RE: Low Income Dominants.

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Low Income Dominants.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Low Income Dominants.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 2:22:00 PM

Posts: 4030
Joined: 1/23/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag
Both those people didn't let their disabilities get in their way.

Would you say that someone who had been told their condition would have them wheelchair bound within four years yet was still fighting and still standing over 15 years later was letting their disability 'get in their way'?

What about someone who the pain specialists said had no other option than to accept being put on morphine derivitives because of the level of pain they already had and that their condition ment that pain would only get worse year by year... who refused to accept the medical opinions and went out and studied eastern meditational techniques to control the pain instead and not only still doesn't use the Morphine derivatives, but only uses even over the counter pain relief to help when he has to travel.. is he someone who has let their disability get in their way?

What I'm saying is that your second point only looks at the world with a pound/dollar value and there are far more valuable things that focus and effort might be being spent on.

And if you get a touch of 'personal' in the above, yes I am talking about myself. Don't worry I didn't take your comment personaly, just replying from personal experience. But I know several who are in similar situations and too many people who don't have a disability don't (Or in some cases won't) see the effort that is put in just to maintain a quuality of life that doesn't measure itself in pounds or dollars.

(in reply to Padriag)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 3:46:23 PM

LadiesBladewing

Posts: 944
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IndigoDadesi

But here's a twist: Im a Domme who is currently living almost entirely off my slave's income (Im a student, hes a welder). I have full financial control in our relationship. So, how does that change the issue since the Dom/me is generally known as the care taker and provider?
~I.D.

I don't have a problem with this, whether it is a female dominant with a working servant covering the bills or a male dominant with a working servant covering the bills -- the only thing that I would expect would be that the dominant would be a good -steward- of that money, wherever it came from.

Technically, if a servant is one's property in a life-bound situation where this kind of situation has been negotiated, and that servant has marketable skills in the job market, it is perfectly sensible to make use of those skills for the benefit of the household. This seems (and has always seemed to me) to be a -good- use of one's property, and it is often good for the servant as well, assuring that he or she remains current in his or her field, and has an opportunity to serve at something at which he or she excels, which often improves self-dignity and, in doing so, improves overall service to the Owner(s). To me, though, it is just as important that one is fiscally responsible when it is someone else's efforts providing the resource that one is responsible for shepherding.

As long as one stewards one's resources well, regardless of where the source is of those resources, then my thoughts on having met one's responsibilities are satisfied.

Lady Zephyr

_____________________________

"Should have", "could have", "would have" and "can't" may be the most dangerous phrases in the English language.
Bladewing Enclave

(in reply to IndigoDadesi)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 3:57:09 PM

Posts: 674
Joined: 11/7/2004
Status: offline

Well , we all can say the same for low income subs i guess. I am a single mom of three , struggling in many ways. I work hard in a proffesional career and it is still a huge struggle. Did my Master overlook me , when i honestly told him my whole situation? NO , he embraced me and fell in love with who i am , not what i have. There have been numerous times he helped me out of a financial jam without hesitation. We have trust in each other and love that really is most importantly the backbone of the relationship. If i were him i mighta turned and ran from my situation, He didn't, and i love him for being the Man and Dominant he is. We have had our ups and downs ,but through open communication it all works out. I hope, someday , i can help someone the way he touched my heart, he gives on all levels, most importantly his heart. Just a thought, there are low income everyones ...Dom/Dommes sub/slaves , as long as it is discussed before hand and not being deceptive of who we are or don't have , it is personal choice at that point whether to jump in or not. He knew i am struggling and still jumped.
Best of luck to you all and the choices we all make and own up to.
hispettjenny

(in reply to IronBear)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 5:43:46 PM

Posts: 2943
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I'm sure we're all impressed by this statement of your family's financial history, but it has nothing to do with what I said. The thread is supposed to be about "low income dominants," and it turned into a thread about "low-income males."

