quote:

"To learn the art of submission a slave must first give up the desires that drew him to submission in the first place." Mistress Jasmyn Jan 2005.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo
I think everyone here is talking about something slightly different.  Gifts to a loved are just gifts to a loved one.  Professional domming is a service.  Each is a different animal, in my opinion.  But financial slavery?  

You can take a dented, rusty, smelly garbage can,  paint it pretty and call it art, but at the end of the day its still a garbage can.

The only real financial empowerment is the ability to earn your *own* money;  not using someone else to supply it for you.  Talk about  co-dependancy.  It may as well be marriage.

And that's exactly what vanillas and many slaves have told me when I tried to explain how I enjoy being used and useful for my financial service to my owners. 

You serve in your way and lift it up on some high lofty place- but somehow my service is a trashcan and my owner is co-dependent?  That logic doesn't follow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo
I didnt call your service a trash can.  I didnt speak of your Master.  I dont know either one of you.  I spoke of my feelings on financial slavery.  If you enjoy serving 'financially'  thats your prerogative of course.   Im sure alot of people may find what I do to be dirty and may voice it.  My trashcan metaphor wasnt personal towards you or your Master.  It was simply a means by which I chose to make my point. I dont think financial slavery is healthy for either party and in alot of cases (not necessarily yours) someone is being used in a way that is going to leave them broke and the other dependant, thereby possibly keeping each party in a relationship that may not be for the best emotionally, but rather for survival.  This to me would be 'co-dependency', amongst other things.  Thats just one of the many problems that could arise from such an arrangement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo
I didnt call your service a trash can.  I didnt speak of your Master.  I dont know either one of you.  I spoke of my feelings on financial slavery.  If you enjoy serving 'financially'  thats your prerogative of course.   Im sure alot of people may find what I do to be dirty and may voice it.  My trashcan metaphor wasnt personal towards you or your Master.  It was simply a means by which I chose to make my point. I dont think financial slavery is healthy for either party and in alot of cases (not necessarily yours) someone is being used in a way that is going to leave them broke and the other dependant, thereby possibly keeping each party in a relationship that may not be for the best emotionally, but rather for survival.  This to me would be 'co-dependency', amongst other things.  Thats just one of the many problems that could arise from such an arrangement.

You can't say that "homosexuality is a sin" without also saying "You are a homosexual and therefore a sinner."

I don't think you were making a personal attack against me, but I am showing you that you are personally degrading me and my choices by making statements such as those. 

You do realize that people will tell you that they don't consider ANY form of Ds submission and dominance to be healthy and likely leading to co-dependent?  What makes you consider YOUR form of Ds somehow immune to those comments, and my form vulnerable?  Both are fully informed consensual, both are with adults.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zenofeller
i'm too busy and can't be bothered. but just saying that homosexuality is this or the other, who cares ? eating cow meat is a sin, and not cutting a girl's clit off when she's 3 is a sin. who cares ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: scottjk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lashra

Actually in the animal kingdom the male has to compete/fight for the right to mate with the Alpha female, at least in most species. It is not something that is a given, the Alpha female can reject the male and no mating between the pair will take place.

Sorry, Lashra, I just HAVE to step in here at this point. I hate to qualify some statements because it just causes a different argument that really isn't needed but animal kingdom analogies tend to get me a bit wound up. So, with all respect here's the qualification.

The Alpha female can reject the male only because said female has the size and/or strength to do so. This is especially true if there is no pair bonding evident. However, where the male is the larger and/or the stronger of the pairing, the female has little to say about the topic. :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo
Im secure enough in myself and my own decisions to not allow others to make me question it and to not turn a deaf ear to those who may feel negatively  about something that I feel positive about. 

quote:


Your homosexuality analogy is not the best one.  I can say that I dont think financial slavery is honorable, or healthy.  That doesnt mean Im calling you the slave of a whore.  It means I personally dont agree with something you do. And....well..I dont.  Im sorry if you take that personally. 

quote:

At the end of the day, is it honesty (something to be admired) or is it degradation (something to frown upon)?  Depends on which one of us you ask.  Is it a trash can or is it art?  To me its a trash can. To you its art.  So be it. Life goes on. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: zenofeller

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressSassy66
I blame society and the movies for making BDSM all about sex.

when it should really be all about money ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
Oh for heaven's sake Zeno, my point is that you can't make a blanket statement about a type of person and then not take ownership when you have to personalize it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo
Im secure enough in myself and my own decisions to not allow others to make me question it and to not turn a deaf ear to those who may feel negatively  about something that I feel positive about. 

