The last BDSM taboo?

The last BDSM taboo? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

MstrTiger -> The last BDSM taboo? (7/7/2006 11:35:13 PM)
I have recently been thinking about financial worship and other sorts of play involving the exchange of money or gifts I realise this subject has been discussed before though I have not seen it done in a particularly direct way most of the discourse seams to revolve around the fact that a lot of people think there are far to many pro domme’s plying their trade which has resulted in some slaves thinking there are not enough genuine lady dominants to go around. I am hoping that this will not become yet another pointless discussion like that, I am hoping for some input regarding the pros and cons, can anyone offer have any safety tips that might be useful to people who are interested in exploring this particular form of play? In many ways I regard cash play as the last BDSM community taboo, I find it strange that when I am discussing BDSM with my vanilla friends it is usually the one form of play they can understand and identify with some of them might find me using a slave for CBT shocking though they find the idea of using a slave financially perfectly understandable. This is of course just a minor observation though I think it is an important distinction why do you think this difference in peoples thinking on the subject came about? I think the main difference between cash play and other forms of play is that most people find it far less erotic than forms of use/exploitation that are of a more physical nature, though having said that I don’t see cash play as needing to be erotic I see it as being much more about service and deference it might be a cold way of expressing such things to some peoples eyes though it is one that I personally find quite hmmmm I am not sure of the word to use here….. Stimulating/rewarding? As I said earlier most of the discussion about this subject appears to be done from the point of view of people who have had a bad experience of it, usually because they gave a payment to some random person who then ran away with their money, I realise I cant stop people making posts about that on this thread though I was hoping for it to be more about the theory of cash play and not a long list of messages from people who perhaps would have benefited from knowing some of the basics before they decided to engage in it. I am hoping for it to be a thread where people discuss the subject from the point of view of 2 informed people engaging in it in a mutually rewarding way. If you want to post something negative about the subject then that’s fine though please try to keep it constructive I know for a fact there are going to be some silly people who will brand me a filthy whore for even razing this topic though I thought I would make an attempt at offering people an opportunity to discuss it in a open and adult way all the same.

IronBear -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 3:16:00 AM)
Seeing that I have friends and a BDSM mentor who are professionals in BDSM I can certainly see the commercial aspects. I'm also aware thay they do have a different non professional name when they are active as BDSM members of a scene. Point is the two can be kept separate.. Now regarding cash play. I have to assume that this is different than with a sub or slave who is in a 24/7 live in situation where by they are required to contribute to the home in order to cover theirliving expences. This situation I find both reasonable and even necessary if the Dominant is neither wealthy or earning sufficient to cover their expences. One musy be practical after all. There are some areas in which a slave especially is required to hane over all earnings and may be given an allowance. If the balance of his ir her income less living expences is kept in a bank account and is only use for peronal emergencies (such as the slave needs to fly home to see ialing parents etc) and is available for him or her if the relationship ends as a forced saving to enable a financially smooth transition, I will agree to that too as it is something I would do. In all other forms of cash play (I'm not really familiar with it) my view would be, that as long as everything is up front and in the open so that all parties are aware of what is going on nd required, it is simply a matter of concenting adults which no one has any right to but in or interfere even though this kink is not theirs..... Goor thread Tiger it may be time for people to discuss this.

SusanofO -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 3:56:14 AM)
Regardless of what anyone may think of it personally, if they don't have to engage in it, if they do object to it, I am (once again) left to wonder why anyone cares - what other people do? Personally, I truly don't care what other people want to do - it just has no bearing on my life. When-if they want me to be a part of something they do or believe in, then it becomes much more relevant (to me). Or, if someone comes out and asks for my advice or opinion about something, I suppose (if I have one). Otherwise, I consider it just simply not my business. - Susan

NakedOnMyChain -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 4:39:55 AM)
I think the reason financial domination is not widely accepted is because it is not easily controlled. It's too easy to abuse it, and too hard to prove that abuse has happened. This applies to many other aspects of the lifestyle as well, but it seems when you throw money into the mix things get a bit more volatile. Also, it keeps a slave/sub from having the financial means to get out of an otherwise abusive relationship, or simply one they no longer want to be in. If the slave/sub in question has a corrupt top, it is possible for them to make the submissive's life hell if they want out. If there was a way to control it, a system of checks (no pun intended) and balances in place to keep negative experiences from happening on such a frequent basis I believe it would become much more normal. As it is, between two informed and responsible people, I don't see what the problem is. Consensuality is everything. Just my take, but then again I've only had two hours of sleep. Edited to add another paragraph. Sometimes I just can't get enough of my own voice. [;)]

KennelDeSade2 -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 4:42:21 AM)
Until women start paying for male doms in any number. . . I don't think that you are going to see it viewed as more than a twist on prostitution.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 5:00:05 AM)
Cash play is a good way to put it. Here's the deal, as I see it. There are some who cannot commit to service, even if close by. However, a great method of control is to oversee the finances of the submissive who wants to be dominated, but can't be dominated under the normal concept of WIITWD. It is simply another way of disciplining on the Dominant's part, and submitting and offering service on the submissive's part. There are men who live very nice lifestyle, They are free (no wives to whom they are accountable), and they crave control in their lives. Setting up a budget and slowly changing spending habits, which also benefits the Dom/mes, since they get the leftovers (Smile), is a contant reminder that they are in a sort of long distance D/s relationship. They have to think about not going out for that expensive dinner, or buying the new car, or taking the vacation. It is a form of control that works very well for some people, and it is very satisfying. These people now have a serious commitment in their life, and if they can live up to it, their daily thoughts are on the rules and regulations of spending with the added bonus of knowing that they have provided something extra for their Dominant through their own sacrifice and obedience. That would be the long term. Others just simply like to make a purchase here and there, but it is because it makes them feel good, and gives a sense of participating in D/s or M/s. But they are not going to stick it out and discipline themselves, or allow themselves to be disciplined, for any long term change of lifestyle. It is the long term, and another type of commitment that I feel is what Financial Domination is all about. And it is important to figure out who it is you are trusting with this special and sensitive discipline. For most it is simply a fantasy. They cannot and never will actually see it through. But that doesn't stop them from offering! I get offers all the time. If I follow through and begin the ask the tough questions about budget, it suddenly isn't as much fun or as erotic as they thought. No real difference from the ones who say they want to do anything for you and then realize that cleaning the oven isn't as erotic as they thought! Shrug For some it is easier to be disciplined in the financial area. Who is anyone to say they are wrong, or a Financial Dominant is wrong for doing it. And for some, it is immensely erotic and satisfying. Disclaimer! I am not talking about the Ladies who ask for tribute. This is not tribute here, tribute there, here a tribute, there a tribute, everywhere a tribute. This is valid Financial Domination. It is offered, but it is usually not trolled for as a kink by the responsible Dominant. There is a big difference between asking for the "proof of sincerity", and responsibly controlling an important aspect of a submissive's life.

gooddogbenji -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 5:12:39 AM)
Here is my view on it for myself personally: I agree with Michelle on the abuse thing, but I will disregard that aspect in this post and focus on the people for whom this is a kink, not a source of easy income. Service is about giving something valuable to someone. That is not necessarily money, but could be time, effort, thought, emotion, or money. If your Mistress asks for breakfast, toast and butter isn't service. Toast, butter, homemade jam, a fresh fruit garnish, a little note saying thank you or what not is service. I can understand financial domination from the perspective of someone who says that money is valuable to them, it makes the world go 'round, etc. It is giving up something they really need for someone else, a very deep kind of servitude. "I have been saving up to buy a new car, but I will give that up for you." To explain my situation, I come from a wealthy family, and have more than enough money. So money, to me, is nothing valuable. In keeping with my statement about service and value, I am not really giving up anything for her; it is not service in my books. I could give $100 to her, turn around, give the next one the same, and go from Mistress to Mistress without ever feeling servile, because I have invested nothing of value. Time, however, or emotion, or effort, I do not have more of than others. If I spend a weekend doing housework for a Mistress, that is my time which I can never get back, time which I could have spent with friends, and I gave it up to make her happy. I have served. Granted, the house would have gotten just as clean if I had sent a maid over, but then I have given nothing valuable. So, to end my long and incoherent rant, if a submissive places a high value on money, then giving it up is a very special thing, and getting it makes you know you, as a Mistress, are special. If money is no factor in their lives, then giving it up doesn't show any "real" submission, because they could give it to anyone. Throws away soapbox, gets on all fours, and writes, "I am a soapbox, stand on me, Mistress" on his back Yours, benji

NakedOnMyChain -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 5:34:26 AM)
Wow. That's a helluva good post, benji. I'd definitely not looked at it like that before. You have a very valid point.

