
Most of us were aware that this guy worked at the supermarket down the road. That he was on a minimum wage and probably/possibly had a family to feed.
I was standing with another Domme having a chat when he approached her and asked her if he could kiss her feet. She pointed to her left foot and after he had kissed it she took an envelope off him. 'How many envelopes do you have boy?' she inquired.
'Seven' he replied. 'Then you may kiss my feet seven more times' she told him. As he handed her the seven envelopes she turned to me, rolled her eyes and said, 'sucker' and at this point I grabbed the envelopes off the protesting bitch and gave them back to him. He scurried off but later came and thanked me, telling me that he often brought along £100 but quite often didn't get beyond the first fin Domme. I asked him why the fuck he brought money with him and his answer was that these women wouldn't let him anywhere near them without a money contribution. It wasn't his fetish, he was just desperate to kiss the feet of someone he deemed dominant.
I have absolutely nothing against fin Dommes but so many times I have seen this bad behavior. I won't tar all with the same brush. I know there are some good ethical fin Dommes but its nothing to do with it being their fetish. On that we will just have to agree to disagree.




That's disgusting behavior on her part.



Most financial subs are in their late 30's and older. They have their own homes, nice cars, great jobs, 401k, savings for retirement, normal things that people of that age have and/or are working towards. I'm 27, paying off my student loans and supporting a family on an LPN wage while racking up more debt to finish my RN. I can openly admit that I do not have all of the things they have simply because I haven't lived enough to have them yet.


I have a genuine financial fetish, but it's not in the way that most describe here. I love to micro-manage. I get more of a rush from telling someone what to do with their money than I do from getting presents. I love to know that I hold the power over their wallets and I get to decide if they buy a pack of gum or a new car or a pair of shoes. That kind of financial power is intoxicating. It's amazing.

So yeah, rambling aside, I am being one hundred percent truthful when I say that I get turned on by the power. I don't get turned on by presents and cash, I get turned on by being in control.




TheLilSquaw -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 12:11:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

I remember being in a FemDomme club some years back. Its the kind of place you go to get pampered and looked after by the male subs.
This one older guy, who we all knew, had a habit of putting a £10 note in an envelope and asking a Domme if he could kiss her feet. If she accepted then he would dutifully do so before handing her the envelope.
Most of us were aware that this guy worked at the supermarket down the road. That he was on a minimum wage and probably/possibly had a family to feed.
I was standing with another Domme having a chat when he approached her and asked her if he could kiss her feet. She pointed to her left foot and after he had kissed it she took an envelope off him. 'How many envelopes do you have boy?' she inquired.
'Seven' he replied. 'Then you may kiss my feet seven more times' she told him. As he handed her the seven envelopes she turned to me, rolled her eyes and said, 'sucker' and at this point I grabbed the envelopes off the protesting bitch and gave them back to him. He scurried off but later came and thanked me, telling me that he often brought along £100 but quite often didn't get beyond the first fin Domme. I asked him why the fuck he brought money with him and his answer was that these women wouldn't let him anywhere near them without a money contribution. It wasn't his fetish, he was just desperate to kiss the feet of someone he deemed dominant.
I have absolutely nothing against fin Dommes but so many times I have seen this bad behavior. I won't tar all with the same brush. I know there are some good ethical fin Dommes but its nothing to do with it being their fetish. On that we will just have to agree to disagree.




That is not ME or how I deal with finsubs or finslaves.
Not now or ever.
Do people pay me for sessions as a proswitch?
Of course, including foot worship sessions.
Do people pay to get into my fetish parties?
Of course.

That being said, every single type of sessions I offer.
I enjoy because they are MY personal fetishes.
I tell people no all that time.

We will have to agree to disagree that financially dominating someone else is a fetish, because it is for ME.

Just as using a video slave on camera is a fetish to ME.

The joy of it is you don't have to agree that it is for it to be to ME.

Edited to fix the quote.







MistressJinxBBW -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 12:18:17 PM)

I totally agree with Squaw... My slit gets so wet when I get a tribute- the same amount as when I get to go on cam and do kinky stuff!



TheLilSquaw -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 12:19:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB


which is giving you money and gifts.



Giving me money and gifts is NOT the only way they try to please me.
I do far more than simply take my subs cash or gifts.
I actually do have relationships with them.









Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 12:44:19 PM)

May I ask a few questions that may move the discussion in a slightly different direction? I have a theory that much of the concern about financial Dommes is based on WHO is doing the financial domination, and not WHAT they're actually doing.

With that hypothesis in mind, how many of you would object to the following scenarios, and why?

