RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (Full Version)

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



Message


FRSguy -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/11/2007 1:06:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

Maybe its just me.

I think I just missed out on the instant transcendence that is supposed to happen when I woke up one day and decided to be BDSM.


It's in the fine print on your first flogger. Transcendal experience within 90 days or your money back!



LOL




Prinsexx -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/11/2007 2:38:16 PM)

IMO the essential difference between vanilla and bdsm is the power exchange element.
In THREE failed vanilla marriages, the dynamic was power OVER me...there was no consensuality
and it cost me everything I owned and at one point it almost cost my life as I fled across Europe singlehandedly with two babies in tow to escape his anger and abuse.
I KNEW I needed pain, I knew I needed a dominant BUT none of those husbands wee prepared to take responsibility (be able to respond), practice sensitivity and become conscious of their own need for power. To me those are the three best features of a dominant and what he has to offer me.
And what was worse, was that sex was always expected as part and parcel of the abuse. It was never negotiated, it never evolved and aactually it never got my needs met.
Power over me took the form of talkingover me during dinner, expectations of roles, negative reinforcement, judgement and above all absolute arrogance and belief that sex in itself was enough!

WIIWD is really WIIID (I do) and I have had more pleasure in giving my edges, my sensate world totally to another in a degree of trust that they knew where to stop the pinch or the crop or the clamp or the needle. That's what I do, I give my body over, mind body and spirit.

Vast gratitude to those that have used it and thus recognised it's worth.

Prinsexx




celticlord2112 -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/11/2007 4:59:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi
Awww...just grab one of the bondage sheep who likes to be humiliated. Reusable Kleenex!


I SOOOOOO did not need that image![:'(]




TNstepsout -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/11/2007 8:26:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

You get the people to self identity as outcasts, create an entity that encompasses everyone else who is not in this group, and then assign generalizations to it so the group fears it as an enemy as well as prides itself because they are so much better than the entity.

"We are so much more enlightend, superior, blah, blah than vanilla people."
"Vanilla people wont understand. They will seek to destroy your jobs and your life if they find out you like to tie up your girlfriend with shoestrings"


I agree that there is a certian amount of elitism that goes on, but in general kinky people are different. I was asked several times what it was that drew me to the lifestyle and my answer was "the people". I wasn't necessarily drawn to the activities at first, but I was completely fascinated by a couple of kinky people I met. They were two of the most intense, intelligent, thoroughly intriguing men I'd ever spoken to. Now that's not to say that some of the people don't irritate the hell out of me and some I don't even like, but even the ones that are annoying are just downright fascinating.  Over all (ie, not in every case) I would say they are more passionate, adventurous, philosophical and complex. To me that means that a relationship between two of them would be the same way.




LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/11/2007 8:58:25 PM)

Anyone who thinks the people are different should be forced to run for a board member position for a kinky group.




celticlord2112 -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/11/2007 10:06:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout
They were two of the most intense, intelligent, thoroughly intriguing men I'd ever spoken to.


Without dismissing or denigrating your experience....two people is hardly a large enough sample set to form even a tentative hypothesis, let alone a valid conclusion on anything.




BitaTruble -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/11/2007 10:49:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Setting aside that every relationship is unique for the sake of simplicity, why would these qualities be intrinsic to D/s (or BDSM more broadly) and not intrinsic to "vanilla" relationships.

In other words, why is WIIWD NOT "vanilla"?


speaking only for myself, the premise is flawed. such traits are not what differentiate vanilla from d/s so i can't answer the question from that perspective.

the reason what 'i' do is not vanilla is because i reside within a very narrow and specific power based relationship which includes bondage, discipline and sado-masochism. if bdsm or power exchange is not one of the core or key elements to a relationship, then it's vanilla in my mind.

celeste




TotalState -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/12/2007 3:58:27 AM)

I like vanilla just fine.  I just don't see the need to limit myself to just that.

I do find that as I'm becoming more experienced, the D/s aspect seeps more overtly into my life than previously.  It's quite the journey.




TNstepsout -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/12/2007 5:07:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout
They were two of the most intense, intelligent, thoroughly intriguing men I'd ever spoken to.


Without dismissing or denigrating your experience....two people is hardly a large enough sample set to form even a tentative hypothesis, let alone a valid conclusion on anything.




OK, you know I have met other people since then don't you?




TNstepsout -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/12/2007 5:20:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

Anyone who thinks the people are different should be forced to run for a board member position for a kinky group.


LOL- well I did say they were different and interesting, NOT perfect. Kinky people tend to be pretty confident in their views and very self assured and strong willed. I imagine that would tend to create a lot of sparks in a group.




celticlord2112 -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/12/2007 5:57:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout
They were two of the most intense, intelligent, thoroughly intriguing men I'd ever spoken to.


Without dismissing or denigrating your experience....two people is hardly a large enough sample set to form even a tentative hypothesis, let alone a valid conclusion on anything.




OK, you know I have met other people since then don't you?


