RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (Full Version)

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



Message

PeonForHer -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/7/2009 11:16:46 AM)

Oh hell, Lady C - I think you can let stuff like that go except for parties and big occasions, can't you?  It's too much of a hassle - who needs it?  If certain men want that kind of "perfection" all the time, they can feck off and buy magazines.



undergroundsea -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/7/2009 1:48:56 PM)

To me, unidirectionally giving a gift is a positive gesture or courtesy--it is not a duty. When someone acts as if it is a duty, it makes me wonder what the basis is for thinking so. Aside from a value handed down to us, I am curious what reasons people see to justify such an expectation.

If giving gifts is such a wonderful gesture and not giving one is cheap, why are those who expect it not giving it and why are they exempt from the cheap designation they give to others?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil
A desire to be spoiled or receive gifts isn't the same as financial domination.


I can see how a wish to being spoiled (which can exist in vanilla dynamics also) is different from financial domination. However, it is not clear to me how much or not references to being spoiled in the Fm context are disjoint from financial domination in the collective context and some individual contexts.

The point of my statement still holds, however. To say that one who does not spoil with gifts is cheap is an inaccurate statement. Furthermore, I think Akasha holds her girlfriend (who does not give but instead expects) and the men to different standards; the men who do not give as much as her girlfriend expects are cheap whereas she expresses support for her girlfriend's behavior (she does not give gifts and expects them, which I think is a step beyond not giving gifts on the spectrum of giving, not giving, and expecting).

Why is it that Akasha's girlfriend calls a man cheap for wanting to go dutch, but herself does not even think to go dutch? If the men are too focused on the material aspect of it, is her girlfriend not even more so if her criteria to go on a second date relies critically on it?

Cheers,

Sea



SurrenderForMe -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/7/2009 4:27:24 PM)

Read more profiles



AcademyForSlaves -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/7/2009 4:49:15 PM)

Hi.

I don't think it's any different from regular dating where the woman hopes to meet a guy who's financially stable and hopefully successful and it's a plus for the woman if he likes to be kind and generous and give her gifts to show his affections for her. Most women still make less money than men so when they date they hope to meet a guy who'll be prince charming and rescue her. Not all women need that and some women now get paid more than some men but on average women still struggle to make ends meet. It's not asking too much to expect a sub to pitch in and help out the Mistress. I've heard of some slaves who look for 24-7 live positions just so they can get a visa to leave their country, or so they can move out of their mommy's house and have the Mistress look after him next. Some mistakenly think 24-7 means free room and board and that the Mistress is going to go to work to pay all the bills while he stays home and plays "slave". So even some subs can be guilty of trying to take financial advantage of the Mistress.



undergroundsea -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 1:07:24 AM)

I recall reading an article by a femnist who argued that women should take the benefits of equality and yet hang on to portions of inequality that benefit them. I wonder if some of that perspective is at work here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcademyForSlaves
I don't think it's any different from regular dating where the woman hopes to meet a guy who's financially stable and hopefully successful and it's a plus for the woman if he likes to be kind and generous and give her gifts to show his affections for her.


And that is my question. Why is kindness and generosity associated with sex? Why is it always spoken in one direction and not the other?

quote:

Most women still make less money than men so when they date they hope to meet a guy who'll be prince charming and rescue her.


Now we are getting somewhere. This point certainly applied in times past. It may still apply in many or most situations today. Based on this statement, what determines who should be generous is earning power--the person with greater earning power is expected to be generous. However, I am not sure how much this statement is put to practice when earning powers are at par, or when the earning power of a woman exceeds that of a man. In some scenarios I see a break from the cultural trend, in some I don't. Is the cultural trend we have inherited the most dominant factor at work?

Cheers,

Sea



4u2spoil -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 1:21:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
I can see how a wish to being spoiled (which can exist in vanilla dynamics also) is different from financial domination. However, it is not clear to me how much or not references to being spoiled in the Fm context are disjoint from financial domination in the collective context and some individual contexts.


I can understand the thought process: if I buy her this gift, will she expect a bigger one next time? If I buy her that, will she expect an even larger one? If I buy that, will she see me as an open wallet? Is this the start of her using me for my money?

There's really no singular answer, because in some cases the gift might be a starting point for financial domination. But there are so many cases where it isn't that it's just not fair (or correct) to say that wanting to be spoiled = wanting to take over your finances. I don't think guys who want to be financially dominated would get much out of occasional gifts or spoiling in the way that a lot of women want. From my (admittedly basic) understanding, the men who are interested in financial domination want someone who will take full control and exploit them in whatever way they seem fit.

