|
Wheldrake -> RE: Financial Dependency (3/17/2008 11:35:24 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bipolarber
So... you'd have your own money, but you would "depend" on your Domme to feed, clothe and shelter you. She would be expected to give you a scene whenever you felt like it? In the meantime you give nothing monitarily to the relationship?
Tell me, how does that make you differ from an unemployed guitar player mooching off his girlfriend, and sleeping on her couch for months on end?
I think you’re being a bit unfair. The OP made it very clear that was going to turn all his income over to his Mistress to spend as she saw fit, for the duration of their relationship. Surely that counts as “contributing monetarily”, despite the fact that he would keep or invest the assets he owned before being enslaved.
I’ve never personally contemplated giving up either my income or my assets to a dominant, not that I have much in the way of assets anyway. With that said, I imagine that the effect of the situation the OP described – giving up just his income – would be to keep him dependent on his Mistress as long as the relationship lasted. He wouldn’t be able to buy anything without her permission, or even keep himself clothed and fed. I can certainly understand how this would enhance his submission, and her control. On the other hand, keeping his long-term assets would make it easier for him to leave the relationship if things went sour.
Perhaps this kind of limited financial dependency isn’t such a bad compromise between surrender and self-protection – although, speaking only for myself, if I built up enough trust and commitment to feel comfortable about handing over my income, I would probably be happy to take the plunge and hand over any (so far mostly hypothetical!) assets as well. But then, I’ve always liked the idea of being as powerless as possible, and knowing (as Lady Hathor so emphatically put it) that even the pot I piss in belongs to someone else.
|
|
|
|
