|
TAFKAA -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (3/1/2013 3:43:34 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
quote:
ORIGINAL: TAFKAA
Only if it's in "Ask a Mistress".... the whiff of desperation which infests that board is unappealing.
So, your position is that you would like to skip every thread that has ever shown My concern regarding clip's multiple deployments, every word that I have ever said about being as risk aware as possible while playing with him, our concerns regarding our poly home, and all of the rest. No, it's merely something I never see and since I don't read that board, that would explain why.
quote:
Nice attempt at the dig regarding desperation. Have I ever come across to you with the thought of being desperate? Please remember that you are talking to Me and not random things that you may have seen from others.
I had to laugh there. That was me being overly impressed with my own cleverness. The statement about desperation was deliberately vague and ambiguous to allow interpretation by the reader. You chose to interpret it as a statement about you and other Dommes - when the genesis of the thought actually derives from the legendary obsequiousness of the male submissive ("Please Mistress, beat me with a hose pipe while I dip my penis in lard and set fire to my genitals with a cigarette lighter")
quote:
quote:
That's the same response as the paragraph above - even if I give you that, it doesn't give the rest of them a free pass.
Who's the rest of them? I don't throw you in the same category as various stuff that I find distasteful. (Stuff like males who label themselves D just to get their dick wet.) How about you show Me the courtesy of doing the same?
This is backward. You're using a response about your own behaviour and implying it goes the same for all other Dommes - I'm saying your own responses don't imply they behave similarly. Sheesh woman, pay attention, I'm saying there's no evidence you're typical in this regard.
quote:
Don't be so sure. Did you happen to read the thread about the Domme who wanted to 'punish' the sub for orgasming without permission by making him wear a chastity device during his bar exam? How about the chick who was 'tranny chasing' just in the past week? If you honestly miss this kind of stuff, I'd be curious about your selective reading habits. No. I tend to read what has the potential to be interesting. So you could argue there's a self-selection criteria operating which sees me ignore femdom threads but it doesn't change the fact that I constantly see femdoms stressing their right to agency without speaking a word which notes their duty of care.
quote:
No, when Ms Strap-On comes to the boards to create repeated threads to draw attention to herself and her business, I'm just as against that as you are. (I'mactually the person who reported that.) However, when somebody like K comes along and posts a response to a thread topic as the one on "Jealousy and Acceptance" or something else on the board, what is the issue with that? No issue provided their profile doesn't self-identify as pay for play. I've pointed out multiple times that if they were genuine they should have absolutely no problem with using a non-commercial profile on the boards but they're too dishonest to acknowledge the fact that they don't want to do that because the boards are a venue for their advertising.
It's pretty simple - they have an option to engage on a fair and equitable level like everyone else but they run screaming from the prospect because they're fundamentally dishonest and lack integrity. If they were only here to participate in the community they would have NO trouble using a non-commercial profile in which they didn't identify as findome or prodomme but their unwillingness to do so is damning. What exactly is hard to understand about this? It seems pretty blatantly fucking obvious that if they had no intention to exploit the boards for commercial gain they'd be willing to separate their commercial/professional and personal interactions. Their refusal to do so speaks volumes.
quote:
quote:
You're evading the question. The question is whether you believe that - by definition - you're capable of making decisions which can be abusive.
Everybody is capable of such things. What prevents us from doing it is morals and ethics. Like it or not, you're in the same position. People often confuse the difference between can and will.
No, dommes seem to operate on the idea that whatever they want goes because they have a constant need to demonstrate they're in charge. And likewise, the notion that only women can be victims plays into the dangerous idea that a domme is permitted to do anything she likes to her sub because he's a man. It's misandry masquerading as power exchange.
The notion that a Dom has a duty of care to his sub is entrenched in culture of the kink community. I see no indication whatsoever that dommes believe likewise. There seems to be a lot of shouting and self-indulgence.
quote:
quote:
And behaviour. We have findommes all over this board - how long do you think an open pimp would last here, hmm?
From My observations, there are actually more males who share their partners for financial gain and non than females. That includes money, jollies from voyeurism, and other stuff along those lines. To answer your question directly, a few of whom have been here for quite some time.
You've gotta be kidding me - what kind of woman would have such low self-esteem and lack of self-respect? Mind, you - standards I guess.
Regardless, I've never seen a pimp openly declaring himself, nor do we see threads entitled "Is pimping a legitimate form of D/s?".
quote:
quote:
Absolutely, 100% wrong and this is really worrying in someone who should know better.
Baloney. Who gets to decide if cutting scenes are wrong? Are we going to decide that twenty needles are ok but more than that is abuse? Do we toss consent/non consent out the window? How about obedience based vrs emotionally based?
What, you think the sub floating in subspace should be deciding this? You're ignoring the reality that - like it or not - those judgements are already being performed. In a very real sense, your society decides - your peer-driven society. And what I'm pointing out - which you're conveniently skipping - is that it should be a society of kink-aware professionals because they're going to grant you more latitude than your easily-horrified vanilla peers.
