RE: "Financially Secure"

RE: "Financially Secure" (Full Version)

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

Message

MsHValentine -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/21/2010 12:07:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sweetpuppy77 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. How do you know? Have you asked women or are you just guessing? quote: ORIGINAL: sweetpuppy77 The more education you gain and the more money you make, the less available men you are going to find that are your equal. How do you know? Do women need or want an equal partner anyway? How do you know? quote: ORIGINAL: sweetpuppy77I still say many people want equality, rights and privileges without a shred of responsibility. How do you know? Have you asked women or are you just guessing? I wonder where you got your "facts" from.

sweetpuppy77 -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/21/2010 1:01:55 AM)
Actually most of what you quoted wasn't me except for " sweetpuppy77I still say many people want equality, rights and privileges without a shred of responsibility." which is an opinion based on observation.

WyldHrt -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/21/2010 2:33:04 AM)
quote: Image you are on a date with someone. And this someone has a good personality. They make you laugh, they have good stories, they are positive and upbeat. You share a lot of things in common. But this person also tells you he/she is unemployed for whatever reason. And you come to find out they havnt really took good care of their money. In other words they are practically broke. Are you likely to go on a second date with this person? In most societies, the answer to this scenario would be a strong yes. In most societies finding a partner you can spend the rest of your life with and have a family is the priority. In America...Im not so sure. I think if you asked Americans this question, a majority would likely dump this person. Would I likely dump this person... hell, yes. Why? Not because I'm American [8\|] but because I'm a submissive seeking a relationship with a Dominant who is capable of running our relationship and our lives. If a supposed Dom can't even take care of his own finances, he certainly has no business trying to control my money, let alone my life. Why is that so hard for some here to understand? BTW- I married the guy in your above scenario a decade ago, and wound up over $30,000 in debt less than 2 years later, because he had no clue about dealing with money. Needless to say, it didn't end well. quote: My point is..Americans for some reason judge people based on their net worth instead of their character. A person who is a lawyer, a doctor, has a high-paying job, or owns a business are people who are all considered to be successful. A person who is layed off, forced to live with family, or struggling financially is considered a loser. Look at the way we make fun of people who live in trailers, shop at Wal-Mart, work in fast-food, or wear non-designer clothes. We are a materialistic society that likes to overspend and live beyond our means. We are obsessed with money and status. And it's my opinion that mentality is what is tearing us all apart. Socially, politically, and economically. Speak for yourself. I happen to live in a trailer, shop at Wal-Mart, wear non-designer clothes... and have yet to be made fun of by anyone who knows me because of it. That said- my bills are paid, my only debt is my car payment, and I live within my means.

