RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s?

RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

FrostedFlake -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/8/2012 5:14:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Serenity1301 quote: If you have a problem with financial domination inasmuch as not being able to wrest free from some hackle-raising cartoon of a hot, shallow scammer in your head whenever the word is mentioned, if the term makes you want to gush out an MRA-ish diatribe about unscrupulous femme fatales and patently piteous men only inhabiting the practice, you might want to look into your revealing bitterness and ignorance on the matter and question the source of your feelings. In a sphere where a bullwhip can paint someone's back red to much applause and orgasmic simpering, taking issue with the financial aspects of dominance and submission seems a bit...ironic, don't you think? Well said. Let lie what other do in their personal lives with full consent. If it's not your kink then don't indulge same with everything else practiced in the enormous sphere. Ok. Send me some money. To blow on recreational shopping. While I laugh at you. And I want a new, used, car. And my rent needs to get paid, AGAIN. And I need some more shoes. And a pedicure. And there is this stack of bills that someone needs to deal with. What? Not sexy? Moi? What's not sexy about presuming in this ridicules, grasping, caricature fashion? Should I clarify a bit more? Ok. Y'all fuck off.

Serenity1301 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/10/2012 6:18:19 PM)
quote: Ok. Send me some money. To blow on recreational shopping. While I laugh at you. And I want a new, used, car. And my rent needs to get paid, AGAIN. And I need some more shoes. And a pedicure. And there is this stack of bills that someone needs to deal with. What? Not sexy? Moi? What's not sexy about presuming in this ridicules, grasping, caricature fashion? Should I clarify a bit more? Ok. Y'all fuck off. You don't have the attraction so of course you don't agree but why should you be able to tell other people what they can and can't be attracted to? You don't like it don't get involved, very simple. No one is forcing you to participate.

FrostedFlake -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/12/2012 9:59:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Serenity1301 quote: Ok. Send me some money. To blow on recreational shopping. While I laugh at you. And I want a new, used, car. And my rent needs to get paid, AGAIN. And I need some more shoes. And a pedicure. And there is this stack of bills that someone needs to deal with. What? Not sexy? Moi? What's not sexy about presuming in this ridicules, grasping, caricature fashion? Should I clarify a bit more? Ok. Y'all fuck off. You don't have the attraction so of course you don't agree but why should you be able to tell other people what they can and can't be attracted to? You don't like it don't get involved, very simple. No one is forcing you to participate. If you read it again, you might notice I didn't tell you what you can and can't do. I told you what you look like. Yes. I know. You get that all the time. And you consistently misunderstand. I think you do it on purpose.

nephandi -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/13/2012 4:15:34 AM)
Greetings quote: Ok. Send me some money. To blow on recreational shopping. While I laugh at you. And I want a new, used, car. And my rent needs to get paid, AGAIN. And I need some more shoes. And a pedicure. And there is this stack of bills that someone needs to deal with. What? Not sexy? Moi? What's not sexy about presuming in this ridicules, grasping, caricature fashion? Should I clarify a bit more? Ok. Y'all fuck off. What you do not get is that many do find this sexy, they like the idea of being used, that they send money that some random woman then use on whatever she desires and perhaps send them a few lines of you are a bad, bad boy in return and what is the problem? I am not into this but why do it bother you if someone else is? I find the topic title on this thread rather offensive, is financial Domination a legitimate form of D/s? Off course it is as long as some people want to engage in it. What I do not get is this I do not share your kink so you have to be an idiot for engaging in it thing that seam to be going on here, have we not learned from all the vanilla folks who look down on every BDSMer to not do the same to others? If two people want to engage in financial Domination what is the problem, as long as all involved are consensual adults who do it hurt? Why this hatred towards it? I wish you well

MrRodgers -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/13/2012 4:55:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl I do think in some cases it is a form of D/s. There are some here that I believe are dominant and have a dynamic. But, I think the majority of so-called "Dommes" in this field aren't. They have no idea what it means to be dominant (nor do I think they care) and they equate being dominant with being a bitchy twat. They're just a bunch "women" that have discovered that some guys are desperate enough to buy them gifts and pay their bills. OsideGirl, Sadly, I think you may be correct. As a male sub, I probably see a lot more Domme profiles than you do, and I can honestly say that I am sometimes sickened by the number of 19 year old "financial Dommes" there are on CM. I'm not one to judge people based on their age. There are lots of young people who are legitimately active in BDSM (just see any of the local TNG groups for proof of that). But I seriously question how much knowledge all of these 19 year old financial dommes are bringing to the party. Will the really have enough knowledge and experience to draw upon to give a paying client his money's worth? Also, a pet peeve of mine is Dommes who are giving people the bird in their profile pics. And it seems like financial Dommes are the ones who are most likely to strike this pose in their pictures. [:'(] Well there is a theory that ALL women, yes...ALL women are whores. Dommes may just turn the table when topping their sub's horny asses and seek to...be the whore...paid for it.

