RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

CreativeDominant -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (1/31/2007 6:31:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyKimberly33

HI

A big part of Me agrees with Mercnbeth, You must be able to afford your slave. Playmates are different, enjoy them along the way if You desire, but as far as a slave goes I believe You must be able to provide for them. My situation is a bit different because I have a husband and am searching for a slave, but I waiting until My life was stable and the time right to add another to the household. My needs and wants are always first and foremost. If he can do all that I ask and require and still have timeto have a small job that is fine, but it had not interfere with My time or wants. ( I had one request this as he wanted to have some "play money" he had access to to buy Me small gifts)

I have talked with an attorney who is comfortable with the lifestyle who is willing to help draw upi the leagal documents that are necessary if You are to be in control of Your slave's welfare.

While I understand where You are comming from, I say be patient too and the right slave will come along and it will just click perfectly, and all will fall into place.

Lady Kimberly


I am probably going to get flamed for this but...
You agree with Merc and beth. Merc works outside the home and finds a way to financially take care of his slave...beth. A lovely couple they are.

You are THE dominant. You want a slave. You don't want him to work unless it is at a small job in order to buy you gifts. Because your needs and wants come first. And you have reached a point financially where you can afford another in your household.
Two questions...if you, like most dominants, consider it your responsibility to provide for your slave's welfare in some fashion, do you work to keep yourself and your husband well off enough financially for you to add a "non-worker" to your household? Or is your husband the only one working?



sting516 -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 7:13:56 AM)

why is that important...if Lady Kimberly feels she's well off enough to take a slave on, what difference does it make how that happened?



CreativeDominant -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 7:17:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sting516

why is that important...if Lady Kimberly feels she's well off enough to take a slave on, what difference does it make how that happened?


Because part of being dominant is responsibility.  It has been stated that Merc feels that it is the owner's responsibility to financially provide for his slave.  She in turn knows that it is through his work and his efforts that she is provided for.  He made it his responsibility.

Perhaps I am wrong, but if it is LK's husband who is doing the work to provide for this slave, then hasn't it become HIS responsibility to financially care for the slave...and not hers?



Mercnbeth -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 8:10:44 AM)

quote:

Because part of being dominant is responsibility.  It has been stated that Merc feels that it is the owner's responsibility to financially provide for his slave.  She in turn knows that it is through his work and his efforts that she is provided for.  He made it his responsibility.


CD,
Just want to clarify one thing. Your perspective is flawed. It may seem that I am merely providing financially for beth's life needs and comfort; the reality is I'm providing for mine. That is why I say; you shouldn't have a slave until you can afford one. As I've said before my definitions and version of M/s are a function of my egocentric and selfish persona. beth's decision to enter into such a relationship was a sacrifice on her part. she is provided for, but by providing for her I am providing for me first and foremost. Now beth doesn't see it as a "sacrifice" but that is only because, through an alignment of planets or a supreme being folly of will, she met a person whose "selfish" dominant desire meshed with her "giving" submissive desire. And of course there is the great sex!

Think of it in terms of transportation. You can get there by bus, you can car pool, you can rent a car, you can buy a car and make payments, or you can own one free and clear and do anything you want with it. In all cases the mode of transportation is submissive to your needs. You may get to your destination by any method, but only full ownership gives you the ability to anything you wish with your property within the law.



juliaoceania -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 8:35:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: sting516

why is that important...if Lady Kimberly feels she's well off enough to take a slave on, what difference does it make how that happened?


Because part of being dominant is responsibility.  It has been stated that Merc feels that it is the owner's responsibility to financially provide for his slave.  She in turn knows that it is through his work and his efforts that she is provided for.  He made it his responsibility.

Perhaps I am wrong, but if it is LK's husband who is doing the work to provide for this slave, then hasn't it become HIS responsibility to financially care for the slave...and not hers?


