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"? (2/8/2009 2:15:17 PM)

All the bleeding heart sympathy seems a bit misplaced, call me callused, but I feel far more for kids in 3rd world countries struggling for survival than guys who can't say "Stop, that's it, you are taking the piss!"
 
I don't know, though.  What about those guys with low incomes, families . . .  And not just ones who can't say "no" to being ripped off but who can't be stopped from eagerly emptying their wallets . .  Hell, I'm just glad I don't have that affliction (because 'affliction' is how I see it). 





PeonForHer -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 2:18:37 PM)

I am not the only one who has indicated that your attitude just comes across as cheap.
 
For the record, I haven't read Undergroundsea's posts on this thread that way. 
Collectively, they've looked like a defence against being exploited rather than a justification of cheap behaviour. 



LadyConstanze -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 2:23:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

All the bleeding heart sympathy seems a bit misplaced, call me callused, but I feel far more for kids in 3rd world countries struggling for survival than guys who can't say "Stop, that's it, you are taking the piss!"
 
I don't know, though.  What about those guys with low incomes, families . . .  And not just ones who can't say "no" to being ripped off but who can't be stopped from eagerly emptying their wallets . .  Hell, I'm just glad I don't have that affliction (because 'affliction' is how I see it). 





I would call that Darwinism at work, a guy who betrays his family this way isn't worth having one. Shame that his family suffers though, THEY are the ones who don't deserve it!

As for seeing it as an affliction, well, in case somebody has that affliction it's not all that different from being an alcoholic, is it? And in this case, will you make the manufacturers of booze responsible or would the person suffering from alcoholism be responsible to go to rehab and sort him or herself out? How about somebody who's a gambler and is eagerly emptying his wallet to gamble? Same story! People are responsible for themselves and I rather give my sympathy and support to somebody who deserves it than somebody who's too weak or simply unwilling to have a grip on his own life! Would you have the same sympathy for a guy who is an alcoholic, drinks his money away, deprives his family of support and batters his wife and children on top of it?



PeonForHer -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 2:28:48 PM)

People are responsible for themselves and I rather give my sympathy and support to somebody who deserves it than somebody who's too weak or simply unwilling to have a grip on his own life! Would you have the same sympathy for a guy who is an alcoholic, drinks his money away, deprives his family of support and batters his wife and children on top of it?

Whoa, whoa!  I'm not saying my heart bleeds for such a guy.  I'm saying I'm glad I'm not like him.  As it stands, you've shown quite a lot more sympathy for at least one example of men like that than I have - who are you arguing with here, me or yourself?!



LadyConstanze -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 2:44:05 PM)

I just don't agree with the whole "Oh the poor sub is taking advantage of by a financial domme", most of the guys who are into FD are actually looking for them, to squeeze out a tear for them doesn't make sense, does it?

If somebody does battle an addiction, yes, they do have my full support, but pardon my French, some tosser who tries to impress a woman with gifts he can't afford and bankrupts himself in the process doesn't impress me at all - no matter if it is vanilla or BDSM - and if the guys are married on top of it (read 95% are playing behind the backs of their wives), well, I want to give them a good and very unkinky slap and not sympathy!



undergroundsea -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 2:44:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha
I am not going to spend the time dissecting your hugely long posts to go line by line and say which examples sound the most cheap.       As debates get deeper your posts become more difficult to read and come across as distinctly ambiguous which is why I never bother.   I try to make my point in as few words as possible: Men who behave in the manner you describe to me seem cheap and it's not attractive.  Since I don't date or let guys pay for me, I can only talk about what I observe in others and how men treat my lady friends. That's my point. 


Here is what I said earlier in the thread in post 248:

quote:

undergroundsea: I would feel that I would be disrespectful to someone if I demanded that I be compensated materially for my attention. I feel the same way at the receiving end of this sentiment.


and in post 274

quote:

undergroundsea: I have maintained that I extend such gestures* based on the level of relationship and to those who extend similar gestures to me at least in spirit. What about this philosophy you find to be cheap?


* Giving gifts in relationships

I am sorry you find each hugely long, difficult to read, and distinctly ambiguous.

In any case, thank you for sharing the second hand insights you have gained about situations you have not experienced personally.

quote:

I think anyone who has read my posts for the last 14 years or so can at least say I'm consistent.


