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

TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/23/2013 3:33:44 PM)
It always amuses me how the various findommes in this thread keep making the claim they're superior to the idiot princesses with the extended middle finger in photos. In marketing terms this is just an attempt to distinguish yourself in the marketplace by demonising your competition. In reality of course, there's no difference. Findomme clients exchange material goods and cash for the nothing they get. And that doesn't change, no matter who the findomme is. I won't even get into the irony of gender imbalance. The nearest male equivalent to a findomme - who lives off the work and sweat of others - is a pimp. Not exactly exalted company.

MasterCyn -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/23/2013 4:33:16 PM)
Yeah I dont get the findomme thing, mostly seems young girls wanting money for a slight flicker of tits an ass or the odd abusive email. If you want to give money to a domme, meet one in person an get a thrill off it. If there is a sub who wants to do it, then fine, I got nothing against it, it just seems there is a lot of findommes that come her just to get some cash an not understand what the whole Dom/sub thing is. There's quite a few on this site.

OsideGirl -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/23/2013 4:44:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCyn Yeah I dont get the findomme thing, mostly seems young girls wanting money for a slight flicker of tits an ass or the odd abusive email. If you want to give money to a domme, meet one in person an get a thrill off it. If there is a sub who wants to do it, then fine, I got nothing against it, it just seems there is a lot of findommes that come her just to get some cash an not understand what the whole Dom/sub thing is. There's quite a few on this site. And there's a whole bunch of male Dominants that use the word "training" as an excuse to get kinky sex and don't understand what the whole Dom/sub thing is. There's quite a few on this site.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/24/2013 3:39:15 AM)
[sm=applause.gif]

kikithequeen -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/24/2013 12:22:39 PM)
Being new to this site and the discussions here, I hope some of you can shed light on what seems to be a huge emotional reaction against findommes. Most of the people who are appalled by it mention a few things: -that findommes are greedy, young, or inexperienced -that the men who tribute them are being taken advantage of The first, I take as a logical fallacy. It's easy to attack a person based on superficial qualities which are usually irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's just the extreme emotional reaction that I don't understand. The second confuses me as well. I'm assuming that being taken advantage of means a man would pay a financial domme and never hear from her again. But if she continues a relationship with him, one whose terms he agrees to, how is that negative? If he wants to give his money away because something about that turns him on, why is that so horrible? And even if his findomme is young or greedy or less experienced, I see no inherent problem with the relationship if she's holding up her end of the relationship.

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/24/2013 12:45:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kikithequeen Being new to this site and the discussions here, I hope some of you can shed light on what seems to be a huge emotional reaction against findommes. Most of the people who are appalled by it mention a few things: -that findommes are greedy, young, or inexperienced -that the men who tribute them are being taken advantage of The first, I take as a logical fallacy. It's easy to attack a person based on superficial qualities which are usually irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's just the extreme emotional reaction that I don't understand. The second confuses me as well. I'm assuming that being taken advantage of means a man would pay a financial domme and never hear from her again. But if she continues a relationship with him, one whose terms he agrees to, how is that negative? If he wants to give his money away because something about that turns him on, why is that so horrible? And even if his findomme is young or greedy or less experienced, I see no inherent problem with the relationship if she's holding up her end of the relationship. Basically, the argument is that it's morally reprehensible and that all findommes are greedy whores. The relationship is invalid to those that are vehemently against financial domination because they won't accept findom as D/s because there is an exchange of money. They feel that the subs tributing dommes are doing so because they are weak and stupid, thus making it seem as though findommes are taking advantage of them.

kikithequeen -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/24/2013 12:54:04 PM)
AllisonWilder, Couldn't you replace "subs tributing dommes" with "subs allowing dommes to poke them with needles" or "subs cleaning the apartments of dommes" and say those people are stupid and being taken advantage of, too? It just seems like a quick reaction with no merit, and I don't understand it. How have your experiences with financial domination been on this site so far? Have you come across anything in particular that makes your experiences more positive?

