RE: Vanilla and D/s (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message


CreativeDominant -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 12:36:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: NuevaVida


quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Hello gorgeous one
Then maybe you can explain it to me - because I don't 'get' the difference - and until I can see what makes all Ds relationships this way and vanillas another, instead of people accepting that all relationships are different anyway (ie - that one Ds relationships works differently to another Ds relationship) - I just see them as 'the same'(hows that for confusing[:D]).
 
When people are saying they are 'the same' - they are suggesting that all relationships are the same, as in that ALL are different.  That is the 'similarity'.
 
What were your differences?
 
the.dark.





OK I think my head actually popped after reading that!! Hmm...let me try to answer, and then I have to scoot off to work.

In a non-D/s relationship, I need to know and understand how to be an equal partner with equal say. I need to accept and exercise that my decisions have equal weight in the relationship, and utilize the skill of making such decisions and following through on them. I am responsible for my own body and what I do with it. I have authority over myself, which gives me the final word as to what I do.

As a submissive in a D/s based relationship, I need to know and understand how to subjugate to his word. He has final decision making authority over me, my body, my life, and I need to utilize the skill of gracefully complying to his will. I need the skill of communicating without making demands, and of understanding myself at a level I might not necessarily need to in a non-D/s relationship.

In a non-D/s (I hate the "vanilla" word) relationship, I am not expected (nor is it necessarily desired) to deny a desire of mine so that his desire can come first. In a D/s relationship (as has been my limited experience so far), that very well may be expected of me, and I might need the skills to do so without feeling pouty about it, and certainly to behave according to how HE prefers, rather than how I prefer.

In a non-D/s relationship, I can enjoy serving him in a way that makes me feel good, overall. I can do things for him that I want to do for him, of my own accord. In a D/s relationship, I serve him how HE wishes to be served (and still enjoy it, mind you), which may be different than what I originally had in mind.

So, OK, these relationships are all the same in that they are all different and unique. But the skills needed in each relationship, as I see it, are different.

Now I'll dizzily make my way to the office, lol.




 
What NV said here is exactly what i was trying to indicate on skills that new submissives have to start using (mentioned in my previous post).
 
Unless there is some other basis (other than that authority exchange is key to what is central to the relationship) for one partner to submit to another, social norms in older couples, the way someone was taught marriages were supposed to look like, religious or spiritual convictions, etc. it seems to me that more often than not what we are calling "vanilla" relationships are like a two-headed animal with both heads pulling in opposite directions, trying to figure out who gets to win this time. Most of what i've seen, although they have a "power dynamic" of a sort, it is more often a power struggle, than a power exchange (though i prefer the term authority exchange)
 
Added to that, is the fact that modern girls, women are taught to stand up for yourself, look out for number one, don't let any man tell you what you can or can't do, etc. So there is not only a learning curve of how to gracefully submit as NV stated but also an unlearning curve for many on how to not run one's lifes by the precepts that have been drummed into them.
 
heartfelt


I'm answering here because both nv and heartfelt expressed differing things but things I agree with. I think that neuva vida did an excellent job of pointing out that much of what does occur...in terms of actions and reactions on both sides of the coin...within a D/s relationship does differ from a vanilla relationship.  I think she may have done a better job of getting at what I was trying to get at.

heartfelt expresses a lot of what I have felt and expressed before about things that...for many...can begin to cause problems within non-D/s relationships and for many of the reasons given by many on here, including myself.

bita brought up an interesting point when she noted that perhaps the skill...if it can be defined or called a skill...of recognition of the authority transfer and then following whichever side of the path you are on even when you don't want to is something that is completely different from most vanillas.  Hell, as she noted, it can create problems in many D/s dynamics when the submissive does not like the way things are going and then states that "they are unhappy" or "feeling emotionally fragile" or whatever reason can be used to avoid following through on their side.  It can create problems when the dominant tries to just push in the "because I said so" fashion all the time rather than mixing the statement in with those commands or directives that encompasses guidance of the submissive and/or the dynamic and/or himself




