quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

In a BDSM sense, if people are just playing with kink... again, finances needn't be an issue. If they are in a D/s relationship that does NOT involve a D/s dynamic that affects finances or wealth creation, then again, finances needn't be an issue.

However, in BDSM relationships that do address finances, such as:

"I'll make the financial decisions."
"I'll hand my paycheck over to you / let you live in the house I own / let you determine how I spend my time, etc..."

then, I think taking responsibility for the submissive's future financial security, is very much a reliable sign of Dominance.

And, here's why... if the submissive always has the financial means to leave the relationship without undue hardship - meaning, can afford an apartment, food, transportation, medical care and such, then this couple knows the submission isn't dependence - it's choice, and that the dominance isn't economic abuse; it's responsibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

DaddySatyr - beautifully written mission statement. Thanks for posting that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
That's interesting for a few reasons. Why "Integrity" and not... "Duty" or "Loyalty" or "Respect" for instance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
Is there a reason why the mission statement did not specifically address a Dominant's responsibility to the submissive's financial security? As I wrote in the OP, I've observed that people in BDSM seem to avoid financial discussions (unless berating a FinDom or Finslave).

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

ETA- Another question...

Do you think that when financial security is NOT being offered as responsibility the Dominant accepts, that the Dominant should then relinquish any desire to control the submissive's money, purchases, savings, etc...?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

In a BDSM sense, if people are just playing with kink... again, finances needn't be an issue. If they are in a D/s relationship that does NOT involve a D/s dynamic that affects finances or wealth creation, then again, finances needn't be an issue.

However, in BDSM relationships that do address finances, such as:

"I'll make the financial decisions."
"I'll hand my paycheck over to you / let you live in the house I own / let you determine how I spend my time, etc..."

then, I think taking responsibility for the submissive's future financial security, is very much a reliable sign of Dominance.

And, here's why... if the submissive always has the financial means to leave the relationship without undue hardship - meaning, can afford an apartment, food, transportation, medical care and such, then this couple knows the submission isn't dependence - it's choice, and that the dominance isn't economic abuse; it's responsibility.

Ahhhh... finally... you stated something that clarified your entire question and point! In a BDSM relationship where one hands over the control of ones finances to the dominant partner, then, indeed the dominant should look after the financial well being of the submissive. It is also reasonable to ask that a dominant make sure that if the relationship ends, the dominant has been responsible and has made wise financial decisions so the submissive, whose money they have controlled, will be able to fare on their own. It took 36 posts to get here... had you said that from the beginning, then I would have agreed, and moved along.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

DaddySatyr - beautifully written mission statement. Thanks for posting that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Years ago, on this site, I wrote a response that turned into a "mission statement"[/link] where I never mentioned finances. However, personally, I think "Integrity" covers fiscal responsibility.

In a perfect world, I would lay "financial security" at the dominant's doorstep (maybe). But, we don't live in a perfect world.

That's interesting for a few reasons. Why "Integrity" and not... "Duty" or "Loyalty" or "Respect" for instance?

quote:


Is there a reason why the mission statement did not specifically address a Dominant's responsibility to the submissive's financial security? As I wrote in the OP, I've observed that people in BDSM seem to avoid financial discussions (unless berating a FinDom or Finslave).

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

I asked others about their criteria for perceiving dominance in a BDSM culture because it is different than dominance in vanilla culture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

If I understand your POV, you are asserting that:
1) there is a difference in the responsibility of the Dominant, according to the sex of the Dominant
2) the difference reflects a vanilla, patriarchal (male superiority) foundation.

