[ SECRET POST #2527 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2527 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 042 secrets from Secret Submission Post #361.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[nyxelestia]

Well, to look at it another way, that is paying. Paying = contribution in order to receive something, even if it's not something tangible or easily defined. You pay in labor and time to have those reasonable living conditions.

Of course, for many people - particularly Americans - pay does just have that whole "you do/give something, you get something" and that's ingrained into the social fabric. For many other cultures, though, "pay" has an explicitly transaction-ary connotation to it, and thus it's somewhat more separate from the social fabric.

I think the best way to explain it is that it's an inverse of some Asian traditions of just handing out money to people on New Year's or other specific holidays. From the American perspective, that's really fucking weird, because if you're going to give someone a gift, why not give them something personal? It feels like you're just trying to buy affection, which is not (or at least shouldn't be) the done thing. But from the Asian perspective, money is as personal as you get because it allows them to get themselves exactly what they wish without the giver's own perceptions getting in the way of the recipient's actual want/need.

[(Anonymous)]

I think "paying" is different from "contributing" though--"paying" is an impersonal transaction that's over when the goods/services and money change hands; "contributing" means acknowledging an ongoing duty to help support the people who support you.

[nyxelestia]

In that case, another way to explain this is that for many people, "paying" and "contributing" are pretty much the same thing. The difference is that one is the exchange of delineated services or tangible goods, while the other is the exchange is less-clear services or intangible goods/benefits. Otherwise, exactly the same.

And as such, to them it's strange that so many others would see "paying" and "contributing" as such vastly different concepts.

[(Anonymous)]

How about this, then: "contributing," in the case of a household where everyone accepts some duties in order to benefit, is closer to "participating."

[nyxelestia]

That's probably a difference they understand. Unless they went to school in suburbia, in which case participate will feel even closer to pay than contribute. I'm not saying people don't understand the difference. I'm just saying that the reason why some people don't consider the use of the term "payment" as strange is because to them, it's not all that different from "contribute". On the flip side, those who do find it strange are those who do differentiate the terms more will find it strange, because it feels like paying and contributing are two different things.

[(Anonymous)]

IDGI: do you view all forms of reciprocity in relationships as a form of commerce--or imagine that most people do?

[nyxelestia]

I think the perception is the other way around - "payment" does not have to inherently mean commerce, at least for some people.

I'm just saying that for some people, terms like payment and contribution are almost completely different or have different connotations, whereas for others the differences aren't inherent, so the idea of "paying" for living in your home by doing chores is not all that strange - because it doesn't 'feel' much different than "contributing" to your home by doing chores.

[making_excuses]

That is how I think about it too, I might say I would pay to live at home, but it is in the sense that I will contribute to the household, either with money or doing stuff around the house (or both). My mother did not expect me to give her money when I lived there, nor did she ever tell me that I had to do something, but I still did it, because I lived there too.

[(Anonymous)]

+1