"BDSM is expensive and a lot of of girls I've met online want you to finance their clothes and equipment"
One of the polarizing issues among female dominants is the idea of "spoiling" with gifts or tributes. What I've noticed is that sometimes a fee is stated as such, while other times it's concealed in more flowery language which have taken on a new meaning (tribute in the BDSM sense is financial compensation in the form of an offering but with an expectation of play). Essentially tribute = fee for BDSM services.
Pro-Dommes don't have a problem with "gifts" but have adopted other mechanisms for tribute, payment or barter to have more control over the payments system. I know someone who contracted a hand-designed metal bed with a secret slave chamber that cost $10,000 to be paid for by a client-slave. Another pro, who lives in New York City and doesn't own a car, used to exchange a certain number of airport pick-ups for a session.
Sometimes the demands for the gifts and orders to "spoil me" (tributes, cash, gift card, bank wire) come from "amateurs" or women who claim not to offer professional BDSM services. A male submissive friend (not MY sub, and not a play partner) commented that a lot of the women he met in New York were "just in it for the gifts" and this was my reply:
I have two points to make about that: The first and more obvious one is that if you are the sub (and bottom in certain scenes), you should be buying the equipment because it's going to be used on (and in) you. And I'm sure you two are discussing a Purple Passion or Amazon leather crop or other personal toy and not a custom-made, adult-sized teak cage with storage that slides under the bed. My point is, yes, it's expensive for people in their 20s to finance this hobby, compared to other things they do with the same frequency, but it's yours and unless you're sharing fluids, you should have your own toy bag that you use only on you and/or your safe partners.
The second point is really just personal preference about what two people decide. I don't follow gender lines and support the sexist belief that men should always pay. But the truth of the matter is, men usually do and when men pay for their dates, it's not the woman manipulating to get free dinners (although sometimes it is, and I remember reading about "Dinner Whores" in the New York Times or something once). It's just a part of dating, just like paying for a toy or an outfit is a part of someone's BDSM relationship.
I did advise this friend that if he didn't want to pay for something, then don't. I'm sure lots of men have stories of being scammed but not all women who ask for, expect or receive a gift are insincere about pursuing BDSM. Some might be, but if we're going to generalize, there are probably men who say they want a serious relationship (or slavery) but only want casual sex (or play).
As long as it's communicated clearly beforehand and both parties agree to it, I don't have a problem with women who want their subs to finance their wardrobe and toys. In equal measure, I don't mind it when male dominants expect their subs to finance things, either, although it's much less common.
I'm not into Financial Domination although I know it sounds like I'm defending here. I don't mind FinDomme but I don't understand it well to get it as a "kink". I also question of the veracity of the stories of commercial FinDomme since they seemed to be written for a fantasy audience. I'm both extremely intrigued and sort of revolted by it at the same time, which I'll write more about later when it's not so late.