RCdc -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 12:52:26 PM)

Gorgeous one, you rock!  Thank you for giving over your pov.
I do get exactly what you are giving over and that I just come from the opposite standpoint on many of the issues you presented and therefore I have no 'baggage'(not sure if thats the right word exactly) on issues such as equality or communication because in either Ds or non I use the same set of skills.
And I do believe that comes with the nurturing I have had as I was raised.  I have been incredibly fortunate not to be taught the whole 'women must be independant' and it all coming down to not allowing a man to tell you what you should do (heartfelt - you rock too!)  I have been from the very beginning never been able to exercise and practise my skills without the fear of doing the 'right or wrong' thing - regardless of which relationship I have.  Which is why I personally don't have to have certain relationships to practise or learn, because I haven't been constrained by society or communities.
 
the.dark.




SlyStone -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 12:56:53 PM)

quote:

That sounds romantic and wonderful but sadly, the romance of any relationship can die without the skill to tend to the structure within which the romance resides.




That is pretty funny because people who know me would never in a million years call me a romantic :)  but I do see how it does sound that way. I think I was being overly simplistic and perhaps wrongly dismissive of an opposing viewpoint.

I do not think that all relationships are based on simply "being",  my viewpoint  was and still is, that D/s does not exist in a vacuum, it is rather an extension of who we are and what we bring to it.

And I don't think that there is any particular skill set, besides the kink  ie learning to use a single tail etc, that is needed to participate in it or to excel at it, assuming one has a need and desire to engage in a defined power exchange relationship, beyond those same interpersonal skills that one must have to participate in any committed  and trusting relationship.


 




KnightofMists -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 1:53:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

quote:

nyone can just be... but to do it well takes skill



Interesting, I would have said it takes heart and soul.


Anything but skill.




well.... I suppose a person can just throw some dice with all his heart and soul invested in the outcome and just hope that lucky seven comes up... 




leadership527 -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 1:58:07 PM)

quote:

well.... I suppose a person can just throw some dice with all his heart and soul invested in the outcome and just hope that lucky seven comes up... 


*laughs* Or, alternately, we could simply realize that actually throwing the dice and not throwing the dice are the same thing so it doesn't matter what we get when you throw them. Or, perhaps we should uniquely value the positive and affirming aspects of all numbers. I mean, come on, 2 has gotta be a good number for someone, somewhere, right? Then again, since each number is in fact unique unto itself, can we really even compare them at all?




SlyStone -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 2:15:59 PM)

quote:

ell.... I suppose a person can just throw some dice with all his heart and soul invested in the outcome and just hope that lucky seven comes up...



Well, I suppose that when it comes to dice, there really is nothing else you can do.




KnightofMists -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 4:59:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

perhaps we should uniquely value the positive and affirming aspects of all numbers. I mean, come on, 2 has gotta be a good number for someone, somewhere, right? Then again, since each number is in fact unique unto itself, can we really even compare them at all?


There is alot of truth to that in my view... however... we just can't throw the dice and expect to get that two.  If we want that two... then I suppose it important to develop the skills necessary to get that two.

I think it is a rather pointless exercise to consider if there are more or different skills in a "vanilla" relationship compared to a D/s relationshp.  I consider it alot more important to consider what skills a person needs to have for there given relationship to be successful.  Now we each are going to have our own definition of success and we will each have our own idea of what skills are needed to get that success.   I also think it is useful when we look at specific issues on how others might of dealt with the issue successful... what did they do... what choices did they make... what skills help them in that success... There of course are differences.... but I suspect that those who are looking for that big #2 might find some value from others that are looking for #2 as well.. and might even be considered successful at it.   




leadership527 -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 5:16:07 PM)

*laughs*

For the record, 2 is a losing number in craps (I had to look that up myself before I posted just to make sure I had chosen a poor number). The number was chosen to illustrate the fact that while losing probably works for someone, somewhere, for some reason, the generally better advice for most people is to try to avoid 2. Really, the fact that for .000001% of the population who wants to lose their money at the craps table 2 is the PERFECT toss, doesn't negate the fact that for everyone else, "Don't roll a two" is really sound advice.

