Financial Domination

  • BDSM

This post is all about that perennial favourite, Financial Domination. This is a mix of my opinions and accepted practice within the lifestyle, and as with everything in BDSM there are no central rules that govern what we do and how we do it – it’s perfectly OK to have your own opinions, and you might disagree with some or all of what I’m about to say. I try to promote a healthy, sane and responsible approach to BDSM.

If you’re new to BDSM, you may be forgiven for thinking that Financial Domination (FD from here on)  is simply girls in skimpy clothes, calling random strangers “piggies,” and demanding that someone pay for their lunch or buy them the latest smartphone. Social media is full of these sort of self-proclaimed #FinDommes, who often post screenshots of CashApp or PayPal deposits they claim to have received.

Sadly, this sort of thing – in my humble opinion – doesn’t qualify as FD. The clue is in the name – Domination. Dominating generally implies there’s some submission going on as well, and demanding random strangers give you stuff isn’t a Dom/sub dynamic – there is no two-way interaction going on. Sometimes the “FinDomme” may provide sexy pictures in return, but that’s still not D/s – it’s just regular sex work. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course – people pay for sexy photos every day – but there’s no Domination or submission going on. If anything, it’s the opposite, as the person with the need (the supposed Domme) can only have it met if the “financial submissive” chooses to give her the money. Thus, all the power rests with the person with the money. They can choose to let the FinDomme have their need met, or not – at no point, however, does the Fin”Domme” have any control or power, which means that the basic test of whether a dynamic is D/s – is there a power exchange? – is not met. This isn’t Financial Domination, it’s simply desperation on the part of the wanter.

So what DOES qualify as Financial Domination?

One of the first things that we need to debunk is the concept of FD being a blank cheque for the Dominant (and either party can be any gender, it’s not just female Dominants and male submissives). Yes, some dynamics might involve the D getting some of the sub’s money, but it’s not required and it’s not even that common. If anything, FD can be one of the harder aspects of Domination, and sometimes the least rewarding. Much more common is a FD arrangement where the D has control of the sub’s finances, but not necessarily direct access (or the ability for the D to spend it on whatever the D wants). In this way, a FD dynamic is very similar to a regular D/s one – the D controls aspects of the sub’s life, much as they might choose what the sub wears, what they eat etc, and the sub gives up control much as they might give up control over their orgasms or free time. The D has their “control” need satisfied, and the s has their desire to “serve” met in the same manner. This is why the current fashion for young women to demand random “piggies” send them money doesn’t, in my opinion, count as FD – there is no agreed dynamic between parties, there is no sense of the sub getting anything out of the arrangement, likewise the D has no interest in the sub’s service beyond pure cold cash. By all means, demand strangers give you money for no reason, but you can’t pretend it’s in anyway a D/s act.

What can a Financial Domination arrangement look like?

There are a number of common scenarios which I’ll go over, but of course it’s up to everyone to decide what best suits their taste. One of the nice things about FD is that it works for both long-distance and in-person dynamics. Please note that, as with anything in kink, there are some safety precautions that everyone should take – we’ll cover those in the next section.

  • The simple arrangement – asking permission

Much like asking for permission to cum or permission to use the bathroom, the simplest form of FD is where the sub has to ask permission before being able to spend their own money. This works well when you have a sub who wants to save money, or limit their spending, and can be trusted to stick to the agreement to always ask permission before spending. In order to allow for common sense purchases, you might choose to specify that only spend over a certain amount needs permission – that way a sub can still buy lunch without needing to wait for approval – or that a sub has a set discretionary budget/allowance each month, and once that’s gone, they need to ask permission (and perhaps explain where that allowance went if it didn’t last as long as expected). What usually happens is that instead of the sub making numerous impulse buys they don’t need, and then running out of money, they start to think “Do I really need this?” because either they don’t want to have to, or can’t, explain why they should be allowed to buy it, or they know that they’ll be denied and possibly disappoint their D by wanting something they know they don’t need.

The D in this type of FD arrangement is acting as a sanity check and is helping the sub reach their saving goal or stick to a budget, but not actually benefitting financially themselves. They might also go as far as reviewing the sub’s budget and habits to help them manage their money more responsibly (within reason – always get independent financial advice when it comes to investments, savings etc).

Incidentally, this is the usual sort of FD service I offer to my subs; it works well in my experience.

  • The humiliation arrangement – begging for permission

This is similar to the above, but in this case the D has direct control of the sub’s money. This can be done via loading money onto a pre-paid card or transferring it into a bank account the sub can access directly. In this case, the sub has no discretionary spend and must ask permission for everything. In addition, the D will be able to see all transactions as they’ll have access to the relevant accounts.

WARNING – this method leaves the sub open to financial abuse. By cutting off any avenue to money without the D’s approval, the sub may be coerced into pretty much anything and left extremely vulnerable. Ideally there should be no way for the D to access the money themselves (eg they can only transfer between the sub’s two accounts) and the sub should be able to lock the D out of necessary.

