RE: Vanilla and D/s

RE: Vanilla and D/s (Full Version)

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

Message

manxcat -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 12:38:08 PM)
quote: Sometimes someone needs their opinion listened to and other times being listened to almost feels wrong. For the dominant, it feels at times (and yes, even for me) like you are being weak when you listen. Not ALL the time but just as a submissives feelings ebb and flow, so do mine and if I am in a place where I NEED my way and if that conflicts with her NEED,( I tend to be of the KoM line of thought where her needs before mine, my wants before hers) and some days I feel good about putting her needs first but some days it is far harder. Anyway, putting a positive spin on that is a learned skill, at least for me, one I am still working at mastering.) Yes. Another place where this is felt, is where i am at at the moment. It has been over a year since i have had any sexual or play contact with anyone. (I cannot do casual play or sex. Did enough of that in the free (LOL) love era.) Add into that, mild BPD and i often lately feel very needy for contact. (read weak) Now put into the mix that i am actively seeking a whole relationship. My needs are often overwhelming, even to me, and i don't always see in contact with one, what the potential subs' needs might be. And wonder whether my weakness is seen, and what effect it is having on the process. But this too shall pass. Hopefully before i scare off the perfect match.;;-))

NorthernGent -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 12:40:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Padriag Because I suspect it will amuse you.... George W Bush. [;)] Yeah, he doesn't appear to be a fully paid up member of the counselling profession, or maybe he is and he simply doesn't agree......who knows. I think there are degrees of 'listening': Hearing the noise but not particularly interested - e.g. listening to a nagging Mother. Listening to the words but relating them to your own experiences. Listening to the words and aiming to understand the other's context, but having further questions in mind as they speak. Listening to the words, understanding the other's position and not relating them to your own experience or thinking of the next question. In this scenario, there would be a pause for consideration between questions and answers. It's amazing what you can learn when adopting the fourth position. To me, that is genuine listening and fertile ground for learning. quote: ORIGINAL: Padriag Then there are those who may listen in earnest, and still fail to learn because they lack the capacity to do so. True enough. It follows thus intellectual compatibility is advantageous when choosing a mate.

catize -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 12:43:38 PM)
quote: 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. I do like the idea of a Pilot/ co-pilot dynamic. Realistically, the Pilot cannot do it all; the co-pilot is there to follow the orders to help get the ship to the Pilot’s chosen port. They each have their defined responsibilities. The Pilot is in charge; the co-pilot says “aye-aye, Sir” and does as told. Just sayin’ [;)]

agirl -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 1:19:59 PM)
A little lighthearted, as all analogies can be picked apart..I didn't like the fishing analogy. I didn't view M as a predator, he didn't view me as prey and he didn't 'catch' me by exhausting me....lol agirl

RCdc -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 1:20:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida 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. I don't believe that I was reading that the OP states that D/S relationships or BDSM is better at all, I do agree that D/s done 'right' might bring a sense of awareness - but no different or more to the sense of awareness that can be achieved by people who would be doing a non BDSM relationship 'right'. So, I don't believe(how I read it) the OP is stating that BDSM is better, or more communicative etc - but I completely disagree with the premise that BDSM relationships reach a different awareness. I have to agree with LA here and say that such a statement is something that you hear 'new' people like to think - it's very castlerealm(and I don't mean that in a derogatory way) - in other words, it is over romanticizing and simplifying how complex relationships on the whole are. Any person in a healthy relationship, regardless of orientation can achieve a sense of awareness unattainable for them in a unhealthy OR that they need a certain type of relationship to function and work on getting that awareness. Some people work and communicate better in a Ds relationship. Some people function better with Ds or BDSM and some have a medium inbetween. It comes down to the individuals involved, not the dynamic - it only comes down to the dynamic when the people involved find their 'comfort zone'. the.dark.