So despite the fact that everyone's relationship to the dice is different, amazingly we ARE able to put together some rough guidelines and rules. We ARE able to suggest that, in general, some things are better than others. We can go further and specify under which cases a TWO is better than a SEVEN. If I self-identified with the group of people who like to win money at craps, I might look at other winners and learn something from them (namely, throw lots of 7's, not many 2's).

Unless, of course, someone wants to put forth the argument that 2 and 7 are actually identical or that dice don't really exist at all.




catize -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 6:26:18 PM)

Your die (dice? dices?) analogy lost me completely.  I see that as a game of chance, there really isn’t any way to throw a seven all or even most of the time, unless you’re cheating.
I believe that no matter what kind of relationship anyone has, it is not simply luck that makes it ‘sevens’. 
This entire discussion reminds me of George Carlin’s comparison of football and baseball. 
 “In football, the object is for the quarterback, otherwise known as the field general, to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his receivers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use the shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches his troops into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack that punches holes in the forward wall of the enemy's defensive line.
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
 

Maybe we like to think of D/s as football and ‘they’ play baseball?

 




Padriag -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 6:47:21 PM)

Dunno how anyone else feels about what you wrote... but I enjoyed the read and I think you hit on some important points.  One of the things that has bothered me is that there tends to be an "either / or" trend, not just in this discussion, but in any discussion about this lifestyle.  I see more variation than that.

Mind you, I like definitions, I like understanding things, I do believe there is a quantifiable difference between slave vs submissive vs bottom or master vs dom vs top, I like labels that have defined meanings attached, and I think most already know how overly analytical I can be.  But... I also see lots of possibilities... just possibilities that can be defined... I'm complicated that way.

What I don't see is a black and white divide between "vanilla" and "D/s".  I've seen D/s relationships that definitely had a romantic element to them, in many ways they were very like a "vanilla" relationship, but with an defined authority dynamic added (and is some cases a not so defined authority dynamic).  I've also seen D/s relationships that were so far removed from anything vanilla as to be a whole other animal, completely separate.  There's a pretty broad middle ground between the two.  The skills that would make that... let's call it "romantic D/s" work might be close to the same skills needed in a "romantic vanilla" relationship... but the skills necessary to make that "owner/object" relationship work are very different.  To say nothing of a Dom+Domme relationship, Switch+Switch relationship, or a poly Dom+Domme+submissive+slave..., etc.  I don't think we're dealing with just two "sets" of skills... but rather many skill sets.

Maybe we need a flow chart... a graph perhaps... some kind of visual aid.




WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 6:53:10 PM)

All any of us need to do is contact our Human Resource Specialist(s).  They will gladly assist in explaining the differences between Transferable Skill Sets, Knowledge Skill Sets and Inherent Skill Sets and how the different skill sets work together to bring about a harmonious work (relationship) environment no matter the particular skill sets you bring to the 'team'. The debate was interesting, but I'm goign to take two tylenol, a glass of wine and unravel the circular logic tomorrow....maybe...

All teasing aside, it really is an interesting read - even if it really did make my head ache trying to keep up with it.

WinD




SimplyMichael -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 8:53:28 PM)

Rover,

How does this sound.

If we define "vanilla" as all types of relationships ever experienced by man, then that pretty much encompasses every relationship style and that I would agree with.

However, what I am trying to get at here is not some "discovery" of a new type of relationship (D/s) and thus the skill to produce it but what is different about your AVERAGE vanilla relationship and the skills AVERAGE people have, and what what what advice/skills a person in an AVERAGE vanilla relationship is going to have to aquire to have at least as good a D/s relationship.  That is ultimately my goal, to figure out a sort of common, average roadmap to get from your average vanilla relationship to your average D/s one with a minimum of heartbreak and drama.

