Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WorshipKimber
quote:
ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
As for "pros are whores," it depends on a person's definition of "whore." Many people equate "whore" and "prostitute." A pro domme is, without question, working in the sex trade. Whether or not she has sex with a client is completely irrelevant. Typically, her client is seeking her out for his/her sexual satisfaction, so prostitute is simply not an incorrect term.
This thread is very interesting to me. I find myself on the side of pro dommes. I'm not a pro but if I had a less hectic life and a dungeon I most certainly would be. As others have said pro dommes have a place in this lifestyle. There are plenty of subs/slaves that want to be 24/7 under control, and living with their masters. And there are plenty that want to explore their desires and then put on a suit and go to work. If a person is going to provide for the second category of subs then they should receive payment. Dungeons don't run on on someone's desire to be there. We live in the real world. There is rent for the dungeon, electricity, the cost of gear, and the Dom/me's time which is valuable. I disagree with the "do it because you love it" I wish I could tell the doctor who did my surgery. "You should WANT to help people, give me surgery because you love it"
Actually, there are some doctors (and other professionals) who do just that, such as when they help out on relief missions to the developing world, disaster relief, and helping out the poor and needy in free clinics. Many professionals work on a sliding scale depending on a person's income. Sure, we live in the real world and we have to earn some money to survive, but some aren't as greedy about it as others seem to be. So, yes, many professionals do donate their time and services because they have a sincere desire to help people and love what they do.
Besides, there are more than a few people who complain about the cost of medical care, insurance, and how it's going to be paid for. It's not as if these issues go unaddressed in public discourse, and there are certainly plenty of people who would like to have free or low-cost medical care available. Likewise, people complain about the cost of gasoline, the costs of airline travel, the costs of hiring a lawyer, the cost of food, housing, etc., etc... Those people aren't expecting anything for free.
When it comes to pro-dommes and findommes, I don't really think the issue here really revolves around money.
I'm not going to compare pro-domination to prostitution, as I'm well aware of the difference, as it also seems to coincide with the differences between BDSM and the vanilla world in general. To me, it makes no sense to see a prostitute who offers straight vanilla sex, because there are so many women out there willing to do that for free, precisely because they want sex and companionship, too. So, there's a mutual desire for the same thing on the part of both men and women in that context.
But when it comes to kink and BDSM, even the most (seemingly) sexually liberated women suddenly turn into conservative church ladies, which might make some men wonder just what in the heck is going on. That's why the ratios are so lopsided between submissive men and dominant women, because most women just don't seem to be into this kind of thing. A lot of women seem genuinely repulsed and totally turned off by submissive men, and some men might have good reason to wonder why this is the case, especially in this day and age.
I think that's probably the real underlying issue behind these threads.
quote:
Before I had anything to do with this lifestyle I had an older male friend that was basically ASKING me to financially dominate him. We were friends but he would say things like, "You should make me send you some money." At the time I had no idea what financial domination was, but now that I know what it is it's really interesting to me to see people complaining about it so much and calling prodommes "thieves". If someone gets you to sign up for a website and has you pay them for a "service" and you don't receive that service, then yes that person is a thief. But if someone WANTS to give you their money and you take it, you didn't steal anything.
I wouldn't call them "thieves."
quote:
If I was to walk up to any person on the street and offer them $100 because I think they deserve it they would take it. And I would love to meet the person that says they wouldn't.
I guess it would depend on the circumstances, but I know plenty of people who wouldn't take money from strangers on the street. Wary people might suspect some kind of ulterior motive. It could be counterfeit money, stolen, or marked. Why would someone give $100 to a stranger on the street? That's what I would ask.
On the other side of this, if someone on the street is asking strangers for money, then that would be called "panhandling." I wouldn't call them thieves, either.
quote:
So I don't think pro dommes or findoms are doing anything wrong as long as they are being honest with the people that come to them then those ADULTS have the choice to pay or to find someone else. The above quote was very interesting to me because I don't really agree with the above quote's definition of prostitute. I think this definition is much more accurate:
prostitute (ˈprɒstɪˌtjuːt)
— n
1. a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money
2. a man who engages in such activity, esp in homosexual practices
3. a person who offers his talent or work for unworthy purposes
— vb
4. to offer (oneself or another) in sexual intercourse for money
5. to offer (a person, esp oneself, or a person's talent) for unworthy purposes
I guess it would depend on which dictionary one uses. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as:
pros·ti·tute (prst-tt, -tyt)
n.
1. One who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts.
2. One who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose.
tr.v. pros·ti·tut·ed, pros·ti·tut·ing, pros·ti·tutes
1. To offer (oneself or another) for sexual hire.
2. To sell (oneself or one's talent, for example) for an unworthy purpose.
Oxford Dictionary defines it as:
a person, typically a woman, who engages in sexual activity for payment.
a person who misuses their talents or who sacrifices their self-respect for the sake of personal or financial gain:
careerist political prostitutes
verb
[with object]
offer (someone, typically a woman) for sexual activity in exchange for payment:
although she was paid $15 to join a man at his table, she never prostituted herself
put (oneself or one’s talents) to an unworthy or corrupt use or purpose for the sake of personal or financial gain:
his willingness to prostitute himself to the worst instincts of the electorate
Both of these definitions are broadened to include "sex acts" or "sexual activity," which wouldn't be strictly confined to sexual intercourse.
quote:
But by your definition a person who does phone sex is a prostitute. Yet there is no sex. If someone has a balloon fetish by your definition the store clerk who sold them the balloons is a prostitute. Then again by Webster's definition we are ALL prostitutes if we have a job and don't feel that or talents are being used properly. I think if someone has sex for money they are a prostitute, and I also don't think prostitution is wrong. The state of Nevada has it right. But I don't think just because some subs/slaves get some kind of sexual gratification that this makes a domme a prostitute. Some people get off on being humiliated. Do you really believe that a person who engages in calling them foul names is really filling the role of a prostitute?
If prostitution were legal in most states, then probably none of this would be an issue. Obviously, pro-dommes and other workers in the sex industry have an interest in protecting themselves and preventing any legal entanglements by engaging in or being associated with an illegal activity. So, the statement that "domination is not prostitution" seems more like a disclaimer than anything else. Beyond that, it is what it is, and there's definitely a sexual component to it that can't be denied. Surely, it's not the same thing as selling balloons.
|
RE: The anti pro stance - 
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