Money slaves Part deux

Money slaves Part deux (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

BitaTruble -> Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 2:16:29 PM)
Being the fair minded sort and willing to, generally, give the benefit of the doubt to a newbie, I'm going to post a question making the assumption that the kid was looking for some serious discussion on the topic of slaves and their hard earned $. Do you, (yes, I'm talking to YOU) believe that a slave is obligated to turn over their finances as part of giving their 'all' to their dominant? What would the circumstances have to be for you, as a slave, to turn them over? Marriage? Long term ownership? Living together? Something else? If you're on the Top side of things, would you require this from someone? Do you assume, as a Top, that a slave who wants to give you their all includes things like their 401k's, the deed to their house and the inheritance from Aunt Gertie? If you do believe that 'all' means just that, would you give out some sort of allowance or budget in things like personal grooming supplies, car insurance and other things both whether an essential or not? The original OP of this paraphrased question mentioned the extraordinary time and effort he puts into the individual slaves and that he considered that such time should be compensated, but on the flip side of that, doesn't a slave, generally, put in a lot of time in service to their dominant as well? The guy writing out the assignment may spend a couple of hours thinking up the idea and getting it on paper, but wouldn't the slave in question spend a fairly equal amount of time and energy carrying out a given assignment? Is that a case of tit for tat or straight up .. if you say you are a slave and you say 'all' then mean 'all' and give me the money, honey! Apparently, inquiring minds want to know. Feel free to discuss or ignore. :) My own view is that as a slave to Sir, I do give my 'all' and that would include $ but he doesn't take money from slaves because he feels it gives them too much power. He's the guy that always insists on picking up the check, won't allow someone from the kneel side to pay for a meal (even if he doesn't own them - if they insist, he simply won't go out) and generally does what he does for the sheer love of doing it. I think $ might be a touchy subject for some dominants when it comes to accepting it because they may feel like they are being paid for services rendered rather than being served simply because they have earned that service just by being competent in their own abilities as a dominant. Mileage, as always, may vary!

kiwisub12 -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 2:24:19 PM)
If i was married to my Master,I might turn over my hard earned earnings. However, I would want some accountability on his part. Love and marraige is great, but bankrupcy is for seven years!!! and divorce is forever!

BitaTruble -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 2:36:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kiwisub12 Love and marraige is great, but bankrupcy is for seven years!!! and divorce is forever! [sm=rofl.gif] Okay, that answer just made 'my' time and effort on rewording the question worthwhile! GREAT payment, kiwisub. [:D]

leadership527 -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 2:48:17 PM)
I guess for me, I have a hard time envisioning the meaning of the word "slave" in any relationship where these things were even a question. In the situation that the first post described, I don't think of the "master" as actually owning the girl. I had undestood it to be a temporary training relationship. Did I get that wrong? So I'd be asking, "Should you turn over all your assets to your teacher?" I sure wouldn't.

RumpusParable -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 2:52:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble Do you, (yes, I'm talking to YOU) believe that a slave is obligated to turn over their finances as part of giving their 'all' to their dominant? Not in every and all cases, no, but it's negotiable with me in some. quote: Do you assume, as a Top, that a slave who wants to give you their all includes things like their 401k's, the deed to their house and the inheritance from Aunt Gertie? In a word: yes. If they wanted to negotiate/arrange giving some of their things then I'd expect them to negotiate "some" and not "all".

