Pay to a submissive

[Mo****]

Absolutely not! Don’t pay for anything.

[jc****]

I would feel selfish not paying tribute to a Mistress. She is devoting her time and energy to your fantasy. Do everything in your power to make sure she feels appreciated.

[my****]

2 hours ago, jc173 said:

I would feel selfish not paying tribute to a Mistress. She is devoting her time and energy to your fantasy. Do everything in your power to make sure she feels appreciated.

Your submission should be enough of a payment. You’re “paying tribute” because that’s part of your kink, and that’s fine. It should never be asked for by the Dom. At that point how is it different than prostitution?

[Mezmerism]

Definitely not. 
 

[subguy-1963]

19 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

Short answer : no, you don't *have* to

Longer answer - if you are dealing with any form of Pro, then yes you do - many have different forms of expectation - which is all valid and is their boundary.  The pros and cons of this are simple - cons, it can be expensive, pro it's much easier to find someone to explore with regularly and maintaining a dynamic

But also - let's say you meet someone tomorrow and you both express an interest in doing a dynamic together.  Who is paying for all of the toys? Clothes? If you want to go to a fetish club or dungeon, who is paying?  You're going to be paying into the lifestyle one way or another.   And if you expect to meet a lady who already has a full fetish wardrobe and array of toys just waiting for that one guy; you got a long lonnnng wait. 

Good points,  thank you!

[jc****]

18 hours ago, mythicalman said:

Your submission should be enough of a payment. You’re “paying tribute” because that’s part of your kink, and that’s fine. It should never be asked for by the Dom. At that point how is it different than prostitution?

Then you better be bringing a lot more to the table than just “your submission” because at that point, it’s expensive for her to have a leech of a man wanting her attention with nothing that keeps her in the finer things. If you’ve noticed, there are more male subs chasing fewer Dommes. It’s supply and demand. You don’t want to show up to the party empty handed. It’s not prostitution, BDSM is legal regardless if you pay to play or not.

[Mo****]

It’s sex and kink, people. Not a retail store. She CHOSE to be a Domme. And she CHOSE you to be her sub. Save your ***. Find a Domme that satisfies your need to be submissive WITHOUT requiring you to pay for the experience. Look up the definition of Extortion and come back here… and read all these replies within that context.

[Ha****]

3 minutes ago, jc173 said:

Then you better be bringing a lot more to the table than just “your submission” because at that point, it’s expensive for her to have a leech of a man wanting her attention with nothing that keeps her in the finer things. If you’ve noticed, there are more male subs chasing fewer Dommes. It’s supply and demand. You don’t want to show up to the party empty handed. It’s not prostitution, BDSM is legal regardless if you pay to play or not.

Right..... so in your eyes subs are nothing more than leeches? Would love to know what other subs think of that comment....

[my****]

33 minutes ago, jc173 said:

Then you better be bringing a lot more to the table than just “your submission” because at that point, it’s expensive for her to have a leech of a man wanting her attention with nothing that keeps her in the finer things. If you’ve noticed, there are more male subs chasing fewer Dommes. It’s supply and demand. You don’t want to show up to the party empty handed. It’s not prostitution, BDSM is legal regardless if you pay to play or not.

I see the reality of your situation, and I’m glad it’s not for me.

[Newboo-5704]

I believe the payment is required for balance. Simply because, the sub is recieving a form of payment from the interactions. In means of Strength, Confidence, & better sense of self. Well, after one of my meetings

[Ha****]

21 minutes ago, Newboo-5704 said:

I believe the payment is required for balance. Simply because, the sub is recieving a form of payment from the interactions. In means of Strength, Confidence, & better sense of self. Well, after one of my meetings

Balance??? Does the sub not give respect, loyalty, obedience, compliance, pleasure? If the submission itself is not enough then it just proves the Dom(me) is doing for financial reasons, not kink.

[Mo****]

34 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said:

Balance??? Does the sub not give respect, loyalty, obedience, compliance, pleasure? If the submission itself is not enough then it just proves the Dom(me) is doing for financial reasons, not kink.

That’s EXACTLY what it is. Extortion

[ey****]

it's interesting we have Dominants who are single and not happy - dictating how subs are are clearly getting play/etc they are happy with should feel

[my****]

9 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

it's interesting we have Dominants who are single and not happy - dictating how subs are are clearly getting play/etc they are happy with should feel

I can easily message a local woman advertising on another type of service and she’ll call me anything I want for two hundred USD per night. I guess as long as you find it interesting that’s all that matters.

