|
beltainefaerie -> RE: Going dutch (12/6/2007 4:42:35 PM)
|
From what we know, she had cooked for him, then they went out at his direction, whether invitation or order is irrelevant to me at this moment. In my opinion, it is the person who does the inviting that should pay on a date, whether D/s or no, unless a previous arrangement has been made. In some relationships, the sub always pays, thereby providing for the Dom. In other relatyionships, the Dom always pays, as part of taking care of the sub, being a provider/benefactor. In other relationships, the male always pays, regardless of whether he is dom or sub. Basically, finances can work any way at all, if it has been discussed. If nothing has been decided, however, either party may graciously offer to pay and in a pub, perhaps pay for this round or that, rather than the whole night. It makes sense to me that since she had repeatedly cooked for him, he could have offered to pay and likely should have, as they were out at his direction. However, those that have asserted that her like for training or humiliation play indicates that what happened was ok, I think are off the mark. Humiliating and inconsiderate are too totally different things.
I do think that overall communication was lacking. I like the suggestions people had for the sub asking whether she would need money or not.
I enjoy when my subs treat me to things, but it is not an expectation I have. Likewise, I am not expected to buy my Master things, but sometimes I do. When I stay with him, he does all the cooking, because it is a love of his. Sometimes I bring the ingredients and other times not. When we go out, sometimes I pay and sometimes we split things. We are both reasonably young and have families, so alternating or splitting things up makes sense for us.
While I understand the OPs desire to be treated with respect and her feeling that he should have bought her a drink, I disagree with the way she handled it. I think it lacks basic curtesy to simply walk out on a date. I think others have brought up good points as to why he may have not bought her a drink at the time. He may have been cheap or he may have simply had other plans. I think it would have been reasonable for her to ask, "May I also have a drink, Sir?" or somesuch. If he did not plan to buy her one, but would allow her to have one, that could have come up then and they could have attempted a reasonable discussion about it, since finances had not come up as yet for them. If he did not want her to have a drink, he could have explained that. To simply walk out without explanation is, in my opinion, more rude than his lack of offereing a drink. It is not just bad submissive behaviour, but poor social behaviour. If you do not explain what made you angry, how can someone be expected to learn anything. Whether their behaviour or communication would change in the future is up to them, but to fail to explain your motives at all just leaves the other person confused and makes you seem like the rude one.
|
|
|
|
