Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Vanilla and D/s


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Vanilla and D/s Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 9:05:21 AM   
SimplyMichael


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

Understanding how a submissive TENDS to react when they give up power, or the issues it tends to evoke, is a key to doing it well.  You need to learn what the strings you are pulling do, both as a general universal concept and your partner's unique reaction.  Same goes in reverse, you need to understand how your partners reactions in turn cause you to react.

Learning how to do that well, especially when you go past the places one tends to find in a vanilla relationship are where many D/s relationships break down.  Learning that some times your partner wants to be "forced" to do something and at other times, needs to be given a bit of freedom to do the same task is frustrating when you are new, you feel like a failure if you are not forceful as a dominant and a submissive often feels the dominant is weak if they are not "forcing" at the right times.

Leadership and I were having coffee and playing with analogies about all this and we came up with one we liked.  Fishing.  It is like bringing in a big powerful heavy marlin on a tiny 10lb test line.  You have to know when to pull and when to give them line to run or you risk losing them.  The trick is to end up with them closer and closer ever time even if you let them run a bit.  The only difference is that when you land a submissive, you eat them raw....okay, I added that part but I am curious what others think.

(Note: I think we are "used" to the concept of ebb and flow of decision making in a vanilla relationship but how to do that in a relationship around power IS different.  One person is responsible for controlling that ebb and flow.  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)

< Message edited by SimplyMichael -- 10/26/2008 9:28:31 AM >
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 9:30:32 AM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline 		I'm with you in recognizing that, for the most part, relationships are relationships and power exchange relationships have far more in common with vanilla relationships (or gay relationships, or any lifestyle relationships) than differences.  But I'm not sure that simply by virtue of being in a power exchange relationship, one automatically (or even generally) acquires other skill sets (like communication).
 
People bring those skill sets to their relationships, or learn them while in a relationship, independent of BDSM.  Sure, we may give lip service to communication more frequently than most, but no more so than groups of vanillas (take a trip down the "self help" and "relationship" sections of your local bookstore to see how much attention this gets in society as a whole).  And I make no observation that in talking about it, we have become any more adept at it than any other group.
 
We might use a similar analogy about BDSM... talking about it is not the same as doing it.
 
John

_____________________________

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

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 9:33:33 AM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline 		While the devotion to analyzing the motivations and psyche of your significant other is more prominent in D/s relationships (or perhaps that's not even so, but we presume it to be...since, after all, the WIITWD crowd is a subset of the same human populace), there is no need for the process of understanding to be driven in the vehicle of D/s. There is correlation, not causation.

You would find (I suspect) the same argument supported by the same ideas when it comes to dating counselors and/or psychologists. The "skillset" that is power exchange happens in every relationship, regardless of type, consciously or not. It's true that D/s participants intentionally focus on it and, thereby, tread more thoroughly upon that path of introspection that their vanilla counterparts...but all this is again riding on a presumptive slf-honesty being more likely in X subset of humans versus Y. And, where I've been prompted to think so about the WIITWD community before, I've realized (with minor variance) you still get as wide a variety of (relationship) competenceas you might find elsewhere.


_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 9:37:46 AM   
SimplyMichael


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

ORIGINAL: Rover

  But I'm not sure that simply by virtue of being in a power exchange relationship, one automatically (or even generally) acquires other skill sets (like communication).
 


quote:

However, assuming two couples with the same exact quality of relationships skills,


I wasn't saying PE relationships are better at anything, which is why I qualified it with the above.  The point was that doing D/s does requires a skill set that vanilla does not provide.  That is the language to discuss it and an understanding (usually learned by trial and error) of what directly and consciously pulling those strings TENDS to do.


(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 9:39:16 AM   
Padriag


Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

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.

I would venture to say that the circumstance you describe is indeed oft the reality... but only so because the majority of those pursuant of such lack the imagination to conjure up anything else and so, fall ever so comfortably into old habits dressed up in new robes (if you'll pardon the pun).  Take that as no condemnation of such, as these old habits have served well for centuries before and likely will do so for centuries to come... and thus stands testament to their utility and viability.  But... .oO(You did know that was coming didn't you, alas have I become so predictable?... I digress) ... one wonders if these old clothes made new suffice our newly emerging needs... or can we encompass more, does our appetite extend to something wholy (or unholy if you prefer)... new.  No doubt you might ask what that might be... and that, indeed... is the very question isn't it?

