|
Amaros -> RE: Low Income Dominants. (9/8/2006 5:03:47 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: IronBear
Originally when I started this thread, I was thinking of one friend who had been about the fragmented local scene for a while. When illness and injury then a divorce stripped him of much of his wealth so he had to start again with a lower end income, he was almost over night ostracised by the crap community in Brisbane and their clique. He moved interstate and is well loved by his local community. Wy original issue was and is, should people on low incomes be shunned by a BDSM Communitry because they can not match the more affluent members. If so what is the point that a person, ever with many years of practical experience is tossed into the community refuse bin?
I think it is reasionable that if a seeker has a substantial or adequate income, that thgey will look for a pertner in a similar or better financial situation. (Too many workinmg ladies have had new partners bludging off them). However provided someone has a roof over their head, is managing to pay the bills , have a couple of meals a day and even afford meds iof required, and in otherwords shows fiscal responsibility, why shold they be shunted to one side. I know many who like me do at times have to perform a jugeling act inorder to buy food and pay bills even if that is at the cost of some meds. Point is with good communications with the creditors, they are usually able to work a payment arangement out.
It's something that applies to modern society as a whole, it's a Narcissistic thing: "guilt by association" - like they're afraid it will rub off - I've seen it before, a guy loses his job and suddenly all his freinds avoid him.
I think tends to be more prevelant during republican administrations, so much of their rhetoric and dogma revolves around "winners vs. losers", and constant denigration of the poor - it was very evident during the Reagan/Thatcher years, when as one BBC commentator put it, "they act as if if they treat the poor badly enough, they'll stop doing it" - ironic, for the "family values" administration, since most low income households are single income - if your wife stays home and takes care of the kids you're either extremly wealthy, or very poor. It's one reason Hispanics tend to be prominant among low income groups, the women typically stay home and take care of the kids, it's a macho thing.
Another irony for you: the incidence of "at risk behavior", unprotected and promiscuous sex, drinking, drug addiction, etc., all increase not decrease with socio-economic status - they just have daddies to bail them out.
Anyway, things repeat themselves every twenty years, I've heard, which makes sense if you figure the people in charge now are the people whose world view was formed twenty years ago - so this would be a repeat of the 80's - 60's style drug culture resurged in the 80's (cocaine), and in the Seventies there was a lot of 50's nostalgia, sock hops, etc., though I have noticed something of a couple of year delay factor, so I suspect it will get worse before it gets better.
One of the symptoms is a general intolerance and lack of compassion for the elderly, I knew several who were declared incompetent, their property disposed of, and them shunted away wholesale to nursing homes back in the Eighties, the mentally ill were turned out into the streets, etc., and I recall entire families, with young children, living in their cars.
"Tossed" is a good way of putting it.
|
|
|
|
