|
undergroundsea -> RE: Another perspective (1/2/2007 3:19:33 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AAkasha
What is interesting about these threads is how quickly sub men get all bitter and complain about the women who "take advantage" of the poor, helpless guys who get duped into sending cash to random strangers who then disappear on them, or get exploited (and not in a way that turns them on).
I don't recall any other poster who raised the point about demands for money upon initial contact in what appeared to be a fishy situation. Your post seems to refer to my post and so I will gladly respond. In the event you disagree with a point I make in a post, please feel welcome to directly quote me.
Your post discussed financial domination from one angle and specifically focused on challenges and insights from the dominants' side. My post added a perspective from the submissive side and helped create a fuller picture.
I don't think my post was a bitter complaint. But I do indeed look unfavorably upon one person taking advantage of another where it is not mutually sought. I do so for empathy and for how my value system responds to this scenario. And I feel this way about matters in general--I take my response from how I feel about exploitation in general and extend it to exploitation in the context here.
By exploitation in the form of financial domination I mean taking advantage of a high demand for female dominance through forced (not the fetish) financial domination under the guise of a personal relationship which relies on desperation or high demand.
I do not consider financial domination done as a fetish the same. I do not consider authentic professional domination to be exploitation.
Part of me recognizes the outcome for what I consider exploitation is forces of supply and demand at work, much like how these forces work for various aspects of the economy, and that it allows both sides to have what they otherwise might not be able to have. Part of me finds it to conflict with my value system. When hurricanes Katrina and Rita came, I recall reading that some hotels were investigated for boosting their room rates to take advantage of the high demand, and needs of the evacuees. Sure, that is supply and demand at work. But something seems not right to me.
I have not yet resolved the two sides of this matter about forced financial domination and the demand that allows it. Thus, as I say in my prior post, I think it is neither all evil nor benign.
quote:
Why don't you guys start getting all over EACH OTHER for falling for these scams over and over again?
I disagree with what seems to be your take here: blame the person who gets duped. For the scams you describe (a demand for a tribute followed by a disappearing act), I do indeed place more blame with the scammer than the scamee. Let's consider a trusting old lady writes a check to a conman posing as a salesman. Perhaps she could have been wiser. But do you blame the lady more than the conman? If you do, we have different perspectives and that is fair enough. If not, why do you feel differently here?
I don't think anyone here is suggesting a remedy for financial domination. I am not sure a remedy should be or can be realistically sought. Your idea about forming a subs' union that tells the union members how to respond does not resonate with me.
quote:
The fact that some men (who do not have a financial fetish, but are desperate) fall for this scam is unbelievable, especially after how much the topic is covered places like this.
quote:
The reason so many women (and MEN) flock to this scam of "send me a tribute and I will send you a photo or talk to you" is supply and demand.
I think you explain why what is unbelievable is believable in the second quote. Thus far I have passed on all demands to send money to show sincerity. Still, I can easily imagine why one would fall for the scam. One reason is hope, which can indeed cloud common sense. The other reason is that tributes are demanded often enough--due to the supply and demand--that a demand for tribute is believable.
quote:
If you don't like sending a stranger money, don't do it. If you think a woman is exploiting you for money, don't give her money, and move on. But some get so wrapped up in the fantasy they open their wallet with one hand while stroking their dick with the other.
What you are saying is that those who do not enjoy financial submission should simply not do it and let those who enjoy it proceed. Fair enough.
I acknowledge that financial domination as a fetish does exist. I acknowledge that it is also promoted by some subs offering money even when it is not asked. My points were directed to the scenario where it is not done as a fetish but for sake of exploiting a want.
Thus far, I have passed on relationships with a material basis. And I have done reasonably well with respect to how many opportunities of submission I have been able to enjoy, and with whom. I can also feel reasonably good about how I have fared in the various circles--online and in person--I have had the opportunity to find. That does not change how I feel about exploitation even if it is happening to other people. Again, my response here stems from how I feel about exploitation in a general manner.
quote:
don't get down on the women doing the scamming (there are plenty of men with fake profiles pretending to be women doing it too)
I could indeed put up a fake domme profile and pull the disappearing act. My value system keeps me from doing so. The conflict with the value systems exists because of how I feel about creating a fake profile, and also about exploiting another. The latter conflict with my value system becomes relevant when I perceive one to be exploiting another.
I think whatever motivates one to exploit is distributed across people in general. The objection that I have against exploitation is not directed at women but at people who exploit. It applies to men who are posing as women (for the exploitation and for posing) as well as whereever it may occur outside the Fm realm.
You say:
quote:
See, these "financial subs" really have one up on you: they get PLEASURE when they send the gift or cash. They don't do it expecting a "payoff" so they aren't here whining.
And in a prior post you say:
quote:
I've done a lot of phone domination (in the past, not so much now), and the "money pig" type slaves or those that requested "financial domination" were among the WORST when it came to wanting to control the fantasy. Men who have a fetish about being used for their money or dominated financial have an erotic relationship with their cash in such a way that they MUST retain control behind the scenes, period. They also risk getting scammed and burned, so they are (and have every right to be) meticulously anal about how the relationship would proceed.
I see a disconnect between your two statements.
Cheers,
Sea
|
|
|
|
