Many thanks, first of all, to Jade for sharing her perspective on these things. It never fails to amaze me how everyone always complains that girls don't engage more on this forum when the default reaction to any post from one of the babes is
'pounce'.
It never actually crossed my mind that babes were somehow making supermodel cash from these shows. The whole thing seems like an honest day's work for the babes and but a going concern for the channels, who always seem to be on a financial knife edge at that.
Anyway, Jade did make an interesting point though, which highlights my particular distaste for those wishlists:
(11-09-2014 00:42 )JadeSamantha Wrote: ... please remember most of these girls are models not dominatrix, so may not have a wide knowledge or much experience in handling these kind of calls and may confuse domination with financial domination. It's sometimes hard to work someone out in a short space of time and over the phone. ... Communicate with these girls and try and give them a better idea of the service/chat that you are looking for. They are not mind readers!!
Right there. That's the problem. The whole idea that financial domination is a legitimate fetish so there's nothing wrong with it.
There is a fine line between a self-indulgent fetish and a self-destructive addiction. How can you know what side of that line a guy is on? Many will say
'buyer beware' and '
a fool and his money...' and all of that nonsense. But the reality is that babeshows and sexual fetishes are addictive habits -- as anybody here who has received a jaw-dropping phone bill can attest.
In any sphere of life that can lead to addiction we have regulation in place to protect the most afflicted from themselves. We ban certain drugs, bartenders cut people off, casinos are obliged as a condition of their license to put measures in place to identify and help problem gamblers. Even the babeshows have the 20-minute 'timeout' and if someone overdoes it, their phone company will suspend their line.
But these wishlists are completely without regulation or recourse. As Jade so astutely pointed out, the girls have no way of knowing how much a guy makes anymore than we obviously have a sense of what she makes. They don't know who can afford what. And assuming that anyone who makes a big purchase is a 'fetishist' rather than an 'addict' -- let alone an 'idiot' -- is just being willfully naïve.
They quite clearly
aren't mindreaders and can't know for sure whether the iPad she received was from a fatcat banker with more money than sense, or from someone's grandfather so deluded by loneliness that he spends his pension money on a babe's appreciation which is then mistaken for affection.
I'm not saying don't have a wishlist. I can see that there are reasons for having one. But for godsake, keep it in perspective. Does anyone
really need a £600 handbag? I can assure you that
nobody needs one as a 'highest priority'!
Those big ticket items are an invitation to the weakest and most vulnerable. They go far beyond the realms of a 'token of appreciation'. Sure, they might be appropriate for the 'financial submissive' who can afford it, but they are also tantalizing bait to the addled and addicted. And the girls have absolutely no way of knowing which is which.
Girls with endless lists of iPads and laptops and designer bags and absurdly priced perfurmes, etc. are -- to my mind -- like a blackjack dealer at a casino who, after her shift, hangs out outside a Gamblers Anonymous meeting and invites people back to her place for a private game.
And I don't mind saying any of this because I think that Jade agrees with me. Because I checked out her wishlist and it is sixteen pages of mostly modestly priced goods, the vast majority of which are less than £100 and most of those are what one might describe as tools of the trade rather than wholly personal self-indulgences. Compared to the catalogue of jewelry and white goods on most girls' wishlists it demonstrates admirable self-restraint! If all wishlists were like that, they wouldn't be such a controversial issue.