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

kalikshama -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/1/2013 4:58:59 PM)
I've never Fin Dommed and I posted in a few of these threads quite a bit. I'm glad there's only a few of them now.

AllisonWilder -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/1/2013 5:25:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy If I had to guess the answer to my own question it is that men are ashamed that they have to give favors or pay for female attention and the ones drawn to blackmail or monetary exploitation keep quiet about it the same way a heroin addict treads quietly about what he does. I have seen no evidence to the contrary on these fronts. You're not entirely correct, but I do agree with a lot of what you said. Findom as a lifestyle can definitely be an addiction to some (Most? Perhaps.) and while I disagree that these men are paying specifically for female attention (this is really just semantics at this point), they are giving money to females and that can be humiliating to them, thus making them less likely to post. It's one thing to enjoy being humiliated and to share that aspect of yourself with your partner/findomme/whomever you choose and another to post publicly about it. There have been a few finsubs to post on the discussion side of things, but they're often berated for their choices and treated as if they are mindless, so I can imagine that those types of responses don't exactly make finsubs feel very warm and fuzzy about continuing to post in these threads.

TigressLily -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/1/2013 5:26:16 PM)
You raised a good point by bringing up the shame factor, which is possibly at the crux of what constitutes an actual kink. (This thread is so long I don't recall it being brought up in a prior posting.) quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy If I had to guess the answer to my own question it is that men are ashamed that they have to give favors or pay for female attention and the ones drawn to blackmail or monetary exploitation keep quiet about it the same way a heroin addict treads quietly about what he does. I have seen no evidence to the contrary on these fronts. Most of the women who post here about the subject have a promotional agenda. If men are truly interested in something, believe me, women do not have to promote it for them. I can only speak for myself, and in my limited experience, the men who contact me out of nowhere regarding financial domination invariably want to be blackmailed & humiliated because they are married, are scared shtless of being found out, get off on the thrill factor of how much they stand to lose for wanting to indulge in their foot fetish, some other reckless behavior or whatnot. They are so desperate, they are more than willing to offer financial domination as a result. To me it is offensive that a man would presume all he has to do is wave money in a Domme's face to curry favor. There are male subs want to be dominated (ordered around) so badly, they'll gladly pay for the privilege. It's a shallow, superficial game that takes two people to play. Nobody's obligated to play, bottom line. If that's any* woman's approach to garner her interest, walk away. As for exploitation in itself, men have done this since the dawn of time, whether monetarily, through commerce, human trafficking, child labor, within their own households, by disseminating porn--no one has a monopoly on that. _____________________________ * * * Not A Fetish/Kink Delivery System * * *

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/1/2013 6:20:31 PM)
Yes but some of us have the luxury of saying "no" when they attempt to rule with money.

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/2/2013 7:29:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy This is a weak response by you, especially the part about comparing Carole to the lack of male subs who post about this (0). (As in active happy, fulfilling participation.) What would be an apt comparison would be a dearth of femsubs posting about male domination, but that's not the case. Fair enough, pointn conceded. Also, people who say that selling services or hiring yourself out - does not equate to kink - are not exactly acting like intolerant assholes. They are making a highly rational, valid point. You and I obviously disagree on the word "rational". I see it as a highly subjective and emotional point. The entire framework you present it as, "selling services" indicates the bias from the beginning. I, for one, am disinclined to judge what is an is not a "kink" for other people I have never seen in face to face interaction. You need to remember that more than a few people here on collarme have judged my control of Carol to be a kink when I have asserted that it is not. In other words, I have personal experience with people making this judgement incorrectly. I understand that it is their own bias driving the judgement rather than anything even remotely resembling factual (seeing as I have all the facts and they have none). People who make such judgements habitually get hidden by me. It speaks of a lack of empathy and knowledge that I disdain. It tells me that they have no useful input into a discussion about the breadth of human relationships. If I had to guess the answer to my own question it is that men are ashamed that they have to give favors or pay for female attention and the ones drawn to blackmail or monetary exploitation keep quiet about it the same way a heroin addict treads quietly about what he does. I have seen no evidence to the contrary on these fronts. Ahhh, so that was the question. I agree to a point. There are kinks I don't talk about here also. Even for a reasonably self-confident person there is the question of "why rile up the natives for no good purpose?" Where I disagree is, again, with your bias. What makes you so sure these men "are ashamed" and "have to" do these things? I suspect that some fin-subs (perhaps even most of them) might fit that description (note the 4 qualifiers in that very short sentence). What I doubt strongly is that all fin-subs fit it. It's akin to saying that all pretty young women who marry older, wealthier men are whores. There's some truth in that statement but reality tends to work against sweeping statements like that. The "whore" categorization is biased and there are definitely some who married the guy for reasons I would approve of. quote: Most of the women who post here about the subject have a promotional agenda. If men are truly interested in something, believe me, women do not have to promote it for them. I suspect that the state of the economy and the growing rise in poverty in the US is driving people to cash in on whatever they can. Yes, I see the blatant ads dressed up as forum topics also. That's why my viewpoint was originally like yours without all the judgement attached. At least two fin-dommes, however, haven't tripped those triggers in me. Accordingly, my viewpoint has changed and I now subdivide the category.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/2/2013 9:58:06 AM)
Everything you said, I agree with. Everything.

