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

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



Message

Rochsub2009 -> Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 8:44:50 AM)

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"). [8|]

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?



OsideGirl -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 9:04:24 AM)

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.



RedMagic1 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 9:12:45 AM)

One comment I would make, RochSub, is that the form of dominance you describe can realistically only be performed by a woman who already has her own income, and can walk away from the additional revenue stream whenever she wants to. Otherwise she becomes a kept woman, and her authority in the relationship lasts only as long as both parties pretend that it exists.



KaleidoKenlyn -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 9:22:20 AM)

I don't agree with the lives of financial Dommes or subs. I can't understand the mentality. (I work hard for my paycheck and can't fathom handing it over to someone else, though my mom does exactly that.) But I do completely agree with this post. I may not understand or agree with it, but that doesn't make it any less real. I do agree that there does seem to be a lot of women who take advantage of it. But there are a great slew of financial Dommes who are real and know what they're doing.



JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 9:35:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009
Financial domination IS a legitimate form of kink/BDSM.

Or it is not. Or maybe it's something else. But out of curiosity, what the heck is a "legitimate" form of kink? Who's "legitimizing" it? Is it the Trueness Board?



LadyHibiscus -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 9:36:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

One comment I would make, RochSub, is that the form of dominance you describe can realistically only be performed by a woman who already has her own income, and can walk away from the additional revenue stream whenever she wants to. Otherwise she becomes a kept woman, and her authority in the relationship lasts only as long as both parties pretend that it exists.



I heart you, RedMagic. I do.



Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 10:50:27 AM)


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. [:'(]



Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 11:00:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

... the form of dominance you describe can realistically only be performed by a woman who already has her own income, and can walk away from the additional revenue stream whenever she wants to. Otherwise she becomes a kept woman, and her authority in the relationship lasts only as long as both parties pretend that it exists.



I disagree with that assertion.

It may be true if you're talking about a LTR. But it's not true if you look at it on a more transactional basis. How is it any different from guys who see pro Dommes? There is a bit of pretending that goes on, but for the paying customer, that is satisfactory.

And frankly, there's a bit of pretending that goes on in MOST D/s relationships. So is that even a bad thing? For example, most "slaves" could really say "no" anytime they wanted to. Or most male subs could really physically overpower their female Dommes anytime they chose to. And there have been times when I have been kept in bondage, that I could have escaped if I really wanted to. So IMO, pretending isn't such a bad thing. In fact, it plays a legitimate role in a great deal of what goes on in the BDSM world.



kiwisub12 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 11:01:41 AM)

Hmmm - i have to admit, the one finger salute wouldn't do a thing for me as a prospective sub, but then again, i'm a woman, so perhaps it does something for men?

The financial aspect of a relationship hasn't ever come into play in my relationships - it isn't a kink of mine. Neither is cutting, blood, scat, and any number of fetishes. If that is your thing - yay for you.
If it isn't and you are paying just so someone will play with you, then i'm sorry for you. It would be hard to want to be active and have no-one to play with. Sometimes it is good to be a woman.

Just by reported sheer numbers, i'm getting a "taking advantage" vibe. Its a shame , but what can one do?



Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 11:08:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KaleidoKenlyn

But there are a great slew of financial Dommes who are real and know what they're doing.


I agree. 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?

Like you, I don't quite understand it. But I don't question the legitimacy of people who get off on throwing their money away? Personally, I'd rather do that than have someone kick me in the nuts. And we all know that CBT is recognized as a legitimate kink. So why isn't financial domination given the same recognition by some?



Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 11:11:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

But out of curiosity, what the heck is a "legitimate" form of kink? Who's "legitimizing" it? Is it the Trueness Board?



Exactly! Even though some may not understand it, or agree with it, what gives them the right to label financial domination as illegitimate?

Why does financial domination receive so much more negative backlash than any other kink? Hell, there are people who are into sex with kids or animals. And even they don't seem to receive the negative press that financial Dommes get around here.



OsideGirl -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 11:15:05 AM)


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.



Rochsub2009 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 11:18:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kiwisub12

If it isn't and you are paying just so someone will play with you, then i'm sorry for you. It would be hard to want to be active and have no-one to play with. Sometimes it is good to be a woman.



You've hit on a very valid point. It IS good to be a woman. Just ask any random male sub about how difficult it is to find a dominant female partner. The numbers just aren't on our side. Wanting to play but having nobody to play with, is a common occurrence for male subs.

That's why I've always been such a vocal advocate for the value and importance of pro Dommes. They're not prostitutes. They provide a NEEDED service. Without them, many male subs might go their entire lives without anyone to play with. As you said, "It's good to be a woman".



bbwBDSMmuse -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 11:25:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl
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.


