RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE".....

RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (Full Version)

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

Message

Starbuck09 -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 9:21:27 AM)
Well, because they're different XY. When I am awooing a partner i am more than happy to pay for drinks or a meal e.t.c. However I would have no time whatsoever for a person that said to go on a date with them I would have to pay everything or that a minimum fee was needed to enjoy they're company. My personal time is fee enough. If others feel differently that is fair enough Xy but the difference between the two is there.

Arillis -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 9:24:50 AM)
A gift demanded is not a gift.

SmartStrongSub -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 9:39:31 AM)
Respectfully, AAkasha's post correctly notes two fundemental truths I have observed in life: First, cheap people (male or female) never, ever live full, happy lives. They never fully explore life. They forego the joys of giving and sharing. The good things in life escape them, always seeming beyond reach. They get by on the mediocre, often choosing quantity over quality. They often don't take the chances required to succeed in business or careers, and being so constrained they rarely enjoy the fullness of friendship and comraderie. AAkasha notes that women are turned off by cheap men. I have concluded that this is a wonderful example of feminine intuition. A woman can tell that the future holds little joy with such a person and something tells her to steer clear. Secondly, AAkasha makes mention of a "Generous spirit". Again, she is right in observing that how we act in reagrd to our material possessions reflects deeply on our spirit and overall character. If you are just playing, perhaps this doesn't matter. But when seeking a real relationship, nothing matters more. quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha quote: ORIGINAL: Venatrix Yep, you seem to be getting the hang of things. In all honesty, the most important gift someone could give me is time. So, someone willing to take things off of my to-do list, without doing it on a balance-sheet basis (e.g., okay, I did one task for her, so that should get me ten strokes of the whip), will find he gets a lot more out of me - freely given - when I determine the time is right. Isn't that what a good relationship is about? You do things for me because you care for me, and I do the same for you? But this tit-for-tat business drives me up the bloody wall. An article on vanilla dating sums it up pretty well: "While gold diggers certainly do exist - to the dismay of many wealthy and not-so-wealthy men - even the most unmaterialistic woman will admit to not liking cheap men. The reasons why may surprise you, as it has little to do with the money itself, and more to do with what it represents. Generous spirit You see, women view how a man spends - or fails to spend - his money as a direct reflection of how generous and giving he is as a person. For example, a man who calculates his every dime and rarely treats his woman, or his friends for that matter, will be seen as a tightwad who puts his own bottom line above all else. But by no means should you always pick up the bill and buy your woman expensive gifts. No woman has any right to view a man as a meal ticket - ever. Furthermore, they will assume that this trait applies to all aspects of the man's character, from how open he is with his feelings to how much love he is able to give. This is not to say that women equate love with money; simply that women will be more drawn to a man who is generous both in finances and spirit. " This is from http://www.filly.ca/life/relationships/dating_and_singles/Do-Cheap-Men-Stand-A-Chance.asp The thing is, dominant women are totally up front about their expectations (whereas vanilla women just say, "Oh sure, I don't mind if you ask me to split the meal on our first date when we sit down to dine" and just never call the guy back after the date and he says "I guess we didn't have chemistry"). Akasha

SmartStrongSub -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 10:00:47 AM)
I think you gentlemen are running up against the limits of language. Everyone seems to agree generousity is a good thing, but when the words "financial tribute" appear generousity loses its appeal to some. I think you should look beyond the catch phrases and consider the relationship. No one wants a shallow, quid pro quo deal where time and attention are exchanged for money, regardless of the medium of exchange or the terms used to described it; what we seek are real, dynamic relationships with a dominant woman. How generousity is expressed in that relationship matters little and the terms that may used to described such offerings are unimportant. Also, I would urge you to consider what it really means to be a slave, owned by another person. It means your time and labor belong to that person. The owner has a right to make demands upon you and those demands can be expressed in many ways, including the payment of tribute. When England was ruled by the Danes, the English paid an annual tribute to their Danish masters. Hard, yes. Reality, yes. That's what it means to be a slave. quote: ORIGINAL: XYisInferior quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Xy Peon is not professing that he is stingy though. He is making a distinction between being generous with money and paying an expected financial tribute. Why must the distinction be made in the first place?