Indeed you are consistent. What your consistent post history shows is a tendency to offend those who disagree with you without giving reasons of substance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
All that said, thank you for making a post to clarify the true spirit behind your interactions with me. When I disagree with you, I give my reasoning. You simply take a swipe without giving reasoning of substance, which is what I expect to see here. I shall elaborate.


Here is my elaboration that I had typed before you had typed your second post to me in this thread. This post was written prior to your responses in this thread based on your behavior over the last I don't know how many years. I am not going to go through and modify it for recent posts. The key message remains: your posts seem to be driven by an agenda due to prior disagreements rather than any intent to discuss matters by addressing points that are raised.

Here you are:

I and my conduct are not perfect or without flaw. However, if one was to go and pull out our respective post histories for how we have interacted, I can feel reasonably good about how my conduct would compare against yours. Can you claim the same?

You cannot.

You typically ignore posts that I have addressed to you: disagreements, constructive contributions to your threads, polite remarks, everything. I can give examples of each. Is this conduct to take the high road?

It is not.

The only time you have addressed me is when you have seen an opportunity for a snide remark of the type above--I invite you or anyone else here to prove me wrong. Your behavior makes me wonder if you ignore my comments not to take the high road but for lacking confidence that you will be able to reason effectively based on the merits of your position, and to be snide. And you don't have to take the high road or be polite. But in case you were fooling yourself or anyone else about what is happening when you ignore my posts, let's call it as it is.

You have a demonstrated a pattern of insulting someone with whom you have a disagreement. I will gladly give you specific examples if you would like the feedback. Why not respond to the discussion based on merits of your idea rather than insulting or taking a swipe at the other poster?

I disagree with you time and again because I have lost count of how many negative generalizations you have directed specifically at submissive men and attributed specifically to their interest in submission: submissive men have poor social skills, service submissives are chumps, submissive men are too meek to approach a woman, submissive men approach women but only online and not in person, submissive men approach in person but are rude, submissive men are jerks, more. Now it's submissive men who object to financial domination are cheap. In one thread your statements contradicted each other and left me to wonder whether you really believed what you were saying or whether your objective was simply to be critical of submissive men one way or another. It is the disagreement that began with that thread that led to this fit you have had for however long. If you wish to refresh your memory on this discussion or if anyone else is curious to verify my comments, please see this thread:

http://www.bondage.com/topic_id/194617/forums/topic.html


Here is a recent post by you, to which I responded.
quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha
(now, in the male fantasy, of course, or in the real world if you took "Applications" for this, anyone care to guess how many male subs would offer up "ability to suck my own dick" as a talent** -- hence, missing the point entirely).


To tell about what happens at a real world event, at a femdom party there was a talent show for subs. The talents prepared ranged from dance (by a professional dancer), music (a kinky spoof on a popular song by a musician), photography or art show and tell, stand up comedy, more.


You seem to assume and attribute the worst to submissive men. Over time, these statements have conveyed a general attitude and perspective towards submissive men that I find negative and disrespectful, which sometimes baffles me because it conflicts with other posts that are meant to be helpful to submissive men. Still, have you considered what the ratio is between your posts that have a positive energy towards submissive men versus those that have a negative energy?

And, I am frustrated when you criticize a negative behavior you generalize against submissive men and then repeat it yourself. Why the double standards? I can give you specific examples if you would like the feedback.

As for disclaimers you sometimes make about not directing your comments at those in the forum, would you make a generalization disrespectful to a given ethnicity and then say to a member of that ethnicity it doesn't apply to that member because he is not bad like the rest of his ethnicity is?

I come to these forums for discussion. I tend to think logically and engage in critical thinking. When someone suggests an idea, I ponder the idea. If it does not appeal to me intellectually I say so and explain why. If you do not like to see comments critical of your position, please think through your posts and avoid generalizations, appropriately word them to clarify who you wish to address, or defend your generalization rather than ignoring or being snide to those who disagree.

You sometimes give advice to submissive men which is intended to be helpful. I would like to return the favor. If you do not have a negative attitude or resentment towards submissive men, the frequency of your negative comments might be misrepresenting you. If you do hold some form of resentment due to your past experiences, you might see if you wish to resolve it--a negative attitude within towards submissive men might come off in your interactions in general.

Also, I am not sure how much you have interacted in real time communities recently. In the thread I reference above, you said that you would be embarrassed to be seen with BDSMers in general and considered BDSMers to be generally lesser with respect to social grace than any other social group you have encountered. Based on my experiences, your perspective is incorrect and jaded. I wonder if additional encounters would help reverse that notion.