[ey****]

and if you did choose to do so; who is anyone to judge?

[FunOxon]

8 hours ago, jc173 said:

Then you better be bringing a lot more to the table than just “your submission” because at that point, it’s expensive for her to have a leech of a man wanting her attention with nothing that keeps her in the finer things. If you’ve noticed, there are more male subs chasing fewer Dommes. It’s supply and demand. You don’t want to show up to the party empty handed. It’s not prostitution, BDSM is legal regardless if you pay to play or not.

That’s deeply unhealthy. If you are talking about pro-dommes, that’s one thing, where the relationship is transactional, and anyone going in thinking it is anything different to the relationship you have with your dentist or your hairdresser is delusional, an idiot, or both.

 

If this is a non professional situation, then, frankly, it’s abusive to demand ***. It’s not respectful at all, and “supply and demand” shouldn’t come in to personal relationships. 

[Mo****]

I’ve talked “off the record” with current and past Dommes, and I’ve overheard conversations at Munches over the past decade. I’ve heard a few bragging about how they use their submissives like a bank account. Clearly extortion and *** of the D/s relationship. I’m aware there are Pros and the boundaries are laid out prior to anything happening at all. The sub seeks out the pro and enters into the relationship informed and willingly. That’s one thing. But these others are just extorting and taking advantage of their subs.

[ey****]

11 hours ago, Mountain-Man-1971 said:

I’ve overheard conversations at Munches over the past decade. I’ve heard a few bragging about how they use their submissives like a bank account

but you overheard bits and filled in the gaps to fit your view, rather than even having a conversation or understanding the dynamic

I mean, I'll be straight - is there scope for ***, yes - but this is the same in any facet of kink.   Is there scope for mistakes, yes - but this is true in any facet of kink.

I mean, come on - I've heard male Dominants bragging about how many subs they've played with, or how far they took something or so on - it doesn't mean there was anything necessarily unhealthy.   Like sometimes when I've heard ladies do a "my sub bought me that" and it feels like a brag, it's actually pride that they had someone who wished to treat them; when it's rarely an obligation to. 

[Mo****]

1 hour ago, eyemblacksheep said:

but you overheard bits and filled in the gaps to fit your view, rather than even having a conversation or understanding the dynamic

I mean, I'll be straight - is there scope for ***, yes - but this is the same in any facet of kink.   Is there scope for mistakes, yes - but this is true in any facet of kink.

I mean, come on - I've heard male Dominants bragging about how many subs they've played with, or how far they took something or so on - it doesn't mean there was anything necessarily unhealthy.   Like sometimes when I've heard ladies do a "my sub bought me that" and it feels like a brag, it's actually pride that they had someone who wished to treat them; when it's rarely an obligation to. 

Incorrect. I heard more than “bits”. Full sentences, responses, laughter. Condescending talk about the “poor sucker” who kept shelling out ***.

[jc****]

Yesterday at 09:54 AM, HatfieldMaster said:

Right..... so in your eyes subs are nothing more than leeches? Would love to know what other subs think of that comment....

That’s not what I’m saying. This is the exact reason our BDSM club leaders had to make our group private on Fetlife. Too many subs wanting their submission to be the gift, when every member, sub and Dom pays $140 a month for use of our dungeon and admission to all ticked events. OP isn’t clear if he’s asking about a girlfriend Mistress or someone who scenes regularly. If it’s his girlfriend, of course *** shouldn’t be part of that. I’m sure you’ll say we’re just in it for the ***. We aren’t. We aren’t even pro’s but we do have expenses, rent, utilities etc. it would wonderful if we could make that free, but the reality is we can’t.

[ey****]

6 hours ago, Mountain-Man-1971 said:

Incorrect. I heard more than “bits”. Full sentences, responses, laughter. Condescending talk about the “poor sucker” who kept shelling out ***.

but you didn't bother finding out more as you'd already made your own conclusions to fit your prejudices

[ey****]

54 minutes ago, jc173 said:

If it’s his girlfriend, of course *** shouldn’t be part of that.

I'd say even then - context.

