RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive



Message

JeffBC -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (8/31/2013 1:44:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissKittyDeVine
But you are not supposed to criticise the kinks of others here. And the idea that findoms are just prostitutes has been thoroughly refuted many a time. You don't like findom, well nobody is forcing you to engage in it. Chacun a son gout.

I completely disagree. The OP ASKED this exact question so in this context "prostitute" cannot be considered a pejorative.

And by the way, no it has NOT been thoroughly refuted many a time. The fact that you think it has demonstrates "you don't get it". I could quite easily argue both sides of that question because both are correct depending on context and viewpoint.



MissKittyDeVine -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (8/31/2013 2:48:54 PM)

And I completely disagree. I maintain that it HAS been refuted many times. If you choose not to accept it that is your prerogative, but those of us into findom HAVE given reasoned arguments supporting our interest in the fetish.

It is also, as I stated, against TOS to denigrate the kinks of others. It's so tiresome that people can do whatever shit they want (aside from obvious taboos) and that is accepted here. But findoms continue to be insulted with this pathetic 'you're all prostitutes' line. I don't give anyone grief for liking extreme pain, or to paraphrase what someone said on another thread shoving traffic cones up their ass, or whatever. But people can continue to call me a whore and that's ok.

I am done with these pointless arguments. I guess you could say I am bored of the boards. And of the continued refusal to accept our fetish. Adieu tout le monde.



DommeGoddessEva -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (8/31/2013 2:54:24 PM)

Absolutely nowhere at all do I say I'm a Findomme on my profile, yet the amount if subs I've had contact me asking if they can gift, tribute, spoil, pay for my dates etc is crazy. You can rest assured that as soon as I tell them to fill their boots they disappear. It's as if they're goading ladies. They offer money, have a quick wank, and then retreat. Why? If Findomme is your fetish then approach a Findomme! Would you go into a shop for a pair of trousers and come out with a skirt?, no? So read the profile!



Zonie63 -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/1/2013 4:44:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MissKittyDeVine

I'm not saying it. THE SITE is saying it. I quote from the forum guidelines:

This isn't a place to insult the kinks, preferences, lifestyles, etc. of others.

Findoms have repeatedly given cogent arguments on many threads why they consider findom to be a legitimate kink. Who are you or anyone to tell us otherwise?

Saying that you have concerns is debate. Calling us prostitutes is not.


I can see what you're saying, although technically, calling someone a prostitute might be more an individual insult to a person, but not necessarily an insult to one's kink, fetish, or lifestyle.

For example, if a vanilla prostitute only has straight vanilla sex, then she might called a prostitute, but doing so would not be a disparagement of those who have straight vanilla sex. The act itself is not being insulted or condemned, only the method by which it is arranged.







imtempting -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/1/2013 7:30:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MissKittyDeVine

And I completely disagree. I maintain that it HAS been refuted many times. If you choose not to accept it that is your prerogative, but those of us into findom HAVE given reasoned arguments supporting our interest in the fetish.

It is also, as I stated, against TOS to denigrate the kinks of others. It's so tiresome that people can do whatever shit they want (aside from obvious taboos) and that is accepted here. But findoms continue to be insulted with this pathetic 'you're all prostitutes' line. I don't give anyone grief for liking extreme pain, or to paraphrase what someone said on another thread shoving traffic cones up their ass, or whatever. But people can continue to call me a whore and that's ok.

I am done with these pointless arguments. I guess you could say I am bored of the boards. And of the continued refusal to accept our fetish. Adieu tout le monde.


Did I touch a sore point answering a question honestly? Also, I have commented many times about what I believe(answering the OP question) what a findomme is and it has been deleted. Finally, the mods have seen that this is a direct question. Would your answer be different if I said "their great"??

The fact others have answered in favor of my comment further proves that the modding on this site concerning findommes has been in favor of findommes but sadly for you and the other findommes, the OP question, directly points to a free answer. Also, using the term prostitute is better then some other words I could of used.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/1/2013 8:04:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissKittyDeVine
It is also, as I stated, against TOS to denigrate the kinks of others.


If you think about it, anything anywhere could be classified as a "kink".
Merriam Webster defines it as "unconventional sexual taste or behaviour".
So that part of the ToS is a blanket statement and also very vague.
What exactly is "unconventional"??
That's very subjective, individual, and depends on the particular society where you live.
My contention is "unconventional" is only that if it is different everywhere around the world regardless of the local society.

Perhaps someone's 'kink' is to kill people while they have sex with them.
But I'm sure many on here and other places wouldn't call that much of a kink but more as a sadistic twisted murderer.
Sex with kids is abhorent to many of us in the west but in other places around the world it is commonplace.
So I guess that part of the ToS is very open to individual interpretation.

From my own PoV, if you just control someone's finances for their own good (ie, keeping them out of debt etc), I would call that a financial advisor.
But, if either side get sexual pleasure from that control, even more so if it's a one-way street (ie, pathetic man paying a findomme for some service), I call that prostitution.

I know the legal definition of what prostition is and it varies according country and even state/district.
But to me, straight financial control is completely different to someone paying another, either by gift/tribute or monetary payment, for a service that results in one or other gaining sexual satisfaction from such activity.

So.... you call findomme a kink.
Many call it prostitution unless it's not for pleasure.




JeffBC -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/1/2013 10:23:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissKittyDeVine
I am done with these pointless arguments. I guess you could say I am bored of the boards. And of the continued refusal to accept our fetish. Adieu tout le monde.

My amusement is almost limitless since right in my signature line I believe I proudly claim to be a member of "The K Crowd"... that's TNDommeK... a findomme. But I do think a good flounce is in order here... carry on.

Do we need to get the flounce bingo card out on this one?



TNDommeK -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/1/2013 1:49:38 PM)

I knew my ears were burning. :)

I wish we could have subs who were actually from the other side come over and answer the OPs question.
Ya know, get different answers, from different people.

Freedom, I'm with ya again on this. I'd say financial advisor as well. That's why I make sure to say the difference on my profile so subs dont get the idea that I'll prance around on cam for gifts...or whatever the fin ducks do.



kalikshama -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/1/2013 3:01:03 PM)

I get sexual pleasure from cooking my man dinner. Does that make me a prostitute?

quote:

But, if either side get sexual pleasure from that control, even more so if it's a one-way street (ie, pathetic man paying a findomme for some service), I call that prostitution.


Before I head off to be a Chicken Marsala Prostitute, I would like to say that in preparing for a response to another post on this thread, I have been looking up definitions of prostitution, none of which include "sexual pleasure."

I have seen "sexual relations," "sexual contact" and "sexual intercourse."

In my Business Law courses, we had to prove the elements of a contract:

When Does a Contract Exist?

When a party files a suit claiming a breach of contract, the first question the judge must answer is whether a contract existed between the parties. The complaining party must prove four elements to show that a contract existed:

1. Offer - One of the parties made a promise to do or refrain from doing some specified action in the future.

2. Consideration - Something of value was promised in exchange for the specified action or nonaction. This can take the form of a significant expenditure of money or effort, a promise to perform some service, an agreement not to do something, or reliance on the promise. Consideration is the value that induces the parties to enter into the contract.

The existence of consideration distinguishes a contract from a gift. A gift is a voluntary and gratuitous transfer of property from one person to another, without something of value promised in return. Failure to follow through on a promise to make a gift is not enforceable as a breach of contract because there is no consideration for the promise.

3. Acceptance - The offer was accepted unambiguously. Acceptance may be expressed through words, deeds or performance as called for in the contract. Generally, the acceptance must mirror the terms of the offer. If not, the acceptance is viewed as a rejection and counteroffer.

If the contract involves a sale of goods (i.e. items that are movable) between merchants, then the acceptance does not have to mirror the terms of the offer for a valid contract to exist, unless:

(a) the terms of the acceptance significantly alter the original contract; or
(b) the offeror objects within a reasonable time.

4. Mutuality - The contracting parties had “a meeting of the minds” regarding the agreement. This means the parties understood and agreed to the basic substance and terms of the contract.

When the complaining party provides proof that all of these elements occurred, that party meets its burden of making a prima facie case that a contract existed. For a defending party to challenge the existence of the contract, that party must provide evidence undermining one or more elements.

------------

I therefore argue that without some form of sexual contact (and payment), there is no prostitution.

Perhaps someone familiar with criminal law would be kind enough to weigh in.




JeffBC -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/1/2013 3:26:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNDommeK
I knew my ears were burning. :)

ROFL, you need to vet the folks you let into your crowd better K. Apparently you let a FD hater in with me. Whodathunk?

quote:

I wish we could have subs who were actually from the other side come over and answer the OPs question. Ya know, get different answers, from different people.

Sort of, but really what could possibly be new under the sun? It's a freakin fetish. I don't "understand" sadism. I don't "understand" masochism. Hell, I barely even understand my own desires for control. I would imagine that subs who are into it probably "get it" but probably have a hard time explaining to others. Those who are not will fall into the "ewwwww" and "your kink is OK" camps depending on their native tolerance to stuff different than themselves.

