quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze

I've only done it for guys who were head over shoulders in debt and seriously wasted their money, for them it was financial domination and they didn't mind, for me it was just stopping somebody with a massive income being in debt before the middle of the month. Once the finances were in order again, we set up a spending plan, it felt more like being the responsible adult to me, but if it was kinky for them and helped them to stick to a budget, where's the harm if they actually enjoy it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

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."

Ok, assuming for a second that your argument that financial domination isn't a part of BDSM is correct (let's just assume for a second everybody...).

How exactly does that make it an issue that there are financial domination profiles on this site?
This isn't a BDSM site after all. Nothing in CollarSpace's Terms of Services defines this site as a BDSM specific site. NOTHING.

This is an adult (sexually geared) site geared towards members who are interested in finding and contacting other members who are also interested in adult (sexually geared) exchange.

Financial domination IS of an adult nature. After all, the purpose is for the 'paypig' to get his rocks off (and hopefully the Domme as well, if she's actually genuine... but even if she's not that's still not an issue, because it's still an adult-natured exchange).

As such, financial domination is a legitimate part of THIS site.

If you have a problem with that, I suggest you go find a 'true' BDSM site instead...

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze

I've only done it for guys who were head over shoulders in debt and seriously wasted their money, for them it was financial domination and they didn't mind, for me it was just stopping somebody with a massive income being in debt before the middle of the month. Once the finances were in order again, we set up a spending plan, it felt more like being the responsible adult to me, but if it was kinky for them and helped them to stick to a budget, where's the harm if they actually enjoy it?

I've done that twice.
Taking a guy with a financial domination fetish, and took control over his entire finances online. Set him on a budget, monitored his spending, all to the point of him not being allowed (or able to without me knowing) to do so much as buy a stick of gum without permission.
Both times, the guys has debt (in one case serious, in the other quite normal for his age/social position) and paying off the debt was one of my number 1 priorities.

In both cases, I also spend their money on myself, shopping with it online, buying myself stuff I wanted.

In the case with the guy who had serious debt, I made it so he couldn't see his debt accounts (changed passwords, expected proof that paper mail regarding the accounts stayed unopened, etc), and all he could see was that I took X amount of money for 'myself' every month, with him having no idea that I used a substantial amount of it to pay down his debts. As far as he knew, he was going into debt more and more, and I was driving him to the brink of bankruptcy. Imagine his surprise when later he found out that most of his major debt was paid off.

The thing is, I wasn't doing it as a 'service' to them. I didn't need their money, didn't rely on it as a source of income (in fact, I never bought any essentials with their money at all, it was just all stuff to spoil myself with... clothing, more kink toys, etc).

The reason I did it was because I genuinely got off on the fact that I controlled their finances remote. I'd masturbate to their texts begging me to be allowed to buy themselves something (like food). What I got off on was the fact that I was in control over their financial accounts. I had their passwords, I determined what they were and weren't allowed to spend, I exacted consequences for misbehavior, etc.
What interested me about the whole thing WAS exactly the control I had over their lives. Sure, they could have broken ties with me at any time, but so can a submissive who's live-in, by walking out.

You can call that a 'service' because I was managing their debt, and taking a portion of their money for myself (like an accounting service I suppose) but it really wasn't. With one of the guys, I wouldn't have taken any money for myself, in an ideal situation, instead spending it all to pay off his debt, except that he really got off on seeing me 'spoiled' with the stuff he paid for. As such, I used the money I did take from him as a means of controlling him: taking his money for myself, and showing him that I was enjoying it, was what was his reward. It was the way he got rewarded by pleasing me when he stayed on budget grocery shopping, etc. There were weeks where he disobeyed, and went over the budget I had set for him, and he was punished by NOT getting to spend any money on me that week. No matter how much he begged and grovelled to be allowed to do so, he wasn't allowed to spend me money those weeks.

But of course... I wasn't really in control, right? I was just providing him a 'service' by punishing him by not taking his money, to ensure that he'd be 'a return customer'. Sure... sure.

I currently have a live-in slave girl who indeed signs her paycheck over to us, and again, she totally has no control over her own finances. In her case there is no debt to consider, so instead a significant portion of her paycheck goes to build up savings for her (and eventually us, should we all stay together for a significant portion of time). But again, like the two online subs I've had, she has no idea how her money's being spend, besides the fact that she's got her essentials covered for her.

Of course she's more my slave than either of the guys I've owned online. She's live-in, I control her entire life, not just her finances.
But I don't see how the fact that I control my live-in slave more than the guys online means that I didn't control the guys online at all...

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

Ok... let's also separate what you're doing here from "FinDomme" as it's typically practiced. Because what you're discussing here is ACTUAL domination. I discussed a situation similar to this early on in this thread. When you're doing things like filing tax returns for your financial slave... THAT'S domination.