If you wish to continue to ignore me with occasional snide remarks, you are welcome to do so. If you wish to interact with me politely or pleasantly, I will return that sentiment as well.

Cheers,

Sea



AAkasha -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 3:10:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea


Indeed you are consistent. What your consistent post history shows is a tendency to offend those who disagree with you without giving reasons of substance.

If you wish to continue to ignore me with occasional snide remarks, you are welcome to do so. If you wish to interact with me politely or pleasantly, I will return that sentiment as well.

Cheers,

Sea


Ok, serious drama alert.  Turning a thread into a personal, long drawn out historical he-said,she-said is totally counter productive, unnecessary and precisely the reason I was avoiding your posts all together until recently and realize that was a better way to go.  This is all unrelated to the topic at hand. If you don't like my advice, my attitude, the way I treat submissives, just don't respond to my posts and don't read what I write.  You can consider me full of shit or useless to discuss - just don't read and respond and propogate what I write.   But for god's sake don't suck other people into it and totally derail an otherwise interesting thread by changing it into a "what is wrong with Akasha" thread.  People who have read my posts for a gazillion years know that I am generally and admittedly burnt out on a great many types of subs - so sue me.  Sad to say, it happens.  That doens't change that fact that femdom rocks my world, my strap on is my best buddy and the men I dominate mean the world to me.  The bullshit tolerance level in femdoms sadly gets lower and lower as time goes on, and between running a business and playing with the men I like, I don't have time to listen and respond to your bloviations, which is what every disagreement with you turns into.  Spare everyone else the headache, they don't deserve it.  I welcome anyone to google my name and my posts back to 1995 and read every fair as well as every PMS bitch post I have made. I am basically an open book.

But don't drag all that garbage into a thread because I said you sound cheap to me.

PS: the reason I 'ignored' every post you made in the past is because I am under no obligation to respond to you and I had learned that doing so created trainwrecks like this because you can't let things go and start these huge long posts with all kinds of stuff dug up and it becomes a burden to read. I "ignore" a lot of people here and it helps manage the time so I can post on the threads that I find interesting - I suggest you do the same. I also find it odd that you have been keeping track and are prepared to show me everywhere I posted, you made a comment and I did not acknowledge you.

When I said "you sounded cheap" it wasn't just a swipe. I backed it up.  

Akasha



PeonForHer -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 3:42:54 PM)

most of the guys who are into FD are actually looking for them
 
No doubt they are.  Obviously I've heard of these sorts of guys before, but the sorts who are really turned on by paying - they're a new kind to me. They've only come to my attention recently.  I find them truly baffling. 



LadyConstanze -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 4:02:21 PM)

As I said, not my cup of tea but I find the mindset interesting, most of them see it as some sort of power exchange because in our society money often equals power. None of them is actually into getting bankrupt but like the fantasy of it. I talked to a Domme who's into it and she said by actually making a guy forgo his lavish lunch and tributing her the money, the guys get a kick out of it. It's more than "worm, give me money", actually a lot of psychology and they are very needy for attention, like they will give her money but expect to see exactly how she spends the money, like all the clothes she bought from it, which contributes to their "kick".

There are a lot of fetishes I don't get, but hey, whatever makes people happy.



PeonForHer -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 4:19:32 PM)

Coo!  Interesting.

Well, I suppose I can just about get my head around it.  Inasmuch as I can get my head around any sub/maso kick - including my own.  But it's true of all of us - s-types, d-types, masochists, sadists - we all have to get our kick under control.  Not suppressed - but controlled.



undergroundsea -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 4:23:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha
Turning a thread into a personal, long drawn out historical he-said,she-said is totally counter productive, unnecessary and precisely the reason I was avoiding your posts all together until recently and realize that was a better way to go.  This is all unrelated to the topic at hand. If you don't like my advice, my attitude, the way I treat submissives, just don't respond to my posts and don't read what I write.  You can consider me full of shit or useless to discuss - just don't read and respond and propogate what I write.   But for god's sake don't suck other people into it and totally derail an otherwise interesting thread by changing it into a "what is wrong with Akasha" thread. 

But don't drag all that garbage into a thread because I said you sound cheap to me.

PS: the reason I 'ignored' every post you made in the past is because I am under no obligation to respond to you and I had learned that doing so created trainwrecks like this because you can't let things go and start these huge long posts with all kinds of stuff dug up and it becomes a burden to read.

