RE: Financial Domination? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

submandibular -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:17:40 AM)

This topic might be old to you, maybe you should have looked at it and moved on.

I don't see how talking about it and bringing it back to light is damaging or trying to remove it from the world. I was interested in having a discussion about FinDommes and what people thought. I was pointed to a previous thread, which I read and thanked the posters for but others decided to continue talking (not a problem at all) and we discussed further.

So please don't tell me to move on. I have learned a lot already and don't appreciate your condescending tone.




iamalive888 -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:22:47 AM)

I'm not saying to remove all FinDoms from the world. It won't happen. They will always find ways to do what they want to do. What I am saying is the site clearly says don't give money, but will allow profiles that say exactly that. There are plenty of sites that say if you have things like this, it will be removed. It's not wanted. It sets the standard. Obviously there will be circumventing this but at least a firm response to these types of things would be a good step. This isn't the US Federal Government. There is no such thing as Free Speech here. The owners can control what they want. They can dictate what is and is not acceptable.



RedMagic1 -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:24:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: submandibular
I don't see how talking about it and bringing it back to light is damaging or trying to remove it from the world. I was interested in having a discussion about FinDommes and what people thought.

That's a complete misrepresentation of your OP. You took positions that were ignorant, catty, and holier-than-thou. If you had instead said, "Why is there a rise in the number of findom profiles on this site?" or "How many men are really into this fetish?" or any other tone-neutral question, you'd have received very different replies on this thread.

You came out swinging with your first post, and even ended the "your kink is not okay" rant with a passive aggressive smiley face. You're not in a position to complain about anyone else's condescending tone.



OsideGirl -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:33:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: iamalive888
The owners can control what they want.


Exactly. You don't get to control what they want and clearly, this isn't high on their priority list.

If you wish to control how a website is run, feel free to start your own.



itsapixie -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:36:32 AM)

Financial domination is like any other kink to me. As long as it's SS&C, then why not? There are tons of people abusing the kink(pun?), but that occurs over the whole range of bdsm, not just in financial domination/submission.



iamalive888 -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:38:18 AM)

Wow, you clearly have reading comprehension issues. The OP posed a question, gave her opinion and then opened the floor for discussion. Is seriously the only thing people can do on here is name call? Maybe you need to reread the original post and figure out how wrong you are.

How freaking immature are Doms on this site? Does it make you feel better to call people names? Or maybe add your opinion and move it along. If anyone outside the clique is to ask a question, they are to be destroyed. Way to be open and accepting. Way to ensure that your lifestyle will not have any new exciting people.

Don't like the influx of FinDom posts? Make a sticky and have the mod's control that Until then, sifting through pages and pages of information without the ability to have a nice open discussion is pointless.



submandibular -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:39:41 AM)

I admit I could have phrased my OP more neutrally, but I simply posed questions. I later admitted where my faults were. I think people got the wrong idea of what I was saying. I wasn't making a statement I was asking a question, to see if people had similar or dissimilar views. Never once was I rude or condescending to anybody with opposing points of view.

The smile face was not a passive aggressive posture, it was there because I wanted to be friendly and introduce myself.




iamalive888 -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:42:30 AM)

If I wish to control my government, I should start my own too right? Wait, maybe I can be an active player and open up conversation to sway opinion. Maybe with enough support the owners will see the light. Not sure what part is complicated for you to understand. We aren't forcing our opinions on others, we are opening the floor to debate, stressing our opinions, and letting the site dictate what it accepts and doesn't.



submandibular -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:42:56 AM)

His* :)

Thanks though.



RedMagic1 -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:43:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamalive888
Is seriously the only thing people can do on here is name call?

Are you talking to me? I didn't call her a single name. I've posted here for years, and I don't think I've ever called anyone a name, unless I already knew they would enjoy it.

I critiqued the words she wrote. I said nothing about her value as a person.

You are making counterfactual statements, iamalive888; it makes you appear more defensive than logical.

ETA: His? Apologies if I got the pronoun wrong.



submandibular -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:44:48 AM)

People I am a him!



iamalive888 -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:45:14 AM)

ignorant, catty, and holier-than-thou

No, no way. That's not name calling.



RedMagic1 -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:48:25 AM)

quote:

You took positions that were ignorant, catty, and holier-than-thou.


That's the quote. I was describing the positions taken by the OP. Ignorant: factual statement. Catty: sure sounded that way to me. Holier-than-thou: again, factual statement. It was a "your engagement in this kink makes you an inferior type of person" post.

If you're unable to see the difference between insulting a person and critiquing a position they might take at a given moment in time, I won't respond to you further.



mnottertail -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:49:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: submandibular

People I am a him!


We will all sleep the better for it, then.



LadyPact -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 9:52:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamalive888
I'm not saying to remove all FinDoms from the world. It won't happen. They will always find ways to do what they want to do. What I am saying is the site clearly says don't give money, but will allow profiles that say exactly that. There are plenty of sites that say if you have things like this, it will be removed. It's not wanted. It sets the standard. Obviously there will be circumventing this but at least a firm response to these types of things would be a good step. This isn't the US Federal Government. There is no such thing as Free Speech here. The owners can control what they want. They can dictate what is and is not acceptable.
You're in the right ballpark, but you are going the wrong way.