Even the fact that most subs here will say "Oh hell no, not for me" isn't particularly unusual. I could point to some of the stuff Kana does and guess there's be more than a few subs not wanting that... uh... strongly. I doubt very many would want what I do and unlike Kana I'm actually a nice guy :)

That is the part that's mystified me about this whole "findomme debate" from the moment it started. I really do not understand how it's any different than anything else in any way at all. Honestly, the only thing I've been able to come up with is "sour grapes". I could see a male sub failing to attract a partner being resentful at "for pay dominance" of any sort. But to quote Ricky Lee Jones, There ain't no such thing as easy money. Those male subs will either have to pay up in relationship coin or currency coin. If they can't afford either then they are out of luck.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/1/2013 3:47:23 PM)

I think those four elements exist in most of the findomme activity I have seen or heard about.
Unlike cooking your man's dinner because you two are an item, married or otherwise.
You aren't two people conducting business - one providing a service to another.

An offer is made by the sub.
It is considered by the findomme.
It gets accepted by the findomme.
And there is joint mutuality of both minds.

That fits your definition of a contract.
Replace sub with client. Replace findomme with prostitute/hooker/call-girl.
And there you have the self-same thing.
A fully conducted and agreed contract between two consenting people - with some sort of payment arrangement (doesn't have to be monetary).

If the sub is just offering a tribute/gift/money just for shits and giggles and gets nothing and that is known up-front, that's different - it's just a gift.
But in most circumstances, that tribute/gift is in expectation for some sort of return from the findomme.
And that's the basic difference. I call that prostitution, as do many others.
The only difference between prostitution and any other paid-for service is that one or both parties gain, or expect to gain, sexual gratification from the process.





JeffBC -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/1/2013 4:03:18 PM)

Interesting post freedom... both yours and kali's.

It kind of made my head ponder Carol and I. In our case, while it is certainly true that money changes hands that was never a part of the contract. The contract was about loving each other. That was the offer. That was what was offered back in consideration, etc.

All of that, however, still gets back to my thought that context is everything here. You'd need to know whether money was a part of the core contract or not before you could really decide whether it was "sex worker" or "relationship". I'm not sure you can tell that readily from the outside.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/1/2013 4:48:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

Interesting post freedom... both yours and kali's.

It kind of made my head ponder Carol and I. In our case, while it is certainly true that money changes hands that was never a part of the contract. The contract was about loving each other. That was the offer. That was what was offered back in consideration, etc.

All of that, however, still gets back to my thought that context is everything here. You'd need to know whether money was a part of the core contract or not before you could really decide whether it was "sex worker" or "relationship". I'm not sure you can tell that readily from the outside.

That's a good point Jeff.

However, in my book, even a 'contract' is some sort of relationship.
I guess it just depends if you consider the findomme one a purely business relationship or something more than that so it can be called something more conducive to personal.

Sure, I give gifts to my OH and don't expect anything in return.
She does the same for me too.
But it's not a 'business' transaction because it's something more than that.
As it happens, we're married. But that isn't the issue.

I think what I'm trying to do is explain the difference between when two people are in it for something other than just one person paying for a service from another even if that service is a regular thing or a 1-off arrangement.
I'm not saying it's always without feelings, far from it. Sometimes a findomme can form an attraction to the client and vice-versa. But the bottom line is, it's still business, not personal.
It's the essential difference between bf/gf/married couple who have a vested interest in each other beyond a business transaction/arrangement.
If it's just business, then it's a sex worker because of the sexual element on one of the parties - or at least the expectation of it even if they don't actually get it.

I dunno if that clarifies my point any better?


ETA: by 'vested interest' I'm assuming something other than keeping the fin-sub as a recurring client.



xxblushesxx -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/1/2013 5:38:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

I think those four elements exist in most of the findomme activity I have seen or heard about.
Unlike cooking your man's dinner because you two are an item, married or otherwise.
You aren't two people conducting business - one providing a service to another.

An offer is made by the sub.
It is considered by the findomme.
It gets accepted by the findomme.
And there is joint mutuality of both minds.

That fits your definition of a contract.
Replace sub with client. Replace findomme with prostitute/hooker/call-girl.
And there you have the self-same thing.
A fully conducted and agreed contract between two consenting people - with some sort of payment arrangement (doesn't have to be monetary).

If the sub is just offering a tribute/gift/money just for shits and giggles and gets nothing and that is known up-front, that's different - it's just a gift.
But in most circumstances, that tribute/gift is in expectation for some sort of return from the findomme.
And that's the basic difference. I call that prostitution, as do many others.
The only difference between prostitution and any other paid-for service is that one or both parties gain, or expect to gain, sexual gratification from the process.





