RE: Vanilla and D/s

RE: Vanilla and D/s (Full Version)

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

Message

leadership527 -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 11:43:50 AM)
quote: but you will be doing it with the exact same skill sets that you had when you made your relationship in the first instance. heh, fine and dandy and I really really want to validate your theory and all... but the actual fact in my marriage is that this is not true. Sorry, but facts have to win over theories, just as I had to credit John's personal observations about his own facts.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 12:02:16 PM)
I've followed along on this thread with interest. Part of my own...though undoubtedly not unique...problem is that I see relevant bits in a lot of what has been said here even though the whole of someone's argument may disagree with the whole of another's argument. I agree, topping requires a skill set different than the skills required for a relationship. Topping is ...overall...more about the physical while a relationship...for the sake of argument here, let's go with either an established D/s or "vanilla" relationship...is an ongoing, evolving dynamic encompassing mental, physical, spiritual and emotional aspects. Is there a difference between the skills necessary to maintain a vanilla relationship and a D/s relationship? Communication, the ability to compromise (negotiate), be willing to occasionally put your needs behind those of your partner...these are all important in any relationship. The ability to read your partner (knowing when to push and when to guide things along gently, the mood they are in, etc.) is important in both relationships. The willingness to follow your chosen path in the relationship...lead, follow, be an equal partner with equal responsibilities...is important in both. I think that, more than a differing set of skills, it is far more important to learn and understand the differences in reactions and expectations between D/s and vanilla. Given the infinite variety of partners out there, other than a few basics that you can...or should be able to rely on...you will always be learning.

WhiplashSmile2 -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 12:03:00 PM)
I've been following the message boards for a long long time now. Now dare I admit this, the things I read here and the topic tends to focus my mind upon these issues. Now normally, people bring their issues onto a message board, however how many people find themselves bringing the message boards topics into their personal life? Mmmmm.... I find myself today, asking myself a serious question with the realization of a conversation I just had with my girl. I found myself wanting to turn something simple into something complex. The mighty quest for ripping things apart and over thinking and over rationalization. Tends to happen a lot on here at times. I've been a little preoccupied/concerned/worried if I'm good enough for her, if I'm the right man for her, if we are indeed a good match. I attempted to engage in conversation expressing and sharing this with her. Mmmmm... she's seeing it a bit like I'm finding perhaps faults with her and not with my ownself.

