It's complex. I usually earn more. I virtually never pay. I don't mind that and men don't mind that. I tend not to date men who are starving anyway. I find the sexist humuliation of a man paying arousing. It's a humiliation more erotic than any disgusting name he might call me (which is not something I'm into). A non feminist wouldn't think like that. She'd think it normal or natural he'd pay.

So my feminism, as a submissive, eroticises his paying - lucky me. Win win situation all the time. Laughing as I type. I even like the traditional thought process - he paid so he's owed... isn't that sexy too?

(I'd actually prefer the UK/US had reached a point where all women and men earned the same on average but we haven't got there yet. I'm sure we will but that's a different topic)

Paying for a meal feels like a natural part of taking care of a woman with whom I have or want a relationship, and it would not be “paying to play.” But I would expect her to look for different natural ways to take care of me, as the relationship progressed. To me, taking care of each other is an essential part of a relationship, and I would be looking for more ways to do the same for her.

Hera’s interpretation seems bizarre to me, and also out of place. How does being a feminist who is aroused by the perceived humiliation of a man fit in with the fundamental ideas of a Taken In Hand relationship?

I lost my mind and Louise found it for me.

Coincidentally, before I read your post, I had been stuck in a waiting room where there was a long and very loud discussion among college students from a women’s studies class about how traditional roles were actually humiliating for men, only they were too stupid to realize it.

So I misread your post (and now I really feel stupid!). What you were saying should have been obvious to me, and it is definitely not bizarre. It makes perfect sense that a woman with submissive inclinations could get a perverse pleasure from that type of situation.

Hera wrote:

I find the sexist humiliation of a man paying arousing. ... A non feminist wouldn't think like that. She'd think it normal or natural he'd pay.

Interesting. I can relate to this sentiment, even though I no longer call myself a feminist, because of how the term has become radicalized and misused. (Radicalized to the extent that it vilifies men, innate masculine qualities, and/or natural gender differences.) I guess I still feel vaguely guilty when the man pays, even though I would now prefer that, because it implies his dominance. (I used to always insist on payment equality.) It does feel a bit humbling to me to have the man pay for the date; but I'm not sure it's the humiliation aspect that I enjoy. I think it's just that his payment for it means that the date is under his control.

ATIHR-1 wrote:

I've never thought it was humiliating for a man to pay for my dinner. I guess I don't quite get that. To me it seems flattering and protective.

I have a hard time reconciling it with economic equality between the sexes, which is something I still support. If you are earning as much or more than the man -- or even if you think you should be -- then it can be somewhat humiliating for him to pay, because it implies that his economic power is greater. But I don't get turned on by a man's economic power, just like I don't get turned on by a man's intellect. Both of those are areas where I think men and women should be equal. (Not every man and every woman, but as a societal average.)

The things I get turned on by are his specifically *masculine* qualities: his physical strength, his aggressiveness, his virility, etc. I can find it erotic when he opens the door for me, pulls out a chair, etc. -- because things like that relate to feeling his physical strength and my relative physical weakness or fragility. But when it comes to economics, then I don't enjoy feeling weak or fragile at all. (Even though I am sometimes; especially as a college student again.) So why do I now feel that it's sexier if the man pays? Especially given that I don't believe he should necessarily have more economic power than me? I think it's just because if he pays, then it seems like he's the one in control of the date; so for me it reinforces his dominance in that particular situation.

ATIHR-2 wrote:

Hera’s interpretation seems bizarre to me, and also out of place. How does being a feminist who is aroused by the perceived humiliation of a man fit in with the fundamental ideas of a Taken In Hand relationship?

Some women really enjoy various types of humiliation, because it evokes or reflects their submissive nature. Usually they don't appreciate any and all kinds of humiliation; only certain specific types. I enjoy some things that others might find "humiliating" but I really prefer the label "humbling" instead. The word "humiliation" seems to imply not just humbling, but also shame; and I don't feel much shame at all, and certainly not when a man is doing something to me that I enjoy immensely.

Would a feminist naturally be more inclined to feel humiliated by certain humbling tactics? Maybe; I could see that. But for me that would be too twisty a mind game to play. The ways I enjoy being dominated are ways that men actually *are* superior to women (physical strength, penetration, etc.) When it comes to ways that men and women are or should be equal (intellect, economics, etc.) then I don't really enjoy being dominated in those ways at all.

So I don't really perceive any conflict or paradox between my residual feminism and my sexual submission. My "feminism" relates to areas of actual or natural gender equality (eg, intellect, competence), and not to areas of imaginary gender equality (eg, physical strength or aggression). Whereas my sexual submission is exactly the converse; it relates to areas of actual or natural gender inequality (physical strength) and not to areas of imaginary gender inequality (intellect).

Louise summed up well how it makes me feel. However if I'd never had a job and married at 16 I'd still be submissive. The two aren't linked at all and I was submissive well before I made any career choices. I don't have some huge erotic need to go out there and get frissons of excitement when men who earn a tenth of what I do get out their chequebook. It does kind of make me feel there ought to be something in return which again is an erotic thought. This is in life terms fairly irrelevant anyway because most of us don't spend most of our lives dating new men (I hope I don't).

There's no basis for men to pay if the woman earns a lot more except that for some men, particularly dominant men, it makes them feel good which is perhaps reason enough. When men have taken up my offer to pay half I've happily paid and I always offer. I prefer it when they don't because I like the sense of being beholden, the unspoken historical bargain done by that. It's fun.

I am much more concerned about how I feel with men who earn a fraction of what I do. It's a major issue not because I've ever ever lived on a man's money or would want to but because of what makes me feel submissive and what in general, never mind, Taken In Hand makes relationships work best.

If you are happy with that, then it's fine.

Perhaps I'm reading far more between the lines than I should, but your words seem to be rather cynical and tinged with a bit of bitterness.

KrosRogue