RE: Security & stability

RE: Security & stability (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

anniezz338 -> RE: Security & stability (11/9/2010 2:20:18 PM)
Sigh. Don't you hate it when money messes with your personal relationships? I'm in an economic downturn myself, explains my profile, and it sucks and blows. The practical side of me would kick in based on is he chronically unemployed, in your case, you have kids to think about. Unemployment does not make you unsuitable, it's an economic situation. But the part that chews on me a little is the living with family. For my part, I have two homes and two vehicles, one of each paid in full, so I have a foundation. And I can count on 3 fingers how many years a man has supported me. Him being in his 30's I believe was said(?), I would have concerns. That's just me.

Jaybeee -> RE: Security & stability (11/9/2010 2:52:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wandersalone quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee Insisting on a man who can "damn fucking well" (angry much??!? [:)] ) pay his own bills is the mark of a careful woman. Insisting on a man to share YOUR bills is one of many, many telltale signs of a wallet-huntress. I am wondering if you possibly make very poor choices in the women you date jaybeee as I know that for myself and all of my close women friends who are all employed, we all tend to go dutch or we take turns at paying for meals etc with our dates until we are in committed relationships and even then tend to keep our finances separate. Not so much "date", I'm always pretty sharp at spotting when a woman is simply after a man's cash, but I have been burnt a few times, in my younger more naive (and vanilla) days by buying drinks for girls and then finding my convo-sex ratio remained the same regardless of whether I bought her tons of drinks, a few, or even any. I got to the point where I decided to try buying ZERO drinks and deliberately only bringing out a few quid with me, and found I was getting laid only slightly less often than nights when I'd spend £100+. Nor did it seem to make a difference how good looking the girl was, they were either up for it or not, and I reached the conclusion that the booze/looks didn't matter hugely, despite what GQ might tell you. There were (and still are) evenings when I chatter aimlessly to a nice brunette and her friend, and get to take her home and pay NOTHING. Damn, first time we went back to her place and she made me breakfast, and we had a repeat performance 3 weeks back, breakfast inc. There were also times when I'd work a girl of only average looks hard, get her completely sloshed, and be down 3 zeros for the night, only for her to say, "Hic, nice chatting with you, but I forgot the time, see you about".... [:@]

DMFParadox -> RE: Security & stability (11/9/2010 3:24:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee quote: ORIGINAL: wandersalone quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee Insisting on a man who can "damn fucking well" (angry much??!? [:)] ) pay his own bills is the mark of a careful woman. Insisting on a man to share YOUR bills is one of many, many telltale signs of a wallet-huntress. I am wondering if you possibly make very poor choices in the women you date jaybeee as I know that for myself and all of my close women friends who are all employed, we all tend to go dutch or we take turns at paying for meals etc with our dates until we are in committed relationships and even then tend to keep our finances separate. Not so much "date", I'm always pretty sharp at spotting when a woman is simply after a man's cash, but I have been burnt a few times, in my younger more naive (and vanilla) days by buying drinks for girls and then finding my convo-sex ratio remained the same regardless of whether I bought her tons of drinks, a few, or even any. I got to the point where I decided to try buying ZERO drinks and deliberately only bringing out a few quid with me, and found I was getting laid only slightly less often than nights when I'd spend £100+. Nor did it seem to make a difference how good looking the girl was, they were either up for it or not, and I reached the conclusion that the booze/looks didn't matter hugely, despite what GQ might tell you. There were (and still are) evenings when I chatter aimlessly to a nice brunette and her friend, and get to take her home and pay NOTHING. Damn, first time we went back to her place and she made me breakfast, and we had a repeat performance 3 weeks back, breakfast inc. There were also times when I'd work a girl of only average looks hard, get her completely sloshed, and be down 3 zeros for the night, only for her to say, "Hic, nice chatting with you, but I forgot the time, see you about".... [:@] This man speaks truth.

SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Security & stability (11/9/2010 9:50:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee Insisting on a man who can "damn fucking well" (angry much??!? [:)] ) pay his own bills is the mark of a careful woman. Insisting on a man to share YOUR bills is one of many, many telltale signs of a wallet-huntress. quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance For the record until its an established relationship, I insist on going dutch. I do not mooch, I do not gold dig, I do not go after someone for their money, im fine if they cant afford fancy dinners.... however i want the heat on when i come over. Seriously LEARN to read whats posted. Orion: I make 30500 a year, Its a noted fact men make a dollar for every 70 cents a woman earns, so because a man working and doing the same job means hes earning 9 thousand more. I do expect that once we are in an ESTABLISHED LONG TERM relationship that he doesnt insist I pay for everything.Simply because of the pay difference a man and woman makes.

fellowtraveler -> RE: Security & stability (11/10/2010 6:29:15 AM)
I know I am starting this post a llittle off-tangent, but I will get there I promise. I have found that dominants are often less successful financially than the submissives they dominate. It kind of makes sense if you think about it. A submissive has the kind of personality that does well in middle management... fewer pride issues, works better in group situations, more willing to take good advice from people, etc etc. I would almost bet that if we were all to lay out our financial statements we would find that the submissives on this site are overall probably wealthier and more financially stable than the dominants. Just something I have noticed over the years. Now, to the situation at hand. The answer to the OP's question, in my mind is that she already knows the answer and is more trying to find out just how wierd her situation is. The answer is that it probably isn't that strange. The reason your dominant guy can't find or keep a job may well be that, as a dominant, he has real trouble taking orders from anyone else. In the working world, everyone takes orders from someone else.... the President takes orders from the CEO or Board of Directors, a proprietor takes orders from his customers and government regulators, etc. As a very dominant person myself, I know this to be hell. A submissive has no problem with it.... but a dominant does. Sometimes in the work-a-day world, we all just have to "swallow hard". That comes very difficult for an alpha dominant, and many just cannot do it... so they get fired or quit. So, your situation isn't all that "wierd". That isn't to say that all dominants are financial failures, just that we have challenges that we have to face. Your boyfriend, though, is a bit extreme. Thirty-something and living with mom? or at least living with family members.... he is not in control of anything. Yeah, he isn't ready to take on the mastery of a family yet. I will say though that if everything else about him is right... and I think you know what I mean, he may eventually find his niche in the warld and be able to make a living.... so don't completely give up on him..... but don't move your kids to be with him either... at least until he can at least support himself.

BonesFromAsh -> RE: Security & stability (11/10/2010 7:47:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fellowtraveler I have found that dominants are often less successful financially than the submissives they dominate. It kind of makes sense if you think about it. A submissive has the kind of personality that does well in middle management... fewer pride issues, works better in group situations, more willing to take good advice from people, etc etc. I would almost bet that if we were all to lay out our financial statements we would find that the submissives on this site are overall probably wealthier and more financially stable than the dominants. Just something I have noticed over the years. I'm not going to hijack the OP's thread, but the above quote might make for a rather 'interesting' thread on it's own. At least it might lead to some lively conversation. [;)]

geodragon -> RE: Security & stability (11/10/2010 10:33:41 AM)
Fellowtraveler makes a very good point here...

porcelaine -> RE: Security & stability (11/10/2010 12:10:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Solslave I have recently discovered my happiness in submission and servitude. My Master is wonderful and I am loving my time sexually. However, he wants to be a Master in all areas of my life. While this is fine in theoRy he is not financially stable with a job to offer support and security. Thoughts Masters? Greetings Solslave, Speaking from personal experience I would strongly advise you to determine (from him) what his mastery entails. And be very thorough when you're seeking the response. Oftentimes submissives are enthralled about the sexually stimulating or otherwise exciting aspects and never consider the grim or unexpected areas he may seek to control. You have multiple aspects of self - body, mind, heart, spirit. You'd be wise to unearth his intentions in these areas and the extent of influence he wishes to wield. Mastery means something different to everyone. Try to engage his mind in a manner where he's willing to share the practical and fantastical. The latter might give you more insight on what he wishes for but can't bring into fruition at present. That doesn't mean it may never come to pass. In short, do your homework. Namaste, ~porcelaine