Rover -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 12:05:30 PM)
Ok, I accept your descriptions of both vanilla and power exchange relationships as analogous types of each (many more in either category are far less committed and/or established, but for purpose of this discussion it's unnecessary to discuss all possible variations). And in doing so, we can focus exclusively on this issue: quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 quote: Similarly, I don't believe you have to list all of the skills involved here. You should be able to identify a single skill set that you believe to be unique to power exchange relationships, and not evidenced in vanilla relationships. Trusting your partner. I believe that the requirements for trusting my partner are VASTLY greater in our new M/s dynamic than they were in the vanilla one. And just so you can see clearly where we started at, my wife and I used to make "anything" bets to each other. Yup, just like it sounds like, loser does literally anything. Right there, that is more trust than almost all vanilla couples. Or, at least, the vanilla couples that I have talked to thought it was varying types of insane. (and as a humorous aside, my wife is currently up one "anything", which means that I can say to people who fear that she may be being oppressed that she could swap the collar in a heartbeat if she felt like it. Yup, she could, if she chose, use her anything to collar me and I would honor it.) So as you can see, we in fact DID start with fairly high levels of trust. But that trust was nowhere near what is required for her to allow me to not just dictate how she acts and what she does, but also how she thinks and how she perceives the world at a very fundamental level. Alrighty, then... you've settled on trust as your example of a skill set that is necessary to learn for power exchange relationships and does not exist in vanilla relationships. But wait, that's not exactly the example you've used. Now you're redefining the argument to be a skill set that is more developed in power exchange relationships vs. vanilla relationships, and that's an entirely different premise. But I'll play along by offering my own example. My dad just turned 79 years old this month. Hell of a guy... my hero (seriously). Great father, great husband, great friend, and just recently inducted into the WNY Baseball Hall of Fame (had to get that plug in there... I'm proud of him). Anyway, as a washed up ball player there weren't many good paying jobs available to him when he got home from Korea. He tried a stint working at Bethlehem Steel working under the coke ovens, wearing wooden blocks on his shoes so his feet didn't fry in the falling debris, and a perpetual sunburn on his face from the heat. Didn't take long to figure out that wasn't for him. He was (and is) a smart guy, but not educated in any formal way. So office work wasn't available to him. About the only thing a guy like him could do to make some money was go into sales. And sell he did. Heck, with a wife and five kids at home he had some motivation to sell. But that came at a cost. You see, salesmen in that era traveled... a lot. And the cost was measured in lost time. He never missed a ballgame any of us played in. He was always there for parent teacher night. He made sure that none of us children had a moment when we felt like he wasn't there for us. But the same can't be said for my mom. The time he lost was their time. While she was home managing the day to day mayhem, he was on the road. While she was slaving over hot stoves, he was eating in restaurants. While she was dealing with nightmares and sleep deprivation, he was in a quiet, comfortable hotel (nothing fancy, mind you... he couldn't afford more than the Motel 6 when it actually cost $ 6 a night). While her body showed the inevitable wear and tear of giving birth to five children, he was fit and handsome. Week afer week, following the rigors of travel, he came home to a household of chores and a frazzled wife. This was long before email, or cell phones. Some of his hotel rooms didn't even have a rotary dial phone. Contact was minimal by today's standards, if at all. To say that it was inglorious does not do it justice. So why do I share this story with you? Because my vanilla mom trusted my dad with everything. With her entire world. Not occasionally. Not as a bet. But not without good reason, either. She trusted him every day that he was out working hard for our family. She trusted him that every night he was faithful to her. And she trusted him that every week, he'd come home. That is no small thing, considering that home was often a tough place to come home to. No small thing in an era before alimony, when it would be cheap and easy to make it easier on himself. No small thing considering the temptations that might befall someone in dad's situation. Mom could have been insecure and made home life miserable for dad. She could have made him look forward to travel. She could have made it more difficult to come home each week, or be faithful each night. She could have said it was unbearable and thrown him out on his ear. But she didn't. No matter how hard the week was, no matter what hell we put her through, she made his home an oasis. Trust not as developed in vanilla relationships? Nah, I'm just not buying it. John P.S. - Next May will mark their 50th anniversary.

heartfeltsub -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 12:13:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 quote: but you will be doing it with the exact same skill sets that you had when you made your relationship in the first instance. heh, fine and dandy and I really really want to validate your theory and all... but the actual fact in my marriage is that this is not true. Sorry, but facts have to win over theories, just as I had to credit John's personal observations about his own facts. So what skill sets are you now using that you didn't use at all before. Not that the level of use is different, but rather, a new skill. And given that you don't do S and M but rather M/s, i am not talking about any skills wielding any "toy". i guess that is what most of us are try to get a clear answer on, what relationship skill are you now using in your M/s relationship with your wife that you were not using when you had a "vanilla" or less authority based relationship with your wife. heartfelt

agirl -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 12:23:07 PM)
It wasn't a theory as such......lol There's no doubting that you know the facts regarding your relationship and the transition to M/s within it. In your post, you used 'trusting your partner' as an example of a skill set unique to M/s...You expanded on that by saying that it isn't like the amount required when you have the authority to dictate 'how she acts and what she does, but also how she thinks and how she perceives the world at a very fundamental level.' but it's the same skill set, surely?;............ just one that is being drawn on and perhaps tested, being built further and in a different ways for different reasons? agirl

leadership527 -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 12:45:56 PM)
quote: P.S. - Next May will mark their 50th anniversary. Living quite thoroughly in the vanilla world myself, I know a lot of vanilla couples and some of them with truly wonderful marriages that I have sought to learn from. I concede your point and in doing so also affirm my own... this discussion cannot be had in this venue.