Rover -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 1:28:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael 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. Ok, let's stay completely within the construct of this hypothesis. Michael, I cannot think of a single skill set which I employ in a power exchange relationship dynamic that is not also employed in vanilla relationships (or gay relationships). Can you name one for me? Unless and until I can credibly be shown that such an "additional" skill set exists, I'm forced to deny the existence of the entire premise. John

softness -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 1:57:42 PM)
hmmms ... I don't see spcifici skills put to use in BDSM based relationships which are not used in vanilla ones. I would say that certain relationship tools are more frequently used in some BDSM relationships, or the relationship may be constructed differently in its initial stages ... but the tools and skills ... the relationship-craft ... is all the same. Honest and frank communication is often held up as the example of why BDSMers have "better" relationships .. I don't think its the BDSM that does that ... I think the people who make open and honest communication a foundation of their relationship would do so if they were kinky or vanilla ... because it is something they value.

leadership527 -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 2:35:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Ok, let's stay completely within the construct of this hypothesis. Michael, I cannot think of a single skill set which I employ in a power exchange relationship dynamic that is not also employed in vanilla relationships (or gay relationships). Can you name one for me? Unless and until I can credibly be shown that such an "additional" skill set exists, I'm forced to deny the existence of the entire premise. In my opinion, it's the wrong question and therefor no sensible answer is possible. I can try to state again what my personal observation was about myself and Carol as we transitioned from vanilla to D/s. Clearly, you have "two people with exactly identical relationship skills", since in this example, it is, in fact, the same couple just before & after as it were. For us to engage in a no holds barred, master slave relationship requires of us substantially more relationship skills on almost every level. The minimum possible baseline is much higher than it was when we were vanilla. This is, in my assessment, mandatory based upon the relationship dynamic not an optional thing I tossed in along with the transition to D/s. In other words, things that in the past would've worked out just fine for us now would result in failure of the relationship. To answer your question John, it is not that we have any skill now that we didn't have before. It's that we are placing significantly higher demands on the skills we've always had. In doing so, we of course get better at it (or fail as a couple I suppose). Now, moving back to more sweeping assertions, let's remember that I am a person who still identifies much more intimately with the vanilla world than the BDSM or kinkster worlds. When I speak about "vanilla", I am speaking squarely about "myself and my friends" not those "other lamers with no creativity". But yes, I do think that in some ways, a D/s relationship can be thought of as "better". I think of it as more difficult with more rewards and more risks. For those who want a bargain like that (and lord knows, most people would not) AND assuming that those two people can occupy the dom and sub roles comfortably, then yes, it is "better". Carol and I are both willing to invest almost endlessly into our marriage. Moving to M/s gave us a nice clear structure for how to do that in a nice risky package (necessitating the aforementioned skill improvements). If we didn't think of it as "better" we wouldn't' be doing it since neither of us asserts that "it's in our nature" or "we couldn't be happy without D/s".

gypsygrl -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 2:44:18 PM)
quote: 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. I take this to be the key to your op. If I understand it correctly, D/s and vanilla are basically the same, except for the fact that D/s corrects for power differences, takes those differences into account and works with them rather than against them. In contrast, people in vanilla relationships are likely to either deny power differences in the interests of maintaining the appearence of surface equality or acknowledge power differences but seek to equalize those differences. The skills involved in maintaining a D/s relationship are likely to be different from those involved in maintaining a vanilla relationship precisely because of their different orientations towards 'power.' I might add, that folks involved in D/s are likely to be openly turned on by those very same power differences that people in vanilla relationships either fail to acknowledge, deny or try to eliminate. (I realize I've gone way beyond your original statement in the interests of stating how I understand it.) Comparisons are difficult, as others have pointed out and I can't say much about the accuracy of the particular comparison you're making. That I think is a red herring, though. More interesting is your focus on skills. Very practical and implies that the skills necessary to maintain a D/s relationship, and, by extension, the skills necessary to dominate and submit can be learned.

Rover -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 2:49:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 For us to engage in a no holds barred, master slave relationship requires of us substantially more relationship skills on almost every level. The minimum possible baseline is much higher than it was when we were vanilla. Jeff, I accept that this may be the case for you and Carol in your own relationship. But the question was not asked on a personal level, it was asked on behalf of all Leather. I can honestly say that I have developed no new (relationship oriented) skill sets in my power exchange relationships that I did not previously possess. So the obvious answer is that new skill sets are not a requirement for power exchange relationships, even though some folks (like you and Carol) may require a greater competency within certain skill sets. Bottom line is that it's impossible to reconcile the uniqueness of power exchange relationships with universal statements of "requirements". John

RCdc -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 2:57:15 PM)
The issue some people are disagreeing with is that the statement is very - no incredibly - generalistic and frighteningly misleading. It's misleading in the sense that it infers that if you suck at vanilla relationships, that you will have more chance if your relationship is Ds based. I come from a traditional east end family. There is a definate power structure inherent with it, not only in the family as a whole, but in specific relationships - my grandparents for example. My grandpa was unquestionably the dominant authority and control in his relationship with my grandmother. However they were for all purposes - 'vanilla'. On the other side, my nanna was the family matriarch and without question the authority of my grandad. Again, no Ds/BDSM - simply an outwardly vanilla relationship. It is incorrect to say that there is more success because of BDSM or Ds present. It has nothing to do with the the orientation but the acceptance of authority within any given relationship. Ds doesn't have the edge over that acceptance, but it's down to individuals regardless of vanilla or BDSM base. the.dark.

