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

peope -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/13/2013 7:17:33 PM)
Not allowing you slave to keep money isn't what I will be talking about here. Nor paying for dates or gifts. My observations: Is there a kink where, usually men, have a kink to give money or expensive gifts or tributes to women. Yes. Definitely. For some it might be a humiliation aspect. For some it is a devotion aspect. You might be the boss at work but you are just this womans bitch when it comes to this aspect of your life. Or you just want to make your dom happy. Nothing wrong with that. Is it a dangerous practice? It can definitely be. I know of people who have lost everything to this kink. Does a responisible Domme/Dom cause real harm? No. Does it exist as a kink for the Doms? I'm sure it does. However. Those who advertise themselves as "financial doms" or "dommes" seem to have little regard to it as a kink. And just want the money. Just slapping on a sticker that says "I am a financial dom. Gief monies." instead of just saying you are an immoral person taking advantage of someones kink without regard for the potential damage of that person. I believe that is the thing that makes people, including me, irk when it comes to financial domination. It is about responsibility for the sub or slave as a dom. (In terms of kinks only it would a matter of responsibility as a top towards a bottom) It is about seing it as a form of domination rather than falseflagging as a dominant just to make some good money. You might say that it is RACK rather than SSC if you go into debt for life for a kink. And that is true. Some people destroy their bodies for kinks. People are free to do as they want to. But if you are just out for the money. You have no bussiness calling yourself a dom or what you do domination or a kink.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2013 3:30:07 AM)
I like this post^^

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2013 8:44:53 AM)
You can lead em to water but you can't make em think..er drink.

sloguy02246 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2013 9:26:37 AM)
Heart of Peope's post: "...if you are just out for the money. You have no bussiness calling yourself a dom or what you do domination or a kink." Agree completely. True domination requires the acceptance of responsibility for your actions, including the well-being of the submissive. Assuming responsibility for a submissive's finances is fine, but financially bleeding a submissive to the point of bankruptcy is nothing but a form of theft from my point of view.

LadyPact -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2013 9:59:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: peope Is it a dangerous practice? It can definitely be. I know of people who have lost everything to this kink. Does a responisible Domme/Dom cause real harm? No. Here's My only problem with this. People make this claim on occasion that they "know of" people who have been financially destroyed due to this kink. Yet, nobody ever seems to know, as in met in real life and can attest to the fact that they've seen sub X's financial records to verify that this is the reality of the situation. Nobody ever points to a newspaper article or a court case. Just a lot of hearsay. So far, nobody's come up with any proof and just want to rely on the "I heard it on the internet" method as basis of verification. Does the potential exist? I'm sure it does. People financially ruin themselves over all kinds of things. Gambling addiction comes to mind. A good number of articles are written and published about that from reputable sources. Nobody's closing casinos or pulling support for state run lotteries. I literally KNOW people who have nerve damage due to bad bondage practices. I've talked with people who have received burns, both from fire play and wax play. One person who broke their wrist during resistance play. Other instances of kink gone wrong. To date, I've never met anyone who has first person experience with financial ruin via fin kink.

lizi -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2013 2:04:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 Heart of Peope's post: "...if you are just out for the money. You have no bussiness calling yourself a dom or what you do domination or a kink." Agree completely. True domination requires the acceptance of responsibility for your actions, including the well-being of the submissive. Assuming responsibility for a submissive's finances is fine, but financially bleeding a submissive to the point of bankruptcy is nothing but a form of theft from my point of view. I'm going to have to swim against the grain here. Why can't a woman asking for money call what she does kink? The man paying her is getting off as his kink. Why does she have to be invested in it? If you have a boot fetish do the boots have to be aware of what is going on and "get" something out of it as well as the person getting off on the boots? Doesn't seem likely. Why does there have to be an overall goal or some purpose to kinky things other than getting yourself off, or satisfying a whim? Some guy on here wanted a woman to live with him and laze around on the couch eating candy bars doing nothing all day. That was his personification of his kink as he envisioned it - the pinnacle of what he wanted to have and it got him off. Why would the woman need to be anything but an object? If she gets money for being that object and is in it only for that, what's the big deal? Is the guy fulfilling his needs such as they are?

igor2003 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2013 2:58:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lizi quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 Heart of Peope's post: "...if you are just out for the money. You have no bussiness calling yourself a dom or what you do domination or a kink." Agree completely. True domination requires the acceptance of responsibility for your actions, including the well-being of the submissive. Assuming responsibility for a submissive's finances is fine, but financially bleeding a submissive to the point of bankruptcy is nothing but a form of theft from my point of view. I'm going to have to swim against the grain here. Why can't a woman asking for money call what she does kink? The man paying her is getting off as his kink. Why does she have to be invested in it? If you have a boot fetish do the boots have to be aware of what is going on and "get" something out of it as well as the person getting off on the boots? Doesn't seem likely. Why does there have to be an overall goal or some purpose to kinky things other than getting yourself off, or satisfying a whim? Some guy on here wanted a woman to live with him and laze around on the couch eating candy bars doing nothing all day. That was his personification of his kink as he envisioned it - the pinnacle of what he wanted to have and it got him off. Why would the woman need to be anything but an object? If she gets money for being that object and is in it only for that, what's the big deal? Is the guy fulfilling his needs such as they are? A person can call it anything they want. It doesn't change the smell. Personally, when a person is just in it for the money, I call it greed.

lizi -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2013 6:27:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 A person can call it anything they want. It doesn't change the smell. Personally, when a person is just in it for the money, I call it greed. Sure, I'm not going to quibble with that at all. What does it matter though what the FinDom's motivation is if the customer is getting what he wants? Why does there have to be a more lofty motivation than greed on her part? No one has to indulge in anything they don't want, so if some guy wants to be divested of his income and some woman will take it...what's the big deal? I don't get why there has to be anything more than that. If it pisses you off somehow (not saying that's you in particular Igor) then don't do it.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/15/2013 8:48:14 AM)
But why does the fin Domme have to do what the sub wants? To me, I wouldn't consider her to be a dominant.

