This post is on the Pro-Mistresses etc web board.
| Mon 15 Sep 08, 8:44 PM crysta_cd UK(M), 4 yrs   |
With the on set of the credit crunch and limited available fluid cashflow for many subs, is it possible to envisage the sight of pro-dommes wearing orange PVC and offering a 30 minute session for 60 GBP???? Has the sub market collapsed or does personal interest overide reality for the financial perspective of the 'giving' sub??? Discuss | |||
| 15 Sep 08, 9:14 PM Ms_Tytania 7 yrs |
I haven't noticed any goods in the market going substantially down in price just because there is a recession. Why do you think that pro-Dommes should start slashing their tributes? Cultivate your Inner Whore | |||
| 16 Sep 08, 8:58 AM Lady_Anna_Bradford UK(BD), 5 yrs   |
Rather than cash-flow concerns (haven't seen any evidence of this yet btw)perhaps the subs would be more concerned about the Domme going out of business mid-session. There's a good chance the sub could be left stranded in chains or a cage with no chance of getting home.  "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness | |||
| 16 Sep 08, 11:31 AM Miss_Josie 4 yrs |
LOL | |||
| 16 Sep 08, 11:57 AM crysta_cd UK(M), 4 yrs |
Am pleased the memo has been taken as intended | |||
| 17 Sep 08, 10:55 PM MrBromley UK(EN), 3 yrs |
Quite right! The real credit crunch is when you can only afford to see your domme for a session of half the duration but you still want your balls squeezed just as much. So on the basis of half the duration that means double the pressure (or crunch)! | |||
| 23 Sep 08, 4:52 PM Mr_Worm UK(BN), 6 yrs     |
or the bailiffs turning up mid session and seizing the sub as part of the chattels and possessions. Any dommes ever tried to use a pawn broker ?
| |||
| 23 Sep 08, 7:27 PM Lady_Anna_Bradford UK(BD), 5 yrs |
Noooooooooo It means only one ball gets squeezed.
"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness |
