RE: Vanilla and D/s (Full Version)

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



Message

NihilusZero -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 10:40:50 AM)

The main crux of this is what barometer is being used to determine the success of a relationship...what "makes it work". Since those criteria are brought to the table only by the participants, there won't be a universal answer. The traits being suggested as attached specifically to D/s relationships are, at lowest common denominator, just a deeper understanding of one's self and one's partner and how individual desires are expected to be met.

This can happen with or without the WIITWD construct surrounding it. Is it more likely to happen by mere virtue of D/s also being involved? Maybe.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 10:42:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
just a deeper understanding of one's self and one's partner and how individual desires are expected to be met.

This can happen with or without the WIITWD construct surrounding it. Is it more likely to happen by mere virtue of D/s also being involved? Maybe.

Blech.  False.  Ds does not make anything more deeper or likely in terms of being open and understanding.




NihilusZero -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 10:48:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
just a deeper understanding of one's self and one's partner and how individual desires are expected to be met.

This can happen with or without the WIITWD construct surrounding it. Is it more likely to happen by mere virtue of D/s also being involved? Maybe.

Blech.  False.  Ds does not make anything more deeper or likely in terms of being open and understanding.


Not in direct causation, no. And I'd likely side with you on in general as well, but I suspect there is a minute bit that may notch the dial ever so slightly in it's favor on the basis that D/s is supposed to involve getting to a place of more thorough understanding about yourself an what you want, when regular hook-up relationships don't necessarily have that right off the bat.

The same way I might expect a slightly higher level of sexual security and sexual responsibility from swingers specifically because they are in a situation that would potentially demand greater caution and health attentiveness.

I said "maybe" because I don't know if studies of these things would or wouldn't yield such a result or not. They may not show any deviation at all. If they did, though, I would think it would be minimal anyways.

What you say, however, is in agreement with the points I've been making here throughout.



DavanKael -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 10:52:45 AM)

I was editing my reply while a bunch of other posts popped up, so it's further up in the thread edited. 
Regarding what's new since I started editing: What NihilusZero and Lucky Albatross said: agreed. 
  Davan



NihilusZero -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 10:54:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

I was editing my reply while a bunch of other posts popped up, so it's further up in the thread edited. 

I have to do the extra work of scrolling up because you didn't want to post something new? [8D][;)]



DavanKael -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 11:07:56 AM)

Hi, Nihilus Zero----
I am a tiresome creature, aren't I?! 
Yours and LA's convo developed more while I was writingmy addendum.  You fully awake people...need caffeine! 
In a quick re-read before running out the door (I'll check back later to see where this thread has gone), I don't think the essence of what you each are saying is necessarily incompatible; I think you're communicating similar things differently now.  Only guessing, though. 
Great day, all! 
  Davan



Padriag -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 11:08:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Padriag,

The exchange of power/authority exists in all relationships, even if they are absolutely egalitarian.

Not only do I concurr... but a point I would verbosely and vociferously support.

quote:

I am not arguing that power exchange is unique to D/s, trust me on that one.

Again we agree, most fully.

quote:

What I am saying is that the ability to openly manipulate that power exchange as a skill set is separate from the one that vanilla people use.

Thrice we have reached a concensus... people may begin to talk I warn you. [image]http://www.collarchat.com/image/s4.gif[/image]

quote:

They operate within societal rules that provide much of the structure of how things should work wheres we operate outside of that, or at least should LOL.

But alas... all good things come to an end... here I must question once more.  Do we operate outside those societal structures or is that an illusion we have spun for the sake of our pride?  Strip away the kinks and fetishes of many of these relationships... lay them bare to the underlying dynamics at their core... and are they really so different from any other relationship?  Should they be different?  Can they be... can we imagine such and if so what form and shape would it take?  Curious cognitions to contemplate through consecutive moments of conscientious consideration, no?

quote:

Learning to manage your desire to own and control someone in a healthy way just like learning to let go and be controlled by someone requires us to go to places we are not given the emotional or relationship tools to do.  Yes, doing all that requires the ability to set and respect boundaries (a very vanilla skill) but in places where we have no experience setting up boundaries.  Just like negotiating a poly relationship requires the setting aside of a wide range of societal norms, so does openly taking or relinquishing authority.

Healthy by who's standards?  An objective one or one of societies devising... are we yet free of the later?
You speak of a lack of tools, of experience setting up boundaries, on the supposition that these are not learned in "mainstream" society.  But what of those who attended military or boarding schools with their rules and boundaries and demands for obedience.  What of those in the military of whom discipline and obedience are also required within a distinct structure.  Let us not forget that a half century ago there were those who, returning home from military service found something lacking in their lives... a void... and abhoring it sought to fill it and so created something new, a community of their own with rules and boundaries and structure... of which we are now the inheritors of its legacy.  To say that some are not equipped to do such things, on that I could agree.  But there are those who by virtue of their experiences have learned such skills and tools.  Some such, not so long ago, inadvertantly showed the way to we who come after.

quote:

I like the layering analogy because of the above.  In order to set healthy boundaries around submitting/dominating, one must first be able to set healthy boundaries but the WHAT of those boundaries is different, it is that layer that I think is where healthy D/s is found. 