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 humbly disagree, as I see what I believe to be a flaw in your premise.  You assume that talking and therefore communication is a skill possessed by or to a greater degree by "kinky" couples over those of their "vanilla" counterparts.  But, communication in a forthright and honest manner is a skill necessary to vanilla relationships as much as it can be said to be part of kinky ones... so, under your terms, if each couple possessed the exact same quality of relationship skills... then they would both presumably possess communication to the same degree therefore leading us to conclude under such terms neither would be more likely to succeed than the other.

Less humbly, if ever you could envision me as humble at all... I would assert that more often it would seem that such "kinky" couples in fact possess such powers of linguistic conveyance to a lesser degree on the whole and in general... not more so.  I say this based simply on the direct observation that the variety of "kinky" couples I have encountered in passing or at length have had an alarming rate of failure, which upon further and deeper examination... where such was possible... were possessed of a propensity for half truths, ill timed truths, unspoken truths, deceits and conceits which collectively led to their ruin.

But alas, I submit these opinions for your consideration and vivisection... as most surely will be their fate.

_____________________________

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 #: 5
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 9:43:04 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline 		Before this thread gets derailed completely, I would hope people would read the bit I highlighted to Rover.   I am not saying D/s is better or worse and in fact am taking no opinion on it at all in that regard.  I am simply saying that given two couples with the same relationship and communication skills, the one with a grasp of how D/s operates is going to have an easier time of making it work because it IS a separate skill.  That skill being the open, thoughtful, and purposeful manipulation of power/authority in a relationship.

(in reply to Padriag)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 9:50:37 AM   
leadership527


Posts: 5026
Joined: 6/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

SimplyMichael Said:
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. 


Well, I'm going to disagree and agree, how's that?

Disagree: No, if two people have the same relationship skills, and if we understand that understanding the relationship itself is one of those skills (or, perhaps, paying attention to it is a better way to put it), then I think that D/s and vanilla are going to be same same. The fact that most vanilla couples DO tend to coast through their relationships with much less detailed inspection is a given in my mind, but I would count that as a missing relationship skill.

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.

So, getting back to your point, what I believe is that if two couples started out with exactly identical relationship skills, one vanilla and the other D/s, that the D/s one would develop substantially better skills over time than the vanilla one did... assuming it survived at all. With the higher potential rewards are higher risks of failure. That's how I see it.

quote:

John said:
But I'm not sure that simply by virtue of being in a power exchange relationship, one automatically (or even generally) acquires other skill sets (like communication).

See above. At least my personal experience making the transition, especially going about as far down the authority transfer path as we have, it's a sink or swim situation. The baseline requirements for success (in terms of things like trust, communication skills, etc.) are higher for us. We either jump the new higher bar or we fail with whatever attendant consequences ensue. It's not so much that we automatically get anything. It's just that the bar is higher and we may "automatically" fail where we succeeded before.


_____________________________

~Jeff

I didn't so much "enslave" Carol as I did "enlove" her. - Me
I want a joyous, loving, respectful relationship where the male is in charge and deserves to be. - DavanKael

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 9:54:57 AM   
Rover


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

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

  But I'm not sure that simply by virtue of being in a power exchange relationship, one automatically (or even generally) acquires other skill sets (like communication).
 


quote:

However, assuming two couples with the same exact quality of relationships skills,


I wasn't saying PE relationships are better at anything, which is why I qualified it with the above.  The point was that doing D/s does requires a skill set that vanilla does not provide.  That is the language to discuss it and an understanding (usually learned by trial and error) of what directly and consciously pulling those strings TENDS to do.


But don't folks in vanilla or gay relationships learn the same things about their partners?  Don't they learn how to pull strings, which strings to pull, and what the result of pulling those strings will be? 
 
I believe they most certainly do.
 
John

_____________________________

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

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 10:10:46 AM   
SimplyMichael


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

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.


And along the way there were no surprises?  No reactions that were counter intuitive?  It was just more of the exact same thing?

(in reply to leadership527)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 10:11:10 AM   
Padriag


Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline 		But my dear Michael, I would respectfully submit that you are precisely saying one is better than the other... that... assuming what you propose is true, then D/s or power exchange relationships are better equipped to succeed than their "vanilla" counterparts.  If they are more likely to succeed, survive, and thrive, that by its very definition would make them a superior model or mode of relationship... and thus... better... quad eratto demostratum.  A minor point in my view, but there none-the-less.

