quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
By the time I was thirty years old, I had three children, had been in the military, had already "sown my wild oats", and had a hideously failing marriage.

quote:

Now, I know guys in their 30s and 40s that would love to find themselves in that position but, as I said; I don't think it's as many as some people like to think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

OP have not given any indication if he has any objections to younger women, but the kind of resistance he has been facing, sounds like the kind of things older women will say. So yea, I assume his been targetting women near his age or older.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Which is exactly why I hinted that younger ladies may not be his "thing".

quote:

ORIGINAL: OriginalRebel

And its a numbers game amongst submissives. I never met a dominant or a submissive at college. They probably existed among us but they certainly didn't advertise it.

It would be interesting to know if the op is talking about women he speaks to online or women he's spoken to at munches and clubs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovesobedience

It could seem that there are those out there who might have a hard limit on poverty.

Now it is one thing to be working a fast food job, unable to get better than that, and scraping by each month. But I would think there is a difference, hopefully, between that and someone who has little to no disposable income because they are in school, or something similar.

What are people's thoughts on the subject?

quote:

ORIGINAL: OriginalRebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

FR - To question the commitment to a partner should their situation change is the same whether wealth, health or kink-ability is lost. People whom commit do just that... they commit.

Of those 3, loss of wealth is the easiest to avoid. Planning, sacrifice (saving) and determination to provide and to protect... these are dominant qualities.



I don't think a person need be wealthy to be an Alpha. A Dom, depending on various factors, may be wealthy, BUT, a Dom won't be impoverished. Even when fortunes are lost, comebacks are assured for Doms. Character dictates that a Dom keep his word, which is what accepting credit is all about... (promise to pay), so credit would be available and the sub would not know a loss had occurred. A Dom's commitment to accepting responsibility means that insurance or savings exist.

If a rich Dom became a poor Dom AND lost the ability to rebuild or reinvent that which had been lost, then I'd hope that Dom had prepared his sub to step in. Was her education and networking skillset achieved? Did he ensure that her decision-making muscles were practiced all along? (An Alpha would be too insecure and competitive to encourage "independence.") A Dom makes choices which support the safety and solidity of the relationship and is not confused by ego - like Alphas are.

I've seen more Alphas than Doms here. I think that like all things great, they are also rare.

Rather than ask how bossy (needy) a guy is, it's more clear to ask how responsible he lives. That includes money issues.

I find myself agreeing with a lot of this except of course for the word 'dominant'. Let me explain.

A dominant can be anything from a player, a kinkster, an egotist, to someone who needs to feel 'Alpha' to someone. On the other hand he could be a natural leader. Not all leaders are dominant just as not all dominants are leaders, in fact I believe very few dominants are natural leaders. 'Dominant' within this lifestyle is a word snipped out of the English language and fitted to suit the BDSM/D/s enviroment. This makes every person in this lifestyle that calls themselves a dominant, a dominant and provided they have a willing partner calling them a dominant, they are generally accepted as just that.

This is why we can't start talking about what is 'real' and what isn't, except for our personal preference and that's why a piss poor man who lives in a shack is still as much a dominant (if he so wishes to be) as the man leading an empire and living in a mansion. Whilst the piss poor dominant may not live up to the expectations of many searching submissives, its unfair to say that his kinky status is inaccurate.

If you had said,

If a rich leader became a poor leader AND lost the ability to rebuild or reinvent that which had been lost, then I'd hope that leader had prepared his follower to step in. Was her education and networking skillset achieved? Did he ensure that her decision-making muscles were practiced all along? (An Alpha would be too insecure and competitive to encourage "independence.") A leader makes choices which support the safety and solidity of the relationship and is not confused by ego - like Alphas are.

You are talking about a dominant leader and not just a dominant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arianna92

It's probably a very American thing to equate personal success and growth with income, so I get why most answered the way you did, yours is a culture that very much embraces capitalism and its values. I think me being compatible with someone comes down to them advancing in the areas they deem important and having ambition in some area of life that defines them. That could be financial and labour success, but also knowledge, culture, activism, spirituality, etc. I would probably admire and fancy more a minimum wage worker who was content with not focusing on that area of life, but had thirst for knowledge, intelligence, culture and good manners, than an average city boy or middle class professional. After all, some degree of poverty, if and whatever the government does something about it, it's a physiological characteristic of a capitalistic system, in a way, we are permitted, structurally, to become or stay rich because someone is poor.
Critique of capitalism aside, I don't like the notion that equates 'mastering yourself', 'growth', 'ingenuity', 'making something of yourself' only with financial success, or even stability.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OriginalRebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

That's not germane to Americans since we don't have a class system based on heredity.
Money is how we determine class.

So you are saying that class can't be inherited ? So if you win the lotto you are suddenly a middle class person? If so, that completely contradicts what others have said on this thread.

quote:


My father was a CEO. If you can't sit at a table including other CEOs or Exec VPs or UN Ambassadors, then you don't fit in my family. If you are served an artichoke and don't know what to do when you've never had one before, you don't fit here.

Then we live in very different worlds. My farther always told me, you can tell a cultured man by how accepting he is of others worse off than himself.

quote:


Why would I pick a partner who doesn't fit my life? I don't.

I was taught that you can tell class by how a person treats the less fortunate. That means being respectful and considerate of all decent people, regardless of their "station."

In America, there are so many cultures living along side each other and they are only somewhat insulated from each other... but they ARE insulated. So, bringing a poor guy home to meet the parents is not an acceptable behavior.

Now, that same family may spend every Saturday doing charity work for the poor. They may donate money or start foundations that help numerous people who are less fortunate.

The difference is about who becomes family. Families, especially powerful ones, have always cared a lot about heirs, alliances and to varying extents, reputation. People who didn't grow up in that culture are going to have a very tough time of it. Obviously, it can be done and done with great happiness as a result, but that's the exception.

Putting it another way. I care about substance abusers/alcoholics, criminals and the insane. I spent a lot of my life expending my time, attention and energy on improving their lives. But, will I partner with one, or engage in friendship? Hell no!

Now, that boundary that I have for me... does it then follow that I treat them badly? No, I treat these groups with deep compassion and respect. Not everyone gets to be in my closest circle. I have requirements. Like, honesty, responsibility and the ability to not only care for me, but also mine. I'd step in and take care of his family if he weren't able to do it himself, and my family would sacrifice a certain amount of lost access to me while I did it. So, I seek someone who is that capable, too.

I think people sometimes confuse "rescuing" with friendship or love. If someone needs to be rescued, then by all means, do what can be done to help. But, call it what it is. Listening to some people, it's as if their partner is a project. The savior/broken wing couples, I find it to be distasteful because without exception, look under the hood and respect is nowhere to be found.

There's a difference between treating people badly and acknowledging that they don't have what it takes to thrive in your own environment, social circle or home.

As my sister told me in my youth when I was a savior type... you aren't his angel. There's an angel for him, but it's not you. How did she know that? The relationship harmed me. So, I took my save the world complex, and re-directed it to charity work, where I'm the professional and the relating is pre-defined.

Young, super-rich people face a similar learning curve about relationships. Setting standards matters and boundaries, even more.

Wealth, as a relationship requirement, is as valid in my eyes as sexual orientation or any other compatibility matter. And, it detracts from no one that people choose to set this standard. If someone disagrees, or doesn't like it, well, they wouldn't have fit anyway.

(in reply to OriginalRebel)