RE: "Financially Secure"

RE: "Financially Secure" (Full Version)

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

Message

Smutmonger -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 7:53:39 AM)
But for some reason,I guess certain woman can still justify this as being "powerful"...as if dependence on another person can be explained away as "being financially Dominant" Sort of like "fucking for virginity?"

VaguelyCurious -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 7:59:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smutmonger Wierd. Why would I want a woman to take care of me? I'd feel like a child. So then don't look for a woman to take care of you... BDSM is a massive multidimensional spectrum of desires; just because you or I don't want something doesn't mean others can't look for it, or specify it as a requirement. The judgement they have to make is whether or not making that desire a requirement is going to stop them finding the partner they would be happiest with; if they decide that the answer to that is 'no', then it's not my place to say 'well you shouldn't ask for that!'

xssve -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 8:01:19 AM)
I'm sort of crossing boundaries here into another rant of mine, which is women who once they are in a relationship with you, suddenly decide you need a makeover, and they have to turn you into something else entirely - if you "settled", then deal with it. And it' s actually more of a Vanilla rant - in some respects, to be a submissive is to accept that fact that there will be a makeover, but generally speaking, a sexual identity makeover is in many respects, easier to accomplish than an economic one, this whole thing is about sexual identity, even sex isn't directly involved - if you think you you can fix what their parents, the public education and economic systems have created, then you better really have your shit together. If you want to run a "finishing school" for men, then do that, don't try to completely warp the definition of "power exchange" to suit you - nobody really puts up with that from doms either - there a vast gulf between "submissive" as symbol and fantasy, and people doing power exchange in praxis, in the real world, where it's just people with needs, and it doesn't all conform to some abstract medieval fantasy world. Ever notice how the people bitching about "real" vs. "unreal" typically have the most unrealistic expectations? The fact that there is anybody at all willing to even try and live up to some of these expectations is kind of a wonder in itself, but there is no underlying or overlying, "natural order" here, just people adapting and trying to satisfy their needs.

Smutmonger -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 8:04:50 AM)
But a lot of guys are disingenous and manipulative to begin with. Can a woman help it if the chameleon she is with looks like a big pile of silly putty to her? It's what he gets for not having a spine to begin with-or he would not have hooked up with a woman of those penchants.

