RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong.

RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (Full Version)

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

Message

WestBaySlave -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/6/2012 2:15:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC Trust me on this. Without the SM component it is a lot like being a stranger in a strange land. A fair number of posters here agree that in the absence of bondage, discipline, sadism or masochism you're not into BDSM. It's not an entirely unreasonable viewpoint. I think a part of this is that there isn't a really strong D/s community as a separate and/or overlapping group with vanillas and BDSM fans. So, that pretty much means even non-"kinky" ( which as you've seen, is very in-the-eye-of-the-beholder ) D/s types aren't very welcome in the vanilla work ( where it reads as "abuse" ) versus in the BDSM life ( where it reads, at worst, "rather plain sex life" ).

JeffBC -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/6/2012 2:57:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WestBaySlave I think a part of this is that there isn't a really strong D/s community as a separate and/or overlapping group with vanillas and BDSM fans. So, that pretty much means even non-"kinky" ( which as you've seen, is very in-the-eye-of-the-beholder ) D/s types aren't very welcome in the vanilla work ( where it reads as "abuse" ) versus in the BDSM life ( where it reads, at worst, "rather plain sex life" ). yup.. that just about sums up the situation. I may not be totally aligned here.. but I'm WAY more aligned here than there. I'm actually reeling in shock at what I've seen there... the readiness to bring out the pitchforks and torches over nothing really... nothing but being male and having a fantasy which you asked your wife about.

RedMagic1 -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/6/2012 3:05:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC A fair number of posters here agree that in the absence of bondage, discipline, sadism or masochism you're not into BDSM. Based on the UseNet archives I've seen in a FetLife history group, that was the original meaning of BDSM, and, a few months later, people added Dominance/Submission as an additional meaning for the D and the S. This appears to be better sourcing than what is used for the Wikipedia article, for example, which is not as strong about the inclusion of dominance and submission. Point being: while it is technically true that the acronym BDSM did not originally include dominance and submission, that was added very early on. I think what you're running into is more a question of numbers. There are far more people who practice sensation play, pain play, and swinging/x-manysomes, than there are people in happy, healthy, master/slave relationships.

JeffBC -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/6/2012 4:48:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 I think what you're running into is more a question of numbers. There are far more people who practice sensation play, pain play, and swinging/x-manysomes, than there are people in happy, healthy, master/slave relationships. I totally agree... and it's not like anyone has ever made me feel unwelcome. It's more just a sense of where I fit. Obviously, I still fit here as I always did. But my revulsion at what I saw in the vanilla crowd has changed the balance for me. At this point I think I'd want to identify as vanilla right after I go for white supremist and baby killer.

littlecherie -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/6/2012 5:12:39 PM)
BDSM isn't just giving or receiving pain. I think Dominance and submission is in that catergory as well. So, no, Master and I are not 'vanilla' even though the biggest 'pain' he gives me is a few spankings and bites

seductdom -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/6/2012 5:21:14 PM)
These chat boards remind me more of a bad job than any real benefit, Overall that's sad but that's the vibe I get,

seductdom -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/6/2012 5:22:44 PM)
Correction, chat sites meet/date sites

poise -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/6/2012 6:45:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seductdom These chat boards remind me more of a bad job than any real benefit, Overall that's sad but that's the vibe I get. I'm not sure what you mean, or why you picked this specific post to mention it. Clearly everyone in this thread is enjoying the sharing of ideas (except for the parcheesi bit) Care to elaborate on your feelings?

littlewonder -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/6/2012 7:08:45 PM)
quote: Well, over the last few days I've been spending some time on a vanilla relationship site. OMG. The kinds of things that they think are just incredibly beyond the pall of reason. I seriously have to wonder if any of them are male or female at all -- perhaps a bunch of androgynes? robots? I think of myself as not particularly sexually worldly or knowledgeable but sheez.... if THAT is what the vanilla world is like then I'm the freakin Stephen Hawkings of Sex. replace "vanilla" with "bdsm" and that's how I feel...the exact opposite of you.

JeffBC -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/6/2012 10:53:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder replace "vanilla" with "bdsm" and that's how I feel...the exact opposite of you. fascinating! Any chance you would elaborate on that?

JeffBC -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/6/2012 10:56:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: poise except for the parcheesi bit So is it that parcheesi is hard limit for you or is just that you disdain online parcheesi in favor of the full sensory version? I need to know. I'm making a map of your mind for my neural linguistic programming subliminal porn photos I'm planning on sending you. The AI wants to know for it's heuristics tree. Soon, soon sweet poise you will be in my power and then you shall parcheesi whether you like it or not! Bwahahahaha

kitkat105 -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/7/2012 2:14:53 AM)
Well as someone who thought they were vanilla because I never knew what I wanted was actually kinky... embrace it! I love my new found kinkiness and I am delighted I have my Sir to explore this with. Being kinky is just too much fun. And it's not as thought it's a negative label. The vanillas are missing out.

littlewonder -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/7/2012 5:36:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder replace "vanilla" with "bdsm" and that's how I feel...the exact opposite of you. fascinating! Any chance you would elaborate on that? Meaning I feel I have much more in common with regular everyday folks people here call vanilla than I do with people who call themselves bdsmers.