The part of your quote that I put in bold... why is that, in your opinion, a responsibility for female Dominants and not for all Dominants?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

I disagree on so many levels. I have taken on the role of the matriarch of my siblings, I own my own business, and yes, there are elements of my alpha nature throughout all of this, but in no way does it place me in an hierarchy above them in any way. Nor do my finances, those are just due to luck, opportunity and financial savvy. The same is applicable for sports, music, art, IQ etc. Why is it that you think of finances are deemed as some sort of caste system for society itself? I have met many idiot millionaires. Some lose everything as quickly as they INHERIT or earn it, some gamble it away, some are drug addicts. I am wondering why your thoughts on dominance circumvent what's in the wallet vs the heart or brain. Some people CHOOSE to live without money as a form of protest, some of them are highly intelligent and productive members of society, what of them? Because they refuse to be a part of the logistical system they are on the bottom of the societal totem pole? Come on now. I could have just as easily done the same thing, decide not to become an entrepreneur and live quite happily overseas in a home with no property taxes and enough food to sustain myself growing in my backyard. Many things in life boils down to choice. Just because someone's conscience conflicts with the elements of the financial sector makes them no less of a person. I admire someone with the tenacity to work a job that makes $5 an hour than someone who inherits $5 million. Perhaps that makes me STRANGE. And that's perfectly fine.
My little empire I built myself just to prove a point, There was no emotional attachment to it and I have no problem letting it go at any time....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
The BDSM form of dominance sets a lower standard than vanilla dominance. You only need be perceived as a Dominant by a submissive in BDSM, whereas, vanilla life requires superiority in a factual, achievement-related or monetary sense. Agreed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RemoteUser

The idea of looking after the financial well being of a person who is no longer in your life seems rather presumptive. You are no longer together. Why assume they want anything more from you at all?

I'm glad you used the words, "assume" and "presume." THAT gets to the heart of one of the OP questions. Why not talk about financial security in the future IF the D/s relationship limits the submissive's financial life?



Dominance as a personal characteristic is a trait that cannot vary by chosen (or natural) sexual inclination. Its manifestation and application is almost never in one area alone, unless it is taught or forced, but this does not seem like what you are inquiring about. Perhaps it would be prudent to elaborate upon the "vanilla definition", to demonstrate how or why it might begin to vary from the "BDSM definition".

Vanilla dominance is attained by precious few. Titans of industry, creative innovators, politicians of high merit, Olympiads, etc... The people who add the most value to the most lives. The people whose choices affect millions. Vanilla dominance is achieved through measurable expertise and superiority in a given field.

That is quite different from BDSM notions of dominance. I've met unaccomplished male and female Dominants, who on any vanilla scale would be unremarkable. (I'm not saying they aren't nice people, simply not powerhouses of influence or power, beyond that which one person gives them.)

Some see no difference in dominance between the vanilla and BDSM worlds. Others, do.


Dominants take on responsibility in the structure and practice of the relationship they wish to control. They have the final say, although that hardly means they are the only one capable of defining all the rules without advice or consideration. What happens outside of that relationship, including its end, is quite frankly none of their business unless their former partner wishes it otherwise AND they have a desire to do so. (It takes two.)

You are describing an egalitarian relationship between partners. My questions speak more to "Dominants take on responsibility." IF that includes taking responsibility for the financial life of another, then I'm calling, "Bullshit" when that doesn't also include a plan for financial security, especially in the event the relationship ends. Not all Dominants put their fingers into the submissive's wallet. Not all submissives open their wallets for a Dominant to take from them. I refer only to the ones who do.

Claiming the Dominant must take on any part of their partner's financial needs after the fact is ludicrous. My net value financially is quite low, my estranged wife's net value is in the millions. I don't want her money, it's from her family, and should look after her family. Should I then go out of my way to provide her more money at my own expense, and the expense of the son I look after as a single father (my lad is from a prior relationship)? Would that make me Dominant, or does it start to take on the glint of an outdated, sexually biased practice of law?

^^^ This sounds like vanilla stuff, really. I'm talking about the special vulnerabilities that present when one person uses the time, attention and energy of another person. Such as, a Gorean whose woman shall not know coins. People live this stuff! In vanilla life, alimony and child support and equitable division of funds are available to some, under law. In BDSM, a collar is considered to be a deeper commitment than a wedding ring. However, in vanilla life, both people wear rings. So, I'm saying, if you are a submissive, if you are giving all of your time or paycheck to the relationship, because you trust a Dominant to protect, guide and care for your well-being, how is financial security should you choose to end the relationship, not a part of the discussion and commitment. (IMO, there should be savings for an exit fund for both parties.)