xssve -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 8:27:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: xssve Seriously, it's about expectations - the OP has mimbo written all over him- if you're expecting rocket science, you're in for a big disappointment, he's a work in progress at best. If you're wanting wealthy, mature, responsible, submissives to take care of you financially because you're the shit, you're fishing in the wrong river, it's not his bad, it's yours. I personally am not looking for that, but if people are, and they find it, how are they fishing in the wrong river?!? It's the whole Brand X marketing dynamic that bugs - if I want skinny chicks, there are two ways of doing that: I can look for skinny chicks and try to pull them, or I can announce my preference ot the world by going around calling all the other chicks fat - it's the Brand X approach, and technically, propaganda, labeling, demonizing, etc., it's defining what you're looking through negation - by loudly announcing to everyone what you don't want - apparent;y people think this makes them appear less shallow that saying "I only like skinny chicks", it's somehow classier to say "I don't do fat chicks" - maybe it makes the skinny chicks feel special, or whatever, I dunno, but in the end, shallow is shallow, and it doesn't actually make anybody more "special", you're just being an ass, it's all very transparent. Usually, it takes the form of arbitrarily and deliberately denouncing someone who doesn't meet your expectations, i.e., picked specifically for that reason, in order to advertise to those who might - it's so fucking high school, and all it does for me is to advertise your emotional insecurity and instability - some guys do find that attractive apparently, go figure. But as for me, all of you insecure bitches can just fuck off, I don't do high school chicks, especially Forty year old ones. Thing is, emotional insecurity or even instability is not really necessarily a deal breaker by any means - we're all human, all subject to the human condition, it's an imperfect world and some insecurity is part of the deal - but expressing it like that is hard limit for me, it suggest to me you're in denial about it, and unhealthy self delusion is a big Red flag for me personally. Now that's a hell of a lot more complicated than calling a women "gold diggers", no? The irony being, it's isn't necessarily about money at all, it's about attitude.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 8:35:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: xssve Seriously, it's about expectations - the OP has mimbo written all over him- if you're expecting rocket science, you're in for a big dissapointment, he's a work in progress at best. If you're wanting wealthy, mature, responsible, submissives to take care of you financially because you're the shit, you're fishing in the wrong river, it's not his bad, it's yours. I personally am not looking for that, but if people are, and they find it, how are they fishing in the wrong river?!? It's the whole Brand X marketing dynamic that bugs - if I want skinny chicks, there are two ways of doing that: I can look for skinny chicks and try to pull them, or I can announce my preference ot the world by going around calling all the other chicks fat - it's the Brand X approach, and technically, propaganda, labelling, demonizing, etc., it's defining what you're looking through negation - by loudly announcing to everyoen what you don't want - apparent;y people think this makes them appear less shallow that saying "I only like skinny chicks", it's somhow classier to say "I don't do fat chicks" - probably it makes the skinny chicks feel special, or whatever, but in the end, shallow is shallow, and it doesn't actually make anybody mroe special, you're just being an ass, it's all very transparent. Usually, it takes the form of arbitrarily and deliberately denouncing someone who doesn't meet your expectations, i.e., picked specifically for that reason, in order to advertise to those who do - it's so fucking high school, and all it does for me is to advertise your emotional insecurity and instability - some guys do find that attractive apparently, go figure. But as for me, all of you insecure bitches can just fuck off, I don't do high school chicks, especially Forty year old ones. Thing is, emotional insecurity or even instability is not really necessarily a deal breaker by any means - we're all human, all subject to the human condition, it's an imperfect world and some insecurity is part of the deal - but expressing it like that is hard limit for me, it suggest to me you're in denial about it, and unhealthy self delusion is a big Red flag for me personally. Now that's a hell of a lot more conplicated than calling a woman a "gold digger", no? The irony being, it's isn't necessarily about money at all, it's about attitude. Keeping with the angling metaphor-what you seem to be saying is that you find the method of fishing unkind and inappropriate. That still doesn't have anything to do with the environment in which they are choosing to 'fish'. Nobody is saying you have to 'do high school chicks'-that doesn't mean you have the right to make them behave any differently-if they feel their method is effective, it is their prerogative to use it. Treat it as an indication that they aren't for you, and click the little 'next profile' button...

jj292 -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 8:38:38 AM)
In the BDSM world... The male sub is supposed to provide for the female domme, right? The male dom is supposed to provide for his female sub, right? What's the difference between the two? Even in a pro-domme situation...the man is paying the woman to satisfy HIS fetishes. Correct?

xssve -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 8:39:58 AM)
What the fuck do you think I do dear? I'm not fishing here, this is a discussion forum, we're discussing something - you see anything in your mailbox from me? The OP and the whole subsequent shitstorm was kicked off by people not doing exactly that.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 8:46:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve What the fuck do you think I do dear? I'm not fishing here, this is a discussion forum, we're discussing something - you see anything in your mailbox from me? The OP and the whole subsequent shitstorm was kicked off by people not doing exactly that. Na, nah, that wasn't what I meant-someone said something about fishing in the wrong river-I was just continuing with the metaphor! I wasn't implying anything about you, my love! :S misunderstanding alert, misunderstanding alert...

xssve -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 8:53:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jj292 In the BDSM world... The male sub is supposed to provide for the female domme, right? The male dom is supposed to provide for his female sub, right? What's the difference between the two? Even in a pro-domme situation...the man is paying the woman to satisfy HIS fetishes. Correct? Value systems are the result of adaptations to particular economic conditions - those expectations are reasonable ones in a patriarchal economic system where men do control all the economic resources - but the current economy is increasingly less and less patriarchal, there is a reason androgyny in general is suddenly much more respectable than it was even Ten or Twenty years ago - it's a way of wiping the slate of all those accumulated cultural adaptations/expectations, because like it or not, there is a whole new set of economic conditions we're going to have to adapt to. Otherwise, hanging onto the past is a fools errand - if you want to be gracious about it, and hang onto say, Sixteenth Century agrarian values, then your best bet to to become a Quaker - for the rest of the culture, you're going to be a quaint tourist attraction, but if you can live with that, whatever floats your boat. The world isn't going to stop turning just for you, no matter how much you kick and scream and hold your breath till your face turns Blue - it's all evolution, and there is no "ideal", just things to adjust to - "The Norm", upon which people base their expectations, is a moving target, never has been anything else. Fact is, the Quakers originated as a militant sect, and were widely considered a bunch of dangerous troublemakers till they decided to quit fighting it and just do their thing.