And on a happy note, here again I agree... the question of what those boundaries are, what constitutes "healthy" goes to the very essence of the question.



agirl -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 11:15:55 AM)

The basic premise is (loosely speaking) that one person has control/authority and the other follows it. What are the 'places you go past' in a D/s relationship that aren't in vanilla ones?

I'd argue that there's no model of 'vanilla' that you can use to suggest that it does or doesn't provide a person with anything specific.

Isn't this really saying that it takes time to know how someone acts and reacts and how to handle it in the model of relationship you've chosen? This would apply to most people in most situations.

agirl





NorthernGent -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 11:43:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

For the dominant, it feels at times (and yes, even for me) like you are being weak when you listen. 



This is certainly not a universal view.

Listening is fundamental to learning in every walk of life, and certainly a pre-requisite for good management/governance. You don't have to agree, of course, and there's a point at which you're going to have to call time; but listening is a sign of strength rather than weakness.



Padriag -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 11:49:25 AM)

I would point out... merely to illuminate... that listening is behavior... nothing more.  Whether it can be said to be a strength or a weakness might well be predicated on whether one learns from what one hears.

A simple thought laid before you



juliaoceania -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 11:50:55 AM)

quote:

Not because D/s is different but because TALKING and openly doing power exchange (or authority transfer) is a "new" skillset.


One thing that I have not read much on this board that I think Leadership stated that makes his marriage successful... whereas one sees a great many lifestyle relationships fail... I am paraphrasing him here... his marriage is more important than D/s. His marriage is the top priority and I get the impression that D/s is incorporated as a tool to make it a better marriage, and not the other way around, a marriage as a tool to make his D/s more successful.

I am not saying that people are not right or wrong in the priorities they set within the confines of their personal relationships... but if I ever felt dominating me was more important than loving me, I would not be satisfied. I do not see vanilla as much different than what we have. The biggest difference for us is that my inclination to be a submissive person to my mate is appreciated in our relationship. It does not make him uncomfortable the way it made my former partners... and that is why we are still together most likely.



SimplyMichael -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 11:55:38 AM)

For the damn record, I am in no way claiming
  • BDSM is better
  • D/s is better
  • Vanilla is bad
  • BDSM people communicate or in fact by definition do anything better or worse than anyone else

I am solely discussing the point that D/s is an ADDITIONAL and SEPERATE, although ultimately DEPENDENT on vanilla relationship skills for success in a relationship.  Defining success and healthy as a relationship that lifts the participants up and upon which they will later look back with fondness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael
The exchange of power/authority exists in all relationships, even if they are absolutely egalitarian.  I am not arguing that power exchange is unique to D/s, trust me on that one.  What I am saying is that the ability to openly manipulate that power exchange as a skill set is separate from the one that vanilla people use.  They operate within societal rules that provide much of the structure of how things should work wheres we operate outside of that, or at least should LOL.

Wow this is something I'd expect to read from a two month starry-eyed newbie, not someone with actual long term experience in the scene.

Exchange of power may exist in all relationships, that doesn't mean that they are all BASED UPON the concept of inherent inequality of authority.  And again, the suggestion that most Dsers operate "outside" of societal rules is again, highly laughable.

I repeat, fulfilling relationships operate outside external pressure and societal regulations, no matter what sort.



Bold is mine, LA we agree I just think you missed the part in my post that I bolded.

quote:

I repeat, fulfilling relationships operate outside external pressure and societal regulations, no matter what sort
.

Again, we agree.


quote:

Exchange of power may exist in all relationships, that doesn't mean that they are all BASED UPON the concept of inherent inequality of authority. 


Exactly, and the learning how to consciously manipulate that inequality of authority is a skill set that we are not taught and must learn.  It is seperate from what skills (not better, not bigger, not more shiney) from what is needed to make a vanilla relationship work.  Most people do not have the skill (and like D/s, not all want it, meaning it doesn't make one better) to have an open relationship, it is something additional one must learn.  Of course there are 4.588 people who were born with that skill but most of those who desire to do something outside the norm must learn it.