Hypothetical scenario a couple are dating and the guy mentions he has fetishes, is into kink, has stuff he wants to try - whatever. Lady seems really interested in this, perhaps she has had assorted fantasies in the past, or thinks - you know what, I'll give it a try it could be fun. (was literally talking to a lady last night who tried to be someone's Domme because she thought it'd be fun; it didn't work out for her - but that can also happen) 

So they discuss what they might want to try or how they think this looks like - and the guy maybe has activities he wants to try that might involve toys; he might like the idea of his partner in certain clothes - he might want to go to a club and be on her lead; so on.  And it might be that OK, she is up for this or to take some of this as a starting point - but who is paying? Especially if he earns more than her?   

But equally it could be that she is like "well, I always wanted to own leather/pvc/latex/loubs/whatever but never been able to afford/justify them" and - I dunno, maybe he can so that can be a gift to signal the start of what they're trying to do - or maybe he also can't quite, but he can make small sacrifices to save up to help her do this.   

And, going back to the start - submission in any dynamic doesn't have to involve finances in any capacity - but making spending sacrifices to help someone do/own something they wanted to do is much closer to submission than "here are my fetishes, do them with me" 

[ho****]

21 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

I'd say even then - context.

Hypothetical scenario a couple are dating and the guy mentions he has fetishes, is into kink, has stuff he wants to try - whatever. Lady seems really interested in this, perhaps she has had assorted fantasies in the past, or thinks - you know what, I'll give it a try it could be fun. (was literally talking to a lady last night who tried to be someone's Domme because she thought it'd be fun; it didn't work out for her - but that can also happen) 

So they discuss what they might want to try or how they think this looks like - and the guy maybe has activities he wants to try that might involve toys; he might like the idea of his partner in certain clothes - he might want to go to a club and be on her lead; so on.  And it might be that OK, she is up for this or to take some of this as a starting point - but who is paying? Especially if he earns more than her?   

But equally it could be that she is like "well, I always wanted to own leather/pvc/latex/loubs/whatever but never been able to afford/justify them" and - I dunno, maybe he can so that can be a gift to signal the start of what they're trying to do - or maybe he also can't quite, but he can make small sacrifices to save up to help her do this.   

And, going back to the start - submission in any dynamic doesn't have to involve finances in any capacity - but making spending sacrifices to help someone do/own something they wanted to do is much closer to submission than "here are my fetishes, do them with me" 

Our brains always find ways to rationalise our delusions.

TLDR: providing in a committed relationship is an investment fostering happiness. Paying for the companionship of someone who is only there for the *** strips the relationship of authenticity, reducing it to a hollow transaction.

When you provide in a committed relationship, you are investing in a bond built on mutual affection, respect, and shared experiences. You strengthen your relationship and show your appreciation and commitment to each other. The financial support is expressions of care.

In stark contrast, paying to a dom (or in any similar scenario) reduces the interaction to a mere transaction. There’s no genuine emotional connection or mutual respect. The person is spending time with you purely for financial gain, not out of interest or affection. This ultimately leads to emptiness and dissatisfaction, as the relationship lacks the authenticity and depth. Moreover, such transactional relationships can perpetuate unhealthy power dynamics and contribute to the objectification and exploitation as was already stated by @mountain-man

[Mo****]

36 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

but you didn't bother finding out more as you'd already made your own conclusions to fit your prejudices

Again. Incorrect. Clear intent and context can be derived from sentences that go h are to the point. Such as “I’m gonna keep taking *** from that simp until he figures out I’m just milking him”. Pretty clear cut, don’t you think? Or how about this one? “I’m gonna keep demanding PayPal payments from this idiot until I have enough for my car payment!”

That’s two of many VERBATIM statements I’ve been present to witness.

So. You’re wrong. The only person assuming here is YOU

[ey****]

28 minutes ago, Mountain-Man-1971 said:

Again. Incorrect. Clear intent and context can be derived from sentences that go h are to the point. Such as “I’m gonna keep taking *** from that simp until he figures out I’m just milking him”. Pretty clear cut, don’t you think? Or how about this one? “I’m gonna keep demanding PayPal payments from this idiot until I have enough for my car payment!”

Alright so as above - so you found a couple of potential bad apples.

All male Dominants are ***rs because one once deliberately ignored their subs safeword. How's that?