xssve -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/22/2010 6:28:24 AM)
Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts. Winston Churchill. If that's all true Wyldhrt, you are not the subject of the discussion - it's really not just a "women's" issue, but women play a role - since everybody defines "attractive" differently w/respect to personality, the whole winners/losers dichotomy eventually hinges on some external quality, and money is the lowest common denominator. And every time anybody bases some social judgment on it, it reinforces it - if you look at men who are deeply in debt, half the time the did it to keep up with the Joneses, because it was "expected" - looking like a "winner" is expensive, and in the end, it's all just a "look" - you wear the "right" clothes, drive the "right" car, live in the "right" neighborhood, all of which you go into debt to obtain. I don't have all that shit, I live in the ghetto, drive an old Pickup, although I do mostly shop at Ross, although I'm not exactly a clothes horse, but my bills are paid and I'm not in debt - it's just the way I was raised, my parents paid cash for every car they ever bought, the only debt they ever carried was a mortgage and they paid that off as fast as they could to avoid the interest. Thing is, I've known fairly wealthy people all my life, and guess what? They're all, of most of them, that way - they drive old cars, they don't eat out ever night, they don't max out their credit cards, they save their money and invest - that's why they have money. You ever read, or see American Psycho? It's really social commentary on the whole Narcissistic pathology of being a "success" in America - the main character goes into a lethal rage because a business rival has a better looking business card than he does - in the end, it's all in his imagination, but it is the mindset of the Narcissist, other people simply become obstacles in their compulsion to reinforce their fragile identities by obtaining the external symbols of success - the problem is always that there is somebody more "successful" than you are, so there is never any real satisfaction. It's perfectly natural to desire "security", a roof over your head, food in the pantry - those who don't desire these things are most likely not on the internet to begin with, but if you need money for emotional security, if you see it as a reflection of self worth, it's technically an anti-social personality disorder, pretty much by definition. Naturally, the media encourages this, they are a vehicle for advertisers, and advertisers represent corporations that are run by executives whose jobs depend on quarterly reports that in turn reflect how much money people spend on their shit - consumption - whether they go into debt to do it or not. So of course, they cater to the "consumer" in you, that's the part of you that's important to them, and if it's compulsive, that's even better - it's not that much different than drug, or any other addiction. When it comes to women, it's really a more complex issue - I've seen women divorce men because they weren't "ambitious" enough, I've also seen people break up because they were so ambitious they never had any time for each other, and everything in between. I don't know if I really like the term "lifestyle", but with wealth it's always a trade off - making money isn't really that difficult, but it does take time and effort, and the more time and effort you put into making money, the less time you have for anything else. These dominas that want a successful guy, may not realize that the reason they're successful is because they put in 60 to 80 hours a week in some pressure cooker, and they need somebody to "depressurize" them, otherwise, most of these guys are headed for a breakdown - they're already alienated, already at the mercy of a system where their best is never enough. This is a thing that women, as a symbolic representation, are supposed to heal - if you're just part of the system, you're just part of the system, and we complain about "the system", it's human nature, because "the system" isn't human, and it doesn't deal with humans, it deals with symbols - humans are fallible. It's really a pattern in American economics: the "winners" get too greedy, and crash the economy, firms lay off the least productive (or least connected) employees - the more productive employees are suddenly doing the work of Three people; six months later they burn out and end up playing paddle ball in the corner. I've watched it happen over and over since the Seventies, and I'm sure we'll all get right back up and do it again. There's a reason they used to call it the "rat race", it's not the same thing as "living".

SweetDommes -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/22/2010 9:56:45 AM)
Jumping into this way late, I know ... and I freely admit that I haven't read all the responses, so forgive me if I overlap what others have said. We want our boy(s) to be capable of surviving on their own. That means that they have to know what to do with their money, they need to be capable of maintaining themselves in an appropriate lifestyle. This doesn't mean that they need to be able to afford a new car every 6 months - but if they can't afford a new car, then they need to not buy one, and they need to be able to pay for and maintain the one they have. This goes for everything - if they can't afford steak every day, then they had better not be eating steak every day; if they can't afford to go out partying every weekend, then they need to stay home. We expect that a boy be able to hold a job (exceptions can be made - but they they are rare). We expect that once he's contributing to the bills of our home, that he be contributing to the budget as well. If a boy can bring in some kind of money without working outside of the home, I'd be thrilled - I'd love to have a boy at home when I want something. But most people can't do that. Most are not independantly weathy, and most need to work outside the home to earn an income. That's fine with me as well. We don't ask for money until a boy's presence is increasing our costs - if he offers, then we may or may not take him up on said offer ... once he's eating our food on a regular basis, though - he'd better be buying some of it. We can support ourselves, but we can't afford to support another person on the money that we are bringing in at this point.

lobodomslavery -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/22/2010 10:09:20 AM)
Fair enough. No one should leech off anyone else. But personally I think Dommes, not getting at you, who expect to be fully supported financially by their subs, this is not the case with you, I think they are shallow. Just my personal point of view. But then I have no time for anyone whose sole concern is how much the other person has in their pocket and how they can use this to further their needs. No money obsessed people are not for me. Why? Because money is so transient and impermanent. You can have a job today and it can be gone tomorrow. Thats happened to millions in this recession Kevin