This subject very much enthuses me. The women in my family have at times stayed home and did not work. They were taking care of their husbands/homes/children. Although they did not financially contribute in the form of a "job", they did contribute. Some people think that because someone is not given a paycheck they have no right to the assets of the marriage, that they are lazy and irresponsible. Now this view is more common than I care to think about, but it is deeply flawed and wrong. Hire a personal assistant and see how much this costs you. A wife is co-equal in the home unless the couple decides otherwise. During the era of slavery in this country, slaves made no distinction between male and female owners in their respect either.





Missokyst -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 9:38:25 AM)

I both agree and disagree.  Having done both, I know that there is a lot of work in keeping up a home, raising kids, ect.  I had 4, all 2 yrs apart, and one husband who was basically a large hungry child.  Waking up at 3 am to cook was a PITA, waking up to change a baby or walk the hallway with one was slightly less annoying.  Making sure things were clean (his shirts had to have exact starch), sewing clothing for the kids, and doing the yardword.. YUCK.  I shudder to remember those days!
Yes, it was just as much work as any paid position would hold.
But I think the mentality changed about the value of that work, when women who were already doing that, also had to get non-home jobs AND come home and do the same things they did before.
The quality in the things you do, does go down, but it still gets done.
Knowing that we could do it, is what I believe, made people think less of housewives. 
I tend to think of people who are non wage earning workers (housewives) as artists.  People who put all their creativity into running a household and do it well.  Vs, wage slaves with home obligations who don't have as much time to spend on making the home an art.

Dang it, now that I am older and the kids are grown, I have the money to HIRE help, and don't need it.
LOL
Life is so unfair.
Kyst
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
Some people think that because someone is not given a paycheck they have no right to the assets of the marriage, that they are lazy and irresponsible. Now this view is more common than I care to think about, but it is deeply flawed and wrong.



juliaoceania -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 10:25:02 AM)

As someone who was both parents, bread winner, and homemaker all in one... I know the value of having a helpmate. You know, a person that is not bogged down by doing their own laundry, making their own meals, planning their own retirement future with investments, paying bills, managing a 1000 little details, has more energy to devote to making a living... I know that to be true for a fact. Being everything is impossible, and people that think a spouse that takes care of their 1000s of little details isn't enabling them to take on the world of work.. well they need to rethink that.



gothbunny -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 11:18:19 AM)

LOL! Love the "crappydom" line. [:D]



Caitriona -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 12:25:57 PM)

My Lord would prefer that I not hold a job outside of our home - however, that is not always an option due to our finances.  So in the past I have worked a part time job and given my paycheck to him.  He gives me back an allowance that I am allowed to spend in whatever way I choose.  He uses the rest for bills and puts some away in savings for me.

When we make the decision to adopt a slave into our family on a live in basis, they will be expected to work outside the home to help pay the bills, ect.  I imagine that their monetary situation would be much like the way mine works as described above. 



thetammyjo -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 1:08:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hereyesruponyou

I seem to find myself in somewhat unsure territory here. I see some Dominants who require tribute and demand payment in order to take over the care of another. Mostly I see alot of "slaves" who want to give up the responsibilities of the real world and just be taken care of forever, with the trade being service or even extreme restraint and punishment.

I wish i had the money to be able to add another person to my household, but as a single mom I am making just enough to keep us comfortable. When I ask a perspective slave about his ability to contribute to his own care, they seem to often become somewhat offended. Not sure how to show I am not one of those people who are out there to take advantage of others. I don't need or want my slave to support me (however if there are any independently weathy slaves who want to, i guess i could let you, lol).

Just curious how others feel about this. It seems so contradictory at times


I just wanted to say that I personally don't think it is contradictory at all to see slaves as financial contributors. In fact, slaves have historically fallen into two categories -- manual labor and household labor. Manual labor was focused on providing income for the owner and even household labor could provide income or at least should make it seem like the master was wealthy and therefore open up more business opportunities or political opportunties for him/her.