I'm annoyed when people pretend to be talking about "doms" and they're really just talking about MEN.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressDREAD

I disagree.
I have this debate quite often actually between My self and Sister Pro Dommes and those in the D/s rhelm as apposed to the M/s one.
I as a Dominant Mistress feel it My responcibility to provide. Its a part of Me that feeds My Dominance.
When a slave submits and relinquishes all of theirselfs to Me at that point it is up to Me to provide for and
command that property period, no if, ands, or butts.
I cannot relate to the Low Income or low social status from a personal point of view because I have never been in such a position. ( Alltho I know first hand how the other half lives, works and thrives. ) I was blessed with sucessful parents who passed on their money and status to their children and ensured that their children married with those who were financially and socially stable and Ive worked hard most of My life on top of that to continue to be successfull not only financially but in many ways. If I were to depend on another for My financial freedom regardless if its low income or high income I would at that point become the one enslaved. The point regardless if its a little or a lot is that the enablement of a Dominant and the relinquish of a slave is what drives the M/s relationship and boths needs, not how much of each item either has to give. JMO

LOD
Are You blind??
I mentioned NOTHING about Doms nor Men on the contrary I was speaking about a debate I had with sum ProDommes who are concidered Low Income Dominants because they do not make any income or live off of others income and the debate of such. And how I define My Dominance and its support Financially and I gave My background information so that others here could understand how I relate to those who are Low Income Dominants and My different opinon based off My personal experiance as a Dominant WOMAN. They did not mention My opinons being bent towards Men nor Doms at all and I think You have a VERY perverse way of instilling something that is NOT EVEN THERE........ Did I hit a boo boo of Yours some where ???Tell Me where it hurts so I can hit harder!

(in reply to sweetpettjenny)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 6:45:37 PM

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Come on, Dread.

(1) Look up words like "instilling" before you use them.

(2) You were responding to MY comment, and MY comment was about people who pretend to be talking about doms, but are really talking about men. Nothing in your long and defensive post about your financial situation had anything to do with what I was saying. In fact, I doubt you even read what I said. It was before you came to this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressDREAD

I think You have a VERY perverse way of instilling something that is NOT EVEN THERE........

< Message edited by Lordandmaster -- 1/30/2006 6:46:19 PM >

(in reply to MistressDREAD)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 7:13:55 PM

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/22/2006
Status: offline

I was just interested in asking a question. What if someone was once a very wealthy, successful, driven person. One day their business partner drops dead right in the middle of a meeting that could bring in many millions to the company. If this person stops, takes a long look at his life, realizes all the hard work, long hours, missed meals,missed family, missed life, just isn't worth all he's given up.

If this person, sells everything, gives everything away to family, friends, charities, and then decides, I don't need all the things I thought I needed to be happy. If this person then just lives (as put here paycheck to paycheck). Does this make the person any less of what he could be if what he's found is his happiness in being less in others eyes and more in his own.

If his only effort to improve his lot is to insure his daily well being and happiness. Is he any less than he was before? Is his freedom to make that choice, because he's a dominant, not his choice to make because he could aspire to do or be more than he chooses to from his point of view?

This is just a question that arose from your reply.

(in reply to Padriag)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 7:29:23 PM

Posts: 2943
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

No LOD
I was responding to the posted subject.
Low Income Dominants.
It just happened that My Post to the subject
posted after Yours I guess.

I hadent read any of the posts to this subject
untill I seen My name posted by You then
I went back and read what the others had said.
I was basing My post strictly off of My Opinion
of what I had read on the subject line and
what was posted on page one.

< Message edited by ModeratorEleven -- 1/30/2006 8:37:36 PM >

(in reply to DeepThinker)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 7:32:19 PM

Posts: 2943
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

Deep Thinker I think that is what I was saying here in a nut shell:

quote:

The point regardless if its a little or a lot is that the enablement of a Dominant and the relinquish of a slave is what drives the M/s relationship and boths needs, not how much of each item either has to give. JMO

(in reply to MistressDREAD)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 7:33:14 PM

FelinePersuasion

Posts: 4792
Joined: 11/20/2004
Status: offline

IB I didn't assume it'd be live in I mean in general not just live in." If the wolvs are constantly at your door "ready to eat you, then you can nor responcibly take on the responcibility for someone else. Live in or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear

One thing I have noticed is that everyone appears to assume that a relationship will be 24/7 live in.