You should call the police and tell them about all of this prostitution that's going on. I'm sure they'll look into it. And then possibly arrest you for false reporting...(unless there really *is* prostitution happening)



xxblushesxx -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/1/2013 5:48:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

Interesting post freedom... both yours and kali's.

It kind of made my head ponder Carol and I. In our case, while it is certainly true that money changes hands that was never a part of the contract. The contract was about loving each other. That was the offer. That was what was offered back in consideration, etc.

All of that, however, still gets back to my thought that context is everything here. You'd need to know whether money was a part of the core contract or not before you could really decide whether it was "sex worker" or "relationship". I'm not sure you can tell that readily from the outside.

That's a good point Jeff.

However, in my book, even a 'contract' is some sort of relationship.
I guess it just depends if you consider the findomme one a purely business relationship or something more than that so it can be called something more conducive to personal.

Sure, I give gifts to my OH and don't expect anything in return.
She does the same for me too.
But it's not a 'business' transaction because it's something more than that.
As it happens, we're married. But that isn't the issue.

I think what I'm trying to do is explain the difference between when two people are in it for something other than just one person paying for a service from another even if that service is a regular thing or a 1-off arrangement.
I'm not saying it's always without feelings, far from it. Sometimes a findomme can form an attraction to the client and vice-versa. But the bottom line is, it's still business, not personal.
It's the essential difference between bf/gf/married couple who have a vested interest in each other beyond a business transaction/arrangement.
If it's just business, then it's a sex worker because of the sexual element on one of the parties - or at least the expectation of it even if they don't actually get it.

I dunno if that clarifies my point any better?


ETA: by 'vested interest' I'm assuming something other than keeping the fin-sub as a recurring client.


So, is the lady that does HM's hair a prostitute? They do have a relationship. They talk about things other than just his hair. He pays her for a service. If something happened to one, the other would be upset, but not as upset as a loved one would be. It's just business (and a bit of a friendship)

Is the dentist he went to this week a prostitute? They also have a relationship. They also talk about things other than just his teeth. He pays her for a service. And since they've been both client/dentist and colleagues, if something happened to one, the other would be upset. (but not as upset as a loved one would be.) It's mostly just business. (and a bit of a friendship) Wait...what if...she flirted with him and purposely rubbed up against him as she worked on his teeth, and he got excited, and then when he got home, he "took care of business"? Would she be a prostitute then? Or what if he didn't wait until he got home, but got so excited sitting in the dental chair while she rubbed up against him and flirted with him that he just couldn't stop himself from release? And then he paid her her normal rate for the dental service? Does THAT make her a prostitute?

Same thing with many of my clients. I don't even touch them, yet *I* am a prostitute? Really? Interesting.

And I'm not even going to go into the whole husband/wife connections so many people make. Whatever two (or more) adults decide works for them is what they should do. (as long as they are not hurting others.) I do find it fascinating that people have such strong feelings on something that they don't participate in and doesn't hurt others. It's interesting...



splatterpunk -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/1/2013 6:10:56 PM)

i think they are fucking fabulous.



kalikshama -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/1/2013 8:44:49 PM)

Often, while receiving a professional massage, I get turned on and sometimes I masturbate afterwards. I pay the service provider. Guess I'm a John.



Kana -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/2/2013 7:15:07 AM)

Chortles


Of course, going all Sienfeldian stream of consciousnesses and spinning things back to the start, contract law doesn't apply to an illegal contract. Thus, if findomming is prostitution, then any contract made is null and void by the illegality of the act.
Which sends things right back to peg one-is it or isn't it?
And frankly why do folks care. I bet at least 1/2 the peeps out here railing against finning are also pro legalization of prostitution. An interesting dichotomy.

(Note-I'm not taking any side in this discussion, my points have been made up thread. I'm doing this purely to throw shit in the fan)



Zonie63 -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/2/2013 8:01:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana
And frankly why do folks care. I bet at least 1/2 the peeps out here railing against finning are also pro legalization of prostitution. An interesting dichotomy.


I've been wondering about this myself. I'd like to think that the question of legalizing prostitution would be a separate issue, although I think the very fact that it's illegal is what produces this particular barrier to communication in these discussions.






kalikshama -> RE: What do subs think of FinDommes? (9/2/2013 9:08:32 AM)

quote:

Of course, going all Sienfeldian stream of consciousnesses and spinning things back to the start, contract law doesn't apply to an illegal contract. Thus, if findomming is prostitution, then any contract made is null and void by the illegality of the act.


Right, I brought up contract law to show if 1-4 aren't met, there wasn't a contract. I would think the same applies to criminal law - for there to be a crime, particular elements must be present, and am arguing that without sexual contact, there is no prostitution.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625