SweetDommes -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/22/2010 10:28:34 AM)
The current economy is why exceptions can be made at this point - although, in our area at least, if people are willing to do a job they don't like for awhile until they can get a job that they do like ... there are a lot of jobs advertised around here. It may be dumping trash and cleaning up after other people, or flipping burgers, or whatever other minimum wage job is available - but at least it's a job. I know that not everwhere has jobs available - where we used to live, you couldn't get a job unless you were a student (high school or college) or already had a college degree. So those who weren't in school were basically screwed in terms of finding a job - we do take that into consideration when talking to someone. However, if said boy is unemployed and still going partying every weekend? or hasn't given up things like online game subscriptions or other things that aren't needed? Nope, we'll pass. We expect some intelligence in our boys.

lobodomslavery -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/22/2010 10:34:02 AM)
Oh absolutely I agree. Partying every weekend is a no no. Online subscriptions no no. People like that give the unemployed or job seekers a very bad name. They sicken me Kevin

HeathenMa1am -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/25/2010 10:05:55 AM)
my 2 cents (or million bucks, or whatever.) When I was only looking for play partners, how compatible your fetishes are with mine was the only thing that mattered. Now I am past the experimental stage and am looking for a husband. Whether I am sub, domme, or totally vanilla, my future husband had better be prepared to support me, because when I am married I don't intend to work outside the home. I will continue to sell my art and books, but I don't expect to make a living doing it, because I don't now. That has nothing to do with my being a domme, and everything to do with my being a woman. And any man who doesn't want that kind of wife can go find somebody else.

jj292 -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/26/2010 9:08:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeathenMa1am my 2 cents (or million bucks, or whatever.) When I was only looking for play partners, how compatible your fetishes are with mine was the only thing that mattered. Now I am past the experimental stage and am looking for a husband. Whether I am sub, domme, or totally vanilla, my future husband had better be prepared to support me, because when I am married I don't intend to work outside the home. I will continue to sell my art and books, but I don't expect to make a living doing it, because I don't now. That has nothing to do with my being a domme, and everything to do with my being a woman. And any man who doesn't want that kind of wife can go find somebody else. Well you stumbled right onto the point many have made in here. It's a cultural stereotype that the man provides for the woman in a household. And this has been part of our civilization for thousands of years. But this is something the feminists have worked hard over the past century to dismantle. And they have done a good job doing it in the western countries. It has already changed for many households. I posted the stat earlier that the wife is now the provider in 1 out of 4 households in the United States (meaning the wife is the one bringing home the bacon). Just 30 years ago that stat was 1 out of 25!!!! Today, more women than men are graduating with college degrees. So imagine in 20-30 years the percentage of households where the wife is the provider is going to continue to increase. And dont forget, most men also dont want a leech. A man who is serious about a committed relationship is going to want a woman who is smart, confident, and has a plan for the future. If you aspire to be a housewife...most men arnt turned on to that anymore. Our culture has changed. This isnt the 1950s anymore where our parents grew up in. Those days are long gone.

WyldHrt -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/26/2010 9:13:15 PM)
Ummm... who are you to tell her that she can't look for whatever she wants? I'm quite sure that she's aware that her desired lifestyle will limit the "partner pool".

jj292 -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/26/2010 9:49:56 PM)
I never said anyone couldn't. Im just making a point that society is in a state of change. And it is a bit confusing too... For decades women have been screaming for equality. Yet some women say being a woman is wanting a man to provide for you? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And no a woman can't have it both ways. For example, You can't be a woman and go to school to be a doctor and make $100,000 a year AND find a man to provide for you. It's not going to happen. If you are making that kind of income, chances are your husband is going to be making less money...probably a LOT less. Here's the question, is it wrong for the woman to make more money? If a household is made up of a wife who is making $100,000+ per year and the husband is making $35,000 per year... is that bad? Do you think something is wrong with that picture? Do you view the husband as weak since he makes only a 1/3rd of what his wife makes? And my response is...what does it matter? If the two love each other...why should money matter?