Don't you think that's what I'm doing here with you?

quote:


Your homosexuality analogy is not the best one.  I can say that I dont think financial slavery is honorable, or healthy.  That doesnt mean Im calling you the slave of a whore.  It means I personally dont agree with something you do. And....well..I dont.  Im sorry if you take that personally. 

No, it means you are calling me dishonorable and unhealthy.

You don't get to sit on high lofty non-personal statements when you make judgements like that.  I've never been against making informed judgements, but if you want to make a judgement against someone, own it!  Saying "A person who does this lacks honor, but I'm not saying you lack honor even though you do that" is a total copout.  You are indeed saying that I lack honor and am unhealthy.  I'm ok with you feeling and believing that way, trust me. 

The only thing Im sitting on is my chair.  Im not sure why you keep going back to the high and lofty thing.  And Im a little bit shocked to see this kind of emotion coming out of you.  I am not calling you anything. I feel terrible that you feel this way, but there is nothing for me to "own" except my own feelings on financial slavery, which I have done several times now. I wasnt refering to anyone in particular. I would have no problem telling you if I thought poorly of you personally.  I do not think you lack honor. This wasnt about you, until you personalized it.  So you enjoy something that I see as detrimental. This is not to say that I see you as something ugly.  This is not to say that Im right and your wrong, this is simply to say that I have a particular opinion on something.   We are all the sum of our experiences and mine have led me to certain beliefs.  Im entitled to those, regardless of who agrees or who tries to railroad me into a personal insult.  Its ok to disagree with something a person does, without condemning the person.

I'm not ok with your denial that it's consistent with your belief that other forms of informed adult slavery ARE healthy and honorable, or that you are somehow not making personal statements by making sweeping generalized statements.

I made no denial of anything, LA, nor did I speak about any form of slavery being healthy or honorable.  You are reading things that arent there.  Yes, I made a sweeping generalization.  People do it all the time.  bdsm is not immune to people having an opinion one way or the other.    Why is it ok to make a sweeping statement that's positive, but not one thats negative?  

Oh and I'm not taking this personally at all.  I'm using this to try and get you to admit your judgements fully, and hopefully see how irrational and hypocritical they are.

Maybe thats why you're becoming so frustrated.   I totally own what I said.  Ive admitted it several times, but apparently Im not quite wording it the way you'd like it. Its not hypocritical at all.  I believe financial slavery to be unhealthy and detrimental.  To me, its "trash", to you its "art.  We got that down already. Ive said that at least 3 times now. I will not however, allow you to goad me into some trap of saying that I called you a "sinner" or a "whore" or "trash".  Thats was your own imagining. I may see a certain practice as ugliness.  That is not to say that I see the person as a bad person.  Maybe they believe theyre doing right and theyre happy that way.  And thats fine...but I still see the act as being harmful.  I dont know why you cannot separate the two.  But Im not going to own something for your benefit so it can all be perfectly black and white in your head.  If I thought you were trash, I would have no problem saying, "hey, LA, you give some guy your money and he takes it.  that makes you a piece of shit". Believe me if thats what I thought I would tell you that.
 
 Let me ask you this.... Is there anything that you think is unhealthy or wrong or bad?  If so, would you say it here?  And would the whole world agree with you?? 

Im being "irrational?  To whom?  To you?  Who are you to sit all high and lofty and judge whats irrational?  Did you just make a sweeping statement about my state of mind?  Youre judgeing  me to be a nut, arent you?   You cant say im being irrational without calling me a pyscho. Why dont you just say what you really mean?   