Since I purposely see slaves as people whose life is focused on making an owner's life easier, I naturally think that they need to contribute if not be the sole way that income is earned.

I personally think it is contradictory to have slaves who basically are "housewives/husbands" or only around for sex or play. I'm not saying that taking care of the house isn't important and isn't work but I see that in vanilla relationships all the time and don't connect it to slavery at all.



Wildfleurs -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 1:10:02 PM)

I'm using fast reply...

From my perspective as someone thats invested a lot into developing a career and a career path I wouldn't really want a dominant that expected me to shelf all of it to stay at home and be (from my perspective) bored as hell.  I didn't become my owners slave to get taken care of, nor do I expect it.  As his slave if anything I believe its important for me to be something that adds fully to his life, not takes from it (or from his finances).

C~



hammernhoney -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 1:26:32 PM)

WE aren't filthy rich but not bad off either,we have always worked hard to get ahead and enjoy the things we love IE horses...I continue to work hard and be damm if a slave is going to sit home while we both are out working.Perhaps she will work at home online or work in our business but she/he will earn their keep...HNH



CreativeDominant -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 2:08:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Because part of being dominant is responsibility.  It has been stated that Merc feels that it is the owner's responsibility to financially provide for his slave.  She in turn knows that it is through his work and his efforts that she is provided for.  He made it his responsibility.


CD,
Just want to clarify one thing. Your perspective is flawed. It may seem that I am merely providing financially for beth's life needs and comfort; the reality is I'm providing for mine. That is why I say; you shouldn't have a slave until you can afford one. As I've said before my definitions and version of M/s are a function of my egocentric and selfish persona. beth's decision to enter into such a relationship was a sacrifice on her part. she is provided for, but by providing for her I am providing for me first and foremost. Now beth doesn't see it as a "sacrifice" but that is only because, through an alignment of planets or a supreme being folly of will, she met a person whose "selfish" dominant desire meshed with her "giving" submissive desire. And of course there is the great sex!

Think of it in terms of transportation. You can get there by bus, you can car pool, you can rent a car, you can buy a car and make payments, or you can own one free and clear and do anything you want with it. In all cases the mode of transportation is submissive to your needs. You may get to your destination by any method, but only full ownership gives you the ability to anything you wish with your property within the law.


I appreciate you clarifying some things for me, Merc.  If I implied that caring for beth and not for yourself or that it was only out of some sense of nobility and not a certain amount of...as you yourself noted...selfishness on your part, then I apologize.

That said...~putting on my flame suit again~...as the dominant (or Master), would you expect someone else...beth perhaps...to go out and work so that you could afford to bring another slave into the household and have this slave be non-working outside the home in order to tend to you full time as caring for your wants and needs was a full time job in and of itself?



Mercnbeth -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 2:18:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

quote:

ORIGINAL: hereyesruponyou

I seem to find myself in somewhat unsure territory here. I see some Dominants who require tribute and demand payment in order to take over the care of another. Mostly I see alot of "slaves" who want to give up the responsibilities of the real world and just be taken care of forever, with the trade being service or even extreme restraint and punishment.

I wish i had the money to be able to add another person to my household, but as a single mom I am making just enough to keep us comfortable. When I ask a perspective slave about his ability to contribute to his own care, they seem to often become somewhat offended. Not sure how to show I am not one of those people who are out there to take advantage of others. I don't need or want my slave to support me (however if there are any independently weathy slaves who want to, i guess i could let you, lol).

Just curious how others feel about this. It seems so contradictory at times


I just wanted to say that I personally don't think it is contradictory at all to see slaves as financial contributors. In fact, slaves have historically fallen into two categories -- manual labor and household labor. Manual labor was focused on providing income for the owner and even household labor could provide income or at least should make it seem like the master was wealthy and therefore open up more business opportunities or political opportunties for him/her.