(in reply to IronBear)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 7:49:22 PM

FelinePersuasion

Posts: 4792
Joined: 11/20/2004
Status: offline

I'd wait for someone but it depends on if they did everything they could to get back on track, or did they lounge about content to let a shelter be a home.

If the did everything they could got themself help got back on track with in a reasonable time for the situation it doesn't change that I like them. If it's been 6 months and they still aint done nothing to get back into the saddle content to be up in the air like that, then I would leave them.

I have my own money and nobody would be finacially supporting me, I won't support them either, We'd each be responcible for our own expenses. By care for someone it's not always finacial, you have a huge emotional responcibility to the person you take on, If you have no emotional reserve for the one you took on, can't spare any emotional energy, don't have time at all I mean like zero time all the time, basically if you have nothing left to give someone it wouldn't be responcible to take on the emotional needs of another. It's simple. If you have no emotional energy to spare, or can't really handle the needs of a relationship you just shouldn't put someone through that.

My x pulled that I can't handle our relationship needs right now and then turned around and jumped into bed with my supposed best friend the moment I turned him loose cause for 5 months he wouldn't handle things in the relationship. He said he needed some time I gave him 5 months he did nothing to help himself to better deal w/ith the needs of a relationship. and then the minute he was free he jumped into someone elses bed.

forgot to mention that I stayed with it even tho he never had money never did anything a man in a relationship is supposed to do and never wanted to take responcibility for himself. I don't bail the minute things get hard, but if after 5 months they still won't get their act together and I've been understanding, it's not going to be allowed to continually hurt me and sap my emotions.

Ok, so the question arises:

You have been with someone (slave, sub ), and they have been taking care of you...when all of a sudden, something happens...they become so destitute that they are going to lose their home...or their health takes a horrid turn...do you just leave because ...well, shit, he/she can no longer provide for me so I am outta here......?

quote:

with financially responsible, whether they make 10,000 or 100,000 dollars. I could

< Message edited by FelinePersuasion -- 1/30/2006 8:01:05 PM >

(in reply to IrishMist)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 8:14:32 PM

FelinePersuasion

Posts: 4792
Joined: 11/20/2004
Status: offline

Padridg trying is more important to me, like my x he never had money wouldn't work so he always said we couldn't afford to eat out or what ever it was we wanted to do, so I would sugest borrowing money, he'd say no grandma won't give me money, so I suggested doing odd jobs like mowing, or washing a car, or pulling weeds AND HE STILL WOULDN'T WORK.

He just rather sit around and tell me we couldn't go on a date cause he didn't have money.

Maybe they can't, but do they try? Do they make some effort to find opportunities or create them, or do they just resign themselves to being unable to do anything. Are they trying to take control of the situation, or letting the situation control them?

(in reply to Padriag)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 8:19:59 PM

FelinePersuasion

Posts: 4792
Joined: 11/20/2004
Status: offline

THAT is the EXACT sentiment I was trying to describe. If you have to dig change out of your couch to feed yourself today, or choose feeding yourself over rent, or if you don't have the emotional reserves to dedicate to such a demanding relationship as D/s I don't look for someone who's rich over someone who's not. But I certaintly don't want to be submitting and handing control of my life to someone who doesn't have it together enough to at least be able to keep themself fed, Or if their lunch at my house is the only thing they'll eat all week cause they don't have money for food. or doesnt have the emotional reserves to give to the relationship.

I didn't mean anything about money when I made my original statement, I still don't. But Emotional responcibilities and the emotional well being of the one you take on.

quote:

I mean, who among us actually has a set dollar amount decided when evaluating a potential partner? I sure dont. But that also doesnt mean I want to be looking under the couch for change so that I can eat that day.

(in reply to IndigoDadesi)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 8:31:04 PM

FelinePersuasion

Posts: 4792
Joined: 11/20/2004
Status: offline

I am a little bit frusterated because every one makes it about money, and the question was about "low income" but my responce wasn't about money, it was about the emotional reserves and abilities.

