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

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 3:01:41 AM)
You're more than a fool than I thought, dear. Let me educate you on something. See, this part of the site you are on is called a "forum". It's where ppl come to chat and discuss things. When someone has an interest on something in particular, they comment more than normal. See how that works sugar bear? Now go fix me a sammich! MIP, well said. The fact that I can tell them " no" is quite a thrill as well.

MissImmortalPain -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 3:08:03 AM)
Awareness, you and I have had this conversation before. And since I am sure you speak for every man on the planet and are giving me their honest opinions I will be sure to tell the men I dom that they despise me. It wouldn't shock me if you were right but the truth is I wouldn't care either. You feel pity for your fellow men that are not strong enough to find better....I don't. I don't personally believe women should ever be submissive to men but I don't go about bitching at the ones that are....and trust me I know subs that get rented out, battered, and abused by the men they pick. I don't feel pity for them either. To be honest I'm not even sure why you stepped into this conversation. You know you wont change anyones opinion anymore than anyone else here will. So really why? How is what you just did any different than what you said TK was doing? Oh and as for the quote....yeah I know it's bs too but you would, more than likely, be amazed by the others of your gender that believe money can get them anything.

Zonie63 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 3:13:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder 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. Well, again, I would suggest that the reason for this is because needle/knife play doesn't involve money.

MissImmortalPain -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 3:24:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder 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. Well, again, I would suggest that the reason for this is because needle/knife play doesn't involve money. It does if you pay a pro.

Zonie63 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 4:37:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissImmortalPain 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. Yes, I brought that up, but my focus was not on the findommes and their attitudes towards money or the kink of financial domination, but more focused on the negative reaction which is generated because money brings out the worst in people. I'm not saying that it's not a kink for some people. That may very well be the case, but money is still money. quote: 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." Al Pacino in Scarface. A good flick, although perhaps a bit overrated. Mobster movies like that have had a great deal of influence over popular culture and public perceptions regarding crime, greed, money, sex, etc. The mentality which is fostered by these perceptions is that it doesn't really matter how one makes one's money, just as long as one has it. The movie was rather symbolic of the cocaine-fueled, greed-driven decade known as the 1980s. Another famous 1980s movie is Wall Street, with Gordon Gekko's famous line "Greed is good." Of course, the same mentality continued into the 1990s, demonstrated by Henry Hill's opinion about honest and ethical people: "For us to live any other way was nuts. Uh, to us, those goody-good people who worked shitty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean they were suckers. They had no balls. If we wanted something we just took it. If anyone complained twice they got hit so bad, believe me, they never complained again" I think a lot of people get caught up in this kind of mentality, and with our culture being submerged in it for so long, it has produced long-term damage to this country. quote: 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. This is what I was getting at when I opened up the question of "What is money?" earlier, which no one seemed interested in answering. Money is power. Money is a tool. Money is a medium of exchange. Money can be many things to many different people. Some people are practical and frugal with money, while there are others who are wild spendthrifts living way beyond their means. It's also true that not everyone can be bought, but some people most definitely can be bought. quote: 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 [;)] Again, I'm not saying that it's not a kink. I've read this entire thread, and I believe everything that you, TNDommeK, AllisonWilder and a few others have been saying. I wouldn't criticize someone else's kink, but I also think that it's somewhat naive to believe that real world issues can't also rear their ugly head during the middle of a fantasy. My point was that I don't think the hostility generated about financial domination has anything to do with people opposing other people's kinks, but the hostility is due to the money. That's what seemed to be missing in this discussion. It made me wonder if people may not have known about the hostility and ill will caused by money, greed, materialism, class differences, the haves versus the have nots. Al Pacino's perception in Scarface is not a positive one. I'm not saying it's not true, but it's also true that there can be ensuing consequences in the long run when one continues to practice such a philosophy. Don't get me wrong. I'm not bashing the findommes or questioning their motivations. All I'm saying is that there are real world considerations here which cut into several different issues, and I think it's those real world issues outside of BDSM which may be the cause of the disagreement and hostility whenever this issue is brought up. It's really NOT about criticizing the kink or claiming that it's not one. At least, that's not how I see it. There are other issues coming into play here.

absolutchocolat -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 7:22:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK What others do, has nothing to do with me. There is absolutely nothing criminal about what I do. Right. If there are folks willing to pay for certain services, how in fucks sake is that criminal? I think fur is gross, but I don't think buying it is a criminal act. And honestly, fin-dom is a kink that I can stomach. It's all that needle and fire shit that gives me the creeps, personally!

Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 7:41:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TAFKAA 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. Wow! What planet do you live on? This is so wrong, it's almost laughable. "Strength"? Really? Wanna put that theory to the test? If I put a power lifter on one side, and have him ask women if they want to feel his muscles, and then I put a billionaire on the other, and have him ask women if they'd like to take a cruise on his yacht. Which one do you think is likely to be more successful picking up women? I know that makes women sound shallow (and for that I apologize). But let's be realistic here. MONEY is the ultimate aphrodisiac for many (but not all) women. A fat, bald, unattractive guy driving a Rolls Royce can get super models to date him. A muscle-bound guy who is broke will have a hard time getting a date. Do you think 100-year-old Hugh Hefner can marry 25-year-old centerfold models because he's "strong" or because he's "rich"? Let's face it. In a capitalistic society, money is often the greatest form of "strength". And women are drawn to it like moths to a flame.

Winterapple -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 8:40:53 AM)
And to be fair there are men who are attracted to money and fame as well and seek female and male partners who give them access to it. Beauty is also powerful and those that have it can use it as a bargaining chip if they so wish.

MissImmortalPain -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 8:48:22 AM)
Sorry, Zonie, I didn't mean for my post to seem like I was attacking you. I didn't think you were criticizing the kink and I really did mean to point out the thought that for many money is power, a tool, a means of staying alive, etc. So I understand why many people get very touchy about it.

Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 10:59:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Winterapple Beauty is also powerful and those that have it can use it as a bargaining chip if they so wish. Exactly. I've often said that money and beauty are very analogous for the two sexes. Many women seem to be suckers for a man with money. They'll overlook his many other shortcomings if he's rich enough. Similarly, beauty seems to have that same allure for men. They'll overlook a woman's other shortcomings if she's pretty enough. Both genders can be shallow in their own way. So in many ways, both beauty and money are power. But only one of them can be transferred. And that's why some people are getting so upset in this thread.

WankingTroll -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 11:02:46 AM)
I find EXTREMELY alluring professional women who are highly accomplished. I don't need anyone's money, but it is hard for me to revere as "dominant" a woman who needs me for financial life-support. But that's just the way that I myself am wired.....I could see financial domination as being legit.....I mean, whatever kinks consenting adults desire are "legit" (assuming legality of course).

TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 11:25:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 quote: ORIGINAL: TAFKAA 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. Wow! What planet do you live on? This is so wrong, it's almost laughable. "Strength"? Really? Wanna put that theory to the test? I don't have to. It plays out every damn day if you have the wit to look. quote: If I put a power lifter on one side, and have him ask women if they want to feel his muscles, and then I put a billionaire on the other, and have him ask women if they'd like to take a cruise on his yacht. Which one do you think is likely to be more successful picking up women? There's two problems with that premise. First, your conception of strength is limited. Second - somewhat ironically for a man who believes in chivalry - your example is founded upon the premise that all women are whores. Fortunately, that premise is false. quote: I know that makes women sound shallow (and for that I apologize). But let's be realistic here. MONEY is the ultimate aphrodisiac for many (but not all) women. Wrong. POWER is the ultimate aphrodisiac and personal power is a force which women can perceive in men through their day to day interactions with everyone. quote: A fat, bald, unattractive guy driving a Rolls Royce can get super models to date him. A muscle-bound guy who is broke will have a hard time getting a date. Being broke is - more often than not - an expression of impotence. However a rich trust-fund preppy is unlikely to have the attributes of personal power which would normally be a prerequisite for someone who earned their own wealth. Consequently being rich doesn't guarantee you're also powerful. Power is often manifested in social capital. quote: Do you think 100-year-old Hugh Hefner can marry 25-year-old centerfold models because he's "strong" or because he's "rich"? No, Hugh can do so because some women are whores. Some, Roch. quote: Let's face it. In a capitalistic society, money is often the greatest form of "strength". And women are drawn to it like moths to a flame. This is a source of much confusion. Money can be a manifestation of the drive to succeed. However, it's not the universal guide you seem to think it is. Some people with money are simpletons or self-indulgent children. They simply do not possess the strength to attract women. They will, however, attract whores. As historical examples, I'll mention Rasputin, Charles Manson and Jim Jones as examples of men of poor means who seduced women with their personal power. Your misunderstanding of women and what they respond to is why you subscribe to ridiculous notions such as "chivalry" Roch. You totally fail to perceive your own potential for personal power and so you mistakenly believe you have to indulge women and play their games to have what you want. You are, of course, mistaken. I can testify from personal experience Roch, that women REALLY like arrogant, difficult men who won't put up with their bullshit. And the truly amusing part is that they're attracted even while they're criticising those same men. It makes for a delicious irony and a satisfying conquest.

