TAFKAA
Posts: 382
Joined: 1/5/2013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009
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. No, it's more than that. If you think of any dynamic whether play or more involved, there's a set of actions and reactions from both sides which - to a greater or lesser extent - are fundamentally an honest interplay between two people.
With the findommes, it's not. It's fake, from head to toe. They either wouldn't give their clients the time of day otherwise or they fake their reactions tol get what they want. There's nothing authentic about the interaction whatsoever. Can you really enjoy an interaction with someone knowing they're faking the whole thing? Is this the appropriate reward for your attitude? You want to be chivalrous to these women and have them ape the responses they think you want while not giving a flying fuck about you in any way whatsoever? Does that strike you as anything even remotely healthy? Cause it sure as shit sounds completely unhealthy to me.
quote:
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." Well, yes. Although in this case, I'm saying the reality is so fundamentally easy to perceive that I find it impossible to believe it's not slapping people in the face yelling "Hey, wake up, this is what this actually means". I can't credit that people don't see a major contradiction in terms when someone says "Give me your money, that makes me dominant".
quote:
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. Sexual power is real and it's an interesting stage in a woman's life when she realises she possesses it. However that power fades as women age - the optimum years are 18-24. After that, a woman who trades on her looks alone will find her power diminishing.
quote:
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. I don't think subs subscribe to findommes because of their beauty. By your own testimony, it's often because they lack the options to choose. And besides, that argument would imply all the findommes are gorgeous. They're not.
quote:
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. You're seeing only one solution to the problem. I'd contend there are others.
quote:
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. Of course you can. However - and this is the critical point - nobody lauds a Dom for behaving in that fashion. Nobody's coming out saying "Well, abusive Doms are just satisfying a need that some female subs have." - instead we get the hordes of judgemental comments about the Dom and how he's an abusive asshole. Yet you want to give a free pass to a findomme who exploits a male sub's desperation. Explain to me why it's okay for a woman to be abusive, but not a man. The answer lies in your own sense of gender bias.
quote:
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). There's nothing admirable about it, I just find it repulsive to fuck broken women. There's no challenge in it and they're no prize, either.
quote:
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. No, you misunderstand. Traditional dating in western societies is predicated upon the idea that men put women on a pedestal and think they have to work to be worthy of them. Dominant men know that this is nonsense and that women are just as petty, venal and flawed as anyone else. Consequently, we see them as human beings and expect them to bring their best game to the table - because we're worthy of it.
And you know the secret? You want to know the big secret about all this? Western women CRAVE men who do so. They are sick to death of milksops who try and please them. Show them a man with self-respect, humour and drive? They're smitten. And not only do they desire such men, they'll work to keep them.
quote:
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". I'm not sure how that plays with this crowd Roch, since the entire premise of chivalry is that men have power which women do not. Therefore chivalry is a kind of noblesse oblige where the powerful (men) bestow boons on the less powerful(women). I would've thought that pretty much operates in direct contradiction to your desire to submit - although frankly, I suspect it's a case of dominant women trying to have their cake and eating it too.
quote:
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. Yes, but with her and I, there's an emotional investment. In your case, a pro/findomme doesn't give a damn about you and your stupid flowers.
quote:
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.
Dude, look it up. Medieval knights were death-dealing head-kickers who roamed up and down the land kicking the shit out of any peasant who looked sideways at them. Chivalry as we conceive it is largely a rose-coloured historical view which has so little truth to it that even Cervantes spoofed it in Don Quixote. And applying chivalry to a FemDom interaction is so fucking backwards for precisely the reasons I articulated earlier.
< Message edited by TAFKAA -- 1/12/2013 7:51:49 PM >
|
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