XYisInferior -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 10:04:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arillis A gift demanded is not a gift. A gift is simply a thing given willingly by someone without hope of reciprocation or reward. I think that's an excellent premise to start out on in submission, in my opinion.

poeticfreak -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 10:57:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: XYisInferior quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Xy Peon is not professing that he is stingy though. He is making a distinction between being generous with money and paying an expected financial tribute. Why must the distinction be made in the first place? the distinction is necessary because where that line is drawn is also the difference between doing what's expected of you and doing something nice for someone just because you knew it would make them smile

PeonForHer -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 11:19:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus quote: ORIGINAL: XYisInferior Bitter much? [:D] quote: LadyHibiscus Well no, actually, he's not. He just knows that he is worth the price of admission all by himself, and isn't about to pay for someone's attention. Thank you, Lady Hib. I couldn't work out why Inferior thought I should feel bitter, either. My feelings for a partner won't be paid for with money because those feelings will be worth more than money can buy. Moreover, she will be worth more than money can buy. Gah! I think I could say that in my world 'money cannot buy love' and some will get it instantly. Others, though, still won't get it even if I tried to explain it in a trillion different ways.

RedMagic1 -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 11:31:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: XYisInferior Why must the distinction be made in the first place? It need not, if your world-view is that of female supremacy, and your relationship goal is that of a slave without a romantic-love interaction with your Owner. Not everyone has the same world-view, or lifepartner objectives.

XYisInferior -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 11:32:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Well, because they're different XY. When I am awooing a partner i am more than happy to pay for drinks or a meal e.t.c. However I would have no time whatsoever for a person that said to go on a date with them I would have to pay everything or that a minimum fee was needed to enjoy they're company. My personal time is fee enough. If others feel differently that is fair enough Xy but the difference between the two is there. So you don't have a problem paying; it's just that when She tells you that you will be paying, it becomes an issue. Fair enough. While there are without a doubt many looking for boyfriend / husband experiences, I'm just not so sure "wooing" is what a certain sum of dominant Women specifically have in mind—particularly if you are going to set the rules on what is acceptable etiquette and what is not, what they can demand and what they can't. Being too rigid in that degree strikes me as perhaps a little too pessimistic from the outset. The way I see it, being generous—especially when it is demanded—is a wonderful show of good faith from a man who claims to be submissive.

Arillis -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 11:36:40 AM)
I do not disagree with your perception of a gift, not at all. Where I differ with most is a gift lies in its giving, an expression of respect, adoration and/or appreciation. Those traits cannot be demanded or even expected, neither can the joy that fills my heart when giving a gift be found in a whip or flogger and certainly not in an insensitive self-serving greed filled woman

XYisInferior -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 11:51:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: XYisInferior Why must the distinction be made in the first place? It need not, if your world-view is that of female supremacy, and your relationship goal is that of a slave without a romantic-love interaction with your Owner. Not everyone has the same world-view, or lifepartner objectives. Love can and does exist in between a slave and his Mistress in a Female supremacy relationship, life partner or not—though it doesn't have to be reciprocal. But overall, yes, good thoughts—it strikes me that there are two overall groups on a site like this. One group is basically looking for dates, lovers and life partners with authority dynamics / kink involved; the other is looking to serve or be served—romance and traditional ideals of "relationship" optional.

XYisInferior -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 12:02:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arillis I do not disagree with your perception of a gift, not at all. Where I differ with most is a gift lies in its giving, an expression of respect, adoration and/or appreciation. Those traits cannot be demanded or even expected, neither can the joy that fills my heart when giving a gift be found in a whip or flogger and certainly not in an insensitive self-serving greed filled woman The underscored is a popular caricature of those Women who require tribute, and while there are certainly those simply in it for the money, I think it's fairly easy to discern the difference between a twenty-something scammer, a stripper with a whip and the real deal. I don't think the message of respect and adoration behind a gift—or more accurately, a tribute—is suddenly invalidated simply because it's expected. But that is clearly where you and I differ.

