RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

perverseangelic -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/8/2005 9:08:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: REDsoon
1) Wouldn’t it be great for male subs if many more female dominants that LOVE to acquire male sub- missives do really exist? Do female dominants exist where they are the ones willing to pay a fee for gaining sub-missives in their possession?


There's nothing complicated or shady to this at all! It's a simple supply and demand equation. Female dominants have no need to "buy" submissive people because there are far more people that want to submit than there are women who want to dominate them. I'm wondering why you're reading this as a consipracy of evil/selfish women.

quote:


2) Wouldn’t be great if a sub loves a female dominant for her pure dominance and how she carries herself rather than how feminine (i.e. physically weaker than male) her body looks? It’s just a pure dominance-submission relationship that’s of interest to me. But it’s physical appearance that men are concerned about.


those are some sweeping generalizations there, and I know that I can prove them wrong with about four examples from my personal knowledge. Only one counter-example disproves the hypothesis, so I tihnk you need to find a different one here. "men" don't have one cohesive trait any more than "heterosexuals" do. Too, if you scan this site for a while you'll find many profiles which state that they are interested only in the power exchange part. As I haven't contacted these people I don't know how that pans out, but again, from personal experience I -know- that "men" aren't just concerned about apperance, and I know that there are men who prefer the power play to anything. (To the point of straight men serving other men in a strictly power-oriented relationship)


quote:


Because of this constant drive by men to physical attractiveness, I started thinking that the reason why men pay money is due to their enormous requests to see women that could easily go out of control unless there is a fee to control it.


can you please explain this a little better? Because as I read it you're saying that men have no impulse conrol unless there's a monitary stimulus and all of us know that really -is- a baseless generalization. So I'd like ot know what you're really saying.



DaddyAngel -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/8/2005 3:11:30 PM)

Hmph. Again I say it... I don't date men because they're too easy. women are more of a challenge and more interesting.

Men pay in cash, women pay in the way they are viewed and treated. You show me a club that makes men pay extra at the door, and I will bet money, the women they let in free are there because they look good and provide a service, even if that service is to be decorative. Women are let in for their bodies, men are let in for their money. It's an old song that women only own one thing, and the state won't let them sell it legally...



REDsoon -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/8/2005 4:30:07 PM)

perverseangelic: Are you saying that if the number of men becomes less than the number of women (say, 1 to 10 ratio), then women would pay? What happened to traditions and the other 5 points as factors?

Your contribution is important...thanks.

quote:

Only one counter-example disproves the hypothesis, so I tihnk you need to find a different one here.


Before disapproving the hypothesis, you should state it first. So what do you think the hypothesis that you are referring to here be? You are trying to prove my above 2 points wrong. But the above 2 points are only my fantasies or wonders that enticed me to ask the question in the original post.

Here are more things I wonder about:

1) I wonder why it always seem socially unacceptable for a woman to become a President or assume any other International position of power that doesn't depend much on physical beauty? It’s just too rare for this to happen. On Discovery channel, for e.g., I watched a documentary that indicates that there is always a struggle between physical beauty and obtaining such a position of power.

2) I wonder why women don’t support each other in facilitating female domination in most parts of the world. Women are better friends with each other (compared to men with each other), they communicate better in friendly relationships, but when it comes to voting to a certain female candidate (in a presidential election for e.g.), they quickly become irritated (many do anyway). Society seems to automatically suppress female domination by saying that women are equal to men yet they have different roles to play in society. So I always wonder if there are many exceptions to the rule. I know that our male ancestors used to do the hunting while their women did the cooking. Is this logic still encoded in the brains of women? Is there really female dominant that dominates their lovely sub-missives just because they love to (i.e., no fee involved)?



topcat -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/8/2005 4:33:16 PM)

Redsoon-

In the face of your inability to respond coherently, I am assuming you are being intentionally obtuse to satify some long ingrained desire to be abused and breated by your betters in general, and women in particular.

I'll confine my comments to your misandroustic assertions:

quote:

1) Wouldn’t it be great for male subs if many more female dominants that LOVE to acquire male sub- missives do really exist? Do female dominants exist where they are the ones willing to pay a fee for gaining sub-missives in their possession? I know I shouldn’t use the word, “gaining” here because it might imply that subs have value (to their FemDOMs) greater than the money they pay.


That was great attempt at sarcasm at the last sentence there- it failed, but it was a nice try!

