Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Financial Domination (77)

This post is on the Pro-Mistresses etc web board.

29 May 09, 10:09 AM
Lady_Anna_Bradford
UK(BD), 5 yrs

A_Bad_Penny wrote:
A submissive who feels the need to be spanked, or the need to be controlled may pay for that to happen (either to a pro as money, or in a private relationship by devoting a relationship to it). For a sub who feels the need to give away money, why shouldn't they 'pay' for that need to be fulfilled too?

Again, from the sub's point of view, wanting finances controlled or wanting to give away power through their financial resource isn't a million miles form many of the more usual forms of submission.

Where it does get more difficult to understand is from the dominant's side. A sub wanting to be spanked can form a personal relationship with a dom who wants to spank, and that's fine. A sub wanting to be controlled behaviourally can form a relationship with a dom who wants to control, and that's fine. Either sub can pay a pro-dom to provide the service they need, and in return for payment, get the spanking or control they need: it has been 'bought'.

But when it comes to financial submission, the converse kink can only be described as greed: a lifestyle dominant who wants to take money from a sub, which is pretty much unacceptable even in our circles. And the pro who steps in to take the money could likewise simply be seen to be greedy, since in return for taking money, they are giving no visible service or product.

Which leaves the financial sub stuck, with a fetish that's hard to fulfil. 'Acceptability' will not allow anyone to fill their needs. And the host of chancers who pose as financial subs to hook free chat and sessions with doms who don't see through their ploy doesn't help either.

I've used the term financial submission more than financial domination. That slant makes it a bit easier to understand. It's a sub thing, not a dom thing.

And the only times I've taken money from the financially submissive, it has been to protect them from greed abuse that was ongoing, to plug the bleed, to coach into taking more care, and ultimately, the fees taken were in payment for time given. This I am happy with. But when they gave the money, they didn't now they would get the time and the care in return, which made them happy.

Penny x (writing in Lady Alpha mode...)

This is nonsense. Complete and utter drivel.

You can't state that the FinDom isn't domming and therefore isn't providing a service. Just because you can't see, or just because the sub doesn't have a red bottom doesn't mean that the dynamic doesn't exist. If a FinDom accept his cash then she IS providing a service. It isn't always apparent what she does to do this but why should she spill her secrets so that the tutting observer can decide if she is domming the sub enough, and the instadomme can pinch all her ploys for their own gain? Is there some sort of board of disapproving judgemental kinksters who decide that the sub has got his money's worth or something?

Financial subs want to give money to their chosen Domme. Nobody has the right to tell them, or 'counsel' them, on the rights or wrongs of it. How patronising is THAT?

Financial subs are adults too you know. They can make their own choices and learn from their very own mistakes just like every other type of sub does. And some of them, some of them like it so much they do it for years and years and love it. Nobody has the right to judge anybody who chooses to express their kink in this way.

Every single one of you who judges this fetish based on knowing fuck all about it is a fucking hypocrite.

"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
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/ http://www.clips4sale.com/store/26308

Edited 29 May 09, 10:11 AM by Lady_Anna_Bradford

29 May 09, 11:05 AM
Ms_Tytania_London
3 yrs

A_Bad_Penny wrote:

And the only times I've taken money from the financially submissive, it has been to protect them from greed abuse that was ongoing, to plug the bleed, to coach into taking more care,

It takes a lot of cheek, hypocrisy and/or a total lack of self-awareness, to write that seriously. Well done, Ma'am.

http://www.mstytania.com

29 May 09, 2:51 PM
MissP
UK(EN), 8 yrs

MistressLadyAnna wrote:

Again, from the sub's point of view, wanting finances controlled or wanting to give away power through their financial resource isn't a million miles form many of the more usual forms of submission.

I've used the term financial submission more than financial domination. That slant makes it a bit easier to understand. It's a sub thing, not a dom thing.

Penny x (writing in Lady Alpha mode...)

This is nonsense. Complete and utter drivel.

Financial subs want to give money to their chosen Domme. Nobody has the right to tell them, or 'counsel' them, on the rights or wrongs of it. How patronising is THAT?

Every single one of you who judges this fetish based on knowing fuck all about it is a fucking hypocrite.

Wholeheartedly seconded.

And adding that financial subs/pay piggies or whatever they like to call THEMSELVES can STOP at any time they damn want to.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MissP-Dominatrix/

29 May 09, 3:27 PM
mini_velvet
UK(EH), 6 yrs

A_Bad_Penny wrote:

Penny x (writing in Lady Alpha mode...)

so you've taken money from them to save them from giving money to someone else? How terribly altruistic of you. Sainthood must be impending.

No colours or shapes
No sound in my head
I forget who I am
Making love is the same as fucking but you slow down and don't call her disgusting names.

29 May 09, 4:21 PM
stormywaters
PT, 4 yrs

Goodness girls, lets all sit up straight now and remember our manners. Well really I never did.

Fascinating. I must admit I am totally out of my depth. It's basically a branch of the emotional masochism debate I suppose; but made so much more tricky by the, well, fiancial implications.

Can't really get my head around it at all. Of course gambling is a bit the same I suppose. I always think if the guy who invented fruit machines had gone to his bank to get a loan to set up manufacturing them they would have thought he was indeed a friut cake. Imagine explaining to the bank that people would just put their money in these machines and get nothing back, except occasionally when they would get back on average less than they had already put in. People sure are odd.

I can imagine a domme, pro or otherwise, handling these situations with integrity but it sure must be difficult.

My object all sublime...

Edited 29 May 09, 4:22 PM by stormywaters

29 May 09, 4:57 PM
MistressKeene
3 yrs
£

What is my view of financial Domination? Mmmmmm..well,horses for courses.

Have I done financial domination? No, and nor would I.

When I began PDing back in the day, I made a rule for myself which was that I would try something if I was unsure about it but never do anything which would make me feel bad, disgusted or stupid.

Financial Domination doesn't disgust me. If two consenting adults have an agreement like that, fair enough.

I have always kept to just doing physical domination sessions, real life, me and a sub in my playroom. I don't do on line, e-mail, sell used knickers or have a paying members website. Why? Well, I like just enacting bdsm in a room with a guy. I like to play with his body and his mind together. Financial Domination doesn't have that same appeal. It is a thing done at a distance. Often instead of face to face sessions. To me, domming is about that closeness, that physicality. I love D/s and S&M but only when actually connecting with that person in the flesh.

Even though it is a valid form of domming for others, it would make me feel bad, just like 'blackmail' scenarios do, I just don't feel like I am earning the money and if I haven't earned it, I don't want it.

I am usually reasonably confident that when I have finshed a session, the person with me is contented, exhilarated and excited and I feed off seeing that. In finDom, there is none of that. It is a 'colder' form of domination in my eyes.

I also worry that at some point a man may regret his excursions into FinDom and feel as though he has been used. I know he is an adult but we are all still vulnerable and can do things which are actually products of the more unhealthy impulses within us. In a face to face session, a man sees me, as I am genuine, caring ( if a bit sadistic with it) and loving having power over him. He knows I am aroused, I tell him I am, sometimes he finds out personally and so he can see I am having a whale of a time with him. We are enjoying our experience together. It is inclusive, intimate,life affirming and he can see and feel he is being taken care of.

Financial Domination, whilst not wrong for those that get something out of it, is the antithesis of what I love about Domming. So, I do not do it.

29 May 09, 6:38 PM
stormywaters
PT, 4 yrs

Well that sounds good to me.

My object all sublime...

29 May 09, 9:27 PM
Mistress_Lady_Julia
UK(LN), 3 yrs
£

some would pour scorn and want to send to counselling any sub who wanted to pay to kiss my feet and beg to be spanked too, but they love it and actually so do I and it IS their money!

If they enjoy it enough to feel they want to do it then I feel the domme has done her part.

There are far more destructive ways to part with your hard earned ..cigarettes booze gambling sports cars scuba diving pot holing.. They enjoy it they pay for it ...

I dont have anything against smoking or boozing either but pot holing is a bit weird if you ask me!

Edited 29 May 09, 9:29 PM by Mistress_Lady_Julia

29 May 09, 10:07 PM
stormywaters
PT, 4 yrs

Yup, fair enough.

Think I fancy myself in Dimbleby mode here.

Next contribution please.

My object all sublime...

29 May 09, 10:22 PM
BigOldHector
UK(DE), 10 yrs

lisal wrote:

Plinth_For_Her_Feet wrote:

But not disapproving of something in principle doesn't oblige me or anyone else to accept absolutely anything however reprehensible that goes on in its name, as some seem to insist whenever I deplore specific actions by individuals.

As I've said elsewhere not accepting and condemning are two different things. Personally, I find the thought of scat absolutely revolting but I would not going around saying "scat is disgusting and not BDSM" just because it doesn't fit in with the way my BDSM is

But then again I don't condemn anyones fetish either, simply because it is not one I share. What I do fundamentally disagree with is deliberate exploitation of *another's* kink (or maybe vulnerability?) from a remote distance with no knowledge or concern for whether harm might be done (and FinDom is an area that can easily get out of control with very far-reaching consequences) for the sake of greed.

In all areas of domination, the individual in the dominant position is assuming power over another's well being. It is reasonably assumed they should therefore accept responsibility for the consequences their actions, especially if they claim to be a "professional" in the field - surely that is the line between domination and abuse.

It is not FinDom in itself, in principle, that I object to. It is the casual callousness of crossing that line that I consider offensive and unacceptable. And online FinDom can hardly do anything other than cross that line.

I AM THE GOD OF HELL-FIRE!.....but its my lunch break right now

Next page