nephandi -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/13/2012 5:30:06 AM)
Greetings quote: The only issue i have about financial domination is when subs are so desperate for someone to play with them, that they "give" tributes to women for the attention. So what you have is someone who's kink isn't financial domination paying for attention - because that is the only way they can indulge in their legitimate fetishes and perversions (said with love lol). There is something very sad about that situation. Both people probably agree with what is going on - but the subs would probably prefer a domme who didn't require payment, as in a regular relationship. And the problem is? If someone is willing to pay to get their kinks met and they do it of their own free will what is the problem, off course it is nice when folks of similar kinks meet, but sometimes that do not happen, a sub do not have an automatic right to find a Dom who and to play with him or her in exactly the way they desire to be played with. I wish you well

nephandi -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/13/2012 5:35:54 AM)
Greetings quote: Personally, I think that anyone who fits into that group should utilize the services of a pro-Domme, rather than a financial Domme. I think they'll likely get more for their money. But that's just my opinion, and it obviously won't be true in all cases. A pro Domme is something else, then you pay for a service which is very different from giving someone money because you are ordered to do so so and the humiliation of knowing you are being taken advantage of but doing it anyway, it is not paying for sex that is the point of attraction in financial submission, it is the act of paying tribute often without even getting anything in return. I wish you well

nephandi -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/13/2012 5:42:29 AM)
Greetings quote: I'm not one to judge people based on their age. There are lots of young people who are legitimately active in BDSM (just see any of the local TNG groups for proof of that). But I seriously question how much knowledge all of these 19 year old financial dommes are bringing to the party. Will the really have enough knowledge and experience to draw upon to give a paying client his money's worth? A Financial Dominant is not providing a product for a client, they are engaging in a kink, whatever they do it honestly or just to get free stuff that is another matter but they are engaging in a kink, the subs are not paying for a service, the money changing hands is part of the game. Now a Pro Domme that is something else, that is paying a woman for her services, but a Fin Dom do not have clients, he or she have subs who pay as part of their submission, they do not pay for a service they pay because it is kinky to do so. It is important I think to separate the two for they are not the same. I wish you well

FrostedFlake -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/13/2012 9:42:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nephandi Greetings quote: Ok. Send me some money. To blow on recreational shopping. While I laugh at you. And I want a new, used, car. And my rent needs to get paid, AGAIN. And I need some more shoes. And a pedicure. And there is this stack of bills that someone needs to deal with. What? Not sexy? Moi? What's not sexy about presuming in this ridicules, grasping, caricature fashion? Should I clarify a bit more? Ok. Y'all fuck off. What you do not get is that many do find this sexy, they like the idea of being used, that they send money that some random woman then use on whatever she desires and perhaps send them a few lines of you are a bad, bad boy in return and what is the problem? I am not into this but why do it bother you if someone else is? I find the topic title on this thread rather offensive, is financial Domination a legitimate form of D/s? Off course it is as long as some people want to engage in it. What I do not get is this I do not share your kink so you have to be an idiot for engaging in it thing that seam to be going on here, have we not learned from all the vanilla folks who look down on every BDSMer to not do the same to others? If two people want to engage in financial Domination what is the problem, as long as all involved are consensual adults who do it hurt? Why this hatred towards it? I wish you well What you do not get is that many find it insulting, profoundly insulting, to both genders. I am not talking inconvenient. I mean irritating. And I agree, totally, that if two people want, etcetera, etcetera, that is perfectly FINE. The problem arises where you say, "as long as all involved are consensual adults who do it hurt?" The problem is, it is not just two consenting adults. If it were, then I would have nothing to bitch about, would I? Because I would not be treated to a show every time some Bimbo wants to pay rent. And it is a show. Meant for everyone. That's how advertising works. The story is, she's GREAT (or even better!) and I'm WORTHLESS (except for the money ;) Lord knows, I try to keep an open mind, but it needs saying. It is not fun to watch that show. The truth is, she's NOT great, and I'm NOT worthless. HATRED is the wrong word. Fish around, The right word is not far away. Unfortunate that the right word does not convey the notion of a defect in my character. But, whatinhellyagonna do?