LaTigresse -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 5:36:37 AM)
Hopping onto benji ( lucky you I am barefooted right now eh benji). I can only speak for myself in that I could never "play for money". It's not that I feel it is wrong if both parties wish it. It is just that, it's not what the whole thing is about for me. Granted, I am not wealthy, far from it, and money or help paying the bills would be a great help, BUT I would wish it to be part of a relationship, NOT the goal. I have become alot less weirded out about the idea of a male sub/slave, it was a social conditioning I had to overcome, but given that sex is just not a huge part of the turn on of BDSM for me, I have tended to skirt the issue. Most males keep trying to sneak the sexual stuff in there somewhere and that just annoys the hell out of me. They are not so much about the service but what I can do for them. Then they just assume since I don't immediately have an interest in putting on costumes and smacking their pecker around I must want money, NOT. Before I hurt feelings understand that I have only had comunication with a limited number of males and I know that this is probably NOT a reflection of the entire population!! I digress.....Yes I love to be given gifts and yes money is nice, but without it being given from the heart its rather empty. Also, for me the gifts do not have to have a big $$ value, more touching is when thought has gone into it. When the gift is personal, it shows that the giver has paid attention and put alot of effort into choosing it. It is the way I am, I love to give presents and start Christmas shopping early in the year so that I can give things that are special for each person. I also agree 100% with benji in that giving of ones time is really the ULTIMATE GIFT. I know it is something I have far too little of, and if I take time to spend with someone, one on one, it is because I think they are special.

gooddogbenji -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 5:43:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse Hopping onto benji ( lucky you I am barefooted right now eh benji). How is that luck? I mean, didn't you know that a real Mistress would be wearing 6 inch, spiked, black, leather, thigh high boots, and jump up and down, while demanding money? This is the internet, after all! Yours, benji

LaTigresse -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 5:47:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse Hopping onto benji ( lucky you I am barefooted right now eh benji). How is that luck? I mean, didn't you know that a real Mistress would be wearing 6 inch, spiked, black, leather, thigh high boots, and jump up and down, while demanding money? This is the internet, after all! Yours, benji Sorry sweetheart but if naked feet with hoe-red painted toenails don't do it for you this morning you have to find another internet Mistress this morning[;)]

gooddogbenji -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 5:57:33 AM)
Yeah, but do I get to massage them after? Yours, benji

WetHotGoddess -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 6:02:55 AM)
*I find myself wondering why anyone wants to "control" what others do.* *If a "submissive" wants to give his "service" to a woman for money, and is an adult, why does it bother people that he chooses- freely- to do so?* *Here is what I know, and this is not supposition, it is a fact.* *There are men in the world who have a lot to offer a domme (service wise)and they are fantastic people.* Others are MARRIED and since moral values are lacking these days, they make assumptions that dommes in general are going to let them provide oral services, and many dommes I know do this very thing. I do not know who is serving whom in these situations but if he cannot commit to me or to his wife he is a loser in my opinion. Now, what I have found is that there is a very small percentage of these men who feel guilt about their desires and unsavory activities and they seek someone to punish them for it. This is where "money play" comes in for me, as I request they send me personal info and pics and thereby "coerce" them financially to be good boys so the wife does not find out. Perhaps it lends excitement to their lives. If they enjoy it and they choose it, who cares if they do it? I have been paid substantial sums to keep a slave in a cage and help him stop smoking. He choose this and asked me to help him. No one denies the value of real service of a real sub. Yet no one "gets" the value of a service a Domme provides. When it comes to personal slaves, all adults need to be responsible for themselves and beware of those who want their bank accounts, as well as those who isolate their slaves from family and friends. *Ariel* quote: ORIGINAL: NakedOnMyChain I think the reason financial domination is not widely accepted is because it is not easily controlled. It's too easy to abuse it, and too hard to prove that abuse has happened. This applies to many other aspects of the lifestyle as well, but it seems when you throw money into the mix things get a bit more volatile. Also, it keeps a slave/sub from having the financial means to get out of an otherwise abusive relationship, or simply one they no longer want to be in. If the slave/sub in question has a corrupt top, it is possible for them to make the submissive's life hell if they want out. If there was a way to control it, a system of checks (no pun intended) and balances in place to keep negative experiences from happening on such a frequent basis I believe it would become much more normal. As it is, between two informed and responsible people, I don't see what the problem is. Consensuality is everything. Just my take, but then again I've only had two hours of sleep. Edited to add another paragraph. Sometimes I just can't get enough of my own voice. [;)]

SusanofO -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 6:09:10 AM)
Well I can certainly see why it could work; if it works for those involved, who cares? People have a right to pursue their own kink, I think. - Susan

LaTigresse -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 6:12:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji Yeah, but do I get to massage them after? Yours, benji OMG yessssssss!