I think of it as a process of throwing away the fantasy of what D/s is and learning the reality, or in my case the dysfunction of being domineering and learning the skills to be dominant in a healthy way.



oceanwynds -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 12:03:53 PM)

It took me awhile to rid my mind that Ds couples are differnt then vanilla couples. My point of confusion always would stem back to okay, how? In a relationship that will endure both people must know the other person. Only way I know how this is done is through communication. I have seen ideals sold here in the name of Ds or Ms and their superority over 'vanilla' relationships. Most of these ideals in my book are nothing but b.s. fancy icing to build a relationship on. Any relationship that has lasted long will run through difficult times. Sometimes the one doing most of the controlling, dominant person, will need a break. A submissive/slave or vanilla bean best know how to deal with not having that power exchange.  Every one goes through cycles of waxing and waning , and we need to be prepared to handle these cycles when crises knock at the door. My husband basically controlled our marriage, but when he was diagnosed with a fatal illness, I had to step up to the plate. We did not know what Ds was, but we sure did have the criteria to carry on during this time.

A good strong relationship doesn't come under the label of Ds, vanilla or whatever words people want to stick on it. A good strong relationship comes under the need of those involved giving it their all and seeing each other through the good and bad times. It comes from not a fantasy but the blood, sweat and tears of real life.  

oceanwynds



NorthernGent -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 12:05:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

I would point out... merely to illuminate... that listening is behavior... nothing more.  Whether it can be said to be a strength or a weakness might well be predicated on whether one learns from what one hears.

A simple thought laid before you



I fail to see how someone with the mindset of listening, and I mean really listening as in going beyond the words/noise in order to understand a position, can not learn.

Do you have an example of an instance where someone can listen but not learn?



NuevaVida -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 12:09:18 PM)

~ Fast Reply ~

I could be wrong, but what I'm reading in the OP is the premise that D/s, if done well (dare I say "right"), often brings a sense of awareness (of self and of partner) that is not "required" in non D/s relationships. If I understood this correctly, this does not automatically conclude "better" although I can see where some may think that it does. There are perfectly happy and fulfilled relationships whose participants do not attain a level of awareness they might otherwise attain in a D/s one. Attaining greater awareness is not a good OR a bad thing, it just "is." (I'm using way too many quotation marks in this post!). I might not have a level of self awareness that a Tibetan monk has. This does not make monk life better than the life I am currently living, it's just different.

If I'm going to give myself over to someone again, you bet I want the person in charge of my life to have more awareness of himself and of me than if I were an equal partner and decision-maker in the relationship. If he's the captain of my ship, then it's best he understands all the intricacies of operating that ship, versus if we were co-captains. Some may disagree with the notion of NOT being a co-captain as a submissive, but when I've given the leadership position over in my relationship, I'm not wearing the captains hat, he is. I'm going to participate in his growing awareness of who I am and how I operate, but I'm not the one in charge of our direction.

Good luck with this, Michael. I've been accused of describing D/s as "better" since my entry into this site, and so far I haven't found the right words to describe that I DON'T think that way, but that I believe D/s requires a different kind of relationship skill. I can repeat up the Wazoo that I'm not saying it's better (other than it's better for me) but it will never translate that way.



Padriag -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 12:17:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Do you have an example of an instance where someone can listen but not learn?

Because I suspect it will amuse you.... George W Bush.  [;)]

More seriously, I have dealt with submissives, employees, etc. who while they may listen... they failed to learn.  I would hazard that we differ in no small part because you attach significance to the idea of listening beyond the behavior itself... I did not.  The two are separate processes.  I can listen to a friend complaining about someone else, a "sympathetic ear", without ever really hearing what was said and certainly I would learn nothing if I even remembered anything said at all.  Then there are those who may listen in earnest, and still fail to learn because they lack the capacity to do so.  Such was the case at times with various submissives who needed more repetition before they "learned" what was being taught.



JustDarkness -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 12:23:45 PM)

all relations are the same in the base..it are the details that make them different



SimplyMichael -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 12:23:52 PM)

I AM NOT SAYING D/S IS BETTER IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.  I am simply saying that we must learn an additional skill set in order to do D/s well.  Having that skill set doesn't make us a better person nor does not having it make you less.  I am not playing ANY VALUE on the skill set at all in fact, I am simply making an observation that I think it exists.

As I said earlier, I think learning to do vanilla well would be of far greater benefit to most of those who come here for advice.  90%+ of the routine questions we see here are related to very basic relationship skills, how to be open, how to listen, how to empathize, how to work with and not against your partner, how to learn to be honest, how to pick good partners, etc.




NuevaVida -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 12:32:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

I AM NOT SAYING D/S IS BETTER IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. 



I am agreeing with you. I'm not sure if you were replying directly to my post or not, but I wanted to clarify that.



oceanwynds -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 12:35:35 PM)

I understand that Michael, but what I am saying PE might down the road need to be dropped if the Dominant cannot continue, be it for whatever reason. It might be temporary or not, but what then does a Ds couple do? I enjoy the PE that is with Sir, but since experiencing the illness and death of my husband, i became a practicalist. I also know there has to be more then just the PE to help a relationship through trying time.

oceanwynds



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125