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

MissAnnabelGrace -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 2:40:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: changingGear 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. I am ultimately aware that I'm not a prostitute, I don't see what I do as a 'Findomme' in a noble light, more a deviant light. I guess we just have differing definitions of what constitutes as prostitution and what constitutes as corrupt. What I find interesting about this whole debate is if I turned up at a strangers door dressed in latex, and continued to give him a night of BDSM filled debauchery, you wouldn't class it as prostitution, yet, if I sit at home in a big woolly jumper and slippers using my intellect to take money from slaves, it's prostitution. Rather bizarre when you think about it? But, as I've already said today, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

egern -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 2:50:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw quote: ORIGINAL: egern What is a sticky, please? Sticky - A post that stays at the top of the board. THanks

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 5:14:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: changingGear 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. The ridiculous comparison was based on your ridiculous post. I'm glad however you can see that, but not so shocked that you couldn't tell it was pertaining to you. Now on to some actual decent convo...I think Roch said it best. What is irruption? Who defines that? My idea of corrupt would be someone who is strong arming, forcing, or manipulating in order to gain. I know that is certainly not what goes on in my world of kink. So prostitute? NOPE. I really liked what MAG said about the "would it be easier" bit. Of course it would! Would I go that route? Nope.

chrisinvegas77 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 5:51:04 PM)
I've read back a few pages of this thread and the elephant in the room that everyone seems to be ignoring is the HUGE role that gender and sexual orientation plays in financial domination. Domination for pay is an overwhelmingly straight female phenomenon. Dominant straight men do not generally do it. Gay men do not generally do it. Lesbian women do not generally do it. However, dominant straight women almost ALWAYS do it. The vast majority, I'd say probably 80-90%, of dominant straight women on CollarMe engage in financial domination. And not only do they engage in it, they absolutely insist on it. It's never just one thing on a list of various fetishes, it's always an absolute hard limit/deal-breaker/no negotiation requirement. This can't just be a statistical coincidence. Ultimately financial "domination" is simply another manifestation of the traditional straight gender roles where a man pays a woman for pleasure, and a woman endures pleasuring a man in the way HE wants, in exchange for money. It may not be classic prostitution, but it evolved from exactly the same place. For the women who do it, it's often more about paying their bills than satisfying their own real desires. After all, if it really was a legitimate fetish, wouldn't it be more equally represented amongst the genders and orientations?

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 6:08:04 PM)
Straight submissive females are frequently financial subs. Where do they fit into all of your made-up statistics?

PeonForHer -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 6:21:03 PM)
FR This matter of financial domination used to make me both sad and angry. I think, looking back on it, that was because I assumed that all men were like me: unable to mix business transactions and any kind of relationship (even a one-off sexual one). The former would kill the latter. A sizeable chunk of my soul would go down the toilet if I were to take the financial domme path. Nothing I can do about that even if I wanted to. The truth is, of course, that a lot of men just aren't put together like me and I can't see any reason why they should be, either. I've just come to the conclusion that the world of financial dommes, and their clients, is just not my world, that's all.

Shahna -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 6:47:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chrisinvegas77 I've read back a few pages of this thread and the elephant in the room that everyone seems to be ignoring is the HUGE role that gender and sexual orientation plays in financial domination. Domination for pay is an overwhelmingly straight female phenomenon. Dominant straight men do not generally do it. Gay men do not generally do it. Lesbian women do not generally do it. However, dominant straight women almost ALWAYS do it. The vast majority, I'd say probably 80-90%, of dominant straight women on CollarMe engage in financial domination. And not only do they engage in it, they absolutely insist on it. It's never just one thing on a list of various fetishes, it's always an absolute hard limit/deal-breaker/no negotiation requirement. This can't just be a statistical coincidence. Ultimately financial "domination" is simply another manifestation of the traditional straight gender roles where a man pays a woman for pleasure, and a woman endures pleasuring a man in the way HE wants, in exchange for money. It may not be classic prostitution, but it evolved from exactly the same place. For the women who do it, it's often more about paying their bills than satisfying their own real desires. After all, if it really was a legitimate fetish, wouldn't it be more equally represented amongst the genders and orientations? And how many women have you met with foot fetishes? Some fetishes are more common in one gender/orientation. Of course there are PLENTY that just want their bills paid- there are also women who want: Proof of a slaves dedication/intention Compensation for their time (time is money) The intense power exchange that comes with financial Complete control over the slaves life Some want it all :D

Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 7:04:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chrisinvegas77 the elephant in the room that everyone seems to be ignoring is the HUGE role that gender and sexual orientation plays in financial domination......Domination for pay is an overwhelmingly straight female phenomenon......This can't just be a statistical coincidence. Ultimately financial "domination" is simply another manifestation of the traditional straight gender roles where a man pays a woman for pleasure, and a woman endures pleasuring a man in the way HE wants, in exchange for money. After all, if it really was a legitimate fetish, wouldn't it be more equally represented amongst the genders and orientations? Okay. I can agree with this logic much more than I agree with the straight "Findoms are prostitutes" logic. It does seem to be a primarily female phenomenon, and it is very similar to traditional male/female roles. But the fact that it's similar to what happens in vanilla life, is what makes it even more odd that it garners so much angst here in this forum. Men have been paying for women (in one way or another) since the dawn of time. So why do we act like it's such a crime when findoms ask for money? I still find that baffling. Excellent points. Great first post. Hopefully, you'll come back and share your thoughts on other topics. quote: After all, if it really was a legitimate fetish, wouldn't it be more equally represented amongst the genders and orientations? I disagree with this. I can think of plenty of fetishes that seem to be more prevalent among one gender or another. For example, I see lots of men begging to be feminized, but I don't see many women begging to be masculinized. Similarly, I see lots of men desiring to be cuckolded, but I don't see women asking for the same. And many men are into small penis humiliation, but I can't think of an analogous behavior by women. I could go on and on. There are plenty of other examples.

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 7:40:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR This matter of financial domination used to make me both sad and angry. I think, looking back on it, that was because I assumed that all men were like me: unable to mix business transactions and any kind of relationship (even a one-off sexual one). The former would kill the latter. A sizeable chunk of my soul would go down the toilet if I were to take the financial domme path. Nothing I can do about that even if I wanted to. The truth is, of course, that a lot of men just aren't put together like me and I can't see any reason why they should be, either. I've just come to the conclusion that the world of financial dommes, and their clients, is just not my world, that's all. And you've come to a great conclusion. Financial domination is definitely not for everyone, nor should it be.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/16/2013 9:38:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: absolutchocolat 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! I agree with this...to a point. Typically, the activities of a pro domme and a findomme basically get the "client" off. Even if there is no "happy ending" per se, it causes arousal. The basic pro domme response is that you don't have sex with the client. But the client still gets his sexual jollies, so even though there is no penetration or the pro doesn't have any contact with the genitals or anus, the guy is there for his sexual satisfaction (yes, I realize no always, but for the most part). It IS a form of sex work that leans very close to prostitution for this reason. quote: ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder Straight submissive females are frequently financial subs. Where do they fit into all of your made-up statistics? No they aren't frequently financial subs. There is a difference between two people being in a relationship and the s-type letting the d-type control the funds. To imply there are frequently straight submissive women who hand over their money to a male dominant and get nothing in return is simply wrong. Now obviously, there are findommes and there are findommes. Someone like MAG and TNDK are certainly more ethical than the 18-30 year old females who are really doing it for a quick buck and a way to have others pay their bills. Also, when any domme talks about a "tribute" to perform a service, everyone knows that they are involved in a pay for play type of situation with that s-type. "Tribute" seems to always come across as denying that you are in the sex worker field to me.

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/17/2013 4:22:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder Straight submissive females are frequently financial subs. Where do they fit into all of your made-up statistics? No they aren't frequently financial subs. There is a difference between two people being in a relationship and the s-type letting the d-type control the funds. To imply there are frequently straight submissive women who hand over their money to a male dominant and get nothing in return is simply wrong. I was not implying that straight submissive women hand over their money to a male dominant and I wasn't talking about D/s relationships in which the dominant person is the one that controls the money. My post meant exactly what it said. There are straight female submissives that are financial subs. I've been approached by several and I know of many findommes that have female finsubs. quote: Now obviously, there are findommes and there are findommes. Someone like MAG and TNDK are certainly more ethical than the 18-30 year old females who are really doing it for a quick buck and a way to have others pay their bills. Also, when any domme talks about a "tribute" to perform a service, everyone knows that they are involved in a pay for play type of situation with that s-type. "Tribute" seems to always come across as denying that you are in the sex worker field to me. As far as lumping together 18-30 year olds, that's a pretty broad category. I fall into this category, I'm 27, but that doesn't make me any less ethical and it certainly doesn't make me here just for a quick buck. Hell, reading my profile will show that I'm not taking anything other than a little time and conversation from anyone at this time.

Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/17/2013 6:01:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Typically, the activities of a pro domme and a findomme basically get the "client" off. Even if there is no "happy ending" per se, it causes arousal. The basic pro domme response is that you don't have sex with the client. But the client still gets his sexual jollies, so even though there is no penetration or the pro doesn't have any contact with the genitals or anus, the guy is there for his sexual satisfaction (yes, I realize no always, but for the most part). It IS a form of sex work that leans very close to prostitution for this reason. I agree with your opinion for the most part. It acknowledges that there is no penetration, and that the findom has no physical contact with the "client". It's that key point that distinguishes findom from prostitution (IMHO). Does the client "get off"? Possibly. But he does so through his own masturbation, not through a sex act that's performed on him by the findom. That's why I have always argued that financial domination is more analogous to phone sex than it is to prostitution. Just as in phone sex, there is no physical contact, and the 2 individuals aren't even in the same room. In fact, they can be thousands of miles apart. Yet money is exchanged, and the client will typically "get off" through his own masturbation. Some may view that as a small distinction between findom and prostitution. But I view it as a pretty major distinction. For one, it's the primary reason why the police can arrest prostitures, but they can't bring charges against findoms. You simply can't arrest someone for masturbating (unless they do it in public). That's why I can't let it slide when people come on here and just state definitively that findoms are prostitutes. I think it's an inaccurate assessment, and what I'm looking for is accuracy. I don't have any stake in this game. I'm not trying to defend financial Dommes. But I do want people to truly understand what they do, and then judge them accordingly. IMO, saying that findoms are "sex workers", as you have done, is quite accurate. But when others say that they're "prostitutes", I think it's inaccurate (although as I just stated, I would agree that they're sex workers). And I really take exception when some say that they're "whores", "scum", "bloodsucking bitches" etc., because that's just subjective name calling. But as I said, I can agree with your assessment (although we may differ in our views of how close it "leans" to prostitution).