Heulwen -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/26/2010 10:04:57 PM)
er - adults both contribute to a relationship. That would be working outside the relationship for money, or working inside the relationship to support it.

submaleinzona -> RE: "Financially Secure" (2/27/2010 8:30:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jj292 I never said anyone couldn't. Im just making a point that society is in a state of change. And it is a bit confusing too... For decades women have been screaming for equality. Yet some women say being a woman is wanting a man to provide for you? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And no a woman can't have it both ways. For example, You can't be a woman and go to school to be a doctor and make $100,000 a year AND find a man to provide for you. It's not going to happen. If you are making that kind of income, chances are your husband is going to be making less money...probably a LOT less. Here's the question, is it wrong for the woman to make more money? If a household is made up of a wife who is making $100,000+ per year and the husband is making $35,000 per year... is that bad? Do you think something is wrong with that picture? Do you view the husband as weak since he makes only a 1/3rd of what his wife makes? And my response is...what does it matter? If the two love each other...why should money matter? I think that you make some good points, and I tend to agree with your arguments. I lived through the 1970s, so I remember a lot of what took place as gender roles started to shift. My parents got divorced when I was about 6, and the thing was, my dad had a good job, a nice home - it was a very idyllic community to grow up - even during the turbulent 1960s. It was not unlike "Leave it to Beaver." My mother left my dad and went off to "find herself" or something like that. I never really quite understood. My brother and I lived with our mother in a small apartment, and she never really could make ends meet. My father paid child support and provided other expenses for us, and my grandfather helped out quite a bit too. After a couple of years, my brother and I were living with our father again, because my mom was having too many financial and emotional problems to be able to take care of us. My mother was a big supporter of feminism and equal rights, so I grew up with a lot of that in my younger days. It seemed to come up a lot in school and was all over TV as well. I was just a kid during those years. I didn't know what the world was like before I entered it, so I just had to take everyone's word for it. I seem to recall that there was a more anti-materialistic feeling during those years as well. It was a recession, but it was also after decades of unprecedented economic growth. Considering the fact that the U.S. was the sole remaining major industrial power in the world in 1945, the generation which grew up afterwards was the most opulent (and probably the most spoiled) of any in U.S. history. Most of the rest of the world owed us money. The industries of Europe and Asia were in a shambles, and it wasn't until the 1960s and 70s that they were able to catch up with us and surpass us - and then we started to stagnate a bit. By the late 60s/early 70s, people seemed a bit jaded by hypermaterialism that they reacted against it. A lot of feminists seemed somewhat socialistic in their economic perspective, and this went in line with the whole "commune" craze and a general disdain for materialism, consumerism, anything "plastic," etc. But that didn't last too long, because people discovered that they really enjoy their creature comforts. What seemed like a good idea at the time just didn't really turn out so well. Then the recession hit, and then, money seemed to be more important to people. But there was still this big push towards equality and other social changes which were taking place. I remember when the Equal Rights Amendment was a big issue in the 70s. Reagan's election in 1980 pretty much spelled the death knell for the ERA, but this was about the time my dad got remarried, and his new wife had an "ERA Now" bumper sticker on her car. She was more of an arch-feminist than my mother was. So, in a lot of ways, I felt rather put upon as a white male growing up during a time when all these women were screaming for equality. My father gave me some advice about that, sort of man-to-man type stuff, and said, "They can spout equality all they want, but they're still going to look to you to take care of them." I guess that's just the cross we have to bear. Even that was possible during the bubble economy created on borrowed money - which is how we managed during the artificial "booms" of the 1980s and 90s. But now we're at the point where we have to pay the piper. I don't think there's anything wrong with a traditional relationship where the man is the bread-winner and the woman is taken care of. Lots of people still do it, so it's certainly possible. But I think we're seeing more generational differences here than anything else. My grandparents' generation survived the Great Depression and World War II through hard work and sacrifice, but there's no real sense of that anymore. It's like the "Me Generation" just screwed everything up. Everything is about me. This is what I deserve. But then, I see countless people out there in despair and anxiety about not getting what they think they deserve. "I deserved this but I didn't get it, so poor me." I see this attitude a lot. Then there are a few fortunate types who might rub it in, "I got this because I deserved it, so it sucks to be you." A lot of people just don't give a crap about anyone but themselves. That's just the cold hard truth of the matter. Personally, I think I've become more immune to it, or at least desensitized to the whole "financially secure"/"generous male" aspect of the whole thing. It doesn't really mean anything to me. I just gloss over it most of the time. One thing that your stats also show is that, if there are more marriages where women earn more than men, it proves that there are more women who are okay with that situation, and it's fine for them. I don't think anyone here is complaining about that or saying that the men are weak. Or even if they do think that men are weak or "losers" for not earning as much as women, then who cares what they think? They probably don't care what I think either, so it evens out.

