|
Honsoku -> RE: Financial domination (3/10/2010 1:46:42 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LaTigresse
For me personally, it will always depends upon the individual dynamic. If a woman comes into my life, becomes trusted and important enough to be a part of my household and the relationship is a M/s TPE, then yes I will consider her finances mine to control. Does that mean I am going to take every penny and spend it on frivolous purchases.....NO! No more than I would my own paycheck. It would be used the same way I use mine......living expenses, medical insurance, retirement planning, etc... If indeed this woman is a professional money manager, it would be very likely I would utilize her talents in managing her money and my own.
I never understand why this topic is such an emotional one. People willingly put their physical well being, often that of those they love, at risk with a person but to consider handing over money and they freak out.
To me, Total Power Exchange means TOTAL.
Women: cook, clean, and screw they'll all do, but a dime is out of line.
It's weird, isn't it? The way some people react to it, it's almost as if you asked them to turn over their UMs. When I first stumbled across this, I was surprised. For all the talk about power exchange and norm breaking, money was taboo? Money is power made transferable! We should be neck deep in financial dominants of both genders. Yet, it wasn't just something to do with money itself, as it is a lot more accepted in F/m dynamics than M/f. Then I realized it; by and large, people in bdsm don't really go against the cultural norms, we reinterpret them. "The male pays" is one of those hard coded cultural norms. It's part of our gender identity. It's would be like having a male dominant who cross-dressed. I bet having a dominant that did that would squick out about 90-95% of straight female submissives (of course, they'll be a few responses that go "It's doesn't bother me", which is missing the point). Why? Because it violates gender expectations. In both dominant and submissive roles, we tend to adhere to the same gender archetypes, we just express them differently. For example; the male pays, the male works, the male courts, the male protects, the female handles socializing, the female is supported by the male, the female is courted, the female is protected. We are fine with changing the context of the act, but tend to be grossly uncomfortable with changing the acts themselves.
|
|
|
|