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/13/2012 9:49:01 PM)
I kinda agree with FF on the worthless part. It bugs me when I hear shit like "worthless, useless, etc". Sometimes I wanna say things like "Bitch if he is worthless or useless you aren't using him right!!" But I don't. My male fin. slaves are far from worthless. Each of them have a very important job when it comes to what I want. Humiliation is one thing, but the whole song and dance of "gimme all your money worthless pig" is lame.

Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/13/2012 10:19:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nephandi I find the topic title on this thread rather offensive, is financial Domination a legitimate form of D/s? Sorry. Didn't mean to offend. But the thread title was taken directly from a question that was asked by another member of this forum. I explained that at the beginning of this thread. quote: What I do not get is this I do not share your kink so you have to be an idiot for engaging in it thing that seam to be going on here, have we not learned from all the vanilla folks who look down on every BDSMer to not do the same to others? If two people want to engage in financial Domination what is the problem, as long as all involved are consensual adults who does it hurt? I couldn't agree with you more. That's why I started this thread in the first place. I see so much hatred towards financial domination on these forums, and I think it's unfair. I understand that it's not for everyone, but I think we should all take a "live and let live" approach towards it. But others have shared very different attitudes towards financial domination throughout the thread. But overall, I thought the discussion was lively and shared both sides of the argument.

Extravagasm -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/13/2012 10:43:50 PM)
Financial domination must here be viewed as it is most often seen on this site. Not in some theoretical view of what it could be, might be, please believe it should be. Many are not legitimate forms of BDSM when they avoid participating in verification ! In other words, under the guise of giving very little back . . . . really some FDs don't even back up their pictures. So they, more readily than any other posers, could be anybody, any gender, any looks. The earlier comments that only some can attract this, only makes sense if the sub 'client' can investigate/verify. Look, it is cardinal in BDSM, that until a sub/slave has made their decision, they retain prerogative to determine rightness of their top. FDs who don't uphold a verification standard are IMHO outside the confines of accepted BDSM. A bit like professional wrestling vs. legitimate sports.

TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2012 12:19:54 AM)
Thus the reason why I always say cam verify is a good way to go.

Alecta -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2012 12:34:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extravagasm Financial domination must here be viewed as it is most often seen on this site. Not in some theoretical view of what it could be, might be, please believe it should be. By this you are purporting that if the imitation is the majority, the imitation becomes the true article. It is no different from declaring, in a hypothetical world where there are more mtf crossdressers than genetic women that we must view "women" as it is "most often seen", the mtf crossdresser, and not an actual genetic woman. Fallacy is one of the great sins.

ReMakeYou -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2012 1:08:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nephandi And the problem is? If someone is willing to pay to get their kinks met and they do it of their own free will what is the problem, off course it is nice when folks of similar kinks meet, but sometimes that do not happen, a sub do not have an automatic right to find a Dom who and to play with him or her in exactly the way they desire to be played with. I wish you well Why do people get upset with whiny, entitled profiles in general? Nice-Guyism and whining about fakes/liars get a hide thoroughly tanned. Expecting a swarm of subs to pay tribute has very much the same vibe. quote: ORIGINAL: Alecta By this you are purporting that if the imitation is the majority, the imitation becomes the true article. It is no different from declaring, in a hypothetical world where there are more mtf crossdressers than genetic women that we must view "women" as it is "most often seen", the mtf crossdresser, and not an actual genetic woman. Fallacy is one of the great sins. Words are defined by use. If they were defined by some purist's ideal, we'd still be speaking proto indo-european.

subkarih -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2012 1:15:58 AM)
Financial domination? The IRS had been doing that to me for years....

FrostedFlake -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2012 3:15:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alecta quote: ORIGINAL: Extravagasm Financial domination must here be viewed as it is most often seen on this site. Not in some theoretical view of what it could be, might be, please believe it should be. By this you are purporting that if the imitation is the majority, the imitation becomes the true article. It is no different from declaring, in a hypothetical world where there are more mtf crossdressers than genetic women that we must view "women" as it is "most often seen", the mtf crossdresser, and not an actual genetic woman. Fallacy is one of the great sins. I don't think Alectas' objection says what was meant. Let's take it apart and look at it. Hands up, everyone that can't tell a man in high heels from a woman? Even if it were so, the important differences would eventually be noticed. Inspiring community discussion. I don't think there is a threat of disenfranchisement posed to women by men wearing their shoes. One the plus side though, the tidbit about "...you are purporting that if the imitation is the majority, the imitation becomes the true article..." does seem to assent that posers are many, perhaps more than half. This in turn implies a number of encounters with said posers, else why this opinion that they are numerous? And, assuming Alecta is not seeking these posers out, that would mean the posers did the seeking. In much the same way used car salesman pound on peoples front doors after ten at night.... No... wait... used car salesmen wait for you to go to them, and THEN they try to rip you off. I seem to have gotten off-track here. It's probably another of those fallacies that you hear about now and then.

