quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

<hijack>

Sadly, I keep flashing back to those logic questions on the GRE.

Person B is kinkier than Person F.
Person C is less kinky than Person A.
Person E has the potential to be as kinky as anyone else in the room, but only on alternate Saturdays when her ex takes the UMs to the zoo.
Person H can be kinky for pay, but is vanilla on her own time.

What time should the munch start and how do you keep everyone from bringing pasta salad?

Show your work.

</hijack>

quote:

LMAO.  Loved the response!

quote:

ORIGINAL: daddyncherry

Okay i'm gonna give this a shot, thinking that i sort of might know where you may be going with this (how do you like that sentence?lol)

Since there are people in the every day vanilla world who are submissive or dominant in their natures and the sadistic and masochistic seem to be more toward  the actions rather than personality type per se. ...then i would list them in this order, thinking of how a vanilla might view it and be each i will explain my reasoning. (on a scale of least kinky to most kinky)


1. Dominant....Because the idea is typical in big business and in sports etc....It seems the typical ideal of a male by alot of standards (skewed or not)
2. Submissive...Because although typical in the vanilla world, the weaker people are pittied, looked down on, told to get stronger..there for they are a little less accepted....Typical to hear of men bashing women and how they view submissive women with the horrified "I wouldn't let any man do that to me!" attitude.
3. Masochist...It is more relatable with athletes who get the idea of "no pain no gain"....it is still viewed negatively in many ways....thinking of cutters and people who generally have little regard for themselves.
4. Sadist...this would be the most difficult for alot of people to wrap their heads around....the idea that someone would enjoy hurting someone else would make them seem barbaric on one level or like a serial killer on another.....Again, some athletes and others might get this mind set without totally getting freaked but....this would be a more difficult thing to justify to a nilla.

These are just my opinions off the top of my head....maybe they make sense and maybe they don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterFireMaam

Here's the school of thought I subscribe to (put forth by Master Steve Sampson)

Top/bottom are physical relationships.
Dominant/submissive are mental relationship.
Master/slave are spiritual relationships.

None is better or worse than the other...and they can be mixed in any combination. I know plenty of masochistic Masters and slaves who enjoy controlling stuff that directly impacts the relationship.

Master Fire