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

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/1/2013 2:12:18 PM)
If people are walking into your establishment by the handfuls, I doubt you'd have to trot anything out.

MissKittyDeVine -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/1/2013 2:35:25 PM)
Oh believe me I didn't. quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy It may be a flawed analogy, but you completely missed the point.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/1/2013 3:10:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy If I ran a casino, on the other hand, I'm sure I'd trot out all the libertarian reasons it should be allowed to do business. I have never advocated prohibition, just the point that it's not the same as other kinks. I don't run a casino, so I have no motive to advocate for one, other than the fact that my morality states that people have the right to their own choices, even if those choices are to their own detriment. I've seen you state that it's not the same as other kinks, but what I haven't seen is any single coherent argument to back up that claim other than 'findommes gain X from engaging in said kink' which is easily disproven as a valid argument, because all sorts of dominant gain all sorts of things from all sorts of kinks. If I have somebody clean my house, I gain. If I have somebody provide oral sex to me while not letting them get off, I gain. If I have somebody massage me without giving a massage in return, I gain. If I have somebody suffer to the point of crying -and my subsequent enjoyment, I gain. If I have somebody buy me a pair of shoes, I gain. The thing is, in all those situations, the 'somebody' gains too. They gain having their personal fantasies/kinks/arousal/desires met. After all, I don't do any of that stuff with people who don't have fantasies/kinks/arousal/desires to provide me with exactly those types of gains. You still haven't made any coherent point to explain why it's a valid kink to 'exploit' somebody by ordering them to give me a massage, but not a valid kink to 'exploit' somebody by ordering them to buy me a pair of shoes.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/1/2013 3:16:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar I don't run a casino, so I have no motive to advocate for one, other than the fact that my morality states that people have the right to their own choices, even if those choices are to their own detriment. I've seen you state that it's not the same as other kinks, but what I haven't seen is any single coherent argument to back up that claim other than 'findommes gain X from engaging in said kink' which is easily disproven as a valid argument, because all sorts of dominant gain all sorts of things from all sorts of kinks. If I have somebody clean my house, I gain. If I have somebody provide oral sex to me while not letting them get off, I gain. If I have somebody massage me without giving a massage in return, I gain. If I have somebody suffer to the point of crying -and my subsequent enjoyment, I gain. If I have somebody buy me a pair of shoes, I gain. The thing is, in all those situations, the 'somebody' gains too. They gain having their personal fantasies/kinks/arousal/desires met. After all, I don't do any of that stuff with people who don't have fantasies/kinks/arousal/desires to provide me with exactly those types of gains. You still haven't made any coherent point to explain why it's a valid kink to 'exploit' somebody by ordering them to give me a massage, but not a valid kink to 'exploit' somebody by ordering them to buy me a pair of shoes. My question lies above with the bolded. And it could have just been a statement used on a whim but, why does it have to be detriment? If the sub enjoys financial control and he isn't headed for financial ruin, how is it detriment?

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/1/2013 3:26:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK My question lies above with the bolded. And it could have just been a statement used on a whim but, why does it have to be detriment? If the sub enjoys financial control and he isn't headed for financial ruin, how is it detriment? I'm not saying financial domination is necessarily to a subs detriment. It certainly can be, with those who get off on blackmailing/being bankrupted. Sex and arousal can be addicting too, there are guys who've lost their jobs, their family, and everything they own to online porn, I'm sure that there are examples of subs who've done the same with findommes. The argument of those who are against financial domination seems to be that they feel that ALL financial domination is to the subs detriment. This seems to be because they consider it a situation where the findomme gains something, while the finsub looses something without getting anything in return. That's not a line of thought I agree with. I think that certainly CAN be the case, but absolutely isn't always the case, or doesn't even happen in most financial domination case. However, even if we -for the sake of argument- for a moment assume the people who think that financial domination is always to the detriment to the sub are actually right, then that still leaves me with finding nothing wrong with it. Even IF they're right, and it's to the subs detriment, that still leaves the fact that I feel that people are entitled to make their own mistakes, and that if they feel they want to do something others consider to be a negative to them, they're entitled to do so.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/1/2013 3:43:47 PM)
Ah, ok. Very well stated. Yes you're exactly right. The problem is(IMO), with posters like dink, simplymicheal, and perhaps cloud boy, that even if you explain what you are doing and prove there is no fraud, scamming, prostitution, detriment, etc...they choose not to either see or believe it. I have tried on numerous times to explain the difference between those ducks and myself. There is a very clear difference. One can even tell by my profile. But I'm not sure that it matters to them. I feel they are going to think what they want. But I'm loving your posts. You are able to convey what I can't at times.

Celtico -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/2/2013 11:13:13 AM)
quote: I feel they are going to think what they want. The older I get, the more I realize people think the way they do, and, most cannot be convinced otherwise. The best we can hope for is constructive dialog.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/2/2013 2:59:56 PM)
Yea but with some of these ppl that would be hoping for too much.

PeonForHer -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/2/2013 3:25:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK If the sub enjoys financial control and he isn't headed for financial ruin, how is it detriment? I guess you could say that if the sub didn't feel that it was to his own detriment, he wouldn't be doing it. That is, assuming that this hypothetical sub's desire for financial control comes from some masochistic or self-humiliating place in him.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/2/2013 4:02:48 PM)
True but if I'm controlling his spending and he isn't allowed to be an idiot with his money, would that be beneficial?

