|
MadRabbit -> RE: 'Real doms' (3/2/2007 5:18:21 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephann
Hi Greed,
See, this is my point. Obviously, people visit this site for lots of reasons. Yet, the very people you depend on for your business, don't come looking for your business here on CM.com (or any other personals website) because they are shopping for your service. It's on par with a prostitute going to dance club at 1 am and trying to find clients there, because those men are already feeling miserable that they could not 'hook up.' I see it as a socially and emotionally abusive activity. I do concede that some people are looking to be socially and emotionally abused, but that does not make it acceptable in my book.
Because your intention is to further a business goal through the internet, we the general kink population are left wondering exactly what it is you feel you have in common with us, in terms of your experience with BDSM or D/s. A gynecologist may be an expert in 'medical play' but that doesn't qualify him as being part of the BDSM community.
I hope this illustrates why there is so much resentment towards your business here.
Regards,
Stephan
I'm with Stephan on this one, but at the same time, I realize that this debate comes down to personal ethics.
Once upon a time, I had a gentleman contact me, asking if he could send me money. I thouught he was joking at first, but he explained to me that he liked to give gifts to Doms on the Net for the fealing of humilation and thought it might be more humilating to send money to a male Dom. Still thinking he wanst serious, I decided to humor him and give him my email address linked to my PayPal account.
To my surprise, I received an email confirming an amount of money had been transfered to my account.
However, I never pushed the man to ever send me anymore money. It was solely a gift from him. I didnt think the idea of trying to make money off someone with a fetish when I am not really providing much of an actual service in return to be unethical. Nor do I consider the idea of setting up a franchise on Collarme.com to make money as a "fiancial Dom" or a "Money Mistress" and requiring a certain amount of money for people to chat with me to be ethical as well. At what point are you just flat out taking advantage of lonely and depressed men desperately searching for someone to talk to. Trying to convince me that you arent going to receive money from men like that isnt something I am going to buy either because there is pleny of men like that out there. They used to go and hang out at the bars and clubs at 2am, now they surf the Net.
The notion of fiancial Doms on the Internet and "webcam performance artists" is the same ethics to me as the prostitute who walks into a club searching for lonely and desperate men as targets. The notions of Supply and Demand and "If they want to pay, whats the big deal?" doesnt cover up behavior that is unethical. The "webcam performance artists" who have attempted to solicit me have done so under the guise that they were actually interested in me past my credit card. You require money from men to talk to you and you dont want to meet any of them in RT. So...how is this not, to a degree, simply taking advantage of men who are so desperate to talk to a pretty girl that they will pay money for it? Furthermore, realistically, if you were to take all the men who payed out money to women on the Net, which category would be larger? The category of men with an actual humilation fetish for this or the category of men who were desperate, lonely, and looking for some kind of attention?
All the arguments I have heard in this thread for the defence of fiancial Domination are the arguments I hear in defense of crack dealers. After all, people who sell crack are supplying a demand. If people are willing to pay for the service, does that justify and make it "Ok" for them to sell crack? Or...is the behavior unethical because they are preying on people's weakness?
Of course, finacial domination isnt illegial like selling crack is (as you pointed out). However, the polarities of legal/illegial dont always match up with those of right/wrong and ethical/unethical. Alchocol and cigarettes kill a hell of a lot more people every year then marijiuana ever will, but yet the first two are legal and the other is illegial. Its illegial for me to not wear my seat belt, the offence resulting in a very large finacial ticket, but where is the great evil in me not wearing it? Its my seat belt and if I dont want to wear it and risk losing solely my own life, whats the big deal? (This logic sounds hauntingly familiar to the logic in defence of fianicial Domination).
So...if you want to do it, thats your choice, but personally, I hold myself to higher ethical and moral standards then the ones present in finicial Domination. If you want to support and take part in a practice whos ethics and justifications are very similar to the ones used by crack dealers, you go right ahead, but I wont respect you.
As Michael said, there is a difference between prostitution and whoring. The difference is the ethics of the person offering the service. If you were to tell me that you chatted with men and accepted gifts from them without any pressure, it would be a different case, but threw the loose justifcations and logic you have presented here, I see the ethics of a whore and not a prositute.
Of course, this is just solely my opinion.
|
|
|
|
