quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009
But I also don't think that enough people give credit to the "fakes" and "scammers". The pool of subs willing to pay would quickly dry up if they weren't getting something from the transaction. So there must be subs out there who enjoy giving their money to financial Dommes who aren't very skilled, and who give little in return for the client's money. It's a hard idea to fathom, but the industry would die if there weren't people patronizing the unskilled financial Dommes. After all, if they weren't making money, wouldn't all of the financial Dommes simply disappear?

I have a couple of FinDomme blogs that I read when I need a laugh. From what I'm seeing, most subs don't stick with them for very long. It looks like they jump from unskilled woman to unskilled woman looking for a better experience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNDommeK

I would say in my case with my subs, it would be denial that they enjoy. Each sub is different of course,as is every relationship I have with each of them. But for the most part it is the denial. I have had a few tell me it is the humiliation as well as knowing he has totally given his hard earned money to me because he understands and likes the mind control I have over him.

quote:

Exactly. Some in this thread blur the lines between Pro-Dommes and FinDommes. When all a FinDomme brings to the relationship is her ability to spend the subs money I think the sub is being shortchanged.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaiel
I don't consider Myself a fin-Domme by any means, however, it is apart of our household dynamic. I do have control over all our household finances. My hubby-sub is the primary breadwinner- although I work and am a professional in My field. his field simply allows him to yield 10x's the money I make. That being said, he has to ask permission to spend $ over a certain dollar amount. In the past, with other (now released slaves) I controlled their finances and they willingly submitted to the financial domination. For Me, it wasn't about the money, it's all about the control. Actually, the majority of the money was returned to them upon their release.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009

This isn't really a question that I'm asking. It's actually an answer that I posted to the above question in a thread that got deleted. Fortunately, the Admin was kind enough to send me a copy of my response after she deleted the thread. I know that there is a new financial domination thread on CM just about every week. But I took a bit of time writing the response, so I wanted to share it. I think it may provide new insight to some who have closed minds when it comes to financial domination.

We see many threads on CM that deride financial Dommes. They're often called everything from "fakes", to "prostitutes". And in the deleted thread that I referenced above, someone even stated that financial domination isn't even a legitimate arm of kink/BDSM, and that it doesn't belong on CM. I couldn't disagree with that sentiment more, so here is my response to that assertion.

Financial domination IS a legitimate form of kink/BDSM.

Many lifestyle Doms/Dommes also control the finances of their subs/slaves. Some may do this in a benevolent way, with the focus being on helping their sub to manage their money better. Others may require that their subs/slaves pay for dates and other things (but is this really different from the societal norm that says that the man should pay?). Others may require a tribute, tithe, or other regular payment from their subs/slaves.

From the submissives' standpoint, this can give them feelings of power exchange. The financial Domme is in charge of their money, and the financial sub has no control over her spending. Whether you like it or not, that IS a legitimate form of power exchange.

Other financial subs view it more as a form of humiliation. The financial Domme frivolously spends his money, and then laughs at him for allowing her to do so.

Some financial subs/slaves also enjoy the added component of being blackmailed for their money. This is an extreme form of humiliation that also incorporates fear of public exposure.

Then there are those who feel like their money is granting them access to a beautiful woman who they'd never have access to otherwise. To them, paying "tribute" is the normal path to gaining access to a Domme. Whether it's on-line or in real time, their expectation is that they have to pull out their wallet in order to be granted access. This mindset is most similar to the traditional "John" who visits prostitutes. But because he's not paying for sex, she isn't a prostitute (even though some people on here persist in calling pro Dommes and financial Dommes "prostitutes").

And of course there are the pro Dommes, who I believe provide a needed and valuable service to the BDSM community. There are far too many male subs, and far too few Dommes. Were it not for the pro Dommes, most male subs would never get to realize their submission dreams. While pro Dommes and financial Dommes are different, some insist upon lumping them into the same category.

I think that the problems arise because so many scammers have realized that there is an opportunity to take advantage of people, and they've entered the fray. These individuals have no knowledge or experience with D/s or BDSM. All they know is that they can get total strangers to send them money simply by posting hot pictures on the internet. They usually never meet with anyone in "real life", and their BDSM persona exists exclusively on the internet. They provide little D/s interaction with their "clients" other than to demand more stuff. In most instances, the photos that they include in their profile to attract "customers" are not even of themselves. Instead, they typically steal pictures from modeling agency websites. In my opinion, it is THESE people who have given financial domination a bad name. They have no background or knowledge that they are bringing to the transaction. They have no skill at dominating. All they have is greed. So the "financial sub" is not likely to get their money's worth.

This group is clearly setting a bad example in the BDSM community. We'd probably be better off without them (IMHO). But that doesn't change the fact that financial domination IS a legitimate form of kink/BDSM, and many "twue" Doms/Dommes incorporate it into their dynamic.

Any thoughts or rebuttals?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PrincessJessieJ
money=influence=power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009

I think it's fairly common in BDSM circles for the inflicter to not fully understand the perspective of the inflicted. For example, most Doms/Dommes aren't wired to submit, and can't fully understand what their subs/slaves get from their submission. And many sadist have never actually been on the receiving end, so they can't fully comprehend the experiences and feelings of the masochist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

quote:

ORIGINAL: PrincessJessieJ
money=influence=power.

Be careful. The context has to be just right, or this equality does not hold.

Power over X activity means having the ability to start or stop X activity, at will. Most employees have very little power over their employers, even though they receive money from them. Why? The employees cannot afford to quit their jobs at will. Whereas, in general, the employers can cut them loose whenever it's indicated by cost/benefit.

Exchange of money means there is an exchange of power. However, the power doesn't always flow in the same direction the money flows.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PrincessJessieJ

(not rinsers here, not talking about rinsers.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nephandi

Greetings

I knew there where financial subs and from a naturalistic perspective it makes every sense in the world, the man is the hunter the provider and the leader, and the woman is the protected, the one that is provided for and the follower, off course this is just generalities but there is a reason why the old Babylonian word for man translates into (in modern term) never empty bank account. I can understand how this can be a functioning dynamic.

As for the term, I have always thought princess sub meant someone who have a tendency to top from the bottom and be all sublier than thou on the outside but ugly and spoiled on the inside but I have never heard the term referred to financial subs.

I wish you well

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1
Be careful. The context has to be just right, or this equality does not hold.

Power over X activity means having the ability to start or stop X activity, at will. Most employees have very little power over their employers, even though they receive money from them. Why? The employees cannot afford to quit their jobs at will. Whereas, in general, the employers can cut them loose whenever it's indicated by cost/benefit.

Exchange of money means there is an exchange of power. However, the power doesn't always flow in the same direction the money flows.