11 May 11, 3:38 PM
Jahc99
UK, 5 yrs
 |
Maybe the women aren't being paid, directly. But it's still a very different thing from a house dom/me getting a free ticket.
I think what struck me as very odd, apart from questioning the legality of such a discriminatory price structure, is the way people seemed to justify that as 'because it's femdom'.
It's not, it's just male funded.
Financial domination is one tiny kink which may be added to D/s, or not. If the prices were all the same, and some couples or small groups opted for the subs paying it all, that's one thing. In this case, though, the financial disparity defines the event. Or so it seems.
So I guess that's what Cookie was getting at - some do object to financial disparity becoming accepted as an integral part of femdom, and in the light of events and comments like that maybe they have a point. And quite how it differs from this one: http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/304369/ I dunno, grey area.
I still think that is a very different thing than open and honest professional domination, whatever the genders involved. Edited 11 May 11, 4:12 PM by Jahc99
|
11 May 11, 4:05 PM
CookieMonster
UK, 6 yrs
|
Ms_Valentine wrote:
CookieMonster wrote:
I think we have established beyond question to anyone with functioning brain, and ability to read that you cannot judge all PDs by the actions and attitudes of some. That is simply bigoted and ultimately foolish.
|
Oh really? Well let me give you some examples.
Its the underhand use of langauge and lack of forthright honesty by the overwhelming majority, ie "tribute".
This is highlighted in the link I posted. Its not a femdomme ball its a pro-domme ball. As the single male subs are screened(by need or reference by a mistress to attend) it is not an event open to all it is pure commercial domination. The £200 fee they call a "slave tax", which isn't on the flyers.
Now I see nothing wrong with PDing, but why cant MOST PD's be straight up and honest about it? Why dont any point out that this nice little earner should be in this forum and not the events?
|
|
11 May 11, 4:17 PM
lisal
9 yrs |
Jahc99 wrote:
Maybe the women aren't being paid, directly. But it's still a very different thing from a house dom/me getting a free ticket.
I think what struck me as very odd, apart from questioning the legality of such a discriminatory price structure, is the way people seemed to justify that as 'because it's femdom'.
It's not, it's just male funded.
Financial domination is one tiny kink which may be added to D/s, or not. If the prices were all the same, and some couples or small groups opted for the subs paying it all, that's one thing. In this case, though, the financial disparity defines the event. Or so it seems.
So I guess that's what Cookie was getting at - some do object to financial disparity becoming accepted as an integral part of femdom, and in the light of events and comments like that maybe they have a point. I dunno, grey area.
I still think that is a very different thing than open and honest professional domination, whatever the genders involved.
|
Yeah
Don't disagree hugely
Although I can think of some "non pro dommes" who have done pretty well out of free dinners/hotels etc in exchange for play. Indeedy I am aware of one who very nearly got a "lifestyle" sub to buy a house for her
I'd agree about grey area. It is a chance for some subs to be with/play with some very well known PDs at the same place. But it really isn't for me and, from my pov, is quite a long way from the PD world of one on one play which, as you say, is a different kettle of fish and one that works very well for me
Bottom line, here, for me anyway, is that the whole thing is very clear upfront to those participating. It's their choice on whether to go or not (and whether or not to pay the 200 quid). I get where cookie is coming from but it is open and above board, and is an opportunity for those who are aware of the big names to be in the same place as quite a few of them
|
11 May 11, 4:27 PM
lisal
9 yrs |
Jahc99 wrote:
So I guess that's what Cookie was getting at - some do object to financial disparity becoming accepted as an integral part of femdom, and in the light of events and comments like that maybe they have a point. And quite how it differs from this one: http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/304369/ I dunno, grey area.
|
You added the link while I was posting a reply
The only thing I can think is that Admin somehow splits out those where payment of some description is made to the dommes and those where there isn't (as we discussed elsewhere)
Pretty hard to be sure in some cases I'd imagine
This may (if it is so) answer cookie's point about earners. The dommes clearly get a great night out of it for nothing but if they get no direct payment it may not be a "good little earner"
Would cookie think that a "non pro domme" he wined and dined and then provided him with some play was on a "good little earner"?
Edited 11 May 11, 4:33 PM by lisal
|
11 May 11, 4:31 PM
Lady_Anna_Bradford
UK(BD), 5 yrs
  |
CookieMonster wrote:
Its the underhand use of langauge and lack of forthright honesty by the overwhelming majority, ie "tribute".
|
Why is using the word 'tribute' dishonest and underhand? Everyone knows what it means. The £ sign and the numbers make that very clear. Calling it a fee isn't any more honest, it's just semantics and convention, a convention that many subs prefer too.
Perhaps PDS are incredibly dishonest because they don't have a cash till in their premises, and don't give out receipts?
Tribute is the perfect word for it.
|
A tribute (from Latin tributum, contribution) is wealth, often in kind, that one party gives to another as a sign of respect or, as was often the case in historical contexts, of submission or allegiance.*
|
*taken from Wiki
"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
|
11 May 11, 4:46 PM
Admin
UK, 14 yrs
|
lisal wrote:
The website indicates that the slaves are paying for everything but it doesn't say that the ladies attending are making any financial gain. I'm not saying they are or are not just that it isn't very clear
And I do think this makes some difference
|
And that's the criterion set out in the BDSM Events board description. If staff members are being paid to provide BDSM activities during the event then it's a form of 'multi-slave party' and goes on the Pro-Mistresses etc board.