It's my experiance that there are more female dominants that do not take money from their submissives than those that do. Even most of the professional female dominants that I know usually have one or two submissves that they do not charge. These men have proved the sincerity and value of their submission, and thus, their value when compared to those that seek a female dominants as fantasy facillitators. You inability to concieve of the world as it is has again mislead you.

quote:

2) Wouldn’t be great if a sub loves a female dominant for her pure dominance and how she carries herself rather than how feminine (i.e. physically weaker than male) her body looks? It’s just a pure dominance-submission relationship that’s of interest to me. But it’s physical appearance that men are concerned about. Because of this constant drive by men to physical attractiveness, I started thinking that the reason why men pay money is due to their enormous requests to see women that could easily go out of control unless there is a fee to control it. So it’s just convenient for women and FemDom businesses to ask for a fee. So this is why I included the surplus of men in the 5-point system.


Sadly, you didn't even have to leave your parents basement to see the error of this statement. I refer you to:

Mistress of Muscle

Is Bigger Better?

Do you enjoy being stronger than men?

I think in this discussion you have told us a great deal about your own inadequacies, fears and fantasies, but have communicated nothing of value on the question of why males are more likely to pay. It would seem that public humilation is a strong desire of yours, and I am happy to help in this.

Lawrence



REDsoon -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/8/2005 6:40:23 PM)

quote:

I think in this discussion you have told us a great deal about your own inadequacies, fears and fantasies, but have communicated nothing of value on the question of why males are more likely to pay. It would seem that public humilation is a strong desire of yours, and I am happy to help in this.


I think there have been many discoveries that active participant learned from. So why do you use the plural tone (above) and assume none have learned from the discussion? Is this fair to speak in behalf of others? Since you think I am not a contributor, I am simply going to respond to your quotes below by using somebody else’s quote (below your quotes) so that you could clearly see why you missed the opportunity to consider the question seriously:

quote:


Sheesh. speak for yourself, propellerhead. And I'd bet that if you ironed a shirt, got a haircut that wasn't strictly 1976 (and believe it- even in '76 your face wouldn't carry that hair) Ditto the John Denver glasses, and get a pair of pants that will stay on without a belt. Clean the room before you take a picture, too.


quote:

I am still trying to decide if english is a second or third language for you, or if you just distain such universal concepts such as clear comunication, grammar and clarity.


Response:

quote:


Maybe instead of this question, he should have asked why some people feel the need to pick on others for the way they dress, or wear their hair, or the kind of glasses they wear, or even the kind of questions they ask. caitlyn


My English language, country of origin, appearance, and clothes are not related to this. But your comments make me think even deeper about the 6-point system (including the newly added traditon factor). In particular, point 4 is under evaluation. Does it apply to most men or a few? I wonder again ...It's strange that not many men on this forum were in a rush to respond!! But in general men are more in a rush than women in making decisions.



Jasmyn -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/8/2005 6:49:58 PM)

Ok ... you really want to know why men pay (in D/s, the sex industry, the dating game, society) ... cause we have a VAGINA & men want to stick their PENISes in it.

Regardless of gender its whoever wants to do the sticking or have something stuck in it ... generally pay in some form or fashion to do so.

Jasmyn



Tristan -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/9/2005 5:01:16 AM)

Jasmyn,

Don't forget that a lot of women spend a lot of time, money, and energy being desireable enough to have a man want to "do the sticking".

Tristan



topcat -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/9/2005 6:17:45 AM)

Red-

quote:

4) Men could not control themselves due to testosterones so what they ask is in a quick rush. They may change their minds about being slaves/submissives anytime so money has to be taken to compensate for the loss of obtaining their services from them as.


As well as I can understand it, your assertion here is that men are more impulsive and agressive due to testosterone, and therefore less likely to honor a commitment or obligation. I am unable to agree with either part of this. The first, in addition to being far to general a statement, presupposes that human behavior is solely driven by chemistry- a notion that I strongly resist. A man (or woman, for that matter) is more than some sort of hormone driven automon, and will does, fortunatly, overcome impulse in most of us. I'd also observe that there is something of a societal bias that allows women more leeway in changing their mind then is permitted men.

quote:

So the 5-point system should now be expanded to ask if culture/ tradition is an important factor as an explanation to why men usually pay for BDSM sessions.


I am unsure of what you mean by 'system' here- most of the assertions you have made have, at this point in the discussion, fallen by the wayside and it seems unsystematic to add more without either rejecting some, or having defended them.

Is tradition or culture an important factor in explaining why men usually pay for BDSM sessions?