1) A known real-world Domme like Lady Pact gets tired of having her time wasted by wankers, so she adds a line to her profile that says, "I spend lots of time discussing BDSM on the message boards. If you want to hear my thoughts on it, you can read them there. However, because so many of you insist on sending me pictures of your cock, begging me to allow you to 'serve me', asking me to 'cuckold you', or agreeing to meet me only to fail to show up, I must now take extra precautions to weed out time wasters. Therefore, I will not respond to any messages from anyone that I have not first met in-person or on the message boards unless you first send a small tribute to show your sincerity."

Would that be acceptable? Would Lady Pact now be classified as a "financial Domme"? Would her behavior cause some of you to think of her as a "prostitute"?

2) What if TNDommeK wrote a post that said, "I am seeking a new long-term financial sub. My financial sub will be required to follow strict protocols and adhere to a tight schedule. You must meet me on webcam 3 times per week at the precise times that I instruct. If you are late by even one second, you will be banished permanently. Once we are on-line, you will get to behold my beauty, and I will control you completely. Over time, my control will grow deeper and deeper, and will eventually become all-encompassing. Of course, you will be required to send tribute to me to show your gratitude. After all, you appreciate the time that I spend with you, and the control that I have over you."

Yeah, I know it's corny, but you get the idea. Would you view that approach negatively? If so, why?

3) A 19 year old "Dominatrix" posts a new profile with almost no information about who she is, what she's into, or what she's looking for. But the profile does include 12 beautiful photos of her in bikinis, lingerie, and a few completely nude. All photos look professionally done, and the "dominatrix" looks so beautiful that she could easily be a professional model. The text of her profile simply reads "I am your new Goddess. I am looking for pay piggies. I will wallet rape you and laugh at you as I suck your bank account dry. My Amazon wish list is XYZ, and I also accept Green Dot cards."

What would you think of this "dominatrix"? Would you have issues with her approach? If so, why?

As you may have guessed, I believe that even those who have expressed a dislike for financial domination will have more issues with scenario 3 than they do with scenarios 1 & 2. I think it's the idea that the profile may be "fake", or that the person doesn't seem to be offering anything (time, attention, webcam sessions, etc.) in return that seems to upset people. I don't think that most people feel as negatively towards it if they know that the Domme is "real", or they believe the sub is getting something in return for their money. But I could be wrong.

Any thoughts or comments?



TheLilSquaw -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 12:55:56 PM)

I tend to agree totally Roch!

I think most would have more issue with scenario 3.
I also agree that if a financial dominant or pro for that matter is known in the community or by lifestyle peers he or she is seen as more authentic compared to those that simply pop up at certain times of the month.

I will say that as someone who basically become a pro and findomme much like your 1st scenario some "lifestylers" will scream about how you are sell out, ect.




TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 2:18:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

There is no real (and I hate to use that word!) domination without leadership and so you are either talking about the physical actions of dominance alone as in 'Topping' or you are saying that women can't lead? Perhaps you are saying both.
No, the two are separate, although they often manifest simultaneously in the same individual.

Dominance refers the imposition of will. Leadership refers to setting a direction and bringing others along for the ride. Elizabeth I guided England through a particularly tricky patch but it wouldn't be accurate to say she dominated.

quote:

Why would a submissive invest their time and energy into someone who can clearly flog them with accuracy but doesn't have the ability to lead them?
My long term submissives have been female. They have had relationships with male dominants but have chosen me over them. Why would that be? Its because I can get into their minds and their hearts. They felt that I could guide them and not just use them as a play thing. They invested their time in me because their intuition told them it all felt right.
Why would subs do any of the crazy things they do? For any number of reasons. Here, I just think you're outrageously flattering your own ego with these statements.

quote:

Those female subs don't desire me because I have brute strength.
No, in my experience, their desire is invoked by strength of character and will. Having said that, brute strength is an added bonus and I've often run into subs who couldn't conceive of being dominated by a woman because women lack that strength and presence.

quote:

Throughout history women were repressed, often with brute strength because men feared the capabilities of a woman with a freethinking mind. We still see this today in some of the Middle East. Its not that the woman is weaker, more vulnerable, submissive!! Its ignorance and the mail ego that keeps a woman firmly in her place, unconsensually of course.
No, you dolt! Women were repressed because you're chattel. Because in a society close to subsistence, brute strength dominates and so women are possessions like any other. It's only in societies which are well above the survival line that you start to see women gain a degree of self-determination. Until then, you're spoils of war.

Honestly, this cultural arrogance you have is one of the reasons why people deal with the Middle East so badly. You approach everything from a point of cultural superiority and it's this which is your undoing.



JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 2:24:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw
To ME I think the issue for many people is the idea that if the financial domination is the ONLY dynamic for THEM it's not a d/s or m/s dynamic or a relationship at all.

Yup, I think that's exactly it. Certainly it looks pretty damned foreign from my standpoint of a 20 year relationship.

