RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (Full Version)

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



Message

sub4hire -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/22/2005 6:43:01 PM)

quote:

What makes you think that for them vanilla sex is boring? ...


Professional experience



MsIncognito -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/22/2005 6:43:06 PM)

Must.....resist....urge....to be....sarcastic....

quote:

Do you think people who practice BDSM -- ethically, of course -- have a more highly developed/advanced/evolved sexual identity than those who don't? Are they "further along" (whatever that might mean) the human developmental path -- at least as far as their sexuality goes -- than vanilla types?





MsIncognito -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/22/2005 6:46:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sub4hire

quote:

What makes you think that for them vanilla sex is boring? ...


Professional experience


You were a hooker?



sub4hire -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/22/2005 6:47:09 PM)

quote:

You were a hooker?


Not been one yet.



IronBear -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/22/2005 9:18:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

I had an interesting conversation this weekend with someone who mentioned her belief that BDSM is a more highly evolved type of sexuality than vanilla. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I'm curious what others here think.

I'm not talking so much about the Master/Mistress-slave dynamic that pervades daily life for some people here. For this thread, I'm talking purely about the erotic component -- people who incorporate some type of power exchange or sadomasochistic activity into their sex lives, or people who find BDSM sexually stimulating.

Do you think people who practice BDSM -- ethically, of course -- have a more highly developed/advanced/evolved sexual identity than those who don't? Are they "further along" (whatever that might mean) the human developmental path -- at least as far as their sexuality goes -- than vanilla types?



Considering that many "Vanillas" enjoy some form of "Kinky" sex some of the time. I have to respond by asking (In the context of your question):
Where the line between Vanilla and BDSM?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veav

I feel that d/s tends to produce practitioners who have taken a good hard look at themselves and explored, solidified their self-identity and realized what it is that they want. That attracts me a lot and I'd like to make it to that point myself. That doesn't make it exclusive to BDSM, it just means I tend to see a higher signal-to-noise ratio among its practitioners; completely "vanilla" personalities can also reach that same understanding and acceptance.

As for the kink? Same thing, really. Vanilla people can be fulfilled with just your basic tab A in slot B, and there are plenty of variations and wild explorations on that theme - I won't consider WIITWD evolved just because we use nipple clamps as well as a dildo. I tend to see more evolved practitioners, simply because they've taken the time to understand, but it isn't exclusive and it isn't necessary by any means. Saying that ours is a "more evolved" sexuality is... well, IMHO, kinda just ego talking, like every generation telling themselves "OMG, we invented sex! Our parents never did this!"


Excelent. yep I agree with you.. You mean my parents actually had sex!??????? Bloody hell I though I invented it ROLMFAO


quote:

ORIGINAL: Isolde

No.

I understand how it would be easy for someone to believe that. What we do can have such a profound impact on us, emotionally, mentally, even physically. The promotion of strict honesty and good communication is widespread. It's easy to feel superior when you're neck-deep in interactions that give you this sort of rush, or feeling of safety, or whatever it is you're trying to get out of this, surrounded only by those people who feel exactly as you do. It creates a wicked echo chamber.

What some forget is that rush is no more powerful than the rush vanilla people feel, when they're neck-deep in their happy relationships.

A successful vanilla relationship will use a lot of the same tools a successful BDSM relationship uses. The only real difference is the flavor and that's certainly nothing to feel superior about. But... that's people for you.


Absolutely and beautifully put.




pollux -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/22/2005 10:11:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear

Considering that many "Vanillas" enjoy some form of "Kinky" sex some of the time. I have to respond by asking (In the context of your question):
Where the line between Vanilla and BDSM?




