Rochsub2009
Posts: 2536
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TAFKAA
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.
I guess I'm having a hard time distinguishing this from a traditional "play partner" dynamic. If two people are merely play partners, and there is no "relationship" outside of tying one another up and exchanging spankings, does that make it any less real? Transactional relationships happen all the time. You're just choosing to focus on one where money is the currency.
quote:
These women are not dominant. Period.
I'm going to skip this argument. IMO, it's a subjective point, and it's part of a much larger discussion.
quote:
That should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex.
IMO, you weaken your argument when you make statements like this. What you're essentially saying is, "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid."
quote:
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.
I think you're only acknowledging the existence of one type of power. But aren't there actually many types of power. For example, beauty IS a type of power. Those who possess it can often exercise far more influence (particularly over males) than those who lack it.
IMO, financial domination is often simply an exercise of using beauty to dominate someone's wallet. But of course, I believe in "the power of the pussy", while some would argue that there's no such thing.
quote:
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.
Personally, I have no problems with mixing kink and commerce. Heck, I think most male subs would never get to experience most of their fantasies if it weren't for pro Dommes. Because of that, I am the biggest advocate for pro Dommes on the planet.
quote:
Male Doms despise them because we wouldn't be caught dead exploiting our subs in that way.
I'd be willing to bet that I can find a female sub who has been exploited financially by a male Dom. Moreover, I can find a virtual army of women who will attest that they've been abused sexually by a male Dom. IMO, female Dommes using men to get money is no different than male Doms using women to get sex. The currency is different, but the potential for abuse is the same.
quote:
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...... there's nothing dominant about the unethical exploitation of the weak.
And that's an admirable stance to take. I respect it. But there are PLENTY of Doms/Dommes who DO exploit the weak (and not just for money).
quote:
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.
Well, what you describe as "the reality" ISN'T actually the reality in most western societies. But I acknowledge that there are societies in which women bring "doweries" to the men that they plan to wed.
quote:
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.
That's not quite accurate. I don't view myself as inferior. I view myself as chivalrous. And yes, I do still pay for dates and buy flowers for women. Call me "old fashioned".
quote:
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.
Potato potahto. Same thing. I don't view it as compensation. But we both know that the stupid flowers are going to die in a few days. Yet we buy them for her anyway.
quote:
Dude, chivalry was an invention of the Romantic writers and never fucking existed.
And that difference of opinion is why we will never see eye-to-eye.
< Message edited by Rochsub2009 -- 1/12/2013 11:58:35 AM >
_____________________________
"The thing about smart mother fuckers is that sometimes, they sound like crazy mother fuckers to stupid mother fuckers".
-Robert Kirkman, The Walking Dead
|
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