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

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



Message

celticlord2112 -> Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 8:24:13 PM)

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"?



xoxi -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 8:40:23 PM)

For me vanilla is the enjoyment of basic sex alone.  Kink is the adding of 'accessories' or 'extra flavors' to basic sex. It could range from fetishes to power exchange to sadism and masochism, but the main difference is that we 'add' something to basic human sexuality to enhance it for ourselves.



Celeste43 -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 8:46:19 PM)

Openness, honesty and personal growth are things any good interpersonal relationship should have, whether vanilla, chocolate or tutti-frutti. As I said, a vanilla would not find openness, honesty and growth in a relationship with a man who made pronouncements of the length of her hair, what clothes she was permitted to wear, and who caned her every time she used the word "I". She'd call such a person an abusive bastard and she would be right, because she hadn't consented to such behavior. But she could find openness, honesty and growth with a compatible man equally vanilla.



RRafe -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 8:48:43 PM)

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"?


The whole vanilla concept is just perverts puffing up to look bigger. There are only shades of grey.



RumpusParable -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 8:53:12 PM)

Regarding the quote in the OP, while that may be how it is for that person that IS NOT how it is for ME.

My vanilla relationships are based on just as much openness, honesty, communication, connection, etc as my BDSM relationships. 

With no intention to cause offense, my first thought at reading the quote was that they seem to have a problem being open outside of BDSM and it seems unhealthy, rather than there being something inherently special about Lifestyle relationships.


Speaking for myself on what makes an equals vs. power-exchange relationship different is exactly that -one does and one does not involve power exchange.  It's just one of the many facets that make each and every personal interaction I have unique.



RumpusParable -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 8:57:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RRafe

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"?


The whole vanilla concept is just perverts puffing up to look bigger. There are only shades of grey.



I have to agree with this comment, too. 



NControlofU -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 9:11:44 PM)

The line separating vanilla and kink have blurred over the years.  The days of strictly vanilla or strictly kinky are pretty much gone, if they ever existed to begin with.  Its really more a matter of degree of kinkiness that separates those who would be considered vanilla sex followers from those who would be labeled kinky.  Many so-called vanilla coupls enjoy a certain amount of kink, even if its only occasionally or only mildly.  You see more and more refernces to BDSM and related kink mentioned in mainstream media, from police dramas to The Simpsons and sitcoms, which shows its acceptability of BDSM by the general public.  So I would have to say that wiitwd is the "new vanilla" especially since we each do wiitwd in our own way and many of us do it in a rather vanilla sort of way, as in within very strict limits as to what is done, when and how and what absolutely will not be done ever under any circumstances.  As far as deciding whether d/s is more special or a deeper type of relationship than vanilla, I think there are many who live vanilla lives that would strongly disagree and so do I.  Who dosnt want honesty, openess, and persnal growth?  Arent those three things important to most people wether they enjoy a kinky sex life or a vanilla one?  I dont see the reasoning behind declaring those three items as more important to a d/s relationship than to any other type of relationship. 

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"?



leadinghand -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 9:36:18 PM)

It is because to some of us vanilla is not enough alone. I like to add the warm strawberry of a flogged cheek, the nutty salty flavor added by tears and sweat and the runny tart lemon curd of... Well, to each his own extreme sundae. We want big flavors and take big bites. It calls for more work, focus and imagination and is much more satisfying.



SusanofO -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 9:39:30 PM)

Ditto to what Celeste43 said.

- Susan



ownedgirlie -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 9:47:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
In other words, why is WIIWD NOT "vanilla"?


For me it's not vanilla because I need to submit in a relationship, the way I submit in my current one.  And in order to do so and have it still be healthy for me, I need to submit to someone who understands this need, and who accepts it, and who knows what to do with it.

The BDSM stuff is just fun that's tossed in, or a tool to use in expressions of dominance and submission.  The focus of my particular dynamic is submitting to my Master.




MasterFireMaam -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 9:48:18 PM)

In my opinion, everything she listed in that statement should be part of ANY healthy relationship. What makes us "not vanilla" is that we practice a conscious transfer of authority inside a purposely defined structure. There are plenty of vanilla relationships that have structure and even transfer of authority (boss/employee, for example), but to have both on a consious level is what I see as the difference.

Master Fire



michaels4evr -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 9:54:10 PM)

In my mind (and nowhere else) vanillas enjoy what is typically viewed as "straight sex" with maybe a lil spanky spanky here and there..while Lifestylers typically enjoy a range of Kinkiness on a regular basis with maybe a lil straight sex here and there...It's like whenever Michael and I have straight sex, we say.."wow that was different, cool!" probably the way Vanillas say "awesome!" after they've spent the evening tying each other up or something.