oceanwinds -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 2:57:49 PM)
At this time in my life there would be no turning over all my assests to anyone. Even if the scenerio was that I was someone's slave, I could not turn my money over to a Master. In my past marriage we worked together to have a life. In two more years I will be eligible for widow's pension. I could not justify handing that over to another person because I made the choice to serve them. In regards to a Dom. creating a major change in another's life for the positive, if their s-type is not willing to put in a lot of work on themselves, change will not come about. To just rely on the Dom's instructions and be able to make the changes by doing as told ,to me, is creating a shell and nothing beneath it. It takes the s-type to make the changes, not the Dom. The Master can only assist, if they want the s-type to reach a deeper level of healthy change. An attitude, which I am not really sure if it exists, that the s-type enters a relationship as an empty slate befundles my mind. If this really is sought why? My opinion would be to build on to what one already has but not to mold a new 'stepford wife'. I never considered myself an empty slate. It confuses the heck out of me why a Dom. would seek an empty slate to mold. If they have my heart, i would be very grateful to them, and would work to help out in areas they have asked of me, but I still would continue to hold on to some assests. The reason for that is if I would ever find myself down the road alone again, I would still have my resources. At 58 I would not even consider getting married again. I see no need for it nor to be owned and turn everything over to a Dom. Nor would I seek a Master who would want to take care of all my financial needs. In reality, I doubt I would make a decent slave if a Master wanted to remold me, take all my money and support me financially. This would not be the type I could serve well, because I have learned I need to be able to stand on my two feet, when life takes a drastic turn and you find yourself alone.

Lashra -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 3:05:02 PM)
My view is this, whatever works for the people involved. With that said, I have known a couple of slaves who ended up penniless after their "Masters" took their money and spent it instead of saving it for them as promised. So I think people need to be very careful in to whom they put their trust and money. Personally I do not want my subs money, I have my own. I want him to have his own money in case something happens as fate has a way of biting us in the ass when least expected. Just my own view, ~Lashra

IronBear -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 3:13:15 PM)
To put this in a more logical and albeit practical situation, let's assume I have found a slave who is in my collar and who is working too. Regarding her income, she would be required to contribute to the home expenses such as food and utilities etc. Of the remainder of her income, I would allow her to keep "pocket money" to cover female requisites and a treat or two and the rest to be placed into a bank account which I hold the pass book/key card but have no access to withdraw funds. Similarly were I able to support said slave financially and had her 24/7 as primarily a service/domestic slave, she would be paid the legal wages as set down by Government Regulations into a bank account to which I held the pass book or key card and she had no physical access to. In both cases her monies are held in a bank for her to have as she chose upon termination of her bondage with us. I do not agree with a slaves income or savings being handed over carte blanche to a Master. Being broke and destitute is not the place I would wish anyone to be other than two ex wives.

ownerdaddy -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 3:21:59 PM)
I suspect one of those topics to which each dom/slave has their own take and no one rule will work for everyone (as with most things in life really). Personally, as a Dom I would like to ensure that my slave can leave the relationship with at least the resources (be it money, property, collection of baseball cards, whatever) they came in with. If a slavegirl chooses to remain at home and be a kept slavegirl, then her needs are met by myself as the Dom and that is it. If (as I greatly prefer), a slavegirl has a job outside the home, then the money earnt in that job will be fed into the "family" budget from which all expenses will be paid for. The girls expenses will all be met and additonally a little will be put aside each payday in some kind of savings form so that the slave has something to fall back onto if things dont work out in the long run. If in an established, and commited long term relationship equal to a marriage then I will be happy for the slavegirl to donate any personal savings, property etc to that family as in effect I do too. (This would only ever arise if this is what the girl wants and not something I would ever ask of her.)

oceanwinds -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 4:00:23 PM)
quote: destitute is not the place I would wish anyone to be other than two ex wives. chuckling over that remark. The rest of your post, Iron Bear, seems to me to be an honorable way of doing things.

littlewonder -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 5:01:06 PM)
Well when I was married we were joint owners in banking so technically yeah..I turned my money over to him. We pooled our resources and paid the bills, bought things, etc..it wasn't his nor mine...it was ours. If I was living with Master and I no longer had others to take care of with my resources then if he decided he wanted it then I would probably agree to it. I trust him implicitely. He's the most trustworthy person I have ever known and he's wise financially and in many other ways so it wouldn't really be a concern to me. I feel I have made much better choices these days in who I chose to be with than in my younger days.