AAkasha -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 12:15:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: XYisInferior quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Well, because they're different XY. When I am awooing a partner i am more than happy to pay for drinks or a meal e.t.c. However I would have no time whatsoever for a person that said to go on a date with them I would have to pay everything or that a minimum fee was needed to enjoy they're company. My personal time is fee enough. If others feel differently that is fair enough Xy but the difference between the two is there. So you don't have a problem paying; it's just that when She tells you that you will be paying, it becomes an issue. Fair enough. I go back to my original point. First, accept that MOST (not all) women (including femdoms) have some level of expectation of generosity (ie, paying for dinner if he asks her on a date, or bringing flowers as part of courtship) from men who pursue them. The guys that choose to "go dutch" or consider all these women "gold diggers" because they expect to be courted, are called cheap pinnypinchers by women who date them, and these women don't go on second dates with them. That's how it works in the vanilla world. The fact that dominant women state their expectations UP FRONT, however, is what the problem is? My vanilla girlfriend who was highly sought after by men when she was single used to call me up and tell me about her dates, and the guys that did not offer to pay for dinner were written off and they didn't get a second date. They were called "Cheap." We had an eligible bachelor in our office who drove a Lexus at the time and had very expensive hobbies, but refused to spend money on women until he felt they "earned" it. The women in our office all tried to beat sense into him but it feel on deaf ears. In networking circles he had the reputation of being CHEAP. He remained single despite being very handsome, athletic and successful. He was dating a sweet young lady once and they were at the stage in a relationship where it was very romantic, and it fell on Valentine's Day, and he sent her an e-card intead of flowers or something more traditional, and proudly told all of us he was being smart because flowers are so overpriced on Valentine's Day. I could care less about getting flowers on that day, but to send an e-card and then brag about it as being smart, not even thinking about what the lady felt like in her office --it shows a total lack of understanding of women. There are plenty of alternatives, if you don't want to buy into the marketing of sending roses on V-day - he chose the lazy way out intsead of even trying to be creative. I fight this debate passionately because I think sub guys often use the fear of being "duped" as an excuse to be cheap. Dominant women are up front about their expectations, and we clearly can tell the difference between, "Send me $20 via paypal if you want me to respond," and "I expect flowers on our first meeting, or a bottle of wine for us to shar," or a woman getting irritated that the guy didn't pick up dinner or ask her out on a proper date before expecting play or S&M...it's just CHEAP. I'll add, again, once more, that I don't even fall into the category of a woman who desired being courted. I did the courting. I liked to pay, not only for myself, but for the guy. I equate money with power. I did (and still do) most of the "gifting." I have sent guys gifts more than I have received gifts. I have paid for more "first dinners" and limos, and expensive courting rituals than guys, because I am more comfortable in that role. But for the femdoms who expect to be courted in a traditional manner to have to deal with all this cheap stuff it's just sad. Ladies, date some vanilla men who actually find pleasure in romancing, courting and making a nice impression on the woman he's pursuing. If being up front about your expectations is turning them off, you were better off without them! edited to add: Perspective is key here, also, when it comes to 'courting gifts.' The guy who drove the Lexus appears incredibly cheap when he takes a lady on a date in that, she gets all dressed up and then the bill comes and he calculates her half. The same woman wouldn't expect to go do that fine restaurant with a college student - in his case, it's offering to buy the coffee, or sending a handwritten poem on Valentine's Day. it is not the money, it's the act of generosity. Akasha

Arillis -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 12:25:05 PM)
The right to differ is inherent in the species, just imagine how boring everything would be if we all thought the same thoughts and conducted ourselves in exactly the same manner. Rest assured I will stalwartly support your right to differ and mine too. However, I must admit I find your reasoning not at all unreasonable if others are desirous of relinquishing the proceeds of their life’s work they too have the right to differ from my position.. It is not now nor has it ever been my intent or desire to win friends or influence others that are diametrically opposed to my standards.