fellowtraveler -> RE: Security & stability (11/10/2010 1:03:29 PM)
Jaybee, it really isn't about return on investment or how many tosses you get per dollar (or quid on your end of the Atlantic), its a matter of how one sees things. In my case, a man has certain responsibilities and one of them is to lead from the front.... including financially. Just old fashioned I guess.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Security & stability (11/10/2010 1:48:25 PM)
Rather than use a pay difference based on gender justification, as it comes across misandric, I would suggest that in a LTR, each pay according to their needs and ability to pay. Now if you are taking time off from the LTR because of commitment patterns, should this percentage by adjusted in any way? ;) Latest studies is 82.6 per dollar at a median. quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance Orion: I make 30500 a year, Its a noted fact men make a dollar for every 70 cents a woman earns, so because a man working and doing the same job means hes earning 9 thousand more. I do expect that once we are in an ESTABLISHED LONG TERM relationship that he doesnt insist I pay for everything.Simply because of the pay difference a man and woman makes.

leadership527 -> RE: Security & stability (11/10/2010 3:24:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance Orion: I make 30500 a year, Its a noted fact men make a dollar for every 70 cents a woman earns, so because a man working and doing the same job means hes earning 9 thousand more. Just a tiny tangent here, but as it turns out, that figure... while correct... is HIGHLY misleading. When you make adjustments for perfectly valid lifestyle choices, the actual wage gap is sub 5%. I read a ludicrously long PDF from the dept of labor about a few months ago on the topic. Men and women doing the same job, with the same background/experience, and for the same duration roughly make the same amount.

Zevar -> RE: Security & stability (11/10/2010 7:09:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Solslave I have recently discovered my happiness in submission and servitude. My Master is wonderful and I am loving my time sexually. However, he wants to be a Master in all areas of my life. While this is fine in theoRy he is not financially stable with a job to offer support and security. Thoughts Masters? To begin, I would recommend that you decide what standard of living you are willing to accept. If you are content with living at a level of income that is lower than others might live with, then you will have to arrive at your own answers regarding such living standards. Only you can decide what you are willing to accept. Personally, I do not expect a woman to provide for my Household. That is my obligation. She may choose to work but her income is not a part of the financial equation for My Household budget. My income is not dependant on anyone but my own efforts. I am the sole provider for myself and whomever I choose to relate with. My being the sole provider is non-negotiable. I do not believe it to be responsible to allow a woman to assume financial responsibility or contribution for myself or My Household, unless of course there are legitimate temporary reasons such as unforeseen health issues or an unexpected employment changes, etc.. Clearly, not every income is what one might need, nonetheless as a man I am responsible for My Household, not a woman I relate with, regardless of the nature of our relating. If there is a time where income variances need to be discussed and altered, then naturally a stable minded approach is offered in arriving at a solution, as I noted above. There are far more components to a relationship than being sexually compatible. Hopefully you will decide what is doable for you and not fluctuate on your stance. If you do give more than you truly decide of course you are feeding a future ongoing financial issue. Being responsible is non-negotiable in relation to all areas of my life. As a responsible and trustworthy man I am unwilling to compromise my values of maintaining mastery over myself, first and foremost. If all I would offer is sexual compatibility I would feel somewhat as though I was incongruent in terms of my being a master and unworthy of gaining respect from a woman or as a matter of fact I would not feel worthy of being entitled to be addressed as a Master, whatsoever. However if you decide to settle for less than, surely you will get exactly the sum total of what you accept. Think it through calmly and stable mindedly. Your best interest depends on more than you have currently presented you are experiencing, financially speaking and perhaps more than you even know, aye! Take good care of you!

geodragon -> RE: Security & stability (11/10/2010 9:00:07 PM)
This slave clearly has not told the complete details of her situation. There are other variables left out for others to assume and assume poorly too I might add...

