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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: XYisInferior

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

Why am I telling you this? Because while more than half of vanilla guys "get it" and do it anyway, most subs don't, unless they are TOLD. 

Where are the guys that actually enjoy the process of giving, of courting, of romancing?

Two germane questions that fully encapsulate much of the whining we see on these threads. I personally don't think the usual suspects are ever going to reform, but it's critical that newcomers looking for wisdom on this subject don't see the opinions of these men as the accepted norm. I sometimes question the actual experience more than half of the usual responders—who would establish themselves as "authorities" or "voices of reason" here actually have in serving or maintaining relationships with the opposite sex in general.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SmartStrongSub

It seems to me the key to this conversation is the word "relationship".  Both XYisinferior and AAkasha make the point that, where there is a genuine relationship of mutual affection and trust between a male and Female, whether vanilla or D/s, the male enjoys "giving, courting and romancing" and both the giver and the receipient are blessed.  In the absence of such a relationship, the giver is just buying attention from a stranger and the receipient is just getting material value from a stranger.  There is no real, freely offered generousity and no real joy for either party.  Cold cash is a poor substitute for affection displayed through loving, thoughtful gifts.  I loved my first Owner and I loved courting her, romancing her and showering her with gifts that she never demanded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: XYisInferior

quote:

ORIGINAL: VanIsleKnight

I think I'm a bit jaded due to the types of women I've met and see in profiles.  They project a really one-dimensional, materialistic image that frankly irritates me, even more so when they constantly find men to sucker in.

Apologies for my initial knee-jerk reaction. 

Van,

Thank you for writing the above. What you expressed pretty much summed up the source of a lot of confusion about tributes and financial domination. The crass, boilerplate teen-age or twenty-something psuedodiva with middle finger extended is, unfortunately, the first thing that comes to mind when these ideas are brought up. It's suitable for some who are looking for that specifically, but it in no way represents the practice of financial domination or tribute as a whole.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

Personally when I am entering or in a relationship then I am more than happy to pay for drinks, meals e.t.c. However I do this to be pleasant it is in no way a measure of my love. No girlfriend of mine would ever point to a gift that I had bought her as evidence of my feelings. If for whatever reason I was unable to buy her anything as my financial situation changed she would not then be unable to gauge my feelings for her as what I persoanlly decide to do with my money is not how I demonstrate love.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Venatrix

quote:

ORIGINAL: ElanSubdued

Akasha,

quote:

I can't believe how cheap sub guys are. Seriously.  And that you cheap ones defend it so passionately just because you don't want to get ripped off.  How sad for the woman that comes along and may take interest in you, but realizes you are cheap and a tightwad, and she goes on to someone who is happy to take her out to dinner and a show, or send her flowers, or send a card -- vs. those that only do such a thing when they feel their investment will pay back.

For brevity, I only quoted this part of your post, but really I'd have liked to quote the entire thing.  The views you're expressing here aren't in any way supported by my real life experiences and I think they're just reinforcing online stereotypes.  In real life, I've yet to meet kinky people (dominants, submissives, and the rest of the gamut) who don't have a grasp on courtship and on doing nice things for their partners.  Sure, I've met people who are lousy at courtship, lousy communicators, lousy initiators, etc.  I've met the inverse too - people who are adept at one or more of these things.  My point is this isn't the domain of submissive men.  This is people in general.  We each have our various strengths and weaknesses.

Elan.

Elan, I'm happy for you that that bit of Akasha's post didn't resonate with you.  Unfortunately, it sure resonated with me.  The cheapest men I've ever met are the ones who identify as submissive.  These are the guys who keep track of EVERY penny they've spent so that they can make sure I reimburse them for EXACTLY half of it.  Yet these are the same men who have never once offered to contribute to the cost of my toys (whilst offering no toys of their own to play with), fetish wear, the food and drink that I provide when they come over and so on.  When I've finished playing with someone, I want to experience that soaring feeling of power and control, not that I went out with an accountant complete with calculator and balance sheet.

If we're going to reduce this topic to how much people spend on each other, let me tell you that I've spent far more on men than they've ever spent on me, and it's the worst investment I've ever made.  I've met some lovely men, who, for one reason or other haven't worked out, but the creeps far outnumber them.  There's a reason why I no longer have any interest in men.  If men want to find out why that is, I suggest they take a good look at themselves.

Edited to add:  And no, Elan, it's not just "people."  Vanilla men are much less likely to be like this.  Frankly, it isn't the women who are making d/s feel like a business transaction, it's the guys. 

quote:

When i'm working yes i know i'm gonna be
I'm gonna be the man who's working hard for you
And when the money comes in for the work i'll do
I'll pass almost every penny on to you

When i come home yeah i know i'm gonna be
I'm gonna be the man who comes back home to you
And if i grow old well i know i'm gonna be
I'm gonna be the man who's growing old with you

But i would walk 500 miles
And i would walk 500 more
Just to be the man who walked 5,000 miles
To fall down at your door

quote:

ORIGINAL: DevotionNService

I'm sorry, but a man is not a 'limp dick' or any other derogatory term for not supporting his Mistress financially. In general to be supported in such a way is a submissive trait and you would do well to learn the difference before spouting off and insulting your betters. I say 'in general' because it becomes a strength for the aware to be served in such a way. But always keep in mind the real world when defining these things and not the fantasy world which you would prefer to live in. It is a strength, a trait of power, to earn your own way. You're using your nature, your talents as an individual woman to get what you need and that's fine. But there's power and then there's power. I want to counter your attitude with the other extreme, tell you what a nothing you are just because of the way you have spouted off here, but I think I'll remain the objective voice that you seem unable to grasp in this situation as I would prefer to benefit with this lessen others who may be as dense as you, Texas M (I can't bring myself to refer to you as 'Ma'am' - that form of degradation in relation to you has become a hard-limit of mine). I, on a personal note, do not think I could ever serve a 'Mistress' such as yourself. I prefer a strong woman and that you are not - relatively speaking.