I guess the point I'm trying to make is pretty narrow.

Most financial dominants don't really lie, unless you feel that the subjective humiliation stuff (you're a worthless loser!) is so far over the top that it's a lie.

I don't know anything about her, and am just using her name because she's one of the most famous financial dominants. But I don't think Princess Sierra lies in order to get guys to pay her. There's no fake story, there are no fake pictures. It's more like, this is who you are, this is who I am, and you need to do this.

So putting aside the question of whether or not what anyone is doing is OK, or whether it ought to be looked down on, I'm just saying that what the woman in the original story did -- lied, and pretended someone else's photos were hers, making up a fake story, etc. -- isn't really what established women in this subsection of the scene do. It's just sort of different, and coming out of a different intent.

Most people here are down on financial domination, and I get that. I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to take. I myself am quite conflicted about this stuff.

My point is mostly that since this woman is different from most other women who do financial domination, it's not altogether fair to say, because she does x, y, and z, these other women who don't do any of those things suck.

Again, I know that people here could list other reasons why they think they suck, and that's fine. On a bad day, I agree with many of those reasons. But I don't think that what this one particular woman did says much about the financial domination scene one way or another, because I don't think she's really part of it.

The essential thing that makes it financial domination is what I said Sierra does -- it's really about that mutual recognition of who the guy is, and who the domme is, and the belief that means that a tribute in exchange for nothing is appropriate.