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 3:35:31 PM)

*writes down Roch's idea of smash penis with hammer* Jk Jk lol

Nelee have I told you how much I love you?[:)]

Roch, I agree with you about one having more money than the other. I'm never sure who has the most money. But being that I work hard like I do, I can say I'm mighty comfortable in my life right now, so I think that has a lot to do with the fact that I can say " no" or turn money away. Which to me, sets part people to reply on money to live instead of taking power away from people who idolize it so and use it ( or try to) to get what thy want. Make sense?

On another note, are you saying you do not like your penis smashed?

Ron, I would like the knife set! Lol



LadyPact -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 3:36:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009
If I did that, then your other subs/slaves would simply become envious cucks, while I would rise to alpha status in your harem. [;)]

You do know that I've got a rather decent idea of what makes you tick after all of these years? I could enjoy tormenting you.



quote:

Not really. But it has lasted 50 pages. So that might be a good idea.

Ummmmmmm, how would I go about doing that?

I would suggest contacting VAA. I'm not a huge fan of sticky threads but I am seriously thinking this one might be beneficial.

Should you need help or support for the idea, please contact Me on the other side.




TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 3:38:41 PM)

Yea LP but all the stupid comments would have to be removed. I think this would be a good sticky as well. Bc aside from the dumb shit, this actually is a great thread.



mnottertail -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/7/2013 3:40:03 PM)

Don't feel bad on my account, some of my best shit goes in the bit bucket as being against TOS.

I cannot help that I am a hilarous motherfucker. 



GoddessofRuin -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/8/2013 2:47:00 AM)

:( why did the financial dommes take over the word pig? That is my favorite word ever



TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/8/2013 4:08:38 AM)

I assume they use it when saying " pay piggy" but if you like it, use it. There's no law saying you can't. I never really use that word.



GoddessofRuin -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/8/2013 4:40:44 AM)

I see



TheLilSquaw -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/8/2013 5:24:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009

Yes. Like my 11 inch.......... Oh, never mind.


I demand photographic proof!
No excuses. [:D]


LP,
I agree and have said it before.
I think this should be a sticky thread.
One that people can easily be referred to when the subject of financial domination comes up.



TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/8/2013 2:35:51 PM)

Um, I'm in agreement with Squaw....Roch, if we don't see pics, it's not true. I believe the "buckle up baby" thread is perfect for that.



TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/9/2013 3:25:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nelee

TL;DR:
If you didn't read it, then why are you commenting on it?

quote:

The way you both refer to women is a bit offensive to me.
In that case, it would be wise to examine the reasons within yourself that cause you to take offense. Get down to brass tacks, to the root cause. It's rarely the reason you initially proffer as an explanation.

quote:

So. Yeah. Talking about women as if they're prizes to be won isn't cool, guys.
Oh really? Why? Are you blind to the rest of the contents of this thread - or indeed the entire CollarMe boards - where women reduce men to wallets?

quote:

Especially when a society run by men is why we can't be in the same positions of power ourselves.
That's an excuse by which you try and demand special treatment. It's invalid.

quote:

"Strength" means different things for different people, and different things in different societies.
No, not really. Strength correlates with survival. And strength of mind, body and character are enormously attractive attributes precisely because they confer survival value upon a man.

quote:

However, human beings are not simply dropped into cubby holes of socially constructed ideas of gender.
Gender is not socially constructed. It's an emergent property of biological imperative.

quote:

So your insistence that women are so drawn to money is a bit offensive, to me at least.
Roch said that. I said power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. I also said that specific types of women will fake affection for access to money.

quote:

You could say that women love money, but that is only because it represents power.
I doubt it. Women hardly chase money for power - they chase it for the lifestyle and the trinkets it brings. There'll be exceptions but I challenge anyone to demonstrate that gold-diggers are focused upon anything more than simple greed.

quote:


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.
You misunderstand men, women and why women are valued. You'd be wise to expand your understanding beyond what appears to be a rather narrow and ill-informed view.

quote:


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.
You overestimate women's thought process on what they find attractive - mostly by assuming there is one. We've already discussed men playing the FinDom thing but it seems incredibly rare. They're more likely to pimp and frankly I think a sub who's prepared to be pimped out is every bit as damaged as a man who'll pay a findom real money in exchange for taunting and scorn.



TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/9/2013 3:35:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nelee


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.
Again, you need to ask yourself why. There are no doubt that whores exist, so why the problem? Or are you going down the "there's nothing wrong with being a whore path".

quote:


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.
So I see it's the latter. Let's address the misconceptions here one by one.

