|
alex311 -> RE: it all involves money (5/2/2006 3:42:08 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MissRebeckah
to me financial domination means that I am more finacially secure than my boy. I want him totally kept and reliant upon me for money. Me the big breadwinner and homeowner. Him as the stay at home *wife*.
Bravo, MissRebeckah. So many male submissives seem desperate to have a woman put them in chastity, keep them in a cage, tell them when they can eat and sleep and use the bathroom, and take their freedom in every other way known to man, but freak out at the notion of any kind of control that involves money. Insisting on control over a male's financial life doesn't make a woman a pro-domme or a prostitute any more than putting a man in a cage makes her a correctional officer. While not for everyone (just like any other D/s activity), financial control is no less legitimate a tool than the more physical or emotional tools a dominant uses to exercise her control.
In the historical, traditional "1950s" household, financially the wife was completely at her husband's mercy. She may have been given an allowance or she may not have. Anything non-trivial she wanted, she had to convince her husband to give her the funds to buy. Every dollar she spent she had to justify. That financial control permeated every aspect of the relationship, overtly or implicitly, and foreclosed a lot of options on her part to take her life in any direction of which her husband did not explictly approve. Most of us now view such a dynamic as unelightened or even abusive. Yet I entirely understand why MissRebeckah would want this level of control over her boy and I think it's totally appropriate. If I were her boy I'd accept it and I hope would grow to embrace it as another way of surrendering control, even though I'm not "into" financial domination as a fetish unto itself.
|
|
|
|
