RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/24/2007 1:16:49 PM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Celeste43

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

How would you define a "healthy relationship"?

One in which both people's needs are being met, one in which resentment does not occur. One in which both people's self esteem is affirmed.

That is a good one.. not sure why, but it's something I feel like I should think about for a while.

(in reply to Celeste43)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/24/2007 3:04:17 PM

slavejali

Posts: 2918
Status: offline

quote:

In some Ds relationships there is punishment and reward

Agreed, did I say anything different? Well you said "some" I said 'many"..the point being...people do practice it within D/s M/s and bdsm. Let's not get pedantic and miss the point behind what I was saying.

quote:

but that doesnt define a Ds relationship from 'vanilla' - not in the slightest.

I don't think many vanilla people would openly accept that a punishment and reward system was in place within their relationship, even if it is unconsciously or psychologically set in place. Within our relationships we can openly say, "hey yeah it is and its all good for us" so it "can be" a defining factor that sets us apart from vanilla.. I'm not saying it "has to be" set in place for us not to be vanilla, its just one of those little differing things that "can be" there.

quote:

A Ds relationship does not have to contain BDSM at all. One dominates, one submits - there need to be punishments, no fetish, no rewards, other than love(occasionally) and commitment.

Domination and submission is not punishment and reward.

Agreed, you think I don't know that? Well you mustn't or you wouldnt have written that

quote:

Master slave is not punishment and reward it is Mastery and slavery - but some people choose to have BDSM within their relationship.

Uh huh

quote:

And as for SM - well that is as defined again by sadism and masochism
.

Uh huh

You're preaching to the converted, I know all that and its not the point of the topic. When I said, punishment and reward can be a"part" of what makes our relationships diffrent from vanilla, I was simply meaning, it 'can be' an element of bdsm S/m D/s and whtever other letters we can throw together that describe us as not vanilla. I wasn't talking absolutes.

You would have to agree that there are elements of our relationships that are different from vanilla relationships, whether that be D/s M/s or BDSM within it. I think if we get caught up too much in all the espousal of propoganda surrounding correct speech and accepted philosophies we can rattle off..our conversations go nowhere.

quote:

You cannot define a Ds relationship simply by punishment and reward,

I didn't.

quote:

nor can you say there are not vanilla relationships that do not contain punishment and discipline, because they do - but that doesn't make them a BDSM relationship.

A vanilla relationship containing punishment and discipline I would probably classify as an abusive relationship, unless both parties agreed and it was all healthy etc and then, even if they didn't themselves, I would probably classify them as having a D/s or bdsm relationship depending on how its playing out, whether they have ever stepped into a dungeon or not.

quote:

quote:

Me: guess I just don't think any decision of the dominant should threaten the relationship once established
You: It shouldnt threaten, because it shouldnt be used as a threat, but an action. Therein lies the difference.

The only difference I see in regards to this topic is, I don't see the removal of a collar for a time as a threat. It wouldnt be a threat to my relationship with Master anyways, we have a committed relationship, I trust him and I'm willing to go through the process of his decisions. I don't think a relationship should be based on a materialistic object, no matter what significance it holds and I believe a dominant/owner/master/mistress/whatever/whoever has the right to do whatever the fuck they want and if they are not making sane decisions, the submissive/slave/whoever/whatever shouldnt be in the relationship to begin with.
I just couldnt live any other way, it would drive me insane not to have confidence in the "relationship" itselfs ability to endure through whatever.

Unless as LA mentioned, it was set up from the beginning that removal of collar was the end of relationship, yet even then, realistically I can't see a dominant walking up to their submissive, with nothing leading up to it, undoing their collar and everyone just 'knowing' the relationship was ended. I can't imagine people in commited/organised/ongoing relationships doing that and possibly if that 'did' happen, due to the obvious lack of communciation etc their relationship was ended long ago anyways. I just cant see the "single event" of the dominant removing a collar for a time as necessarily significant to the ending of a relationship in regards to a D/s or M/s relationship (he/she can treat the slave however he/she sees fit)..and the only way I can relate to it as such is if it is seen as a wedding band..and with that thought comes my opinion that vanilla ideals become twisted through what is supposed to be a D/s M/s dynamic. ...and saying that...if that works for two people cool....but...I do not see it as necessary. Different strokes for different folks.

< Message edited by slavejali -- 5/24/2007 3:07:58 PM >

_____________________________

Freedom in Bondage

Different Strokes for Different Folks

"I'll always have a *soft spot* for Sadists"

(in reply to MadRabbit)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/24/2007 3:15:43 PM

LuckyAlbatross

Posts: 19224
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline

Yeah I still wonder how to label my relationship. We're vanilla toe achother- our relationship is based on love and mutual compatibility of goals and desires. There is no expectation of authority transfer to or from any one at any time.

