This post is on the D/s & M/s web board.
| 31 Aug 10, 1:42 AM Beau_Tox UK(CB), 7 yrs    |
I adore the way that when you love someone, their flaws are just features that give them character and depth. It's when you fall out of love that little things magnify to becoming a massive issue that renders a pertner incompatible. If you can actually love, then I would always choose that option and risk the possibility of failing and being hurt. Avoiding love feels like avoiding living to me. ^^^^ This is probably a facetious comment. | ||
| 31 Aug 10, 7:18 AM ClassAct2005 UK(N), 7 yrs |
I've never avoided love. I'd rather be hurt than never fall in love. I'm not an advocate (except slightly on this thread) of being single either but I was just putting the points. If women are happier single they might be foolish to seek "love". Although a very relevant issue for me is I am happy so unless a relationship or man would enhance my life it's no disaster to remain as I am like the person above with a good happy balanced life and if the right man comes along, great and if he doesn't that's fine too. MOre generally I think happiness is a matter of brain chemistry - seratonin and beta endorphin levels etc and that is not really largely determined by whether you have a partner or not. | ||
| 31 Aug 10, 10:28 AM clouds UK(CR), 4 yrs |
Going back to the original thread topic about whether money and status make someone more dominant, I don't think so, but like ClassAct I think it can matter for practical reasons. I met someone a while ago on another site who I have got to know as a friend over the past 18 months or so and I can say that he is one of the most dominant people I have ever met. Certainly, in terms of my needs as a submissive he met all of them when we played a few times. However, we have not started a relationship for several reasons discussed in this thread. Firstly, he lives too far away from me (150 miles to be exact) and his income and personal circumstances make it impossible for him to move without making himself unemployed in the process. At his age it would be unlikely he would be be able to find another job and so he would be largely dependent on me and I am struggling enough to keep my head above water as it is, being a single mother with very little help from my ex. Secondly, although he is a very good friend and would make a great dominant he is a very heavy smoker and can't seem to stop. Also there is no physical or sexual attraction. My point is this man makes a great dominant WITHOUT the looks, money, smart suits, status etc. But for other PRACTICAL resasons it just wouldn't work. In the meantime I have now started a relationship with someone who fits far more ClassAct's descriptions in terms of status etc but who isn't as dominant as the first guy (if these things can be measured). Nevertheless he is 'dominant enough' for me and in all other senses we are a great match. Watch this space. My two cents. annie | ||
| 31 Aug 10, 11:55 AM Goldilocks UK(SE), 5 yrs |
I'm Hit Girl 'cause I love to be hit and hurt and I think Kick Ass is fricking amazing!! Also, Stephen Lynch is the best person to talk to about Superheroes | ||
| 31 Aug 10, 10:25 PM ClassAct2005 UK(N), 7 yrs |
I was reading this and then saw well he couldn't afford to move and then I thought - well impoverished women move in, from right across the country, with boyfriends all the time and are then kept. So can that not just be reversed? Then I read " also there is no physical or sexual attraction" and laughed... in that case I don't think you really get to first base particularly when adding on that he is a heavy smoker. He doesn't sound like much of a find. So if this man had not been a heavy smoker and he was attractive and sexy and the only thing against him was that he would lose his work and have to be kept by his sub would that put submissive women off? I ask because it does not put most men off if women earn very little and will move in and keep house and may be work a few hours a week in a bar for the minimum wage, but it tends to put women off. If it does isn't that sexist or is it a D/s issue in a way or just cultural conditioning? I don't particularly want yet another dependant - I've enough as it is, but I don't like the idea in a D/s context that a man might be so unsuccessful that I'd have to keep him. It doesn't make me feel so sub towards him.
