quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal
No, the original question was about Financial Domination (see the thread title). As noted in my first post, there is a way to do that in the context of a power exchange. As it's typically practiced though, the power exchange is backwards.

If you're doing this as a professional, the reality of that is you're providing a service to a client that they will pay for. At the end of the day, it's about making THEM happy. Otherwise they don't come back and you don't get paid. That's the true nature of the power exchange. And you know what? Good for you on throwing that whip. I'm sure you've been highly trained by professionals to know how to do it in just such a way to properly service your clients.

With all due respect, do not insult me. If you want to throw accusations, this will not end well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal
That goes both ways. Snark and baseless assertions that I don't know what I'm talking about are no substitute for explaining your position.

quote:

It is absolutely NOT a power exchange. The "pay pig" maintains control over his money, and simply allows the "Fin Domme" to purchase some things with his money.

quote:

This isn't a 'one true way' thing. But if you don't understand the true nature of the power dynamic, you're misunderstanding BDSM.

quote:

No. I'd argue that they're not really a top.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal
That goes both ways. Snark and baseless assertions that I don't know what I'm talking about are no substitute for explaining your position.

Then, let's try again.

BDSM, in it's simplest form, stands for bondage, discipline, sadism, and/or masochism.

Are we good so far?

These are about acts. If I go tie up a Barbie Doll, it's still bondage. For whatever reason I *might* tie up that Barbie Doll, the end result is bondage. I don't have to be getting off on it at all. I could be just practicing knots. Dear, ole Barbie just wants to be tied up. (Doesn't change be, to 'do-er' being the top because I'm doing the action.) I might be attempting rope art.

NONE of these things negate the fact that I'm engaging in bondage. Whatever my motivation, I'm still tying Barbie up. There isn't a single thing you can say *based on my motivations* that I'm not tying up Barbie. That makes it a part of BDSM.

For what it's worth, I never understand these threads. Professional Dominants have been a part of the leather community for decades.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

It is absolutely NOT a power exchange. The "pay pig" maintains control over his money, and simply allows the "Fin Domme" to purchase some things with his money.

Really? And how many "pay pigs" and Findommes have you actually discussed the details of what they do with?

quote:

This isn't a 'one true way' thing. But if you don't understand the true nature of the power dynamic, you're misunderstanding BDSM.

Oh I see, it isn't a one true way thing, it's just that I don't understand the true nature of the power dynamic. Irony much?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

No. I'd argue that they're not really a top.

Oh dear, there's that one true way again, you really are fond of that aren't you? Oh let me guess it's not one true way, it's just that I don't understand the true nature of topping.

And just for the record, you are 100% wrong. A "top" is just the person who does the action to the "bottom", it has nothing to do with dominance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal
Ok. Fine. You're talking about tying people up. Yes, that's "Bondage." How does any of that relate to "Financial Domination" as it's practiced here?

And yes, I know professionals have been part of this community for decades. It's good that there are people out there who know how to throw a whip, or tie someone up in a way that they can make a living (or augment a living) with it. And public dungeons are great too. Do-ers and be-ers are fine, too. But in the end, it's still all a performance. Barbie Doll gets untied at the end of the night, becomes Barbara Dole again, and goes to work as a lawyer the next day.

And hey... going to see the local Shakespeare Company is fantastic as well. But going and enjoying a performance of all three parts of Henry VI, isn't fighting in the Wars of the Roses, no matter how good the actors are and how realistic the lighting is.

quote:

One more time: putting your services up for sale is NOT a dominant trait.

quote:

Seriously, how hard do you think this is to understand? There are a ton of profiles that say "I'm not even going to acknowledge your presence unless you pay me." (or some variation on that theme) it's pretty clear what this is about for most "fin-dommes."

quote:

and that neither of those have anything to do with dominance.

quote:

Which, ironically, is also the reason why a "Fin-Domme" isn't actually a Dominant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact


We're not connecting at all, are we?

If people engage in a kink, no matter what you think of it, TO THEM, it's still a kink. Which, doesn't really have to do with you... Or Me... Or anybody else. It's not a democracy and you don't get a vote.

quote:

But in the end, it's still all a performance. Barbie Doll gets untied at the end of the night, becomes Barbara Dole again, and goes to work as a lawyer the next day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal
Ok. Fine. You're talking about tying people up. Yes, that's "Bondage." How does any of that relate to "Financial Domination" as it's practiced here?

And yes, I know professionals have been part of this community for decades. It's good that there are people out there who know how to throw a whip, or tie someone up in a way that they can make a living (or augment a living) with it. And public dungeons are great too. Do-ers and be-ers are fine, too. But in the end, it's still all a performance. Barbie Doll gets untied at the end of the night, becomes Barbara Dole again, and goes to work as a lawyer the next day.