The choice belongs to the individuals, and the factors to account for are widely variable enough to fairly state that the final say belongs to the two involved, and no one else. Nor are you going to merely define it, any more than you can merely define every possible outcome of a relationship from its inception.

None of us need be too old to be clear that many, many, many, relationships end, regardless of the original intent to last forever. This is just plain old grownup talk.

The crib notes version: if you're talking about two mature adults who don't need to be bossed around by Judge Judy, it doesn't matter. If we're talking about someone throwing away all their money, then crying for assistance, they need to own their choices. And as always, if it involves Jerry Springer, go make me some popcorn, and make sure I have something to rest my feet up on when you get back...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic


I would think it is because, for most people, discussing money and sex in the same context is unseemly, and is uncomfortably close to discussing prostitution. I'm not saying it is. Just uncomfortably close to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal



Speaking of not splitting hairs, the premise here is that a given Dominant has taken charge of her/his sub's finances and controls the money-making decisions. Why else would the Dominant be responsible for ensuring the future fiscal viability of the submissive? If finances are kept separately, and the sub is paying her/his own way but still maintaining financial control over income and investments, then this is a moot point.

Ergo, I offer up two examples where the Dominant has taken charge, whether in a live-in capacity or not:

1. It is much more common for Financial Domination to be exercised in an F/m dynamic (although it can certainly be implemented with F/f, M/f and M/m). Again, the operative words here are "taken control" over the sub's finances. Even in the vanilla world, there are men who will financially ruin themselves through their gambling and/or other addiction(s) or by making bad investments. In BDSM, there is often a greater degree of risk-taking behavior, and with D/s there is the greater likelihood that without checks and balances in place, the Dominant party has more influence over the submissive in this regard.

^^^ I think I disagree with that. Please confirm whether you are stating personal experience or if you can point to a data source for the assertion.


2. The M/f (or possibly M/m) dynamic consists of a 50s-type household where the sub has assumed the role of a 50s homemaker. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the Dom is in control of the finances and has assumed financial responsibility for the household. Not all M/f relationship dynamics are designed as such, but IF this is what they have agreed to, then it is the responsibility of the Dominant to make adequate provisions for his sub, who has effectively been taken out of the financial decision-making loop.

Actually, the 50's style household is a good example for the situations I think a Dominant does have a responsibility to create an exit fund for both parties, but that usually means the Dominant is male. It was a male supremacy era.

quote:

ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
The BDSM form of dominance sets a lower standard than vanilla dominance. You only need be perceived as a Dominant by a submissive in BDSM, whereas, vanilla life requires superiority in a factual, achievement-related or monetary sense. Agreed?

Disagreed. Dominance is a personality trait, not a measure of status.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

theunlisteddark - I agree and disagree. I do think that vanilla dominance is different from BDSM dominance and I don't agree that the world is a hierarchy (except to those who perceive it as such.) I'm really not splitting hairs when I say there's a difference between the existence of hierarchies and the totality of hierarchy as a state of being.
ORIGINAL: theunlisteddark

If anyone is familiar with the Leather community and the Pillars of Dominance, this is a part of BDSM culture steeped in respect earned through the attainment of character management and mostly, taking responsibility for self before taking responsibility for others. (which is why "Humility" is the foundational pillar)

Which brings me back to the financial part of my OP, and how it relates to Dominance in the BDSM community. Your thoughts?

I disagree on so many levels.

With what, specifically? The quote you posted is a partial response to another poster, so this is vague. Also, I can't find your answers to the questions in the OP.

I have taken on the role of the matriarch of my siblings, I own my own business, and yes, there are elements of my alpha nature throughout all of this, but in no way does it place me in an hierarchy above them in any way. Nor do my finances, those are just due to luck, opportunity and financial savvy. The same is applicable for sports, music, art, IQ etc.

Why is it that you think of finances are deemed as some sort of caste system for society itself? I have met many idiot millionaires. Some lose everything as quickly as they INHERIT or earn it, some gamble it away, some are drug addicts. I am wondering why your thoughts on dominance circumvent what's in the wallet vs the heart or brain.

Some people CHOOSE to live without money as a form of protest, some of them are highly intelligent and productive members of society, what of them?

