quote:

ORIGINAL: darchChylde

The main difference in a Ds relationship and a vanilla, i believe, are that in Ds there are lines clearly drawn between who is in control and who is under that control.  Also, the limits of acceptable behaviour are clearly defined from the very beginning leaving little in the way of wiggle room.

Edited to add: Ds and BDSM actually have little to do with one another, beyond the fact the Dominance/submission is part of the definition and acronym of BDSM.  Many Ds couples do not engage in BDSM, just as many non Ds couples do.  BDSM, as most people define it, is the "play" side of the exchange, while Ds is the relationship side; though the two may be mutually exclusive.  In much the same way that you can practice Ds or BDSM without actually being a sadist or a masochist.

To make it more clear, BDSM is most commonly seperated into 3 parts (like the Triskele, lol):

B and D - Bondage and Discipline, this is the play dynamic.

D and s - Dominance and submission, this is more the relationship dynamic

S and M - Sadism and Masochism, this is more about why many of us get into it in the first place

The above is overly simplified and loaded with generalities, but i believe it gives an effective reference point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: impossiblesub
... Is it the ability to choose if you will be dominant or submissive BEFORE the relationship starts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: impossiblesub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lashra

I am very much the Alpha female, in my vanilla relationships the men couldn't handle it and we ended up parting company. Even though they knew me as a friend prior and knew I had a dominant personality, I guess they just "assumed" after we started to date that I would let them lead the relationship. No such thing happened.

In my D/s relationship it is understood from the beginning that I am the Leader and I make the rules. When we negotiated things we set up it so that both our needs are being met and we have an understanding to experiment and try new things in the future.

Perhaps if I had met a vanilla sub male who the societal conditioning hadn't run so deep perhaps I could have had a D/s relationship with him, but that conditioning is hard to get past. Then again perhaps it was a blessing, I'm happier now than I've ever been.

~Lashra

Hmm, sounds like me with the exception that I found the Dominant role to be too boring, perhaps because my females were not Alpha enough. However, I do not wish to be trod upon by the other person.
Alpha males and females typically come together based upon the mutual attraction of their dominance. Social conditioning has its place, without it there would be no society. Also, were it not for social conditioning you probably would have been dominated by the larger Alpha male. Pehaps we have both had the same problem, the inability to establish clear dominance due to social conditioning or the lack thereof.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lashra

Social conditioning has its place up to a point, then it becomes ridiculous such as saying ALL females are submissive to males, that simply is NOT true. Social conditioning tries to force everyone into a certain role, some of which they are clearly not suited for. I've seen it in animals too, there are some alpha females who will not give way to a alpha male even if it comes to a phyiscal confrontation. Rare, yes, but it does happen.

Just my 2 cents,
~Lashra