Yes, the site says do not send anyone money. It also tells folks that they need to verify other participants for themselves. It says that any form of products or purchases are not validated by this site in any way. All of this, and more, can be found on the site's Terms of Service, which basically is the legalese that the site lists to say that they aren't responsible for the stuff that you do just because you are using the site.

This particular topic is no different than any other. If somebody chooses to bottom to Me, they are the responsible party in determining whether or not that is a good idea for them. The site isn't here to protect them from Me. A bottom that wants to play with Me has to vet Me for themselves, rather than try to have the site make that decision for them.

This isn't the government and there is no subsidy for the site to cover it's expenses. That is done completely through selling advertising. The businesses such as JT's Stockroom don't want fewer profiles here. They want more, hoping to reach a larger customer base to see their ads. The owner of this site has decided that it is better to allow profiles from any adult who is not engaging in an illegal activity to be allowed to create one. I'd doubt the site would really want to reduce the number of profiles, as that does relate to the bottom line of advertising revenues.

People shouldn't see this and similar sites as some kind of altruistic endeavor. It's a business. It's a business that benefits most of the people who use it and one of those benefits is that people get to engage with others discussing and perhaps participating in kinks that they enjoy. The fact that somebody else comes along and doesn't enjoy that kink isn't the determining factor. There are people right here on this thread that don't like some of My kinks. Would that mean that I don't have the right to be here, either?




BitaTruble -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 10:00:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: submandibular

I was wondering what Mistresses think about this?

I've noticed over the years a massive increase in the amount of "Dommes" on this site who seem only interested in making money from desperate men. Since when has money been a such a big part of BDSM?

You put 'dommes' in quote marks for a reason. If you can figure out why you did so, that should clear up the rest of things for you and what ever conclusion you reach, well, as long as it works for you, that's all that really matters, right? With that knowledge, you'll get some power to make good decisions on how you want your life to proceed. Good luck.



thezeppo -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 11:05:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: submandibular

This topic might be old to you, maybe you should have looked at it and moved on.

I don't see how talking about it and bringing it back to light is damaging or trying to remove it from the world. I was interested in having a discussion about FinDommes and what people thought. I was pointed to a previous thread, which I read and thanked the posters for but others decided to continue talking (not a problem at all) and we discussed further.

So please don't tell me to move on. I have learned a lot already and don't appreciate your condescending tone.




Probably I should have moved on, I have thought that to myself after quite a few of my posts on this side to be honest. Apologies for the condescension, two wrongs don't make a right and all of that. Good luck with your search on the other side.



BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 11:55:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo
All this moralising has the same basic undertone; 'I'm not getting what I want from this site and so I want to change the site'. Start your own site and apply your techniques to get rid of people just out to make a quick buck. If it works I will join it.

Its not a situation unique to BDSM, or to dating sites. Its the way of the world. Faith healers fleece people, psychics fleece people, my car insurance have just charged me £30 as an admin fee and threatened to cancel a policy I have already paid in full, just because I changed car. The moralising on findom is so transparently self-serving, lets all just get on with our lives shall we?
Give the kid a free spanking for being brilliant, and right on! [sm=dance.gif] M



SassyCitiGirl -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 12:06:25 PM)

I realize there are a lot of different views on this subject. For me it's like this:

It depends on the big picture and the nature/longevity of the relationship.

If the relationship extends beyond BDSM, and involves sharing expEnses, raising children together, or handling of debt; sometimes there is a need for one to take financial control, for the benefit of everyone involved. I do not believe in controlling someone's finances for my personal gain. However, I have on occasion taken financial control, to curb unnecessary over-spending, and help slaves reduce debt/learn financial responsibility.

Using slaves and submissives as an excuse to take their mone away from them, to line my own pockets, is a breach of ethics; in my opinion.

For a successful relationship between a Dom/Domme and sub or Master/Mistress and slave, an enormous level of trust must be present. If the Dominant partner leaves the submissive partner without financial resourses, trust can be easily broken down. It not only unethical, but also irresponsible. The reality of life is that injury, disease and death do happen. A submissive/slave should not be so dependant that they could not function, should something happen to you.

Just my 50 cents worth

(Sent from blackberry, so please forgive typing errors)



OsideGirl -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/9/2013 12:09:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamalive888

If I wish to control my government, I should start my own too right? Wait, maybe I can be an active player and open up conversation to sway opinion. Maybe with enough support the owners will see the light. Not sure what part is complicated for you to understand. We aren't forcing our opinions on others, we are opening the floor to debate, stressing our opinions, and letting the site dictate what it accepts and doesn't.


Well then, the proper channel would be to send an email to the management of the site, rather than posting in a forum where people have no input into the management of the site. The owners are aware of what goes on and have other things on their agenda. They've stated that over and over again, so you're just subjecting everyone in the forums to your beating of a dead horse.

And FYI, comparing the Government to privately owned and run website, is not an analogy that works.





Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.296875E-02