Hahahaha Thank you. Whenever I say that, I get torn a new arse, every time. Of course it's my viewpoint that this describes the majority of women on this site, whereas the majority of men are trying to pull a sex scam, instead.xx



LadyPact -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 11:40:44 AM)

There's really not much I can do on the original but agree with you. We used to have a Domme on these boards who I had the privilege of knowing personally. I was also acquainted with two of her gentlemen that were happy to turn their finances over to her. In My opinion, anyone who would meet these folks, hear what the kink means to them, would understand it better.

Do I believe these folks and their feelings about it are the majority? No. However, knowing it's out there tells Me that I have to consider it a legitimate kink. At the same time, I honestly believe some use this kink for their own greed and nothing more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: kiwisub12
If it isn't and you are paying just so someone will play with you, then i'm sorry for you. It would be hard to want to be active and have no-one to play with. Sometimes it is good to be a woman.


You've hit on a very valid point. It IS good to be a woman. Just ask any random male sub about how difficult it is to find a dominant female partner. The numbers just aren't on our side. Wanting to play but having nobody to play with, is a common occurrence for male subs.

That's why I've always been such a vocal advocate for the value and importance of pro Dommes. They're not prostitutes. They provide a NEEDED service. Without them, many male subs might go their entire lives without anyone to play with. As you said, "It's good to be a woman".
I'll absolutely concur that there are far more opportunities for females who want to play than males. I can't remember how many years MP and I have had a running bet about whether or not I can walk in darn near any club/play party/event and play if I want to. That's whether people know Me or not. The fact that I'm a woman plays a lot into that.

I do have to wonder though, in this day and age, how many males actually go out to parties and such to see what kind of success that they can obtain. Two separate times we have had threads directed at male subs about what exactly are they willing to do to find that person to play with. Both times, the lack of motivation was awful. A lot of folks think that creating a profile on the net is going to drop a play partner into their laps and that isn't necessarily so.

I hope the additional comment won't be considered too far off topic. I hear I've been doing that a lot lately.




TNDommeK -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 12:45:16 PM)

First I want to say Rochsub, I love you so much. :) This was very well written.

I do agree with RedMagic also, as far as the ability to walk away. I feel that if a fin Domme is in "need" of that subs money, then the sub basically "owns" her (for lack of better word). Meaning she is dependent on his money. Which to Me is not how things should be.

Also wanted to say this is the only thread about fin Domme that is actually educational. I like it! :)

LP has a point, I don't think these male subs are putting as much effort as they could. I could be different than most but when I am at a party, I would have no problem whatsoever if a sub approached me and wanted to talk. If I felt we aren't a match, I would say so. But for the most part, I like talking. I think that is what the munches and parties are for. I think there are far too many that hide behind the computer.



JeffBC -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 12:55:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
I do have to wonder though, in this day and age, how many males actually go out to parties and such to see what kind of success that they can obtain.

... and with what bait. I can imagine that when I go to my first play party if I wanted some female dominant to play with me and what I was offering was... well... and endless tank of "need" then it'd be really tough. As it is, I'd be willing to bet that I can walk in and get my choice of women who'd be happy to top me. I have local friends in the community. They like us. Their friends, by extension, like us. Some of those friends are tops/dommes. All of them will be thrilled to see Carol and I show up and be happy to help us engage in whatever ways we found fun & interesting. That's my guess anyway and it works that way because of the actual relationships involved.

Or, failing all that, I could always meet you somewhere and give you another chance to beat my ass *laughs*.



UllrsIshtar -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 1:02:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

Or, failing all that, I could always meet you somewhere and give you another chance to beat my ass *laughs*.



I want in on that... just name the place and time and I'll be there. [:D]



CRYPTICLXVI -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 1:14:18 PM)

Rochsub, I am glad that you started this thread. This is what I was attempting to change the now pulled thread towards. This is a dynamic which I don't understand and I was interested in finding out more about.

quote:

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.


quote:

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.


Personally, I find the defense of this aspect of the "dynamic" faulty but that is just my personal opinion.

Thank you again for dealing with the actual elements of financial domination.



ARIES83 -> RE: Is financial domination a legitimate form of D/s? (8/29/2012 1:50:35 PM)

Hey... I'm a FinDom sometimes!
18yo girls with a bitch princess complex
sticking their hand out for free cash are
not a kink in my opinion. They Are a
Joke.

These are my idea of being a FinDom:
This...
And this!

Maybe we should have a revolution in the
way we refer to these girls that "want pay
pigs to worship their perfect ass with cash"

Maybe we could call them pig farmers!

-ARIES



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.1015625