More seriously is the question of whether a D/s relationship does in fact entail a skill set which enables, or more precisely effectively fosters, the management of power, the settlement of the question of who is in charge, and various permutations of power dynamics.  I confess that at the surface it would certainly seem to be so, an obvious conclusion we might draw... but I have learned to be wary of such obvious "facts."  However, your assertion assumes that this is not done, or not done effectively, within "vanilla" relationships.  That some informal or unconscious mechanism does not already exist to address this... a supposition I find unlikely given that such a question is not new and in the natural course of cultural evolution would in all probability have already been considered and corrected long ago.  If this is true then it is also likely true that whaterver device was conceived is now so buried in custom and thoughtless behavior as to be obscured from our immediate view... but there remaining still.  Could we not then, upon reflection, ferret it out leaving it exposed once more for what it is?  Do "vanillas" know how to figure out who wears the proverbial pants in the family?  One wonders.

_____________________________

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 #: 10
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 10:20:07 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline 		If I had to choose between great D/s skills and great vanilla relationship skills, I know which was harder for me to learn.  Without great vanilla relationship skills, no amount of D/s is going to save you.  But I have come full circle and I think that D/s is sort of like icing on the cake, it is a different skill set, but one that must be built upon a solid foundation of vanilla skills.

(in reply to Padriag)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 10:21:19 AM   
catize


Posts: 3020
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline 		I have read (and I can’t find the damn book so am unable to provide a reliable reference source) that an egalitarian relationship is much harder to put in practice.
Perhaps in a D/s relationship it is more openly defined, who has the authority, but that seems to me the only difference.
 
Personally I take exception to any analogy of submissives as fish—or cars—or toys—or dogs.  The non-human or inanimate comparison makes it seem as if we have no choice in the matter. 
 
Yes, sometimes, especially when we are new, the realities of giving up all authority can be daunting.  There is no way to fully prepare for what it actually means on a day to day basis.  It’s rather like parenting; you can read all the books, you can observe other parents; but until you have this new life in your home you cannot possibly understand how and where things are going to change.
 
There were many moments when I looked at R. and thought, “You want me to do….WHAT?”  There were many inner struggles because I hadn’t considered all the ‘WHATS”.  But I recognized that just because I hadn’t thought about that particular aspect, I didn’t get a free pass from my responsibilities.  I still was expected to keep to my agreement..
 
The freedom to discuss it was what made it work for me, and yes, there were times when I needed to talk about it first and then do, other times I was able to do and then decide after if it really needed any discussion.  Sometimes I worked it out for myself during the doing. 
He gave me latitude in the beginning and I believe it was worth his while. 

_____________________________

"Power is real. But it's a lot less real if it's not perceived as power."
Robert Parker, Stranger in Paradise

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 10:22:45 AM   
agirl


Posts: 4530
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline 		I find that PE is easier and far more simple in these respects.

The ebb and flow of decision making in vanilla relationships can cause an awful lot of frustration and struggles no matter how *used to* the concept we are meant to be.

Being listened to has never been wrong, it's been sensible and practical. If I'm on my second or third round of saying the same thing hoping for a different outcome, then yes, I get closed down.

I wasn't quite sure what you meant by 'if I'm in a place where I NEED my way'.

'That skill being the open, thoughtful, and purposeful manipulation of power/authority in a relationship.'

That, to my mind, is a matter of expectation. I expect M to do his job as an owner and he expects me to follow. How 'skilled' we both are at doing so, how difficult it is, or how smoothly it runs is more about having mutual acceptance of what PE means.
If you go mountain climbing with your vanilla wife, you will have had to learn a set of communication skills that enable you to trust that both of you know what's expected.

agirl











(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 10:25:22 AM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to Padriag)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 10:29:42 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline 		Padriag,

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.

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.

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. 