First I do have to address the inacurate oberservation that is the basis of the question- that men ususally pay for BDSM sessions. As I pointed out in my prior response, it is not always the case that male submissives pay dominant women, although it may approach even odds that they do. In addition, many male dominant/female submissive pairings come from a place of equal finanical responsibilty. Speaking from my own experiance, while there have been several relationships where I bore the lions share of the finanical responsibilty in the relationship, these were more based on my partners lesser ability to pay, and there have been many that we were on a finaically equal footing, and a few where she, in fact, was able to contribute more, and did so.

The inequity in pay that has driven these sitiutions is culturally based, I would say. The tendency of the male partner to contribute more is less so, being partially pragmatism.


quote:

My English language, country of origin, appearance, and clothes are not related to this.


True for most of the points- but your english does. While your spelling is excellent, your word chioce and grammar generally good ( at least as good as mine<g>), your syntax and puncuation is erratic and your meaning remains a bit diffuse. Knowing if english was a second language for you, and in fact, your birth tongue, might better enable me to understand you.

Lawrence



REDsoon -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/9/2005 7:49:08 AM)

quote:

The first, in addition to being far to general a statement, presupposes that human behavior is solely driven by chemistry- a notion that I strongly resist.


Regarding number 4, please notice that it is not a statement but only one response that could be chosen as a response to the question "Why men usually pay?". If another response is a more accurate answer, then somebody might choose point 6 (i.e., traditions/ culture being the most accurate answer).

When I say, "system", I mean the original question and the 6 point responses, which could expand as we listen carefully to the audience.



Darthbetta -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/9/2005 8:42:17 AM)

The pussy rules the Cock.

the prettier the pussy, the more the cock crows.

eventualy the cock decides that it needs to have something to entice the pussy to play.

cash is usualy a good "Universal" currency for a "trade of services".

just my take on it ( and apparetlny is "ON" point.)



MizSuz -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/9/2005 8:45:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: REDsoon

Regarding number 4, please notice that it is not a statement but only one response that could be chosen as a response to the question "Why men usually pay?". If another response is a more accurate answer, then somebody might choose point 6 (i.e., traditions/ culture being the most accurate answer).

When I say, "system", I mean the original question and the 6 point responses, which could expand as we listen carefully to the audience.



Then I propose some additions to your 'questions' (and hope that I can state them more as possibilities rather than fact):

7. Some submissive men pay some dominant women because being controlled financially is part of their KINK.

8. Some submissive men pay some dominant women because they recognise that what occurs in the dungeon (or during play) is the only way they can serve (usually due to circumstances in their life). They recognize that this is disparate in their (the submissive's) favor, as the dominant woman incurs the expense of the dungeon, the fetish wear, the equipment and the maintenance of same. She also bears the brunt of the legal risk. The submissive can't, for whatever reason, do chores, change the oil, do her pedicure or any of a plethora of other things that is normally done by a submissive to "balance the scales and make the domina's life easier" so he gives her money so that she may have these things done in his stead, thereby balancing (to some extent) the disparate circumstances that have the domina doing all the work and taking all the risk. Money enables someone who can't come when she calls to be there in other ways.

9. For some people money is energy or power. Giving money to the domina is one way of giving power to her and could be considered a type of submission all by itself.

10. For some people who participate in such relationships money is a facilitator to allow them to come together in the beginning. It says to the dominant woman "I am willing to consider your comfort going forward in our acquaintance" rather than "I want you to be a life support system for my kink, then I'll go away and only come back when I need another play fix." Many women get inundated with the latter sort and a willingness to tribute separates the wheat from the chaffe in those who would take something for nothing if they were given the opportunity.

11. Some paying submissives are not willing to do their homework to discover who among prodominas have integrity. They would rather make their choices based on immediacy and availability (their own sense of urgency). Perhaps these are the people who need to learn lessons about their own boundaries, their own worth, and their personal responsibility in making choices that are good for them. I propose that possibly these are the people who get "taken" by the stereoptypical "Bad Pro" who is ONLY in it for the money and could care less about reciprocity in their relationships.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/9/2005 9:16:01 AM)

quote:

You show me a club that makes men pay extra at the door, and I will bet money, the women they let in free are there because they look good and provide a service, even if that service is to be decorative.


WRONG.

The policy is because at any cost - even free, women are very reluctant to show up as a single. They 'discount' couples for the same reason. Decoration? Perhaps, but it's the same business decision that bars and clubs used to have regarding 'ladies night'.



proudsub -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/9/2005 9:40:01 AM)

All i know about this subject is what i've read in various threads on these boards, but to me it sounds like Suz summed it up very well.[:)]



Furious -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/10/2005 1:10:19 PM)

Well, I certainly don't have the disposible cash lying around to pay for the mortgage on the house that we use for a playplace...or to buy the equipment, supplies, furnishings, not to mention non-reusables that I enjoy playing with, without some sort of offer from my playmates. Although I suppose cold showers and a freezing room and only the light of a candle might be fun ways to torture a nekky subby...hm...'