While I think there are some new skills involved, you clearly think there isn't ,but I think we could all agree that you can't get there with crappy vanilla skills and certain skills need to be operating at full capacity, such as the ability to listen and be able to empathize fully with a partner.

Yea or nay?




Rover -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 8:58:15 PM)

Michael, be fair.  If you're going to use the "average" vanilla relationship (whatever that is) as your model, then compare it to your "average" power exchange relationship.  If average is meant to be what we see commonly in BDSM, then vanillas have nothing to feel insecure about.
 
 
If you're going to compare "good" power exchange relationships to something, at least compare them to "good" vanilla relationships.
 
I don't see much difference.
 
John




SimplyMichael -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 9:00:59 PM)

quote:

That is ultimately my goal, to figure out a sort of common, average roadmap to get from your average vanilla relationship to your average D/s one with a minimum of heartbreak and drama.






Rover -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 9:09:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

quote:

That is ultimately my goal, to figure out a sort of common, average roadmap to get from your average vanilla relationship to your average D/s one with a minimum of heartbreak and drama.



Yeah, I saw that.  But I misread the previous sentence which read "as good" to mean "a good".  My bad.
 
Crap man, I don't know how you go about defining average for either vanilla or Leather.  I think folks that are average in vanilla relationships are probably gonna be average at power exchange relationships. 
 
John




NuevaVida -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 9:25:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: NuevaVida

In a non-D/s relationship, I need to know and understand how to be an equal partner with equal say. I need to accept and exercise that my decisions have equal weight in the relationship, and utilize the skill of making such decisions and following through on them.

 
To begin, I am in no way telling you what you personally need to know or understand.  But having said that, who says so you need to be an equal partner with equal say, other than the folks at NOW?  Very few vanilla relationships are "equal" in that way, in my experience (one or the other seems to have and exercise the majority of control).  And although this description is accurate for some vanilla relationships, it's simply a stereotype when applied to all vanilla relationships.
 
Ok, I'll throw this out there as some fuel for the fire....
 
Resolved:  Power exchange relationships are merely a specific subset of vanilla relationships (where one partner has authority to exercise control), and all that separates D/s from vanilla is self-awareness and acceptance.
 
John


Hi John,

I only speak from my own experience, which is admittedly limited. And I used "I" statements to reflect that this is how I see it and how I have personally experienced. It was my experience in my non-D/s relationships that I was expected to hold equal weight in decision making, income earning, and authority in general. This has also been the case in my family's non-D/s relationships as well as most of my friends and co-workers. I have not personally witnessed or experienced the majority that you speak of. This is not to say I'm correct in my assumption, but it's what I have personally seen. In other words, I have seen authority transferred in various aspects of these relationships, but it all comes out equal in the end.

As for your resolve, some authority-transfer based relationships work that way, and others do not. My last D/s relationship was not at all a subset of a non-D/s relationship. I was his slave and toy to be used. There was very little in the way of "relationship" activities. I was the object and he was the owner of said object. Now it can very well be that that is a minority, and perhaps that's why I see things as I do. I know now that with the person I'm currently enjoying time with, there is a much more "normal relationship" (whatever "normal" is) aspect to it. But I still need to utilize skills I wouldn't otherwise utilize, were he not dominant over me.




NuevaVida -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 9:29:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Gorgeous one, you rock!  Thank you for giving over your pov.
I do get exactly what you are giving over and that I just come from the opposite standpoint on many of the issues you presented and therefore I have no 'baggage'(not sure if thats the right word exactly) on issues such as equality or communication because in either Ds or non I use the same set of skills.
And I do believe that comes with the nurturing I have had as I was raised.  I have been incredibly fortunate not to be taught the whole 'women must be independant' and it all coming down to not allowing a man to tell you what you should do (heartfelt - you rock too!)  I have been from the very beginning never been able to exercise and practise my skills without the fear of doing the 'right or wrong' thing - regardless of which relationship I have.  Which is why I personally don't have to have certain relationships to practise or learn, because I haven't been constrained by society or communities.
 
the.dark.


