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

Charles6682 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/14/2013 7:54:13 PM)
This thread is still going?The answer to the orginal question is simple,no this isn't D/S but it could be a form of begging,something homeless people are good at too.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/14/2013 7:59:44 PM)
Yes this thread is still going bc it is an educational thread. Something you wouldn't understand. Oh I remember you, butt hurt, lonely, and attempting to diss other's kinks. [8\|]

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/14/2013 8:27:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charles6682 This thread is still going?The answer to the orginal question is simple,no this isn't D/S but it could be a form of begging,something homeless people are good at too. I'm not addressing your opinion on financial domination because frankly, it doesn't matter if you think it's legitimate or not. But seriously, what kind of jerk makes generalizations about homelessness? It's a serious issue and it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Not all homeless people are that stereotypical guy that lives under the bridge and hangs out in front of the local convenience store begging for change. Homelessness doesn't equate to begging. Stereotypes and generalizations of this magnitude only make you look bad, something you probably should have picked up on in your 30 years of life.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/14/2013 8:46:40 PM)
[sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif]

Charles6682 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/14/2013 9:31:59 PM)
Look,I aplogize for my comments.I wasn't trying to pick on others kink and I certainly would never take the issue of homelessness lightly.I said some foolish words that in no way reflects who I really am,which is a kind hearted person.My comments were built out of frustration with past experiences I have had with Fin Dommes.I also don't wish to stereotype anyone.It was my own foolish words and I apologize if I offended anyone.

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/14/2013 10:00:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charles6682 Look,I aplogize for my comments.I wasn't trying to pick on others kink and I certainly would never take the issue of homelessness lightly.I said some foolish words that in no way reflects who I really am,which is a kind hearted person.My comments were built out of frustration with past experiences I have had with Fin Dommes.I also don't wish to stereotype anyone.It was my own foolish words and I apologize if I offended anyone. In my opinion, it speaks volumes to your character that you would come back here and publicly apologize for foolish comments. I've never personally been homeless, but my ex-husband was homeless when we met so I think I sometimes get up on my soapbox a little too quickly. No hard feelings here.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/14/2013 11:20:58 PM)
Wow, apology accepted. I can understand frustrations with fin dommes. Some bad ones ruin a sub's idea of fin dommes.

LadyPact -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/14/2013 11:44:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charles6682 Look,I aplogize for my comments. I would hope so.

Charles6682 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/15/2013 5:05:06 AM)
I am

Shahna -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/15/2013 5:53:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 One comment I would make, RochSub, is that the form of dominance you describe can realistically only be performed by a woman who already has her own income, and can walk away from the additional revenue stream whenever she wants to. Otherwise she becomes a kept woman, and her authority in the relationship lasts only as long as both parties pretend that it exists. That is yet another fetish- that is very real to the subs who participate. The "brats" are in surprisingly high demand.

changingGear -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 12:38:30 PM)
I really don't care if people engage in prostitution, but for me so called financial doms are a specific style of prostitute, nothing more. Let's call a spade a spade if you expect gifts/money for your services you are a prostitute. Some people are fine with this, I am not. The second I see someone requires tribute I hit hide. I don't feel the need to pay for someone's company. I may not find someone quickly, but in time I will. As I said before others don't have such qualms. Some may even feel they have to in order to attract the kind of person they want.

LadyPact -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 12:50:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: changingGear Some people are fine with this, I am not. The second I see someone requires tribute I hit hide. I don't feel the need to pay for someone's company. I may not find someone quickly, but in time I will. As I said before others don't have such qualms. Some may even feel they have to in order to attract the kind of person they want. In My opinion, that is a very responsible, grown up way of handling the situation. Very much the same for any kink that somebody has on their 'must have' list when a person who has it as one of their 'hates' on their interest list runs across their opposite. If I was looking and had on My profile that needle play was a requirement and the person reading it had a needle phobia or hard limit, it would be beneficial to the reader to hide Me and move on. It seems like such a common sense thing.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 12:58:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: changingGear I really don't care if people engage in prostitution, but for me so called financial doms are a specific style of prostitute, nothing more. Let's call a spade a spade if you expect gifts/money for your services you are a prostitute. Some people are fine with this, I am not. The second I see someone requires tribute I hit hide. I don't feel the need to pay for someone's company. I may not find someone quickly, but in time I will. As I said before others don't have such qualms. Some may even feel they have to in order to attract the kind of person they want. Ok, so anyone who works basically, in your words, in a prostitute. Even you. When you work, do you expect to be paid? You are performing a service doing your job. When I do hair at my home, some of the ladies may bring me little happies, or gifts from time to time. Does that make me a prostitute? No. A sub last night who I sessioned with gave me a valentines day gift, along with his tribute for the session. Is this prostitution? Hell no. Think about things first....open your mind. Also I agree with LP, kudos to you for being responsible and simply hiding the person.