Yep. That's the crux of the issue. The post about being pissed on and Purr's first post (about the animal inside) made me think hard about this, and here's where I come down on it:

For me, a Vanilla person is someone who has never felt conflicted, ostracized, or freakish because of their sexual inclination. Their appetites have never conflicted with their ethics. Except for an awkward period in puberty maybe, a Vanilla just goes thru life with the appetites that the culture says are acceptable, and never suffers very much inner conflict about it. A Vanilla guy sees a beautiful woman, she takes her top off, he gets hard. No problem. (yeah, I know this is way general and oversimplified...but just roll with it for minute)

OTOH, a kinkster is someone who HAS felt conflicted, ostracized, or freakish -- because they have an appetite or inclination for something that at one point was at odds with their ethics (how can I get turned on by hurting/being hurt by/dominating/submitting to someone, for example) IMO, it's the conflict between the inner need and one's sense of ethics that creates the potential for evolution, not the equipment, and not the echo chamber of like-minded people.



pollux -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/22/2005 10:15:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veav

I feel that d/s tends to produce practitioners who have taken a good hard look at themselves and explored, solidified their self-identity and realized what it is that they want.


quote:

ORIGINAL: happypervert

I wonder just how highly evolved your friend would feel if someone was pissing on her.


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsPurrmeow

I see much of my own personal BDSM and D/s strength coming from very primal places within myself. In many ways, that counters the theory that we are more evolved, doesn't it? I allow myself to growl and bite and BE what I am. I drink deeply and claim strongly that which is mine. I lead and defend my pride with honor. I relish in the pain and sensation of my playmates.
Am I in fact reverting to a less-evolved state? Does "evolved" center on being more refined and using bigger words, or is it about accepting what is inside us and allowing us to be free?


Wow, yourself. That's pure gold. I was pretty much ready to throw in with the naysayers, but now you've convinced me otherwise. What would you say if I changed your last sentence to read "it's about accepting what's inside us and then finding some ethical way to allow it to live?"

Let me try to argue from the standpoint that certain kinksters -- maybe ones like MsPurrmeow -- ARE in fact more evolved, and see if it holds up.

If you accept that BDSM presents some people with an internal conflict about their sexual identity that's more difficult than what vanillas are faced with, then yeah, I do think people who are able to resolve that conflict (like Purr maybe has), and not harm themselves or others and still be true to themselves -- yeah, they're more evolved in that respect, and that has nothing to do with equipment or being parochial. Vanillas don't ever have to face that conflict (or they deny it).

I think I can say that without implying BDSM is a "better" type of sexual identity, or that human beings in a more advanced state will eventually gravitate toward BDSM.

I guess the whole thing hinges on whether or not one was ever conflicted about it, and whether they ever successfully resolved the conflict.

Ok, take your shots. [:D]



Veav -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/22/2005 10:50:49 PM)

quote:

Am I in fact reverting to a less-evolved state? Does "evolved" center on being more refined and using bigger words, or is it about accepting what is inside us and allowing us to be free?

"The hallmarks of civilization are sarcasm and contraception." -somebody or other

"Evolved" may be a bad term for it, especially with the whole genetic connotations. Blame the OP for that! *grins and considers the OP* We're talking about kinks and sexuality. Sex isn't refined. It's dirty and nasty and vocal and wet and carnal under any circumstances. A better term for this may be "fulfilled" - I've probably thrown that one around already, it's a good word and I don't mind doing so again. When someone is fulfilled, they've done just that, learned to stop worrying and love themselves and their needs.

Are kinkites more fulfilled than vanilla? Only because I think that acceptance of self has taken place more often. It has nothing to do with whether or not mundanes can be fulfilled, 'cos they can.



MsPurrmeow -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/22/2005 11:41:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsPurrmeow
I see much of my own personal BDSM and D/s strength coming from very primal places within myself. In many ways, that counters the theory that we are more evolved, doesn't it? I allow myself to growl and bite and BE what I am. I drink deeply and claim strongly that which is mine. I lead and defend my pride with honor. I relish in the pain and sensation of my playmates.
Am I in fact reverting to a less-evolved state? Does "evolved" center on being more refined and using bigger words, or is it about accepting what is inside us and allowing us to be free?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux
Wow, yourself. That's pure gold. I was pretty much ready to throw in with the naysayers, but now you've convinced me otherwise. What would you say if I changed your last sentence to read "it's about accepting what's inside us and then finding some ethical way to allow it to live?"