Nelee -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 11:59:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 quote: ORIGINAL: TAFKAA 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. Wow! What planet do you live on? This is so wrong, it's almost laughable. "Strength"? Really? Wanna put that theory to the test? If I put a power lifter on one side, and have him ask women if they want to feel his muscles, and then I put a billionaire on the other, and have him ask women if they'd like to take a cruise on his yacht. Which one do you think is likely to be more successful picking up women? I know that makes women sound shallow (and for that I apologize). But let's be realistic here. MONEY is the ultimate aphrodisiac for many (but not all) women. A fat, bald, unattractive guy driving a Rolls Royce can get super models to date him. A muscle-bound guy who is broke will have a hard time getting a date. Do you think 100-year-old Hugh Hefner can marry 25-year-old centerfold models because he's "strong" or because he's "rich"? Let's face it. In a capitalistic society, money is often the greatest form of "strength". And women are drawn to it like moths to a flame. TL;DR: The way you both refer to women is a bit offensive to me. So. Yeah. Talking about women as if they're prizes to be won isn't cool, guys. Especially when a society run by men is why we can't be in the same positions of power ourselves. "Strength" means different things for different people, and different things in different societies. If you use such a general word, you aren't really qualifying much. In some Native societies, childbirth was a simple of strength, so women were responsible for the dispersion of land and the leaders of their respective societies. That has little to do with physical power, but with their status in that society. In our capitalistic society, money may be the quickest (and arguably most efficient way) to gain "strength", but it is not the only way. Not every society is run the same way. Even then, not every person in that society lives by the same ideals. Likewise, attempting to push the image that women are oh-so in love with money gives off the idea that women are these money hungry harpies that manipulate men to get their hard-earned fortunes... While ignoring the fact that men simply are paid more, and have a better means of obtaining that "strength" that women find so "attractive", and that an ambitious women could simply be using her own traits to an advantage to level the playing field. In an attempt to avoid a long tangent here, I'll just say this: TAFKAA is not necessarily wrong, since strength in this society is commonly measured by wealth, and (In America, at least) wealth is power. However, human beings are not simply dropped into cubby holes of socially constructed ideas of gender. So your insistence that women are so drawn to money is a bit offensive, to me at least. You could say that women love money, but that is only because it represents power. I could also say that men love money, but have greater access to it (or at least to the ability to obtain it). I'm sure if men were in the position of women in this society (valued by their beauty and their worth as an object, to name a few things), they would take advantage of that position and do the same. So, to disagree with you both, I wouldn't say that strength/money is the "end all" for women, as there are other traits we're more than happy to look to for a suitable partner. It is just a generalization brought on by the images spread from a capitalistic society. More than women have been known to FinDom (though it seems that it is easier as a woman to simply findom, and the market seems lively), but you don't seem to refer to them the same way.

Nelee -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 12:12:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TAFKAA [...]Money can be a manifestation of the drive to succeed. However, it's not the universal guide you seem to think it is. Some people with money are simpletons or self-indulgent children. They simply do not possess the strength to attract women. They will, however, attract whores. The more you use that word, the more I side-eye every single thing you post. So, these women are "whores" for using their own power (given to them by a society that grooms us to know our worth is in how young and beautiful we look, effectively creating the "whores" you hold so much disdain for) to their advantage to get things from the men that keep them from getting it for themselves? If anything, I would call that ambition and good business sense. I don't need power to be attracted to someone. I'll be attracted to someone who holds similar ideals and maintains some form of chemistry with me. My panties don't get wet when I see a 100 dollar bill, nor when I see the apparent "self-made man" who knows how to handle his money (unless he has the aforementioned qualities), despite his apparent "strength". Get over yourself.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 12:49:44 PM)
Roch I have a question about your theory, and this also applies to myself. What if the woman in question ( looking at the body builder or millionaire) has money already? I'm not backing what Tafkaa is saying in this one bit bc I feel strength is not the only thing a woman looks for. Reason I asked is and I've said this before, one of the reasons ( I think) that make me able to be successful at being a fin, is the fact that I don't "need" the money. I can refuse it at any time. Now in 99% of the cases, you're right about your theory.

coldslayer -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 12:56:19 PM)
I dont think most fin dommes need the money. Most are getting lavished in gifts and giftcards anyway...

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 12:58:05 PM)
No I was meaning, what if the said fin domme, has money to begin with? Not the gifts or money she is being given.

MistressSnow -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 1:06:03 PM)
OMG!!!! 48 pages of this crap? Really people, are you THAT bored? "fin dommes" (or I would like say fish dummies), are an insult to true working pro-dommes. Period. However that being said I think the stupid pieces of shit who actually send these fakes anything are more pathetic, than the fish. And---- I suppose I have gone full circle, therein lies the fetish/kink/perversion/whatever the hell------- need for the low life's.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 1:21:59 PM)
You ask if we are that bored, yet you feel the need to chime in? I'm a true working pro domme and I believe you speak for yourself on this subject. I do not find them insulting to me. Not even the bratty princess profiles, as they make no problem for my success or kink. As a fin domme as well, is like to know how and what you base your opinions from?

Nelee -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 1:24:07 PM)
Shut up and read the thread. It has already addressed your types. You obviously have been here for a while, so I'd advise you to stop being so judgmental, turn your "holier-than-thou" off, and educate yourself on what a FinDom/me does. Just because you disagree with it, doesn't make it any less legitimate. Which is what this thread is about. Which is what you would have known, had you taken the few seconds to read the first. freaking. post.

Page: << < prev 46 47 [48] 49 50 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875