RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s?

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

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

Message

Zonie63 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 5:08:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK So even with the numerous fin dommes explaining to you why they enjoy this fetish, you still choose to assume it's really about the money? That's not how I interpreted his post at all. I didn't think that he was saying that the financial Dommes are only in it for the money. I think he was saying that the reason that people get so upset is because money is involved (and money can bring out the worst in people). But I could be wrong. He'll have to come back and clarify his meaning. Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. Money can bring out the worst in people, indeed. People kill for money. Marriages can break up over money. That seems to be bringing out a lot of this nastiness in these threads. I just think it's something that goes with the territory, and it's something not limited to the BDSM realm either. There are more than a few vanilla who get really uptight about money as well. Whenever money is involved in anything, it might generate hostility and ill will. I just wasn't sure if this aspect has been really addressed or not, since the general focus of these discussions is mainly on the kink/fetish aspect, with only passing mention of money itself and how it can affect people.

absolutchocolat -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 9:24:26 AM)
I agree completely.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 11:25:21 AM)
Ok, I see what you're saying. Yes I agree with that. I think that is why, for me anyway, that it's important that I can say no at anytime, and have. Of course money is a part of it, I'm saying it's not all of it. And not in the way people would assume. I work three different jobs, I have and make great money. As far as money being a part of it, I was talking about the whole idolization of it by the subs that belong to me. I also think that these bratty princesses come on here and men throw money at them and they take the bait and it turns them into what we see. At the end of the day, I am still doing what I enjoy and what my sub enjoys. I have kinda, since this thread started, attempted to relax on defending what I do. For instance after 40something pages, there are still ppl who feel we steal, con and swindle. Nothing I can do for those people. So as you said, live and let live. I like that. Sorry I misunderstood you. [:D]

LadyPact -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 11:45:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NIMH No matter how many times I hear well thought out and carefully defined explanations when it is all said and done it comes down to money. People can justify anything they want and they can rationalize things six ways to Sunday but at the end of the day it is about the money and not about anything else. If it was all just about the power that goes into this type of abuse then you would see an equal level of love for other things. For instance instead of money why not social status? I.e. Having someone ruin their social status or hurt their reputation if they don't comply? Or why not appearance? I.e. Forcing someone to dress down or dress inappropriately? The list is endless in which a similar level of claimed power can be granted. The only difference being that with money you can pay your bills and legitimize stealing it or taking advantage of someone elses weakness in this lifestyle. No, I have no respect for a financial domme. All of them money hungry, vile, and good for nothing and I have no problem telling them such at munches or play events when someone is open about it. From reading this post, I'm going to guess that you've never heard of the fetishes of blackmail, humiliation, cross dressing, or a bunch of other things? Do you walk up to people at munches with these kinds of kinks and tell them that they are good for nothing, too?

Notsweet -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 11:50:45 AM)
I don't claim to understand the urge to send someone money, but it seems to me that people think it requires nothing except the demand for money. If that's the case-- Send me all the cash in your wallet, you piece of scum. You make me sick. I'll take PayPal. Nope. Nothing. Damn.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 2:48:31 PM)
Like I said, there is waaaaaaaay more than just the money. It's just ppl like the person LP just responded to who are only close minded to think that way. Now, you add in the factors that make fin domme great, and you'll feel the rush. [sm=alien.gif]

cloudboy -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 5:26:23 PM)
quote: the fetishes of blackmail, humiliation, cross dressing, or a bunch of other things Humiliation, cross dressing, and a 'bunch of other things' don't constitute criminal conduct or embody a means to damage another person via. financial exploitation. All things are not equal. There's a palpable downside to "financial domination" that should not be understated -- and side me in the camp who opposes this activity as a matter of principle. Its somewhat telling that FEMSUBs aren't into financial domination -- to me they are more likely to run away from a "Master" who might use them for money than be attracted to him. Dressing for pleasure, humiliation, and 'a bunch of other things,' though, are greeted warmly by femsubs. Also, a Master who tried to be a fin dom might very likely be regarded as an asshole. I know I would not want to defend his interest before others, especially if the femsub in question was hemorrhaging money that might better be allocated to her own household.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 5:32:02 PM)
Criminal conduct....wow.[8\|]

