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

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



Message

chatterbox24 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/11/2013 8:06:24 AM)

hee hee. I use my own dictionary yes.

If he cleans it only? nah, thats called a smart woman. Guy cleans house, woman gets paid...

but as Oprah says, If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, its a duck. Of course there is always the exceptions. SUch as a dog trapped in a ducks body. hahaha. How often does that happen?

But per chatters exclusive dictionary, it says 99% of the time, its prostitution cloaked by a mirage. LMAO.



MAINEiacMISTRESS -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/11/2013 8:32:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
My take on how legitimate is financial domination.

If this is an agreement in a LTR, whether it be a monogamous D/s realtionship or poly, then sure its legit. Whatever floats the boat.

Take it out of that context, and the Dom/Domme have multiple pay clients, there is no emotional connection, its a job based on sex. I think it is called prostitution last time I looked it up.





So by your definition if a service sub comes into my home and cleans it. Would I be engaging in prostitution??

Would a woman who goes out on multiple dates, with multiple men who is not in a committed LTR be guilty of prostitution?? After all couldn't it be said that he "paid" for sex via dinner, movies, ect?

Btw... the legal definition of prostitution:

"Prostitution consists of knowingly engaging in or offering to engage in a sexual act for hire. As used in this section "sexual act" means sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, masturbation of another, anal intercourse or the causing of penetration to any extent and with any object of the genital or anal opening of another, whether or not there is any emission."

So how is financial domination prostitution if the dom/me doesn't engage in a sexual act for the tribute??




I'm glad you posted that definition. A lot of people have no fucking clue what constitutes prostitution. And NO...if a guy or gal wants to pay you for the opportunity to come clean your house it's not a form of prostitution. HOW THE HELL COULD IT BE??? It's more akin to paying for campground priviledges, or a day resort, since the purpose for many subs may be escaping from work/family stress and getting a mind "reset"....just enjoying the feeling of "having a purpose".

Handing over your money to someone for a NON-SEXUAL act...EVERY damned service based BUSINESS falls under that category...accountant, attorney, mechanic, house cleaner, carpenter, counselor, therapist..on and on. For those of you who consider limiting it to physical TOUCHING being where the prostitution takes place, then don't go to a family doctor, or proctologist, or chiropractor, or reflexologist, or acupuncturalist, or physical therapist, or dentist, or dental hygenist, or hair/nail salon, or hell, SEAMSTRESS/TAYLOR, because they've probably got to touch you to measure you...maybe even see you in your underwear to get exact fit. They ALL are going to touch you..and YOU ARE PAYING THEM TO DO IT....in the case of doctors & nurses touch you ALL OVER, even your naughty bits that some of you like to show off on camera just to gross us all out.

If a MAN was doing this same thing you'd not call it prostitution...therefore it's obvious that the notion of prostitution you all have linked to D/s is coming from a MISOGYNISTIC VIEWPOINT.

--MM



egern -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/11/2013 9:03:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TNDommeK

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.



I was talking to allison Wilder, who has a reasonable way of explaining things.

All dommes are different, the explanation of one - and the way in which it is told - is not like another. After having read it it all, it does give a diverse picture of the field.




leonine -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/11/2013 9:21:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw
So by your definition if a service sub comes into my home and cleans it. Would I be engaging in prostitution??
Funny you should say that. My late wife and I used to get a lot of visiting malesubs, and since I worked at home, I always made sure they did a good bit of housework to make up for the time I took out playing with them. So we often said we did pro domination on the exchange system.
quote:


Would a woman who goes out on multiple dates, with multiple men who is not in a committed LTR be guilty of prostitution?? After all couldn't it be said that he "paid" for sex via dinner, movies, ect?
Feminists and cynics have indeed said that very thing, many times, for a great many years. RAH, for example, sets it out very clearly in "Glory Road," with his heroine commenting that if you're going to sell yourself, dinner and a show is pretty cheap.