If you have nothing left in you at the end of the day to give to someone else, no not money, emotional support, love your heart, if you're so down and out the wulvs are gnawing your legs off, WHY would you responcibly take someone else on when your life is such a mess.

WHY would you want to put someone you cared about into the emotional mess and mire.

(in reply to FelinePersuasion)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 8:49:12 PM

Posts: 2817
Joined: 9/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeepThinker

I was just interested in asking a question. What if someone was once a very wealthy, successful, driven person. One day their business partner drops dead right in the middle of a meeting that could bring in many millions to the company. If this person stops, takes a long look at his life, realizes all the hard work, long hours, missed meals,missed family, missed life, just isn't worth all he's given up.

If this person, sells everything, gives everything away to family, friends, charities, and then decides, I don't need all the things I thought I needed to be happy. If this person then just lives (as put here paycheck to paycheck). Does this make the person any less of what he could be if what he's found is his happiness in being less in others eyes and more in his own.

If his only effort to improve his lot is to insure his daily well being and happiness. Is he any less than he was before? Is his freedom to make that choice, because he's a dominant, not his choice to make because he could aspire to do or be more than he chooses to from his point of view?

This is just a question that arose from your reply.

DT:

Altho this may not be a popular answer, I'll give you * my * answer.

No, I do not think it makes him any less anything. Nor do I see him as greater for his actions. He can and should choose to live his life in whatever fashion will bring him the most contentment. We all make decisions based on what we believe will be best for us at the time.
However, *I* would see this person as foolish. I would not say that if this person took a portion of this money, income or whatever and put it aside... just in case.
I think if there were a survey taken of people living paycheck to paycheck offering them a bank account with a lump sum of money, only allowed to be used in extreme circumstances, most would opt for the safety net.

In my previous responses, I said that the dollar amount was not as important as how one handles thier finances. < for me > This does not mean in anyway, I judge or put some sort of limit on one's Dominance based on income. It only means that for some one to be compatable with me, they must share a similar view on how we handle our finances. Exactly the same as having similar views on non financial aspects of a relationship.

A Dominant who has a low income, but handles that income well.. who picks me flowers from a public garden, is more desirable to me than the higher income Dominant who buys me roses and can't meet his bills.

mbmbn

< Message edited by maybemaybenot -- 1/30/2006 8:50:48 PM >

(in reply to DeepThinker)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 10:28:27 PM

Posts: 9008
Joined: 6/19/2005
From: Beenleigh, Qld, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExistentialSteel

IronBear, I meant no disrespect earlier when I posted a joke on the thread because I wanted some levity in this thread. Frankly, the question and whole thread makes me feel uncomfortable like I’m overhearing personal financial information about others.

It seems it came down to those who said they had nothing, those who say they have a lot and those who say they try hard. In either case, I don’t want to know about it.

Should I look at someone differently because I know their financial status? I look at everyone the same and somehow the question implies I wouldn’t. I'm more interested in how funny, witty and intelligent you can be on this message board.

No offence taken ES. I know your style well enough to realise that you were looking for a way to lighten the thread. I can understand your views and discomfort. I have posed a hard question which was intended to make people think and perhaps even try tp place themselves in the position I described. It was intended to make people uncomfortable and hopefully question their personal values irrespective if they post or not. Y'see I know from personal experiance what it is like to be at each end of the financial/income scale. If you have a reasonable amount of wealth, generally live and opportunities are somewhat easier than when you for example a disability pension which does not allow you to start a new business or set up shop especially when the locat authorities have strict laws about opperating a normal business from home. That we are ok mostly and just shave a little of one or two luxuries we do have a reasonable living standard. But I know people in the life style who dont have the skill we have in stretching dollars. They are the ones I try to help as I can and they are the ones who get ostracised, and not just in this lifestyle but in other alternative ones too. Later this year I am hoping to be able to run several seminars for those on low incomes on survival techniques and skills.