SweetDommes -> RE: "Financially Secure" (3/1/2010 12:48:23 AM)
I make more than Holly and rob combined at this point (although, due to some fairly shitty changes that our oh-so-brilliant governor [:'(] has made, my pay has decreased recently, so that might not be entirely true anymore ... hmm...). Anyway, point is that I don't care about that. We work together well inside the house to keep things maintained, and we all three have jobs outside the house to pay the bills. Like so many others, we don't have a lot of extra money for all of the things that we want - but our bills get paid, we aren't in danger of losing our house or cars, etc. If we could find someone who had a small (or even better, a large [;)]) fortune to his name, then that's great ... but if that's all he has, then we'll pass. We would rather have someone who is poor but genuinely wants to serve us than someone who has a ton of money and is willing to serve anyone who will let him (or, like most whom we've talked to with $$, willing to serve anyone who will let him serve exactly how he wants). Money is just a convenience for the most part. It makes life easier, but it's not the end all, be all of life.

Elisabella -> RE: "Financially Secure" (3/1/2010 2:31:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jj292 Image you are on a date with someone. And this someone has a good personality. They make you laugh, they have good stories, they are positive and upbeat. You share a lot of things in common. But this person also tells you he/she is unemployed for whatever reason. And you come to find out they havnt really took good care of their money. In other words they are practically broke. Are you likely to go on a second date with this person? In most societies, the answer to this scenario would be a strong yes. In most societies finding a partner you can spend the rest of your life with and have a family is the priority. In America...Im not so sure. I think if you asked Americans this question, a majority would likely dump this person. My point is..Americans for some reason judge people based on their net worth instead of their character. A person who is a lawyer, a doctor, has a high-paying job, or owns a business are people who are all considered to be successful. A person who is layed off, forced to live with family, or struggling financially is considered a loser. Look at the way we make fun of people who live in trailers, shop at Wal-Mart, work in fast-food, or wear non-designer clothes. We are a materialistic society that likes to overspend and live beyond our means. We are obsessed with money and status. And it's my opinion that mentality is what is tearing us all apart. Socially, politically, and economically. That's fine if you believe that materialism is completely separate from personality, I don't. I see shopping at walmart or working in fast food to be personality traits as well as material traits. To answer your question - I'd go on a second date with a broke college student (if he was studying something that would work out to a good career, not just tossing money into the sinkhole known as the Liberal Arts Degree) but not with a broke guy in his 30's. I'm married now. Finding a partner I could spend the rest of my life with was my priority and I found him. If you don't see finances as a priority that's up to you, but the number one cause of marital problems is lack of money. Financial stability helps to pave a road that isn't always the smoothest, and your post seems to be encouraging people to add financial problems on top of whatever else life throws at them. Besides, I am attracted to a man who is good at what he does for a living. Saying my husband is a brilliant software engineer is a bit different than saying he's a pro burger flipper. I'm not attracted to men like that and I see no reason why I should be.