Since I purposely see slaves as people whose life is focused on making an owner's life easier, I naturally think that they need to contribute if not be the sole way that income is earned.

I personally think it is contradictory to have slaves who basically are "housewives/husbands" or only around for sex or play. I'm not saying that taking care of the house isn't important and isn't work but I see that in vanilla relationships all the time and don't connect it to slavery at all.


with all due respect, in the context of an M/s relationship this slave thinks it is up to each individual Owner/Master to decide what makes His/Her life easier, regardless of if vanillas, other Owner/Master's or historical evidence lends us to believe slaves of the past are or were doing it or not.



juliaoceania -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 2:21:50 PM)

quote:

That said...~putting on my flame suit again~...as the dominant (or Master), would you expect someone else...beth perhaps...to go out and work so that you could afford to bring another slave into the household and have this slave be non-working outside the home in order to tend to you full time as caring for your wants and needs was a full time job in and of itself?


Yes, now nonworking partners are equivilent to slaves, meaning women who do not work are somehow submissive to their husbands.. I would love someone to tell my sister that[:D]. Last I looked her husband pretty much gives her the moon, but she tends to work 24-7 to keep that home going. Marriage is called a "partnership" these days.

And the comment you made to the lady that has a husband, what if they both work? Does that change the complexion of things in your mind?

This is kinda my sore spot, because women's work is low paying, devalued, and this attitude is just one more example of that. It is as though if a woman does not work, her contribution has no monetary value and she is not just as entitled to the household income as someone that works.

There is a difference between a slave and a wife... just thought I would clarify... it seems you think the two are analogous... they aren't



CreativeDominant -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 2:24:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: sting516

why is that important...if Lady Kimberly feels she's well off enough to take a slave on, what difference does it make how that happened?


Because part of being dominant is responsibility.  It has been stated that Merc feels that it is the owner's responsibility to financially provide for his slave.  She in turn knows that it is through his work and his efforts that she is provided for.  He made it his responsibility.

Perhaps I am wrong, but if it is LK's husband who is doing the work to provide for this slave, then hasn't it become HIS responsibility to financially care for the slave...and not hers?


This subject very much enthuses me. The women in my family have at times stayed home and did not work. They were taking care of their husbands/homes/children. Although they did not financially contribute in the form of a "job", they did contribute. Some people think that because someone is not given a paycheck they have no right to the assets of the marriage, that they are lazy and irresponsible.  Now this view is more common than I care to think about, but it is deeply flawed and wrong.


It is one thing to have equal assess to the financial assets of the marriage...and I will agree with you that in most cases, it is recognized by the courts and by many, many people including me...that people who stay at home and keep up the house, take care of the children, take care of the spouse when they get home, etc.. are entitled.  But that is not the type of situation we are talking about here.  If you choose to see it that way, then you do and I doubt that I can convince you that this is not the same type of situation, that it is something else entirely... having access to the marital assets to take care of your health and your needs and your life and those of your children would not...IMHO only... also mean having access to the marital assets to provide for a slave for you. 
quote:

 Hire a personal assistant and see how much this costs you. A wife is co-equal in the home unless the couple decides otherwise. During the era of slavery in this country, slaves made no distinction between male and female owners in their respect either.


Let's not go to the era of slavery...I've too often seen it stated on here that slaves of the D/s BDSM variety do not equate to the slaves of that era.  And even if this WERE comparable, I saw nothing that stated that the slave would be expected to serve LK's husband equally.
While these women in your family did not work outside the home and so relied on the husband/father to provide financially,  they contributed in the form of taking care of the husband/father and the household and children and pets, etc..  It was a give and take situation of roughly equal work-for-pay/sustenance/comfort.  Everyone was getting AND giving something in exchange for something else.  I see no declaration of that in LK's post...what I see is that her husband works outside the home, she cares for the home and presumably her husband, and now wants her husband to pay for a slave that will take care of her and that she can enjoy.  I see the husband's giving part in this...I don't see mention of what he gets in return for paying for the upkeep of his wive's slave....will the slave also serve him?  Will the slave enable her to better care for her husband?  Will the slave enable the better upkeep of the house and property?