nephandi -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2012 3:35:03 AM)
Greetings quote: What you do not get is that many find it insulting, profoundly insulting, to both genders. I am not talking inconvenient. I mean irritating. And I agree, totally, that if two people want, etcetera, etcetera, that is perfectly FINE. The problem arises where you say, "as long as all involved are consensual adults who do it hurt?" The problem is, it is not just two consenting adults. If it were, then I would have nothing to bitch about, would I? Because I would not be treated to a show every time some Bimbo wants to pay rent. No one is forcing anyone to pay anything, so yes this is just that a kink between consenting adults, as long as no one is forced into anything then they are consenting adults. Now one thing I find insulting are hypocrites, now I assume you would like the general vanilla population to be accepting of your kink, and you would probably not like your kink described as profoundly insulting to both genders? Then why do you talk that way about some other person's kink, you know there is something in that old saying about doing to others what you want to be done onto you. quote: And it is a show. Meant for everyone. That's how advertising works. The story is, she's GREAT (or even better!) and I'm WORTHLESS (except for the money ;) And the problem is? How is this difference from every other person on this site who make a profile to attract the attention of the people they are looking for, are you so weak that if you see a profile that say pay me now little piggy then you just can not resist it? For then you should not be on this site, and also how is this any worse than a Dom who say how he would like to use his subs or just have a profile that say suck me bitch? I mean sure such profiles are dumb but why do they bother you, it is not like you have to contact these people. quote: Lord knows, I try to keep an open mind, but it needs saying. It is not fun to watch that show. The truth is, she's NOT great, and I'm NOT worthless. And I am not going to suck the privates of every person who writes that in their profile, so what is the problem, if a profile is not to your liking why do you not just skip past it? I wish you well

nephandi -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2012 3:40:46 AM)
Greetings quote: I kinda agree with FF on the worthless part. It bugs me when I hear shit like "worthless, useless, etc". Sometimes I wanna say things like "Bitch if he is worthless or useless you aren't using him right!!" But I don't. My male fin. slaves are far from worthless. Each of them have a very important job when it comes to what I want. Humiliation is one thing, but the whole song and dance of "gimme all your money worthless pig" is lame. This is a kink to, I am definitely not into it but being told that one is worthless and so on is part of for many, and what is wrong with that as long as everyone involved are willing. I know several subs who get off on being called worthless, it is a kink like any other, just like some subs like to be called sluts or whores, what is the problem? I wish you well

nephandi -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (9/14/2012 3:51:45 AM)
Greetings quote: In other words, under the guise of giving very little back . . . . really some FDs don't even back up their pictures. So they, more readily than any other posers, could be anybody, any gender, any looks. The earlier comments that only some can attract this, only makes sense if the sub 'client' can investigate/verify. I do not agree, unless the sub are to stupid to really be considered capable of consent they know that behind the pictures of their wonderful Mistress Givememore there might be a 300 pounds middle aged man, they pay for the fantasy of it, and if that is how they want to spend their money what really is the problem? If the sub feel they are getting enough out of it that they continue to pay then why not, who are you to say how others should spend their money? quote: Many are not legitimate forms of BDSM when they avoid participating in verification ! As long as everyone involved are willing it is a legitimate form of BDSM. Now I am not saying that I think it is a moral thing to do to trick people on the internet but as long as no force is involved it is the subs who choose to pay. I also think it is wrong to condemn a whole type of kink because some participants might be fake. quote: Look, it is cardinal in BDSM, that until a sub/slave has made their decision, they retain prerogative to determine rightness of their top. FDs who don't uphold a verification standard are IMHO outside the confines of accepted BDSM. A bit like professional wrestling vs. legitimate sports. No the cardinal thing in BDSM is that the activity have to be consensual for all parties involved, for some subs that means learning everything about their Doms, other subs do not care if their Dom lie about their age or anything else. What is accepted BDSM is that it is to be consensual and legal and that is it, there is no other universally accepted standards. I wish you well

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.4375