  • The humiliation arrangement – directed spend

This approach splits the sub’s money into three pots: one for bills, savings etc they must pay every month, one for an allowance, and one for the sub to spend ONLY on things the D tells them to. Imagine a sub being made to spend £50 on merchandise for their most hated team, or a Marvel fan only being allowed to buy DC comics, or needing a winter jacket but only being allowed to buy a neon yellow coat they’d normally never be seen dead in…

  • The tribute

This approach is what most people think of when it comes to FD – the sub gives their disposable income (after allowing for bills, savings and a living allowance) to the D, or is only allowed to spend it to benefit the D. Perhaps the D keeps it, or shows the sub their money being used for things they wouldn’t normally do etc. However, the key difference here, when compared to the “Tribute to me paypigs!” approach, is that there is an agreed FD aspect in play. The sub may get their kicks by seeing their D benefit, or by seeing the D rub the notes in their face, or give it away to strangers, or any number of other things that might happen. The D gets their kicks partly from meeting their sub’s needs to be Dominated/humiliated in this way, partly from benefitting directly (if that’s even part of the arrangement), and partly from having that control.


One thing to be very careful of is financial abuse; all these approaches (and number 2 in particular) have the potential to lead to financial abuse of the submissive, so extreme care should be taken by the submissive to protect themselves before entering into such an arrangement.

In addition, the D should also protect themselves; they should be certain that the sub can spare any money the D is to have control of, that the sub’s normal commitments are met (bills, pension/savings payments, childcare etc) and that they aren’t going to be left open to any complications that might arise. For example, is there a spouse or partner that might have claim to the money, or if it’s some sort of inheritance or “wealthy family” thing, is there any risk of legal action being taken against the D to reclaim any money they receive? Is the money stolen, and so on. The thought of being given large sums of money “no strings attached” can make people impulsive and take risks they know they shouldn’t, so do be careful. Both D and sub need to be sure they are both protected in case of things going wrong, as unlikely as that may appear, and as inconvenient as it might seem. Contracts are all well and good, but the vast majority of BDSM contracts won’t stand up in a court of law – so both parties need to be sure they are protected if things go bad. This may sound scary and not at all fun, but the same goes for any aspect of BDSM; it’s why we don’t paddle or hit people on the spine or in the kidneys.

So what’s all this got to do with “Betas” and “piggies”?

One common theme amongst many of those calling themselves “FinDommes” and yes, “FinDoms” is that they refer to the people they want money from in very degrading terms. Betas, paypigs, piggies, cucks, worthless losers – the list of terms they throw about goes on. Sure, in an established D/s dynamic, there may be an agreement for the D to use such words – but it’s part of the negotiation, just like in any other arrangement. Some subs like being called “slut” or “whore”, some don’t. One thing you won’t see is a Dominant calling random strangers such terms, so why would it be any different when it comes to FD? As for why this happens – well, it’s become something of a vicious circle. Everyone does it, because they see everyone else doing it. I’m sure there are some folk (ok, some young, attractive, scantily clad folk) who do get the occasional “tribute”, but they’re the exception. And of course, there are those who will enjoy being called a piggie or beta by a stranger – but not to the extent we’re led to believe by what we see online. I’ve known a few genuine FinDommes and they are far more discreet and, well, Dominant in their behaviour. No, I’m not going to recommend anyone, before you ask.

How can I find someone to be a good Financial Dominant for me?

Well, before you get that far, are you sure you want to be a Financial Submissive? Does the thought of giving someone control of your money give you an enjoyable feeling, even if you get nothing in return, or have to spend it on things you’d normally hate? If you’re really just interested in getting some girl or guy’s nudes, or seeing their feet or whatever, then there are better ways. Join someone’s OnlyFans or sign up to ManyVids.

If you’re sure this is the sort of arrangement you want, then as always, do your research. Avoid anyone who approaches you directly, or who just demands that random “piggies” tribute to them. Another thing to look out for is someone saying they’re “Verified” like it’s impressive (by who – the BDSM Financial Conduct Authority?) or someone who thinks a photo of their feet, boobs or booty is enough to make you splurge out. These are all signs that the person in question doesn’t know the first thing about FD, and simply sees it as a quick way to get money because they’ve seen FinDommeHottieBrat69BetaCuckQueen do it.

Instead, as with a regular Dominant, focus on finding someone who seems like the sort of person you would want to trust, who you would want to please, someone who is going to care about your submission, and who will treat you with respect. Being a Financial Dominant is no small thing – especially if the D stands to benefit. If you’re serious, talk to them about why you want to be a financial submissive, and see how they deal with it. If you don’t feel comfortable, then walk away. They should be asking questions of you, to make sure they’re not going to regret it, and they should be comfortable answering your questions. Bear in mind, this is probably the BDSM relationship that will impact most dramatically on your vanilla life – if they can’t be bothered negotiating, that won’t bode well for when you are in trouble and need access to your money or have some emergency. You wouldn’t give some random on the street your card and PIN, so why would you here?

In summary

Financial Domination is the same as any other D/s dynamic – there is an agreed exchange of power: the sub gives the D power to control, in this case, their wallet, and the D takes on the responsibility of using that power in the manner intended. The sub can always take that power back from the D, and the D can always decline to use that power if they think it is not in their or the sub’s best interest. And that’s a very important distinction between what makes someone a real* Dominant as opposed to a greedy wannabe – a Dominant, beneath all the “kneel” and “beg” and “obey” glamour, always has the best interests of their sub at heart – a wannabe is only in it for themselves. There is an established relationship at the centre of the dynamic, and the arrangement follows an agreement between both parties – it’s not just some random guy giving money to some random woman.

*as much as I agree with the “there’s no such thing as a real Dom or real sub” philosophy, because everyone can indeed do things their own way, I do believe that there is a difference between someone embodying the traits of D/s, and someone simply calling themselves a Dom or sub to trick others into believing them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *