Kept Mistress

Kept Mistress (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

MiRoMe -> Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 7:05:07 AM)
Hello Mistresses, I've been skimming over the profiles for a while and I've noticed lots of dominant women are wanting "Financial Slaves". I know it is in their prerogative to seek out such things; however I can't help but feel that a dominant should be in total control of the household and not have to rely on someone else to pay their bills for them. In my opinion dominants should be able to provide for their slaves, or at least provide a mutually funded household. What is the majority’s opinion on financial slaves and how do you individually feel about them?

PrincessinLatex -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 7:09:23 AM)
There are TONS of existing threads on the topic. . . .you might want to use the search feature. This topic has been beaten to death.

MiRoMe -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 7:22:29 AM)
It has and it hasn't. To wade through 300 pages of posts 95% of which seems to be completely unrelated to what I have posted to find out my answer (which even then will be skewed since the other people pose totally different questions) is just unconceivable.

Lashra -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 7:37:36 AM)
It depends upon your point of view. Some view having slaves working and handing over their paychecks as a Dominant being in control of their household, others hold a different point of view. Also it is just not women doing it, there are quite a few men doing it too as well, only they do not advertise it as it would look "bad". Personally I am not into financial domination, I make enough to support myself and then some. But just because it is not my kink does not mean I am going to knock it. If it makes people happy so be it let them do it. Its not like these Dominants are FORCING people to hand over their money, it is all done voluntarily. ~Lashra

thetammyjo -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 7:55:34 AM)
It's interesting that some folks use the idea of being a slave as meaning they are taken care of, especially financially, when throughout human history slaves did a lot of work even if it wasn't profitable it still was work and hopefully at least contributed to the survival of the entire household even if it was freeing the owners from some mundane chores so they could do other things like business or socializing or intellectual pursuits. Even slaves as symbols of status who might cost more money than they immediately brought in had social value to an owner that might help them advance or maintain status -- is that economic value? I think someone who wants a slave to provide financially sees slavery in the economic sense, using the slave's labor for his/her economic benefit. Others might want a slave who covers the private mundane matters so he/she can deal with the public world more freely. Still others might merely want a slave for show or fun without the idea of mundane work private or public. As long as everyone in the relationship agrees to the dynamic why is it our business?

cloudboy -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 8:03:36 AM)
Relationship based D/S is primarily about intrinsic connections. Yes, extrinsic factors (jobs, money, distance, etc.) play key roles --- but you can always work around them if you want. When meeting a woman, I think its best to stay focused on: do I connect to her, do I like her company, and are things mutual. Frienship, love, and BDSM can then flow out of that. Who really cares where the money comes from assuming things are reasonable? But, to get at your thesis, its often said, "He who pays the piper, calls the tune."

AquaticSub -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 8:04:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MiRoMe It has and it hasn't. To wade through 300 pages of posts 95% of which seems to be completely unrelated to what I have posted to find out my answer (which even then will be skewed since the other people pose totally different questions) is just unconceivable. Actually this particular thing has been discussed a lot. Why not send the slave out to earn the money, particualarly if the slave has greater earning potential? It makes sense to me. And it also make sense to have the slave as a "kept slave", where the slave does housework all day. It boils down to whatever the owner wants really, a worker slave or a kept slave, or even a mix of both.

MiRoMe -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 8:13:28 AM)
Just thought I'd point out something I noticed. It says when editting my profile I cannot mention Financial Slavery. Are these rules lax or is it possible they all mentioned FS in their journals? (I am not sure on the rules for journals since I haven't had the need to write one yet)

ocilla -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 8:31:08 AM)
Tammyjo, I love it when you get to bring your area of study into our world. History is a total turn on. And the dovetail here is esspecially fun. Not kidding - not facitious - totally serious - complete history nerd here. ;-) anyhow - it is interesting how being a slave when it is your choice to do so can mean so many different things to folks. quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo It's interesting that some folks use the idea of being a slave as meaning they are taken care of, especially financially, when throughout human history slaves did a lot of work even if it wasn't profitable it still was work and hopefully at least contributed to the survival of the entire household even if it was freeing the owners from some mundane chores so they could do other things like business or socializing or intellectual pursuits. Even slaves as symbols of status who might cost more money than they immediately brought in had social value to an owner that might help them advance or maintain status -- is that economic value? I think someone who wants a slave to provide financially sees slavery in the economic sense, using the slave's labor for his/her economic benefit. Others might want a slave who covers the private mundane matters so he/she can deal with the public world more freely. Still others might merely want a slave for show or fun without the idea of mundane work private or public. As long as everyone in the relationship agrees to the dynamic why is it our business?

pixelslave -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 8:35:03 AM)
quote: Original: MiRoMe Just thought I'd point out something I noticed. It says when editting my profile I cannot mention Financial Slavery. Are these rules lax or is it possible they all mentioned FS in their journals? (I am not sure on the rules for journals since I haven't had the need to write one yet) I believe it would have to be a journal entry. There's a separate section here on CM for Pro Dommes. I believe that helps distinguish the two, but don't have the historical context to know all the reasons behind it; including issues related to places where financial exchanges could imply that local ordinances had been broken. [&:] - pixel

AAkasha -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 9:02:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MiRoMe Hello Mistresses, I've been skimming over the profiles for a while and I've noticed lots of dominant women are wanting "Financial Slaves". I know it is in their prerogative to seek out such things; however I can't help but feel that a dominant should be in total control of the household and not have to rely on someone else to pay their bills for them. In my opinion dominants should be able to provide for their slaves, or at least provide a mutually funded household. What is the majority’s opinion on financial slaves and how do you individually feel about them? There are times when the idea of having a slave or many slaves support me is a very attractive idea - I mean, shouldn't a femdom be pampered and spoiled and spend her days shopping and saving up her energy so she can properly torment, torture and objectify her slaveboy? Then I think about what it would feel like if there were any undercurrents of what I would "owe" him. What if I didn't feel like dominating him for a few days and he was feeling neglected and started to pout or drop hints? What if we had a huge disagreement on parameters of the relationship and he could always just throw out, "If you don't like it, LEAVE!" How would I feel empowered if at any given moment he could pull the rug out from under me and redefine the relationship parameters as his way or the highway? Even in a BEST case scenario, with a man who had a huge heart and not a vindictive bone in his body, how could I not feel GUILTY if he wanted to be spanked for 3 hours a night and I wanted to spend more time with my friends or family, and all he did was pout and sigh all the time? I see so many ways a woman could feel completely "kept" when a man is the source of income -- and face it, ten years down the road, when she is even less employable and times change, he could drop her at the bus stop with $50 and say "see ya, I'm getting a new, younger Mistress." Then what? How sexy is sitting on a bus stop, trying to figure out how to find a new partner who will support her? For me, the most empowering dynamic in finances is being the one that makes the money. There's no doubt who is in charge here; there's no guilt floating around regarding expectations. My man is the one who feels absolutely saddled with the sole responsibility of keeping me happy -- at any cost. He has one boss -- me. If a male sub was going to support his femdom financially and hand over his check, the only safety net I could see is if they got married and the pre nup was in her favor. That still wouldn't change any of the relationship dynamic, but at least she could leave. Akasha

MissyRane -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 9:05:40 AM)
yaggitiyaggiityyaggityyagg seriously there're thousands of RELEVANT topics if you do the search and quit being lazy, and sinced you don't like the profiles why don't you just skip over them or hide them hundreds of users here dislike the financial thing hundreds of here don't mind it it's life, some people break the rules some people don't there're hundreds if not thousands of profiles on here and very few admins so don't get your pants in a knot dude.

MiRoMe -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 9:08:46 AM)
Thank you. That is exactly the kind of reply I'm looking for :D first hand thoughts and opinions. Also we share some views. On that note I really should sleep. See you on in the morn.

LadyPact -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 9:52:50 AM)
Yes, there have been plenty of threads on beating this particular dead horse. I don't think We'll ever be finished with it until the glue wagon shows up. When I see these threads come up on their weekly or so basis, I often think to Myself is the other side of the coin ever seen? I'm not going with the tired old arguements of the toys, clothes, etc. cost a good deal of money. (Which they do, for those of Us who enjoy them.)I'm not even stretching for the thought of those willing to spend the cash are more likely to be seriously seeking. How about just the fact that some of Us aren't looking to financially 'keep' (provide for) a male submissive? Horror of all horrors, some of Us expect you to have a job or some financial stability of your own. Now, I realize this isn't the case of literally thousands of male submissives here, but it does happen. The very tired ploys of those stating they want to, for example, want to be kept naked in a cage and only let out to do what is commanded of them, reek of..... In other words, you don't want to get dressed and go to work. Cynical, yes, but there it is. So, please, before any more complaints about financial domination, keeping a Mistress, pro-Domme bashing,or any other forms of tribute threads, remember, not all of Us are willing to foot the bill either. <Lady Pact now gracefully gets down from the soap box, smoothes out Her skirt, and thanks All for listening to Her rant for the day. Exit, stage right.>

MHOO314 -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 9:56:59 AM)
*No honey, slaves should be able to provide for themselves while I provide for Me and Mine, I am a Domina not the federal government.*

MizzElle -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 12:27:10 PM)
To me, a slave works, what they do is up to the Dom/me. A pet is looked after and provided for. There is a distinct difference.

MiRoMe -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 4:26:41 PM)
quote: In my opinion dominants should be able to provide for their slaves, or at least provide a mutually funded household. quote: ORIGINAL: MHOO314 *No honey, slaves should be able to provide for themselves while I provide for Me and Mine, I am a Domina not the federal government.* Slaves need not be provided for, yet they shouldn't provide 100% of the income, for reasons stated by AAkasha.

SDFemDom4cuck -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 5:16:33 PM)
I don't see it as financial slavery. I see it as my being the one that makes the decisions and he defers to them as what's best for him, for the relationship and for Me. I'll have to hunt down the post I made on this previously. I think a pre-nup would also be the closest thing to a binding contract in which consequences could be spelled out should specific things occur. It's quite possible to control the finances and hold the upper hand in a D/s based relationship/marriage and still have the male wife be the majority bread winner within the relationship. Edited to add the previous post as referred to. While it's quite true that none of us are perfect, the strength and power is in the delegation of duties. For example. My previous was in finance. It didn't make alot of sense for me to take over something that he was obviously the expert on and had studied. We did work things so that although he had the duty and the responsibility to handle the financial books, I still held the control. We sat down every Sunday and went over expenses. He had a weekly discretionary spending amount (or allowance) and his receipts were saved during the week and gone over. If I felt he was spending irresponsibly then the frivolous amount was deducted from the following week's allowance. Any amount left from the previous week also was deducted from the week to come. Through the bank we arranged that both of our names had to be signed on every check, every payment, every financial redirection and decision. Nothing was done until I had approved and signed for it. If there was something that he thought needed to be done it was presented as a formal proposal, discussed to my satisfaction and then I determined whether or not we were to go ahead with his suggestions. The basis is that I had the power of Veto. If I didn't sign off on it; it didn't happen. The only time this was dispensed with was in the case of holidays and birthdays and discretionary gifts. Without telling me what was being purchased he would request a specific amount to be spent and I would approve or deny the request. he would then make the purchase and return the card to me immediately afterwards. He had no individual access to any of the finances themselves without having my approval or signatory. So, it can be worked out that the control is still held by the Dominant while the actual responsibility of upkeep and duty are left to the submissive. It's all in the way it's delegated.

AAkasha -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 7:08:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MHOO314 *No honey, slaves should be able to provide for themselves while I provide for Me and Mine, I am a Domina not the federal government.* As I look back at this thread, I guess I have to clarify, also, that my prejudices/preferrences are shaped a certain way, also, because I view the "slave" as also the husband, best friend, lover, partner (for life) -- I imagine my perspective might shift it the relationship were not also based on love/marriage. That's a dynamic I can't get my head around (living together, in a sexually charged power exchange dynamic, for the long haul - but not in a long term, marriage-type commitment) because it goes beyond my personal experience. I suppose if I had a man living with me who was more of a 'boytoy' I might expect some financial contribution, if I was supporting his "hobbies" or lifestyle, and I'd also be less possessive of his time. Sometimes I wonder if in 3, 5 or 10 years I will be sufficiently burnt out on my career and working that I'll wake up one day and decide I have earned the right to be the one not bringing in the checks. I have known since my college years though that I would never desire anything remotely domestic - I don't cook, I don't do laundry, I don't know how to iron, I don't do bathrooms, I don't vacuum. I had a maid as soon as I could afford one. What I thought I would seek out would be an equally driven corporate type and live as DINKs with a maid, and possibly a cook, because we'd both be too busy to deal with it. Technically, I could have that (and a lot nicer car to drive), but I prefer keeping my man in the role as the domestic because it makes me the top priority in his life, and if that means making some financial sacrifices or adding pressure on me, that's ok -- for now. If I do get burnt out and want a change, I am not sure how that would work. I guess it probably wouldn't. Unless I have a harem of boytoys to support me. Akasha

VeryMercurial -> RE: Kept Mistress (8/22/2007 7:20:19 PM)
There have always been women that were kept since the beginning of time. Not much different than having a housewife. I don't see much of a difference, except in the terminology.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125