BabyNyla -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 2:39:50 PM)

As for us, we expect a slave who joins our home to work outside the house.  It doesn't necessairily have to be a full time job, but they are expected to participate in the household.  We also don't require this because we can't afford it -we can very much afford to take care of a slave, it's just part of what we seek.  Money they earn would be for their lifestyle, their desires, entertainment, etc.
 
We have spoken with 2 slaves regarding this, and the male slave was very clear that he had no desire to hold a job or contribute to the household, other than in sexual pleasure.  This is not something we were interested in, so we were not interested in him.  I think part of our thinking is that we want a stable, responsible person to join us.  And if they are someone who can't hold a job or has no desire to work, they will be a rather *lazy* member of this household (for a lack of a better term).
 
Now ... as all things in D/s, this isn't ALWAYS the case, this is simply our opinion and preference.  So if you are in a 24/7 and don't hold an outside job, more power to you.  :)
 
Nyla



CreativeDominant -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 2:45:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

That said...~putting on my flame suit again~...as the dominant (or Master), would you expect someone else...beth perhaps...to go out and work so that you could afford to bring another slave into the household and have this slave be non-working outside the home in order to tend to you full time as caring for your wants and needs was a full time job in and of itself?


Yes, now nonworking partners are equivilent to slaves, meaning women who do not work are somehow submissive to their husbands.. I would love someone to tell my sister that[:D]. Last I looked her husband pretty much gives her the moon, but she tends to work 24-7 to keep that home going. Marriage is called a "partnership" these days.

And the comment you made to the lady that has a husband, what if they both work? Does that change the complexion of things in your mind?

This is kinda my sore spot, because women's work is low paying, devalued, and this attitude is just one more example of that. It is as though if a woman does not work, her contribution has no monetary value and she is not just as entitled to the household income as someone that works.

There is a difference between a slave and a wife... just thought I would clarify... it seems you think the two are analogous... they aren't


I don't know where or how you came up with that opinion that I think a slave and a wife are analogous...maybe because this subject is, as you noted, a sore spot for you....but I was speaking to Merc of beth...his slave AND his wife (unless I'm confused and have gotten it wrong...other posts on these boards have seemed to indicate that beth is indeed Merc's wife).  Therefore, my questions to him in the post cited above were directed to him and his situation only.

As for whether or not the wife in the other example I cited on another post...LadyK...works, I repost this from my first post to her:

Two questions...if you, like most dominants, consider it your responsibility to provide for your slave's welfare in some fashion, do you work to keep yourself and your husband well off enough financially for you to add a "non-worker" to your household? Or is your husband the only one working?

Now perhaps I should have added the phrase "outside the home" to make it politically correct or to somehow make it clear that I get/that I believe/that I understand/that I am in no doubt about the fact that people who do not work outside the home still contribute to the household.  I watched my grandmother and most of my aunts do it for years.

As for women's work being low-paying, devalued, etc., etc....that isn't MY fault nor is it the fault of most of the men I associate with and I don't appreciate the fact that because my view on the situation as described (and not wholly, allowing for what may be erroneous conclusions on everyone's...not just my...part) is not wholly appreciative, that it is somehow because I am devaluing her contribution to the household.  Just to make it even more clear as to my view on the situation:::  
Lady K is now Sir K.
Sir K has a wife.
Sir K wants a slave.
Sir K does not want said slave to work outside the home...Sir K's slave's duties will be to take care of Sir K.s needs and wants first and foremost.
There now...everything is the same only it is a man instead of a woman.  If said male dominant did not work outside the home and expected the wife...who does...to pay for his slave who was not going to be slave in any way to the wife, I would not be wholly appreciative of that situation either.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 2:55:52 PM)