MissAnnabelGrace -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 1:05:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: changingGear I really don't care if people engage in prostitution, but for me so called financial doms are a specific style of prostitute, nothing more. Let's call a spade a spade if you expect gifts/money for your services you are a prostitute. Some people are fine with this, I am not. The second I see someone requires tribute I hit hide. I don't feel the need to pay for someone's company. I may not find someone quickly, but in time I will. As I said before others don't have such qualms. Some may even feel they have to in order to attract the kind of person they want. I like your way of handling the situation, hitting hide is good if that's not what you're into. However, I'm getting increasingly concerned with the comparisons to prostitution, because the only comparison I see(unless you're talking findoms who get naked and offer sexual services) is that you get a service in return for money (If it's a good findom), which, would ultimately mean anyone who is employed is a prostitute. I've yacked on far too much about me on this thread, but I've spent 10 years studying the psychology of domination, and consider myself a psychological financial domme, I've worked hard to produce the content I make and gain a good reputation.......Prostitution would be a much easier option, but, one I would never consider!

changingGear -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 1:13:33 PM)
pros·ti·tu·tion /ˌprästəˈt(y)o͞oSHən/ Noun The practice or occupation of engaging in sex with someone for payment. The corrupt use of one's talents for personal or financial gain. Hmm,nope, can't say that when I work I engage in prostitution. Although perhaps you should learn what words mean before you throw out ridiculous comparisons.

MissAnnabelGrace -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 1:34:24 PM)
Actually, I didn't realize a prostitute was someone who used talents in a corrupt way for financial gain. I hold my hands up, learn something new everyday. But being as the subs/slaves take part willingly, I'm not using my talents in a corrupt way, and I'm certainly not selling sex so hmmm, no, can't say I'm engaging in prostitution either. Unless you've visited both a prostitute, and, a findom then you're the one throwing out ridiculous comparisons.

changingGear -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 1:45:05 PM)
That subs/slaves being complicit is irrelevant since johns are very willing to pay for prostitutes. No one is twisting anyone's arm unless they ask for it first ;) I don't see that I need to visit either to make a valid comparison. This is fairly cut and dry. Is it a kink? Sure. Is it inherently morally wrong? Depends on where you stand. Is it a form of prostitution, yep. Of course you don't want to hear that since you would prefer to see your activities in a more noble light.

ClassAct2006 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 1:53:57 PM)
I would certainly advise everyone to be careful of their money generally in life. Don't marry the unemployed uneducated blonde with the big breasts who will leech off you financially for life. Don't taken in the homeless man without a job. Don't keep a non working spouse. Look for parity and similarity, someone who has your work ethic, your view of money, your aims, your educational and earnings and assets level and you are much less likely to be hurt financially if things go wrong. Don't make large gifts to foreign women who need medical treatment or need an air fare bought. By all means buy a woman (or man) dinner but be careful. A lot of people are financially exploitative and even if you get hard thinking you might be exploited it is generally not a great idea. They say that some men pay for sex not for the experience itself but in order that she leaves after. In a sense they pay for her to go away. Money and control are very linked and it's not for nothing 50 shades has a hero who is very very rich and indulgent of his sub. A very attractive dynamic and part of many women's fantasies. They look good in marriage or as live in lover, dress well, give good sex, don't work and in return he pays. It can be interesting how to form a D/s dynamic as female sub is a man has much less than you have, is worse than you are at most things from income, assets to life. Instead mostly one wants to look up to am an who is a bit better, not worse than you are.

Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 2:05:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: changingGear I don't see that I need to visit either to make a valid comparison. This is fairly cut and dry. Is it a kink? Sure. Is it inherently morally wrong? Depends on where you stand. Is it a form of prostitution, yep. I can respect your opinion, but I can't say that I agree with it. I was with you until you got to that last part. You've stated that it IS a form of prostitution. And you're pretty definitive about that. Yet, it definitely ISN'T prostitution in a legal sense. So lets stick with your second definition: "The corrupt use of one's talents for personal or financial gain". If we go with that definition, then we have to define "corrupt". What makes findoms "corrupt"? Who gets to be the "corruptness police"? How do we determine when behavior is corrupt, and when it isn't? Frankly, if I could get people to send me money for doing absolutely nothing, I would probably do it. Would that make me "corrupt"? Or would it make me a smart businessman? [;)] I'm not trying to attack you, because I actually agree with 90% of what you said. But I can't agree with that last part. It's a bit too subjective for my tastes.

absolutchocolat -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 2:16:16 PM)
I think the word "prostitution" is a bit loaded. I favor the term "sex work" or "erotic services" in general, because they are a bit more neutral. To me, financial domination is tied in with sexuality, and in my mind, falls into the category of sex work. As I've stated on other fin-dom/me threads, I see absolutely nothing inherently immoral or corrupt with sex work. It's just supply and demand. If there are folks willing to spend money for erotic services, I don't see why that is anyone's business but the consenting adults involved. What bugs me about threads like these is that once we all seem to come to a consensus, a new idiot posts and says something derogatory about folks on one side of the issue. Oh, well. I guess that's what makes this forum exciting anyway!

Page: << < prev 52 53 [54] 55 56 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02