You Can’t Afford Me: The Morality of Financial Sexual Domination

I remember hearing a few years ago of a woman who taught preschool by day and financially enslaved men by night. I don’t remember why the story made the news, but I was puzzled as to why this woman could say such mean things to her clientele, only to have them obediently lavish their life savings upon her.

I was asked the other day about my opinion of the morality of financial domination. What is financial domination, you ask? It’s a type of power play where a dominant partner “forces” a submissive partner to remit money. The play is entirely consensual and often involves blackmail, punishments, and other venues of humiliation by the dominant partner toward the submissive partner for the mutualistic benefit of both partners.

So, where does a reasonable person draw the line between sexual expression and placating an addiction to the point of destitution?

As a feminist, I encourage all forms of safe, sane, and consensual sexual expression.

In this case, we see both the physical safety and unwavering consent conditions satisfied. The question then falls to sanity, which is debatable. If a submissive is to the point of risking financial destitution, yet desperately wants his partner to fleece every last penny from him, should his partner placate his wishes or refuse to participate?

Although financial domination can be done responsibly, it is no surprise there are an endless number of people willing to exploit others for their own financial benefit. As my friend pointed out, financial domination can rapidly become dangerous for submissive partners, as the nature of the game provides an ample incentive for dominant partners to shirk these questions of morality.

One of the most important constructs within the BDSM community is that dominant partners must always consider the well-being of their submissive partners. It strikes me as blatantly irresponsible for financial dominants to know nothing of their partners’ financial backgrounds and stability. To me, financial limitation is a defined threshold which should never be surpassed, the same way that it is unacceptable to violate a person’s hard limits about their body.

If sexual partners cannot (or will not) discuss their emotional, physical, social, and financial limitations, they should not be playing with one another.

Intimate relationships require communication, trust, and deep-seated compassion between and among all parties involved. A responsible dominant needs to take the time to learn how to recognize self-destructive tendencies in submissive partners and protect them from spiraling toward these behaviors during play sessions.

8 comments

  1. There’s an old joke about how the masochist says, “Beat me! Beat me!” and the sadist says, “No!”

    There’s no question in my mind that ones sexual orientation and responses are part of natural variation among humans. As the kink gets progressively more psychological, I find myself seeing it less and less as natural variation and more and more as broken psychology. Which is not to insist such should always be fixed — sometimes we accept and live with, even embrace, our fixable flaws, even strictly physical ones, for whatever reason.

    This “financial domination” seems very broken to me. For the submissive, there’s an obvious positive feedback situation that can lead — exactly as you describe — to ruin.But the real kicker to my mind is that normally a dominatrix has nothing to gain from taking it too far. Quite the opposite, I’d think. But here there’s a clear incentive to take it as far as possible. Plus it’s exactly what the client is begging for.

    That “financial domination” is even a thing to me suggests some seriously crossed wires. The mind seems capable of cross-wiring sexual response into all sorts of things, but I have to admit this is a new one on me!

    (I think I’ve mentioned that I’m old-fashioned, so “consider the source,” as they say.)

    Like

    1. I’m intrigued by your phrase, “[a]s the kink gets progressively more psychological,” since sex response always originates in the brain, but I understand what you mean — emotional kink rather than more physically-oriented kink. I do plan to funnel more energy into researching the nitty gritty of this fetish in the future, so keep your eyes peeled for a follow-up post! 🙂

      Like

      1. Sorry, I do tend to assume others can read my mind, but you did still catch my meaning. As a kink becomes less body-related, so to speak, it strikes me less and less as being a sexual kind (rather than just one of the myriad ways the human mind can jump the tracks a little).

        Maybe you could offer extremely high-priced therapy for those individuals. 😀

        Like

        1. Hahaha, no sir! That would be unethical toward clients, which is something I would never consider. In my free time with non-clients, however… That’s more of a gray area. We shall see what the future brings!

          Liked by 1 person

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s