KnightofMists -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 3:12:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: softness ... I think the people who make open and honest communication a foundation of their relationship would do so if they were kinky or vanilla ... because it is something they value. Exactly.... this skill allows them to excel no matter the style of their given relationship. Very much like the sport athletes... In general sport athletes have some very basic core skills that make them highly athletic and they procede into a particular sport that causes them to develop specific skills that are Necessary for that Particular sport. These skills don't make them better than the other athletes in different sports. Every sport just like various relationship styles require different sets of skills. This doesn't make any one style/sport better universally but it might make one a better choice than another. This also doesn't mean that we can nly do well in one sport and not others. In fact, many athletes excel in several sports but when they turn pro they in general choose one to perfect. There is a basic assumption that vanilla style relationships are somehow the root and BDSM style evolves from them. I think this is wrong. In fact,,, Vanilla style and BDSM style is like two different sports. Vanilla style relationships is just another branch of the tree like BDSM style relationships. The trunk of the tree being basic skills in which we can have effective relationships and interactions with others. These skills are common in any relationship... be they relationships with intimate partners, parents, our young, our boss, our employee. Each relationship is just another branch on the tree and by their nature certain skills are developed on a specific branch that may or may not be a skill of developement in another relationship style or type. I think it is rather narrowmind to think that one branch will have more or better skills than another branch... It could be the skills are better for that particular relationship style or type but rather pointless and even harmful to the relationship of another type or style. There are skills that common to relationships in general... there are skills that are specific to a type/style of relationship and thene there are skills are just specific to the given unique relationship itself no matter the type/style.

leadership527 -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 3:15:22 PM)
Bottom line is that it's impossible to reconcile the uniqueness of power exchange relationships with universal statements of "requirements". I dunno John. I hear what you are saying and I'm honestly confused. On one hand, I cannot argue with your direct personal observation. On the other hand, a relationship based upon a power exchange dynamic is not the same as one without. To me it seems self-evident that the further the boundaries on the control (eg, the more towards the theoretical TPE one goes), the more load is going to be placed on things like "trust", "respect", "communication", "listening skills", "paying attention to your partner", "self sacrifice", etc. All of this is assuming a M/s relationship that will actually survive a few decades. Clearly, you can get away with more and more as the expected lifetime of the relationship approaches zero. While I get that everyone's power exchange relationship is different, what seems inescapable to me is that somehow, in some sort of proportion to the amount of actual authority that is transferred then there must be additional trust, etc. to go along with it. I might well just be stuck inside my own box only looking at my own M/s dynamic and that of a few close friends (who's dynamic is not surprisingly very much like ours). But I still don't get how one human being can turn themselves over to another lock, stock, and barrel without WAY larger amounts of trust, respect, et.al. than I've ever seen required in a vanilla relationship.

yourMissTress -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 3:28:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 Agree: What I think is that entering into a relationship with an imbalanced authority dynamic is a more difficult way to run a relationship. Speaking personally, being Carol's good master is taking a lot more energy, attention, and focus out of me than being her good husband took. Despite the fact that we have always communicated well and trusted each other, those attributes (and others like them) are being refined in the fairly unforgiving crucible that is our dynamic and we are clearly much closer together than we ever were, much more trusting of each other, and we communicate better. I have to stop here and comment before I read any further. I disagree. I find that having an established power dynamic, knowing who has what authority, from the beginning to be so much easier than the relationships of my vanilla friends. Usually, when they are having a difficult time in their relationships it comes down to some kind of power struggle. Ok, back to reading the rest.

oceanwynds -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 3:30:25 PM)
Perhaps for you, that might be so, leadership. In my reality, I also had that without Ds. i totally trusted my husband, which is a good thing after 29 years of marriage. We did not know of Ds or BDSM, and the dynamics perhaps were different then what I have with Sir, but even through our vanilla relationship we trusted deeply each other. I am not saying anything against Ds relationships, all I am saying is this, I didnt need Ds to reach this place of trust. I needed someone who let me in without the games. There just isnt one road to finding a deeper trust within a relationship, there are many. It is good that you and your slave have found Ds as a deeper path for you. May you reach the depths i did so long ago. blessings oceanwynds