This is good. "Evolving" the argument, per se.
After looking inside, I can say that "It's about accepting what's inside me and then finding some way to allow it to live and grow." (From there, I'd just add "within the bounds of respecting others rights to travel the same journey at their own pace or choose not to.")

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux
If you accept that BDSM presents some people with an internal conflict about their sexual identity... <snip>


Personally, I wouldn't particularly tie it with sexuality. Much of this journey is simply about an all-encompasing identity. Sexuality is, of course, a piece of that larger Whole.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux
<continued>
that's more difficult than what vanillas are faced with, then yeah, I do think people who are able to resolve that conflict, and not harm themselves or others and still be true to themselves


Resolve the conflict, or maybe come to terms with it. Understand the conflict. Maybe determine whether or not it's really a conflict at all. Possibly it is simply a challenge, or even a delicious topsy-turvy rollercoaster ride through some emotions that get hidden away in the vanilla world far too much? Maybe it's about opening up those little boxes that we store painful things in inside ourselves and getting to know them better and therefore depriving them of the power of fear?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux
Vanillas don't ever have to face that conflict (or they deny it).


I'm going to just disagree with this. I believe everyone comes up against a wall at one point or another. Some people just accept the wall and never try to go that direction again. Sometimes people take others judgements with value and can conform their thinking to accomodate it. Everyone faces conflict, some look it in the eye and push it back, others give it a nod of acceptance and shut off that part of themself. Maybe evolution is simply about accepting others that are different and not letting those differences slow us in our own journeys?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux
I think I can say that without implying BDSM is a "better" type of sexual identity, or that human beings in a more advanced state will eventually gravitate toward BDSM.


I think that's a good point to make. My "lifestyle" journey may make ME feel like I'm evolving and growing as a person, but the same path might be going in the wrong direction for another person.

Thanks for the discussion. This is refreshing.

Purr



IronBear -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/23/2005 12:26:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear

Considering that many "Vanillas" enjoy some form of "Kinky" sex some of the time. I have to respond by asking (In the context of your question):
Where the line between Vanilla and BDSM?




Yep. That's the crux of the issue. The post about being pissed on and Purr's first post (about the animal inside) made me think hard about this, and here's where I come down on it:

For me, a Vanilla person is someone who has never felt conflicted, ostracized, or freakish because of their sexual inclination. Their appetites have never conflicted with their ethics. Except for an awkward period in puberty maybe, a Vanilla just goes thru life with the appetites that the culture says are acceptable, and never suffers very much inner conflict about it. A Vanilla guy sees a beautiful woman, she takes her top off, he gets hard. No problem. (yeah, I know this is way general and oversimplified...but just roll with it for minute)

OTOH, a kinkster is someone who HAS felt conflicted, ostracized, or freakish -- because they have an appetite or inclination for something that at one point was at odds with their ethics (how can I get turned on by hurting/being hurt by/dominating/submitting to someone, for example) IMO, it's the conflict between the inner need and one's sense of ethics that creates the potential for evolution, not the equipment, and not the echo chamber of like-minded people.

quote:

For me, a Vanilla person is someone who has never felt conflicted, ostracized, or freakish because of their sexual inclination. Their appetites have never conflicted with their ethics. Except for an awkward period in puberty maybe, a Vanilla just goes thru life with the appetites that the culture says are acceptable, and never suffers very much inner conflict about it. A Vanilla guy sees a beautiful woman, she takes her top off, he gets hard. No problem. (yeah, I know this is way general and oversimplified...but just roll with it for minute)


Not too sure about that, I deal weekly with people who have faced conflict (With others and within themselves. Mostly they are young people who are suicide bent. However I may not be the best judge of the rest as I've lived outside the square all my adult live and sheltered by my upbringing untill I joined the military so I dont always see things from other (vanilla) views.



EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/23/2005 6:08:38 AM)

I've never met someone who didn't face some sort of confusion, some sort of dissonance, some sort of conflict over their sexual desires.

I find this thread very interesting given the TONS of threads we see here constantly over people with sex questions, with confusions, with conflicts, with guilts...the idea that we're now trying to say we're somehow more evolved sexually just seems totally off the wall to me.