I "ignore" a lot of people here and it helps manage the time so I can post on the threads that I find interesting - I suggest you do the same. I also find it odd that you have been keeping track and are prepared to show me everywhere I posted, you made a comment and I did not acknowledge you.


I am not keeping track of individual posts--it applies to all posts. What do you expect me to think about a pattern of ignoring all posts--courteous comments, direct questions, disagreements--and only addressing me a few times with what felt like an attack when I was engaged in conversation with someone else, all because of a past disagreement?

The history is relevant to the extent it explains your current behavior. I can say with high confidence the only time you have addressed me on this forum is in the manner you did in post 254. Indeed you are not obligated to respond to me. However, when you respond only when you see an opportunity for a swipe and do so in a manner that directs an insult at me, it undermines your claim that you ignore my posts to avoid trainwrecks, or to manage time.

Just as you can point to your post history, so can I. I have disagreed with others--even in this thread--and have demonstrated an ability to do so within reason, especially when someone engages in constructive conversation, provides reasoning or otherwise extends the same respect to other posters than one wishes in return. I prefer to keep discussions of disagreement respectful. Despite what came across as a swipe in post 254, my response to you in post 274 was very reasonable. Our posts here are there for everyone to read and see who is behaving how.

In the past I have given you credit for things you do well, and points you made which had merit even when you had been ignoring posts and taking swipes. Lately I have commented only when I did not agree and how I have done so is evident in my posts. You are welcome to continue to ignore me. I use the forums to communicate with all who are participating in a discussion and will continue to comment on threads or posts by you towards this broader discussion. If you comment on my posts as part of constructive conversation, I will respond in kind. If you direct a swipe at me, I will likely respond similarly to how I did here.

I am not fond of drama or negativity and have nothing to gain by seeking the same with you. Even in future disagreements, I will extend to you as much respect or more than what you extend to me. When you make an incorrect generalization or a statement that reflects negatively on submissive men, I cannot help but feel at the receiving end of it and am inclined to voice my objection--it is this scenario which has led to the majority of my disagreements with you. If there is something I can do to make it better for you when I disagree with you, I am open to it.

Cheers,

Sea



4u2spoil -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 5:45:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

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.


Man, we're writing some novels now, aren't we? But allow me to ramble a bit more. littlesarbon mentions that there are situations where no D/s element is presence and the women make their financial preferences well known. I think it depends on where you go, but there are absolutely references to financial spoiling in vanilla settings.

Do you think any of Trump's wives married him for his interesting hair choices? I don't doubt that they loved him to some degree, but no one's foolish enough to think that money and spoiling weren't part of it. There aren't any signs that he was dominated by his wives, but I'm sure they were clear about their spoiling expectations. And it's not just billionaires. Take a trip to Tokyo and check out one of the bars where the investment bankers gather. You'll find women queing up to get their shot at a certian lifestyle. Love too (maybe), but not without the lifestyle of luxury shopping and upkeep. Look at Bernie Eccles (Formula 1 owner) - do you think his model wife married him because she had a thing for short, funny looking guys? I'm not one to make snap judgements, but I'll bet money that his ability to spoil her was part of what she liked about him. Now she's a good foot taller than him, and I could see her dominating him, but I'm assuming they didn't meet at a dungeon.

I recently read an anonymous group blog by wives/girlfriends of NY investment bankers, and they sounded waaay more spoiled and demanding than 90% of the financial dommes I've been aware of. I mean, one woman complaining that she didn't "sign up for" keeping her husband calm about the prospect of losing his job. Another, who was a mistress, pouted when her married lover snapped that having to fire 20 people, some with kids in college and newborns, was more important than giving her an answer about how he planned to make up their recent lack of vacations. She mentioned kink, but it didn't seem to be the crux of their relationship. You want to find a demanding bitch who will rape your wallet and not give it another thought? I'd try the social climbers of the vanilla world way ahead of a BDSM site. And I'm sure those girls aren't spending time asking for gifts under $50, dinner at mid-priced restaurants or hiding their expectations.

Rentboys exist in the gay community, and I'm sure there's an equivalent in the lesbian community, so the benefactor thing does exist across gender lines, but I don't think (and I could be wrong) that it is as normalized as it is with men and women. At the risk of inciting more paranoia that women are just out to attack mens' wallets, for many centuries, in many cultures, it's widely accepted that if a man cares about a woman, he takes care of her. The way he takes care of her financially is a reflection on his status and ability. It's absolutely not unique to D/s, it's not unique to women from a certain country or of a certain nationality either. I'm sure there are women who don't enjoy or look to be spoiled in every society, and since D/s is a portion of society, I'm sure there are Dominant women who don't care about or don't look to be spoiled.

quote:


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 always have enough to pay for my meal if I go out with someone. If I really expected a guy to do it, I would leave my money at home. So I think you lose me at the duty part. Why don't I think a guy's interested if he lets me pay half? Because it's usually a good indicator. Blame societal norms again, but I can't recall any dutch date where the guy followed up with some other sign of interest. For me, I don't know that it trumps everything else, but it's an accurate indication. Now on the other side of that, I don't know. I had a date with a guy who let me know he wasn't interested at the end of the meal, but still refused my offer to pay. He wasn't interested in more dates (though we've stayed in touch as friends), and I didn't take his payment for dinner as some kind of mixed signal.

Now I have had friends who've continued with guys who did the dutch thing. Overwhelmingly, those were guys who were cheap. If everything wasn't equal, if the girl didn't prove herself by always paying for herself, then she was just after his money. These men weren't always poor or lacking money, they were just so tight with it that it wasn't going to be used to show interest in someone, or buy something that the person they were (supposedly) interested in might enjoy. Nope, forget "just me and my girlfriend" for these guys it was "just me and my wallet." It was more important to not pay $30 for dinner than it was to show the person that the potential of a relationship with them could be worth at least that.

And it's not like it was "let's go dutch" but the guy's showing up with flowers, or inviting the girl over to spend a quiet night in instead, or doing something else that would say "I may not be able to buy you dinner, but I'm interested." While I don't take it as anything offensive, I don't think women who don't want to consider down the calculated total path are doing it out of unreasonable expectations




4u2spoil -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 5:52:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama


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.

[sm=agree.gif][sm=ubanana.gif]



4u2spoil -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 6:12:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
The discussion has not been directed at what other men are doing but at a demand that, amongst different possibilities, might be driven by selfish, opportunistic motives or by a sense of entitlement that suggests the giver is of lesser value. In an environment where there are known to be many who are out to exploit financially, how can one know what the motivations are of someone who seems to be so materially focused?


@4u2spoil

Thank you for the discussion you have had with me in this thread. I hope you will see my reference to amongst different possibilities, and my comments in a post 314 about your chosen dynamic to clarify that I do not intend to direct selfish, opportunistic motives or by a sense of entitlement at you. Please do not take offense.

Cheers,

Sea


No offense taken. And just to clarify, I'm not sending panty orders to guys before I meet them for coffee or a drink (and no! I don't demand dinner at a Michelin 3* restaurant to prove their sincerity/desire either)

Just a note on the guy who bought the panties. We met a few years later and talked and he said that part of the reason he didn't buy what I'd asked is because he thought he was just one of a bunch of subs buying me things. I wasn't seeing anyone else at the time, and I bought the underwear I'd asked him for myself. When I told him that, he was okay with the request as a courtship gesture. It's why I try to clarify my position now. I like gifts, but don't base relationships on them, and am not playing on other desires to fill my lingerie drawer or anything else. I couldn't escape the feeling that my worth to him maxed out at $10, so nothing was rekindled, but I understand his hesitancy.



4u2spoil -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 6:28:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

You still have not explained the double standard you extend to your friend.



Sea, with all due respect, I think Shakti explained it quite well. I got a bit wordy and rambled on about it, but the point is that a man who is interested in the woman is expected to not limit his interest when it comes to material things like paying for dinner or buying gifts. It's just the way things are. I can see that it's not right for you, but that's the norm.

Akasha doesn't take those norms herself, and prefers to do the spoiling, but the norm is the norm. The norm being that he who offers bananas offers an advantage [sm=ubanana.gif] (okay, I was really just looking for a reason to use the dancing banana again).



undergroundsea -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 6:29:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil
Do you think any of Trump's wives married him for his interesting hair choices?


;-)

I was reflecting on the difference in my observations when I have seen profiles on CM or mydommespace versus what I might have seen on match.com.

Still, I concede the point that even if it is not explicitly stated like it might be in Fm contexts, such relationships exist that rest heavily on such attention.

quote:

I always have enough to pay for my meal if I go out with someone. If I really expected a guy to do it, I would leave my money at home. So I think you lose me at the duty part. Why don't I think a guy's interested if he lets me pay half? Because it's usually a good indicator. Blame societal norms again, but I can't recall any dutch date where the guy followed up with some other sign of interest.