The problem is that you are saying "Type A slavery is trash while Type B slavery is art" but have yet to explain the difference between Type A and Type B slavery?

The problem is that youre telling me what Im saying, instead of listening with an open mind.

If you want to say "I have no interest in Type B slavery and get kinda squicked when I think about it, but I love Type A slavery" then there's no problem.  But you aren't making a personal statement of your own sense of self- you're making sweeping irrational and hypocritical judgements of the choices of others.

Im making a statement of my beliefs.  I will not say I have no interest in financial slavery.  I will say that I think its detrimental.  Because that is what I think and believe.  I will say its wrong, because thats what I think and believe.  Should I say  "In my opinion  its wrong, but it may not be wrong for everyone?"   Would that make it easier to swallow?  That goes without saying.  when a statement is made, its clear to anyone with half a brain that its the opinion of the person who authored it.  
Look,  if we didnt have beliefs, opinions, judgements on what is good/bad, right/wrong, healthy/unhealthy, what foundation would we use to make decisions from?  We'd all be bowls of non-judgmental jello. 
 
Take this post of yours for example.  Youre addressing me for something that you feel is wrong. You said I was being irrational and hypocritical.  And I still dont think you see me as a piece of shit or as an asshole.  I think you just see me as having done something that you dont approve of, no?   How is that any different than me feeling something you do is wrong?   And did you word it in a more palatable way for my benefit??  did you say ...." to me,  it seems irrational" ? Or did you just make a sweeping statement that Im being irrational and hypocritical? 

(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

My goodness a Dom with a sense of humour - now theres a rarity lol.
Prostitution is honest work don't ya know. The Domme who posted this profile isnt hiding behind anything - she is telling it how she wants it. As lucky albatross said if i arranged to meet a Dom and he asked me to wear certain things and i had to go out and buy them im paying tribute. Just not as honest a way as being told up front.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jasmyn
I'd like to ask all those men, male doms and subs,  if they respect women ... not 'a woman', but 'women' in general ... cause it sure as hell reads ... a great deal of you don't ...yet you're all happy to make 'whores' of your women ... but it does your head in if she makes herself one ... farken classic ... let it go boys ... as a woman, it's my cunt, I'll do whatever I want with it ... now, those boys who wish to kiss my arse, can form an orderly line and msg me on the other side.
Jasmyn

quote:

LuckyAlbatross
And that's exactly what vanillas and many slaves have told me when I tried to explain how I enjoy being used and useful for my financial service to my owners. 

You serve in your way and lift it up on some high lofty place- but somehow my service is a trashcan and my owner is co-dependent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

My goodness a Dom with a sense of humour - now theres a rarity lol.
Prostitution is honest work don't ya know. The Domme who posted this profile isnt hiding behind anything - she is telling it how she wants it. As lucky albatross said if i arranged to meet a Dom and he asked me to wear certain things and i had to go out and buy them im paying tribute. Just not as honest a way as being told up front.

Now...before anyone's panties or undies get in a knot...I am NOT addressing anyone on here, I have no one from here specifically in mind, I have almost none of the female dominants I've met in person in mind (one or two but not all) so please do not jump my throat because of "my attacking post".

I'm not going to agree or disagree with the OP's point.  However, I will take issue with the idea that dressing a certain way to please a dominant or having sex with him is paying tribute in the same manner as the submissive male told to bring money.  In the first instance, more than likely, the submissive female is going to get something out of the deal also...a sexual encounter wherein perhaps she is satisfied, a partner to spend the night with including all the hugging, kissing, cuddling, play (maybe), or further time spent getting to know a potential partner further.  In the instance the OP is talking about, the tribute being paid to the Domme can be spent elsewhere on something...for example...for the Domme that has nothing whatsoever to do with the submissive who "paid the tribute".  And what has he gotten for his tribute?  Maybe a play session...or maybe just the opportunity to gaze upon the one he paid tribute too and then possibly put to work doing chores so he can prove himself a "worthy" submissive.

quote:

