CNJDom
Posts: 186
Joined: 6/6/2006 From: Southern NJ Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OneClick Im new to this whole D/s world, but after reading some other profiles this morning, here is something I do not get. I must have come across at least a dozen subs who said they will not, refuse, and wont even consider working when in a relationship. With the way the economy is in the toilet, why wouldnt someone want to have some sort of employment so if things dont work out they can go on their own? I am not talking with those who have a disability that prevents them from working, just folks wanting total dependence on someone. One profile even came right out and said I do not work, I can move at a moments notice if necessary and they see no reason to work especially if they are to provide a high level of submission. Ok great, so you might find that one person who has the means and willing to provide you with food, clothing, shelter but I bet the majority of people on here are, and pardon the comment ahead of time - average joes, who go to work, have house, car, and other bills each month. Some may be struggling as it is to make it. I just dont get it. Ok, Im off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening. I feel that some are using this as a form of escaping responisibility. For others, it's a form of fantasy for the 50's household and a total TPE mindset that is just great in the stories that are out there with BDSM themes that are so common. And you're right that the average Joe (maybe Joe Plumber) just can afford that sort of dependency. For those that feel that they're going to become the object of the house that is free from choice, and responsibility outside of the sexual gratification of their Master/Mistress, that's fine if that can be found... more power to you. Think about this shoe on the other foot... what if submissives and slaves had to not only keep the house in order, but also work to bring in moneys to sustain the quality of life and support the household that the Master / Mistress should be treated to as tribute to be under the rule of said Master/ Mistress. How would that concept sit with these people? What a slave-driver that Dominant would be considered as? An indicator of how reality was historically and how it is now. So these days, it is unpopular for a Master to be treated like a King. For a Mistress....but that's a different story. I personally believe in equality of the sexes, so beaware of what you ask for, but our views are skewed and biased in a few directions. To keep the peace though, the diversity of BDSM allows for all forms of what is acceptable for at least two people to be in sync with. There is an argument posed by some realatively new to the lifestyle where new Dominants state the obvious: "There she was, all tied up and it took me so long to get it right and then I could start to spank her. But by the time it was all over with, I just had enough energy to untie her and was too tired to do much else. If I got to fuck her, it wasn't so good because I found that I was doing ALL the work!" So should Dominants be working their tails off to bring home the bacon so he can show his power over the poor slave chained to the bed, naked (eating bon bons?), until "HIM" comes home with the key to reap the benefits of having his slave there to take care of him maybe? All different strokes for different folks still applies. I personally don't believe in this sort of practice, and feel that subs can take on a job and bring something to the table as well.
< Message edited by CNJDom -- 12/6/2008 10:38:26 AM >
|