Most people in the mundane world don't use words exactly according to their legal definitions. We certainly don't here, otherwise everyone with a slave would be breaking the law. So legal definitions are a red herring. The online Free Dictionary defines it as "the act of offering one's talents to an unworthy cause;" I am sure you would reckon that doesn't touch you either, but it does show how far common usage is from the legal one.



egern -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/11/2013 9:26:06 AM)


quote:


I'm glad you posted that definition. A lot of people have no fucking clue what constitutes prostitution. And NO...if a guy or gal wants to pay you for the opportunity to come clean your house it's not a form of prostitution. HOW THE HELL COULD IT BE??? It's more akin to paying for campground priviledges, or a day resort, since the purpose for many subs may be escaping from work/family stress and getting a mind "reset"....just enjoying the feeling of "having a purpose".

Handing over your money to someone for a NON-SEXUAL act...EVERY damned service based BUSINESS falls under that category...accountant, attorney, mechanic, house cleaner, carpenter, counselor, therapist..on and on. For those of you who consider limiting it to physical TOUCHING being where the prostitution takes place, then don't go to a family doctor, or proctologist, or chiropractor, or reflexologist, or acupuncturalist, or physical therapist, or dentist, or dental hygenist, or hair/nail salon, or hell, SEAMSTRESS/TAYLOR, because they've probably got to touch you to measure you...maybe even see you in your underwear to get exact fit. They ALL are going to touch you..and YOU ARE PAYING THEM TO DO IT....in the case of doctors & nurses touch you ALL OVER, even your naughty bits that some of you like to show off on camera just to gross us all out.

If a MAN was doing this same thing you'd not call it prostitution...therefore it's obvious that the notion of prostitution you all have linked to D/s is coming from a MISOGYNISTIC VIEWPOINT.

--MM


I am quite curious why there is such an anger over that expression.

The dictionaries say taking money for 'sexual activities', which I think is how many view it.
(For example: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prostitute)

The whole debate then centers on what constitutes sexual activity. To some cleaning a lady's house would undoubtedly be a sexual experience, judging from the arousal they show. The matter of prostitution would then be whether any money is involved or not.

To me the question of whether to call it 'prostitution' or 'a business' is hair splitting. The matter to me is if the people who pay for services do it because they specifically want it that way, or whether they do it out of a need that cannot be met any other way.

In case of the latter, some would say taking money is exploiting a desperate need, others would say fulfilling a need which cannot be met any other way.

Judging from what has been said here from pros and fins, I would say it depends wholly on how exactly things are done, which varies quite a lot.





egern -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/11/2013 9:28:06 AM)


When I am an old woman and sit and cackle with toothless gums in my rocking chair, I fully expect this thread to be here still :-)))



Zonie63 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/11/2013 11:46:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: egern


quote:


I'm glad you posted that definition. A lot of people have no fucking clue what constitutes prostitution. And NO...if a guy or gal wants to pay you for the opportunity to come clean your house it's not a form of prostitution. HOW THE HELL COULD IT BE??? It's more akin to paying for campground priviledges, or a day resort, since the purpose for many subs may be escaping from work/family stress and getting a mind "reset"....just enjoying the feeling of "having a purpose".

Handing over your money to someone for a NON-SEXUAL act...EVERY damned service based BUSINESS falls under that category...accountant, attorney, mechanic, house cleaner, carpenter, counselor, therapist..on and on. For those of you who consider limiting it to physical TOUCHING being where the prostitution takes place, then don't go to a family doctor, or proctologist, or chiropractor, or reflexologist, or acupuncturalist, or physical therapist, or dentist, or dental hygenist, or hair/nail salon, or hell, SEAMSTRESS/TAYLOR, because they've probably got to touch you to measure you...maybe even see you in your underwear to get exact fit. They ALL are going to touch you..and YOU ARE PAYING THEM TO DO IT....in the case of doctors & nurses touch you ALL OVER, even your naughty bits that some of you like to show off on camera just to gross us all out.

If a MAN was doing this same thing you'd not call it prostitution...therefore it's obvious that the notion of prostitution you all have linked to D/s is coming from a MISOGYNISTIC VIEWPOINT.

--MM


I am quite curious why there is such an anger over that expression.

The dictionaries say taking money for 'sexual activities', which I think is how many view it.
(For example: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prostitute)


I think the anger might be due to the stigma over the word "prostitute" and the connotations it has. Personally, I don't find anything wrong with prostitution and I think it should be legal. However, I realize that for legal reasons, the distinction has to be clearly made.