RCdc -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 1:09:02 PM)
I'm coming into this a bit late and have nothing much to add other than what LA and Rover have already written. However I wanted to just answer leaderships question to define Vanilla. My suggestion is - don't. You can't because the reality is it doesn't exist as people want to believe. I have so many so called 'vanilla' friends who have some sort of authority dynamic or fetish or kink in their relationships. Vanilla is a word used by people when they want to be derogetory. Lets list them all - 'fake/true/real/vanilla'. None of these really exist outside peoples personal and subjective viewpoints. Even in BDSM and Ds relationships - there are people at different points and authority levels. There are so many types of people - sadists or daddys - masochists or total painsluts. Vanilla is just a different level. It's no less. It's no more. It's just another type of relationship. So people can keep on and on about how seperate vanilla is from BDSM, they can fool themselves into thinking it's entirely seperate - but it isn't - it's just different - but no different than a D/s relationship is to an M/s one, or a T/B one. the.dark.

Rover -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 1:11:40 PM)
Another way of looking at it is that B/D and S/M are most often practiced by (in a strictly numerical sense).... vanillas. John

leadership527 -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 2:11:15 PM)
~fast reply~ OK, so SIX pages into this thread we have determined that vanilla and BDSM are the same. That the demands and pressures they place on all relationship are the same. And therefor, the skills which would be developed in said relationships are the same. Did I miss anything? Maybe tomorrow we should discuss how, in fact, since all of existence is simply energy state fluctuations in the quantum vacuum, that my relationship with my wife can reasonably be understood by looking at how the sun and the my keyboard interact. They are, after all, literally identical in every respect. Or wait, maybe I got that wrong. Did we instead conclude that everyone and every relationship is unique, like unto a snowflake. And since snowflakes are all unique unto themselves, it would clearly be impossible to discuss snowflakes as a whole, right? Or wait, maybe I got that wrong again. Maybe it's really just that it's in my nature to perceive vanilla and M/s couples in this way... period... no need to go beyond that. God made it that way. BDSM Sacred cows numbers one, two, and three all queued up for everyone's happy consumption. Can I be right now too?

JustDarkness -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 2:15:49 PM)
quote: And since snowflakes are all unique unto themselves good example (although this is not what you mean) yes snowflakes are build form the same cristals. Their base is the same.....but the end result is different. (different ordering of christals slight changes the look) As with relations...bdsm and vanilla relations are in the base the same...the result is different. (different priorities of relationial tools lead to different relations types) (that is what I make from it)

Rover -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 2:27:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 ~fast reply~ OK, so SIX pages into this thread we have determined that vanilla and BDSM are the same. Well, now watch how you state that... BDSM includes power exchange relationships but it also includes much more. quote: That the demands and pressures they place on all relationship are the same. And therefor, the skills which would be developed in said relationships are the same. Did I miss anything? You pretty much have it. I've consistently said that power exchange relationships are far more like vanilla relationships than different. The only thing that differs in a power exchange relationship is that one partner consistently has the authority to control, whereas control fluctuates from partner to partner in vanilla relationships (often resulting in power struggles, but that's a different tangent). quote: Maybe tomorrow we should discuss how, in fact, since all of existence is simply energy state fluctuations in the quantum vacuum, that my relationship with my wife can reasonably be understood by looking at how the sun and the my keyboard interact. They are, after all, literally identical in every respect. Nah, I don't understand that stuff so I'll stick to BDSM. ;) quote: Or wait, maybe I got that wrong. Did we instead conclude that everyone and every relationship is unique, like unto a snowflake. And since snowflakes are all unique unto themselves, it would clearly be impossible to discuss snowflakes as a whole, right? It's not impossible to discuss the commonalities amongst snowflakes. Though in a cosmetic sense, they all differ. quote: Or wait, maybe I got that wrong again. Maybe it's really just that it's in my nature to perceive vanilla and M/s couples in this way... period... no need to go beyond that. God made it that way. That's one way of looking at it. *quote:* BDSM Sacred cows numbers one, two, and three all queued up for everyone's happy consumption. Can I be right now too? It's not a matter of being "right". From an intellectual standpoint, it's a matter of participating in an interesting discussion. And part of what makes it interesting is to have someone argue one side, and someone take the opposing view. If you are comfortable with where you are on this topic, that's all the "right" you need to be. But don't I recall that you mentioned some uneasiness with the subject? I may be in error. John