What you're describing though isn't how it is typically done. Again, think of all the profiles here that are just looking for "pay pigs" and "human ATMs." Those still call themselves "FinDommes."

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

Ok... let's also separate what you're doing here from "FinDomme" as it's typically practiced. Because what you're discussing here is ACTUAL domination. I discussed a situation similar to this early on in this thread. When you're doing things like filing tax returns for your financial slave... THAT'S domination.

What you're describing though isn't how it is typically done. Again, think of all the profiles here that are just looking for "pay pigs" and "human ATMs." Those still call themselves "FinDommes."

What you're describing about yourself in your profile and journal isn't the same as what a Nigerian scammer profile is doing either.
Your engagements into BDSM and Domination are exploited for (attempted) financial by others who are not genuinely interested in them... does that make your kinks any less genuine?

Your argument on this thread has not been "Some online FinDommes are scammer, and scammers should be shunned by the community.", your argument was: "Online FinDommes and a relationship in which the Domme takes money from a 'paypig' online, cannot possible be True Domination or BDSM.".

Granted, I agree with your point that there are very many women out there who see financial Domination as a 'get rich quick' scam. Not only are they clueless about what BDSM really is, they're also not actually fetishists, as they don't get sexual gratification out of financial domination at all, and instead care about nothing but the money.

But just because those women exist doesn't mean financial domination cannot be a legitimate fetish, nor does it mean that it cannot legitimately be practiced online (or in any other long distance medium).

I advice that you fine-tune your complaint to not be against financial domination, but against scammers, who pretend to be into financial domination for the sake of getting cash, but who have no actual interest in domination, kink, fetish, BDSM, or adult interaction.

Furthermore, your complaint against these women isn't even so much that they're in it for the cash (as you don't strike me to be the type who is against an honest hooker plying her trade) but rather, against the fact that these women are liars, hypocrites and fraudulent in the way they present themselves.

After all, you don't very often find FinDomme profiles which state: "I'm not into kink or BDSM, and couldn't give a hoot about Dominating somebody, I'm just trying to get some suckers to give me some cash to pay my bills. I look down on everybody kinky on this site, paypigs, and other kinksters alike.", and yet, when you talk to these little payprincess in private, that most often the attitude that prevails amongst them.

I suspect if they advertised as honest hookers, stating something to the like of: "I'm willing to pretend to be your Mistress if you give me some money, even though I don't really give a shit about your, or about being a Mistress", you'd have far less objections to the whole issue.

As your main complaint is with the hypocrisy and fraud of various payprincess, I do wonder why you consider it necessary to assume the -false- position that there's no way for online financial domination to genuinely fall under the BDSM umbrella. Just because some people fake it for cash, doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate part of BDSM for those whom aren't faking it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal


I don't believe I've made the argument that true Financial Domination can't be done on-line. Granted, it is significantly harder to do it in a way that is both verifiable and effective over a long distance.

I've been trying to distinguish between the real thing (which you described a couple of posts back), and the fraudsters that you describe in this post (which I've been describing with the term "as it is typically practiced").

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

As it is generally practiced, I'd say no. It's not a legitimate part of BDSM. If you're the 'pay pig' paying a "Fin Domme" for a service, she is your employee, or contractor and the true nature of the power exchange is completely backwards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

Fin-Domme, though as it's practiced on this site isn't any of that. It's a role-play game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

Yes, I know the difference between a pro-top and bottom.. and that neither of those have anything to do with dominance. Which, ironically, is also the reason why a "Fin-Domme" isn't actually a Dominant. That was my whole point. The Fin-Domme is essentially a contractor servicing a client. She's not dominant, he's not submissive, so the D/s exchange is backwards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal


I don't believe I've made the argument that true Financial Domination can't be done on-line. Granted, it is significantly harder to do it in a way that is both verifiable and effective over a long distance.

I've been trying to distinguish between the real thing (which you described a couple of posts back), and the fraudsters that you describe in this post (which I've been describing with the term "as it is typically practiced").

To nitpick for a second:

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

As it is generally practiced, I'd say no. It's not a legitimate part of BDSM. If you're the 'pay pig' paying a "Fin Domme" for a service, she is your employee, or contractor and the true nature of the power exchange is completely backwards.

You have made the argument that if a paypig gives money to a FinDomme, she's necessarily his employee or contractor, and that, cannot be a legitimate part of BDSM.

quote:

I've been a FinDomme who has had paypigs online give me money. Both my FinDomme relationships with the boys mentioned started off with them buying me stuff off my wishlist on command. From there, control slowly grew. I certainly did not have access to all of their financials from the first day we talked online.

At what time did I stop being their employee, and became their Domme?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

Fin-Domme, though as it's practiced on this site isn't any of that. It's a role-play game.