I wonder: If prostitution was legal, would there be all this hullabaloo and controversy over the issue of financial domination? That's an open question to anyone on either side of this issue.


quote:


To me the question of whether to call it 'prostitution' or 'a business' is hair splitting. The matter to me is if the people who pay for services do it because they specifically want it that way, or whether they do it out of a need that cannot be met any other way.


I tend to agree with that, although prostitution is a business, albeit an illegal one. I can see why some would split hairs in this instance, since the difference can mean getting arrested versus not getting arrested.

I'm not sure what actually constitutes a "business" in the strictest sense, such as having an actual business license or being a member of the Better Business Bureau. That's one of the things that always throws me about this, since I rarely make any kinds of transactions over the internet anyway - and even then, it's only on trusted sources (usually when paying my monthly bills).

Other than that, I prefer to go to an actual store. The clerks at Wal-Mart will financially dominate me for half price. [;)]




intellisubbear -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/11/2013 3:57:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
quote:

its prostitution cloaked by a mirage


As are very many happenstances in life ...



TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/11/2013 4:44:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: egern


quote:

ORIGINAL: TNDommeK

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.



I was talking to allison Wilder, who has a reasonable way of explaining things.

All dommes are different, the explanation of one - and the way in which it is told - is not like another. After having read it it all, it does give a diverse picture of the field.




Oh yes I knew who you were talking to, but since she and a few others of us do things in a similar fashion, I gave My opinion as well.



TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/11/2013 4:46:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MAINEiacMISTRESS


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
My take on how legitimate is financial domination.

If this is an agreement in a LTR, whether it be a monogamous D/s realtionship or poly, then sure its legit. Whatever floats the boat.

Take it out of that context, and the Dom/Domme have multiple pay clients, there is no emotional connection, its a job based on sex. I think it is called prostitution last time I looked it up.





So by your definition if a service sub comes into my home and cleans it. Would I be engaging in prostitution??

Would a woman who goes out on multiple dates, with multiple men who is not in a committed LTR be guilty of prostitution?? After all couldn't it be said that he "paid" for sex via dinner, movies, ect?

Btw... the legal definition of prostitution:

"Prostitution consists of knowingly engaging in or offering to engage in a sexual act for hire. As used in this section "sexual act" means sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, masturbation of another, anal intercourse or the causing of penetration to any extent and with any object of the genital or anal opening of another, whether or not there is any emission."

So how is financial domination prostitution if the dom/me doesn't engage in a sexual act for the tribute??




I'm glad you posted that definition. A lot of people have no fucking clue what constitutes prostitution. And NO...if a guy or gal wants to pay you for the opportunity to come clean your house it's not a form of prostitution. HOW THE HELL COULD IT BE??? It's more akin to paying for campground priviledges, or a day resort, since the purpose for many subs may be escaping from work/family stress and getting a mind "reset"....just enjoying the feeling of "having a purpose".

Handing over your money to someone for a NON-SEXUAL act...EVERY damned service based BUSINESS falls under that category...accountant, attorney, mechanic, house cleaner, carpenter, counselor, therapist..on and on. For those of you who consider limiting it to physical TOUCHING being where the prostitution takes place, then don't go to a family doctor, or proctologist, or chiropractor, or reflexologist, or acupuncturalist, or physical therapist, or dentist, or dental hygenist, or hair/nail salon, or hell, SEAMSTRESS/TAYLOR, because they've probably got to touch you to measure you...maybe even see you in your underwear to get exact fit. They ALL are going to touch you..and YOU ARE PAYING THEM TO DO IT....in the case of doctors & nurses touch you ALL OVER, even your naughty bits that some of you like to show off on camera just to gross us all out.

If a MAN was doing this same thing you'd not call it prostitution...therefore it's obvious that the notion of prostitution you all have linked to D/s is coming from a MISOGYNISTIC VIEWPOINT.

--MM


this



AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/12/2013 6:45:25 AM)

I know I've gone back and forth over this many times in my head, but I think I can understand why people think of findommes as prostitutes. Sure, some of us aren't getting naked and being all sexy/sexual with subs, but it's still a sexually charged fetish for the subs that enjoy it. From that point of view, I can see how people make that leap between findommes and prostitutes.

The way I see it is that words only have the power you give to them. If you stop letting the people throwing around 'prostitute' like it's a derogatory comment, this thread could go in an entirely different direction.



TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/12/2013 12:10:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder

I know I've gone back and forth over this many times in my head, but I think I can understand why people think of findommes as prostitutes. Sure, some of us aren't getting naked and being all sexy/sexual with subs, but it's still a sexually charged fetish for the subs that enjoy it. From that point of view, I can see how people make that leap between findommes and prostitutes.
As I've pointed out earlier, it's exchanging money for interpersonal services and if the sub isn't getting anything out of it, then they're broken and you're taking advantage of that. It's like me pimping out a sub with low self-esteem. Morally reprehensible.

quote:

The way I see it is that words only have the power you give to them. If you stop letting the people throwing around 'prostitute' like it's a derogatory comment, this thread could go in an entirely different direction.
No. Wittgenstein addressed this point a long time ago. The meaning of words is defined by their usage. They have no intrinsic meaning you can derive logically, their meaning is defined by how a community uses them.

People despise prostitution for the same reason people despise rapists - because they have the potential to cause harm. Women despise prostitutes because they're an easily available temptation which could undo a man's fidelity and men often despise prostitutes because they sell an illusion and because we like to conquer women, not buy them.

Personally, I'd look down on a guy who bought a hooker. He'd be pathetic in my eyes.

I wrote about the issues with ProDomming some time ago - and findomming is pretty much the same thing except with far less of a value proposition: http://www.collarchat.com/m_4013432/mpage_5/key_/tm.htm#4014739



JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/12/2013 12:35:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder
I know I've gone back and forth over this many times in my head, but I think I can understand why people think of findommes as prostitutes. Sure, some of us aren't getting naked and being all sexy/sexual with subs, but it's still a sexually charged fetish for the subs that enjoy it. From that point of view, I can see how people make that leap between findommes and prostitutes.

Exactly.... but upon further reflection that line of thinking breaks down. If we pursue that what we are saying is that exchanging not simply sex, but sexuality, for money is prostitution. OK, so then all female performers are now prostitutes as is any women who's ever worn alluring clothing to work to help seal the deal. That's just not a useful viewpoint. Sexuality is wrapped in and around too much of the human experience. For that reason, I came to decide it makes more sense to have a firm boundary about what is and is not prostitution.



egern -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/12/2013 1:44:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder

I know I've gone back and forth over this many times in my head, but I think I can understand why people think of findommes as prostitutes. Sure, some of us aren't getting naked and being all sexy/sexual with subs, but it's still a sexually charged fetish for the subs that enjoy it. From that point of view, I can see how people make that leap between findommes and prostitutes.

The way I see it is that words only have the power you give to them. If you stop letting the people throwing around 'prostitute' like it's a derogatory comment, this thread could go in an entirely different direction.



The problem might also be that you and others make no distinguishing between people who use the term in a derogatory term, and people who do not. Merely using the word make some people see read, even though it is not meant as an insult. I have not meant to use it in a derogatory term, maybe because I come from a culture where prostitution or sex - working is legal, and many pay taxes and lobby for better working terms.



egern -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/12/2013 1:51:55 PM)

.
quote:

No. Wittgenstein addressed this point a long time ago. The meaning of words is defined by their usage. They have no intrinsic meaning you can derive logically, their meaning is defined by how a community uses them.


True, but people can still use them in different ways.

quote:


People despise prostitution for the same reason people despise rapists - because they have the potential to cause harm.


Whoa - talk for yourself here. I for one do not despise prostitution.

Comparing it to rape is nonsense, first because being raped is not by anyone's choice - not the victim's anyway - but going to a sex worker is certainly a free choice, no one is twisting anyone's arm.

Secondly, rape does not have the potential to cause harm, it does cause harm.

quote:


Women despise prostitutes because they're an easily available temptation which could undo a man's fidelity and men often despise prostitutes because they sell an illusion and because we like to conquer women, not buy them.


Again you cannot talk on anyone's behalf but your own.

quote:


Personally, I'd look down on a guy who bought a hooker. He'd be pathetic in my eyes.


Well, if he gave a damn he certainly would be.





egern -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/12/2013 1:53:49 PM)


Question: isn't prostitution actually legal in a number of US states? It certainly is in a number of countries.



littlewonder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/12/2013 2:24:56 PM)

It's not legal in any states in the U.S. It is legal only at certain brothels in Nevada.