TheRidingMaster -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/17/2013 6:52:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK I don't think there is anything wrong with being dependent, as long as the owner has good intentions. Clearly, the one you were involved with did not. Sorry to hear about that but glad you learned something. I think life teaches us in ways like that. And, just to add...I think a mermaid fetish might be cool. I do know a young woman who has a mermaid fetish. It is cool. Talk about specialty niches! More to the point, I have found this thread interesting, despite the topic being centered around a subject that doesn't touch upon me personally. It has been conducted, by and large, in a responsible and mature manner and seems to be an outstanding example of responsible discourse amongst a number of people. For the record I will weigh in on the side that financial domination is a legitimate form of D/s.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/17/2013 1:28:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chrisinvegas77 I've read back a few pages of this thread and the elephant in the room that everyone seems to be ignoring is the HUGE role that gender and sexual orientation plays in financial domination. Domination for pay is an overwhelmingly straight female phenomenon. Dominant straight men do not generally do it. Gay men do not generally do it. Lesbian women do not generally do it. However, dominant straight women almost ALWAYS do it. The vast majority, I'd say probably 80-90%, of dominant straight women on CollarMe engage in financial domination. And not only do they engage in it, they absolutely insist on it. It's never just one thing on a list of various fetishes, it's always an absolute hard limit/deal-breaker/no negotiation requirement. This can't just be a statistical coincidence. Ultimately financial "domination" is simply another manifestation of the traditional straight gender roles where a man pays a woman for pleasure, and a woman endures pleasuring a man in the way HE wants, in exchange for money. It may not be classic prostitution, but it evolved from exactly the same place. For the women who do it, it's often more about paying their bills than satisfying their own real desires. After all, if it really was a legitimate fetish, wouldn't it be more equally represented amongst the genders and orientations? I wanted to weigh in on this. You said "a woman endures pleasuring a man in the way HE wants, in exchange or money"...this would be inaccurate in my case. It clearly states on my profile that I do not care if you have paid me. That I do what I lie and what pleasures Me. Now I say this upfront so there are no misconceptions. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. But I was under the impression that a domme does what she likes. I could have been doing it wrong all these years. [:D] TheRidingMaster, I love this thread. Because of it there have been several people who have seen us in a different light than what they though before. Which to me is a wonderful start! Now I'm all curious about what a mermaid fetish entails....off to google. :) Peon, I know you stated you aren't into fin domes, but I was curios to know if you have ever been to a pro domme. Roch, I kinda like the term blood sucking bitch! [8D]

PeonForHer -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/17/2013 2:39:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK Peon, I know you stated you aren't into fin domes, but I was curios to know if you have ever been to a pro domme. No, the idea doesn't appeal at all, for many reasons. It couldn't work for me. You may or may not think that this relates (up to you), but I did once visit a prostitute, a long time ago, in Amsterdam. It was dismal. I felt so uncomfortable and awkward that I 'lost interest' within minutes. We ended up comparing life stories. She was a good woman - I liked her.

Baroana -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/17/2013 2:42:21 PM)
I would give Peon a discount.

MissToYouRedux -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/17/2013 2:44:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Baroana I would give Peon a discount. Oh heck, there's a long line of dominants here who would be happy to waive a fee altogether. [8D]

PeonForHer -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/17/2013 3:15:57 PM)
Baroana, MissToYouRedux, Thank you. You make me blush! But the sod of it is I couldn't do 'discounts' or 'freebies' either. I'm aware that people need to earn their living, so I'd feel like I'm freeloading. And I'm too proud, as well as too insecure, to accept a woman 'doing me a favour out of kindness' either. I just can't do any of that stuff.

MissToYouRedux -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/17/2013 3:18:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer And I'm too proud, as well as too insecure, to accept a woman 'doing me a favour out of kindness' either. While I get that, I don't think the favor would be out of "kindness". lol

Baroana -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/17/2013 3:20:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Baroana, MissToYouRedux, Thank you. You make me blush! But the sod of it is I couldn't do 'discounts' or 'freebies' either. I'm aware that people need to earn their living, so I'd feel like I'm freeloading. And I'm too proud, as well as too insecure, to accept a woman 'doing me a favour out of kindness' either. I just can't do any of that stuff. Full price it is then.

Page: << < prev 53 54 [55] 56 57 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125