First, women's sexual power is not granted to them by society. (Your statement implies a mystical cabal running things from afar). Sexual power is an artifact of women's beauty and men's desire.

Second, a woman is a whore if she sells herself for sex. Pure and simple. A woman who fakes affection and fucks a man to gain access to his money is selling herself. She's a whore. If that reality is too much for you to bear, you have some internal change work to do.

Third, I note that you seem to see no problem with women using men but complain that women don't have enough power in society. If you're fine with people using each other, then why don't you just shut the fuck up and accept that - in accordance with your philosophy - men are better at using women than women are at using men.

quote:


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.
Oh for fuck's sake. Every time one of you women talks about chemistry, you're talking about all the factors including power which make a man attractive to women. And you don't really worry too much about ideals when it comes to attraction.

quote:

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".
The fact that you don't understand what it is about men that you find attractive is par for the course.

quote:

Get over yourself.
*chortle* Oh, now that IS amusing. I can see I've touched a nerve or three.



TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/9/2013 3:39:43 AM)

Yes, that's just what we need. A thread promoting findommes which sticks around for all time.

Have you not cottoned on to why the only people posting in this thread for over a week were the three fucking findommes profiting from this fucking nonsense? They were trying to keep it on the front page to keep their business up.

Christ, why not just have a hooker thread if you're going to go that far.



Zonie63 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/9/2013 8:44:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TAFKAA


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nelee

So your insistence that women are so drawn to money is a bit offensive, to me at least.


Roch said that. I said power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. I also said that specific types of women will fake affection for access to money.

quote:

You could say that women love money, but that is only because it represents power.


I doubt it. Women hardly chase money for power - they chase it for the lifestyle and the trinkets it brings. There'll be exceptions but I challenge anyone to demonstrate that gold-diggers are focused upon anything more than simple greed.


It could be, although I've also heard that it may be a kind instinctive survival mechanism. As I was reading this thread and thinking about the concept of money itself, I was thinking to earlier times when our biological species had never heard of money and didn't know what it was. Wealth and power may have been measured in different ways (goats or chickens perhaps), but somehow women may have been more drawn to it whatever measure may have been used. Of course, in a lot of cases, it didn't matter what they were attracted to, since they weren't often given much choice.

Greed itself can be kind of complicated as human traits go. I think humans became greedy perhaps due to an instinctive survival mechanism. So many famines, wars, pillaging, etc. over the centuries - we learn to accumulate, secure, and keep track of our stuff - particularly gold and other treasures. Oftentimes it goes too far, and it can even be dangerous and vicious. I think men and women have been both guilty of it to some degree, but it just manifests itself in different ways. Just as with anything, there might be that 1% or 2% who hit the jackpot and get the gold they're digging for, while the rest have to schlep through life like the rest of us.

Musicians also seem to have a certain allure to women - even if they're not famous and are flat broke. Of course, on that note, I consider phenomena like hordes of screaming females running after the Beatles or Elvis. A big time banker or industrialist might be even richer or more powerful than they were, and they would certainly attract a great deal of female interest, but not with the same intensity and apparent raw sexual energy of screaming fans.

Then there's also the preacher phenomenon, as you mentioned earlier with Rasputin, Charles Manson, and Jim Jones. The Czarina thought that Rasputin was in communication with God, so if power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, then the ultimate power "God" might have a certain effect on those who believe. It was somewhat the same with Manson's and Jim Jones' followers, too. Somehow, a wild-eyed, fire and brimstone sermon has a certain effect on people.

So, it seems that money and power don't always go hand in hand. Money may be just one form of power, but there are other forms of power as well.



AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/9/2013 9:03:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TAFKAA

Yes, that's just what we need. A thread promoting findommes which sticks around for all time.

Have you not cottoned on to why the only people posting in this thread for over a week were the three fucking findommes profiting from this fucking nonsense? They were trying to keep it on the front page to keep their business up.

Christ, why not just have a hooker thread if you're going to go that far.


Seems we've touched on a nerve or three with you, hmm? Maybe you should take some time out, reflect on why you care so much because as far as I can tell, aside from the occasional passerby with a negative outlook on findommes (which is well within their right, nobody has to like findommes), nobody gives a shit.

Also, as far as this thread goes, I'd love it if it just died so you're wrong about findommes trying to keep it on the front page. It's weenies like you that keep dredging this shit back up that's the problem.