SmartStrongSub -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 12:48:02 PM)
I certainly loved and was loved by my first owner and that's what I hope for in the future. quote: ORIGINAL: XYisInferior quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: XYisInferior Why must the distinction be made in the first place? It need not, if your world-view is that of female supremacy, and your relationship goal is that of a slave without a romantic-love interaction with your Owner. Not everyone has the same world-view, or lifepartner objectives. Love can and does exist in between a slave and his Mistress in a Female supremacy relationship, life partner or not—though it doesn't have to be reciprocal. But overall, yes, good thoughts—it strikes me that there are two overall groups on a site like this. One group is basically looking for dates, lovers and life partners with authority dynamics / kink involved; the other is looking to serve or be served—romance and traditional ideals of "relationship" optional.

SmartStrongSub -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 12:49:14 PM)
Vanilla, D/s, it doesn't matter: cheap is cheap and ultimately it's the relationsip that counts. quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha quote: ORIGINAL: XYisInferior quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Well, because they're different XY. When I am awooing a partner i am more than happy to pay for drinks or a meal e.t.c. However I would have no time whatsoever for a person that said to go on a date with them I would have to pay everything or that a minimum fee was needed to enjoy they're company. My personal time is fee enough. If others feel differently that is fair enough Xy but the difference between the two is there. So you don't have a problem paying; it's just that when She tells you that you will be paying, it becomes an issue. Fair enough. I go back to my original point. First, accept that MOST (not all) women (including femdoms) have some level of expectation of generosity (ie, paying for dinner if he asks her on a date, or bringing flowers as part of courtship) from men who pursue them. The guys that choose to "go dutch" or consider all these women "gold diggers" because they expect to be courted, are called cheap pinnypinchers by women who date them, and these women don't go on second dates with them. That's how it works in the vanilla world. The fact that dominant women state their expectations UP FRONT, however, is what the problem is? My vanilla girlfriend who was highly sought after by men when she was single used to call me up and tell me about her dates, and the guys that did not offer to pay for dinner were written off and they didn't get a second date. They were called "Cheap." We had an eligible bachelor in our office who drove a Lexus at the time and had very expensive hobbies, but refused to spend money on women until he felt they "earned" it. The women in our office all tried to beat sense into him but it feel on deaf ears. In networking circles he had the reputation of being CHEAP. He remained single despite being very handsome, athletic and successful. He was dating a sweet young lady once and they were at the stage in a relationship where it was very romantic, and it fell on Valentine's Day, and he sent her an e-card intead of flowers or something more traditional, and proudly told all of us he was being smart because flowers are so overpriced on Valentine's Day. I could care less about getting flowers on that day, but to send an e-card and then brag about it as being smart, not even thinking about what the lady felt like in her office --it shows a total lack of understanding of women. There are plenty of alternatives, if you don't want to buy into the marketing of sending roses on V-day - he chose the lazy way out intsead of even trying to be creative. I fight this debate passionately because I think sub guys often use the fear of being "duped" as an excuse to be cheap. Dominant women are up front about their expectations, and we clearly can tell the difference between, "Send me $20 via paypal if you want me to respond," and "I expect flowers on our first meeting, or a bottle of wine for us to shar," or a woman getting irritated that the guy didn't pick up dinner or ask her out on a proper date before expecting play or S&M...it's just CHEAP. I'll add, again, once more, that I don't even fall into the category of a woman who desired being courted. I did the courting. I liked to pay, not only for myself, but for the guy. I equate money with power. I did (and still do) most of the "gifting." I have sent guys gifts more than I have received gifts. I have paid for more "first dinners" and limos, and expensive courting rituals than guys, because I am more comfortable in that role. But for the femdoms who expect to be courted in a traditional manner to have to deal with all this cheap stuff it's just sad. Ladies, date some vanilla men who actually find pleasure in romancing, courting and making a nice impression on the woman he's pursuing. If being up front about your expectations is turning them off, you were better off without them! edited to add: Perspective is key here, also, when it comes to 'courting gifts.' The guy who drove the Lexus appears incredibly cheap when he takes a lady on a date in that, she gets all dressed up and then the bill comes and he calculates her half. The same woman wouldn't expect to go do that fine restaurant with a college student - in his case, it's offering to buy the coffee, or sending a handwritten poem on Valentine's Day. it is not the money, it's the act of generosity. Akasha