Edited 1 Sep 10, 7:04 AM by ClassAct2005 | ||
| 31 Aug 10, 10:52 PM subbietrouble 2 yrs |
Having status and wealth isn't important to me, but I would never go out with someone who didn't have a good work ethic and the ability to provide for themself. I've known Doms who were barely able to care for themselves and yet expected a sub to hand over all control over her own life. I only expect boyfriends to provide for me what I am able to provide for them, yet for some this is asking too much, it seems. subbie xxx | ||
| 1 Sep 10, 7:08 AM clouds UK(CR), 4 yrs |
Sometimes not being successful is not a person's fault. Without going into the story here, this man had to give up a successful career in order to bring his children up on his own. He hasn't been able to recover that and has had to take low paid work since. The issue here is not about how his situation reflects on him as a person or as a dom (because it doesn't, in fact the opposite because he has sacrificed so much for good reasons) but about practicalities. I often ask myself whether, if there was a lot of physical attraction too it might be overcome and I don't know the answer to that. It would still be taking a huge risk asking him to move across the country to be with me if he is dependent on me in the process. He would probably not be able to go back to his (albeit low paid) job and coucil housing if it didn't work out so I would effectviely be making him homeless. I have to consider my child too. annie | ||
| 1 Sep 10, 7:19 AM clouds UK(CR), 4 yrs |
I think a significant reason why women who are independent are less likely to want to have a dependent dominant move in with them (rather than the other way round) is that in many cases there are children to consider. If you are successfully bringing up children on your own you will think twice about disturbing that equilibrium, particularly if those children have already experienced a significant break up. For a single dominant man living alone there is not such a risk. I think I would be more prepared to have a dom live with me if it was just me living here. annie | ||
| 1 Sep 10, 9:38 PM ClassAct2005 UK(N), 7 yrs |
I don't agree. If I can bring up a lot of children entirely alone and work full time and earn what I do surely other people can unless htey made bad career choices and would never have earned more than the cost of child care in which case may be they aren't such desirable or good a match. Just beacuse you're male doesn't make it any harder to work full time and solely suport children in my view. A penis doesn't impede that but a badly paid earlier career which means you cannot afford childcare would. Of course I know nothing about his own situation.I have though often come across men who have exactly the right D/s attributes. YOu can tell in a few minutes of speaking to someone if they get it, if they understand how to make someone feel submissive, if they need to control and it's not that common even amongst supposedly dominant men and those men are very attractive - but of course if physically they aren't adn you recoil from them and if i life terms they are a huge distance away from you then it's much harder. Lord Brown picked a fairly unsuitable partner who was gay - much younger, not so stable, no assets, job but the draw must have been the usual looks and the fact the man was gay and presumably quite bright In other words whether you're gay or very sub or dom you fish in a smaller pool and may be people might feel they need to look more broadly in term sof tolerating those who are physically repulsive or out of work or a low IQ or whatever but if the other differences are too extreme may be it's better being single and I suppose loads of people then settle for a vanilla partner which I hope I never do.
| ||
| 1 Sep 10, 9:44 PM ClassAct2005 UK(N), 7 yrs |
Definitely. I am sure it also applies to men who have their children living with them as a good few men do too. And 60% of second marriage where children are involved break down so it's not exactly a wonderful statistic and plenty break down over the children particularly if you're melding two families. It's hard enough if you're both the parents to agree over things than someone who hasn't had the same background and history with them. It is a particular issue if you are very submissive too because you're not exactly going to be calling the shots. Anyway people make things work sometimes even if there are stepchildren involved, I'm sure and I've seen it. Lots of people remarry and successfully make things work but again if you pick Mr nobody wtith a dreadful accent and low earnings and he doesn't even have the work ethic your own family has and say he smokes etc and none of your chidlren do - the fact that person is so different is going to make it much harder to meld them into the family and vice versa unless you're goig to be handing out cigarettes to your teenagers and change your stance that getting a good university place is a good idea etc. Thus choosing the correct man who fits your own kind of life and status and all that stuff matters a lot if (a) you have children and second (b) if you're sub because you;ll submit to him not vice versa and although you are probably not going to be forced to say haitch or adopt the regional accent or whatever the toddlers might pick it up if you have them or if you want to be telling the children never say less birds always fewer or for free makes us cringe as a family and he says that stuff he's going to feel criticised when you're discussing grammar with the chdilren ([picking grammar as only one narrow area - there are loads of others and of course it all works the other way. If he thinks women ought to be happy little housewives and is trying to reach his daughters such and his new sub has a career that's not the example he wants his daughter to see etc etc)
|