MistressJoy4U -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 5:34:53 PM)
My observation is that the kink itself generates the need for fulfillment. In other words, there are guys who are turned on be being humiliated and drained financially. It's what get's them off so who are we to judge the FinDommes if they are fulfilling a need?

cloudboy -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 9:13:06 PM)
Madeline’s Memoirs: Madeline is an infamous courtesan operating in Victorian London. She counts among her clients some of the most powerful establishment men in Britain. With her career on the wane, she decides to write her memoirs, which will reveal all the sordid details of her many dalliances. This will no doubt cause great scandal and (given the social mores of the time) will be the downfall of her indecorous clientele. Spotting an opportunity to make more money, Madeline offers her former clients a deal: if they pay her a large sum of money, she will keep their name out of the published version of her memoirs. Is she engaged in criminal behavior? Bill Cosby may be one of television's most famous family men, but a 1997 extortion attempt tried to claim that his family was a bit bigger than anyone knew. That year, a 23-year-old woman named Autumn Jackson attempted to extort $40 million from Cosby in exchange for not telling the press she was the star's illegitimate daughter. While Cosby admitted that he had an affair with Jackson's mother and had given the woman and her daughter over $100,000 in support over the years, he flatly denied being Jackson's father. Jackson's timing probably didn't help, either; Cosby received her demand the same day Cosby's son, Ennis, was murdered. Jackson, who was convicted along with two accomplices, received a 26-month prison sentence. An appeals court briefly overturned the sentence in 1999, but quickly reversed itself and sent her back to the clink. Read the full text here: http://mentalfloss.com/article/22934/6-other-plots-blackmail-celebrities#ixzz2KBfHhor3 --brought to you by mental_floss!

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 10:34:31 PM)
What others do, has nothing to do with me. There is absolutely nothing criminal about what I do.

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 11:15:33 PM)
Blackmail and extortion are the only things that are illegal about financial domination. If I don't use things against a person in an attempt to extort money, then it's not illegal. There is nothing illegal about tributes, unless the money isn't being reported as income to the federal government. Immoral? Well, that depends on the person and their particular moral beliefs. I can see why some are opposed to any/all of it and I don't begrudge them a bit. What I don't understand is why someone can say that needle/knife play (or lots of other things, those just strike me as two of the most physically damning things in the hands of inexperienced players) is okay, but financial domination is some terrible thing and all findommes are evil, disgusting creatures, etc.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 11:30:58 PM)
Because their kink is ok, ours isn't.

TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/6/2013 11:51:46 PM)
It's not a fucking kink, it's a zero-value business transaction that extracts money from people. I've watched you three go backwards and forwards for the last 3 or 4 fucking pages engaging in your little dance of mutual self-justification. Give it a fucking rest. Nobody with integrity is convinced by the bullshit you're spouting. You exploit the weak. Pure and simple. There is no other name for it. Stop trying to justify your shitty, unethical fucking behaviour by trying to claim it's a kink. You get no gratification out of it, you get money out of it. This much is FUCKING obvious.

LadyPact -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 1:31:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Humiliation, cross dressing, and a 'bunch of other things' don't constitute criminal conduct or embody a means to damage another person via. financial exploitation. All things are not equal. There's a palpable downside to "financial domination" that should not be understated -- and side me in the camp who opposes this activity as a matter of principle. Its somewhat telling that FEMSUBs aren't into financial domination -- to me they are more likely to run away from a "Master" who might use them for money than be attracted to him. Dressing for pleasure, humiliation, and 'a bunch of other things,' though, are greeted warmly by femsubs. Also, a Master who tried to be a fin dom might very likely be regarded as an asshole. I know I would not want to defend his interest before others, especially if the femsub in question was hemorrhaging money that might better be allocated to her own household. Please read the quote to which I responded. The poster put out some examples of why is there not equal level of love for other activities. Those other activities are here that I mentioned. Do you not see posts from people who enjoy them? (That's rhetorical as I know we've engaged in conversation about some of them.) There are a number of kinks that aren't nearly as popular with female subs as opposed to male ones. How many cuckqueens do you see posting around here? When is the last thread we've had on females forced to cross dress? What do you suppose the ratio is of male foot fetishists to female foot fetishist? Are those not kinks either because more male subs/bottoms enjoy them rather than females?