Isolde -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/23/2005 6:14:28 AM)

quote:

the idea that we're now trying to say we're somehow more evolved sexually just seems totally off the wall to me.


I don't think that there's any "we" about this particular viewpoint. It's an argument I've seen crop up more than once on various poly lists and it almost always originates with people new to the lifestyle, those who are still overwhelmed by the rush of finding something that makes them feel so good. They think they have to be superior because they've never felt so wonderful before, they've finally found their place! Therefore this lifestyle is better, that lifestyle is less evolved.

It's also almost always smacked down by the longtime practitioners, who've seen it before and have experienced enough to know that it's a crock.

Edit: Oh hey, look, two handcuffs. Finally I'm properly outfitted.



pinkpleasures -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/23/2005 6:55:15 AM)

quote:

Do you think people who practice BDSM -- ethically, of course -- have a more highly developed/advanced/evolved sexual identity than those who don't? Are they "further along" (whatever that might mean) the human developmental path -- at least as far as their sexuality goes -- than vanilla types?

pollux


quote:

For me, a Vanilla person is someone who has never felt conflicted, ostracized, or freakish because of their sexual inclination. Their appetites have never conflicted with their ethics. Except for an awkward period in puberty maybe, a Vanilla just goes thru life with the appetites that the culture says are acceptable, and never suffers very much inner conflict about it. A Vanilla guy sees a beautiful woman, she takes her top off, he gets hard. No problem. (yeah, I know this is way general and oversimplified...but just roll with it for minute)

OTOH, a kinkster is someone who HAS felt conflicted, ostracized, or freakish -- because they have an appetite or inclination for something that at one point was at odds with their ethics (how can I get turned on by hurting/being hurt by/dominating/submitting to someone, for example) IMO, it's the conflict between the inner need and one's sense of ethics that creates the potential for evolution, not the equipment, and not the echo chamber of like-minded people.

pollux


Sir that paradigm does not apply to me; and perhaps others. Despite my comments on other posts, i have had lovers who could burn up the sheets in my vanilla life. There were ethical dilemmas -- not married men, another sort -- and i was predominately out-of-step with other women i knew.

However, finding D/s in jan '04 was a revelation and affirmation. The feelings i could never put a name to...the shame i felt because i was nowhere near as strong as people thought...it all came to me in a big "whoosh" as i researched D/s. i feel no ethical dilemma in keeping private what is no one's business but mine and my One...should He appear.

Meantime, i am disturbed a bit by some members of the BDSM community, who are sometimes cruel. Many are extremely judgmental. Others are a delight, and i have made great friends in my time in D/s so far. However, i "expected" an atmosphere of mutual respect and to a large degree, have found more nit-pickiness than i run across in bible study.

Nothing would make me go back to vanilla sex, and since being here, my fantasy life has been so enriched. However, i suppose i could accept and even thrive as an unattached woman with great people, Men as well as women, as friends. i'm betting He will come. i have hope...and a great, open heart waiting for Him.

pinkpleasures

quote:

Definition of paradigm and paradigm shift from American Heritage Dictionary (Yahoo version)

http://ag.arizona.edu/futures/era/paradigmsmain.html



pollux -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/23/2005 8:34:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2

I've never met someone who didn't face some sort of confusion, some sort of dissonance, some sort of conflict over their sexual desires.

I find this thread very interesting given the TONS of threads we see here constantly over people with sex questions, with confusions, with conflicts, with guilts...the idea that we're now trying to say we're somehow more evolved sexually just seems totally off the wall to me.


That's because no one's really agreed with it. The only person who came close was Purr, and in the process of clarifying & amplifying her argument, we kinda moved the goal posts. I don't think anyone is saying BDSM by itself implies someone's more evolved, and we're not saying people who are confused/dissonant/conflicted are evolved.

