quote:

ORIGINAL: lizi

I'm left wondering if you're running across the assets vs liability thing as it pertains to behavior or character or choices rather than in a strictly financial sense? For instance a sub as an asset could be someone whose public persona reflected well on the Dom - someone whose behavior was pleasing. Pleasing of course would mean different things to different people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lizi

I'm left wondering if you're running across the assets vs liability thing as it pertains to behavior or character or choices rather than in a strictly financial sense? For instance a sub as an asset could be someone whose public persona reflected well on the Dom - someone whose behavior was pleasing. Pleasing of course would mean different things to different people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

Ahhhh, but are you really using the terms asset and liability properly?

An asset can (and usually does) involve a capital investment as well as outlays in time and effort. The thing that makes an item an asset is that it can then be used to generate future revenues. These expenses decrease net income. Or to put it simply, an asset is an investment-an outlay of capital made with the expectation that it will return a greater value down the road, thus justifying the material outlay.
Whereas a liability is an obligation to pay an outside party-they decrease stockholders equity or the amount of money a company would keep in retained earnings. In other words, there is an outflow of capital that will not be returned.

That basic accounting lesson in mind, I would argue that a slave is of course an asset.

Yes, she may involve a material outlay of time, money and effort, but this outlay, it's not a sunk cost. Instead it's an investment in future returns, returns which may or may not be financial or financial in nature (Think a slave that cleans her Masters house, thus saving him the cost of hiring a maid), but it's my bet he's getting some sort of return (Sex, power, control, an emotional payoff) that more than validates the outlay.


I mean hey, if an employee (And what is a slave/sub but the ultimate personal assistant) isn't covering their own costs or providing reciprocal value, why would they be kept on? And the same holds true for almost all relationships, BDSM and nilla-people stay in them as long as what they get out equals or betters what they put in (Which sometimes, especially in the case of slaves, what they put in IS what they get out-in the act of giving the get an internal payoff that fulfills them) and when things start going one way, when the emotional/physical/spiritual/chronological outlays are no longer relatively equal between the two parties, the usually one or the other splits.

So sure a slave should be an asset. If she's not, he needs to look in the mirror. In the same way that a company is responsible for proper use of resources and capital, so is a Sir. If he is not maximizing the return on his emotional investment in her, then he needs to see why he isn't getting back what he should.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

Man, you're brain is out on left field on this one compared to mine. Here's what I'd mean with the statement:

I want a partner who, on the whole, adds positively to my life rather than detracts from it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lizi

I'm left wondering if you're running across the assets vs liability thing as it pertains to behavior or character or choices rather than in a strictly financial sense? For instance a sub as an asset could be someone whose public persona reflected well on the Dom - someone whose behavior was pleasing. Pleasing of course would mean different things to different people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

Sorry but I'm not working for a business. I'm in a loving relationship and everything that comes along with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanahX

I have a problem with this whole post.
I really have a problem with people that look at other people as THINGS. Which is probably why I dont like objectification. I dont resonate with people that are emotionally detached. And when it comes to peoples emotions - I dont believe it is something that one can control like a lot of people like to claim. It is something that is built into us - and the level that someone shows another person is what I think is going on.

To find find a person that gets enjoyment out of being fuck/kink/service robot - is a weird concept to me. And actually volunteering for that and it bringing happiness to someone is beyond me - Just because I guess I dont understand what the high would be. Shit - If I didnt want an emotional response from anyone, then why bother getting with them in the first place? I got johnny dildo all wrapped up in its little pink towel for that.

This is the question that really comes to mind though -

Seeing someone regularly and not care to any level about that person and their well being is disturbing to me. I mean if its a one night hook up - then theres not enough time to develop feelings for that person - but to see and talk to someone on a regular basis? I dont understand how that happens.

I guess I dont see how you could want anyone in your life that you would consider a liability. Not sure how this has anything to do with D/s. I never did understand why treating people like a robot is a BDSM thing.