_____________________________

Iron Bear

Master of Bruin Cottage

http://www.bruincottage.org

Your attitude, words & actions are yours. Take responsibility for them and the consequences they incur.

D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.

(in reply to ExistentialSteel)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/30/2006 11:34:24 PM

Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeepThinker

I was just interested in asking a question. What if someone was once a very wealthy, successful, driven person. One day their business partner drops dead right in the middle of a meeting that could bring in many millions to the company. If this person stops, takes a long look at his life, realizes all the hard work, long hours, missed meals,missed family, missed life, just isn't worth all he's given up.

If this person, sells everything, gives everything away to family, friends, charities, and then decides, I don't need all the things I thought I needed to be happy. If this person then just lives (as put here paycheck to paycheck). Does this make the person any less of what he could be if what he's found is his happiness in being less in others eyes and more in his own.

If his only effort to improve his lot is to insure his daily well being and happiness. Is he any less than he was before? Is his freedom to make that choice, because he's a dominant, not his choice to make because he could aspire to do or be more than he chooses to from his point of view?

This is just a question that arose from your reply.

I would say the person was being foolish, reactionary and allowing a single traumatic event to control them rather than finding a more balanced solution. What you describe sounds to me like someone swinging abruptly from one extreme to another. First from the extreme of greed, overworking and obsessing about success to the other end of being one step away from a vow of poverty. Both, to me, speak of a person who's life is out of balance, out of control.

To me the better solution would be to take a look at their life and realize that yes they are working too much and have placed too much emphasis on material and financial gain as a measure of their success in life. That they've made a mistake in neglecting their family and friends, that they haven't developed other aspects of their life.... they haven't lived a full life. And seeing that, make some changes, cut back the hours, make time for the family and friends... take up fishing maybe or learn to play the piano (in other words become something more than a workaholic). Don't throw the money away... the money was never the problem (its just an object, its neither good nor evil, its what you do with it that matters). But stop obsessing about the money... realize its just a tool. Put some away for the kids college fund, pay off the bills, take the wife on a long vacation where ever she wants to go as a gesture to make up for the neglect, save some for a rainy day. To my mind, a man with a family who has financial security and then deliberately throws that security away is a) not being financially responsible and b) is being a moron.

That may offend some... if it does they probably need the kick to the brain.

Ambition is a good thing when you control it... when you let your ambitions control you, you become the slave.

_____________________________

Padriag

A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

(in reply to DeepThinker)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/31/2006 4:44:49 AM

Posts: 65
Joined: 12/23/2005
Status: offline

I would NEVER get involved with a low income dominant. The question arises;;; if they cannot get control of their own financial lives, how the hell are they going to be MY dominant?

Now I am not talking about rich dominants here; I am talking about COMPETENT ones.

IMHO, if you are not competent enough to survive in the business world, you will not have what it takes to control me.

It would be helpful if dominants came with their Beacon scores on their profiles...lol.

_____________________________

One of Master's many sluts

(in reply to IronBear)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/31/2006 4:54:42 AM

Posts: 203
Joined: 8/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Both those people didn't let their disabilities get in their way. Sure it was an obstacle, but they didn't let it become an excuse not to try. I try to remember that everytime I sit down to write or draw or paint and I can't seem to get it to go the way I want (which happens and its very frustrating)... I have two good eyes, two good ears and two good hands... there is nothing I can't do, or at least nothing for which I have any excuse not to at least try for. Not when a blind man can sculpt and a deaf woman can play the piano.

That's character.

you're right, Padriag ... that IS character. and that is someone who i can respect and look up to ... which are important qualities i seek in a Master ... among other things.

we all seek something different. i think it's important to be clear and realistic on what we're looking for and what we have to offer. some Masters wish to have a slave at home ... taking care of all the domestic things so that he can have a sanctuary (of sorts) when he comes home from work. he might also expect her to be in a good mood ... eager and happy to serve him. that is a full time job for a slave and if a Master expects this level of high quality "work" from her then he should be fully capable of taking on the other responsibilities of the household .. mainly financial.

this doesn't mean that not having the financial resourses to do this makes a person any less dominant .. or any less qualified to swing around a flogger. it just makes them not an ideal candidate to own a slave in that particular way. but there are zillions of ways of living this lifestyle. i just think it's important to be realistic in our expectations of ourselves and others.

humbly,
sunshine

(in reply to Padriag)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/31/2006 4:57:52 AM

Posts: 51
Joined: 1/27/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gbgirlz2003

I would NEVER get involved with a low income dominant. The question arises;;; if they cannot get control of their own financial lives, how the hell are they going to be MY dominant?