Edited to add: 
quote:

was speaking to Merc of beth...his slave AND his wife (unless I'm confused and have gotten it wrong...other posts on these boards have seemed to indicate that beth is indeed Merc's wife). 
beth is indeed my wife. We married in September after 3 years living as M/s. It was another selfish, as well as economic, move on my part. The determining factor was once, while renting a car, I had to pay an extra $25 for her to be a driver on the contract because she wasn't married to me. I've saved at least $100 since that day.

quote:

That said...~putting on my flame suit again~...as the dominant (or Master), would you expect someone else...beth perhaps...to go out and work so that you could afford to bring another slave into the household and have this slave be non-working outside the home in order to tend to you full time as caring for your wants and needs was a full time job in and of itself?


Simple answer - NO. If under some circumstance I decided to add a slave to my house, I would have the same "one-Master" requirement and the "care & feeding" expense would be my responsibility. BTW - I have great respect for those able to maintain a stable of slaves or a slave household. I know my physical, mental, and emotional limitations - one is enough!

I think you should consider that there is some gender bias involved in the answers that have been given by others.

I'm not ashamed of being selfish when it comes to the criteria I used for searching for a slave, or my ongoing use of her after the "find". I do take issue about the perception of her daily activities at home. she is not "bored", not "sitting around", and not "only around for sex or play". What she is doing is "focusing on making her owner's (ME!) life easier. That she is doing that for me exclusive of anything else is very important to me.

I travel often for business, she is always with me. I want a drink and some food waiting for me when I get home - it's there. I want clean clothes - I have them. I want a very clean and organized home and property - she makes sure I have it. Sometimes things are done through her "manual labor" sometimes she uses other "slaves to salary" such as gardeners and maids.

I can require anything to be done for me, to me, or on my behalf day or night; and it gets done. There are many skills and abilities required of her. One thing NOT required is to consider how to fit in my requirements into a schedule set by someone else. Principal "someone else" would be an employer telling her she couldn't take off to join me on a trip, or used her energy for work making it difficult if not impossible to fulfill my selfish interests. I committed to never requiring her to do the impossible. I will never put her in a position to fail. I know she would fail and could not function as my slave serving another 'master'/employer.

Pragmatically I know I can't control somethings. Family obligations for us both are always playing head games with us in the background. What I can control I do. It may be "micro-managing" to some. It is definitely "anal retentive", detail, and results oriented; but to me it is as natural as eye blinking. KEY - beth's responsibilities are similarly natural and easy for her.

We do not live a fantasy, we live a fantasy fulfilled. Come visit us anytime and you can see it in action.



LadyKimberly33 -> RE: Slavery/Contribution to care (2/1/2007 3:19:10 PM)

Okay to clear the situation some...I do work full time and always have, as does My husband. We put ourselves through school and have continued to improve our lives to the point I am comfortable with, not wealthy by any means but comfortable. We both make enough money that if we were to seperate, neither would be financially devastated.

We have discused many times if the slave should work out of the home or not. It is My/our opinion if he is able to manage the home from cleaning to maintenance, be a personal assistant and a playmate for Me he will more than earn his keep.

As of now we pay for dry cleaning, a house cleaning service, a lawn care service and grocery delivery for the convenience of it, because we do both work and choose to do so.  It does add up to quite a bit each month, and he should be able to replace these cost plus more, such as no more calling for take out because I am too tired to cook, because dinner will be waiting when I get home.

As you can see this is not the situation for everyone, if You wish your slave to work, by all means have him work

Lady Kimberly

I edit this to add

I do not see what would be wrong if I did not work and My husband had no problem with My slave not working. The slave makes life easier for us both, but is directly Mine. I could go to a deep dark place and ask if the wife does not work then, per CD, should she have permission to have a child, that is a much bigger expense in My eyes than a slave...




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.203125