quote:

ORIGINAL: MissKittyDeVine
But you are not supposed to criticise the kinks of others here. And the idea that findoms are just prostitutes has been thoroughly refuted many a time. You don't like findom, well nobody is forcing you to engage in it. Chacun a son gout.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissKittyDeVine

I'm not saying it. THE SITE is saying it. I quote from the forum guidelines:

This isn't a place to insult the kinks, preferences, lifestyles, etc. of others.

Findoms have repeatedly given cogent arguments on many threads why they consider findom to be a legitimate kink. Who are you or anyone to tell us otherwise?

Saying that you have concerns is debate. Calling us prostitutes is not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissKittyDeVine

And I completely disagree. I maintain that it HAS been refuted many times. If you choose not to accept it that is your prerogative, but those of us into findom HAVE given reasoned arguments supporting our interest in the fetish.

It is also, as I stated, against TOS to denigrate the kinks of others. It's so tiresome that people can do whatever shit they want (aside from obvious taboos) and that is accepted here. But findoms continue to be insulted with this pathetic 'you're all prostitutes' line. I don't give anyone grief for liking extreme pain, or to paraphrase what someone said on another thread shoving traffic cones up their ass, or whatever. But people can continue to call me a whore and that's ok.

I am done with these pointless arguments. I guess you could say I am bored of the boards. And of the continued refusal to accept our fetish. Adieu tout le monde.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissKittyDeVine
It is also, as I stated, against TOS to denigrate the kinks of others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissKittyDeVine
I am done with these pointless arguments. I guess you could say I am bored of the boards. And of the continued refusal to accept our fetish. Adieu tout le monde.

quote:

But, if either side get sexual pleasure from that control, even more so if it's a one-way street (ie, pathetic man paying a findomme for some service), I call that prostitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNDommeK
I knew my ears were burning. :)

quote:

I wish we could have subs who were actually from the other side come over and answer the OPs question. Ya know, get different answers, from different people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

Interesting post freedom... both yours and kali's.

It kind of made my head ponder Carol and I. In our case, while it is certainly true that money changes hands that was never a part of the contract. The contract was about loving each other. That was the offer. That was what was offered back in consideration, etc.

All of that, however, still gets back to my thought that context is everything here. You'd need to know whether money was a part of the core contract or not before you could really decide whether it was "sex worker" or "relationship". I'm not sure you can tell that readily from the outside.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

I think those four elements exist in most of the findomme activity I have seen or heard about.
Unlike cooking your man's dinner because you two are an item, married or otherwise.
You aren't two people conducting business - one providing a service to another.

An offer is made by the sub.
It is considered by the findomme.
It gets accepted by the findomme.
And there is joint mutuality of both minds.

That fits your definition of a contract.
Replace sub with client. Replace findomme with prostitute/hooker/call-girl.
And there you have the self-same thing.
A fully conducted and agreed contract between two consenting people - with some sort of payment arrangement (doesn't have to be monetary).

If the sub is just offering a tribute/gift/money just for shits and giggles and gets nothing and that is known up-front, that's different - it's just a gift.
But in most circumstances, that tribute/gift is in expectation for some sort of return from the findomme.
And that's the basic difference. I call that prostitution, as do many others.
The only difference between prostitution and any other paid-for service is that one or both parties gain, or expect to gain, sexual gratification from the process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

Interesting post freedom... both yours and kali's.

It kind of made my head ponder Carol and I. In our case, while it is certainly true that money changes hands that was never a part of the contract. The contract was about loving each other. That was the offer. That was what was offered back in consideration, etc.

All of that, however, still gets back to my thought that context is everything here. You'd need to know whether money was a part of the core contract or not before you could really decide whether it was "sex worker" or "relationship". I'm not sure you can tell that readily from the outside.

That's a good point Jeff.

However, in my book, even a 'contract' is some sort of relationship.
I guess it just depends if you consider the findomme one a purely business relationship or something more than that so it can be called something more conducive to personal.

Sure, I give gifts to my OH and don't expect anything in return.
She does the same for me too.
But it's not a 'business' transaction because it's something more than that.
As it happens, we're married. But that isn't the issue.

I think what I'm trying to do is explain the difference between when two people are in it for something other than just one person paying for a service from another even if that service is a regular thing or a 1-off arrangement.
I'm not saying it's always without feelings, far from it. Sometimes a findomme can form an attraction to the client and vice-versa. But the bottom line is, it's still business, not personal.
It's the essential difference between bf/gf/married couple who have a vested interest in each other beyond a business transaction/arrangement.
If it's just business, then it's a sex worker because of the sexual element on one of the parties - or at least the expectation of it even if they don't actually get it.

I dunno if that clarifies my point any better?


ETA: by 'vested interest' I'm assuming something other than keeping the fin-sub as a recurring client.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana
And frankly why do folks care. I bet at least 1/2 the peeps out here railing against finning are also pro legalization of prostitution. An interesting dichotomy.

quote:

Of course, going all Sienfeldian stream of consciousnesses and spinning things back to the start, contract law doesn't apply to an illegal contract. Thus, if findomming is prostitution, then any contract made is null and void by the illegality of the act.