LadyPact -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 1:35:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK Because their kink is ok, ours isn't. Don't be so sure about that. One of My most favorite originals that I've ever written around this joint was about doing My first cutting. I absolutely was chewed out by one particular poster who wanted to tell Me how wrong I was for doing it.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 2:17:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TAFKAA It's not a fucking kink, it's a zero-value business transaction that extracts money from people. I've watched you three go backwards and forwards for the last 3 or 4 fucking pages engaging in your little dance of mutual self-justification. Give it a fucking rest. Nobody with integrity is convinced by the bullshit you're spouting. You exploit the weak. Pure and simple. There is no other name for it. Stop trying to justify your shitty, unethical fucking behaviour by trying to claim it's a kink. You get no gratification out of it, you get money out of it. This much is FUCKING obvious. Oh do you miss me darling? [8\|]

MissImmortalPain -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 2:20:11 AM)
Fr This thread is just killing me. I commented a few pages back and thought at some point the thread would run itself down but seeing as that doesn't seem to be happening, and seeing as someone brought up it all being about money again, I would like to throw something out there for folks to think about. You see this whole topic keeps making me hear something in my head. A move quote. "In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women." I think it hurts a lot of mens feelings that women can get away with this because to them money really is power and they think if they have money they can just buy women with it. I think it makes some men angry that women are taking away their "power" and I'm willing to admit that as a person that does findomming that there is nothing that gets me off more than telling a man he can't buy me. That he might be able to rent a little of my time but he is not buying me, my body, or my heart. That the shoes are cute, or the jewlery is pretty, or that hell even cash is fun.....but he isn't buying me because he will never have that much money/power. I have seen men crumple when I explain things to them. I have become wet watching them cry, beg even, to give me more when I tell them I'm bored with them. And you know what? If you don't think thats a kink...you have obviously never been inside my panties [;)]

TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 2:20:47 AM)
Believe me, if I was the type to aim, I wouldn't miss. To miss someone, they have to be absent. You apparently don't understand the principle that less is more and simply haven't shut the fuck up about this issue in the weeks since everyone dropped it. You apparently fail to realise just how desperate for validation that makes you look.

TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 2:35:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissImmortalPain "In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women." Yes, it's a movie quote which means it simply reflects the same old line Hollywood's been feeding men for decades. It represents a naive understanding of women which is amusing more than anything else. Because ultimately, it's complete horseshit. You only need one thing to get women. Strength. A man with strength is so fundamentally attractive to so many women it pretty much overrides all other considerations. It's by no means the only way, but it's pretty much the simplest. The reason men despise findommes is because they're profoundly unethical. They take without giving. They engage in a business transaction then try and pretend it's a kink. They exploit the weak. And men know those poor fools they're exploiting are capable of getting the women they want if they just stop buying into the lie and actually get some fucking balls. A man with strength can find an awesome woman and get whatever he wants. If he wants her to top him, he can have that. So we men are caught between pity for our fellow man on the one hand and utterly despising them for their weakness on the other. Findommes are the ultimate product of a man's failure to be a man. The acceptance of a business transaction with an ersatz personal component because the guy's desperate to satisfy his fucking fetish. Pathetic. It's not that it hurts our feelings, it's that we know they can do far better than you. They just settle because they're too weak to do otherwise. Instead of striving for improvement, they've simply given up. And that stalled existence is where they'll stay for the rest of their wretched lives.

Page: << < prev 45 46 [47] 48 49 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1103516