newlychaste
Posts: 70
Joined: 1/24/2008 Status: offline
|
In my opinion, upward mobility is a relationship issue no matter the state of the nation: A dominant will naturally incur some minor costs--or, to be more precise, costs are incurred by a D/s C/couple (lol) relative to the scene (usually--but not always--the dominant partner has) planned--and should generally be compensated in kind for such. This means the submissive needs to have at least some income. Conversely, the submissive (unless very wealthy) cannot be relied upon for the entirety of the Dom/Domme's living expenses. I'm sure there are enough "financial Dommes" that make a living based on the collective wallet raping (insert your own terminology here) of tens of "pay piggies," but what, in reality, is the substantial quality of that life? I don't believe it's categorically reasonable to expect one person to fully support another adult person--at least, not without the tax breaks of marriage--no matter the economic climate. In other words, you can't play if you don't buy in. And a live-in situation is a pretty huge buy-in, especially during times of national financial instability and uncertainty: Person 1: Hi, you seem pretty cool! Can I move in with you? Person 2: Well, I do have an extra room that I'm not using, but you'll need to bring your own cage/whip, and pay me twice the difference in utilities, sixty percent of the groceries, and one hundred-fifty dollars a month. That should be about three hundred or four hundred dollars. Person 1: Oh, I don't have a cage/whip. Can you buy me one? Also, can I pay my rent in [insert your favorite fetish here]? Person 2: Do you really think your [insert favorite fetish here] is worth four hundred dollars a month? If so, doesn't that make you a prostitute? And if it does, what makes you think I can afford a prostitute? I didn't have one BEFORE the recession!! I'm sorry, but there's no such thing as a free meal--someone has to pay for it. On a dinner date, traditionally the gentleman (Dom or sub) pays for the dinner, and (generally speaking) I agree with this; however, in terms of 30 "free" meals a month, the recipient of those meals is, in my opinion, overstaying his or her welcome (a.k.a., being a leech). Move in with your parents, Person 1. The community of people that Person 2 is a part of doesn't like your Person 1 free love and mooching, you dirty hippie. Ultimately, Person 2 isn't "rich enough to support" Person 1 unless Person 2 can afford to fund Person 1's retirement account. No matter how much we all would like to find a partner who loves us for who we are, is wonderful, and is rich, it's not an entirely realistic goal. ------ "The Dude abides."
|