PeonForHer -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/2/2013 4:13:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK True but if I'm controlling his spending and he isn't allowed to be an idiot with his money, would that be beneficial? I think so, yes. I'd assume that he's just going to find some woman who'll hurt him in the way he wants to be hurt - in the pocket - so it'd be desirable that the woman he picks has just enough understanding of his psychology to give him some jollies, but enough of a sense of morality not to let him destroy himself. I don't know how common, or how rare, that combination is - though, I have a feeling that you have it, K, for what it's worth.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/2/2013 4:31:50 PM)
Awe shucks, [:)] Thanks. You're right. I don't understand the mindset of some of these gals who think draining anyone helps. I've always said, longevity money is better than quick money. There are ways to balance things. experience helps.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/3/2013 5:46:04 AM)
I do wish some fin subs would comment though. My two, if I remember correctly, were the only ones.

TnCuck4Mistress -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/19/2013 3:21:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl I do think in some cases it is a form of D/s. There are some here that I believe are dominant and have a dynamic. But, I think the majority of so-called "Dommes" in this field aren't. They have no idea what it means to be dominant (nor do I think they care) and they equate being dominant with being a bitchy twat. They're just a bunch "women" that have discovered that some guys are desperate enough to buy them gifts and pay their bills. "They have no idea what it means to be dominant (nor do I think they care) and they equate being dominant with being a bitchy twat." I agree & I get this a lot from women I contact or who contact me here on CM. They almost always ask me for money not directly on CM as they have gotten smart about that. First they have you meet them on another site or profile some place away from CM & then they demand some type of compensation wither its money, affiliate links, or what ever then call you fake when you refuse. 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. "Otherwise she becomes a kept woman, and her authority in the relationship lasts only as long as both parties pretend that it exists." I agree with you as this to me is not a true Dom situation but instead they pretend to be dominant in return for the money so long as it keeps coming to them, then if for any reason it stops they do also. --- On another note I do not think that Financial Domination is wrong in fact when I am in a live in situation I prefer for my Dom to take control of my income not only to give them more control over myself but to also better help me manage my expenses as I am not the best at this any way. Even when I was married I always had my wife take care of the income because she was better at it then I was. So I don't disagree with it, but I do find it offensive that so many females on CM make demands on me to send them money to prove myself. Sending someone money doesn't prove anything except that I am an idiot if I don't know them, or am already collared to them after having had met them in real life already with the intent of being owned by them. Yes, I have been stupid enough to do this in the past not from this site but another well known Lifestyle site which a lady conned me into believing I would be relocated to her once she got the funds to help pay some rent on a new place for us & a few other expenses which I lost a little over $800.00 in & anyone who has been on SSI understands that's a hard bit of cash to just give to someone on faith, and even more once you realize your being conned! In any case I try to avoid people who make demands on me regardless of what their demands are. If I am not owned or collared to someone in which I have never met in real life, they have no rights to make any demands on me!

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/19/2013 6:51:30 AM)
Yea we call those fin ducks, lol. They basically stole the name fin dommes and ran with it.

TnCuck4Mistress -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/19/2013 6:38:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK Yea we call those fin ducks, lol. They basically stole the name fin dommes and ran with it. I have a few names of my own for them but we wont go there... I wish CM would make an option like you see on Alt to send in a copy of your ID to show you are in fact the person on your profile to be verified. I think this would cut down on a lot of bullshit & drama here for those of us who are seriously seeking real life partners or scenes. I have been rather lucky so far in the past with people I went to meet from this site though not all of them were mentally stable & one of my Mistresses even put me in the ER a few times. The things a noob is willing to do to try to prove themselves! I honestly hope I never meet anyone like her again as that has caused me to have problems trusting people here now that i meet. I met 1 good one on here which was my 2nd Mistress who was a Lesbian Pro Domme which I served for a short time. I honestly think she had no real need or desire to keep me long term as I had hoped for but she was at least nice to me & refused a lot of things I ask for my sake i am sure as she treated me pretty damn well for a so called no limit slave. I miss her quite often even though when I was with her I was secretly upset that she didn't abuse or treat my like shit as she did her clients. I miss the long walks down the highway with her as she would tell me about her day rants, etc... I miss having someone who would talk to me & allow me to express myself without punishing me for what I thought or had to say. I miss a lot about her, and honestly for what ever reason I have never desired to fuck or make out with any of my Mistresses no matter how beautiful they were. I just wanted to make them happy, and see them smile. I think I have my 2nd wife to thank for my loosing interest in the use of my cock, not sure what it was the dishonestly, the cheating, the lying, or what ever... If I can ever find another dom lady in my life half as good as my past Pro Domme Mistress I will be the luckiest sub/pet on the planet. I miss you Ms Samantha! Where ever you are...

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/19/2013 6:51:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 This isn't really a question that I'm asking. Thank GAWD!!!!! I was outa answers after about 1:36 p.m., Pacific.

TnCuck4Mistress -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/19/2013 6:54:31 PM)
OMG! I love that name... "LookieNoNookie"

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/19/2013 7:01:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TnCuck4Mistress OMG! I love that name... "LookieNoNookie" It's a gift......and a curse. I opted for "AtYourCervix", but it was taken. (What can you do?).

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/19/2013 9:23:25 PM)
Ha! Atyourcervix.....I like that one.

Page: << < prev 69 70 [71] 72 73 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625