|
Mercnbeth -> RE: "Financially Secure" (1/19/2010 7:40:17 AM)
|
~ Fast Contradiction ~
After 5 pages a note from the other side of the coin. It's not easy to find an individual who would agree to abdicate all personal responsibility, including financial, over to another.
I see a lot of "I wants..." in this thread; so much self focus. Granted, according to statistics, the majority of relationships fail and pragmatism must apply to the financial considerations of life; but how much of that same attitude contributes to other aspects of a relationship? Everyone is so worried about what's in it for them, that no attention is paid to the more important consideration - what's in it for 'us'. There are a lot of submissives here representing they would not quit their job or jeopardize their career for the sake of their relationship. They want security. They want income. They want to live in a certain style. They want...
Yup - that is exactly what I found when I was looking for a partner.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
My goal was to have a partner who would only serve one Master. To keep it simple and cast the widest net - the 'master' was me. Trying to convey the concept of serving a 'Master' relationship was something that would be disclosed as the relationship 'evolved'. I never expected it to happen because most people I met had that 'I want' priority. It's human nature.
Since beginning my search for a partner in LA I can give first hand representation that desiring someone who would only serve one 'Master' - ME, and surrender all career and outside responsibilities, is difficult. Trust me - the 'housekeeping, cooking, & blow-jobs' criteria was the easiest one to fill because really - that was serving their fantasy. For a weekend I could let it serve mine; but when discussions took a deeper path and departed from their fantasy to my reality the relationship was over. What would their future financial condition be if they gave up their career? I couldn't tell them. I told them it would be whatever mine was.
Never seeking or having the opportunity to consider a male submissive, I can't speak to gender specific differences. However being lazy and expecting someone else to take care of you and keep you in the manner you believe you deserve; isn't a gender based issue. It's easy to find a person who will live with you under just about any relationship dynamic, having a cost for services rendered mentality. Like most return on investment situations, you get, and give, whatever the parties involved deem appropriate and generating satisfactory results. When people say their relationship is 'work' - this evaluation of effort and 'return' on that invested effort, is what comes to mind.
"Financially Secure" is a mindset as much as it is determined by income or assets. It still comes back to being a matter of trust. You have to trust the commitment you're making with your partner to fulfill all the responsibilities of a relationship. Financial commitment is a big factor. One can live as cheaply as two if the two become single focused; one common goal of serving the common good. For me - that meant regardless of my income and assets; beth would not be conflicted in her relationship responsibilities by outside 'masters' looking for their own 'return on investment' which would result in them taking priority over her responsibilities to our relationship. I would have been setting ourselves up for frustration and failure if I allowed her to compromise and make any other choice.
I knew and respected this to be a difficult decision for her. she knew it would not be something I would compromise. I didn't think it would happen with beth, or anyone. I don't know how she was able to trust me and what I represented of myself when she made it. However whatever her process, I know that when she made her decision she trusted me a LOT more than I trusted her. I saw how strong, confident, intelligent, and capable she was. thought, like a few others who I met in my life, that the idea of abdicating all self determination and assigning that ability and strength to another was a cool fantasy; actually doing it long term - or 'forever' was counter indicated. beth was, and is, NOT lazy.
To date - its worked out. It looks easy from current perspective, but trust me - we lived MUCH differently 7 years ago, and her decision was made while considering to live in a 500 square foot apartment with furniture consisting of an IKEA futon chair, a chest of drawers having 20 penny nails holding it together, and a TV viewed on a stand pulled out of a dumpster. she gave up a large ranch in Santa Maria, a barnful of animals, her dogs, cats, and daily contact with her family. It didn't make any sense for her to give all that up to live with me under the terms I required for our relationship. Just to be perfectly clear, I didn't have her sell and/or transfer any of what she had over to me at the start. It was hers to dispose of as she wanted and saw fit. No house that she cashed in and handed me the proceeds. If she has money stashed away in some Swiss Bank - that's between her, the Swiss, and the US Federal wealth police. Sure - things got better, but she had no way of knowing, or better put, trusting, that they would.
I don't blame anyone for thinking about themselves first and wanting an iron clad guarantee that their future financial security is assured. My belief that submission requires a stronger, self assured person than dominance, is influenced by what's involved personally and the social consequences of abdicating the personal decision making process for all aspects, including financial, to another. Imagine the accusations of stupidity beth would get if it didn't work out and she came to this board telling her story asking what to do? I also understand and appreciate that the only person anyone should trust to fulfill that need is the person staring back at you in the mirror. It's the way I feel. Fortunately its one of those perfect compatibility issues we have between us - one of many.
|
|
|
|