Because they refuse to be a part of the logistical system they are on the bottom of the societal totem pole? Come on now. I could have just as easily done the same thing, decide not to become an entrepreneur and live quite happily overseas in a home with no property taxes and enough food to sustain myself growing in my backyard.

Many things in life boils down to choice. Just because someone's conscience conflicts with the elements of the financial sector makes them no less of a person. I admire someone with the tenacity to work a job that makes $5 an hour than someone who inherits $5 million. Perhaps that makes me STRANGE. And that's perfectly fine.

My little empire I built myself just to prove a point, There was no emotional attachment to it and I have no problem letting it go at any time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

Speaking of not splitting hairs, the premise here is that a given Dominant has taken charge of her/his sub's finances and controls the money-making decisions. Why else would the Dominant be responsible for ensuring the future fiscal viability of the submissive? If finances are kept separately, and the sub is paying her/his own way but still maintaining financial control over income and investments, then this is a moot point.

Ergo, I offer up two examples where the Dominant has taken charge, whether in a live-in capacity or not:

1. It is much more common for Financial Domination to be exercised in an F/m dynamic (although it can certainly be implemented with F/f, M/f and M/m). Again, the operative words here are "taken control" over the sub's finances. Even in the vanilla world, there are men who will financially ruin themselves through their gambling and/or other addiction(s) or by making bad investments. In BDSM, there is often a greater degree of risk-taking behavior, and with D/s there is the greater likelihood that without checks and balances in place, the Dominant party has more influence over the submissive in this regard.

^^^ I think I disagree with that. Please confirm whether you are stating personal experience or if you can point to a data source for the assertion.

2. The M/f (or possibly M/m) dynamic consists of a 50s-type household where the sub has assumed the role of a 50s homemaker. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the Dom is in control of the finances and has assumed financial responsibility for the household. Not all M/f relationship dynamics are designed as such, but IF this is what they have agreed to, then it is the responsibility of the Dominant to make adequate provisions for his sub, who has effectively been taken out of the financial decision-making loop.

Actually, the 50's style household is a good example for the situations I think a Dominant does have a responsibility to create an exit fund for both parties, but that usually means the Dominant is male. It was a male supremacy era.

Given your POV on these matters, why do you think there is such revilement of FinDommes, when the more common arrangement of male Dom who controls all of the money, is accepted in silence? Do you think that may be a vanilla sexist sort of carry-over into BDSM culture? Meaning, outside of FemDom, male entitlement is the status quo?

I ask you these questions because you took my gender neutral questions and added assigned sexes to them. (that's fine... I want all views. I wondered if you could think on that idea and post again?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

Speaking of not splitting hairs, the premise here is that a given Dominant has taken charge of her/his sub's finances and controls the money-making decisions. Why else would the Dominant be responsible for ensuring the future fiscal viability of the submissive? If finances are kept separately, and the sub is paying her/his own way but still maintaining financial control over income and investments, then this is a moot point.

Ergo, I offer up two examples where the Dominant has taken charge, whether in a live-in capacity or not:

1. It is much more common for Financial Domination to be exercised in an F/m dynamic (although it can certainly be implemented with F/f, M/f and M/m). Again, the operative words here are "taken control" over the sub's finances. Even in the vanilla world, there are men who will financially ruin themselves through their gambling and/or other addiction(s) or by making bad investments. In BDSM, there is often a greater degree of risk-taking behavior, and with D/s there is the greater likelihood that without checks and balances in place, the Dominant party has more influence over the submissive in this regard.

^^^ I think I disagree with that. Please confirm whether you are stating personal experience or if you can point to a data source for the assertion.

2. The M/f (or possibly M/m) dynamic consists of a 50s-type household where the sub has assumed the role of a 50s homemaker. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the Dom is in control of the finances and has assumed financial responsibility for the household. Not all M/f relationship dynamics are designed as such, but IF this is what they have agreed to, then it is the responsibility of the Dominant to make adequate provisions for his sub, who has effectively been taken out of the financial decision-making loop.

Actually, the 50's style household is a good example for the situations I think a Dominant does have a responsibility to create an exit fund for both parties, but that usually means the Dominant is male. It was a male supremacy era.