Personally, I think the potential for evolution comes when someone's conflicted or ostracized or feels freakish or whatever, and *then they find some ethical way to accept that "freakish" side of themselves and let it live*. If they stay stuck in the conflict (or if they were never conflicted to begin with), then there's no evolution. They have to look elsewhere for their growth potential. Btw, I should clarify -- I'm not talking about genetic/Darwinian evolution. I'm really talking about evolution more in the sense of progress of the psyche, or personal growth, or whatever psychobabbly name you want to put to it.



pollux -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/23/2005 8:36:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkpleasures

Sir that paradigm does not apply to me;


quote:

The feelings i could never put a name to...the shame i felt because i was nowhere near as people thought.


You've just described feeling freakish or ostracized.

quote:

it all came to me in a big "whoosh" as i researched D/s. i feel no ethical dilemma in keeping private what is no one's business but mine and my One...should He appear.


And there you just described finding a resolution to your conflict. Giving it a name -- "D/s" -- lifted the shameful feelings (and in a big "whoosh", too!) And now you've found a way to let it live. You solve the ethical problems by keeping your D/s life private and by sharing your desires with an intimate partner.

Still think the paradigm doesn't apply?



pinkpleasures -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/23/2005 8:45:33 AM)

quote:

Still think the paradigm doesn't apply?

pollux


Sir, i thought Your assertion is that "vanilla" people have no dilemmas, etc., and are accepted by society, while BDSM'ers do struggle with dilemmas and are ostrasiced. My point was, i experienced exactly the opposite.

pinkpleasures



OsideGirl -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/23/2005 8:47:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkpleasures






Meantime, i am disturbed a bit by some members of the BDSM community, who are sometimes cruel. Many are extremely judgmental. Others are a delight, and i have made great friends in my time in D/s so far. However, i "expected" an atmosphere of mutual respect and to a large degree, have found more nit-pickiness than i run across in bible study.

Nothing would make me go back to vanilla sex, and since being here, my fantasy life has been so enriched. However, i suppose i could accept and even thrive as an unattached woman with great people, Men as well as women, as friends. i'm betting He will come. i have hope...and a great, open heart waiting for Him.
pinkpleasures

I could tell ya why, Pink. But, I'm convinced you wouldn't listen.



pinkpleasures -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/23/2005 8:48:00 AM)

quote:

Edit: Oh hey, look, two handcuffs. Finally I'm properly outfitted.

Isolde


Very becoming on you, Isolde. Congratulations!

pinkpleasures



pinkpleasures -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/23/2005 8:56:09 AM)

quote:

I could tell ya why, Pink. But, I'm convinced you wouldn't listen.

Osidegirl


i have references...people who came to me and we spoke and reached not only an accord but the start of a friendship. If you have an "issue" with me (amazing since this is like the 2nd time i have seen your nick) i invite you to email me.

pinkpleasures



pollux -> RE: Is BDSM a more advanced/evolved sexual identity than vanilla? (8/23/2005 9:00:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkpleasures

Sir, i thought Your assertion is that "vanilla" people have not dilemmas, etc., and are accepted by society, while BDSM'ers do struggle with dilemmas and are ostrasiced. My point was, i experienced exactly the opposite.


Nope. Not quite. I'm talking about what's happening inwardly, not outwardly.

A vanilla person doesn't have a conflict with their appetities, their inner urges, whatever you want to call them. At least not a major conflict (nobody gets thru life without some sort of conflict involving sex or libido). A vanilla guy sees a pretty topless woman and gets aroused. Hey, no big deal, right? Straight vanilla guys are supposed to get aroused by that.

But let's say a young kinkster is raised in a Christian ethic, for example. He (or she) is constantly told "be kind to others". They're told that it's immoral to harm or hurt other people. And then one day that person discovers they get off on being cruel, or on seeing someone suffer. They see erotic imagery of pain being inflicted and they find they get warm. This person might be conflicted over this, right?

The vanilla person doesn't have any opportunity for growth because his situation is pretty static. But the second person's got some work to do. He (or she) has to ask, how do I live with this? I can't kill this sadistic (for example) side of me, but I also can't let it run loose and cause rampant harm and destruction either... So what do I do?

If they have a creative & ethical response or answer to that, then, yeah... I'm asserting that person IS more evolved than the vanilla one.



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625