If anyone can show the English Mansion event involves house tops being paid for BDSM during the event, then we'll move that thread. (Not sly wads of notes being passed discreetly by clients who already know that certain women are available, but that some chunk of that £200 admission fee goes on paying some women to provide BDSM.)
Otherwise, the concerned memos about it are neither here nor there.
Regards,
Admin
ETA: An old discussion and then announcement of the current policy: http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/243530/9#... Remember: it's only a website
Please read this page before contacting the Admin team - thanks!
Edited 11 May 11, 5:03 PM by Admin
|
11 May 11, 5:09 PM
Ms_Valentine
UK, 9 yrs
|
CookieMonster wrote:
Ms_Valentine wrote:
CookieMonster wrote:
I think we have established beyond question to anyone with functioning brain, and ability to read that you cannot judge all PDs by the actions and attitudes of some. That is simply bigoted and ultimately foolish.
|
Oh really? Well let me give you some examples.
Its the underhand use of langauge and lack of forthright honesty by the overwhelming majority, ie "tribute".
This is highlighted in the link I posted. Its not a femdomme ball its a pro-domme ball. As the single male subs are screened(by need or reference by a mistress to attend) it is not an event open to all it is pure commercial domination. The £200 fee they call a "slave tax", which isn't on the flyers.
Now I see nothing wrong with PDing, but why cant MOST PD's be straight up and honest about it? Why dont any point out that this nice little earner should be in this forum and not the events?
|
Yes, really.
You are taking a silly line here as you know we aren't all dishonest or lacking in forthrightness. Not even the majority. You don't know all or even most of us, so please do stop getting your knickers in a twist about something which refers to, and is concerned with, a small sub sector of the PD community. It is not anywhere near a big enough control group to suggest the things you do can be attributed to the 'overwhelming majority' of us.
MOST of us PDs are not involved with that Ball, only a very very very few so how can we ALL be judged by it?
What difference if we use tribute or as I do fee. We still are upfront and honest about it being pro-domming. No one is fooled when they seek us out, speak to us and negotiate sessions. These male subs, competent adults know what they are doing.
Admin decides about where threads belong, not us PDs.
|
Mistress of @paulss
|
11 May 11, 5:13 PM
CookieMonster
UK, 6 yrs
|
Admin wrote:
lisal wrote:
The website indicates that the slaves are paying for everything but it doesn't say that the ladies attending are making any financial gain. I'm not saying they are or are not just that it isn't very clear
And I do think this makes some difference
|
And that's the criterion set out in the BDSM Events board description. If staff members are being paid to provide BDSM activities during the event then it's a form of 'multi-slave party' and goes on the Pro-Mistresses etc board.
If anyone can show the English Mansion event involves house tops being paid for BDSM during the event, then we'll move that thread. (Not sly wads of notes being passed discreetly by clients who already know that certain women are available, but that some chunk of that £200 admission fee goes on paying some women to provide BDSM.)
Otherwise, the concerned memos about it are neither here nor there.
Regards,
Admin
ETA: An old discussion and then announcement of the current policy: http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/243530/9#...
|
so YKIOK as long as a third party can validate it(references)?
How many non commercial events does that apply to?
|
11 May 11, 5:15 PM
Admin
UK, 14 yrs
|
CookieMonster wrote:
Admin wrote:
If anyone can show the English Mansion event involves house tops being paid for BDSM during the event, then we'll move that thread. (Not sly wads of notes being passed discreetly by clients who already know that certain women are available, but that some chunk of that £200 admission fee goes on paying some women to provide BDSM.)
Otherwise, the concerned memos about it are neither here nor there.
|
so YKIOK as long as a third party can validate it(references)?
How many non commercial events does that apply to?
|
If you weren't trolling so hard you'd be able to see where the burden of proof lies just from that paragraph above.
Admin
Remember: it's only a website
Please read this page before contacting the Admin team - thanks!
|
11 May 11, 5:15 PM
lisal
9 yrs |
Admin wrote:
lisal wrote:
The website indicates that the slaves are paying for everything but it doesn't say that the ladies attending are making any financial gain. I'm not saying they are or are not just that it isn't very clear
And I do think this makes some difference
|
And that's the criterion set out in the BDSM Events board description. If staff members are being paid to provide BDSM activities during the event then it's a form of 'multi-slave party' and goes on the Pro-Mistresses etc board.
If anyone can show the English Mansion event involves house tops being paid for BDSM during the event, then we'll move that thread. (Not sly wads of notes being passed discreetly by clients who already know that certain women are available, but that some chunk of that £200 admission fee goes on paying some women to provide BDSM.)
Otherwise, the concerned memos about it are neither here nor there.
Regards,
Admin
ETA: An old discussion and then announcement of the current policy: http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/243530/9#...
|
Thanks Admin for that clarification
Presumably, then, if the Venom's Lair people could prove that the House Mistresses weren't being paid that could be moved off here? I've no idea if they are or not - as I said earlier
|
