The nature of Dominance is not always an obvious thing – even to me.
Preface: This is a post that I started and didn’t finish from about two months ago. The information is still valid, but the email that I reference is pretty old at this point. Caveat lector.
I recently received an email from a very intelligent reader who did not specify his gender, so I apologize if my use of male pronouns is inappropriate, but I’m going to continue to refer to this reader as ‘him’ for expediency’s sake.
He asks me, “Is this FinDomme for real? I’m really thinking about this and I don’t know how to stop myself. Is this for real? What should I do?”
I’m not really sure how to respond to such a request. I can’t claim that I didn’t know that financial Domination was a kink for some people, but I’m not sure that I can bring myself to endorse it.
I know that “your kink is not my kink but your kink is okay” is a huge part of the open philosophy that I love about the kink community so much, but this may be one case where I have to reserve my views.
I’m not sure that I think that financial Dominance – especially in the form being peddled by the young lady in the link that I won’t echo here – is okay. I don’t judge her. She is extremely honest about what she intends to do. She explicitly states that she wants someone – very clearly intended to be a wealthy older male figure – to give her total financial control of his life, and that once she has this, she intends to completely ruin him. There is a great deal of camouflaged language that follows which seems to indicate that this financial control would also entitle one to sexual favors, but even that is very clearly secondary to the stated and intended purpose of financial ruin and humiliation.
I have been involved at some level in the kink world for almost two decades and learned that there is quite literally a kink for everything and that there is always, always, someone who will subscribe enthusiastically to that kink, and yet, even after all of the things I have experienced or seen, I have a really hard time believing that there is someone out there who wants to be financially ruined like this person is advertising, and like one of my readers is considering.
My problem – and it may just be a personal problem for me – is that I can’t see how this is a good thing for the person being Dominated.
D/s relationships are, by their very nature, stilted. They’re not equitable. They’re not equal partnerships, and they’re not intended to be, but there is still some level of balance.
One can, and probably should, argue that every true TPE relationship is a financial Domination, and that might be true. but there is a huge difference between controlling something and destroying something.
My own personal philosophy, and I know I’m not alone in this, is that I always try to leave every interaction I have with people such that they are in some way better than they were when I first found them. I’m human, and I don’t always succeed in this. I’m sure some of my former friends and exes would probably start fuming if they were to read this, but I actually do try to do the best I can in this regard. I value friendship highly, and I try to always help and support my friends, but D/s takes this even further.
I regret to say that I cannot, with absolute certainty, claim that every submissive that has been under my thumb left our interactions in a better state than she began them, but I do know that I’ve done more good than harm, and I’ve tried to ameliorate any issues of which I am aware and able.
I do have remain friends with some of my exes and some of my former subs, so I know that I’ve managed to keep things positive at least most of the time.
So – with that in mind – I cannot see how this could possibly be a good thing for at least one of the participants in this arrangement.
If you go over things with a fine enough resolution, you can probably find something that is being satisfied by such a relationship, and if you have an itch that needs scratching, you could say that finding someone to scratch it for you is a good thing, but again, I have to think about the relative magnitudes of these things. While my reader may be getting some deep seated psychological need fulfilled – temporarily – by this sort of arrangement, the implied consequences are far from temporary.
Bankruptcy is a horrible thing.
Fortunately for me, I haven’t had to go through it, but I have been destitute at one time, and while I do not necessarily believe that it is required for us to have material possessions to be happy, I do believe that having our primary survival needs met is absolutely critical to our wellbeing, physically, emotionally, and psychologically. In the society that I live in, not having access to any money at all would be a severe impediment to at least two of these needs – food and shelter.
I can see how a relationship where the Dominant partner controls all aspects of the submissive partner’s finances would be appealing. In fact, I’ve been in such relationships myself, on both sides of that particular coin, and I don’t believe that the experience was damaging to any party involved, but this particular situation differs a bit. The FinDomme in question is not offering to take ownership of this person and care for him – as I have done and had done for me in the past – but instead is explicitly stating that she will financially ruin and embarrass this person, leaving them completely on their own with no resources and no recourse.
I cannot recommend such a thing.
D/s is a journey. I believe that more strongly now than ever. It is, however, a journey that one must undertake with much forethought and preparedness. It is not a thing to engage in lightly and there are no shortcuts.
Sure, you can do a short scene or incorporate elements of D/s into your kinky fuckery and leave off with a lot of the more profound considerations, but in so doing you are only scratching the surface of the possible. To get the profound D/s experience that it seems most of my readers are seeking, you have to commit yourself, body and mind, time and energy, and give it real attention.
I suspect that the reader who wrote me is trying to shortcut some of these things – by signing over his assets, he is creating an instant and binding relationship that goes far beyond the ordinary. Most vanilla marriages include at least some aspect of separate finances, or at least some kind of equitable scheme through which both partners are able to make purchases of necessary and everyday items. Under the sort of scheme this young lady is trying to proffer, her finsub would not even have the ability to purchase food or pay rent.
And then again, maybe there is just a kink element to it that I can’t understand…