MissKittyDeVine -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/2/2013 12:02:04 PM)
You must be getting to Maria, K, since she seems to dedicate so much time to pursuing you and analysing your posts in minute detail.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/2/2013 12:10:41 PM)
I've noticed that myself. This is the second time she's done this. Not sure why, I've rather liked her and her posts, so not sure why the sudden 3rd degree. in my 40s criminal voice "I ain't tellin you nothing copper, see! Maaa see! "

egern -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/4/2013 5:36:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissKittyDeVine You must be getting to Maria, K, since she seems to dedicate so much time to pursuing you and analysing your posts in minute detail. What a confusing comment. So, if you are interested and ask questions, there must be something wrong?

MissKittyDeVine -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/4/2013 7:07:01 AM)
The person the comment was directed at understood it perfectly.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/4/2013 3:53:20 PM)
She wasn't just asking questions. There's a difference between someone who genuinely wants to know something, and someone attempting to poke holes and be rude about things. Even when one doesn't agree, civility is always a good road to take.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/8/2013 8:44:31 PM)
I've noticed a few more fin that have intro ducked themselves, I hope they come here and weigh in.

JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/9/2013 6:42:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK I've noticed a few more fin that have intro ducked themselves, I hope they come here and weigh in. OK, but there's about 60 new finducks every hour. I don't mind them coming here and adding to the conversation. I'd just as soon they keep the random advertising posts in their journals and wordpress blogs.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/9/2013 7:55:46 PM)
Agreed. I'm not wanting adverts either. I'd would like to know their aspect of things. Ya know, how we are all different. I like seeing a different angle other than my own. But yea, adverts are for their profile.

dink22 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/11/2013 2:03:21 PM)
Just testing. Can I speak? CM will make me think my comments are being published, but when someone else is logged in and I go to this board, I see something like "comment under review" Not exactly the most honest message board. Nor is this discussion. People who like financial domination NEVER get deleted, despite being extremely insulting. People against it do.

VideoAdminChi -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/11/2013 2:35:14 PM)
The posts of people who receive a gold bordered note that says: "It is a violation of our TOS/Forum Guidelines to <insert offense(s) here>. Due to this, you are being placed under moderation for <time period>. You can still post to the forums, but your posts will require approval by one of the moderators before becoming visible to the rest of the forum members" will be displayed as [Awaiting Approval] to the rest of the board. One is normally sent quite a few warnings before this happens. If you feel like personal attacks are occurring, you may use the Report feature to report that post. I suggest you read the guidelines regarding personal attacks here first (attacking one's POST is permitted), and make sure the off-site email attached to your collarchat profile is one that you access regularly.

dink22 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/11/2013 2:47:52 PM)
Okay. So CM has, literally, 3 pages of bdsm interests. Everything from "ass play" to "face slapping" to "no strings housework" to "rubber fetish" to "whips." But where is "financial domination?" It simply isn't listed. Because they know it's not a 'real" bdsm interest. When I first joined this site, before it was even commercially sponsored, there was a rule that you could not mention "financial domination" in your profile, nor link other sites. They wanted it to be totally REAL. They simply realized that "financial domination" wasn't a real bdsm interest, but just something for married guys coming from the commercial sex market. NOTHING has changed. "financial domination" is not a real fetish. Nobody builds, or ever will build an actual meaningful relationship around it. If the money goes away, the relationship is dissolved. There's nothing there. That's why, with over THREE PAGES of BDSM interests, "financial domination" still isn't listed. Married and otherwise committed men do it because they can't do real submission. And greedy women and dudes with computers are happy to take their money. TRUTH. Let's quit kidding ourselves on this subject. Reality isn't always what we want it to be. Unfortunately, it's still reality.

OsideGirl -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/11/2013 2:50:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dink22 They simply realized that "financial domination" wasn't a real bdsm interest, but just something for married guys coming from the commercial sex market. Do you know the owners? Have you had a conversation with them?

dink22 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/11/2013 2:58:45 PM)
The owners have chosen to hide their identities via proxy at godaddy.com. Nobody really knows them, but their actions speak for themselves. If they choose to correct my stance on their stance about financial domination, they can certainly do so.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (10/11/2013 3:19:41 PM)
It's simply your opinion that there are no meaningful relationships. I actually have had several meaningful relationships. My fin slaves are very important to me. So for you to say it isn't legit, is simply opinion. Maybe the site doesn't list financial domination, that's their business. Whether they list it or not, there is a high volume of subs wanting it. Who are you to tell them they're wrong?

Page: << < prev 83 84 [85] 86 87 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0703125