You made the argument that Financial Domination as it's practiced on this site isn't BDSM, it's just a role-play game.
I practice on this site. Am I merely playing a role, and not part of the BDSM community?

You'll also note that you did NOT specify "as it's typically practiced", instead making a sweeping generalization applying to every single FinDomme on this site.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

Yes, I know the difference between a pro-top and bottom.. and that neither of those have anything to do with dominance. Which, ironically, is also the reason why a "Fin-Domme" isn't actually a Dominant. That was my whole point. The Fin-Domme is essentially a contractor servicing a client. She's not dominant, he's not submissive, so the D/s exchange is backwards.

And here you make the point that a FinDomme -as it's written, ANY FinDomme- is not a Dominant.

If your point was to say that: "Some online FinDommes on CollarSpace are fakes, but other online FinDommes are actual Dominants." you certainly failed to convey that sentiment to me (and I think a good number of other people on this thread as well).

For the record: Nope, I've never filled out another's tax return. With 1 off the guys I dominated online, I didn't have physical access to his accounts. Although I did used a banking software linked to his accounts so I could monitor his spending, and I had his credit card information etc linked to all his accounts, I never made him set me up with access. After a while of getting to know each other, I could have made him give me access, but there was no need for it, as he was obedient, and transparent, and I didn't need physical control over the account to control him.
With the other guy, where I did have physical access over the accounts (because he otherwise wasn't obedient and transparent) he still filled out his own tax return, with information requested from me where needed.

In neither case I saw a point in filling out tax returns personally... as you mentioned already: financial domination is a LOT of work, even without bothering with tax returns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

Again, I think I was pretty thorough in my initial posts separating actual fin-domme (and explaining what it is) from the typical game playing/scamming. From that point on, I assumed people would be able to tell I was aiming my comments at the latter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

This is NOT about what people do or what gets them off. This is about LANGUAGE. It's about describing what you do in an accurate way, and understanding how the power dynamic actually works in a relationship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

Again, I think I was pretty thorough in my initial posts separating actual fin-domme (and explaining what it is) from the typical game playing/scamming. From that point on, I assumed people would be able to tell I was aiming my comments at the latter.

I'm sorry, but I think that position is entirely inconsistent with this post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

This is NOT about what people do or what gets them off. This is about LANGUAGE. It's about describing what you do in an accurate way, and understanding how the power dynamic actually works in a relationship.

If you care enough about accurate use of language to chastise people from using definitions slightly different then you do, you owe it to yourself to actually be precise and accurate in the use of the your own language.
It's wholly inconsistent to expect others to be precise, but allow yourself the laziness of shortcuts, especially considering that. through the course of this thread, it hasn't been clear -to anybody as far as I can tell- that your original post allowing for OFFLINE live-in financial domination included a possibility that there could be online FinDommes on this site to whom your original comments also applied.
Every single time you made the distinction 'as it's usual practiced here' it sounded to all involved that you were contrasting offline live-in financial domination (as a valid possibility) with online only financial domination maintained through this specific site.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal


As someone who has actually practiced this in a responsible way, doesn't it make your skin crawl to see the way they pervert this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal


As someone who has actually practiced this in a responsible way, doesn't it make your skin crawl to see the way they pervert this?

Why does it matter so much to you what others do?

Does what others do take anything away from your own relationships?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal


There really is a right way and a wrong way to do Financial Domination, and not everyone who does it, does it the wrong way. But when the vast majority of them are really just scammers and thieves, those people shouldn't be defended. Especially when they're not really engaging in financial domination.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal


There really is a right way and a wrong way to do Financial Domination, and not everyone who does it, does it the wrong way. But when the vast majority of them are really just scammers and thieves, those people shouldn't be defended. Especially when they're not really engaging in financial domination.

So, essentially you're offended because people you don't know and will never meet don't do "financial domination" correctly, according to whatever definition you're using. That, somehow, because they use the same term you do, it makes what you do somehow less special. Am I even remotely close?

I never understood someone getting their panties in a wad over how others conduct themselves, especially when it doesn't affect them in any way. But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal


I'm offended by scammers who cloak themselves in this lifestyle to take advantage of other people... because it gives this lifestyle (and website) a bad name.

And it makes it more difficult for people who are genuinely interested in all of this to explore it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal


I'm offended by scammers who cloak themselves in this lifestyle to take advantage of other people... because it gives this lifestyle (and website) a bad name.

And it makes it more difficult for people who are genuinely interested in all of this to explore it.

Like anything else in life, ignoring what you don't want or like works very well.

And, I just have to giggle a little bit at the mention of this "lifestyle". I have yet to see a good working definition of it. Apparently, according to some, I'm part of it- but ask me to explain exactly what it is, and I'm at a loss. Have a good reference for this?