On Oct 26, 12:17 pm, ashenthorn
aol.com> wrote:> On Oct 26, 11:16 am, HC
aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Oct 26, 9:23?am, ashenthorn
aol.com> wrote:>
>>> On Oct 25, 8:24 pm, HC
aol.com> wrote:>
>>>> Hey, good luck to you. It's hard to explain, but I'm respecting the
>>>> fact that you can get guys to pay you for worshipping your dirty feet.
>>>> I admire persuasive people. But then again, you may not be so
>>>> persuasive, you may just be a pretty girl taking supreme advantage of
>>>> other people's defects.
>
>>> People who do "financial domination" are on about same ethical level
>>> as those who run telephone scams on senior citizens - the lowest of
>>> the low. Do you admire their persuasive abilities too?
>
>> In a word . . . yes. But you're comparing apples and oranges . . .
>> please, follow me here with this . . .
>
>> Now, let's look at your comparison between financial domination and
>> telephone scams on senior citizens.
>
>> One is legal, one is not. It's not the financial dommes fault that she
>> is working within an industry that is perfectly legal, although
>> somewhat unethical.
>
> That's a little to close to "If it were legal, I'd..." for me.
I disagree. Legal is legal. If it's legal its not a scam. If the
product or service "advertised" is delivered in exchange for
consideration (money) it isn't unethical. As Vance points out,
morality is a whole other issue. And everybody has their own sense of
what's moral and what isn't.
>
>> I'm not really sure where ethics even enter into
>> this equation. If she's not lying to her "customers" about what they
>> are to receive in exchange for their money, what's the problem?
>
> Targeting the vulnerable.
Everybody's vulnerable, not just in the domination industry.
If my roof is leaking, am I not vulnerable when the roofer comes to
fix my roof? Does the roofer owe me any special consideration because
the rug in my living room is wet? That's my problem, not his.
> "Taking supreme advantage of other people's
> defects". Princess jodie knows that the people that send her money
> are idiots (mentally deficient).
Lots of people are idiots. Are we not supposed to market or sell our
goods and services to people simply because they're stupid?
There's an old saying in the car business . . . there's an ass for
every seat.
> She said so here herself, so at
> least we know she's not under any false impressions that she's a
> legitimate practitioner of bdsm.
>
I'd agree with that.
>> My beef with what Princess Jodie does develops when/if she puts
>> herself out there as a real domme, a professional that does sessions
>> with males that are paying to act out their legal fantasies. In my
>> opinion, there is a reasonable exchange being made there between the
>> merchant and the customer. A professional "Mistress" actually offers a
>> service. A financial domme offers . . . well I'm not sure exactly what
>> she offers.
>
>> I used to do work in the "professional Mistress" community as a web
>> designer. I did a lot of sites for a lot of pro dommes.
>
> Then you know that what this person does reflects poorly on legitimate
> practitioners of bdsm
Not only do I know that, that's the part that gets under my skin -
when a "financial domme" puts herself out there as a legitimate
practitioner of bdsm, professional or otherwise. I'm not quite sure if
Jodie did that, I don't remember, but I don't think she did. In fact,
I think it was Parker that referred to her incorrectly, not Jodie
herself. She seems pretty straight forward about what she does.
>- or even legitimate prostitutes.
I personally wouldn't compare professional mistresses (or Princess
Jodie, however we catagorize what she does) to prostitutes in any way
shape or form.
>
>> Mostly these
>> women were reasonably normal people, doing a job, filling a niche. I
>> see nothing wrong with that. Their clothes stayed on (for the most
>> part), there was no sex between mistress and client (no prostitution).
>> Many of these women were also "lifestyle" dommes, meaning that they
>> not only did "sessions" for money with clients, but they actually
>> lived the life, with their own submissive(s). That world is a whole
>> different world than the world of web cams and shmucks sending pretty
>> girls money for no reason.
>> So while I take issue with Princess Jodie's selected niche in the "pro
>> domination" arena, I find it hard to fault her for making money
>> legally by exploiting the weaknesses of others.
>
> I don't.
I think all of sales is based on exploiting the weaknesses of others.
Whenever there is a person that wants something, there is a person
willing to sell it to them. It is up to the buyer to make his/her best
deal, and it is up to the seller to get as much as he/she can get.
>
> "South Park" lampoons people like princess jodie with their character
> "cartman", who is simply oblivious to how the schemes that he pulls to
> benefit himself financially (such as feigning mental retardation in
> order to enter the Special Olympics to win cash)
Jodie isn't feigning being a "Mistress" she is straight up asking men
to send her money for nothing. If they send it, how is it her problem?
> are viewed by other
> people who have empathy for their fellow human beings. It's a total
> disconnect.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree.
People want to send money to Jodie, she accepts the money. Again, as
long as she hasn't lied about what the sender should expect, no
problem.