Aww honey, YOU rock! [:D]

I understand where you're coming from now, and why we see things so differently. If how you are now is how you have always been and have always been expected to be, of course you're not going to experience the differences that someone like me, starting out as totally fucked up, is going to see. Hell, in many ways I'm still fucked up and figuring this all out!!

But hey, we learn, eh?




WhiplashSmile2 -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 10:56:02 PM)

How does it sound we simply say that D/s is one of the types of relationships People have period, and knock off all this us vs. them vanilla bullcrap. 

A D/s relationship is being two human beings.   You can have and many people have D/s relationships without knowing Jack shit about the BDSM lifestyle. 

The basics and fundamental principals behind what is involved in a D/s relationship is pretty simple concept.  Not too fucking hard for Joe the Plumber to even understand even.

Back to mountains out of fucking mole hills again.  Gee, you'd somehow swear unless you are into BDSM you are fucking lost and clueless about how to have a D/s relationship. 

Fucking sort of makes me sick, how people have the frame of mind that so called vanilla people are totally lost and fucking clueless when it comes to D/s, kink or even S&M.   Dugh!!  Get a fucking clue, we are a slice of human life and nature itself.   We are part of the human race.   We are not somehow seperated from the human race.   Meaning we are not the only ones that are all knowing about D/s and kink even.

I'm seriously questioning the IQ factor or wait perhaps it's the common sense factor of people. 




Padriag -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 11:51:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

quote:

That is ultimately my goal, to figure out a sort of common, average roadmap to get from your average vanilla relationship to your average D/s one with a minimum of heartbreak and drama.



Yeah, I saw that.  But I misread the previous sentence which read "as good" to mean "a good".  My bad.
 
Crap man, I don't know how you go about defining average for either vanilla or Leather.  I think folks that are average in vanilla relationships are probably gonna be average at power exchange relationships. 
 
John

Like you, I can't really imagine any method that would have meaningful objective value by which to determine what is "average" or "common" for either... not without being able to compile large amounts of census data.  I also find it ironic that whatever result you get would likely be useless within a few decades... which causes me to question the utility of any such determination even if it could be done.

Beyond the temporal nature of the data, there's also the problem that such would tend to marginalize anything that doesn't fit into that "common" category... which would leave out quite a lot of people.

And finally, even if we did figure out what the most "common" current vanilla and D/s relationships are... and then by comparing them came up with some meaningful differentiation between the skills/traits/qualities of each... what have we really accomplished?

I cannot help but sit here and wonder (at nearly 3 am... why am I not asleep?) would all that energy not be better spent determining what skills/traits/qualities are most helpful in developing successful D/s relationships of various types... perhaps contrasting/comparing the principles and dynamics at work in various types of relationships to foster a better understanding of how each works and what is necessary for them to function?

Like others, I wonder why the focus on "vanilla" relationships at all.  No matter how its been phrased it still sounds very much us vs them... and at heart, elitist in a passive-aggressive way.




NuevaVida -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/29/2008 11:57:14 PM)

Jeez Whiplash, why so upset?

I still dont see a "vs" concept here, as that indicates they're in competition. I don't think anyone is alluding to a competition here. As for mountains and molehills, it's just a conversation going on, unless I'm missing something. If it's not a conversation you particularly like, that's cool but I don't see anyone making mountains here, either, except for maybe the venom in your post.

If you think a discussion like this warrants an IQ or common sense factor lower than your own, dont participate in it - that's a pretty easy concept too! I certainly don't see such a discussion warranting anyone feeling sick. But then I haven't read each post attentively so maybe I'm missing something.




Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875