Padriag -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 3:40:41 PM)
Perhaps, Jeff, there is another possibility. That a M/s dynamic may require some individuals to learn skill sets they otherwise didn't use and this gives the impression in those cases of it being more demanding / requiring more. We all bring unique skills sets to any relationship based on our personal experience, education, family and friends. To give a simplistic example... suppose one of those skills was setting boundaries. Someone who grew up with strict discipline, perhaps military school, etc. might be more likely to possess the necessary skills in that area... making M/s somewhat "easier" for them, or they might say it is more natural. Someone lacking that sort of background would have to learn to adopt those skills and behaviors and how to use them effectively, creating the perception of it being more difficult. Now to relate this back to Michael's original point. Suppose we accept the above as being true. Then can we not further argue that some will be more successful at M/s or D/s relationships simply because they brought the right skill sets with them. Others, lacking them, will have to work harder to acquire them... and those that fail to do so may well face failure in their relationship as a direct result. A similar argument can be made about vanilla relationships... some will have to acquire skills others may already possess. Lastly, there is the question of whether a D/s or M/s relationship actually does require more trust or communication than a "vanilla" one. I would personally find that to be a highly debatable assumption. If no greater degree of trust or communication is required, it is then very difficult to argue that D/s or M/s relationships would be more likely to engender or cause someone to learn these traits. I suspect that how much trust, communication, commitment, etc. is required by a relationship, or how well they handle power exchange, authority transfer, etc... would be dependent on the individual relationships. Here again we enter highly subjective territory... how can we say any two M/s relationships are likely to make similar demands when we cannot agree on even what a master or slave is.

MadRabbit -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 3:41:07 PM)
Speaking solely in my personal experiences, I would say that the difference between my D/S relationships and vanilla relationships is the prescense of clearly defined roles and a clearly defined goal we are working towards that has the indirect effect of more trust, intimacy, and bonding. Thus with those expectactions in my D/S relationships, I as well as the person I am with are forced to develop skills that are necessary for it's success that by association are also very beneficial and productive in a vanilla relationship. All of this is drastically different then the "relationship" I had at 19 where all a "girlfriend" and I did was fuck each other and enjoy our shared interest in movies when we were done with that.

yourMissTress -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 3:55:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse I am going to even go so far as to say that a sucessful, vanilla, hetro relationship is very possibly easier, and also has a higher sucess rate long term. I think alot of that is because of the expectations that the various relationships are built upon. I also believe that gay and M/s relationships can be more intense, especially sexually, but also, because of that intensity, burn out much more quickly. I cannot agree more with the first statement. All persons in the relationship need to have a clear understanding of their partners expectations, and communicating those in the beginning and over time as they change is so very important. D/s is something that is interpreted differently by everyone. There are no role models to learn from and follow in our everyday lives. Where vanilla relationships have mom, dad, grandparents, and every movie and television show to teach them what is expected, accepted, and desired, D/s relationships do not. Vanilla relationships where the partners know each other and their families well, have a better chance of success because the are familiar with the expectations of one another. Now for the second statement, oh yeah, the sex is so hot and intense that the feelings become more intense and focus shifts to those activities and the foundation of the relationship is sometimes a dismal second.

stella41b -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 4:30:34 PM)
I'm following this and I'm wondering.., How can a D/s relationship be any different from a vanilla one? More to the point, can anyone here give any clear definition as to what a generic vanilla or a generic D/s relationship is meant to be? The way I see it each and every single relationship which ever exists is a unique, individual relationship relevant to two people, their feelings, needs, wants, desires, preferences and so on. No two relationships are ever alike because the two people in them are different. Furthermore we live, we age, we learn, we progress, and we change, and as we are changing, constantly changing, so do our relationships. The only constant I see for a relationship is how you define it or what name you give to it. You can call it a D/s relationship, you can call it a vanilla relationship, but these are mere labels. The relationship itself to me however remains an individual one between two individual people.

Padriag -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/26/2008 4:32:33 PM)
Sure... go ahead an muddy the waters with facts... [image]http://www.collarchat.com/image/s4.gif[/image]

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875