"To learn the art of submission a slave must first give up the desires that drew him to submission in the first place." Mistress Jasmyn Jan 2005.

quote:



there's a distinct yet similar category, of women that don't outright beg for money, but still are looking for something very speciffic. a nice house. a better matress than they can afford. real wine. real kashmir. a better car. lifestyle as in plush couch not necessarily as in sweat and blood. all the bdsm contraption then become something tollerated, for the caviar and mumm, it isn't as bad as it seems, it doesn't last that long, heck, why not sort of thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zumala

quote:

ORIGINAL: scottjk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lashra

Actually in the animal kingdom the male has to compete/fight for the right to mate with the Alpha female, at least in most species. It is not something that is a given, the Alpha female can reject the male and no mating between the pair will take place.

Sorry, Lashra, I just HAVE to step in here at this point. I hate to qualify some statements because it just causes a different argument that really isn't needed but animal kingdom analogies tend to get me a bit wound up. So, with all respect here's the qualification.

The Alpha female can reject the male only because said female has the size and/or strength to do so. This is especially true if there is no pair bonding evident. However, where the male is the larger and/or the stronger of the pairing, the female has little to say about the topic. :)

This caught my attention mid-read of this train-wreck of a thread.  Neither of you is quite right.  First of all, the mating behavior depends on the species you are looking at.  Secondly, animals do actually have personalities that can come into play.

quote:

 
Now...  Most species do NOT have an alpha anything as far as females go.  You're probably thinking lions and wolves.  Something to keep in mind is that mating in the animal kingdom generally takes place because the female of the species goes into heat.  She WANTS to be fucked.  The males fight because they want to be the one to fuck her.  Generally she accepts the winner of the fight because he's proven himself the strongest and thus the best gene-carrier to be had.  However, there are occasions where the female clearly does not like the winner and fends him off regardless of his victory over the other male.  In most cases, the female does have the final say.

quote:



Think about it.  A bull elk trots triumphant to his intended and tries to mount her... and she moves away.  As long as she's moving, he'll never get his dick where he wants it to go.  Or, the lion approaches his intended... only to find her tail clamped to her ass and her claws out.  Does he REALLY want to risk a potentially fatal wound/infection in trying to force her?  Probably not.  It's her heat and desire to mate that causes her to accept his advances.  The final call is hers.
 

quote:



 
The elk have harems and the lions prides... but there are species that are monogamous and mate for life, like the swan or the eagle.  Here, the pairs are faithful and actually quite devoted to each other.  This appears to be a mutual commitment.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:



there's a distinct yet similar category, of women that don't outright beg for money, but still are looking for something very speciffic. a nice house. a better matress than they can afford. real wine. real kashmir. a better car. lifestyle as in plush couch not necessarily as in sweat and blood. all the bdsm contraption then become something tollerated, for the caviar and mumm, it isn't as bad as it seems, it doesn't last that long, heck, why not sort of thing.

This is very insulting. I haven't lived with a man in almost 16 years and reared a son without hardly any help from his father, who went years without paying support. The years I spent in the most abject poverty were the years I spent as his wife. My bed is more comfy, my apartment is nicer, and I eat better. I did it for myself.

I am also an educated woman capable of earning my own living and see serving my dominant as a labor of love, not of economic necessity, he certainly doesn't pay my way yet, and he may never.. I plan on pursuing my own career. Most women my age make their own way, or they were providing economic services as wives and as mothers to their husbands.. and I suppose you do not value those services, but if you had to pay someone else to do them it would cost you 100s of 1000s over the course of your offspring's lives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressSassy66

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


WHAT'S the Difference daddy ?
What's the difference daddy, between theoretically and realistically ?
Well little girl go ask sis if she'd sleep with a stranger for $500,000, Ok...she said she said she would daddy. Now go ask bettie if she'd sleep with a stranger for $500,000...she said yes daddy. Well then darl'n, theoretically, we're sitting on million dollars, realistically, we're living with a couple a whores.

Daddy(?) told them to do it they are obeying orders so
obvisously daddy likes whores.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
[stuff]