Firebirdseeking -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/7/2012 5:44:54 AM)
Hey, Jeff, I know exactly what you mean, I have looked on vanilla sites for matches for vanilla friends, and OMG. A long term friend from this site defines"lifestyle" (non-vanilla) as having an awareness of the power dynamics in relationships, and seeking that. I personally think this is a good definition.

poise -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/7/2012 6:55:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: poise except for the parcheesi bit So is it that parcheesi is hard limit for you or is just that you disdain online parcheesi in favor of the full sensory version? Even online, the game board offers a fair amount of visual stimulation, and I can well imagine holding those vibrantly colored game pieces in my hands as I click the mouse to move them, so it's not that. quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC I need to know. I'm making a map of your mind for my neural linguistic programming subliminal porn photos I'm planning on sending you. The AI wants to know for it's heuristics tree. Soon, soon sweet poise you will be in my power and then you shall parcheesi whether you like it or not! Bwahahahaha The rules of play state that it's only the dark places that are safe. Even your heuristic method of problem solving should see the contradiction in that. puts her tinfoil turban back on to scramble the signals from my mind

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/7/2012 7:02:21 AM)
Um. You mean when you've been describing yourself as "vanilla" you were SERIOUS?? [:-] Sillly Me!! I thought you were just saying that, the way I say I'm a virgin! [:D] You fonny, fonny man. And now I will picture Simply Michael falling over laughing.

NuevaVida -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/7/2012 7:20:43 AM)
What the heck is wrong with Parcheesi? I love Parcheesi! Actually, a friend and I used Parcheesi as a "code word" of sorts, years ago, when talking about sex when her kids were around. Heh. Aw Jeff, so you basically found you're on the D/s spectrum rather than the "vanilla" spectrum. So your relationship is D/s based without the BDSM part (I see BDSM as only one kind of physical act/expression within or without a D/s type relationship). I think it's awesome you're discovering more about who you are and what you relate to (or don't relate to). I don't think vanillas are worse off (which is the impression I'm getting from some of the posts here) - they're just finding their own way, too, like everyone else, and there are things that rub them wrong - they just happen to be things that don't rub us wrong. Toss me into a vegetarian forum and any talk of zucchini or eggplant is going to make me cringe, yanno? Here's the difference, as I see it. You rule your roost, and your wife submits to you, and you (ahem) do have some zest for what's considered kinky (see leash in photo, see past posts of you being open to another submissive, see this post of your fantasy of seeing Carol with another man, etc.). You're open to exploring new ideas about sex, and you relate more to us group of freaks than those vanilla freaks. I know a lot of vanillas who are just as open to kinky ideas but would loathe the D/s aspect, and I know kinksters who enjoy the D/s aspect but would loathe a lot of the sexual kink we often see expressed here. But I see relationship politics and repression amongst kinksters, too. It's just that "human thing" lol. In any case, welcome back to the party. I hope this means you'll come around more often. [:)]