ShaktiSama -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 1:28:30 PM)
Hmm. Interesting OP. Sounds like the scenario of a BDSM romance novel! The men in vanilla romance novels are always icons of fantasy, with money coming out of every orifice, perfect bodies and nothing to do but obsess about and dote over their wimmenfolk all day. I can just see the cover--instead of ripping the chick's bodice, Fabio is chained to the ceiling and getting flogged. [:D] So far as the generalities go...I agree with Akasha that money is a form of power. I can also understand that since money is power, it's possible to make it a loving component of a power exchange. Since money is power, of course, it's also possible for it to be a component in an abusive relationship. And although this probably does get said way too often around here, I don't think VanIsleKnight was necessarily mistaken when he said that female abusers are often abusive in this way. Speaking from the philosophical angle as a domme, I think the one word that encapsulates what I want from my submissive is "Devotion". Whatever he has to give, I want it given freely and lovingly to me--and only to me. Using his money to please and serve me would be, in essence, no different from using his physical strength or his domestic skills or his massage training or his sexual prowess. It's his power, he's mine, he's devoted to me, and I benefit from whatever he has to give. I have to admit that my material wants and needs seem to be a lot less extensive than TexasMa'am's. I don't need a man who buys me cars and lays out an entire flogger collection just for a lark. I don't need to have a stable of purebred horses and dogs, expensive perfume and lingerie, yadda yadda. But I must say--I do appreciate it when the boykin occasionally buys a nice toy for use on his sleek and sexy bod! I came home from my summer trip to find that he had gotten two lovely new leather toys for our play time together. The flogger is a beauty and so is the paddle, and they mean all the more to me because he had to work so hard for the money to buy them. He's never bought me anything to wear and we haven't really discussed the matter, but if he wanted to buy a sexy pair of gloves or boots for me, I would wear them happily and proudly whenever I felt like having them worshipped, secure in the knowledge that they turned him on like gangbusters. My love slave is a romantic, and he behaves accordingly. I wouldn't call his gifts or his romantic gestures "tribute"; he didn't have to buy my attention in the first place, and he doesn't do these things to hold my attention or stay in my good graces. I also don't love him or play with him less when he's broke and can't find a job in the lousy local economy. To me he was a dreamboykin when he was selling his blood and he'll be a dreamboykin when he's rolling in the dough. It's not the dollars that matter. It's the devotion.

Starbuck09 -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 2:16:12 PM)
Aakasha an expectation of generosity is very much different to a stated demand for one. The former still allows it to be your choice to do so as a pleasant gesture the latter takes that choice from you. I'd also point out that I like to pay for things like drinks and cinema tickets because I can. I have the money to if you don't yet you still want to spend time with a woman that you like then that is not cheap. When you were courting men and giving them gifts how would you have felt if a man asked you for a limo to pick him up or the relationship was off? It takes the choice from you and cheapens the gift that most would be willing to make in the first place. If your criteria for a man is must pay for dinner, then wait till you go on a date and see if he does. If he does'nt thn don't start a relationship. Demanding it upfront means that those who would pay can no longer make a gift only accede to a demand. I suppose that's fair enough if the relationship you are lookin for is one of a slave to a mistress but how many women even on this thread have stated how they would like to have a vanilla period before anything kinky happens? Personally I agree with them.

PeonForHer -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 3:13:57 PM)
I fight this debate passionately because I think sub guys often use the fear of being "duped" as an excuse to be cheap. Dominant women are up front about their expectations, and we clearly can tell the difference between, "Send me $20 via paypal if you want me to respond," and "I expect flowers on our first meeting, or a bottle of wine for us to shar," or a woman getting irritated that the guy didn't pick up dinner or ask her out on a proper date before expecting play or S&M...it's just CHEAP. Do sub guys really 'use the fear of being "duped" as an excuse to be cheap'? Again, this all seems alien to me, and I bet I'm not the only one. Hell. The moment that the question of 'who pays what' even enters into my thoughts, a date's ruined. It's just tawdry and tasteless.

LaTigresse -> RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OLD TOPIC, "TRIBUTE"..... (8/18/2009 3:27:22 PM)
It is equally as tawdry and tasteless when a man expects some sort of return for his investment if he does pay.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125