Now I am not talking about rich dominants here; I am talking about COMPETENT ones.

IMHO, if you are not competent enough to survive in the business world, you will not have what it takes to control me.

It would be helpful if dominants came with their Beacon scores on their profiles...lol.

As with some other posts, I find that commentary a bit sad. I choose NOT to succeed in the business world, I find the idea of being an A type personality limiting to my growth as a human being. My greatest success is with family, in raising my kids, and being a focused business owner would impede what I consider a greater responsibility in life. Instead, I choose a job where I can suceed without having to be in charge, nor do I care if I make a great deal of wealth as long as my family is fed, clothed, have a good home and the things they need. Those who succeed at business do so because of long long hours and hard hard work, all to the negative of what I PERSONALLY, and only in MY OPINION, see as the more important areas of life to be focused on. Home is important, work only exists to support that, not the other way around. That has been and always will be my personal value system, I don't expect others to agree with it.

Those choices may change in the future, I have career goals that are shifting along with my educational goals, but still... the idea that if someone doesn't succeed in business - ie, has a low income - makes them a poor dominant simply strikes me as a narrow viewpoint. I believe a dominants worth is measured by how they treat their submissives, not how business savy they are or what their income is.

(in reply to gbgirlz2003)

RE: Low Income Dominants. - 1/31/2006 5:09:28 AM

Posts: 3486
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline

First, some comments on what has been posted:

Caitlyn, you are very dear to me. If you are a young college student and date older, more financially "endowed" men, you run the risk of finding yourself pregnant, married or submissive to the wrong man. Just a thought, dear. i was a poor college student and those are some of the happiest days of my life...and if you ever want to help having fun on little/no money, gimmie an email on the other side.

MDread, i think You mss Lam's point: He means that we all discussed poor men and few discussed poor women and their obligation to to support their partner. A wider vanilla problem, nothing unique to D/s.

Feline, i think you just misspoke and i appreciate anyone with the intestial fortitude to correct themselves.

Padriag, i agree with You just as i do IronBear, which may seem contradictory, but i think not.

Now for a few points:

Very few D/s (or vanilla) marriages/relationships last forever -- in fact, since one dies first, none do. Women who cannot provide a decent neighborhood, a decent school, etc., for their kids, whether He is their father or not, are fools. i'd go so far as to say neglectful. If you canot do it today, make the best of your cicumstances and plan for a better life. A bit of ambition is part of an adult woman's character as well.

Many Doms and Masters (and Dommes) seem to want a subby or slave to remain at home and keep house. Well, first, for an intelligent person this is boring. But more importantly, there is a cost of remaining out of the job market for any length of time. Unless one is assured of a steady income from some source i think most people (women are people) are better off being in school part-time or at work part-time, so they continue to acquire marketable skills and have no gap on their resume to explain.

Now for low income Doms. It says right on my profile, "financially responsible, whether prince or pauper". To me this means paying baills insofar as possible (some medical bills, etc., are unplnned for and cannot be paid). It means attempting -- though possibly failing -- to acquire assets. It means paying child suport, even if an arreage will take years to retire. It means children first, but not to the point of indulgence. It means not being too proud to accept charitable or government help, especially if someone else is affected.

What i seek in a Dom or Master DOES include His attitude about money, but people are in such different places in their lives and have had such unexpected events at times that only one rule really aplies: His dignity is not tied to His wealtth. Wealthy men seem to sometimes feel they need offer nothing but money, and such is far from true.

Lastly, i am really impressed with the majority of the posts here.

candystripper

(in reply to Padriag)

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Low Income Dominants.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.078