Power Exchange, Money, and Self Esteem

I started writing this to post on IC. But then I thought I probably shouldn't, as it's somewhat inflammatory. Though I realize there is an equal dose of inflammatory by posting it here. Still, it's something I've been thinking about and I wanted to get it down.

Recently, while considering what sort of relationship I aspire to, I’ve also spent time considering those that I don’t. To do this, I usually use examples that I know about and it occurred to me recently that I know of no less than three examples of an imbalanced financial relationship that resulted in a type of power exchange that in all cases seemed to masque a deep seated sense of poor self esteem.

I don’t think it’s strange that within bdsm circles there are a variety of people with self esteem issues, just as you will find an equal number of people with self esteem issues outside of the bdsm world. But I think you are more likely to find people using kink in the bdsm setting to address it (whereas other people in a non-bdsm setting address it in other ways perhaps).

This isn’t something that is limited to the ‘submissive’ or the ‘dominant’ and I think the issue is equally prevalent in both subsets, it’s just a different way of addressing the issue.

From the submissive perspective, the act of being controlled or being ‘expected’ gives a purpose. As in, if one has low self esteem, the value placed on oneself by another can give meaning or purpose.

In the case of a dominant, one can use ‘being in control’ as a protective measure to eliminate the fear of rejection or self-doubt by projecting a strong persona to minimize any feelings of inferiority (and ideally by having the requisite doting compliment).

So what happens when you add money to the mix? Oddly enough, in the three examples that came to mind, two of the financially subjugated were professed ‘dominant’ and only one was submissive. But when the dominant people I knew became financially subjugated to their partners, they actually gave up their real control when they became financially enslaved to their partners. The financially enslaved continued to assume they were in a dominant position, because, I think, it would have been too painful to face up to their inner belief that they were only worth what they could provide, and not worth anything for who they were.

In the submissive case, it was perhaps more obvious- since submissives are often inspired to ‘do for’ or ‘provide for’ their partners. It’s not a far leap then for the submissive partner in a relationship to start using their money to make their dominant happy. But I think there’s a fine line between doing for your partner ‘sometimes’ and doing for your partner ‘all the time’. Because you end up with the exact same problem and subsequent reinforcement, “I am only worth what I can physically give to a partner because I don’t believe that anyone would want to be with me just as the person I am.”

In all cases, one had to wonder, if the financially obliged partner were to suddenly not financially provide, would their recipient partner still be with them? Was their partner in love with them, or with what they could provide them? I think what exemplified all three of these cases, unfortunately, was that the individual with the low self esteem actually sought out and was attracted to a partner who would best take advantage of them. I know of a fourth example, which is similar, but different because while one partner is sort of financially supporting the other, the one being supported feels so… embarrassed by this, that they make every effort to do the shopping, cook the meals, clean the house, and to otherwise make every possible contribution they can to the relationship to try and even out the financial excess of their other half.

But in the imbalanced examples I’ve considered lately, what strikes me is how very ungrateful the financial recipient party tends to be. Oh, they tend to be just thankful enough to ensure that the money keeps flowing, but they don’t make any additional efforts to the relationships to try and equal the score. They seem to take their personal funding for granted. All of this, I believe, serves to reinforce the original issue of low-self esteem.

Of course part of it must be a circuitous argument. One seeks someone whose behavior towards them supports their ideas of themselves. It becomes a type of parasitic relationship. In two of cases I know, the financially obliged didn’t have the finances to support their spending habit, and yet so afraid were they of losing their relationship (and thereby their purchased self-worth), that they felt they had to keep supporting them financially, even as they followed that path into ruin.

It’s one thing to have the finances to be a sugar daddy/momma and make no bones about what you’re paying for, but it’s another thing entirely to be so deeply unhappy with yourself that you think the only way to personal happiness is to buy it. Or even worse, to believe on some level that it's all your worth.

So yeah, in my consideration of a future relationship for myself, I'd love to buy my partner a gift here and there, to surprise them with something occasionally, or to splurge on them once in a while just because I can. But I would rebel against doing it all the time, and I'd feel uncomfortable if someone tried to do it for me.

So, an odd thing to consider, since I am well aware I have my own self esteem issues. I know that I don't address them through finances, and I know I don't address them through slutty behavior (the partner to thinking you are only worth what you can buy- you are only worth your sex).. so what do I do? Something to think about.