undergroundsea
Posts: 2400
Joined: 6/27/2004 From: Austin, TX Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil With due respect to your questions, saying that Akasha's friend likely expects generosity in one direction because it's part of a norm is an answer. Why the norm exists, why more people don't go against the norm are all valid questions. But in the spirit of the original question of why Dommes want someone financially stable, to later why women want men who are able to and do give gifts, the question has been pretty thoroughly answered. There have been other questions aside from the original question that have been asked or answered in this thread. The question on which I focus specifically is why some consider it a duty of a man (versus a positive gesture) to make material offerings in one direction. Your explanation--that it is a norm--gives one possible answer about from where Akasha's friend derives her thinking. I do not ask from where she derives her thinking but whether her thinking is justified and, for me, the norm explanation is not an adequate answer. To take your Saudi Arabia example, a given woman there might be treated like property by her husband and, perhaps, beaten. If one asks why her husband thinks he can treat her this way, the answer of your type--that it is a cultural norm--might explain from where he derives his thinking. If one instead means whether it is reasonable of her husband to have such thinking, some people will think the cultural norm is adequate justification, some will dispute this thinking and dismiss the cultural norm answer. In my opinion, saying it is a cultural norm is not an adequate justification. quote:
but I wouldn't ask why norms of men being the dominant partner exist, or why norms of men being stronger than women exist. I never said a norm is an absolute, but because you don't subscribe to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't see your analogy to apply. Our society has asked many times why the norm of men being the dominant partner exists, and has abandoned many such norms. Norms are not beyond question. I don't suggest the norm you describe does not exist. Instead I have said that offering the norm as an explanation to my question does not provide me an answer that satisfies me intellectually. If your answer is that it is the norm, then my question is that why is this norm held. Of the answers given for why the norm is held, I have not seen one with which I resonate intellectually. If you think a particular explanation for why the norm is held holds merit, I will clarify why it does not resonate with me. I think what is the norm itself is getting blurred. I am not focusing on whether or not a man should treat on the first date. I focus on the attitude that it is a duty (versus a positive gesture) of a man to give unidirectionally whenever such an attitude is held. quote:
I don't know, you took away my cautious tag, so what do I have left :-P I find your expectation that people who do not share your view should not call you a gold-digger to be incongruent with your position that someone who does not share your view is cheap. quote:
So no, even though I often reciprocate I'm not an advocate of the "it's only okay if both people get something" either. If I give something to someone, I don't do it out of duty, but I also don't do it with expectation of them extending a positive gesture (beyond a thank you) in return. You describe a scenario of giving as a thoughtful gesture, not duty, which is how I think it should be for everyone. I question the scenario where the giving is seen as a duty. I expect you would feel differently if one acted as if it was your duty to give to them and circumstances did not make it so. And I expect your willingness to give would be affected if they did not eventually reciprocate your good-will gestures somehow--energy can flow in one direction only for so long. quote:
If someone treats me to dinner, or buys something I've asked for (and especially something I haven't asked for), I thank them and appreicate the gesture, but I don't feel obligated to extend anything to them for it. Yes, it is nice or polite to reciprocate but you are not obligated to do so. I make the same point about the initiating gesture that you do about the reciprocating gesture. Towards reciprocating, when someone does something nice for me, I don't go, oh shit, they did something nice for me. Now I'm stuck having to reciprocate somehow. Instead, I feel appreciation and I take various approaches to expressing this appreciation and reciprocating the good will. And it's not something that has to happen right there and then. I don't say, oh hey, you just did something nice for me. Now let me give you a shoulder rub before the moment fades. However, at some point I will do something nice in turn. And then I might do something else that is nice. It is not a point by point barter but it is a two way flow. And it is the sentiment or the spirit which is being reciprocated versus a single action. If you agree that it is a two way flow, I am curious how you reciprocate in your relationships. You like to receive gifts as gestures of fondness. How do your submissives see the fondness you feel for them? Do they not use the modes of expression you use? What your vanilla date did was lame. He thought that it was your duty to give him sex (replace with monetary offering). Because you did not give him what he thought was your duty, he acted as if you did not deserve a second date. His attitude was focused on whether or not you were giving him sex (replace with monetary offering). Perhaps he thought it was the norm for you to give him sex. Perhaps he thought that whether or not you gave him sex was a measure of his masculinity or social worth. Still, neither of these reasons justifies what he did. In some ways, I see his attitude to be similar to the attitude to which I object. Cheers, Sea
|