|
CaringandReal -> RE: What's with all these money hungry people? (12/3/2010 4:00:18 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: porcelaine
There's a big difference between collective contribution to the well being of the household and sole monetary provision for the other party. While I understand the premise much better at this time, I don't believe the Keeper should be financially beholden to the kept. It's unbalanced.
What do you feel about this "unbalance" when expressed in relationships which try to adhere to as close of a master-slave dynamic as possible? If someone is really owned, I would think their owner is more than entitled to all the fruits of their labor, including their wages. My former master controlled all income I earned and used it in any way he saw fit. I had no problem with that, in fact I loved it because it was just another area where I had zero control (win for me!). He never saw it as being beholden to me and I never experienced it as paying him or gaining control over him with my wages. I just felt as though I was worked hard for his benefit and that was very right, very much how it should be. He saw it as taking and controlling what was his: myself and anything I should produce.
If we had legal slavery today, it would work that way and I doubt legal owners of legal slaves would feel like said slaves were "paying them." Remember the thread on legal slavery a while back? The one that asked slaves and submissives whether they would turn themselves over to that if they could? A great many of us answered yes. But if such a thing ever came true, then what we did for a living and our earnings would legally and rightfully become a part of our owner's assets. My master and I had a very loving, caring relationship by the way. If anything, I felt he was much too good to me, much better to me than I deserved. But, lol, it never once occured to me that I was paying him for good treatment. What did occur to me was this: I am completely his in every way. Everything I own (he took all my property/possessions away except for one small token item), everything I did and its products, everything I was, belonged to him. It was a wonderful way to live--at least for someone for whom this sort of thing is a driving need.
Even more, he did not work at a traditional job the entire time I knew him. Not because he was a lazy bastard, but because he had complicated health issues that made that impossible. But he still produced income, in a wide variety of alternative streams, probably more than I ever did. But I was the steady wage earner. He controlled my labor closely: he placed me in the type of work he wanted me to do, taught me how to do it, made the frequent decisions about who I would work for (and thus what specifically I did) and for how long, etc. Many was the time I'd laughingly say to a potential client trying to get me to accept a project on the spot, "Fax me the contract and I'll get back to you pronto. I just need to discuss this with my...business manager." There were times when I hated certain gigs (I consulted) and if free would have quit them, but which he insisted I stick with. So I did. I saw it as no different than cleaning his house. It was just doing what he wanted when he wanted and the income went into a joint bank account that he had full access and control over. To me, the fact that money is produced from slave labor doesn't make it any less slave labor. I was happy to be of value to him. Maybe the fact that he produced income makes all this Ok for some people, but if he hadn't brought a penny into the relationship, it would have made no difference to me.
|
|
|
|
