quote:

ORIGINAL: LiveSpark

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: MartianMan9

Should male subs/slaves have to tribute to serve in a FLR?

Let's flip that question.

Should female subs/slaves have to tribute to serve in a MLR?

Break it down... "have to." No, BDSM is all about consensual agreements, dynamics and relationships. There is no "have to" except as a fantasy which is played out as if prior consent had not already been bestowed upon the Dom by the submissive or slave. It's called "consensual non-consent" but it is actually a form of extended consent.

Tribute -

Now this gets tricky. Do we refer to the tribute of the time and lost earnings that a female submissive may sacrifice to profit her Dominant? Do we refer to the free labor, intellectual property and services that a Dom accepts as his due?

Please understand that BDSM exists under the umbrella of the vanilla world where male supremacists run rampant.

Calling the gains, profits or expansions that Doms receive as a result of the efforts of their submissives... nothing... resounding silence there

Yet also calling the gains, profits or expansions that Dommes receive as a result of the efforts of their submissives - Tributes, is just another way of disrespecting women! Period.

Why is that a true assertion?

Because the Domme is being questioned, reviewed and categorized when she profits financially, while the Dom is treated with silent regard, unquestioned as to how he profits financially, because sexist society deems him to be already entitled to profit from his lover/wife/submissive/slave.

And all that might be true if it weren't for the fact that it's the dommes themselves who use that term. Nice theory though

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiveSpark

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: MartianMan9

Should male subs/slaves have to tribute to serve in a FLR?

Let's flip that question.

Should female subs/slaves have to tribute to serve in a MLR?

Break it down... "have to." No, BDSM is all about consensual agreements, dynamics and relationships. There is no "have to" except as a fantasy which is played out as if prior consent had not already been bestowed upon the Dom by the submissive or slave. It's called "consensual non-consent" but it is actually a form of extended consent.

Tribute -

Now this gets tricky. Do we refer to the tribute of the time and lost earnings that a female submissive may sacrifice to profit her Dominant? Do we refer to the free labor, intellectual property and services that a Dom accepts as his due?

Please understand that BDSM exists under the umbrella of the vanilla world where male supremacists run rampant.

Calling the gains, profits or expansions that Doms receive as a result of the efforts of their submissives... nothing... resounding silence there

Yet also calling the gains, profits or expansions that Dommes receive as a result of the efforts of their submissives - Tributes, is just another way of disrespecting women! Period.

Why is that a true assertion?

Because the Domme is being questioned, reviewed and categorized when she profits financially, while the Dom is treated with silent regard, unquestioned as to how he profits financially, because sexist society deems him to be already entitled to profit from his lover/wife/submissive/slave.

And all that might be true if it weren't for the fact that it's the dommes themselves who use that term. Nice theory though

Have to say I agree wit LiveSpark.

I've heard this argument before about how we male dominants "profit" off our female submissive and call it nothing while, when the female dominant does, its called tribute...as a slam to female dominance. You've got a screw loose in your theory...

First. I make a decent living. I work...always have. My mother worked. Every woman I've been involved with worked. If I want to enjoy companionship...and she does too...why should I be the only one working? If I work, everybody works. That's not profit, that's you being an adult. Make more than I do? Contribute your share of the expenses...more IF you want...and keep the rest. But you will work.

There's been this discussion before...whether female sub's pay a tribute as compared to male sub's that did. While there's various beliefs about that, once a basic definition of tribute has been laid out, it had nothing to do with the submissive partner's work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes

Yeah, I have to agree with CD and LiveSpark, here.

There is a difference, IMO, between tribute and "sharing/controlling wealth within a live-in arrangement."

Tribute is money or gifts "paid" by the submissive in exchange for time and attention.

My controlling the money of my Pet, were we to live together, would be a part of the relationship we have created without payments.

I have yet to meet a male dom who demands tribute of any sort to meet or create a relationship. I'm not saying they do not exist, but I have yet to meet one or encounter a profile that suggests it.

I have met many male doms who control the finances once a relationship has been established. But again, male or female dominant, I don't see this as tribute. No mare than one of a vanilla couple controlling the finances is.

Frankly, there is a word like "tribute" for a very specific reason.

And I personally have nothing against it. If a woman wants it, she can require it. If a man wants to give it, he can make that choice as well. Not my style, but whatever floats boats, and suchlike.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiveSpark

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: MartianMan9

Should male subs/slaves have to tribute to serve in a FLR?

Let's flip that question.

Should female subs/slaves have to tribute to serve in a MLR?

Break it down... "have to." No, BDSM is all about consensual agreements, dynamics and relationships. There is no "have to" except as a fantasy which is played out as if prior consent had not already been bestowed upon the Dom by the submissive or slave. It's called "consensual non-consent" but it is actually a form of extended consent.

Tribute -

Now this gets tricky. Do we refer to the tribute of the time and lost earnings that a female submissive may sacrifice to profit her Dominant? Do we refer to the free labor, intellectual property and services that a Dom accepts as his due?

Please understand that BDSM exists under the umbrella of the vanilla world where male supremacists run rampant.

Calling the gains, profits or expansions that Doms receive as a result of the efforts of their submissives... nothing... resounding silence there

Yet also calling the gains, profits or expansions that Dommes receive as a result of the efforts of their submissives - Tributes, is just another way of disrespecting women! Period.

Why is that a true assertion?

Because the Domme is being questioned, reviewed and categorized when she profits financially, while the Dom is treated with silent regard, unquestioned as to how he profits financially, because sexist society deems him to be already entitled to profit from his lover/wife/submissive/slave.

And all that might be true if it weren't for the fact that it's the dommes themselves who use that term. Nice theory though

Nah, it's not that easy to counter the assertion. Here's why...

When you talk about rape, because that is the word that is used, to describe rape, does that mean you support rape or does using the word itself inform others of anything else that is meant, too? I'll assume, "Not." It's just the word we've got. We'd need more information to come to a conclusion about how and why the word is being used.

That point now decimated, leaves us with the actual assertion that both Dommes and Doms receive tributes, but in polite society, we don't dare speak of the financial gain of Doms... because of sexist entitlement conditioning.,

Which, BTW, when women call each other "the b word" what we are seeing is

"The oppression of any group is complete when they begin oppressing themselves."

Just because a woman is a Domme, does not mean she is enlightened, aware or even sensitive to the ways in which she may denigrate herself with sexist language and participation in sexist ways of relating.

Please note... there's a difference between a D/s supremacist agreement between two specific people and a general attitude of supremacy towards all others. The difference is agreement and consent versus entitlement and violation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
I'll put it in broader terms. I see sexism in BDSM, specifically male supremacy. A Dominant woman, even in our community, will be asked to explain herself in the same situation in which a male Dominant would proceed without being exposed to such nonsense as, "Do you charge?"