LafayetteLady -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/7/2012 8:23:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida I don't think vanillas are worse off (which is the impression I'm getting from some of the posts here) - they're just finding their own way, too, like everyone else, and there are things that rub them wrong - they just happen to be things that don't rub us wrong. Toss me into a vegetarian forum and any talk of zucchini or eggplant is going to make me cringe, yanno? Here's the difference, as I see it. You rule your roost, and your wife submits to you, and you (ahem) do have some zest for what's considered kinky (see leash in photo, see past posts of you being open to another submissive, see this post of your fantasy of seeing Carol with another man, etc.). You're open to exploring new ideas about sex, and you relate more to us group of freaks than those vanilla freaks. I know a lot of vanillas who are just as open to kinky ideas but would loathe the D/s aspect, and I know kinksters who enjoy the D/s aspect but would loathe a lot of the sexual kink we often see expressed here. But I see relationship politics and repression amongst kinksters, too. It's just that "human thing" lol. In any case, welcome back to the party. I hope this means you'll come around more often. [:)] Very well said, Nueva. It's funny really. There is often discussions where there is much talk about how people should be "accepting" of other people's desires. The whole "your kink, not mine," mentality whereas while it might not be something you personally would care to partake in, people are quick to admonish others if they say what that person wants is "repulsive" or "sick," words I've seen bandied about a bit on this thread to describe people who don't share the OP's views on things and label themselves "vanilla." I define myself as "kinky." I also define myself as "vanilla." I don't care if people choose to be poly (unless they want to involve me), I don't have a problem with people who choose to have an open marriage, swing or have threesomes on occasion (again, as long as it doesn't involve me). In my mind, how people choose to conduct their private relationship is their business as long as the people involved agree and it doesn't interfere in outsiders lives. If I had a partner who expressed a desire to introduce a third into our relationship, there would be a serious problem. I'm monogamous and expect my partner to be so as well. I find it "repulsive" and "offessive" and incredibly childish that people, especially people who often talk about how others shouldn't judge how they choose to live, would quickly and openly judge others for choices that don't match theirs.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/7/2012 1:26:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Quite frankly, and I mean no ill-respect, but why, really, would you want to identify as vanilla? [&:] Isn't that a lot like asking someone "Why would you want to identify as gay?" I pick labels not because I "want" them. I pick them because they are accurate descriptions to the best of my ability to understand "accurate". Internally, I didn't self-identify as kinky and I felt more at home with the vanilla mindset. it's a lot like saying, "I would pick 'gay' if I was turned on by male bodies". The reasons for that, I suspect, are largely contained in this statement. But I actually think the line between BDSM and vanilla is a clear one. I've never encountered anyone into kink who didn't self-identify as a kinkster (at the bare minimum) or into BDSM, specifically. Maybe this is because I am into S&M (where to me the line seems quite a bright one)? Trust me on this. Without the SM component it is a lot like being a stranger in a strange land. A fair number of posters here agree that in the absence of bondage, discipline, sadism or masochism you're not into BDSM. It's not an entirely unreasonable viewpoint. My point about why would you want to identify as vanilla was not meant to disparage vanilla. My point is, that given the range of things that you and your wife are interested in, I guess I'm not sure how the term "vanilla" would have ever applied. Most of my friends and family are vanilla. I have nothing against vanilla for those who are, in fact, vanilla. To each his or her own. I'm respectful of that. But if you are into the kinks that you claim to be into, I'm not sure how the label "vanilla" would have ever applied. And while the line is quite bright with respects to S&M, I was actually suggesting that if you are into " non-S&M kink", in my world, that would still mean you were not vanilla. In other words, I'm suggesting you are like a gay man who doesn't want to embrace the term "gay". You are a kinkster who still wants to use the label vanilla. This is what I don't quite understand. I've had many vanilla bfs and relationships. I have nothing against vanilla. But if you are into the type of kink that you and your wife are into, I don't think that qualifies as vanilla in my mind. My perspective. Others don't have to share. But if you and your wife were to introduce yourselves to me at a party and when I raised the topic of kink, both said, "oh, no, no - we're not into BDSM, we are vanilla", personally, I would think that a mis-characterization of the dynamic that you have in your relationship. Yes, at the end of the day these are all labels, but I agree with you about if you are attracted to men, well then, you are gay. I think to continue to use the label straight doesn't work. [sm=2cents.gif]

JeffBC -> RE: Oh man. I have been SOOOOO wrong. (4/7/2012 4:57:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus Um. You mean when you've been describing yourself as "vanilla" you were SERIOUS?? [:-] Well yes, that's why I'm laughing too. I think I had lost all sight of what "vanilla" means. I had no idea that simply broaching the idea of a threesome to your lover was instant divorce material. That's a level of sexual repression I could never get behind. It's not healthy. quote: ORIGINAL: Neuva I don't think vanillas are worse off (which is the impression I'm getting from some of the posts here) Yes, you are right. Carol reminds me regularly that the people on this discussion site are not just "vanilla". They are also vanilla and in marital trouble. There also seems to be a pretty puritanical theme going on. So what i saw there isn't representative of "vanilla" so much as a particularly troubled and repressed version of vanilla. And, to top it all off, there appears to be WAY more than normal amount of power politics going on in the marriages. So yes... note to self... those folks aren't even remotely all of "vanilla". quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess In other words, I'm suggesting you are like a gay man who doesn't want to embrace the term "gay". You are a kinkster who still wants to use the label vanilla. This is what I don't quite understand. Not my style... this is the same guy who posted pictures of himself in a thong. I'm pretty comfortable with whatever I am. This, I've learned, was simply a total miscalibration of what it means to be kinky. To exaggerate, because I came into the whole kink world basically naive about sex in general, it seemed like if I didn't have two trapezes and a bondage cross in my living room then it was vanilla LOL. Take the leash thing. For most of the time, that's been mostly like a "6' long wedding ring". It wasn't really a bondage device. Heck, it had a velcro closure that if you tugged on it at all came loose (but it was easy to put on and off). So it didn't seem very "bondage-ey". Upon closer review, most guys don't have photos of their wives kneeling with a collar and leash :) Yes, I can be incredibly obtuse sometimes. It's also confusing because even the D/s component isn't eroticized. I don't own Carol because it's sexy. I own her because it works for us. So it was difficult to visualize it as "erotic domination and submission" because it's not. ~shrugs~ In the end, all I know is that I like being able to use adult words to discuss adult topics with adults. I like being in a place where a mere fantasy is not automatically a crime.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875