As for women not paying...I think they should offer Me SOME sort of tribute to help out with expenses...or at least do some labor or something.



REDsoon -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/10/2005 4:51:21 PM)

quote:

As for women not paying...I think they should offer Me SOME sort of tribute to help out with expenses...or at least do some labor or something.


Your contribution is important...

I notice that for women the cost is less that it is for men when you mentioned the word, "SOME" above. You have expenses, yet you ask that women pay less. Interesting!

But what is your response to "Why men usually pay more?" (Or "Why men pay while women free?"). Is it because women are more attractive than men? Or is it because men make more money? More rush to female body which may help you ask for more? Tradition? Is it the Surplus of men the reason? Or is it any other of the other responses here?




Starsailor -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/10/2005 5:28:14 PM)


Lots of people have said it is about demand and supply. I don't think so. I accept that in some cases, paying money will involve an additional (desired) humiliation. But when I see women demanding money, I mostly suspect the reason is not to humiliate---, but to get the money. No offense, exceptions granted. To me the thought of demanding money from a woman is utterly alien (and I don't think that's only because she wouldn't pay anyway :-) - and for most men it is. The whole thing is about love, or maybe sex, but not money. So taking money is "mean". IMHO.

My interpretation would be that most women are not capable of viewing their slaves as something precious in itself, as men are. It's because of the evolutionarily shaped inner workings of women - women in past ages usually were not dominant, so they can't relate to a sub in the same way as men can.



Jasmyn -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/10/2005 6:37:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Starsailor


Lots of people have said it is about demand and supply. I don't think so. I accept that in some cases, paying money will involve an additional (desired) humiliation. But when I see women demanding money, I mostly suspect the reason is not to humiliate---, but to get the money. No offense, exceptions granted. To me the thought of demanding money from a woman is utterly alien (and I don't think that's only because she wouldn't pay anyway :-) - and for most men it is. The whole thing is about love, or maybe sex, but not money. So taking money is "mean". IMHO.

My interpretation would be that most women are not capable of viewing their slaves as something precious in itself, as men are. It's because of the evolutionarily shaped inner workings of women - women in past ages usually were not dominant, so they can't relate to a sub in the same way as men can.



The notion of taking money from women may be alien to you and your romantic ideal of women is sweet.. but men for centuries have pimped and exploited women to make money from them. Did these men see the women they 'enslaved' as precious? Ahh I think not..unless we're talking commodity here.

Secondly your belief that a Dominant Women can not relate to Her submissive mate in the same way a Male Dom could relate to his female mate is offensive. Not too mention your view of history is lacking a great deal of reality.

Jasmyn



Starsailor -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/11/2005 3:08:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jasmyn

The notion of taking money from women may be alien to you and your romantic ideal of women is sweet.. but men for centuries have pimped and exploited women to make money from them. Did these men see the women they 'enslaved' as precious? Ahh I think not..unless we're talking commodity here.

Secondly your belief that a Dominant Women can not relate to Her submissive mate in the same way a Male Dom could relate to his female mate is offensive. Not too mention your view of history is lacking a great deal of reality.

Jasmyn


Jasmyn,
sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. As I said, exceptions granted. Generalizations in social matters usually don't apply to EVERYONE, but that doesn't make generalization a bad thing. One would normally say, "women like men as sexual partners", but of course this doesn't apply to every female. And so on. The same I would say about pimps. These guys certainly exploit women financially, but most men wouldn't, and furthermore pimps aren't usually in a romantic relationship with their prostitutes, nor pretend to. It's blatantly ONLY about money. I assume you don't want to suggest kinky women taking money feel quite the same way about it. For those who do, I'm fine, I don't have a problem with prostitution or making money. I don't like the mixup of romantic involvement and paying for it, which contradicts my feelings about love. I doubted the idea developed in this thread by others that women are doing even this for kinky reasons (humiliation,...), and that most men like it. If it's about money, just say so. Demand and supply all right.

Besides, I don't understand why to women (generalizing again...) noting differences between the genders is often offensive. Of course, differences always work in both directions, and one could also state that male subs can't relate to female Doms in the same way as can females to men. Men and women are different, and I think in the "lifestyle" it is particularly obvious that their interests differ. These interests are shaped (also) by evolution, if you like it or not.