But we're both switches and we both switch witheachother. We do punish and reward eachother. We do kinky stuff all the time. We do have rules for eachother.

But then...I don't give him access to my bank accounts because he is my owner...I give it to him because we live together and it's what works best for us.

So what's that? For now it's a vanilla relationship with kinky switches.

< Message edited by LuckyAlbatross -- 5/24/2007 3:16:07 PM >

_____________________________

Find stable partners, not a stable of partners.

"Sometimes my whore logic gets all fuzzy"- Californication

(in reply to slavejali)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/24/2007 3:16:35 PM

slavejali

Posts: 2918
Status: offline

For everyone caught up in the ethics word..just change it to ideals. I can't change the topic now, so officially, from here on in the topic is called

"Vanilla ideals in D/s M/s"

*grin*

_____________________________

Freedom in Bondage

Different Strokes for Different Folks

"I'll always have a *soft spot* for Sadists"

(in reply to slavejali)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/24/2007 3:26:47 PM

MadRabbit

Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

Yeah I still wonder how to label my relationship. We're vanilla toe achother- our relationship is based on love and mutual compatibility of goals and desires. There is no expectation of authority transfer to or from any one at any time.

But we're both switches and we both switch witheachother. We do punish and reward eachother. We do kinky stuff all the time. We do have rules for eachother.

But then...I don't give him access to my bank accounts because he is my owner...I give it to him because we live together and it's what works best for us.

So what's that? For now it's a vanilla relationship with kinky switches.

This made me think of two friends of mine...they have a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship and regularly enjoy bondage in their sex life.

They dont participate in any BDSM forums or discussions or communities.

If I were to ask them to "define their relationship" to me, they would probably look at me funny and go "Wtf is your problem? We're two people who are happy being with each other."

_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/24/2007 3:37:48 PM

slavejali

Posts: 2918
Status: offline

quote:

But then...I don't give him access to my bank accounts because he is my owner...I give it to him because we live together and it's what works best for us.

Master has my bank cards and only gives them to me when I need to pay a bill. The only ones he doesnt keep of mine are my word credit cards for obvious reasons. We didnt start off like that, I like shopping and sometimes when I see a bargain or I see something as a surprise for Master, I just have no self-discipline, its not that I spend more than we have or break the bank or anything but the point was I wasn't asking so the repercussion of that is that I lost my ability to carry the cards.

quote:

So what's that?

hehe oh LA don't get me onto a switch topic, I can't understand that at all, it would drive me nuts trying to figure it out..."vanilla relationship with kinky switches" works for me as a definition for you lol..and all is well with the world

_____________________________

Freedom in Bondage

Different Strokes for Different Folks

"I'll always have a *soft spot* for Sadists"

(in reply to slavejali)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/24/2007 3:40:52 PM

darkinshadows

Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline

Yeah - you got me - I am pedantic...

I know that you weren't being specific jali - I have read your posts in the past - but to say 'many' just wasn't how my experience with friends who are in BDSM relationships are - I would have usedthe words 'a few'and that is what I was trying to convey(badly maybe) - the reason I did get pedantic (in a sense) is because many people come to read these boards and it just isnt a *conversation* between you and I - and time and time again you hear people take as gospel a single sentance as law, so I split your statement into how I read it.

'Vanilla' (and again, I really loathe that word, because it always to me is a way of seperating people - making it a 'them and us' thing, which I do not agree with because my BDSM life and my so called vanilla life is the same thing and completely combined to make me who I am) - andyway - digressing - 'Vanilla' relationships do operate with punishment and rewards from one degree to another - so I just do not see how that is what makes the difference between 'vanilla' and BDSM relationships...

And I know that isnt really what the OP is about - but it does swirl into it, because to some people - collars are the equivilent to 'vanilla' wedding rings or engagement rings or have that much a meaning and are symbolic of the commitment. And if you can make a statement that the removal of a wedding ring means the end of a marriage - then that should assist you in understanding why the removal or the threat of removal of a collar - for some people - can be a horrible threat.

(Although I still stand by the fact that removing the wedding ring <pedantic me again> isn't the end of the marriage - BUT it is a symbolic end of a marriage).

I hope I was more coherant that time

Peace

_____________________________

.dark.

...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to slavejali)

Profile

Post #: 47

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/24/2007 3:55:59 PM

CreativeDominant

Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

I think that there is such a wide variety of D/s and M/s and BDSM only and D/s only and on and on and on type of relationships that it is difficult to state what is going to suit each relationship. The dynamics have to be worked within the couple and while there are some basic fundamentals that have to be there...trust, honor, respect...almost everything else seems to be negotiable as to the level that will be there.

