|
domtimothy46176 -> RE: Thought i'd seen it all till... (10/15/2005 7:28:57 AM)
|
Apparently I have misunderstood what I've read and, if that is so, I apologize for misinterpreting your words.
quote:
ORIGINAL: strongnsubmissiv
I know this topic has been beat to death, but it saddens me to see such blatant opportunism. It's one thing to say that financial domination is a legitimate kink, but to actually state a specific dollar amount in a profile is just pathetic.
I suspect she thinks that submissive men are chumps to fall for that kind of crap, and it just saddens me.
sns
I thought this post was clearly pointing out your conclusion that, rather than a legtimate kink, the domme in question was an opportunist with a pathetic offer only a chump would fall for. Perhaps you would help be willing to help me ferret out the true meaning of your words.
My point simply is that the profile in question is just so blatantly obvious. Stating intentions up front doesn't make it right, and i fail to see how paying a huge financial debt for someone has anything to do with BDSM.
There's a reason this woman posted the profile here, and not on a vanilla site stating the same conditions. It has the potential to exploit a sexually submissive male, who just might be confused about his sexuality.
In my opinion it's shameful; regardless of what is stated upfront.
sns
When reading this post, I saw the word "blatant" and assumed, rightly or wrongly, that this was in reference to your previous use of the word "opportunism", as this second post appears to be a continuation of the OP. This second post, however, does seem to make a case that, since "Stating intentions up front doesn't make it right..." that there are no circumstances where two consenting adults can enjoy such an arrangement unless the submissive is a "chump" or the submissive is "confused about his sexuality". You don't leave open the possibility that a submissive male might be able to make a reasoned judgement that such an arrangement met his needs.
You make it clear that this type of agreement isn't your cup of tea, and that's fine. You also state that you "fail to see how paying a huge financial debt for someone has anything to do with BDSM" and I understand that position also. I have encountered many activities that don't define BDSM for me, personally. I think you would have been better served, however, had you stopped short of stating, "In my opinion it's shameful; regardless of what is stated upfront." Your phrasing indicates not that you would be ashamed to engage in such activities, but that any who would do so should be ashamed. That's a judgement that each individual is allowed to make for himself. If two people choose to pursue such an arrangement, they need not feel ashamed simply because others don't find it appealing.
Perhaps this better explain why I wrote, "My question is a simple one, on what basis have you determined that two consenting adults are not free to choose the basis for their own dynamic?" Your posts indicate a position that is intolerant of profiles stating certain requirements and indicate that those who would respond in a positive way to those requirements are "chumps", "confused about...sexuality" and "shameful". Such a position does, in fact, appear to contradict the idea represented in your tagline that a submissive can also be strong, at least as I define strength to represent not just physical strength but also emotional and intellectual strengths.
I do hope that I have clarified not just my position, but also how I interpreted the phrasing in your own posts, to which I was responding.
Be well,
Timothy
|
|
|
|