LET IT GO.



TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/9/2013 9:26:10 AM)

[sm=applause.gif]

His second responses to Nelee were quite amusing.
I lol'd a bit.

And I must agree, I have enough business. However, aside from a few dumbass responses, I feel this thread does have some education benefits and would be good as a sticky.



AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/9/2013 9:28:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TNDommeK

And I must agree, I have enough business. However, aside from a few dumbass responses, I feel this thread does have some education benefits and would be good as a sticky.



It's 50 pages long. Nobody will ever read it. It's a great thread, but the only thing that would be worthy of being a sticky would be Roch's summary a couple pages back.



TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/9/2013 10:13:25 AM)

Yea, that's why I mentioned that it should be edited. The good parts could remain. You're right, no one will read it though. They will probably see the title, read MAYBE a few lines of Roch's post, then skip to the end and beat a dead horse. [8|]



egern -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/10/2013 9:06:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern


Topic aside, I still cannot quite understand why people do not have a right to an opinion here?


Everyone has a right to an opinion, but I think that it (this thread) causes some to get a little defensive because it's turned into page after page of 'ALL findommes are prostitutes, scammers, liars, cheats, fake, etc.' and page after page of 'Some of us are actually into the fetish, some of us aren't like what you see every other profile, etc.' After so long, it just feels like we're going around and around in circles for no reason.


I guess both 'sides' feel bashed. As for me, I do what you do, talk about what things feel like for me.

Maybe if all discussed as you do, things would calm dawn.

quote:


quote:

You (generic you) keep saying people are hard on pros and findommes, but very few people have actually said anything against that.

All have said that that is between the involved parties, all have said that whatever prostitution is it is ok, but some, including me, have had an opinion on how it affects us or whether it would be good to seperate these groups (commercial and non-commercial).

This has gotten very impolite answers from pros to say the least, and at the start something that started to look like a mobbing on the person who dared to voice such an opinion.


I personally don't want to be on a site where I'm separated from everyone else. I don't solicit anyone, I'm not even currently looking for someone, I just like to chat most of the time. Just because I'm a findomme doesn't mean that I shouldn't have the ability to chat with other kink-minded (non-financial) people. I'm also a lifestyle domme and separating me from all non-commercial folks means that I wouldn't get to talk to some really freakin' awesome people.


I see nothing wrong at all with people who, like you, are also pro in some capacity or other, who are here as simply another debater.

But I also do not see anything wrong with people who are looking for partners to suggest making pros a category you can tune out, just as subs or doms or dommes or whatever are a category you can tune out to get to who you are looking for.

Yet this simple suggestion - echoed by other threads - was treated in a way akin to mobbing. And the OP - after quite many mails - started to use name calling too.


quote:

To me, a new member of CM, dropping in this thread as the very first one, it seems that the pros are very firmly in control of who can say what here.

A question to you, and I do mean this a serious question to learn something I simply cannot grasp:

WHY is it that people who think otherwise than you do in this question need to be 'educated'? About what? The only questions debated here is what to call it, which is a matter of personal semantics and, of course, law, and the question of whether some would like a non-commercial list. Where is the education in that? I am seriously asking you.

And why is it ok to bash people who would like a non-commercial list? I am asking you, because I think you might answer me, and probably not even either patronizing or 'yelling'.

Thanks.


quote:


I don't speak for anyone but myself, but as far as the 'education' goes, it's a lot about titles and such, at least for me. I hate being lumped in with 19 year old bratty princesses because that's just not how I act at all. I don't flip people off, tell them they're losers and make them beg for the possibility of my attention.


So, if I read you correctly, you are simply saying that 'educating' people means informing them about how your job really is.

That is something I can get behind.

quote:


I don't think it's okay to bash anyone at all, no matter where they stand on separating pro and findommes from everyone else.



That makes you a rare bird :-) But valued, in my eyes.



TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/10/2013 1:17:45 PM)

That's kinda what we have been preaching for 50 something pages. It gets tiring to have to defend ourselves and attempt to explain what makes us different. When you get ppl who refuse to even try to understand the differences, it gets old. But I commend you for seeing things in a different light. Allison, lil Squaw and myself are very different from the bratty profiles, when it comes to fin domming.



Level -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/10/2013 1:48:40 PM)

Plus you're a goddess of ducklips!



[8D]



Page: <<   < prev  48 49 [50] 51 52   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625