|
Zonie63 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/1/2013 7:10:16 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
I think that there a bundle of issues in this thread.
First - there's a sizeable group that will take a default stance of "FinDomme = Prostitute". This is a pretty foolish stance for two reasons. Firstly, by the most commonly accepted definition of prostitute many FinDommes simply aren't prostitutes. If there's no physical contact on the naughty bits then she ain't a prostitute.
The second thing that bothers me about this claim is that it implies that being a prostitute is somehow wrong. Sure, it's illegal, but for fuck's sake, if a woman chooses to be a prostitute she should have that right. I'm not forgetting that many women are coerced/forced into prostitution against their will and that is, of course, very wrong - but if a woman makes a free choice then what sort of fuckwad would try to judge her for it?
As I wrote earlier, I think that the entire "prostitute" angle in this discussion is a bit of distraction and red herring. It doesn't really add any clarity to the issue, especially since there are differences of opinion on prostitution itself, both in terms of how it is defined, as well as whether it's considered right or wrong.
I don't think prostitution is wrong at all. I think it should be legal. I'm not going to quibble over definitions, and I don't really think wordsmithing is really the issue here anyway. To illustrate what I mean, if someone said "findommes are electricians," then it would be just as incorrect, but I don't think anyone would be insulted by it. No one would say "How dare you insult my kink by calling me an electrician?!?!" On the other hand, an electrical engineer would require more training and education, and would be "ranked" higher than an electrician, so they might be insulted at being called an "electrician."
It sort of reminds me how people would say "I'm not a garbage man. I'm a sanitation engineer."
The reason why I think it's a red herring is because the discussion seems to drift more towards society's more traditional views on prostitution. Then the discussion touches more upon prostitution itself and society's view on it, rather than the question about financial domination. The very fact that calling someone a "prostitute" is considered an insult demonstrates this.
There are also double standards involved in this, since society might view a prostitute as someone low and trashy, while a man who is a customer of a prostitute is not viewed the same way. At worst, a "john" might be someone considered to be a lesser man, since he "has to pay for it," while a real man shouldn't have to do that. I can discern a similar mindset on the part of those who refer to financial domination as "prostitution." It might be a statement more about the finsubs than the actual findommes. The finsubs are being disparaged as men who "have to pay for it" because they presumably can't get it any other way.
Maybe there's a need for a separate thread on prostitution itself. What are society's views on the subject? Do men and women view prostitution differently?
quote:
Here's where it gets gnarly - some FinDommes do touch the naughty bits, they "milk" their subs, some even fuck them, some even let their subs fuck them - That's hard to distinguish from prostitution.
As the fucking marvelous MariaB has pointed out - there's a pretty flipping watertight case to make for FinDommes being "a part of the sex industry". If your work is to help people get sexual pleasure then you're a sex worker. Again, there's nothing wrong with that.
That's another part of it that's kind of tricky, drawing distinctions between "prostitute" and "sex worker." If it's purely a legal distinction, then that's clear enough. I don't think anyone would argue against that. But then, in that context, to call someone a "prostitute" would be akin to calling them a "lawbreaker" and accusing them of committing a crime. A false accusation would certainly be offensive and insulting to most people, but it's an insult in a different context.
Perhaps an analogy might be to call a bartender a "drug dealer." Alcohol is a drug, so technically, a bartender could be referred to as a "drug dealer" in a very real sense. However, a bartender would probably get pissed off and insulted at being called a "drug dealer," since the drug he sells is legal.
quote:
Then there's the "exploitation" angle, these poor weak souls are being exploited for their money by these villainesses. Ya know.... I don't know, I just can't summon up a lot of sympathy for the exploited ones here. Alchohol is addictive, there are plenty of alcoholics, and there are plenty of people that can have a pint and not end up blowing their paycheck. Are pubs and bars to blame for exploiting the people that are dependent on drink? I guess you could argue either way, but still - A grown adult should take responsibility for their own actions.
I think some people might oppose bars for that reason. That's how Prohibition came about in the first place, and for similar reasons, various other substances remain illegal or categorized as controlled substances. I don't agree with that, as I tend to agree with you, that an adult should take responsibility for their own actions. However, some bars have ended up getting sued if one of their patrons leaves drunk and kills somebody on their way home. As a result, bars have had to take precautions and have rules forbidding them from serving anyone who's already under the influence.
Some people feel the same way about gambling, which is another addictive behavior.
Another example might be the tobacco companies and active campaigns against smoking. Even though smoking is legal, there are a lot of people who are against it, who don't like it, and seek ways to stop it or curtail it somehow.
An interesting side-note is that, in a BDSM context, smoking could also be considered a kink or a fetish. But if someone started a thread warning people about the dangers to one's health from smoking, it wouldn't really be criticizing somebody's kink. Likewise, if one points out the dangers of forest fires, it's not really the same thing as criticizing those who use fire play as part of their kink.
|
|
|
|