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/24/2013 2:46:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kikithequeen AllisonWilder, Couldn't you replace "subs tributing dommes" with "subs allowing dommes to poke them with needles" or "subs cleaning the apartments of dommes" and say those people are stupid and being taken advantage of, too? It just seems like a quick reaction with no merit, and I don't understand it. How have your experiences with financial domination been on this site so far? Have you come across anything in particular that makes your experiences more positive? I agree that it's a quick reaction with (almost) no merit. There are some that obviously do take advantage of subs and certain situations. My experiences on this site as a whole have been positive, not just financial domination, but everything. Edit: I should add that my last post was not my personal opinion, just a generalization of the argument against findommes.

MasterCyn -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/24/2013 4:45:18 PM)
Exactly, same shit, different crotch.

OsideGirl -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/24/2013 4:57:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCyn Exactly, same shit, different crotch. Not really, since there's not a 57 page thread talking about guys that convince female subs to provide kinky sex under the guise of training.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/24/2013 7:33:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kikithequeen Being new to this site and the discussions here, I hope some of you can shed light on what seems to be a huge emotional reaction against findommes. Most of the people who are appalled by it mention a few things: -that findommes are greedy, young, or inexperienced -that the men who tribute them are being taken advantage of The first, I take as a logical fallacy. It's easy to attack a person based on superficial qualities which are usually irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's just the extreme emotional reaction that I don't understand. The second confuses me as well. I'm assuming that being taken advantage of means a man would pay a financial domme and never hear from her again. But if she continues a relationship with him, one whose terms he agrees to, how is that negative? If he wants to give his money away because something about that turns him on, why is that so horrible? And even if his findomme is young or greedy or less experienced, I see no inherent problem with the relationship if she's holding up her end of the relationship. This. No matter how many times you attempt to explain to these close minded people, that THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP, they don't care to hear it. The instant they hear that money is involved, then we are all of a sudden greedy whores. Never mind the fact that the word "tribute" isn't mentioned once in my profile. Never mind the fact these subs approach us and offer us money. It's always we are " prostitutes" or "con artists". I just roll my eyes at some people's ignorance. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's a completely different thing to attempt to tell me how I run my life and relationships.

TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/25/2013 12:42:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kikithequeen Being new to this site and the discussions here, I hope some of you can shed light on what seems to be a huge emotional reaction against findommes. Most of the people who are appalled by it mention a few things: -that findommes are greedy, young, or inexperienced No. That misunderstands the nature of the argument. quote: -that the men who tribute them are being taken advantage of Well, yes. They're stupid and weak and engage in an interaction by which they provide money and receive no value in return. quote: The first, I take as a logical fallacy. It's easy to attack a person based on superficial qualities which are usually irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's just the extreme emotional reaction that I don't understand. A logical fallacy is a supporting argument based upon an invalid piece of reasoning. For example, your claim that the essence of the argument is "that findommes are greedy, young or inexperienced" is a straw man. Secondly, it's the so-called "findommes" in this thread who are constantly referring to "greedy, young, inexperienced" findommes - because they're trying to discriminate between themselves and their competition. The younger findommes are significantly more attractive, so the older ones construct rationales - for any male subs who might be watching - to justify their estimation of their own market value. quote: The second confuses me as well. I'm assuming that being taken advantage of means a man would pay a financial domme and never hear from her again. But if she continues a relationship with him, one whose terms he agrees to, how is that negative? If he wants to give his money away because something about that turns him on, why is that so horrible? And even if his findomme is young or greedy or less experienced, I see no inherent problem with the relationship if she's holding up her end of the relationship. There is no relationship, there's a business transaction from which the 'client' derives no value. It requires a damaged mind to engage in a sham of intimacy while paying for it and convincing yourself that you've acquired something of value. I mean, let's call this out. These findommes regard their clients with contempt. They toss nuggets of pseudo-affection toward these meal-tickets of theirs while engaging in parasitical behaviour. Their entire business model is based upon building the illusion that the client has an interpersonal relationship with their "findomme" when they have nothing of the kind. And by wasting time, money and energy on a findomme, a male sub is pursuing a false goal and indulging in a timewasting exercise which will ultimately leave him unsatisfied as he eventually releases he SHOULD have been pursuing opportunities with women who are actually interest in his own uniqueness. Paying a findomme IS like paying a prostitute in the sense that you're pursuing an illusion - a sham of pseudo-affection - instead of growing as a human being. A male sub who pays a findomme does so to his own extreme detriment. That he is too foolish to realise this - and the findomme too dishonest to do otherwise than take his money - is irrelevant. It's like saying "Well, if people want to do cocaine and someone's prepared to supply it, shouldn't they be able to?" The answer is no. Cocaine addiction robs people of dignity, choice and humanity. A findomme addiction does likewise.

TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/25/2013 12:56:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kikithequeen Couldn't you replace "subs tributing dommes" with "subs allowing dommes to poke them with needles" or "subs cleaning the apartments of dommes" and say those people are stupid and being taken advantage of, too? It just seems like a quick reaction with no merit, and I don't understand it. No, you couldn't. For a couple of reasons. The first is that Dom culture is positively focused - for the most part - on a duty of care. It's an exclusively heterosexual male Dom/female sub aspect to the power dynamic which you do NOT see replicated in female dominant/male sub power dynamic. And you can spot that by reading the self-testimony of Dommes on these boards. Domme culture does NOT contain a duty of care. Dommes basically seem to behave like spoilt princesses who regard their subs as menial workhorses whose only purpose is to satisfy their whims. I have never on these boards seen a Domme express a duty of care or a concern for the health and well-being of their sub. This is one of the reasons why I regard Dommes as amusing pretenders to the mantle of dominance. There's a lot of shouting about how they're in charge, but nary a whisper of their responsibility for the health, wellbeing and ongoing growth of their sub. Findommes take this self-obsession to its logical extreme. In this scenario, the sub is a pay piggy whose only value is as an easily exploitable object of contempt for which the findomme feels no affection. Don't believe me? Then watch how they talk about their "subs" or "slaves". The second is that Dom culture sees Doms who exploit as weak. There's an inherent culture of ethics which acknowledges the possibility of abuse, but regards with contempt those who engage in it. We are constantly seeing tales told - in the community - of Doms who cross the line and behave in unethical ways. We do NOT see the opposite because male subs are not conceived of as possible victims of unethical Dommes. The reason for this is as old as the hills and it's this. Only men have agency. Women are helpless victims, men are victims of their own mistakes. Consequently if a male sub is abused by a Domme, the automatic assumption is that he deserved it. So the community - such as it exists - responds to unethical behaviour by Doms.... but Dommes have no such social checks and balances and no community to which they must answer UNLESS their sub is a woman. Most people simply do not think. Those of us who do are alternately amused by - or despair at - the lack of real thought when it comes to the important issues which should be addressed by the kink community. People are far too focused on the floggers, needles and magic wands; and give little thought to what it is they're actually doing and the very real consequences of their actions.

littlewonder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/25/2013 1:01:58 AM)
quote: It's like saying "Well, if people want to do cocaine and someone's prepared to supply it, shouldn't they be able to?" The answer is no. Cocaine addiction robs people of dignity, choice and humanity. A findomme addiction does likewise. And my answer to that question would be yes. It's their life, not mine. What do I care what they do with their life. If they want to rob themselves of dignity, so what? It's not hurting me in any way. So what if they choose to give their choice and humanity away? That was their choice to do so, not mine. I am not their mommy. So what if the person supplying is giving it to them? The person made their choice to accept it. They could just as easily say "no". I think to say "no" means you are butting into their business and also treating them like a child or a helpless creature who needs saving. Sorry but I'm not in the rescue business. Are you? If you are not, why do you care what they do with their lives? How are they harming you specifically? Is one of those helpless creatures your slave? Your mom? Your brother? Your dad? If not.....who cares what they do. I just don't understand why you care so much what total strangers do.

TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/25/2013 1:20:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder quote: It's like saying "Well, if people want to do cocaine and someone's prepared to supply it, shouldn't they be able to?" The answer is no. Cocaine addiction robs people of dignity, choice and humanity. A findomme addiction does likewise. And my answer to that question would be yes. It's their life, not mine. What do I care what they do with their life. If they want to rob themselves of dignity, so what? It's not hurting me in any way. So what if they choose to give their choice and humanity away? That was their choice to do so, not mine. I am not their mommy. So what if the person supplying is giving it to them? The person made their choice to accept it. They could just as easily say "no". And that, I'm afraid is a typically American response. It's why your society is right up there with Hindu society on the social justice scale (IE: You have none). It completely tosses out any notion of community or the idea that people can make poor decisions for many reasons. They say it takes a village to raise a child, but in America, that village is full of people saying "fuck that, I don't care about your worthless sprogs". It says that concern for our fellow man is a worthless, useless emotion. Which is pretty much why Republicans get so much mileage from attacking single mothers, the unemployed and immigrants. It taps into that "I'm alright Jack, keep your hands off my stash" attitude which is the very soul of middle America.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/25/2013 3:08:19 AM)
Wow! So does "your" idea and opinions strictly go for where you're from or are you forcing them on everyone, everywhere? This is a serious question, I would like you to answer.

LadyPact -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/25/2013 3:32:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TAFKAA No, you couldn't. For a couple of reasons. The first is that Dom culture is positively focused - for the most part - on a duty of care. It's an exclusively heterosexual male Dom/female sub aspect to the power dynamic which you do NOT see replicated in female dominant/male sub power dynamic. And you can spot that by reading the self-testimony of Dommes on these boards. Would you like to show Me one of My personal quotes on that? quote: Domme culture does NOT contain a duty of care. Dommes basically seem to behave like spoilt princesses who regard their subs as menial workhorses whose only purpose is to satisfy their whims. I have never on these boards seen a Domme express a duty of care or a concern for the health and well-being of their sub. This is one of the reasons why I regard Dommes as amusing pretenders to the mantle of dominance. There's a lot of shouting about how they're in charge, but nary a whisper of their responsibility for the health, wellbeing and ongoing growth of their sub. How many links would you like on that? quote: Findommes take this self-obsession to its logical extreme. In this scenario, the sub is a pay piggy whose only value is as an easily exploitable object of contempt for which the findomme feels no affection. Don't believe me? Then watch how they talk about their "subs" or "slaves". The second is that Dom culture sees Doms who exploit as weak. There's an inherent culture of ethics which acknowledges the possibility of abuse, but regards with contempt those who engage in it. We are constantly seeing tales told - in the community - of Doms who cross the line and behave in unethical ways. We do NOT see the opposite because male subs are not conceived of as possible victims of unethical Dommes. You don't suppose that maybe some of us do happen to be ethical? quote: The reason for this is as old as the hills and it's this. Only men have agency. Women are helpless victims, men are victims of their own mistakes. Consequently if a male sub is abused by a Domme, the automatic assumption is that he deserved it. Would your position be that clip is abused? Don't fall back on the easy misinterpretation that I'm a sadist and he's a masochist. I'm saying show Me a sign of actual abuse. quote: So the community - such as it exists - responds to unethical behaviour by Doms.... but Dommes have no such social checks and balances and no community to which they must answer UNLESS their sub is a woman. Baloney. Unless I'm mistaken, you don't actually participate in the real life community, so you have no clue. Would you be suggesting that female Dominants are never barred from kink groups or BDSM clubs? If so, I can confidently say that you are incorrect. quote: Most people simply do not think. Those of us who do are alternately amused by - or despair at - the lack of real thought when it comes to the important issues which should be addressed by the kink community. People are far too focused on the floggers, needles and magic wands; and give little thought to what it is they're actually doing and the very real consequences of their actions. If you can come up with one "important issue" that you honestly think I haven't given any real thought to when it comes to a member of My household, I'll be happy to hear you out.

MasterCyn -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/25/2013 4:36:36 AM)
Well I suppose it falls to the sub, if they're dumb enough to fall for a fake findomme, they can fall for a "training master" to. A thread could just as easily be started on the subject...

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/25/2013 5:33:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCyn Well I suppose it falls to the sub, if they're dumb enough to fall for a fake findomme, they can fall for a "training master" to. A thread could just as easily be started on the subject... Who determines if the fin domme is fake? You? The sub? Who? What constitutes her being fake, in your opinion?

TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (2/26/2013 12:20:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Would you like to show Me one of My personal quotes on that? That's the entire point. I doubt you could find one on this board. It's simply not a focus or consideration. quote: quote: Domme culture does NOT contain a duty of care. Dommes basically seem to behave like spoilt princesses who regard their subs as menial workhorses whose only purpose is to satisfy their whims. I have never on these boards seen a Domme express a duty of care or a concern for the health and well-being of their sub. This is one of the reasons why I regard Dommes as amusing pretenders to the mantle of dominance. There's a lot of shouting about how they're in charge, but nary a whisper of their responsibility for the health, wellbeing and ongoing growth of their sub. How many links would you like on that? Links to what? Dommes on CollarMe talking about their duty of care or their responsibility toward their male sub? See if you can find half a dozen. I'd be surprised if you could. quote: You don't suppose that maybe some of us do happen to be ethical? I didn't discuss your ethics - I discussed your focus. If you examine the conversations of Dommes on this board, actual acceptance of and consideration of their responsibility toward their male subs is so sparse as to be non-existent. quote: quote: The reason for this is as old as the hills and it's this. Only men have agency. Women are helpless victims, men are victims of their own mistakes. Consequently if a male sub is abused by a Domme, the automatic assumption is that he deserved it. Would your position be that clip is abused? Don't fall back on the easy misinterpretation that I'm a sadist and he's a masochist. I'm saying show Me a sign of actual abuse. I don't have any information on that, so I couldn't possibly make a judgement - however the real question is, do you think it's possible for you to abuse him? All further consideration hinges upon this point. When abuse is discussed in this place, it is almost exclusively male - and almost exclusively heterosexual male at that. Dommes who abuse their male subs never appear to enter the discussion. Now why do you think that is? quote: quote: So the community - such as it exists - responds to unethical behaviour by Doms.... but Dommes have no such social checks and balances and no community to which they must answer UNLESS their sub is a woman. Baloney. Unless I'm mistaken, you don't actually participate in the real life community, so you have no clue. Would you be suggesting that female Dominants are never barred from kink groups or BDSM clubs? If so, I can confidently say that you are incorrect. That's a fair point and you could argue I don't have sufficient direct exposure to the community to make that judgement. Except.... the first point is that both here and on Fetlife, abuse is an exclusively male domain. Stories aplenty of dishonorable Doms... nary a whisper about dishonourable Dommes. Are we to believe that only men have the capacity to abuse their subs? Second is that it's not a question of whether female Dominants are NEVER barred, but if they're barred in equal numbers to men. Unless you'd like to contend that men and women abuse at different rates, at which point we're back to agency being a predominantly male capability. quote: quote: Most people simply do not think. Those of us who do are alternately amused by - or despair at - the lack of real thought when it comes to the important issues which should be addressed by the kink community. People are far too focused on the floggers, needles and magic wands; and give little thought to what it is they're actually doing and the very real consequences of their actions. If you can come up with one "important issue" that you honestly think I haven't given any real thought to when it comes to a member of My household, I'll be happy to hear you out. Thinking about ourselves is easy. All it requires is self-interest. Wider considerations require a wider view. Most people don't possess that. Listening to them spout bullshit which doesn't even begin to consider the implications of what they're saying is both wearying and worrying. It suggests a community with its head firmly in the fucking sand.

Page: << < prev 55 56 [57] 58 59 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02