And hey... going to see the local Shakespeare Company is fantastic as well. But going and enjoying a performance of all three parts of Henry VI, isn't fighting in the Wars of the Roses, no matter how good the actors are and how realistic the lighting is.

We're not connecting at all, are we?

If people engage in a kink, no matter what you think of it, TO THEM, it's still a kink. Which, doesn't really have to do with you... Or Me... Or anybody else. It's not a democracy and you don't get a vote.

Like it or not, public dungeons helped to build this community. We would not be where we are today without them. Do you think Chicago would have the kink scene it does today without gay leathermen? The bikers? The Swinger set?

You don't have to like it. You don't have to like me. Still a part of the whole thing that is BDSM.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

But in the end, it's still all a performance. Barbie Doll gets untied at the end of the night, becomes Barbara Dole again, and goes to work as a lawyer the next day.

And so is what you do, because your sub gets untied at the end of the night and goes to work as whatever she is the next day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal


You clearly have never had a live-in slave. My last most definitely did NOT go to work, and rarely wore clothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal


No, not all of BDSM is all about power exchange. But "Financial Domination" IS about power exchange. Think about the actual meaning of the words "Financial Domination" - to dominate someone's finances. As it is typically practiced, a Fin Domme is really closer to a 'sugar baby.'

I suppose you could compare this to a "service top" - but a "service top" isn't actually in charge either. Being for sale is NOT a dominant trait.

However, would you argue that a "service top", who isn't actually in charge, is not engaging in BDSM?

No. I'd argue that they're not really a top. They're a contractor, serving a client. They're role playing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal
No. We're clearly not connecting. Look... I DGAF if some people find it kinky or fun to throw money at strangers. For me, this is about language. It's about words actually MEANING something.

Simply put, Financial Domination IS a real thing. If your slave is handing you a blank, signed, IRS-1040 form every year for you to fill out, you're financially dominating them. If their paycheck gets direct deposited into an account only you control, you're financially dominating them. If they never handle any money other than what you give them, you're financially dominating them. If they don't have a bank account, or a credit card because you are responsible for any financial obligations that they may incur, you're financially dominating them.

If they're just taking you shopping for the night with their credit card, or buying you something off of your Amazon wish list, or paying to talk to you, you're NOT financially dominating them. They are your client, not your submissive; even if the two of you like to pretend otherwise.

And if BDSM doesn't have anything to do with Dominance and Submission, then by your own definition, Financial Domination isn't part of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

Not every live-in slave stays home without a job. So, just because that's your structure, doesn't mean that others can't do it differently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal


No, not all of BDSM is all about power exchange. But "Financial Domination" IS about power exchange. Think about the actual meaning of the words "Financial Domination" - to dominate someone's finances. As it is typically practiced, a Fin Domme is really closer to a 'sugar baby.'

I suppose you could compare this to a "service top" - but a "service top" isn't actually in charge either. Being for sale is NOT a dominant trait.

However, would you argue that a "service top", who isn't actually in charge, is not engaging in BDSM?

No. I'd argue that they're not really a top. They're a contractor, serving a client. They're role playing.

I hate to break it to you, but when you find your "alpha slave" she won't really be a slave. That's illegal. She will be role playing and so will you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal
No. We're clearly not connecting. Look... I DGAF if some people find it kinky or fun to throw money at strangers. For me, this is about language. It's about words actually MEANING something.

Simply put, Financial Domination IS a real thing. If your slave is handing you a blank, signed, IRS-1040 form every year for you to fill out, you're financially dominating them. If their paycheck gets direct deposited into an account only you control, you're financially dominating them. If they never handle any money other than what you give them, you're financially dominating them. If they don't have a bank account, or a credit card because you are responsible for any financial obligations that they may incur, you're financially dominating them.

If they're just taking you shopping for the night with their credit card, or buying you something off of your Amazon wish list, or paying to talk to you, you're NOT financially dominating them. They are your client, not your submissive; even if the two of you like to pretend otherwise.

And if BDSM doesn't have anything to do with Dominance and Submission, then by your own definition, Financial Domination isn't part of it.

Last time. Please don't accuse me of things I'm not doing. I had enough of that, already.

For the record, I don't have an Amazon wish list. I've turned down more than enough people who try to "buy" me things.

As an aside, this is exactly why Dominant wo

Women such as myself have a hard time participating here. No matter how much any of us talk about not being into financial domination, but understanding those who do we've already been painted.

So, let's get to brass tacks.

I can PROMISE you that I engage in kinks that you don't endorse. (Well, me and a few other folks around.) Drawing blood, to me, isn't any different than extracting money.

A part of domination is about 'do what I say do" is it not?