sweetpuppy77 -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 8:56:54 AM)
Marx said that the only difference between prostitution and middle class/upper class marriages is that one was legal. He was right then and is right now. Women talked a lot about equal rights, equal pay, equal work etc in the 70s which btw was also a recession. You don't hear that so much anymore. Now its cockroaches out for themselves only. If a woman expects a man to "provide" she should expect to put out. That's good old fashioned, legal, whoring. Which is fine for what it is. But if women want to be treated as equals, that will have its downsides as well. Equality without responsibility a/k/a the holy grail, doesn't exist.

xssve -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 9:04:27 AM)
Whattaya expect? Those have become our cultural values in general. The conservative media machine has worked long and hard, spent Billions and Billions of advertising dollars to demonize all that hippy dippy "social co-operation bullshit" - then everybody act's shocked when it turns out they're utterly and unimaginably corrupt, will smilingly lie straight into your face, it's every man for himself and fuck everybody else - shit they told you they were that way from the beginning.

xssve -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 9:05:41 AM)
And forget about Marx, Adam Smith said it before Marx ever thought of it.

sweetpuppy77 -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 9:07:42 AM)
True. But its also easier to be a cockroach. People go through life pretending- to care, to love to believe- and its just easier to let all that drop and make the whole world into a lord of the flies re enactment.

xssve -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 9:07:58 AM)
You need to read this: U.S. Economy grinds to halt.

xssve -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 9:12:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sweetpuppy77 True. But its also easier to be a cockroach. People go through life pretending- to care, to love to believe- and its just easier to let all that drop and make the whole world into a lord of the flies re enactment. What is it they say - the Chinese word for disaster, "weij-ji" is a combinationof the characters for opportunity and danger? There are always those who benefit from chaos; the social meltdown in in Iraq after the invasion was very good for arms dealers, art thieves, and human traffickers.

xssve -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 9:17:58 AM)
The "New World Order" is really just old world disorder - I mean, do they hate anything more than regulation? Why would you expect order of any sort from them that takes anything but their desires into account? Anyway, I'm not just trying to threadjack it into a political discussion, just trying to put it all into perspective - the whole topic is a subset of political/economics, that much has been made abundantly clear.

winterlight -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 10:03:47 AM)
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D] @Domiguy....

jj292 -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 12:07:20 PM)
And I posted the article on the other page showing that the economic times are changing. Back in the 70s, the feminists pushed women to enroll in colleges and seek higher positions in the workplace and society. After only one generation, we are seeing the results already. More women than men graduating with college degrees. Women now make up 44% of advanced degrees. There is still a little wage gap but that is closing very fast. What is also accellerating all this is the current economy. The jobs being lost right now are typically industries dominated by men (ie: manufacturing). So the recession is hitting men the hardest right now...by far. This is what women wanted. You all wanted equality in society and in the workplace...well you are getting close to it. Some women apparently dont want the responsibility or the reality that is going to come with it. The more education you gain and the more money you make, the less available men you are going to find that are your equal. I know you women dont want to play "mommy" and feel as if you are the breadwinner in the relationship. But us guys have been playing "daddy" to you all for countless generations. So don't complain.

sweetpuppy77 -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/20/2010 4:44:37 PM)
This is what women wanted. You all wanted equality in society and in the workplace...well you are getting close to it. Some women apparently dont want the responsibility or the reality that is going to come with it. The more education you gain and the more money you make, the less available men you are going to find that are your equal. What was that song? It's lonely at top? Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlmGJQq3AlM I still say many people want equality, rights and privileges without a shred of responsibility. I'm all for equal rights and responsibilities and have known a hell of a lot more smart women then men- but see that means bootstrapping. And yes, that does mean no whining.

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875