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 10:33:13 AM   
DavanKael


Posts: 3072
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline 		Hi, SimplyMichael----
Intersting topic.  I would not inherently agree, however.  I had a 15 year 'vanilla' marriage and the bulk of that marriage was excellent.  We communicated with amazing rapport and openness.  I was 18 when we married, so it took me a year or two to figure out that D/s was something inherent to me.  Did I desire to be his submisive wife?  Yes.  Did he have the tineiest desire to or willingness to even explore being my Dominant husband?  Nope.  Did that suck.  Yeppers.  Did it destroy our marriage.  No.  Ancillary issues around it along with a basketfull of other things and ultimately our giving up did.  Did it hurt our marraige?  Yeah, it did.  Did it hurt me?  Absolutely.  But, that was more about unwillngness to accommodate a loved one's need and lack of interest in even trying than the things themselves.  It created a massive cognitive dissonance for me and it frustrated and pissed me off psychologically and physically.  And, yes, I communicated this too.  And, yes, other than having sex with random people (Which I would not do), I was willing to accommodate any request that he had. 
Every group wants to think they've 'got it'.  I walk amongst lots of different subsets of the population and I don't think any of them 'gets it' anymore than another per se. 
There's give and take in every relationship, there's strength and pathology everywhere. 
I don't think those of us into D/s (Or any other subgroup we fit into) are any more enlightened than anyone else. 
Regarding your clarification that you meant more of a power exchange rather than just D/s, that would change my answer considerably.  As I think I understand you to be saying, power dynamics exist in all relationships.  Agreed.  To the outside world, my marriage looked like I was dominant and in a lot of ways, I needed to be because someone needed to get certain things done.  My ex-'s aspiration in life was to emulate "the Dude" in "The Big Lebowski" and I am pretty sure he wasn't entirely or even substantially kidding when he said that.  Did my ex- control certain things?  Absolutely, though usually by digging his heels in on something or asserting a refusal rather than stepping up.  That is still an exertion of control, albeit not the most appropriate.  Did our power exchange enhance, detract from, or provide a neutral impact onourmarriage. Hmmmm, that's complicated.  Given my desire to submit, some of it was negative, especially serving without a Dominant's feedback (Though being loved and valued was a wonderful feedback that I would never diminish in importance), having to be the one who handled any outside negative forces was uncool (I view a Dominant and even a vanilla husband ideally as someone in the role of protector, among other things), etc.  It was positive in that it allowed things to get done; I took the reigns and created the momentum.  If he cared enough about something to disagree, he dug his heels in and I accommodated his assertions.  Neutral: ever relationship has power dynamics, so they're just inherently there.  We talked about power dynamics and the interrelations in ours and other relationships.  Also, decidedly worth noting that some of the phrasing above may seem negativistic, though my preception of the things nor their actual manifestation in our marriage was not always such.
I suppose that's pretty broad.  I hope it contributes prositively to the thread. 
  Davan

< Message edited by DavanKael -- 10/26/2008 10:48:46 AM >

(in reply to agirl)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 10:33:35 AM   
leadership527


Posts: 5026
Joined: 6/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael
And along the way there were no surprises?  No reactions that were counter intuitive?  It was just more of the exact same thing?


Hrmmm, not sure where you are going with this. Of course there were surprises... life offers me surprises every day. I might need you to elaborate on that question.

_____________________________

~Jeff

I didn't so much "enslave" Carol as I did "enlove" her. - Me
I want a joyous, loving, respectful relationship where the male is in charge and deserves to be. - DavanKael

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 10:37:08 AM   
LuckyAlbatross


Posts: 19224
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

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

I would disagree with the conclusion that this happens any more or less in vanilla relationships than in Ds relationships.  The fact is that those skills are found in fulfilling and lasting relationships- no matter what kind.

To suggest that those skills are found more prevalently in Ds is laughable.

_____________________________

Find stable partners, not a stable of partners.

"Sometimes my whore logic gets all fuzzy"- Californication

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 10:37:19 AM   
Padriag


Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

If I had to choose between great D/s skills and great vanilla relationship skills, I know which was harder for me to learn.  Without great vanilla relationship skills, no amount of D/s is going to save you.  But I have come full circle and I think that D/s is sort of like icing on the cake, it is a different skill set, but one that must be built upon a solid foundation of vanilla skills.

An interesting query to make, if not too personal (and in which case should be considered rhetorical), would be whether one skill set or the other was harder to learn... or... did you have better teachers for one or the other?  I point this out only to illustrate that the challenge for each of us in a relationship lies one part in the complexity of the relationship itself... and one part with those who have previously prepared us for such relationships through teaching and example.  Thus, however well or ill-equipped we are depends on both what and from whom we have learned it.  Variances in the later can greatly account for differing experiences from one to the next of us.

_____________________________

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 #: 19
RE: Vanilla and D/s - 10/26/2008 10:40:20 AM   
LuckyAlbatross


Posts: 19224
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

Find stable partners, not a stable of partners.

"Sometimes my whore logic gets all fuzzy"- Californication

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Vanilla and D/s Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

0.094