BecomingV
Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PandoraFoxxx
quote:
ORIGINAL: BecomingV
I have noticed less respect is shown to F/m relationships on the boards, than for M/f relationships, but I take that as a strong, woman-hating seepage from vanilla culture -as opposed to a true reflection of R/L, D/s relationships.
One example of that is the criticism of Dommes versus Doms who control the money. There is outrage at women who dare to to do so, while simultaneously framing a man's hand in a woman's wallet as somehow (wink) "masterful" and "responsible."
There are both Fin Doms and Fin Dommes. There are both men and women who provide kink as a profession. Both may charge to teach newbies. Yet, there's a pervasive silence and soft-pedaling on the topic of male Doms who use a relationship to expand their financial resources. They just call it, "taking charge." Hell no! They are just "taking."
In all my years involved in D/s I have come into contact with maybe 1 male in 20 females who "use a relationship to expand their financial resources." That is a specific thing, a dubious thing; and not at all does it refer to pooling resources with one controller. The fact that you use that phrase identifies it as opposite of that. So do you actually mean "using" a relationship (deceiving a partner to get $ out of them) or are you speaking of all cases?
Dishonest Financial Dom[mes] are out there; but we must also bear in mind that this is a distinct interest and one that mirrors the socio-economic norm of men being breadwinners during the course of history. I have come to the conclusion that this "fetish" (for lack of a better term) is such because it is simply a very deep rooted way of giving up control. I have spoken to a lot of men over the years who are into financial domination - and they have confirmed this theory to me many times. These men don't see it as "taking." Perhaps the silence you speak of on this issue is because it is a rarity. Now, outside the D/s community, I see it as more of a 1 in 5 ratio of "taker" men. There is also the sugar-baby subculture as well. But, that's the same deal. Far less male "babies" than female ones. For the sake of this argument, I consider those folks to be outside the D/s community unless they expressly state the D/s dynamic.
What I'm doing is using politically incorrect language. I'm calling, "Bullshit!" I'm not "drinking the koolaid" when it comes to male entitlement. Specifically, when a Dominant is male and he takes control of the money, this is often "expected." It's a male supremacist view. And, it's supported by silence. When a female Dominant takes control of the money... there's cause for EXPLAINING that! Is she a whore? Is she really dominant when she's living on his earnings? BEFORE she is afforded respect, she'd damn well better explain herself!
How many male Dominants are questioned on their motives, abilities or sexual responses, to controlling the money? In my local community, the thought isn't even in people's heads. They only question it AFTER a break-up leaves a submissive homeless, without savings and at a financial loss.
My position is that any Dominant, of either sex, or anything in between the sexes, who takes control of finances, is a financial-minded Dominant. Period. Pragmatic and simplistic view of one type of Dominant versus the other kinds of Dominants.
I am not saying that people "shouldn't" be the financial-minded kind of Dominant. I'm saying, "Call it what it is." If a man, who identifies as Dominant, also takes a controlling interest in the submissive's finances... no, I'm not going to view that as "taking charge." It's taking charge PLUS taking money.
Without the sexism, the financial kink for male subs would not exist. Without sexism, the financial support and contribution of female submissives, for their male Dominants, would be called a "Tribute" here.
To clarify my perspective, please note the line on my avatar here, "taken in Cuntext." This is because I believe that rationale cannot be found without taking into consideration, a NON-patriarchal point of view. I am not a supremacist of any ilk. So, the notion that men are superior or that women are superior, simply fails my "logic and rationale" test. That said, a kink is a kink and I like others to feel fulfilled and happy, so if that's their thing... go for it. But, there's room for me, too, and I can't pretend that I don't see the disrespect for women.
So, do I speak of ALL cases? Well, "yes." If a dominant gains the control and use of "additional" finances, I don't care what you call it: "him taking charge" or "her charging" -that's just sexist crap. Either way... it is what it is and NOT all dominants keep an eye on the money; male or female.
While many here make distinctions based on the sex of the dominant, when it comes to finances... I don't. I make a distinction between Dominants who gain or profit from the control and use of the submissive's money versus the Dominants who take control by teaching the submissive how to earn, save and invest. Some Dominants commit to making the submissive the smartest, strongest, best self they can be, while other Dominants find pleasure in the increased dependency of their submissive.
IMO, submissives should not enter into a relationship which involves financial control, unless they have an "exit fund" which only they control. I say this based on local experience with what happens to the submissive when it ends. Pure pragmatism, there. By "ends," I don't mean only break-ups, but rather, illness and death can also leave a submissive unnecessarily vulnerable. I'd say the same in vanilla life.
Here, as well as in vanilla life, I think I am describing an uncommon view. But, so was democracy.
< Message edited by BecomingV -- 8/11/2014 11:17:37 PM >
|
RE: Differences between M/f and F/m dynamics - 
Profile
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