MissAnnabelGrace -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/12/2013 2:30:04 PM)

I've only read the last page of replies, and, probably should read more, but, being a Findom I thought I'd throw my views and experience into the melting pot.

Findom should be a kink, a fantasy, a bit of fun and go alongside a D/s relationship with all the other goodies/kinks/fetishes of the sub thrown in. Ultimately, the fetish should be carried out in an ethical way. Many might say 'Ethics and Findom HAHAHA!' If I feel I am having a genuine negative impact on a subs life, I stop. Unfortunately, the power exchange is intoxicating and I see many Dommes pushing vulnerable people too far. I don't believe Findom should include blackmail because the lines become blurred and the safety precautions that some put in place are put to one side when a Domme gets greedy.

You see, in a BDSM sense, when a Domme is whipping a sub, all the Domme gets out of it is a deviant, sometimes sexual power, but ultimately, the Domme wouldn't gain anything significantly from continuing to whip the sub to death. In Findom however, by continuing with the 'Whip'after the sub wants it to stop, you continue to gain something powerful, and, ultimately valuable, money. It's all about knowing where to draw the line, and, when money is a factor, many people don't have a line. Put into a simple sentence- 'Not many people on earth want to kill you, lots of people on earth want to empty your bank account'. The balance is about having the element of danger, without the Domme ever becoming dangerous.

Ultimately, all my subs have fun. I have 10 years experience in Hypnosis and NLP, and, have spent years studying the psychology behind domination, from the primal, to the kinky. I carry out everything I do in a controlled, responsible manner with safety measures in place.

I often get approached by those looking to be bankrupted, with the sentence 'Please break me, take everything', my reply 'Why would I want to break you? a sick broken donkey can't continue to carry the hay, a healthy happy donkey can'.

As for being anything to do with prostitution, in my case, it's about as far from it as you could get, for effective domination online, 90% of it has to be psychological. Prostitution, in my mind, is a very physical thing.



AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/12/2013 2:33:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TAFKAA

quote:

The way I see it is that words only have the power you give to them. If you stop letting the people throwing around 'prostitute' like it's a derogatory comment, this thread could go in an entirely different direction.
No. Wittgenstein addressed this point a long time ago. The meaning of words is defined by their usage. They have no intrinsic meaning you can derive logically, their meaning is defined by how a community uses them.


Well, I am not Wittgenstein and I stand firm in my belief that words only have the power that you give them. You won't change my opinion on this or anything. Thanks for the input though.


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder
I know I've gone back and forth over this many times in my head, but I think I can understand why people think of findommes as prostitutes. Sure, some of us aren't getting naked and being all sexy/sexual with subs, but it's still a sexually charged fetish for the subs that enjoy it. From that point of view, I can see how people make that leap between findommes and prostitutes.

Exactly.... but upon further reflection that line of thinking breaks down. If we pursue that what we are saying is that exchanging not simply sex, but sexuality, for money is prostitution. OK, so then all female performers are now prostitutes as is any women who's ever worn alluring clothing to work to help seal the deal. That's just not a useful viewpoint. Sexuality is wrapped in and around too much of the human experience. For that reason, I came to decide it makes more sense to have a firm boundary about what is and is not prostitution.



At some point, yes, it does break down (I wasn't delving too deeply). I was just saying that I'm beginning to see how people are making that leap in the first place. I didn't really understand how they got from point A to point B, but I guess that's how.



TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/12/2013 3:26:37 PM)

See I like what MissAnnabel said about the happy donkey. That's exactly how I feel. Why would I break anyone?

And Ergen, I see what you're saying about prostitution. I do not knock it. I actually have a couple of friends that work at the bunny ranch. It's not the type of work I would do, but I nothing wrong with them doing it. I think the reason I get so offended by it is bc it just simply isn't what I do.

Allison you are so right about allowing ppl to give power to words, my hubby feels the same way. Living in Memphis, we got a lot of "off" looks. I'm pretty sure they were calling him everything but a black man. He would always say he doesn't give that word power. ( and they were safe so long as they kept it to themselves) I think it's something ppl who refuse to look at things in a different light enjoy saying bc they were burned or rinsed by the wrong kind of fin domme. So they lump us all together, maybe being spiteful.



Page: <<   < prev  50 51 [52] 53 54   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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