I can say that for me until I was involved in D/s relationships, what I call the "okie doke" was generally accepted by myself and my partner. Meaning, we were never really totally honest with each other, and particularly with ourselves about what we wanted, what were our expectations, and indeed even who we were. Until I began exploring Lifestyle, I never quite felt like I was living authentically. Now I am sure that there are vanillas who are perfectly honest with themselves and their partners and who are living their authentic selves. In fact, I know some..lol. But vanilla living just doesn't work well for me. So for me, my D/s relationships were indeed on a deeper level than I'd experienced with vanilla.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 9:57:23 PM)

Reposted:
Vanilla simply is the bdsm sub culture jargonistic term for "not kinky" and "not authority based."

Just as in the Renn Faire/SCA sub culture, the jargonistic term for "not into Renn Faire/SCA" is "mundane."

Most people, despite what they say, are NOT vanilla positive- they put down vanilla sex and relationships as being less than kinky or Ds relationships. However, to me vanilla sex and relationships are no less or better than bdsm/Ds ones are.

And there are many people who are "mint chocolate chip" and such, who enjoy a little bit of kink, a little bit of play, but really don't get into it as a sub culture. I would be mint chocolate chip in terms of SCA stuff.

http://www.collarchat.com/m_178884/mpage_1/key_vanilla/tm.htm#178884
Vanilla vs Kinky (good thread started by Kyra back in 05)

http://www.collarchat.com/m_334609/mpage_1/key_vanilla%252Csex/tm.htm#334609
Do we have vanilla sex?

http://www.collarchat.com/m_263732/mpage_1/key_vanilla/tm.htm#263733
What's the word "vanilla" mean to you?

http://www.collarchat.com/m_167267/mpage_1/key_vanilla/tm.htm#167479
Vanilla?

http://www.collarchat.com/m_62443/mpage_1/key_vanilla/tm.htm#62443
What is vanilla?




Missokyst -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 10:16:34 PM)

There is no more openness, honesty ect in bdsm over nilla, cept for what you choose to infuse.  Those are premises of any good relationship.  Saying that it is what makes ds different from nilla is just assigning the "my way is better than theirs" mentality.  It isn't any more special than the next... but the kink is hard to beat if you are twisted that way.
Kink is what makes it ds for me.  I would be pleasing, catering, caring for any nilla I was involved with, with out ds as an element.  I am just as honest with any nilla as I have been with any ds.  I don't change simply because I am kinky.
Kyst



arayofsunshine55 -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 10:42:57 PM)

What is different is that he hurts me and I cum.  The stuff in the OP?  That;s not at all D/s related IMO.  And for me this stuff is not deeper, better, more evolved etc.  It just flips my switch.  Simple.



heartcream -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/10/2007 10:45:48 PM)

being so called, 'vanilla' at this time, in that no one has tied me up or any of the other stuff that falls under the umbrella of bdsm sex at this time, i would hope to meet someone who i very much trust to be one to take me over some of these lines. not wanting to end up hurt and damaged is a concern of mine. i would need to know he really knows what he is doing and that he is very connected to where i am personally at, what i feel i can handle and so on.

as far as the more mental levels of bdsm i think some of the traits have been present from my side in previous relationships cuz i find it in my nature to be the way i am. i highly value openness honesty and personal growth. i find these things very attractive and sexy in a man. especially openness and honesty. personal growth would result naturally i feel. if a man honestly opens up to me it affects me to my core. even if the content is not so pretty or 'positive'. the fact that he is 'letting me' in is a turn-on, allows me to feel closer and more trusting of him.



Aswad -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/11/2007 2:36:55 AM)

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.


Depends on the nature of the D/s relationship. I've seen more than a few that were not deeper, but I also know you can go further into the emotional depths, as well as the altered states, and so forth, when one person surrenders to another, and that other deals fully with the responsibilities that entails, compared to what most vanillas do, even among those who generally do well in their relationship. Kink is just icing on the cake.

Health,
al-Aswad.



desiroustoserve -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/11/2007 3:05:41 AM)

Ditto.

I would take my collar any day over a vanilla marriage or relationship. 



orfunboi -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/11/2007 3:24:48 AM)

i don't think there is much diff between kinky and vanilla as far as honesty and integrety go. Both side are dealing with people and human emotions. i think you will find really honest and good people on both sides and you will find losers and jerks on both sides. We just spend more money on rope.



YourShyPet -> RE: Why are we not "vanilla"? (9/11/2007 4:38:42 AM)

I'm not sure about the We, Me, and the Vanilla... all I do know is when I meet a vanilla person, people or are in a vanilla setting... because I get the combination confused horrified look nearly everytime I do or say something.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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