It's quite different than  wanting to be spoiled as part of a relationship. I once had a guy who bought a few pairs of shoes for me. He was happy to do that, but when I told him I also wanted him to kiss my feet after I'd worn the shoes (and take things further than just him buying things for me), he lost interest. He was happy to buy the shoes, but didn't want anything more than that. I didn't want random boxes, but gifts that came with something more, so it does go both ways.

Also, it can sometimes just be overthinking things. If I go out with someone and have a good date, I'm thinking "I wonder if he wants to go out again," not "since this date went well, will we have a relationship? If so, will we get married? Who will the kids look like? Will we end up hating each other and get divorced? Could this be the beginning of me hating this guy?" Not saying to go against instincts, or not to make your feelings about financial domination known, but don't jump all the way to the deep end at the mention of gifts or spoiling.

quote:


To say that one who does not spoil with gifts is cheap is an inaccurate statement. Furthermore, I think Akasha holds her girlfriend (who does not give but instead expects) and the men to different standards; the men who do not give as much as her girlfriend expects are cheap whereas she expresses support for her girlfriend's behavior (she does not give gifts and expects them, which I think is a step beyond not giving gifts on the spectrum of giving, not giving, and expecting).

Why is it that Akasha's girlfriend calls a man cheap for wanting to go dutch, but herself does not even think to go dutch? If the men are too focused on the material aspect of it, is her girlfriend not even more so if her criteria to go on a second date relies critically on it?


The short answer is that most of the general population hold men and women to different standards when it comes to spoiling/gifting. Not in every relationship, not in every case, but in general the norm is that a man spoils a woman when it comes to material things. When it comes to engagements, how often do you see men wearing engagement rings/watches or other material symbols of their promise to their partner? Is a woman too materially focused if she expects an engagement ring and doesn't give something to her fiance? More often than not, a woman who buys her own ring is ridiculed, her fiance's love is questioned and you hear all kinds of nasty remarks that no man would ever get if his fiancee didn't give him an engagement watch or buy something that he could show off to his buddies. It's not fair, but it's the way things are and have been for centuries in most societies.

As far as going dutch, I consider it a sign of disinterest if someone invites me out and then asks me to pay. I don't think it's cheap, I just think that if the guy were interested he would treat (even when the guy isn't interested, I've had several who enjoyed coffee/dinner/the conversation enough that they didn't accept my offer to split). But if Akasha's friend finds it to be a sign of cheapness and that's a quality she doesn't like in a man, it's not any more materially focused than the man who considers her to be opportunistic for not offering to pay with a smile.

I do wonder about dynamics when the two people are of the same sex. I believe it was LaTigresse who mentioned a situation where a sub of the same gender wanted to spoil her. For those who are lesbian or gay, is spoiling/receiving gifts/who pays for dinner this much of a hot topic?

Edited for a typo



LaTigresse -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 5:33:59 AM)

No it isn't, which is perhaps why I don't get it.

I don't care how much, or little, money a prospective has. All I care about in that arena is that she either be willing to work for a living, like everyone else that lives here at the farm, or have money. Not for ME, but for herself, her welfare (health insurance etc) and her future. All mushy romantic notions of "forever" still do not guarantee it will happen. If and when, the day comes, she wants/needs to leave me, she will have a savings account to make it possible. I also know for a fact, that taking care of me and my home, is not a full time job. I want a person that is a productive member of society. Even if she doesn't have to work, she will be doing something. Even it's just volunteer work.

What's in it for me financially, beyond paying for the additional costs of her living here, isn't even a consideration really.



littlesarbonn -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 6:52:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

I recall reading an article by a femnist who argued that women should take the benefits of equality and yet hang on to portions of inequality that benefit them. I wonder if some of that perspective is at work here.




I don't actually have a problem with that kind of thinking. As long as she's honest going into it. Where it bothers me is when there's a lot of fakeness, yet this is what she's really seeking. As long as I know it going into the relationship it doesn't bother me.

Another poster pointed out that there are these subs that want to find a woman who is going to foot the bill, and essentially all they want is to taken care of by this woman. That's really not what I'm seeking, and I think it would make me feel really dirty to actually be one of those guys, even though I've actually been in one of those relationships before where it felt right and natural. It just kind of happened. But to seek it seems so dirty. Yeah, maybe it's just me.