So the answer is: The kink community itself. The kink community needs to learn and demonstrate responsibility before a kink-gone-wrong case makes its way to the circuit court or higher and we end up with a legal precedent which makes life very fucking difficult.
quote:
quote:
Civilised societies protect the weak or those whose ability to negotiate is compromised in some way. We protect children, we protect those too intoxicated to give consent and we protect the mentally ill. In all cases, what we're doing is protecting those without power from those who possess it. It's possible to see all checks and balances with regard to such things as a way of guarding against the abuse of power in interpersonal interactions.
I would say we protect those without competency. In all of the above, you state reasons who have limited ability to protect themselves. People who do not know any better or do not have the capacity to understand the long term consequences. You can't pin that on s-types with no substantial evidence. Given that subs enter into a power dynamic which immediately impacts their choice - both that dynamic and the lead-up to it have the potential to erode that choice to the point where it becomes moot. And given the extensive dysfunction you see in this community it should be clear there are many subs within it whose "competency" - to use your term - is clearly compromised.
Added to that is the realisation that self-determination is influenced by a host of factors and it is NOT sacrosanct in our society. In fact, I question the very notion of free will because there's a half-decent change it's pretty much an illusion. Consequently, social feedback is the most appropriate mechanism to ensure checks and balances. There's far too much "well this is our business" kind of bullshit - your relationship and your sexual predilections are your own business but when you take a blade to your sub, you've now extended what you're doing into the area of risk and your society has an absolute right to know that your risk-taking is done with both competency and good intentions on your part.
quote:
quote:
Now what happens when you extend this to a power-exchange situation? The potential for abuse is enormous and the ONLY people who can determine what is abusive is a community of peers. And I'll state right here and now that unless the kink community is prepared to step up to its responsibilities in this respect, that eventually our societies will do it for us - and you can bet dollars to donuts they won't be as understanding or as permissive as we would.
That's exactly how it is now. I'm a sadist. I'm very well aware of what laws it could be considered that I violate in My state when I play. It's My personal opinion that everybody should be aware of the laws that pertain to their activities.
You're forgetting that laws are a consequence of many things including social mores which have the potential to be disturbed by some kink activities. And laws alone are insufficient because all it takes is legal precedent which impacts your play and you're fucked anyway.
quote:
quote:
It's not just the notion of consent - although that's part of it - but the notion of influence. Human psychology is incredibly amenable to manipulation. If you're adept, the very notion of consent is almost rendered meaningless. And it should be obvious that I'm not talking about the relative levels of harshness in your dynamic versus another. That is a neat bit of avoidance on your part. Ultimately the interaction is unique and tailored to the individuals - not only would swapping a sub possibly seem abusive it may actually BE abusive simply because the resulting interaction actually does harm.
I made this very point, Myself. What is abusive to one person might be exactly the thing that the other person craves. Which one gets to decide? Shall we all relegate ourselves to bunny floggers and silk scarves now? No, you allow social feedback to provide you with a constant sense of the appropriateness or level of danger in what you're doing. Given you're not adverse to public play, it seems odd for you to be adverse to community scrutiny of your risk-based behaviour.
quote:
quote:
A moot point. Abused women voluntarily stay with their abusers too. Google "Love and Stockholm Syndrome" Yes, they do. However, it is ridiculous to imply that everyone in a consensual situation would come close to that criteria. How do you explain casual play situations that are at the same level of S&M who have no dynamic in place? They are the folks who engage in the same activities, even those one time pay for play people, as those in dynamics. It's what they want to do. They specifically seek it out. You're misunderstanding the point. It's about abuse that's enabled by emotional attachment and a subs inability to separate themselves from that abuse. Casual play situations don't fall into that category as it seems pretty clear the sub wouldn't be coming back.
quote:
We're going to be at an impasse here. According to your frame of mind, you are going with the 'what if/there must be' something wrong with people who want to do various things. If that's what you think then you haven't paid attention at all. I'm arguing that dominants have responsibility and idiot women-children who think that sucking money out of men is a dominant kink-based practice instead of a parasitical exploitation of the weak are simply avoiding looking at themselves in the mirror.
quote:
I'm more of the mind that these can be activities that people want to engage in, with no negative repercussions. If somebody spends thirty dollars engaging in the entertainment/satisfaction of dealing with a findomme, I don't see it as any different as the guy who decides he wants to spend the same amount on a movie. What if he takes the same thirty dollars and goes to the strip club? Do you really think the guy believes the woman is still going to pay attention to him when the money runs out? I think spending it at a strip club is just as stupid as spending it on a findomme. Strippers also exploit lonely men. Are you arguing that lonely men who pay strippers for attention are merely indulging in something? Or is it perhaps they're trying to fulfill a need in an ultimately unsatisfying fashion and that doing so ultimately prevents them from doing the necessary work on themselves to build a life with a great woman in it?
I could probably find half a dozen subs on here who'd be happy to be pimped out. I'm not interested because I'd be exploiting their damaged psyches and worsening their situation. Such behaviour is antithetical to the notion of dominance and the corresponding duty of care, yet findommes do the exact same thing and try and call it a kink.
It's called "ethics" LadyPact. I has them.
quote:
Edited for colors and quotes. Your coloring makes this much harder than it has to be. You're going to hell for that, I'm sure of it.
|
|
|
|
