I want a sd!
Originally Posted by mayheminthebedroom
Before you ladies here can really say this, you should think of the whole SD/SB vs. Provider realm more like being acting in movies (extras, character actors, movie stars) and less like a metaphor, some of you here who are somewhat imagination challenged might quickly get, such as shopping for handbags.
If the shopping for handbags metaphor applies (which I contend it doesn't), to making a transition from being a provider to an SB, as some here have expressed a desire to do, it would be more like moving from J.C. Penny's or Macy's to
Barneys or
Hermès. Of course, the handbags would have to pay you to take them (now isn't that a dream) and the more expensive ones would obviously pay you more, a lot more. Thus, it seems, many here (not those of you with imagination and vision) seem to think of transitioning from provider to SB as just trading up to nicer models and getting more cash to do it, but the process isn't the same. It just isn't.
Men and especially SDs, are not handbags (or combination handbags and ATMs). Especially not the guys who can afford to be SDs and have put the effort in to learning how and actually executing a plan. They are smart and have much much more to offer than cash and a hard dick. We men may on occasion be pond scum (but usually not SDs) but we aren't ATM handbags. This, it seems to me, is a metaphor many providers would understand when they think about having an SB/SD relationship, but it is a terribly flawed way to think about it.
If you will indulge me just a bit longer here, I would suggest that the whole realm here equates with a more movie actor type metaphor. Think of the providers as
extras or bit parts where they usually
get paid scale and generally
don't audition for the part (but may interview or even show clips).
Next up are the
character actors who are more like SBs. They often have a
much larger/longer role, but
they have to audition (unpaid) for their parts and often the
auditions are very competitive. They also have skills and experience or attitude that broader and deeper, or at least different from extras and they bring these skills to bear in their roles. A lot of those who are extras think they want bigger roles, but just aren't willing to apply broader or different skills and put the hard work in to become a character actor or
don't have the heart to approach the job in the way it takes.
They usually feel if they are working they should be getting paid, period, otherwise they are "giving it away". While
the real actors usually do it for the love of the craft and would give it away except when they can get paid for it. Also, often the character actors are absolutely thrilled that they can actually get paid for what they need/love to do. Finally, the character actors also have a range of skills and things that they do (think of them perhaps as method actors) that far outstrip the extras and don't always encompass "acting".
Plus, (and this is a big point) the actors have their hearts in it, their whole hearts. Almost no one makes a career of being an extra. Actors suffer poverty for their whole lives to act, even when they aren't very good. It is thrilling to be around movies, actors, directors etc..., but if the bit parts dried up it wouldn't kill most of them. Actors would have to find something to act in if all the parts dried up. They just can't live without it most of them. No one type is "better" than the other. Movies would not get made without extras, character actors and movie stars, though some are.
Finally, I admit, when you bring in movie stars the metaphor breaks down (and for other reasons as well which I'm sure some providers will indignantly and dramatically point out shortly) because they don't usually audition and they are usually in love with the craft (not to mention their multi-million dollar salaries), but hey, there are no perfect metaphors. Does this help at all (it was fun writing it so I could actually give a damn)?