Racquelle
Posts: 600
Joined: 4/21/2008 Status: offline
|
Fascinating thread to me actually. I think it has a lot to do with how we see money symbolically, rather than in-and-of itself. In our society there are the financially empowered and financially disempowered. For many men, throughout history, having money has been symbolic of personal power and dominance. Even today, parents set financial expectations on boys, and boys are often given a lifetime of exposure to financial decision making in a way that many girls are not. So, in a way, for male dominants, it probably does seem kind of "less dominant" to accept financial support, and I know few who would unless there was a pressing need for it. On the other hand, women are traditionally disenfranchised from money as a source of power. Our power must often be expressed in different ways, and it is almost a no-brainer that for us to engage in a power exchange with a male-sub could very well involve the acceptance of money, gifts, etc. BUT - reality does defy our sense of our roles often. Not all male dominants are the perfectly unflappable, finely attired, physically fit, financially successful uberdom of the wildest subbie fantasy. Economic downturns happen, bodies fail. When this happens, perhaps the dominant and his quary redefine the parameters of their relationship. I like to think of my sub's skills and resources as a tool I can use to improve our life together.
|