I have noted that some submissives do submit at their convenience. I have noticed that there are some who seem determined to impose an almost-vanilla-like type of equality to D/s. I have noticed that there are dominants who seem perfectly willing to give orders to get whatever pleases them but who enjoy abdicating the responsibility for leading the submissive or the relationship in any way other than pleasure or their needs. That type of D/s wouldn't work for me as it strikes me as vanilla with kink. That is MOO though and others' opinions may well differ...or coincide...or be further to the extreme than me and they might see any D/s relationship I am in as too vanilla for their tastes.

For an example, look at some of the replies you have seen on here regarding removal of a collar for disciplinary reasons. I wouldn't do it for the same reasons I would not remove an engagement ring or a wedding ring from my partner's hand. I can be way more creative than that and I can be articulate enough to express my extreme displeasure without removing what may well be...to us anyway...a sacred symbol of the relationship and the hard work it took to get there. Yet there are others here who see it as a perfectly vaild form of discipline/punishment. Again, this is where the underlying planks of the relationship are important...and many of us do not have convenient access to others' foundations. All we can do is express what we know ....or think...would happen in our relationship and comment on the relationship in which it is happening based on whatever information we have been given.

(in reply to slavejali)

Profile

Post #: 48

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/24/2007 3:56:05 PM

RationalBohemian

Posts: 5
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Seminole, FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows
(Although I still stand by the fact that removing the wedding ring <pedantic me again> isn't the end of the marriage - BUT it is a symbolic end of a marriage).

Alternatively, it's symbolic of having to do the dishes and not wanting the soapy water to loosen the ring and have it fall into the sink.

I agree with you. There are power dynamics in most relationships. In almost any relationship (friendly, platonic, romantic, familial, whatever) one partner is at least a little dominant, and one person is at least a little submissive. Which partner is which may change with the circumstance. M/s and D/s relationships are conciously aware of the nature of the power dynamic, but there isn't a whole huge 'nother set of ethical rules (in general).

(in reply to darkinshadows)

Profile

Post #: 49

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/24/2007 4:04:24 PM

slavejali

Posts: 2918
Status: offline

Sorry for delay in reply, you're post was long and needed to spend more time on it.

quote:

and in a vanilla, there is no line drawn in the sand as to has authority over what.

That's pretty much how I see it.

quote:

The D/S and M/S couples I have met act and function the same as the average vanilla couple. If you pay attention though, you can see who has the authority and who doesnt.

I think those two sentences conflict with each other. The first is saying they are like everyone else, the second is saying they arent if you're observant. Unless you're meaning that a M/s couple acts with respect etc towards each other just like any healthy vanilla couple would and the differences that can be observed simply lays in the authority dynamic playing out....sure..agree...basic conclusion is "there is a difference, a profound difference really", not in the "stuff" that makes ongoing relationships work" but in the authority dynamic.

quote:

I dont understand what you mean by "vanilla based ethics".

Drop the ethics word and replace it with ideals. Vanilla ideals to me, in regards to the example I used re a dominant taking a collar off a submissive/slave for a time would mean the people involved thinking that was such a big deal, seeing it like a husband taking a wedding ring off his wife or vice versa, putting those kinda beliefs and rules towards a M/s D/s relationship.

quote:

For example, a slave is in a bad mood from PMS and tells me to piss off when I ask for coffee. This is willful disobedience and being the big ole super Master that I am, I should instantly and totally end the relationship.

Thats idiotic to me as well in regards to a long term relationship. No one is perfect...(not that I have ever told Master off like that, I couldnt even imagine doing that actually)..I think if I was a Mistress and if that scenario happened every damn month tho, I'd be looking for a new slave lol.

quote:

People have this misconception that a M/S relationship is automatically totally different then a vanilla relationship. Its still, in the end, two people working together to make something work out right.

Well ..my opinion on that is "relationship is relationship' its gotta have the stuff that makes a relationship work in it for it to work long term..be that M/s or vanilla...

But I could and do make a totally different statement alongside that: in the workings of the 'established healthy' relationship there are great big worlds if differences between a vanilla couple and a M/s couple.

_____________________________

Freedom in Bondage

Different Strokes for Different Folks

"I'll always have a *soft spot* for Sadists"

(in reply to MadRabbit)

Profile

Post #: 50

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/24/2007 4:22:28 PM

MadRabbit

Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavejali

I think those two sentences conflict with each other. The first is saying they are like everyone else, the second is saying they arent if you're observant. Unless you're meaning that a M/s couple acts with respect etc towards each other just like any healthy vanilla couple would and the differences that can be observed simply lays in the authority dynamic playing out....sure..agree...basic conclusion is "there is a difference, a profound difference really", not in the "stuff" that makes ongoing relationships work" but in the authority dynamic.