That's just my point.  I don't know that.  I don't know you, except what you contribute here.




slavegirljoy -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/12/2007 6:37:11 AM)


Having more "openness, honesty & personal growth", in my opinion, isn't dependent on being in a D/s-type relationship or on being involved in BDSM.  i don't agree that "openness, honesty & personal growth" are exclusive to or, a necessity of D/s-type relationships.  i have known of some relationships that would be called "vanilla", (as in, conventional, Male - Head of Household/female - wife/s.o., without  knowing about their sexual tastes), that were incredibly deep.  And, i have been in several D/s relationships, where i held back and didn't feel comfortable about being completely open and honest with the other person about how i feel and what i think.  i always have personal growth in everything i do because i look for life lessons in every experience and in every relationship and gain a better understanding of myself each time. i believe that it just depends on what a person needs, in order to feel comfortable and safe enough to open up and be their true self in the presence of another.  Some people find that in a vanilla relationship, others find it in a D/s relationship and, a lot of people never find it with anyone, in any type of relationship. In my case, it took being enslaved by a Master, who i trust completely and who forces me to open up to Him, in order for me to feel comfortable and safe enough to be my true self and be honestly and completely open with Him.  i have never been the type that opens up easily and bare my inner self to another.  He has required that of me.  He has forced me to not hold anything back and to tell Him what i'm thinking and feeling and He talks to me about my thoughts and feelings.  He strips me of my outer shell, that has always guarded my inner being, and He does it in a caring way and without any harsh judgment or criticism about what i tell Him, even when He doesn't agree with something i say.  He reads my journal and encourages me to be honest when i write it.  He has been hurt by some of the things that i have written but, then He talks to me about it and Wwe have had some very intense and deep discussions, as a result.  If He didn't require this of me, i would still write in a journal but, i would probably be very careful about writing only things that would be "nice" and not be totally honest and, there would be a lot that would be left unsaid and kept inside and Wwe wouldn't be as close as Wwe are. Again, i believe that it just depends on what a person needs, in order to feel safe and comfortable enough with another to completely open up and reveal their true self.  And, that's something that can happen in D/s relationships or vanilla and it doesn't always happen in many relationships. Just my views,slave joyOwned property of Master David___________________________________________________________"You were born an original.  Don't die a copy."  ~John Mason

 


quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

In opening her thread on the difference between vanilla and BDSM, camille65 made the following observation.

quote:


From me, I can easily say that yes there is a difference, that yes a D/s relationship is indeed different. It is deeper because more of me is required. More openness, honesty & personal growth. Those three items are almost always emphasized as neccessary or intregal to a BDSM balance.


Setting aside that every relationship is unique for the sake of simplicity, why would these qualities be intrinsic to D/s (or BDSM more broadly) and not intrinsic to "vanilla" relationships.

In other words, why is WIIWD NOT "vanilla"?




TNstepsout -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/12/2007 5:37:25 PM)

[/quote]

OK, you know I have met other people since then don't you?
[/quote]

That's just my point.  I don't know that.  I don't know you, except what you contribute here.

[/quote]

Then what is your point? It was pretty clear in my post that I have encountered more than two people. 




MadRabbit -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/12/2007 5:55:18 PM)

I think the point is your point is purely theortical and also purely subjective opinion.

I have met quite a few people I think highly of based on our shared interests in BDSM. I have also met quite a few people I think highly of threw other shared interests.

I think they are genuinely high quality and admirable people. I dont think they are high quality and admirable people because they are in fact, BDSM, and not vanilla.

Because I have met quite a lot of people in BDSM I dont think are very high quality or admirable in the least. In fact, I can count all the people I consider to be friends on both hands in light of the hundreds I have met so far.

Further more, its a generalization based on your own snowball survey. Generalizaitons are always erroneous, even when they are, in fact, positive. It would be as erroneous as me making a generalization about you just liking fingernail paint and text messaging, and Britney Spears, because your a young woman.

People are just people and the exceptional indviiduals you have met are only exceptional because of their individuality and not because of being associated with a particular label.






asubmissiveheart -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/12/2007 6:28:45 PM)

I am not vanilla, because I don't want to live vanilla.




TNstepsout -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/12/2007 6:36:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

I think the point is your point is purely theortical and also purely subjective opinion.

I have met quite a few people I think highly of based on our shared interests in BDSM. I have also met quite a few people I think highly of threw other shared interests.

I think they are genuinely high quality and admirable people. I dont think they are high quality and admirable people because they are in fact, BDSM, and not vanilla.

Because I have met quite a lot of people in BDSM I dont think are very high quality or admirable in the least. In fact, I can count all the people I consider to be friends on both hands in light of the hundreds I have met so far.

Further more, its a generalization based on your own snowball survey. Generalizaitons are always erroneous, even when they are, in fact, positive. It would be as erroneous as me making a generalization about you just liking fingernail paint and text messaging, and Britney Spears, because your a young woman.

People are just people and the exceptional indviiduals you have met are only exceptional because of their individuality and not because of being associated with a particular label.





So Celticlord was pointing out the obvious?




camille65 -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/12/2007 6:53:16 PM)

Looks that way.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125