The Top 100 BDSM / Fetish Books    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : Internal Enslavement : "Finances" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Finances (74) This post is on the Internal Enslavement web board. 13 Jun 09, 7:12 PM 272-387-080 US(PA), 5 yrs Thanks LL for your thoughtful comments. I am looking for a lot more than a game or fantasy. Re risk #1 you wrote LL wrote: If you want to view your status as more of a game and less of a reality then sure, keep you full sense of personal security through the reservation of your assets. Perhaps put it in a secret account and tell no one. But for my own sense of reality here it does make a difference to whether you really are a helpless slave at your Master's mercy or just faking it. Do you believe you will be more of a slave in your attitude and service by having your fallback assets? Honestly, the contrary seems more likely. I believe a girl who really wants to keep her Master interested will do those things that accomplish that more readily than one to whom it really doesn't matter. Think about your motivation. Will you be more likely or less likely to realize your true slavery to this man having your own back-up security plan in case he finds someone more interesting? I am a man looking for a male master but the issue is mostly the same. The odds seem to be against such a relationship lasting forever (ie til death do we part). I understand that turning over my assets gives the master exceptional control over me, and I want that degree of control. I won't be able to back out, change my mind, or leave when it gets too tough. But I also know the divorce rate is something like 40 to 50%. What I'm talking about is not a marriage, but things do change. Beyond a master dying before me, he could find someone else and no longer want me. He could lose interest in the idea and burden of having a slave. He could simply tire of me. If any of these happen, I can be out on the street with no home or other assets. I am looking for some sort of middle ground. One thought is to turn over my bank account and ongoing income for him to manage, so there is no cash. Without cash I am not going to hop a plane home, much less a taxi to the airport. That is a great deal of control - but I still have a safety net if, through no fault of my own, I am discarded. I'm also open to other ideas as to how to cede over as much control as possible making my situation "no option" without signing over my home and business. 14 Jun 09, 5:08 AM EvaMaria US(CA), 3 yrs Lord_Laraby wrote: If you want to view your status as more of a game and less of a reality then sure, keep you full sense of personal security through the reservation of your assets. I agree with 272-387-080. It's more of a game/fantasy to proceed on the assumption that what is unthinkable now will remain that way. The reality is that both partners may outlast the relationship and a person's current financial picture affects the future as well as the present. I think it's an owner's responsibility to seek some good, solid legal and financial advice re: trusts, escrows, investments, etc, and make sure realistic provisions are made for all possible eventualities. I don't think it matters which partner implements these protections as long as the responsibility is met. I know it can be distasteful, but to do otherwise would be denial/neglect around the care of another and that isn't any person's right - not even a master's. Eva (The property formerly known as Camille ) 14 Jun 09, 6:18 AM porcelaine 5 yrs Total and absolute are words that have different connotations and implementations for everyone. What one elects to enforce another may choose not to control. Neither are incorrect and the decisions speak for what is best for the parties involved. It isn't mine to judge or criticize, since the enjoyment of such and adherence to the terms are the responsibility of the one that yields and owns, not those viewing from a perch. In relation to my personal experience, I can honestly say it can go either way. My background in finance would make me the most likely party to handle that, simply due to the training and experience I possess. I would gather for some, responsibilities of this nature are allocated to the person best qualified. In some households that may be the master, and others the slave. The latter doesn't imply the lessening of control or an exchange. But the owner's willingness to recognize his property's talents and utilize them to their fullest capacity. porcelaine "You linger over what you've acquired, and contemplate her, and penetrate her, and live with her beneath the fire in which she crepitates, yields, moans, giving in to your flesh or to more remote, more inscrutable qualities." ~Homero Aridjis Edited 14 Jun 09, 6:19 AM by porcelaine 17 Jun 09, 7:48 AM slave_of_The_Tesh US(FL), 2 yrs I hope not. He's really, REALLY bad about finances. W/we've already decided that once W/we live together, I will be the one in charge of the budget and the money because I'm better at it. Owned by The_Tesh This post has probably been edited for spelling/grammar because I'm weird like that. 17 Jun 09, 8:47 AM Ms_Valentine UK, 4 yrs I am going to speak to paul soon about what he feels regarding the idea that all our assets and property ar ein my name. there may be sensible legal and financial reasons why they should be joint but I will be interested to know if he has got to a level of complete trust with me ( after seven years of being in submission to me) that he would have no personal qualms about giving all to me. My integrity has been proven in the past when I divorced from my vanilla husband and we split up our assets amicably and fairly with no problems and are still very good friends three years down the line. I am hoping p will feel in principle prepared to relinquish all he has to me as an act of trust SHOULD I require him to do so. I may or may not actually want to but that is not the point. 