Elisabella -> RE: "Financially Secure" (3/1/2010 2:38:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jj292 quote: ORIGINAL: HeathenMa1am my 2 cents (or million bucks, or whatever.) When I was only looking for play partners, how compatible your fetishes are with mine was the only thing that mattered. Now I am past the experimental stage and am looking for a husband. Whether I am sub, domme, or totally vanilla, my future husband had better be prepared to support me, because when I am married I don't intend to work outside the home. I will continue to sell my art and books, but I don't expect to make a living doing it, because I don't now. That has nothing to do with my being a domme, and everything to do with my being a woman. And any man who doesn't want that kind of wife can go find somebody else. Well you stumbled right onto the point many have made in here. It's a cultural stereotype that the man provides for the woman in a household. And this has been part of our civilization for thousands of years. But this is something the feminists have worked hard over the past century to dismantle. And they have done a good job doing it in the western countries. It has already changed for many households. I posted the stat earlier that the wife is now the provider in 1 out of 4 households in the United States (meaning the wife is the one bringing home the bacon). Just 30 years ago that stat was 1 out of 25!!!! Today, more women than men are graduating with college degrees. So imagine in 20-30 years the percentage of households where the wife is the provider is going to continue to increase. And dont forget, most men also dont want a leech. A man who is serious about a committed relationship is going to want a woman who is smart, confident, and has a plan for the future. If you aspire to be a housewife...most men arnt turned on to that anymore. Our culture has changed. This isnt the 1950s anymore where our parents grew up in. Those days are long gone. Please don't tell me what type of relationship dynamic I can or can't have. I realize our culture has changed, I'm not fond of the changes made, and I am incredibly grateful that I found a wonderful, intelligent, strong, traditional man who enjoys being the head of his household. I really don't care what the feminists get up to but it does bother me that they've conditioned people enough that you're here posting that the life I happily live is part of days "long gone."

Elisabella -> RE: "Financially Secure" (3/1/2010 2:43:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jj292 I never said anyone couldn't. Im just making a point that society is in a state of change. And it is a bit confusing too... For decades women have been screaming for equality. Yet some women say being a woman is wanting a man to provide for you? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And no a woman can't have it both ways. For example, You can't be a woman and go to school to be a doctor and make $100,000 a year AND find a man to provide for you. It's not going to happen. If you are making that kind of income, chances are your husband is going to be making less money...probably a LOT less. There is a difference my dear between "women" and "a woman" - "women" is a statistical majority, "a woman" can just as easily fall into the minority that hasn't bought into the lie of "you'll be happier if you work 50 hours a week outside the home." quote: Here's the question, is it wrong for the woman to make more money? If a household is made up of a wife who is making $100,000+ per year and the husband is making $35,000 per year... is that bad? Do you think something is wrong with that picture? Do you view the husband as weak since he makes only a 1/3rd of what his wife makes? It's not bad if it works for them. It wouldn't work for me. I wouldn't see the husband as weak but I'd have a hard time seeing him as a paragon of masculinity. quote: And my response is...what does it matter? If the two love each other...why should money matter? Love doesn't come out of thin air. The initial seed for love to grow is attraction. If attraction isn't there, it'll never get to the 'love' stage. People are attracted to different things. Financial power is one of those things. I love power. To a disturbing degree, actually, if you'd look at some of my fantasies. My husband isn't rich, but he's not poor, and more importantly, he's able to provide for me and that allows me to respect him as a provider. Which I like. So that's why it matters to me. Why does it matter to you what other people base their relationships off of?

Elisabella -> RE: "Financially Secure" (3/1/2010 3:16:47 AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZRflz-93JA