I'm now in a situation where I have financial clout to be able to seek whatever it is I want, and the whole concept of people seeking out others because of their financial clout really bothers me. I find myself surrounded by very attractive Korean women who make no attempt to hide that money is important to them, and I tend to just steer away from these relationships even though I'm highly attracted to Asian women, and this would probably be exactly what I'm seeking. It's really weird sometimes, and I can't really explain it, but the more I know that there's a financial attraction, the less desire I have to pursue the relationship. I guess I just want a woman who wants me for the submissive that I actually am.



PeonForHer -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 7:01:35 AM)

It's really weird sometimes, and I can't really explain it, but the more I know that there's a financial attraction, the less desire I have to pursue the relationship. I guess I just want a woman who wants me for the submissive that I actually am.

Likewise.  But that sounded like it contained a hint of an apology, sarbonn!  Either that, or some very heavy-duty irony  . . . .



littlesarbonn -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 7:03:15 AM)

I'm kind of drunk, so I can't say that all of my posts make a lot of sense right now. But I am sure I mean what I say. :)



Lockit -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 8:12:26 AM)

I had a young man who didn't respond to the typical modes of correction.  I tried everything and went head to head with him for many years.  Then one day, it hit me... what motivated him at this stage in life.  Money.  Oh yes... being the opportunist that I can sometimes be... I decided that, that was what would hurt the most... getting into his wallet.  So I did.  Everytime he broke a rule it cost him.  I attempted to show him that he wasn't worth just money and life wasn't just about money and that when one acted out, there was a price to pay.

Yes... my son grew into a wonderful man who still thinks money is too important as far as I am concerned, but he respects when mama says something... in fact will sometimes hold his ass when telling people what his cruel mama did and while everyone laughs and said they would have done more.  It worked and if I had to do it again, I would.

Does this make me a money dominant mama? 



PeonForHer -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 8:30:18 AM)

Does this make me a money dominant mama? 
 
Yes.  You were too soft on him.  'Spare the bullet and spoil the child', is what I say.




undergroundsea -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 9:18:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
I can see how a wish to being spoiled (which can exist in vanilla dynamics also) is different from financial domination. However, it is not clear to me how much or not references to being spoiled in the Fm context are disjoint from financial domination in the collective context and some individual contexts.


What I meant was that one does not see references to being financially spoiled and the like in dynamics outside of Fm to the extent they are seen here, which is what leaves me unclear about how disjoint references to being spoiled are from financial domination at the collective level; if the matter is independent of female domination, why is it not seen in other dynamics? Upon reflecting on my question further, I think the sum of all there is (D/s, societal norms, ratios) makes financial spoiling (and financial domination for that matter) most possible in Fm--all these forces align in a way that is unique to Fm. I also recognize that much of the presence of financial domination is created by men. It is not hard to imagine someone joining a site, getting numerous emails to simply accept gifts or money, and then becoming interested to do so.

To explain my reference to whether it is disjoint at an individual level, I think it is possible that some people will draw upon both.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil
I can understand the thought process: if I buy her this gift, will she expect a bigger one next time? If I buy her that, will she expect an even larger one? If I buy that, will she see me as an open wallet? Is this the start of her using me for my money? There's really no singular answer, because in some cases the gift might be a starting point for financial domination. But there are so many cases where it isn't that it's just not fair (or correct) to say that wanting to be spoiled = wanting to take over your finances.


I have suspected this ooch approach about some profiles that ask for an initial show of sincerity and generally avoid them. I have seen such a progression to occur in a couple of cases where gestures and gifts I extended then led to expectations and demands that I found unreasonable. Understandably financial domination can carry appeal for someone who is driven by greed and narcissism. I am not sure what percentage is which and simply avoid such scenarios. Still, I see your point about not equating the two--more on that in a subsequent post.

With very few exceptions, I have met my play and relationship partners through offline events where things proceed much like they do for other social relationships. With that organic introduction and flow, this issue does not arise. I prefer this approach and it has worked well for me.

quote:

As far as going dutch, I consider it a sign of disinterest if someone invites me out and then asks me to pay. I don't think it's cheap, I just think that if the guy were interested he would , treat (even when the guy isn't interested, I've had several who enjoyed coffee/dinner/the conversation enough that they didn't accept my offer to split). But if Akasha's friend finds it to be a sign of cheapness and that's a quality she doesn't like in a man, it's not any more materially focused than the man who considers her to be opportunistic for not offering to pay with a smile.


These are two points with which I am not connecting.