gooddogbenji -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 6:15:58 AM)
Okay. Be there on the next flight! But I will warn you: It is a hard limit of mine to have to stop after less than an hour..... Yours, benji

MzMinx -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 6:22:43 AM)
good dog smiles and pets benji as she feeds him a treat ..... well said the evoking of the mindset.. the intent behind the actions ... the emotions they draw forth ... the building of intimacy, trust and submission... that is what is important ... its not always the what we do but the why we do it, how it makes us feel that matters If it means nothing to the submissive to give it, it probably doesn't achieve what the dominant wants ... although most people enjoy getting presents and such it doesnt increas the dynamic nor add to it As much as I love flowers and enjoy a large bunch of red roses because he can afford it ... it is not as special as haveing a submissive bring me one flower that is my favorite colour and type, because he has listened to my likes and delights, and is trying to please me .. not just bedazzle or charm me but neither is as delightful as to have him grow me my favorite flower with his labour and thought ... now that is where I would give him an A+ as you said benji its about the effort, thought and degree of input the submissive gives to his actions.. but often people who have money do see it as part of a power dynamic .... changing their normal pattern of control is a very effective means of helping them understand or feel their submission .. or help deepen the control ... whether it be controling what they spend and how .. or demanding gifts, etc There is also still a social/gender thing as well ... it is still far more socially accepted for a man to pay for things or buy gifts as part of the courtship process reguardless of vanilla or which ever way the power flows .. than for a man to ask or demand such from a woman ...I have found many males who had an issue with how much I earn, although that was when I identified as submissive .. my earning more than them by a substantial amount effected their thinking of the power dynamic .... I havent foudn the same in submissive males no matter if they earn more or less than I I have used money as part of a power exchange /control game... and would again .... I enjoy being spoilt ... and I enjoy watching a boy struggle with that dramatic change of habbit/mindset of having to ask to spend more than his budget .. or building the level of trust it requires to order a credit card on their account in my name but smiles i enjoy spoiling as well ... it depends on the boy and how it effects him and me ... its not as simple as saying hand me your wallet grins

LadiesBladewing -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 6:36:06 AM)
We certainly wouldn't turn away a servant who wanted to provide financial servitude. It would be a blessing to be able to let go of the day-jobs and be able to provide pastoral care, homeopathic care, write and lecture full-time, knowing that housing and utilities would be covered. That being said, we don't go looking for it. If it comes, it comes as part of a package deal, with other aspects of servitude that would have been the primary aspects that drew the person into our household, and us into their lives. As I also said in another post, IF something happened where we actually decided to accept a strictly-online servant, one of the pre-requisites would be some form of tribute. The reasoning, for us, is that there is very little that -we- do that can be done in an online setting, and neither of us "gets off" on little porn stories, nor do we enjoy cybersex or any of that... with that in mind, there would have to be -something- that an online servant could do to serve us, and the only things that come immediately to mind are web-design services and financial tribute. I think that, with financial servitude, the key is the same as it is for everything else. Ethical behavior in both directions is an imperative. Frankly, it wouldn't be that much different than a situation where one member of a household was working to put another through school or some such -- as long as everyone is on the same page, and the individual in question welcomes the opportunity to offer his or her financial base as one of the foundations for the servitude, and as long as what that entails is clearly spelled out, I don't see anything wrong with -any- arrangement that includes finances, nor do I find it particularly abhorent that such agreements exist. For example, if the servant is comfortable with his or her funds being used by the dominant individual to take vacations to Bali or Tahiti with hir boy/girlfriends and without the financially-responsible servant, that is NOT abuse -- it is a consentual agreement between two adults). Now, if someone is going to turn around and give $500 to a person that he or she met over the internet 3 days ago, that, to me, is a matter of PERSONAL irresponsibility on the giver's, NOT a problem with the purported dominant individual who -asked- for it. Like everything else, common sense is a major factor, and it bothers me to no end the number of individuals who gripe and complain when it is their own personal irresponsibility that has gotten them into trouble. Buyer Beware! ZWD

LaTigresse -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 6:39:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji Okay. Be there on the next flight! But I will warn you: It is a hard limit of mine to have to stop after less than an hour..... Yours, benji careful benji, I have been known to adopt cute puppies.........

LotusSong -> RE: The last BDSM taboo? (7/8/2006 8:24:30 AM)
Money = Control. Are you being a submissive by contolling through money? Or do you wish to have the Domme seen as a gold-digger by requesting it?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1409912