wandersalone -> RE: Security & stability (11/11/2010 3:13:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geodragon This slave clearly has not told the complete details of her situation. There are other variables left out for others to assume and assume poorly too I might add... grins....oh let me guess.... the Op and Geodragon are the two people being discussed in both this thread and in this thread I luv me sum interwebz

fellowtraveler -> RE: Security & stability (11/11/2010 4:04:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wandersalone quote: ORIGINAL: geodragon This slave clearly has not told the complete details of her situation. There are other variables left out for others to assume and assume poorly too I might add... grins....oh let me guess.... the Op and Geodragon are the two people being discussed in both this thread and in this thread I luv me sum interwebz Oh my.... this just keeps getting better and better. Tune in tomorrow to see where it all ends up.

curiouscuriouser -> RE: Security & stability (11/11/2010 5:22:23 AM)
Yes, I rofl and lmao'd at that. :3 Jaybeee: The OP said that "he wants to be a Master in all areas of my life," which is to supposedly include financial issues. Considering that OP is a financially secure mother while her man friend is a struggling singleton, I think she's being very selfless. She is, after all, taking her sweetie's family in consideration as well because surely they don't want to support her, her children, and their adult son. I sympathize with him the tiniest smidgen. I'm also an adult living at home, in my case because of a disability, but I'm also working. It isn't a living wage for someone who has to pay rent but it allows someone who doesn't to scrape by. If I met somebody who I was hardcore sweet on and he wanted me to live with him, knowing full well that my contributions would amount to half or less of the house expenses, would I be a gold digger for going for it?

DMFParadox -> RE: Security & stability (11/11/2010 5:29:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: curiouscuriouser If I met somebody who I was hardcore sweet on and he wanted me to live with him, knowing full well that my contributions would amount to half or less of the house expenses, would I be a gold digger for going for it? No.

Jaybeee -> RE: Security & stability (11/11/2010 6:01:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fellowtraveler Jaybee, it really isn't about return on investment or how many tosses you get per dollar (or quid on your end of the Atlantic), its a matter of how one sees things. In my case, a man has certain responsibilities and one of them is to lead from the front.... including financially. Just old fashioned I guess. Oh, nothing wrong with old-fashioned manliness whatsoever, but it truly MUST be executed with modern savvy in this post-millennial era. Our innate sense of chivalry and protectiveness will be hunted and exploited by gold-diggers, and despite this age of "equality", there are far more of them around now in 2010, than in our father's generation. And the global recession has made tens of thousands of girls into gold-diggers, girls who before were only idly dreaming of a man to take them away from the drudgery of the Marketing Department or going dress-shopping on a budget, but are now actively evaluating our likely wealth with the kind of "Financial Forensics Squad" scrutiny that would bring tears of joy to their mothers eyes, and that the Inland Revenue give internships for. And before anyone accuses me of theorising, back in 2007 I could happily strut into a bar slightly overdressed for the kind of establishment it was, no issue. I've recently been revisited that same bar, it hasn't changed management/decor, I haven't much changed myself except I've dropped some flab etc but in the dozen times I've gone inside this year, I've been accosted TWICE by little hussies striking up convos whose second question, if not the first, is always, "So what do you do?" You should have seen the face of the 2nd one drop when I made that my first question to HER. [:D] I'm actually all in favour of a man providing everything, everything, for a good woman; I'm just saying you need to be careful that she IS a good woman, unless you want to be fleeced down to your bare ass two years later in divorce court.

Jaybeee -> RE: Security & stability (11/11/2010 6:03:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox quote: ORIGINAL: curiouscuriouser If I met somebody who I was hardcore sweet on and he wanted me to live with him, knowing full well that my contributions would amount to half or less of the house expenses, would I be a gold digger for going for it? No. As above.

porcelaine -> RE: Security & stability (11/11/2010 2:52:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee I'm actually all in favour of a man providing everything, everything, for a good woman; I'm just saying you need to be careful that she IS a good woman, unless you want to be fleeced down to your bare ass two years later in divorce court. Greetings Jaybeee, Your comment can be relegated to both sexes. Men can be just as calculating and diabolical. However, as you've mentioned it's necessary to know the individual and their real intentions as opposed to the masquerade they may put forth to lure unsuspecting victims. As with most things forewarned is forearmed. Namaste, ~porcelaine

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.222656E-02