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/15/2013 8:55:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK But why does the fin Domme have to do what the sub wants? To me, I wouldn't consider her to be a dominant. OK, being my usual pill of a self I have to quibble. I have to do what Carol wants and for a wide variety of reasons. The only difference between us is how those things get expressed and responded to. As I've said many times, the fact that I love her (and specifically what I mean by that word) puts a great many limitations on me. It also, however, gives me some massive tools in my dominance arsenal. Yeah, I like nuance and I like looking at things below the surface. Then again, my sense of "being dominant" does not find it's core inside my house. It's more the other way around... the way I interact with the world at large includes my marriage and my home. edited to add: <--- my old (and soon to be replaced tag was "I am for her". That line came from a slave in ST:TNG and I was perfectly happy to adopt it for both of us. It's sort of an all encompassing statement much like "I see you" in the movie Avatar. So yeah... I have to do what Carol wants.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/15/2013 12:36:28 PM)
That's totally different. I'm more so referring to...slave X over here wants a fin Domme. So he shows money and wants her to do x,y and z. She does this to get the money. I don't see that as a fin Domme, nor do I see that as dominant. See what I'm saying? Hubby does things for the girls all the time. So that doesn't take away from his dominance. That's different to me.

AAkasha -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/15/2013 12:48:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK That's totally different. I'm more so referring to...slave X over here wants a fin Domme. So he shows money and wants her to do x,y and z. She does this to get the money. I don't see that as a fin Domme, nor do I see that as dominant. Actually what is happening more often probably is that slave X wants to get off, so he shows pretend money to pretend 'fin domme' and she does 'pretend domming' and he goes poof and she comes on to CM boards and rants that he was a fake and a liar. These people are just "scamming" each other and it's a big viscous circle and of no concern to those of us enjoying our own fetishes, so just leave them be (not to you TNDommeK, just referring to the thread in general). For as many "fake findommes" looking to make a quick buck, there are also "fake money subs" who manipulate these women into thinking they have money. All of this is a "subculture" of the internet scam that is not unique to female domination, it's an internet phenomenon. it's NOT a femdom problem. The using of fake photos, fake sexual proclivities is just like all the other internet scams. But there are scammers on BOTH sides. Akasha

MariaB -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/15/2013 1:52:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK That's totally different. I'm more so referring to...slave X over here wants a fin Domme. So he shows money and wants her to do x,y and z. She does this to get the money. I don't see that as a fin Domme, nor do I see that as dominant. Are saying that to be a 'Fin Domme' you have to genuinely be into the kink? That's like saying if you are a pro Domme you have to be dominant otherwise your not a pro Domme. I know many excellent and successful pro Dommes that are submissives in their private lives. That doesn't mean they aren't real pro Dommes during their working hours. Some fin Dommes do it purely for the money and some do it for the kink. Both are fin Dommes

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/16/2013 7:57:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK Hubby does things for the girls all the time. So that doesn't take away from his dominance. That's different to me. And it ought to be. But notice the words "have to" in the original quote. I have to do what Carol wants. That statement typically flies in the face of BDSM D/s which is why I bring it up. ROFL... in the real world I am the head honcho in my company. I have a great employee who is pretty dominant herself. Sometimes I have to do what she wants also. quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB Some fin Dommes do it purely for the money and some do it for the kink. Both are fin Dommes I SOOO agree with this. People always like to put this raft on qualifications on stuff which ought to be easy. Look, she told her to send him money. He did. presto At least in that moment she was dominant to him. If she continues to tell him to do stuff and he does then she continues her dominant position. Who cares where her head or heart is at. I care about objective reality. The only time this would not be true is if we were talking about the thing I call "social dominance" but that isn't what people are thinking in this thread.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/16/2013 3:32:17 PM)
No, I was referring to a dominant doing what a sub wants...that's not dominant to me. And I don't mean in the way Jeff is referring. I'm speaking strictly on a basis of a slave saying "I like X. Do this and I'll pay." The "dominant" is being dictated to...and doing it. See what I mean?

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/18/2013 2:12:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK No, I was referring to a dominant doing what a sub wants...that's not dominant to me. And I don't mean in the way Jeff is referring. I'm speaking strictly on a basis of a slave saying "I like X. Do this and I'll pay." The "dominant" is being dictated to...and doing it. See what I mean? I get it. "I'll pay if you force me/make me do [insert desired activity here]." If that's all it is, it's not someone being dominated, it's like personalized porn at that point.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/18/2013 5:17:15 AM)
Yes! Exactly!

thishereboi -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/18/2013 10:19:17 AM)
nm

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/20/2013 7:54:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AllisonWilder I get it. "I'll pay if you force me/make me do [insert desired activity here]." If that's all it is, it's not someone being dominated, it's like personalized porn at that point. As a total tangent, I like seeing you back.

SunTzuSwe -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/20/2013 8:43:52 AM)
I suppose one could view it as a pro-dom with a twist? And the above reasoning got me thinking about the pro-dom role in general, talk about topping from the bottom... How dominant will they be perceived by the sub who's the one with the money and setting all the rules. To me it would seem similar to paying a pro to play girlfriend. You'd have a good time but I doubt you'd actually buy into it completely knowing you're paying by the hour. A findom could imho just as well be perceived as a slave to the money and they need the sub, interesting symbiosis. This sort of reasoning tend to go in circles...

Page: << < prev 80 81 [82] 83 84 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625