HisPet21
Posts: 395
Status: offline
|
quote:
Equating this to rape is outlandish.
I concur. The point of my parallel wasn't intended to demonstrate that agreed upon, forced intoxication sessions are the same as rape. It was intended to disprove the tid-bit you quoted below:
quote:
He does drink it, therefore he consents to that and to whatever happens when he is drunk.
Obviously, this is not a true statement. If we want to live in a country where rape is illegal, a person who drinks cannot necessarily be said to, as you put it, "consent to...WHATEVER happens when he is drunk." But I'm glad we've worked this bit of confusion out. However...
quote:
Consenting to be forcibly intoxicated is however consensual.
Very, true. The initial agreement to get drunk is a consensual one. But after a few drinks have gone down the hatch, the promise to pay mistress the big bucks may or may NOT be consensual, given the client's degree of drunkenness. There is this legal term floating round, known as "informed consent." You can consent all you want to the stupidest, most horrible things, but unless a business partner or researcher can prove that your consent was informed, it's not going to be binding. This is why children cannot consent to undergo experimental research (they can assent, but their parents have to consent) because children cannot understand the particulars of the research. They can't be informed. A man impaired by alcohol is, in a similar vein, unable to be fully aware, and thus informed, about his decision to dish out $1,000 to his findom. And unless the findom KNOWS for a fact that he can afford such a lump sum, I don't see how she can ethically take that money. It's one thing to take money freely offered by an idiot, even if it is in excess of his means, and to take money from a drunk idiot. The former is ethically understandable: In order to respect the idiot as an adult, you have to respect his decision to give you money, even if it is a bad one. In the latter scenario, a chemical---rather than poor, but legitimate decision making---could be the cause of your getting rich.
Aside from my personal opinion---that its really not very smart to legitimately get drunk on a stranger's orders, when you both know your fetish involves giving money away---I'm not going to say that forced intoxication sessions are in and of themselves bad. I perceive them as unethical if the findom doesn't take measures to ensure her own client's safety (i.e. look out for alcohol poisoning, set up a pre-agreed spending limit, etc.). So far, not a single findom has come forward to say, "Well obviously I care about my client's safety! I use ethical standards X,Y, and Z to ensure his safety!" If I went to a pro-dom, for whatever reason, and he couldn't tell me the steps he'd take to ensure my safety? My ass would be out of there so fucking quick, all you'd see is a gorgeous flesh colored blur. What about when you go to a restaurant? Don't you expect the staff to consider your safety, you know, to cook unspoiled meat, wash their veggies, thoroughly cook your chicken? Do you think it'd be acceptable for the restaurant owner to say, as so many findoms seem to be implying, that "Hey, if they don't like our spoiled meat and get food poisoning, then they won't come back! Problem solved!"
Yeah.....So, come on findoms, what professional ethics do you adhere to in your practice? I am seriously curious. Every other professional has to adhere to strict ethical guidelines to avoid a lawsuit. My guess is that the embarrassment of suing a findom, and admitting you saw one, probably gives you guys a little more ethical leeway, but I doubt the good ones are taking advantage of this. So, c'mon, let's share.
|
RE: Why Financial Domination Bothers Me... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread