Yes, during my exploration years, I dabbled in Findom just to see what it was all about, but I was the worst at it. Being a sadist, I found out quickly that it hurt subs more not being allowed to pay, and that became my thing. Paying Me was a privilege, and I would not allow just anyone to do it. Electricity still waves through me when I remember the quivering wail of a paypig whose money I refused. You should see a manâs face when you literally burn his cash right in front of him, or his walk over to the charity collection bucket when he thought he was going to give you the cash on the street. Haha! Thatâs priceless. Yes, I value money, but Iâm also particular with how I get it. To me, the gift of money is a very intimate thingâIâm very attracted to generosityâand as such, I donât want just anyone doing it. To get real here, working to such morals and standards means I get to experience Femdom on profound levels.
I mentioned before in another post that my dad was a bum on the street. What I didnât tell you was how he got there. Gambling. My dad was addicted to gambling. Horses were his primary obsession. Not actually going to the races but sitting in a betting hall watching the horses on TV and trading his little money in the hope of a win. I watched him, and all the other men, sacrifice what little they had for that addictive thrill, that divine compulsion to hang your heart on a bet that your horse will come in first. I know addiction, Iâve lived with it, intimately. I am well aware of its consequences. And this is one of the reasons I have always been wary of Findom.
Brief Findom History
Findom (not to be confused with Financial Domination) is an online commercial microcultureâyes, it is a genre of Pro-Dommeâbuilt around money transfersâtributes, âcash-meets,â wish-lists, and scheduled âwallet drainsââwith humiliation, blackmail and control marketed as a financial service or performance. Findom interactions typically originate as text and then often migrate to video/voice. It can be a lifestyle kink, but for most it is purely an economic endeavour. Many Findoms explicitly frame their domination as âworkâ, and thus, legally, they are classified as sex workers.
Among the first, and certainly the loudest, to claim Findom as her invention was Princess Sierra. Her public materials tie her brand to âSacred Findom/Financial Domination,â and they explicitly cast her as âthe Originalâ and originator of a devotional, goddess-centred Findom cosmology (a stance that is part theology, part marketing). The term “Findom” wasnât really a thing until about 2004-6, but Princess Sierra had her Financial Domination website up sinnce 1998. Her earliest blog post being from 2003 where she boasts about her drains and publicly degrades the men who tributed to her. However her âclaim to fameâ is self-authored rather than independently verified.
The earliest research on âmoney slaveryâ (an older term for Findom) comes from the 2007 paper Cybershrews and Online Money Masochists: âMoney Slaveryâ on the Internet, which identified Findom as a fraud risk. Durkin described a purely online practice in which âmoney mistressesâ demand cash or gifts in exchange for verbal humiliation or the thrill of surrender. Interactions were typically remote, mediated by email, forums, and early cam tools. He emphasised the postmodern, image-driven persona work and the blurred line between fantasy and fraud in anonymous spaces.
The Diff Between Findom and Femdom
Findom, in its archetypal form, aims to deplete the submissive. To drain resources, narrow options, and cement dependency. Femdom, in its classical BDSM sense, aims to transform the submissive. To reshape conduct, expand self-knowledge, and integrate discipline, devotion, and desire. Both dominations use power, but only one subtracts from the submissive as its means.
When we look at archetypes, the Findom is a femme fatale. She represents the anxieties of men, and her purpose is the destruction of man. To complete the fantasy, a Findom works to leave her sub worse off. The aim of Findom is to limit life for the sub by fewer options, heightened dependence, and shame. Even when the participants set limits, the Findomâs internal logic is to push towards the maximum tribute and her measure of success is depletion. A Findom’s power is commodified. Her primary domination instrument is money. The reward of payment itself for the sub is humiliation or devotion. The domination runs on a compulsion loop. The subâs arousal hinges on acute loss, producing spikes and crashes in emotions. The Findom incentive is to maintain this extreme looping, keeping the subâs emotions unstable to make him addicted to the highs. Findom actually reinforces patriarchal scripts with the man as the provider. But it also reinforces old tropes of fear â when the man provides, he will inevitably be diminished. Findom perpetuates the patriarchal fear that women are dangerous (and thus inevitably should be destroyed. There is a reason why most Dominant women were written as monsters and vampires, and the story endings restored patriarchal order through their destruction â to teach men not to trust women and her sexuality.)
On the other hand, the Femdom archetype is the sovereign. She does not want to destroy or deplete her submissive but rule over him through order and action. The Domina treats Her authority as custodial, and domination is based on consent frameworks. The measure of success is the subâs reliable obedience, trust and devotion. The Femdomâs power is a covenant; the instruments being protocol, ritual, and training. Money may appear as tribute or gifts, but they do not constitute the dynamic. The subâs arousal is closely connected to identity workâmastery of fear and surrender, etc, acquiring skills in ritual and tasks, aiming for perfection, continuity of rules, and intimate interactions to increase dynamic. Stability is part of the turn-on. Femdom configures hierarchical female-led power relations through agency and consent, which subverts patriarchal tropes. Femdomâs aim is to create a tighter life of self-control, ritualised intimacy, and identity coherence; narrowing ego and impulse, and expanding trust and competence.
Of course, there is an overlap of Findom and Femdom, depending on how each Domme operates, which produces diverse ethical outcomes. However, the initial setup is vitally important to demonstrate the potential degree of risks to safety and health. You can clearly see that when a Findom is inexperienced in life and relationships, things may go wrong very quickly.
Thus, Findom is not âFemdom with money.â Findom is a whole different beast altogether.
Compulsion as Commodity
Now, this is documented by researchers. The core value proposition of Findom is to monetise a submissiveâs compulsion. To elicit, amplify, and harvest the very craving states that narrow someoneâs judgment. This definitely compromises consent. Femdom, by contrast, manages arousal and impulse to orientate growth, catharsis and transformation. Findomâs premise is based on the depletion of a person. This ethical, theoretical and practice divergence between Findom and Femdom extremely matters.
The science behind compulsion that affects decision-making
Decades of studies on addiction show that intense cue-triggered âwantingâ grows over time, even when the person doesnât like the activity anymore. In these states, dopamine-driven incentive salience grabs attention and reduces choice, steering people towards immediate, cue-based, instant rewards. Addictive behaviours hijack neural reward circuitry, training the brain to seek again, despite any harm. The driver isnât pleasure, but more so cues, contexts, and rituals become potent triggers of craving and pursuit.
Now, whatâs called âvariable-ratio reinforcementâ is about unpredictable rewards that create such addictive behaviour in finsubs, (such as slot machines addiction). Irregular wins and rapid repeats escalate the feeling of chasing and losing control. It creates a âjust one moreâ mentality. That is why swipe, send, or transfer is so effective because it teaches people to repeat impulsively. Now, add this to the erotic nature of Findom, where subs are also in arousal states when playing. The tendency is to mis-predict or over-permit risk. This is called a âhot-cold gapâ. In sexual arousal specifically, participants chase riskier, less self-protective choices compared to when they are at a âcoolâ baseline. Together, these addictive effects – rewards hits and sexual hits – reduce the ability for reflective and revocable consent in finsubs. This finsub behaviour is what Findoms use – rely on – to do what they do.
Findom tends to use humiliation and ritualised tributes that leverages public shaming and blackmail as social control. The Findom culture normalises boundary pushing and uses interactional logic to induce the finsub’s urge to spend. A lot of activities mirrors intermittent-reward designs (used in selling tactics) such as countdowns, penalties, sudden bonus rounds, escalating ladders, and âproving your devotionâ prompts. These micro-mechanisms are structurally identical to gambling hooks to spike arousal, encouraging unpredictable and irrational responses, and inducing immediate stress. The only way for finsubs to stop this âtrauma inductionâ is to pay up. And on top, throwing in the arousal aspect, Findom produces a system built to outrun reflective consent.
Part of the problem is, this fetish (and it is a fetish more than BDSM because of itâs connection to impulse and compulsion) is that the act of sending money is perceived as sex. That on itâs own is fine, however, when you consider how accessible it isâ sex is always easy and on the table through DMâs, apps, and emailsâthere is no switch-off button. Femdom happens in real time, in real contexts, with real interactionâit is human. But Findom is always on, is always open, is always immediate, no emotional interaction requiredâno humannessâ and that is by design. Findoms are rigged slot machines.
Findom naturally perverts consent
BDSM modern ethics are built around explicit, revocable, ongoing consent (SSC/RACK). It treats safewords, limit thresholds, boundaries, and aftercare as non-optional infrastructure. In fact, BDSM consent practices are now being transferred into vanilla contexts. In fact, primarily, the Femdom constrains the sub’s impulses and compulsions to create safety and meaning. Tools include chastity, denial, restrictions, and rules. The Dominaâs authority is used to meter arousal, not to max it out to its peak. Ethically, this reduces uncontrollable states, but leads towards transformation â catharsis, discipline and self-knowledge â with boundaries that the sub can later recognise as self-consistent.
Findom uses authority to primarily amplify the sub’s urges and to convert that into payment. They do this by depreciating the very capacities â self-control, restraint, thoughtfulness, and awareness â that make on-going consent ethical and meaningful. The more the sub is in a craving loop, the more the Findom can extract money, and the more âsuccessfulâ the session. This is “Pro-Domination of Compulsion” (irrespective of gender), and crucially, itâs revenue-focus relies on the subâs loss of self-regulation. When compulsion becomes the vehicle, continuous consent is no longer revocable or informed choice, because of the state of mind of the finsub. Thus, to continue domination is an ethical failure. And it especially gets into murky territory when the finsub no longer likes or wants what is happening (and most Findoms do not recognise this psychological cue because the finsub keeps on giving within a faceless and relational-less context) and regrets it. He doesn’t want to do it anymore. But when the Findomâs âpingâ comes in asking for more money, he is compelled by his addicted compulsion to respond. In theory, he can use a safeword, but in practice, his addiction forces a type of denial or procrastination â âIâll pay just once more, and then Iâll stop.â And because this is a loop, there is no beginning or end, no âout-of-sceneâ and therefore no time for aftercare or reflection. The Findom dynamic is an ambient relationship that keeps the fibsub near-triggered. Even supportive Findommes describe 24/7 messaging demands and boundary negotiations that look less like scene craft and more like behavioural conditioning.
Yes, adults sometimes seek out compulsion-play. However, the claim that âadults can do what they wantâ disregards the real dangers of addiction and the duty of care owed to finsubsâ safety and health. Compulsive states narrow judgment and erode ongoing, revocable consent; thatâs precisely when people are most likely to overspend, hide consequences, and spiral.
The finsub pool too often includes people under life strainâfinancial risk, workplace stress, loneliness, neurodivergence, or other vulnerabilities that make compulsion more likely and self-protection harder. In practice, that means many finsubs occupy comparatively less powerful positionsâeconomically, socially, or psychologicallyâleaving them easier to exploit. Framing Findom as mere âadult choiceâ patches over those asymmetries and the conditions that make exploitation profitable in the first place.
However, the ethical hinge isnât whether someone ever consented in the beginning, but how the play is structured afterward for continual consent. In BDSM, Dominants are charged to protect the future self of their submissive, even from his own present cravings. That is the âcustodial dutyâ of Femdom. By contrast, Findomâs monetisation stream is maximised when the finsub falls, when his craving gets too extreme, destroying budgets and reflective choice. Exploiting consent capacity is the essential Findom practice.
Now please note: nothing here claims that all Findom is abusive, or that no Femdom crosses ethical lines. It does claim that a compulsion-first revenue model is structurally destructive to ongoing consent. If you build domination on a personaâs weakest cognitive state, you automatically cross ethical lines.
Ariely, Dan, and George Loewenstein. âThe Heat of the Moment: The Effect of Sexual Arousal on Sexual Decision Making.â Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, vol. 19, no. 2, 2006, pp. 87â98.
Delfabbro, Paul H., and Anthony H. Winefield. âPoker-Machine Gambling: An Analysis of Within-Session Characteristics.â British Journal of Psychology, vol. 90, no. 3, 1999, pp. 425â439.
Dunkley, Cara R., and Lori A. Brotto. âClinical Considerations in Treating BDSM Practitioners: A Review.â Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, vol. 44, 2018, pp. 1â12.
Durkin, Keith. âCybershrews and Online Money Masochists: âMoney Slaveryâ on the Internet.â Deviant Behavior, vol. 28, no. 4, 2007, pp. 355â378.
Loewenstein, George. âHotâCold Empathy Gaps in Medical Decision Making.â Health Psychology, vol. 24, no. 4(S), 2005, pp. S49âS56.
McCracken, Rosey, and Belinda Brooks-Gordon. âFindommes, Cybermediated Sex Work, and Rinsing.â Sexuality Research and Social Policy, vol. 18, no. 4, 2021, pp. 837â854.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. Drugs, Brains, and Behavior: The Science of Addiction. National Institutes of Health, rev. July 2020, nida.nih.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction. Accessed 9 Sept. 2025.
Robinson, Terry E., and Kent C. Berridge. âThe Incentive Sensitization Theory of Addiction: Some Current Issues.â Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 363, no. 1507, 2008, pp. 3137â3146.