IrishMist -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 5:58:59 PM)
quote: Posts: 6992 Joined: 1/12/2006 Status: offline Being the fair minded sort and willing to, generally, give the benefit of the doubt to a newbie, I'm going to post a question making the assumption that the kid was looking for some serious discussion on the topic of slaves and their hard earned $. Do you, (yes, I'm talking to YOU) believe that a slave is obligated to turn over their finances as part of giving their 'all' to their dominant? What would the circumstances have to be for you, as a slave, to turn them over? Marriage? Long term ownership? Living together? Something else? Speaking from a personal perspective only, my answer is yes. The circumstances, for me, would be nothing other than his having ownership. Naturally, what I would see as ownership, is of course, different from what others would see it as. I don't place restrictions on ownership; meaning, I don't require a trade off (ie; in exchange for total control of everything, you have to marry me, etc etc...bunch of bs if you ask me )

MmeGigs -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 6:04:38 PM)
Hubby has a "hand it all over" attitude. Early in our relationship, he said that if we ever parted he expected to leave with nothing but the shirt on his back. Pretty much everything we've accumulated since then is in my name, but since nothing we have is of any value, it doesn't really matter much. If he were to leave today with nothing, he'd actually be better off than he was when we met. His finances were a mess when I got him and I've straightened that all out. All of the debt we have is in my name and would stay with me. I'd be worried about that if there was any chance he'd ever leave me, but the chance of that is smaller than my chance of winning the lottery. I wouldn't expect or want to take money from a casual or non-live-in partner. In the context of a committed live-in relationship, I'd expect slave to hand over the paycheck. It would go into the joint account with my paycheck. I have a very "we're all in this together" view of family finances, and for my own peace of mind I prefer to handle the budgeting and bill-paying myself. Slave would have access to the joint account to get whatever it wants or needs, as long as it's within the budget. Since I can't marry more than one person at a time and I've already bagged my limit, and slave would not be able to receive survivor benefits of my retirement plan if I were to kick off, the 401k and so forth would stay with the slave. If hubby and I weren't married, I'd have him set up with his own retirement account. Having said that, I would expect slave's assets to be available to the family should we experience financial difficulty. I wouldn't be willing to eat mac and cheese for dinner every night while slave is sitting on Aunt Gertie's inheritance. I don't think that any of this has to do with my d/s orientation. I've never understood the concept of sharing a home and a life with someone but keeping separate checkbooks. I don't think that I could be in a committed relationship with someone who I couldn't trust with my money or who didn't trust me with theirs. I know I couldn't be in a relationship with someone who was obsessed about money.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 6:12:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kiwisub12 Love and marraige is great, but bankrupcy is for seven years!!! Not to quibble, but 10 actually. To answer the OP; yes, I would. Under what circumstances? That would depend upon the individual, and upon the relationship, but in principle I would certainly be willing to surrender everything to my partner. If I trust her completely, then I trust her completely. In general terms, it would have to be in the context of a committed longterm relationship, but if I felt comfortable enough with someone to be in such a relationship I can't imagine not being comfortable enough to give her complete financial control.

LadyLilithRules -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 6:21:54 PM)
If it were a livein slave contributing to the household would be a requirement, hands down. How much it all depends. If I am in a marriage and I am Dominant yes the money would be handed over to Me WITH responsibilities. Making sure that any and all financial obligations of the slave are met: student loans, credit cards, vehicle payment, child support, etc. I do not think anyone, slave or otherwise, should be blindly handing over all their earnings. If they choose to do so that is personal decision however they have to deal with the circumstances. Unfortunately if they choose to leave the lifestyle a Dom/Domme can be sued for misappropriation of funds if not handled properly. Sadly, we live in a country where you can be sued for ANYTHING. Does not mean it goes anywhere but the aggrevation alone can be devastating. Since I do not have a desire for livein slaves at this time I do expect some contributions for My maintenance but I do not expect a slave to give Me everything. Even as a Dominant I think that would be a bit unreasonable especially in these economic times. But that is just my opinion.

