|
jujubeeMB -> RE: Equality In the D/s Lifestyle (2/17/2010 2:09:24 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Whiplashsmile4
If we were at the Dinner table and I asked you to "please pass me the butter" when it's sitting next to you and you simply said "NO", I'd be giving you a dirty look for a moment. Then wanting to engage you in a conversation about basic common human respect and courtsey. I'm not going to be sitting there being Okay about it. Something small like this, will become a big issue if you were to be hard headed and totally disrespectful. Why? because you were too hard headed to show basic human respect. I'd at first want to find out Why and talk about it, if you were still being a brat about it, you'd ass would be grass and I would be the lawnmower, on the flip side I'd might get really quiet for a moment entertaining thoughts about why the fuck I'm with your ass, Just might result in the end of things.
You just cracked me up imagining your example, Whip. I'd love to see what your dirty look looks like [;)] NOW - to everyone who keeps giving lovely, normal, everyday pleasant examples of general human interactions, I just have to say, STOP IT. We are in agreement. If someone asks someone to "please pass the butter" and the person says "no," then that person is an asshole (unless they have an excellent reason, like the butter is right next to the first person, and nowhere near the person being asked). I am OF COURSE not talking about things like that. I'm a huge advocate for being kind, polite and helpful at all times in relationships - that's not what I'm talking about remotely. The situations I'm talking about are not the daily compromises and stuff that everyone has to put up with, Dom and sub alike, whether they like it or not. I'm not talking about being lazy, I'm not talking about figuring out who does what around the house or with bills or whatever, and I'm not talking about the consideration that should go into any interaction with a partner.
I'm JUST talking about who gets the final word. Lorenzo just asked who decides a situation where no agreement can be reached, since he was annoyed about the way his first wife did what she wanted, behind his back, and I want to address that concept. First, we're not talking about passing butter (though I'm definitely going to smile the next time that happens at dinner). Let's talk about the $800 shoes that the fictional sub wanted to buy for herself with the money she's earned. Let's assume that the Dom and sub in this fictional situation are named Mike and Sue, so that I don't have to write "fictional sub" twelve times [:)]
Ok, here's the scenario: Sue and Mike both work. They both keep separate bank accounts and split housing expenses more or less evenly. Sue makes enough money that when she sees the most unbelievably gorgeous shoes she's ever encountered in the window at Manolo Blahnik's, she decides to treat herself to them. Mike, who thinks that $800 is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on shoes (a sentiment I would agree with), tells Sue that she can't get the shoes, and that she should save the money, since they are by no means rich. Sue argues with him, telling him that, while she knows she should probably be responsible and save, she's already covered her half of all their mutual expenses, and it's her money. Mike very calmly and lovingly tells Sue that he thinks he needs to step in in this situation and keep her from wasting her money.
Mike may very well be right, and Sue could be being irresponsible, but if Mike has the final word, then Sue does NOT have the final word. In the situation I would like to be in, Mike would express his opinion to Sue, and Sue would listen, think about it, and then do whatever she wanted to do, because ultimately it really is her money, and therefore - in my opinion - her decision.
A really easy way to look at it is this: what if the shoes were a new TV, and Mike wanted to buy it, not Sue? Let's say Sue thought Mike was being irresponsible, but Mike said the same thing to her about how he's covered their mutual bills and it's his money, to do with as he likes. He's earned the right to buy a new TV if he wants to, as he puts it. Sue firmly disagrees, but in the end, Mike gets the TV anyway, because it's his money. Sue really doesn't get to tell Mike what to do with his money if their mutual bills are covered, right? The only two options are a) get a TV or b) don't get a TV. One of them is going to make the decision, and in this case, the decision maker should be, in my opinion, the one whose money it is. This gets miles more complicated when money is split, and/or there is only one person who works. I actually wouldn't know yet how to solve that situation, so I won't try to speak to that.
As to situations involving both people, an example could be where to go for a vacation. Let's say Mike wants to go to the Bahamas and Sue wants to go to Ireland. They're both firmly passionate about where they want to go, and have laid down excellent arguments for both places. If Mike pulls rank because he's the Dom and because there's really nothing wrong with either place and they're at a total standstill, then that's not a decision based on compromise. A compromise would be going to neither place and finding something they both would like, or going to both - one now and the other the next time they get a vacation. The point is to think of it as a balanced decision, not a decision where one person has more sway than the other. Just to repeat, I'm not saying this is for everyone, I'm saying it's how I feel about it.
So that's my ridiculously long winded response to who decides a situation when there isn't someone to pull rank. The person whose money or time it is, or the person who will be most affected by it. If both people will be pretty much equally affected by the decision, then you talk it out until you find a reasonable compromise. If a reasonable compromise can't be reached, then you should probably get out of the relationship, because one or both of you is a stubborn jerk [:D]
|
|
|
|
