TNDommeK
Posts: 7153
Joined: 3/13/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TAFKAA
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009
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. There are so many problems with the very concept of "financial domination" that I'm actually spoilt for choice when it comes to which aspect to go after first. Consider the name itself which is hugely problematic. To dominate financially actually means to utilise the superior power of your finances to control another. That is, the finance is the MEANS of dominating another, it's not the RESULT of dominating another.
And secondly, these women aren't dominating shit. They're taking money from men who are desperate to throw their money at someone - ANYONE - for the illusion of a transactional transitory experience. Which is exactly the same thing strippers and whores do. To string these guys along long-term they then build the illusion of a 'relationship' with them. Of course the only relationship is a business relationship, but you won't get them admitting that because doing so is bad for business. The core of their business model is the fantasy they're selling.
These women are not dominant. Period. That should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex. They do not exert their will to extract a result, they simply show up and exploit the weakness of those who have no will of their own and that exploitation can be done by anyone - including subs. All it requires is a lack of personal ethics.
The reason they experience such venom is because they're explicitly transactional and exploitative, yet consistently try and blend in with the rest of the kink crowd as one of us when they're just another commercial entity trying to sell something.
Frankly, it's appalling they're allowed to even post here when their sig line and/or profile contain advertising. That's a classic example of thrusting their desire for profit into a group of people trying to have a conversation. And you wonder why they're despised?
Male Doms despise them because we wouldn't be caught dead exploiting our subs in that way. Indeed, I wouldn't waste my time with a sub so easily exploited. It would be a monumentally unsatisfactory experience. And I think that's another aspect: Broken subs hold no appeal for me, despite how easily you can get them to suck your cock. Financial doms exploit broken men and try and tell themselves they're "dominant". I've got news for them - there's nothing dominant about the unethical exploitation of the weak.
quote:
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? Because a decent female sub is not led by her cunt. She'll actually screen the men she submits to. Male subs seem to have no such selection process.
quote:
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. Well, no. Men and women have been engaging in a historic exchange since the dawn of time. We exchange our labour for their reproductive capability. The rest of what you describe is only so transactional with men who are too foolish to understand how to deal with women properly. They buy into a social construct which says men pay. The reality is the exact opposite.
quote:
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. Women don't leave because of the hard times. Women leave because the guy lost himself and was no longer the man she loved. It's not the money, it's the drive, the self-belief, the character. Decent women, God love 'em, will stick with a guy through thick and thin provided the guy doesn't lose himself. The ones who don't weren't worth marrying in the first place and the dude's better off without 'em.
quote:
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. Relationships are capable of extending beyond the simply transactional Roch.
quote:
Sex and money are analogous, yet I don't see anyone calling men names for "using" women for sex. Only if your idea of relationships is a transactional one.
quote:
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? Well personally, I have no respect for men who pay strippers or hookers and I don't think many people do, although it's been legitimised in some of the seedier sections of American society. And there's definitely a sense of a guying being desperate if he needs to pay for it.
quote:
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. Well y'see Roch, I'm the kind of man who doesn't think I have to pay for a woman's time or attention. She's lucky to be getting mine, so why the hell would I pay for it? Your premise is based upon your own self-evaluation as an inferior being whose only contribution to the interaction is money - rather than your attention, your wit, your presence.
quote:
It was no different than buying flowers for a vanilla girlfriend, When I buy flowers for my girl, it's purely to make her smile. I don't view it as 'compensation' for something she's done. You have got to get away from this idea that relationships are purely transactional - it's monumentally unhealthy.
quote:
or allowing your wife to stay at home as a "stay-at-home mom". (I know the women will jump all over this) allowing?
Okay, that gave me a laugh. In any case you're wrong. When a woman is a stay home mom, it's because the dude is performing his role in the ancient exchange. His labour for her reproductive capability. I can assure you that neither of them will regard building a family as transactional.
quote:
IMO, it's simply a part of male chivalry. Dude, chivalry was an invention of the Romantic writers and never fucking existed.
I would like to correct you on something you said...I work as a dancer (or in your terms "stripper") and speaking for myself, I do not do any of the following things you said strippers do. Even as a fin domme, and dancer, I paint no fantasy pictures. Each sub or male patron that I see knows full well what is going on. Contrary to your beliefs there are people are aware of what's going on.
_____________________________
Goddess of Duck Lips and Luxurious Hair
The working Fin Domme
Professional con artist, swindler, trixster, extortionist
Our snark-nado needs more cowbell
|
RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread