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? (6/19/2013 1:32:24 AM)
Well, your one Fin-Domme that I do have respect for. If more Fin-Dommes were like you, I doubt you would hear too many complaints from people about "Fin Domination". This is true. Thats why we get all puffy when lumped into one category. [/quote]

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (6/19/2013 2:11:31 AM)
Thank you both. Gary, I like the sound of that!

garyFLR -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (6/19/2013 8:07:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK Thank you both. Gary, I like the sound of that! [:)].

subinSouthend -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (6/20/2013 4:00:38 AM)
Don't know if it's legitimate or not, but it's certainly a growth industry. have you seen how many of them there are advertising on here? Pandemic, Plague, call it what you will, but I think it's time for a cyber cull.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (6/20/2013 4:41:20 AM)
Plague? Wouldn't that insinuate negativity? So your kinks are okay but other people's kinks aren't? How well has that worked out for you?

tazzygirl -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (6/20/2013 4:44:16 AM)
he/she is quickly making the rounds

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (6/20/2013 4:45:53 AM)
We wouldn't know....profile not found.

kalikshama -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (7/24/2013 10:40:23 AM)
nvm

MariaB -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (7/25/2013 6:54:27 AM)
How many Dom/sub fetishes would have the dominant claim, 'I'm providing a service'? When I was a pro Mistress I provided a service.... they gave me money, I gave them my dominance in return. I have many fetishes, all of them are as a dominant but what I never do is provide a service because to provide a service is to be a service provider. I totally get someone who manages someone else's finances. I even get someone who wants to be a princess or a goddess and be spoilt rotten but that would have to be an in the flesh sort of relationship for it to be a genuine fetish (as far as I'm concerned). Someone who sticks a profile up on here with one picture of themselves in cute lingerie and claims to be an experienced financial domme who loves exploiting wee pay piggies, is nothing more than an opportunist who thinks theres some big bounty at the end of this rainbow. Do they irritate me and annoy me? Not at all but I don't think, 'wow there are so many girls (and they are girls) with this fetish, I just think 'yeah right, pull the other one!!' I know a few financial Dommes in real life and all of them have a full time partner. Most of the partners are their dominant/Master and they claim (to those who are interested) that this is their 'switch' outlet. One particular fem sub who comes to mind is a well known financial Mistress in London. She's collared to a man who doesn't believe there is any such thing as a dominant woman [8\|]. They have invested quite a lot of time and effort in her website and her advertising. Anyone can be collared by her providing he has a fat enough wallet and money is transferred from his account to her account each month. She's good at what she does. I know that she presently has 7 collared slaves all paying a hefty monthly chunk to her. In return she pays them lip service, they get selected pictures of her and buy permission to see her fantasy journal entries, which are all written by her Master btw. This isn't a fetish, its business and its good business if you are prepared to put the time and effort in. Do I think there is anything wrong with that? The idea that her Master writes the journal entries and is usually the one to chat to them on line, is deceitful, the rest is perfectly acceptable. I also know a financial dominant who is dominant through and through. She manages her submissives finances and has been known to blackmail him. She talks about it with such excitement and enthusiasm, its very obvious that she sincerely gets off on what she's doing. Because of the high gains aspects involving money and gifts, In the past few years there has been huge influx of frauds, and pseudo financial Dommes. I would guess that at least 90% of Women who claim to be Financial Dominants are not genuinely dominant. That means I believe at least 10% are genuine.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (7/25/2013 11:51:40 AM)
Exactly, there are so many different types of fin.

Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (7/25/2013 12:25:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB Because of the high gains aspects involving money and gifts, In the past few years there has been huge influx of frauds, and pseudo financial Dommes. I would guess that at least 90% of Women who claim to be Financial Dominants are not genuinely dominant. That means I believe at least 10% are genuine. I don't know if your numbers are right, but I would definitely agree that there has been a HUGE influx of financial Dommes. And though there are some "older" financial Dommes, it seems that the majority of them (particularly the new ones) are in their early 20's, and financial domination is their ONLY kink. That makes them suspect, and makes it easy to see why many think that most of them are just looking for a quick buck. But as this thread has shown, there are also financial Dommes who have real relationships with their subs, and who really do exercise power exchange (and not just money exchange).

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (7/25/2013 12:27:17 PM)
I like impact play and humiliation too! :)

Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (7/25/2013 12:27:28 PM)
BTW, my apologies to TNDommeK and others who may be offended by me calling them "older". But in this context, it was actually a compliment.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (7/25/2013 12:28:34 PM)
Oh I didn't think you we're referring to me when saying older. We're you? gives roch a peering look

Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (7/25/2013 12:31:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK Oh I didn't think you we're referring to me when saying older. We're you? gives roch a peering look Well actually I wa....... Ummmmm, I mean, NO, I definitely wasn't referring to you. [:D]

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (7/25/2013 12:31:46 PM)
[sm=mistress.gif]Lol! THAT'S RIGHT! Actually though, in this particular case of talking about the young clueless fin ducks, I'll be happy to be 29...................................again.

AAkasha -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (7/25/2013 1:47:22 PM)
FR: First, take out of the equation all legitimate forms of negotiated financial domination between consenting adults. When you look at all the profiles of young hot women looking for "Pay piggies!" and the submissive men who email them and then the femdoms who come on here and say "these guys are time wasters!" - I'll tell you what I think this is. There's an entire fetish out there and the men are driving this market. These subs are similar to cucks. They get off on the idea that they cannot afford these women. They get off on the princess who is rich and spoiled and other guys buy her stuff. They get off on being rejected. They get off on her being spoiled by OTHER men. These guys jerk off to the profiles, folks. They get off on being REJECTED or even ignored. Meanwhile, the girls (and guys) make the profiles because they SEE the profiles and they emulate it thinking they can make a quick buck. They make the profiles more and more and more outrageous and make up these ridiculous stories about how other men are spoiling them. It makes it juicier and juicier. This makes more men reach out to them and they get shut down when they don't send the gifts and money. That gets them off. The ladies don't even realize, they are giving these guys exactly what they want - rejection! The circle jerk is absolutely self fulfilling. It goes round and round. The only losers are the "real" subs who get sucked into that vortex because they are too ignorant to think somehow that fetish applies to them. Why not leave these fetishists to themselves, I don't get it? The guys get off on the unobtainable princesses (who are just manufactured fantasies who could just as easily be invented by men, companies, or people in Nigeria) and the women are trying to emulate what they perceive as market demand, when in reality what the market is demanding is rejection - which ironically they are delivering. Meanwhile, the actual financial domination fetish exists but requires bonafide "work." The subs who get off on being ignored are getting ignored. The subs looking for real partners are wasting ALL their energy in complaining about a fetish that has nothing to do with them - the exploitation fetish where in reality, the femdoms are the ones getting screwed because trust me, they are writing wank material for guys who just LOVE reading those profiles about unobtainable money bitches, jerking off, writing emails, and then being rejected and being called a LOSER when they say "But Mistress I just don't have that kind of money!" and they have an ENDLESS supply of free porn! Akasha

garyFLR -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (7/26/2013 3:47:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK Oh I didn't think you we're referring to me when saying older. We're you? gives roch a peering look Lady K, everyone's younger than me on here [:(].

MissKittyDeVine -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (7/26/2013 4:06:52 AM)
I was going to say you're wrong, Gary, but in my case you're right. Thank you for making me feel better [:D] Akasha's post above is probably the most intelligent analysis of the Findom/finduck phenomenon that I have ever read.

garyFLR -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (7/26/2013 4:34:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissKittyDeVine I was going to say you're wrong, Gary, but in my case you're right. Thank you for making me feel better [:D] Akasha's post above is probably the most intelligent analysis of the Findom/finduck phenomenon that I have ever read. It's always a pleasure making you feel good, MissKitty [:)]. Yes Akasha's post was revealing, I must admit I hadn't looked at it that way before. Frankly, I was getting bored with the whole 'finDomme' controversy. I only contribute so that one day I'll achieve my fourth cricket bat. It doesn't take a genius to differentiate between 'legitimate' financial domination where there is a genuine relationship between Domme & sub, & the people who advertise themselves as such, in the hope of making a few quid. Akasha's rejection theory makes a good deal of sense. The guys who have a kink for rejection have their needs catered for, for nothing, while the 'finDommes' are screaming FAKE from the highest rooftop. It's a case of the kink provider seriously misjudging their client base.

Page: << < prev 65 66 [67] 68 69 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625