I appreciate that one person treating another is a good gesture which fits in a situation where two people are feeling  good will towards each other or are trying to exchange good gestures and good will. But I see it as a good gesture and not a duty. What you describe and what Akasha's friend thinks makes it sound like a duty, which makes me wonder what is the basis for such an expectation.

If you can put your finger on why you think it is essential, please do share. There are various indicators of interest. Why does this point trump all other indicators of interest?

I see an incongruence in criticism by Akasha and her friend of someone who is only paying his share with her unwillingness to do even that.

Cheers,

Sea



undergroundsea -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 9:23:37 AM)

Miscellaneous thoughts follow.

There are some matters that affect others with which I cannot relate through direct experience. However, I can sometimes come closer to understanding how they feel by considering a similar example. I cannot directly understand the frustration about feeling as if I am being sexually used but can understand the frustration about feeling as if I am being financially used. By reflecting on how I feel turned off when I feel a woman is focused only on my finances even though I recognize it a part of the whole, I can better understand how a woman might feel turned off when a man is focused only on her appearance or sexuality even though she makes an effort to enhance it. I think LittleSarbonn touches the same point.

I think this principle can also help women understand how some of the men feel about the matter at hand. Just as some women are turned off by self-focused lists of what a man wants done sexually, some men are turned by lists of what a woman wants him to purchase.

I can also extend this principle to parallels between financial submission and pampering, and service-based submission and pampering. While I would feel foolish if I allowed myself to be financially exploited or had, I can see that another who wishes to act this way is not necessarily being foolish. I enjoy service, which might seem exploitive to others but does not feel so to me. The same principle can hold for another who enjoys financial submission or pampering. The mind works however it does.

I do not think it odd if I see a profile where a woman says she likes to be generally pampered or pampered with attentiveness, and the attentive pampering in which I participate does have a financial component to it. I should then be able to extend the same acceptance to a woman who says she likes to be financially pampered. I have reflected on what holds me back. I think it is a combination of reasons. I think thoughts of how money or greed can motivate people raises my guard. Also, women I have directly encountered who presented self as those who liked to be pampered with gifts struck as me as persons who were driven by greed and narcissism, and for whom hustling via seduction was a sport. I imagine this experience adds to the guard that is otherwise raised from sensibility alone. This matter about feeling turned off for being used disrespectfully also holds for being exploited for labor. However, it is a smaller issue because I see lesser likelihood for it in comparison and my wiring allows a greater threshhold of tolerance there. Still, this reasoning allows me to see that there can be scenarios of financial pampering (wanting to give or receive) which comes from similar places from which comes attentive pampering (wanting to give or receive).

This defensiveness I describe is not without reason. I often say some rants serve a purpose even though they create a divisive air. They bring out issues that can be of general concern and if an issue keeps resurfacing, it is more likely to be a general concern. My collective experience with a few in person encounters, what I see in profiles, and what I see in some websites (femdomme society--if any of you are members, you know) justifies the defensiveness of which I speak. There are many women who do seek to financially exploit men from a place of disregard. If someone here does not see any basis for why some men are defensive or frustrated about the financial issue, in my opinion such a person is not seeing the whole picture.

It is wise for each men and women to not allow the noise of that that detracts to sabotage prospects that do not deserve to be grouped with the noise.

Cheers,

Sea



undergroundsea -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 9:33:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlesarbonn
I don't actually have a problem with that kind of thinking. As long as she's honest going into it. Where it bothers me is when there's a lot of fakeness, yet this is what she's really seeking. As long as I know it going into the relationship it doesn't bother me.


The problem I have with that issue is that equality is sought on the basis of fairness. Seeking equality and keeping inequality where there is benefit versus what is fair undermines the basis or principle on which equality is sought. To me, it then becomes not an effort to seek equality and fairness but an opportunisitic effort to seek advantage outside of fairness.


The fakeness would bother me even more.

quote:

Another poster pointed out that there are these subs that want to find a woman who is going to foot the bill


I agree with you and do not think favorably of such a situation. I appreciate independence. As I type this response and imagine possible scenarios, I suppose my response to a given scenario would depend on the motivation--whether it is for laziness or for kink. Just as I am tolerant of financial domination consensually done in the name of kink, I could tolerate one living as a dependent for sake of kink where it is mutually desired.

Cheers,

Sea



ShaktiSama -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 9:47:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
However, I am not sure how much this statement is put to practice when earning powers are at par, or when the earning power of a woman exceeds that of a man. In some scenarios I see a break from the cultural trend, in some I don't. Is the cultural trend we have inherited the most dominant factor at work?