Just like to some if you don't live with someone you can't have a TPE relationship.
I'm one of those folks.... or I would be if I thought I owned the definition of "TPE". I don't. Often times these discussions get down to meaning. If I laid down my "required elements for TPE" and everyone just agreed with them then nobody would argue about whether a given relationship fit the bill or not. But there is no such common agreement. And rather than talk about specifics we talk about high level labels that remain undefined. I actually think that's a critical part of BDSM. Much of BDSM is chasing fantasies -- trying to bring those fantasies into reality in some way or another. To do that, there needs to be plenty of room to maneuver. A rigid, canonical set of definitions would be immensely repressive. So what about the online only sex slave who grooves on the "slave" concept because she read a Gor book? How is she going to realize HER personal fantasies when someone else is trying to define them for her?

Happily, I feel no particular need to try to define other people's relationships, dynamics, or fantasies for them. So when I read some profile of a "true slave" who is only available for online interaction in a sexual context I just take it for what it is and accept the label they want to put on it.

Getting back to the topic... so you tell me that financial domination is a core part of this thing you call "your dynamic" and you are the owner of a slave. No worries... I think I understand as much as I need to. From there on, you can shorten it to "findomme" and I know what we're talking about. Conversely, I can say whatever I say about my relationship and label it M/s. let's be clear... lots of folks would not agree that Carol and I are M/s. But the smart money ignores the label and goes with the actual description provided. The only possible other alternative is to setup the BDSM governance committee to decide things like "what's BDSM and what is not" and the very first thing that would happen if that occurred is everyone would bail from the BDSM camp and start up the LMFRA camp (that's leave my fucking relationship alone). Then the BDSM governance committee could govern themselves and everyone would be happy.



TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 2:27:37 PM)



Roch, to answer your question, I wouldn't see a problem with any of them. Even with the 3rd scenario. If she actually is who the pics show, then she clearly is new and young. She has to start out and gain knowledge like the rest of us did. Hell when I first started I had a dumbass profile. But there ARE men who like this and will give her whatever she asks.
Now the only problem I would ever have is if the profile were fake. Meaning, if it were some dude behind it. That's completely wrong.

The only time I would ever consider someone a prostitute is if the had sex for money in their sessions.




MariaB -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 2:35:54 PM)

I hope you asked Lady P's permission to use her as an example [;)]
First two absolutely fine. 3rd one...Nice try but its unlikely she's going to earn anything. In fact she's going to work harder for a handful of nothing than those who have a head on their shoulders.
Would I charge a sub for my time? sure I would. I'm presently looking for a male sub who can do PHP. In return I have a good deal for him. Its like bartering, you give me something and I give you something in return.
I spent years working as a pro Domme. I live the lifestyle I do now because I worked as a pro Domme. Truth is, so long as I'm careful with money, I don't have to work again for many years because I was a very successful pro Domme.
I did it for the money square and simple and of all the pro Dommes I have met and got to know and like over the years did it for business reasons too. That doesn't mean there are no pro Dommes doing it as a fetish and that doesn't mean your fin Domeness isn't a fetish. I just find it hard to believe.
One of the things that did happen to me whilst pro Domming was, I grew very fond of certain 'clients' and I will stick my neck on the line here and say, I even fell in love with one. What I'm saying is I enjoyed myself with certain people and a few became my lifestyle submissives.
I think on these lines. So long as you can give something back then alls good. Greedy people who refuse to work for their money get reputations and they don't work for long. Its a small world, especially when it comes to pro Dommes.
You know the one thing I really want to have a gripe about here is the pro Dommes who try to justify earning money because they have to put together a dungeon. They have to buy whips and floggers and masks and latex and leather outfits to please the subs. To those women I only have one thing to say. If you are good at bartering then you don't pay for any of that but even if you do have to pay out of your own pocket, you can recoup that investment in weeks.



JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 2:37:02 PM)

As you guessed Roch, my visceral reaction to those three is that they are in descending order of anything I'd want anywhere near my life. My intellectual reaction is that my visceral reaction has no place in this discussion... nor does my intellectual one.

Back to.... I'm not on the BDSM oversight committee.

It's worth mentioning again that findomme isn't the only thing you can make a such a list for. How about Carol and I? Are we "legit BDSM"? We have no real kink and no whips & chains. It's just the authority dynamic. For me I handle that a lot like the findommes seem to. I get it that some people think we are "in" and others think we are "out". I understand their reasons for saying both of those things. It doesn't really affect my life.



MariaB -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (1/11/2013 2:41:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TAFKAA



Honestly, this cultural arrogance you have is one of the reasons why people deal with the Middle East so badly. You approach everything from a point of cultural superiority and it's this which is your undoing.


Thanks for your bigoted view.
You know nothing about my history and my strong relationship with the middle east, namely Iran. You're last statement here shows just how wrong you are and how you jump to the wrong conclusions



Page: <<   < prev  36 37 [38] 39 40   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625