Poor communication on my part. Basically what I was saying was a relationship is a relationship and the difference between the two is the specific details. If one wasnt paying attention and were to miss the details, it would just be another relationship like any other.

quote:

Well ..my opinion on that is "relationship is relationship' its gotta have the stuff that makes a relationship work in it for it to work long term..be that M/s or vanilla...

But I could and do make a totally different statement alongside that: in the workings of the 'established healthy' relationship there are great big worlds if differences between a vanilla couple and a M/s couple.

We're basically on the same page. The core things that make up the relationship arent any different then the next relationship. The only difference is in how the authority dynamic works.

As I read the forums a lot, I notice a lot that people seem to thnik that certain core things arent needed because its in fact a D/S or M/S relationship and not a vanilla one. Things like communication, compatibility, stability (That was the point of my PMS example. I think fear that their Master is up and going to drop them like a rock simply because they were in a bad mood and disobeyed creates a lack of solid ground) and even compromise.

I've found that realisitcally these things all play some part in the relationship, but its just the authority dynamic and the workings of it are different.

_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to slavejali)

Profile

Post #: 51

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/24/2007 4:48:35 PM

slavejali

Posts: 2918
Status: offline

quote:

'Vanilla' (and again, I really loathe that word,

Yeah, I hear you on that really, I guess I only disect things when I'm exploring my beliefs and understandings, and we need words to define to do that.

quote:

because to some people - collars are the equivilent to 'vanilla' wedding rings or engagement rings or have that much a meaning and are symbolic of the commitment. And if you can make a statement that the removal of a wedding ring means the end of a marriage - then that should assist you in understanding why the removal or the threat of removal of a collar - for some people - can be a horrible threat.

Yes, I can understand it that way. ...and I guess my point is, why is it necessary to infiltrate a M/s relationship with vanilla(marriage) based ideals surrounding stuff like that? As in across the board, someone says they are doing that to their slave and everyone says its such a bad thing, which it doesnt necessarily have to be a bad thing, depending on their Master/slave relationship and how much they have let go of vanilla(marriage) based ideals. Example: even equating a collar to a wedding ring is infiltrating the M/s dynamic with vanilla ideals.

And I also hear you on what you said about this conversation isn't just between you and me, it's probably part of the reason I started this topic, it was a differing view perhaps and I wanted to offer a balance in a way while working it out in my head at the same time lol.

_____________________________

Freedom in Bondage

Different Strokes for Different Folks

"I'll always have a *soft spot* for Sadists"

(in reply to slavejali)

Profile

Post #: 52

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/25/2007 4:53:19 AM

darkinshadows

Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

Yes, I can understand it that way. ...and I guess my point is, why is it necessary to infiltrate a M/s relationship with vanilla(marriage) based ideals surrounding stuff like that? As in across the board, someone says they are doing that to their slave and everyone says its such a bad thing, which it doesnt necessarily have to be a bad thing, depending on their Master/slave relationship and how much they have let go of vanilla(marriage) based

I believe it just happens because symbols are just a very big part of human history. I do not believe that a collar being similar to a wedding ring is 'vanilla' ethics/ideals seeping into BDSM relationships, I believe that symbols are important in general cultures - BDSM being no different from any other culture in the fact that some people find comfort in symbols. Throught history symbolic gestures and totems have shaped human evolution from ancient mayan tribes to modern country(Africa, the states etc) flags and even religions - so I do not believe that it is vanilla ideals 'infiltrating' BDSM or specifically as you mentioned - Ms - it is just such symbols aid to a certain part of a cultures evolution. Many people just need the tangible, as well as faith.

Peace

_____________________________

.dark.

...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to slavejali)

Profile

Post #: 53

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/25/2007 5:32:56 AM

lateralist1

Posts: 886
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline

I agree. Symbols are important to people especially at the beginning of a relationship.
Some women still want to walk down an aisle wearing a white dress and have a wedding ring placed on their hand.
That's ok, whatever it takes.
I still want to be carried to bed by a man who loves me to bits lol.
And who wants to wear my collar.

(in reply to darkinshadows)

Profile

Post #: 54

RE: Vanilla ethics in D/s M/s - 5/25/2007 5:47:45 AM

BOUNTYHUNTER

Posts: 9259
Joined: 2/5/2004
Status: offline

First of all WE don't control the bank accounts of those that serve,of course all are expect to contribute to the household and to their future.I would consider DIANE and my relationship vanilla with some kink...To most we look like the old man that has found his sweet young thing and of course I have...TO most of the outside world we are just some old vanilla folks living the life on the farm,if they only knew...bounty

_____________________________

US going to hell in a hand basket/

(in reply to lateralist1)

Profile

Post #: 55