Rover -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 2:29:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JustDarkness yes snowflakes are build form the same cristals. Their base is the same.....but the end result is different. (different ordering of christals slight changes the look) As with relations...bdsm and vanilla relations are in the base the same...the result is different. (different priorities of relationial tools lead to different relations types) (that is what I make from it) That's a brilliant way to look at this analogy. Cosmetic differences arising from identical structures. John

leadership527 -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 3:08:49 PM)
quote: It's not a matter of being "right". From an intellectual standpoint, it's a matter of participating in an interesting discussion. And part of what makes it interesting is to have someone argue one side, and someone take the opposing view. If you are comfortable with where you are on this topic, that's all the "right" you need to be. But don't I recall that you mentioned some uneasiness with the subject? I may be in error. I have a son with an IQ of around 160 and is 23 years old so he still *knows everything. If I want to get tied down in meaningless debates just because it's fun to flex my IQ, I could do so with a TEENAGER* (OK, young adult technically) for gods sake who's way better at it than you laughs. Your post about your parents was insulting, both to you and me and effectively terminated any real discussion here.

Rover -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 3:12:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 Your post about your parents was insulting, both to you and me and effectively terminated any real discussion here. I certainly do not feel insulted by it... it was rather heart felt and I had presumed that in sharing it you could appreciate the kind of relationship my parents are blessed to have (you and Carol seem to be similarly blessed). But if that's the way you feel, you're right... discussion has terminated. John

SimplyMichael -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 4:34:33 PM)
Oh come on you two, I enjoy you both and you have to admit, this has been at least fun and interesting, and guess what, I am not done yet. Its just a little hard for me to post anything intelligent during the day (and of course, there are those who wonder why I stop at "during the day" but hey, they could be right) so lets just get back to having fun.

SlyStone -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 4:45:11 PM)
quote: Your post about your parents was insulting, both to you and me and effectively terminated any real discussion here. Before you take your toys and run home consider this. It appears t that you are threatened when Rover attempts to show you how a basic human need such as trust transcends any particular dynamic because its very existence allows the dynamic to exist. I thought it was a great example, I cannot imagine why or how you are insulted by it. When you attempt to say that one dynamic allows for greater trust than another YOU are being insulting as well as narrow minded. The reality is that it does not require special skills, it is simply another alternative dynamic through which one may express oneself, and unless you believe that D/s starts at the age of 5 than there can be no argument that we bring our vanilla skills to this different dynamic, rather than create new skills. This seems such a simple concept I don't know how anyone could not grasp it. The irony here of course is that if it is true that domination is a skill, than anyone can learn it and therefore anyone can be a dominant. And so in attempting to make dominance something special you instead succeed in making it more ordinary. Because you cant have it both ways. If it is inherent it is not a skill set beyond vanilla, and if it is a skill set than it is not inherent, and therefore anybody can learn it, and perhaps they can. But if you believe that, than you must also believe that every one of us is capable of being either a dominant or a submissive, assuming we learn a given skill set. You chose.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 4:58:18 PM)
LOL, So being dominant isn't a skill, not even a vanilla skill but is now something one is born with?

SimplyMichael -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 4:59:44 PM)
I have been very proud of this thread because if nothing else some very VERY opinionated SOBs have been very civil. I think we had a small misunderstanding, those things happen, but I think we can get back to the heart of the matter.

SlyStone -> RE: Vanilla and D/s (10/28/2008 5:06:28 PM)
quote: LOL, So being dominant isn't a skill, not even a vanilla skill but is now something one is born with? Um yeah. dom·i·nance [image]http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif[/image]Pronunciation: \ˈdä-mə-nən(t)s, ˈdäm-nən(t)s\ *Function:noun* Date:1819** 1: the fact or state of being dominant: as a: dominant position especially in a social hierarchy b: the property of one of a pair of alleles or traits that suppresses expression of the other in the heterozygous condition c: the influence or control over ecological communities exerted by a dominant 2: functional asymmetry between a pair of bodily structures (as the right and left hands) PS I love the passive aggressive lol right before your post on being civil.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875