|
Zonie63 -> RE: Financial Domination? (4/15/2013 10:26:25 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Even if we all agreed that financial domination is a legitimate fetish, there are poor and working class people who will not be able to indulge in this fetish, if they were so inclined to do so.
I can't say I understand the importance of this paragraph. I would love to travel the country constantly attending cons, but I don't have the financial ability to do so. Should this factor in as far as the community is concerned? Does it mean that those who can attend several conventions a year should stop doing so or that fewer should be held? Since I can't be at six cons a year, should I stomp My feet and say that too many are available compared to the number that I can attend?
I'm not arguing with these points, as you're absolutely correct. I was just pointing out a pertinent fact which many people seemed to be missing in this whole argument.
quote:
quote:
So, I imagine what happens is something analogous to a hungry guy peering through the windows of a fancy restaurant, watching people indulge in fine dining and eating their fill, while he's eating out of garbage cans. He might even feel much worse if he saw the people inside flipping him off. So, it's not that surprising that these threads come up. Those who flaunt their wealth create feelings of envy and bitterness in those who don't have it.
You're making a great fox and the sour grapes argument.
Close, but not quite the same thing.
Still, if we go with that analogy, then those who have grapes are still better off than the poor fox who doesn't have any. That's how a lot of these threads go. Those who have grapes are complaining about those who complain about not having any.
quote:
quote:
It's an age old story, nothing new about this at all. No great mystery behind it either. Of course, many of the underlying issues related to this topic are more in the realm of politics and economics. There might also be some gender/cultural issues in that men and women might perceive money differently. There's also the historical tie-in between sex and money - and to what lengths men will go for sexual gratification.
There are numerous overlapping issues which seem to come into play whenever the topic of financial domination is raised, more so than just the kink aspects.
Not really. I'm not quite ready to go for the deal about it's a financial concern.
Well, what else could it be? Seriously. During this thread (and many others on this subject), a lot of long-time posters keep wondering why there's such fervent opposition to financial domination. They present it as "just another kink," and in one post, you wrote "It's just another version of MKIBTYK." If it was "just another kink," would there really be this much animosity and controversy generated on a message board where the primary subject matter is klink?
quote:
While there are some cases of folks who have various reasons for not wanting a lifestyle Dominant, I find that a number of people would prefer to have that type of dynamic. For the average male submissive, there is something of a supply and demand factor there to contend with. At that point, a male has to take personal responsibility if they are not good relationship material and enjoying the kink within the context of a dynamic.
Once again, you're absolutely correct here. There's nothing in the above quote I would argue with. I don't think it negates or refutes any of the points I was making.
But let's say for a moment that it is all just a matter of "sour grapes." Is that really all that difficult to understand? Doesn't it stand to reason, especially in light of the supply and demand issue you mentioned, that there would be a lot of "sour grapes" out there? Doesn't that make it easier to understand and deal with whenever these threads come up? I really don't see what's so difficult to understand about why these threads come up and why some people would rail against findommes. It just goes with the territory. It is what it is.
|
|
|
|