Given your POV on these matters, why do you think there is such revilement of FinDommes, when the more common arrangement of male Dom who controls all of the money, is accepted in silence? Do you think that may be a vanilla sexist sort of carry-over into BDSM culture? Meaning, outside of FemDom, male entitlement is the status quo?

I ask you these questions because you took my gender neutral questions and added assigned sexes to them. (that's fine... I want all views. I wondered if you could think on that idea and post again?)

What the flip? You're going to ask me for a data source on the underground-ish activities of kinksters? Which survey should I pull out of my arse?

Setting the histrionics aside - and that, you did pull out of your arse, you seem confused about the ways in which on-going research suddenly hits the rest of the world. I did think you were just presenting your opinion, but I don't know it for sure, without asking. In my view, it's possible that you could hear about a study / report, before I do, and I'd be happy to hear about it. No need for anyone's panties to get in a twist! LOL

I am a lifestyle Domme. I am not for hire. Whatever I have posited has been with the intention of being INCLUSIVE of ALL DOMMES. F/m and M/f relationship dynamics are not interchangeable. They are NOT some mere b.s. role reversal, and to take such an approach would be unsubstantiated ignorance.

When I start a thread, I seek variety, differences, opposing views. For agreement, I'll talk to myself. I seek ALL VIEWS and I'm so sorry, but I don't consider any other poster to be THE ONE with THE ANSWER. Just contribute what you can. Your opinion matters even when it is anecdotal. It matters, to me, anyway. Breathe...

As for long-standing, committed relationships, fin-Dommes and pro-Dommes have them, too. In addition to exclusive monogamous D/s relationships, there are committed poly relationships which should not be excluded from this discussion either, IMO. I know a male slave who was under contract to serve his Mistress, a pro-Domme, as her assistant. They mutually agreed not to renew his slave contract, and they parted ways. If she had wanted him to stay on, he says he would have done so, but she had to move and he couldn't leave his job. Not quite an LTR, but a limited-term commitment nonetheless.

The premise in the OP was: committed, D/s relationship... which definitely includes some who are poly. It doesn't include limited-term commitments, though.

It is common knowledge, (I/m going to call that personal bias or wishful thinking. Have you read the profiles of male newbie subs?) even for newbie male subs, that they can expect to give tribute. Newbie male subs learn quickly that there are Dommes and Doms for hire, and those who are not. There are subdivisions under those two headings, which according to threads here, takes some time to sort through.

Whether a particular Domme like myself and my small circle don't require tribute is irrelevant. It's a standard practice.

(Perhaps, among a small subset of Domme - most are uncomfortable with mixing money with sex, from what I see in real-life).

What is NOT standard practice is for female submissives to pay tribute to their Dom. Some may turn over their paychecks to their Master on a case-by-case basis, however.

And, the difference is....?

I'm done here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

I have no idea what you want from this discussion, so I will just give my take on it. A person can get rich, run a business and have many accomplishments in the "vanilla" world without being dominant in any way. Good business sense, surrounding your self with smart people, or just plain old good luck is probably responsible for success more than any dominant trait, in my opinion.

There are also plenty of "vanilla" marriages where the man is the primary breadwinner, and after a split, the womans standard of living goes down.

To me, you are comparing apples and atomic bombs. Dominant, submissive, brainy, nerdy, wtfe, we are what we are, we are all different in the way we are what we are. Just because the same adjectives may be used to describe 2 or more people does not mean that those 2 or 3 people have anything in common.

Gawd I hope that made sense!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
The BDSM form of dominance sets a lower standard than vanilla dominance. You only need be perceived as a Dominant by a submissive in BDSM, whereas, vanilla life requires superiority in a factual, achievement-related or monetary sense. Agreed?

Disagreed. Dominance is a personality trait, not a measure of status.

Could you elaborate on that, please? I think when people "say" that, they mean aggression or controlling.

quote:


In vanilla life, those with dominant personalities express the "feeling" with action. Call it, ambition or protective nature.

quote:


These attitudes and actions bring results. The most dominant rise to the top. It's congruous that the personality trait leads to status.