Regards



BeneathHerFeet -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/11/2005 5:27:37 AM)

There are numerious good reasons why a Pro Domme can and should charge for Her time from a submissive, such as the abundance of submissive males. Personally, its not a D/s angle i'm interested in and i'm more interested a relationship, but i still respect the Pro Domme's perogative. As a submissive male who is seeking training, however, the reality is that i may have to seek out a Pro Domme and in that respect, i will pay Her without complaint.

Now, let me make an odd example outside D/s. I'm a rather avid gamer and into the MMORPGs. One time, there was a game i played that was pretty damn ugly to look at and given the time you put into this stuff, i wanted a character that was pleasing to look at, so i picked a female character.

i never really even tried to hide that i was male, personal info just isn't something i instantly divulge to strangers in a video game.

Many men kinda run around with their cocks out in these games. For whatever reason, helping my female elf Enchantress or "courting" her, so to speak, made them happy and had meaning to them. Her attention was valued by them. They'd give or help her get quest items and platinum, help her level up all before asking who I really was. At first, I just thought people were just being really nice.

Then, i made an additional male character on the same server. I didn't get shit for help ever. Ha. Guess which character i stuck with? Yup, the elf Enchantress. i still had to fend off most of the help, but help was always there for me. i just played along and let them think i was a woman.

The insight from that alone sort of gives me a small understanding of what Dommes and Pro Dommes deal with. So many people wanting your attention, so little time. For the Pro Domme, time is money and if i really want time with Her, money is what She'll get.

As for Doms and female subs. again, its all about the Dom's perogative. Some pay, some don't have to. In any case, it's the same deal. Even if it's less common that the female sub pays the Dom, that's irrelevant. Its all about how the Dom/Domme wants it.




Jasmyn -> RE: Research: Why men pay, while women free? (1/11/2005 8:02:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Starsailor


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jasmyn

The notion of taking money from women may be alien to you and your romantic ideal of women is sweet.. but men for centuries have pimped and exploited women to make money from them. Did these men see the women they 'enslaved' as precious? Ahh I think not..unless we're talking commodity here.

Secondly your belief that a Dominant Women can not relate to Her submissive mate in the same way a Male Dom could relate to his female mate is offensive. Not too mention your view of history is lacking a great deal of reality.

Jasmyn


Jasmyn,
sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. As I said, exceptions granted. Generalizations in social matters usually don't apply to EVERYONE, but that doesn't make generalization a bad thing. One would normally say, "women like men as sexual partners", but of course this doesn't apply to every female. And so on. The same I would say about pimps. These guys certainly exploit women financially, but most men wouldn't, and furthermore pimps aren't usually in a romantic relationship with their prostitutes, nor pretend to. It's blatantly ONLY about money. I assume you don't want to suggest kinky women taking money feel quite the same way about it. For those who do, I'm fine, I don't have a problem with prostitution or making money. I don't like the mixup of romantic involvement and paying for it, which contradicts my feelings about love. I doubted the idea developed in this thread by others that women are doing even this for kinky reasons (humiliation,...), and that most men like it. If it's about money, just say so. Demand and supply all right.

Besides, I don't understand why to women (generalizing again...) noting differences between the genders is often offensive. Of course, differences always work in both directions, and one could also state that male subs can't relate to female Doms in the same way as can females to men. Men and women are different, and I think in the "lifestyle" it is particularly obvious that their interests differ. These interests are shaped (also) by evolution, if you like it or not.

Regards



Hmm perhaps your should just stop generalising? There have been dominant women role models throughout history, as a dominant woman these women are who I have, and I assume many other dominant women, have identified with. Which is why I suggested you broaden your history learnings given that subservience of women generally was the basis of your claims women have an inability to view their slave mates as something precious in themselves because they have never experienced a martiachol dominance in society. Men have never experienced one either, yet many seek out just that as a lifestyle.

I'll further add that your claim of women being unable to view their slave mates as precious in themselves, smacks of misandry given that what you are really saying is no woman dominates from a point of genuine power because she has never had power in society and thus can't understand what it means to have it on a personal level.

It was not the noting of differences between genders that was offensive so please don't include My reaction in your generalisation... it was the notion that most dominant women were incapable of experiencing D/s tpe exchange where the sub is viewed as precious in itself ...err read *loved and honoured* ...when this is far from reality for a lot of Fem Dom/Mistress - sub/slave relationships.

I'm sorry you can not expand your thinking on kink providers doing so because they enjoy the activity and I won't bother rehashing what I have already said on the subject here or elsewhere. Not all BDSM activities require a longterm loving dynamic to exist for them to take place...mull over that difference.

Jasmyn



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625