cynfulcynsation -> RE: "Financially Secure" (8/2/2011 3:07:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 Some of you have shared perspectives that are absolutely right FOR YOU, but you've failed to acknowledge that there are people who are in very different situations than you are. Personally, on two separate occasions i have served Dommes that i supported completely. They didn't work, and didn't pay a bill of any type. Each of them lived in my home, where i paid all of the bills, as well as providing for all of their expenses. They each drove cars that i purchased for them. Neither performed ANY housework. i wasn't married to either of them (in case you were wondering). More importantly, i didn't feel that i was being "used" or treated unfairly. But i was fortunate enough to be able to do this. I don't judge anyone who doesn't have the financial means to take care of a Domme, but there are many who can, just as there are still many husbands who have wives that don't work. For anyone to imply otherwise is rather silly. My kinda sub ^_~ quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit I remodeled one's boat.. his bathroom and most his house on my dime. I paid off his truck and took good care of him in many area's. He paid the utilities and house payment and I paid for everything... everything, else. He ate well, was well dressed and had the best of everything besides my gifts. Hell.. I supported two men that were stay at home... take care of Lockit guys and didn't think for a moment of resenting them because I paid the way for our comforts. EXACTLY! quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 If some are turned off by those who say they want someone "financially secure", thats life. I'm not too keen on those who seek someone HWP. I mean what exactly is height weight proportionate? Thats in the eye of the beholder too? Actually it's a term generally used in the modeling industry. It means that you're within your BMI at minimum for your height, and often that there's a 10" difference between your bust-waist-hip ratio. However, most guys just think, "Oh, she won't be 'fat'." Which is a relative term for most guys. quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyFtshGoddess would i accept a broke slave?.. hmmm.. it would depend, is he useful in other ways? does he clean? does he build dungeon furniture? is he capable of filming video?.. does he maintain websites? i suggest people (subs) focus less on the almightly dollar and focus more on what you have to offer beyond physical servitude. if someone only wants financial servants then i'm sure they'd be willing to consider you more if you have some other tangible skill. -Goddess This is exactly why I offer trade and have a place on my website that actually "teaches" people how to make $$$ online. I don't think anyone who's literate and intelligent that can use a computer should be "broke." quote: ORIGINAL: submaleinzona quote: ORIGINAL: jj292 I think it it is rooted in social engineering. The traditional gender roles are that a man of the house provides for the woman and she stands under his umbrella. It's been that way for centuries. That's one reason there is tradition that the woman takes the man's last name at marriage. And it is no different in the BDSM community either. The male top provides for the female bottom. The male sub provides for his female top. They are just both in a different context and dynamic. It seems that in most relationships, the woman is looking for security and the male is looking for companionship. That's obviously a huge generalization. But I think it has some truth to it. I understand the money aspects of it, but it gets a bit confusing when viewed in the perspective of a power exchange. If a male sub still controls the money in the relationship, then would he still have most of the power in the relationship? Someone else in this thread mentioned that women are more powerful because they have the vagina, but does that have more power than money? 1) The woman taking a man's surname has only been in the past few centuries. If you go back to Celtic times and other cultures, this didn't always happen. 2) The Vagina has power to those who want it. quote: ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB Just made the mistake of reading this entire thread in one sitting, and now I feel about twelve different emotions ranging from irritated to thoroughly amused :) I don't want to piss anyone off (although based on the thread so far I'm sure I will) but I thought I'd point out the rather obvious fact that the women on this site CLEARLY have the power in who they want to play with / date. The site just IS that way. You can rant and rage all you want about what women's standards "SHOULD" be, and how "shallow" some women are, and how much you would never touch the "man-hating bitches" (is it really necessary to fling sexist phrases around?) with a ten foot pole, but at the end of the day, all the women on this site have their choice of quite a few men. So why on earth would any women lower their standards or wants/desires? I don't mean that to be like men have no standards - obviously there are even men on this thread with great poise and standards whose respect I would love to earn - but women getting to have high standards really is just a simple fact that the men on this site might want to accept for their own peace of mind. Perhaps it's an "unfair" double standard, but it just IS THE CASE. So accept that and move on. As is the case with most dating sites, and throughout most of the BDSM scene, which is why some people have to date vanilla to find anyone. ~~~~~~ I think I need to ADD 'financially secure' to my profile BECAUSE I keep getting broke/no-job guys who either want "free play" or think I'm going to let them move in with me because I'm a Domme, and they're going to "submit" to me. (Ugh...who said I WANTED your submission?) As far as the discussion goes, here's my $0.02: When I was in high school, male friends would complain if they spent tons of money on a girl and she didn't put out. This equated to me, that if I didn't want a guy to feel that he was entitled to sex with me, that I needed to "pay my way." So I used to go dutch on all my meals when dating guys. I found that this either offended them, or it'd attract losers who were happy to pay for my meal. I eventually realized that all the guys I liked, who treat me well, tended to be submissive types who were happy to pay for everything and let me have my way. (Yes, this is me analyzing everything that happened to me before I was 'kinky.') Most of those relationships had a primitive D/s foundation before I understood was D/s was. I now specifically LOOK for guys that fit that criteria as it's what's worked for me in the best. (That's my type: generous submissive guys who are open-minded and willing to engage in a female-led relationship.) That's cool if a guy isn't into that, I just go NEXT, but that's what I want for me on a personal level.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625