If you do not see as it as a duty but as a positive gesture, then I do not disagree with you.

Without directing this point at your dynamic and speaking generally, my focus is more on the principle of it: it is disrespectful to suggest to someone that they must somehow buy one's time, and that it is polite to show appreciation for courtesies through whichever means (recognizing the courtesy versus taking it for granted, and/or returning the spirit through the same or another courtesy).

Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers,

Sea



4u2spoil -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 6:33:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

All the bleeding heart sympathy seems a bit misplaced, call me callused, but I feel far more for kids in 3rd world countries struggling for survival than guys who can't say "Stop, that's it, you are taking the piss!"
 
I don't know, though.  What about those guys with low incomes, families . . .  And not just ones who can't say "no" to being ripped off but who can't be stopped from eagerly emptying their wallets . .  Hell, I'm just glad I don't have that affliction (because 'affliction' is how I see it). 



Do you honestly see financial slave addicts outnumbering African orphans or Cambodian kids who live in landfills? I suspect they exist, but I don't think it's some epidemic.



gingy -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 6:35:26 PM)

My interest is that he has his own life and his own way of supporting himself. Not to say that someday I won't want a houseboy who just stays home, but for now I want to know that he is NOT looking for a home.



EisannaEiger -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 7:54:37 PM)

There are some simply solid answers to the original question.

First lets look at it from an evolutionary psychology position. In general and on primal level men are attracted to young women with clear skin, long full hair and a nice hip to waist ratio. Women are attracted to men with resources that include psychical strength as well as social connections and money or property. Its all evolution cares about the making and safe joint raising of BABIES! This is the combo that often ( not always) has the best results for evolution to getting what it wants… more people. So when a woman seeks a partner ( this includes lesbians too) that has resources and a man ( notice how much gay men are into showing off their waist and fluffy up their hair to attract other males?) goes for looks… well it is shallow in some ways… but in others it is not… it is hard wired into us on a primal survival of the race level.

Now lets add in some modern day facts. Women still make like 80% of the same dollar a man does for the same job and she also often has to finance being a single mom. So the LAST thing she can afford to be is a sugar mamma. Money is doubly an vulnerable issue for women then for men. So that is why you see it mentioned more in ads written by women. Just like you see looks mentioned more in ads written by men.


Ms. Eisanna Eiger





Wickad -> RE: Why is it that most Dommes want subs that are "financially successful"? (2/8/2009 9:41:49 PM)

(fast reply)

Just to add a bit of levity to this incredibly long, over-drawn, already said topic, I thought I'd put in a quote from one my favorite 'guilty pleasure' movies: Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.


Mr. Esmond, Sr.: Young lady, you don't fool me one bit.

Lorelei: l'm not trying to. But l bet l could.

Mr. Esmond, Sr.:You might convince this jackass, but you'll never convince me.

Lorelei: That's too bad. l do love him.

Mr. Esmond, Sr.: Certainly. For his money.

Lorelei: No! Honestly.

Mr. Esmond, Sr.: You expect me to believe that you aren't marrying him for his money?

Lorelei:lt's true.

Mr. Esmond, Sr.:Then why do you want to marry him?

Lorelei: l want to marry him for your money.

Mr. Esmond (Gus): There!

Lorelei:That's why we need his consent, silly.

Mr. Esmond, Sr.: We're getting down to brass tacks. You admit you're after money.

Lorelei:No, l don't. Aren't you funny?
Don't you know that a rich man is like a pretty girl?
You don't marry her just because she's pretty.
But, my goodness, doesn't it help?
Would you want your daughter to marry a poor man?
You'd want her to have the most wonderful things in the world.
Why is it wrong for me to want those things?

Mr. Esmond, Sr.: Well, l concede that--
Say, they told me you were stupid. You don't sound stupid.

Lorelei:l can be smart when it's important. But most men don't like it.
Except Gus. He's interested in my brains.

Mr. Esmond, Sr.: No, that much of a fool he's not.

I thought this little aside might be a bit silly and a bit ... on the mark. Dominant women don't want a man for his money, but men who are secure financially and less needy are much more attractive. And I don't know of any woman that intentionally decides that she is going to seek out a man who will make her life harder or put her in the proverbial poor house. Not many of us are Lorelei with her quest for shiny, beautiful things, but I also don't think many of us are martyrs willing to break ourselves on the cross of self-induced poverty just to secure a man.

Wickad



Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.054688E-02