Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Vanilla and D/s


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Vanilla and D/s Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 11/1/2008 10:49:25 AM   
Padriag


Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline
In an effort to re-approach this discussion in a manner suggested by MR... here then is my response to the OP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

I was writing to a submissive about some relationships issues and I was speaking about skills needed and I realized where some of the disconnect is between "what we do is the same as vanilla" and "D/s is a different animal altogether" and they are sort of both wrong.

While at its core, I think all relationships operate in the same way, two (or however many) people learning how to live together, nurture each other, and in short, make a relationship that is greater than the sum of the participants.  In that regard, there is no difference between D/s and vanilla.

However, assuming two couples with the same exact quality of relationships skills, the one with more experience with D/s is LIKELY (yes Leadership I realize you are going to take exception to this) to be more successful.  Not because D/s is different but because TALKING and openly doing power exchange (or authority transfer) is a "new" skillset. 

In my experience I would have to disagree, in part because what we generally refer to as a "D/s relationship" is so varied it is difficult to draw a meaningful comparison.  For example, a "vanilla" relationship with a romantic element might compare favorably enough to a "D/s" relationship that also has a romantic element as to make a comparison.  However, if that "D/s" relationship lacks any significant romatic element, say in the case of someone who "owns" a "slave" who is viewed and treated literally as such... it would be very difficult to draw a comparison as we're dealing with apples and oranges.  That said, and narrowing this down a bit...

Do I think, in my experience that if we are comparing a "romantic D/s" relationship to a "romantic vanilla" relationship, is the D/s relationship more likely to succeed?  Again I would have to say no.  In part because there are too many other variables that could put stress on the relationship... for example the fact that D/s generally can't be practiced openly and "vanilla" can presents its own set of problems.  But assuming we could equalize all this in some way until we reduced it just to the question of who was better able to apply and use authority dynamics (at this point I think we are getting well outside the realm of possibility)... I would still say no... because not everyone is equally able to apply those skills.

_____________________________

Padriag

A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 221
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 11/1/2008 1:46:48 PM   
MadRabbit


Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag
I think that's a potentially very useful suggestion.  How would you begin?


I wasn't directing this to anyone in particular in this thread. To be honest, I don't have anything I really want to contribute this time around. I was just mostly addressing a nuance I have noticed.

I might make a new thread in the future though following that line of thought.

_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to Padriag)
Profile   Post #: 222
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 11/1/2008 1:52:43 PM   
MadRabbit


Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

What I have observed is that when someone says they are a "slave", or a "dom", or a "goddess", or some other such they are doing more than adopting a title.  They are telling us how they wish to be perceived and how they perceive themselves... a portion of their personal identity is involved, and therefor their ego.  But as it is personal, it is also all highly subjective. 


That's it in a nutshell.... the labels people apply to themselves say less about who or what they are than they do about who and what they perceive (or wish) themselves to be.
 
John



I think it comes down to how you look at these words, because I find there is two different ways of looking at them that often come into conflict on these boards.

One is looking at them in the context of labels that people appoint themselves in a kind of "Hi! My name is Bob!" name tag kind of way so everybody can perceive them a certain way.

The other context is theoretical discussion, more specifically words such as "submissive" and "slave" being used in the abstract to communicate two different theories of how to go about having a relationship. This often comes in conflict with the first because people take them as a personal sterotype as opposed to simply something purely abstract that is not directed towards any unique relationship.



_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 223
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 11/1/2008 2:25:44 PM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

The other context is theoretical discussion, more specifically words such as "submissive" and "slave" being used in the abstract to communicate two different theories of how to go about having a relationship.


And that presupposes that a difference exists... a supposition to which I do not subscribe.  After years of forum discussion, nothing approaching a realistic consensus has been developed to distinguish between the two.  Telling me that no distinction exists, beyond that of a personal "feeling".
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to MadRabbit)
Profile   Post #: 224
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 11/1/2008 2:37:47 PM   
MadRabbit


Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

The other context is theoretical discussion, more specifically words such as "submissive" and "slave" being used in the abstract to communicate two different theories of how to go about having a relationship.


And that presupposes that a difference exists... a supposition to which I do not subscribe.  After years of forum discussion, nothing approaching a realistic consensus has been developed to distinguish between the two.  Telling me that no distinction exists, beyond that of a personal "feeling".
 
John


If the difference being referenced is in fact some greater divine universal definition for all of us as opposed to the general difference I as an individual associate to the two word's for my own purposes of communication, then yes, I completely agree that it's bullshit.

_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 225
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 11/1/2008 8:35:39 PM   
worshippingyou


Posts: 13
Joined: 12/3/2004
Status: offline
Like you, SimplyMichael, I used to think that D/s gave us D/s-ers greate insight.  Now I see it differently: now, I believe that we all have our own context in life and with relationships - be it D/s or vanilla or whatever else.  In that context, we act-out our humanness; our needs and wants, our regrets, our fleeting pleasures, our haunting pains.

It's just another one of our human short-comings to think that somehow our favorite flavor of relationship is at the center of the universe.  Galileo had the right idea.

(in reply to agirl)
Profile   Post #: 226
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 11/2/2008 9:55:43 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: worshippingyou

Like you, SimplyMichael, I used to think that D/s gave us D/s-ers greate insight.  Now I see it differently: now, I believe that we all have our own context in life and with relationships - be it D/s or vanilla or whatever else.  In that context, we act-out our humanness; our needs and wants, our regrets, our fleeting pleasures, our haunting pains.

It's just another one of our human short-comings to think that somehow our favorite flavor of relationship is at the center of the universe.  Galileo had the right idea.


Try again, I made no such assertion.

(in reply to worshippingyou)
Profile   Post #: 227
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 11/2/2008 12:33:30 PM   
SubbieLilPetGirl


Posts: 5
Joined: 6/4/2008
Status: offline
I wish that I could find someone to mix my vanilla life with. Someone that I can serve, worship, love, and adore that cherishes me and my vanilla interests as well. Granted, I am very thankful for my D/s family, but wish I could share them in my vanilla life as well. 

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 228
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Vanilla and D/s Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.063