8 Jul 09, 1:18 AM SgtMajorMaam UK, 2 yrs My shubby and I currently own two properties, both of which W/we owned before W/we married one his and the other Mine. His will be put up for sale over the next few months and he will move into Mine to take care of Me properly 24/7. Although W/we have been together for 10 years and married for 5 W/we have not yet lived together permanently despite spending most times together between the two properties. It is his request that once that has happened he be permitted to hand over his financial concerns entirely to Me for My supervision. I will provide him with housekeeping and spending money of his own but it is his wish that I control the finances outright. In practice I will have My own account , there will be a joint account where his pension and any other income of his is paid in and all bills will be paid from and I will have overall control of this account. He will then have his own account where a set amount will be paid into it for him to use for shopping and spending money only. SgtMajor Ma'am 'suaviter in modo; fortiter in re' 8 Jul 09, 2:41 PM Ms_Valentine UK, 4 yrs Ms_Valentine wrote: I am going to speak to paul soon about what he feels regarding the idea that all our assets and property ar ein my name. there may be sensible legal and financial reasons why they should be joint but I will be interested to know if he has got to a level of complete trust with me ( after seven years of being in submission to me) that he would have no personal qualms about giving all to me. My integrity has been proven in the past when I divorced from my vanilla husband and we split up our assets amicably and fairly with no problems and are still very good friends three years down the line. I am hoping p will feel in principle prepared to relinquish all he has to me as an act of trust SHOULD I require him to do so. I may or may not actually want to but that is not the point. To answer my own response, it turns out that p would have no qualms about all our assets being in my name alone. I kind of guessed that would be his take on it. As others have said, it isn't the legal aspect so much as just the fact that if one is in total control ( or ownership) of another, what is theirs is yours and that is the way it is. 2 Aug 09, 12:58 AM The_Captain1974 2 yrs IE by its very nature implies yieldings one's self entirely to a Master. By extension, this includes finances and income of all sorts. I firmly believe that I should maintain control of financial issues. Notwithstanding that decision, I give access to specified accounts for normal living and expenses. It's simple common sense that those in your control are taken care of and have regulat access in order to take care of life. No Master should ever be so callous as to not make arrangements for his people. I have, through both insurance and financial access. 23 Aug 09, 2:31 PM islave CA, 2 yrs Y! Master and I were discussing just this question yesterday. I have been 24/7 with Him for 5 months and He is giving me the option of His control of my finances. I am a career teacher but will shortly ask Him to take everything away from me as it seems I do not take finances seriously. I think Sir recognized that from the beginning but wanted to see if I could show some fiscal control. Money never mattered much to me... as long as I had some. Hee hee. I want Master's control over me to be total & complete! Those changes are now underway. 24 Aug 09, 12:06 PM Tanos UK, 14 yrs Y! 272-387-080 wrote: Finances Is IE or TPE truly possible without turning over one's assets to the Dom or Master? I think retaining financial independence would be a freedom which would make IE very hard to establish. eg that you work, your money is paid into your bank account, you have a debit/credit card which you carry with you all the time. When things were going well, maybe you would only use it with permission. Whenever things were hard, the temptation to exercise a bit of rebellion by using money - that magic stuff that makes all practical freedoms achievable - to do what you're not allowed would be very great. Even if that freedom wasn't exercised, you'd know it was there - like a veto safeword hanging over your owner's head. However, assets like houses can be legally owned by someone in the eyes of society, but in practice controlled by someone else. In fact, with bricks and mortar a lot of the machinery to create trusts and lifetime leases etc is readily available. I don't want to downplay the symbolic power of all the assets being legally in the owner's hands, but I think for IE, the practical day to day control of them is more important than the effect of any measures taken in case the owner dies. And yes, M/s involves major risks, and is sometimes used by abusers who mouth the right words long enough to strip submissives of their assets. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk Edited 24 Aug 09, 12:09 PM by Tanos Next page