LadySweetOrSour -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 6:39:41 PM)
I guess this is where I personally see the difference between submissive and slave. A slave, traditionally, had no rights to property, opinions, etc. (yes this is MY view, I don't want to turn this thread into a shit fight about differences between the two). He/she does what I say, when I say it, with no negotiations on anything. If the slaves desires and needs are met, well and good, if not, too bad. Naturally, a slave and I wouldn't enter into a relationship if our expectations didn't coincide, so there shouldn't be a problem with that. If a slave was considerably wealthier than I, why would I go without so he could save his money for later? Who would be taking responsibility for all his earthy needs, medical care, loan payments, etc.? Taking care of someone for the long haul is a big investment and takes a lot of time. I don't mean I would say hand it over three weeks into a relationship but, if things were working out and it looked long term then yes, I would expect to take control of his finances, to my advantage as well as his. Of course, not being able to see into the future, I don't know what would happen if I died unexpected, or if there would be a valid reason why we did not stay together. Then of course measures must be put into place for that eventuality. Investments made in his name, with me appointed as trustee until my death, then power reverting back to him, superannuation paid and the like. I do know there are some guys who've emailed me about no limits money slavery, which I used to ignore. Now I send them an email back, asking them to deposit $10,000 into my account immediately. They never contact me again.[:D]

catize -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 7:20:59 PM)
quote: Do you, (yes, I'm talking to YOU) believe that a slave is obligated to turn over their finances as part of giving their 'all' to their dominant? What would the circumstances have to be for you, as a slave, to turn them over? Marriage? Long term ownership? Living together? Something else? If I have always worked outside the home, made and managed my own money. To give up my job, hand over what few assets I do have and be dependent on someone else for food, shelter, etc. is a nice fantasy. But the reality is quite scary. I am of an age that if I quit my job now, I probably would not be employable in one or five years. My finances are “iffy’ enough that I probably will not be able to retire when I’m 65. I don’t need the added worry that someone might take advantage, squander what little I do have, and/or leave me homeless. I face the possibility of poverty in my dotage anyway; I’m not about to allow anyone to make it a certainty! If anyone suggested I give it “all” I would want a legally binding contract that ensured I would be provided for in all contingencies. My view is not ‘romantic’ or ‘slave-like’, and it isn’t at all trusting!

Drakontos -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 7:49:50 PM)
When zaphira first started talking with Master, he made it perfectly clear that if zaphira became his property, everything would become his. zaphira owned a home, a car, and had several very well-to-stocks; all of which were signed over to Master the day he placed his collar on this slave. In addition to this, Master does not allow his property to work outside the home; nor does he give property an 'allowance'. zaphira had no second thoughts about giving up everything to become Master's property; and in three years, she has not once regretted her decision.

porcelaine -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 8:49:24 PM)
i believe all means something different to everyone. no one would ever have full control of my assets. i have a child that is just barely an adult with a life ahead of her. provisions must be made for her well being first and foremost. as a trained financial professional he would have to have valid proof of his ability to manage money and that doesn't mean we experiment with mine! i'd want to see his track record and the level of debt and payment patterns he possesses. even still it is something that i think is of less appeal the more you come to the table bearing. if his only justification for his need to assume and manage my assets is master, when in truth i'm both more qualified and experienced in that vain, i'd have to wonder what was more important overall. financial security and growth, or merely controlling everything, proficiency not withstanding. i'm not willing to be penniless to stroke his ego or prove some ridiculous point. being a master doesn't imply you've mastered all. trying out relational techniques is of no comparison to fucking up my finances. porcelaine

IronBear -> RE: Money slaves Part deux (6/15/2009 9:49:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: kiwisub12 Love and marraige is great, but bankrupcy is for seven years!!! Not to quibble, but 10 actually. Possibly so where you live but here in Australia the following applies: How long would I be bankrupt? The period of a bankruptcy is 3 years from the date a statement of affairs is filed. This period may be extended by an objection entered by the trustee. http://www.itsa.gov.au/dir228/itsaweb.nsf/docindex/bankruptcy-%3Efaq?opendocument#5

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875