Can't speak for others. Speaking for myself--when I have the money and resources available and want to invest them in something mutually pleasurable with someone I care about--including my submissive--I do it. And I do it without worrying about whether my friend or partner is a "gold digger" or "using me". Don't know why it is too much to ask that a submissive man do the same for me, and really don't care. Cheap, wallet-clutching guys are a turn-off. Period.

Prior to the establishment of a solid relationship, when a man offers me resources in courtship--a meal, a movie, a thoughtful little gift--it means he wants me to like him, and possibly consider him "relationship" material. Or at least he wants me to consider him a good prospect for a play session or a shag. Whether I do or not is not determined by the nature of the gift, it's determined by my feelings for the man and whether we are compatible. He's not buying me--he's expressing himself.

Given all other things being equal, however, a man who offers me resources or a gift during courtship will always have an advantage. Especially over the creep who is jealously guarding his wallet and eyeing me suspiciously over his tumbler of iced tea at our dutch lunch at the cheapest restaurant in town, trying to determine whether I am "worthy" of any further investment. Nothing brings out my "Go fuck yourself" index faster than a "submissive" who starts off with an attitude that I am worthless until I "prove" otherwise.

I really have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA why some of you guys have to make these simple realities so freaking mandarin, or why you pretend it is all so strange. Other primates don't seem to have any difficulty comprehending why a female is more likely to look on you with favor if you bring her a banana. Hell, if you had a choice of equally attractive females, and one brought you a banana and the other did not, you know for a goddamn fact you'd go for the one who brought you a banana! Why? Because she's making an effort to show that she likes you. I mean, seriously--duh. (Plus, let's face it, bananas are delicious.)

Being bitchy about having to compete with men who offer a woman a gift is like being bitchy about men who offer a woman a compliment, a ride home, a shoulder to cry on, etc.. Yes, the guy who offers to escort her safely to her car outside the club, or makes any other gesture that demonstrates interest in her well-being and happiness, is always going to win in the end. (Unless she's a self-destructive emotional masochist who needs to date an endless string of self-involved assholes to gratify her self-sadistic urges, in which case, hey! You cheap bastards probably have a shot.)

In general though--yes. It's a shame that men who are generous, charming, caring, gallant and demonstrative get all the chicks. Boo-freaking-hoo. If you haven't got any money, I guess you'd best stop feeling sorry for yourself and work on the charming, caring, and gallant part! These are things that don't cost a dime and are far more strongly mate-selective than money in the majority of cases--regardless of what the bitter "dommes are all whores" crowd may say.



TexasMaam -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 10:41:16 AM)

Financially successful can mean a lot of things.  It can vary between financially independent to a workaholic who puts in a manic 65 plus hours a week to a man who works a reasonable 40 to 50 hour week and keeps all of his bills paid.

I'm sure most Dommes want a sub who not only keeps his bills paid but who understands the need to set funds aside for the future.

If you are unsure as to why a Domme would so stipulate, it's because you haven't spent much time getting acquainted with subs 'online' only to find out they are unemployed or unemployable and they are generally posing as subs to find a soft nest to land in that doesn't require any effort from them with regards to employment or funds to run a household.

Does stipulating a sub male be 'financially successful' weed out the liars and deadbeats?  Yes and no.  If the sub is truly interested in real time activities and if the sub knows the Domme will eventuallly learn of his no job/no fund/no income status, it generally keeps him out of our email inbox to begin with.

If I had so stipulated in My profile years ago, I probably would not have wasted almost 6 years on a sub who turned out to be married, putting three kids through college, and who borrowed every dime of his equity in his home overspending to keep little wifey happy.  By the time I learned of his financial woes, I liked the guy and thought our relationship was worth keeping at least on a part time basis.  All of which turned out to be an exhaustive waste of time and effort.

These days I'm happy to report being delighted every day by a hard working sub who 'busts his balls' to plan our future together and to please Me.  

I'd call that 'financially successful'.  Wouldn't you?

TexasMaam



PeonForHer -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 10:47:30 AM)

Reply to all -

I think it's interesting that one reads of dominants who want to be "spoiled like a lady".  To my mind, a woman cannot be both "spoiled" and a "lady", any more than a man can be both selfish and a gentleman. 



TexasMaam -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 10:53:03 AM)

You don't know much about women in general yet, do you?

<laughing

TM



PeonForHer -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 11:26:39 AM)

So I'm told, Tex, so I'm told . . . [:(][;)]



Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625