Explaining to Vanilla (Full Version)

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



Message

colouredin -> Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 1:55:46 AM)

I am on a vanilla forum, its mostly women and I spend near on all my time there in the sex section. There is one or two other people on there who are involved in D/s relationships and therefore some of the other members started some threads. They became rather involved spanning 16 pages and both girls answered the questions in the context of their relationships. I added some general information and generally thought that the understanding and acceptance of people reading improved.

So the thread dropped off the page and was forgotten about until a rather vigilante woman decided to add her tuppence, she scorned the other girls relationships saying they weren't real lifestylers, that none of us had ever met true masters and that our information was dangerous because we didnt use the terms ssc and rack (mostly because unless you understand them I think they are alienating). Now I must admit I got on my high horse, as I often do. I became overly offended by this woman who one moment was saying different people are different and the next that unless it ticks boxes x and y its 'game playing' and 'wannabes'. Problem is I am now wondering, should I maybe had been more explicit in the first place, I came from the belief that the questions people were asking was purely out of curiosity not wanting to engage in BDSM but I may of course be wrong (unlikely :p).

See I am quite obsessed about raising understanding and that for me means talking about these relationships on realistic terms, explaining it isnt abnormal. But this other poster said that I was offensive to true lifestylers by sitting on the fence. Thats what I do though, I have noticed is a lot here also I seem to say each to their own a lot. My worry then is that by being on the fence then I may even be spreading intolerance and stereotypes. As I am going to remain on this site I generally am asking for opinions on how you would have handled this question.

Sorry its all rather involved.



NihilusZero -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 2:44:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: colouredin

See I am quite obsessed about raising understanding and that for me means talking about these relationships on realistic terms, explaining it isnt abnormal.

The realism of much of the D/s dynamic isn't about a series of capital letters. It's about people making personal discoveries and meeting people who conversely match them in a delicate balance.

SSC and RACK are just niche-oriented constructs of common sexual sense. If someone harps about the need for the the specific inclusion of those acronyms when the basic ideas of D/s can be fully discussed without them, they would seem to me to be more concerned with pomp and ritual rather than substance and reality.



littlewonder -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 3:44:59 AM)

I would have just shrugged it off and ignored the entire conversation altogether. I wouldn't have seen it worth my time to respond to someone on a website who only wanted to stir things up and was waiting for someone to take the bait.




colouredin -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 3:47:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

I would have just shrugged it off and ignored the entire conversation altogether. I wouldn't have seen it worth my time to respond to someone on a website who only wanted to stir things up and was waiting for someone to take the bait.




I find it really hard not to rise to it to be honest, I know its a bit of a flaw of mine.

NZ, That was my attitude too.



DesFIP -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 4:45:14 AM)

By insisting people conform to her idea of real and true and insisting that on a vanilla forum only bdsm terms be used, she seeks to separate herself from everyone else there. I think that the language we use is often offputting and offensive to those who hear only the common definitions and don't know what it means to those here.

Slave doesn't connote good things to most of the world, so if you explain that you prefer a power inequal relationship, a more traditional relationship, a man being old fashioned head of the household, most people on that forum will understand. If you use the word slave, they won't. Same with slut, most people there will not have even heard of The Ethical Slut nor read it, and if you refer to yourself as his slut, his whore, his cunt etc they will find that offensive.

And yeah, most of them are simply curious. The way many of us here are simply curious about how each other's relationships work even when we're perfectly happy with our own.



pompeii -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 5:53:17 AM)

Yup. People sometimes just don't understand ... and ... on the other hand ... there are always the trolls ...

She either didn't understand, in which case, it's worth your time ... or she was a troll, in which chase, you're wasting your time responding to her on those forums.



DarkSteven -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 6:24:53 AM)

colouredin, you and the other girls explained yourselves honestly and there was no problem whatsoever with anyone except one harridan.    Sounds like you did a good job.



leadership527 -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 7:34:26 AM)

I would've ignored it most likely unless I was in a particularly foul mood that day. Seriously, no honest debate can happen with someone who is just looking to play another rousing round of forum wars.



leadership527 -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 7:44:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
The realism of much of the D/s dynamic isn't about a series of capital letters. It's about people making personal discoveries and meeting people who conversely match them in a delicate balance.

Really? You'd think if this was true I'd see more posts that start out with "Can I" rather than "Can a Dom/Sub/Slave/Master/<insert role name here>" No, actually it does seem to me an awful lot like the pursuit of a series of capital letters. How many relationships have we seen sacrificed on the alter of D/s or M/s in the threads here?



DesFIP -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 7:44:54 AM)

I'm curious though. How many people in a committed relationship go around using the terms SSC and RACK with their partner? We never have. I might say that something doesn't sound safe to me, and has he thought it through in regards to a stress point or such but I've never stood up and said "That, dear partner of 7 years, is not SSC and therefore you are a faker". I don't think I could with a straight face.




DavanKael -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 7:45:15 AM)

Probably one good post loaded with derision and then I'd have left it alone (Unless I felt like sparring). 
  Davan



slaveluci -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 7:45:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: colouredin
See I am quite obsessed about raising understanding and that for me means talking about these relationships on realistic terms, explaining it isnt abnormal. But this other poster said that I was offensive to true lifestylers by sitting on the fence. Thats what I do though, I have noticed is a lot here also I seem to say each to their own a lot. My worry then is that by being on the fence then I may even be spreading intolerance and stereotypes.

In a case like this, you aren't doing anything to "spread" intolerance or stereotypes. Apparently, you tried to inform people so as to STOP the spread of them. You tried to raise understanding, as you say. Seems that the ugly stereotypes and ignorance were already in place. Not being able to change that doesn't make you guilty of spreading it. If it didn't work, well you gave a valiant effort. Sorry it didn't seem to work.........luci



LaTigresse -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 7:48:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

Probably one good post loaded with derision and then I'd have left it alone (Unless I felt like sparring). 
Davan


Ditto.........

And some days I just feel like sparring........[:D]



VampiresLair -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 7:53:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: colouredin
she scorned the other girls relationships saying they weren't real lifestylers, that none of us had ever met true masters and that our information was dangerous because we didnt use the terms ssc and rack (mostly because unless you understand them I think they are alienating).


I wonder what good using the terms SSC and RACK would have been if no one knew what they meant anyway? In the BDSM forums here, there are people who are involved in the lifestyle for years who have no idea what the terms and acronyms mean. They are just shorthand for common sense, most of the time. Fine, tell a bunch of vanillas that what it is you do is Safe SANE and Consentual and I gaurnatee they will not understand. They dont see it as sane, after all. And I doubt most of them consider it safe, altough we know it is. Calling it Risk Aware is even worse, to those who are opposed, becasue it means you realize what you are doing can be dangerous... hence negating the Safe and Sane parts of the other acronym.

People have to understand that when discussing things with those who are not up to snuff on the lingo used in our communities, explaining things without the exact terms is preferable. Throwing around terminology does nothing but muddy the waters and make it even harder for those trying to understand to figure things out.

DV



ShaharThorne -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 8:05:01 AM)

I usually ignore the trolls but if they piss me off, I am going for the throat.

Must be the bipolar and lack of anger management in me...LOL!



playme2 -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 8:49:05 AM)

i am a perfect newbie here.
am i IN the lifestyle? no.
do i know all the terms and acronyms? no. yet i certainly am not a poser or wanna be, well maybe i want to be and that is why i am here.
no one bats an eye if i say "i like active older men, with salt and pepper hair. i like them to be well muscled. but then if i also added, and commanding, willing to bend me over and slap my ass until it glows, makes me kneel at his feet, all the while making me feel safe and secure and giving me the most amazing orgasms on the planet as i am tied helplessly.
most people, especially those i am closest to would think i was out of my mind. so now i am alienated from those close to me and those who supposedly understand my needs as well.
these desires aren't new to me, only reemerging. HARD CORE life-stylers maintain the sense of mystery, yet it also alienates. imagine my confusion as a young submissive girl trying to experiment with her boyfriend, and being called a freak. i was not a wanna be. i had no information what so ever. i was simply living on instinct. it didn't take too many times push those needs away. most men i met were a bit subby themselves. so my point? does it all have to be such a mystery? so cloak and dagger? aren't we all floundering enough not to be judged within and without. i hesitate to reach out.

"use my body, caress my mind"



NihilusZero -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 10:55:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
The realism of much of the D/s dynamic isn't about a series of capital letters. It's about people making personal discoveries and meeting people who conversely match them in a delicate balance.

Really? You'd think if this was true I'd see more posts that start out with "Can I" rather than "Can a Dom/Sub/Slave/Master/<insert role name here>" No, actually it does seem to me an awful lot like the pursuit of a series of capital letters. How many relationships have we seen sacrificed on the alter of D/s or M/s in the threads here?

It happens as often as people are prone to view things realistically. [;)]



lateralist1 -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 1:14:12 PM)

It all boils down to communication.
What do you mean by a D/s relationship?
A lot of people on here use the term to mean a BDSM relationship.
D/s doesn't have to involve BDSM.
Neither does it have to be consensual.
I have always been involved in D/s relationships.
If a partner wasn't submissive to my will he didn't last long.
I've tried the traditional man in charge relationship and I just can't do it.
No matter how much better it maybe in lots of ways.
However even vanilla submission isn't enough.
I remember tying a bigger but younger lad than me up when I was about ten so I could do what I wanted to him.
BDSM domination is just natural to me.
It feels right.
The only person who needs to understand that is my partner/s.
I really don't care what anyone else thinks of me or who understands me.
Lets face it there are far more important things for people to understand.



Apocalypso -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 3:11:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: colouredin
that our information was dangerous because we didnt use the terms ssc and rack (mostly because unless you understand them I think they are alienating).


From what you've said I agree with you completely.  Using jargon is, by its nature, exclusionary.  If its genuinely something that is hard to explain in normal language, that's one thing.  But I don't believe that's the case with SSC and RACK. 

Which I suspect might be a lot of her problem.  It sounds to be like what she was actually objecting to is the fact you were demystifying BDSM.  I don't think you've got any responsibility to humour her need to present herself as a special little snowflake.

quote:

See I am quite obsessed about raising understanding and that for me means talking about these relationships on realistic terms, explaining it isnt abnormal. But this other poster said that I was offensive to true lifestylers by sitting on the fence. Thats what I do though, I have noticed is a lot here also I seem to say each to their own a lot. My worry then is that by being on the fence then I may even be spreading intolerance and stereotypes.


I wouldn't see that as "sitting on the fence".  From what I can tell, "to each their own" is your genuine opinion and your posts reflect that.  It's only sitting on the fence if you're misrepresenting  your true beliefs in order to court acceptability.  And I don't see any evidence that's what you're doing, here or there.

quote:

I generally am asking for opinions on how you would have handled this question.
Realistically, I'd have insulted her and probably ended up in a flame war.  Possibly what I should do in that kind of situation is different than my natural inclination.



leadership527 -> RE: Explaining to Vanilla (6/4/2009 3:17:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso
...It sounds to be like what she was actually objecting to is the fact you were demystifying BDSM.  I don't think you've got any responsibility to humour her need to present herself as a special little snowflake.

Wow... OK, I have no opinion on whether or not that's what was going on here, but what a perfectly succinct way to describe a phenomenom I've seen played out elsewhere.

You stand here before us today accused of the high crime of demystifying BDSM. How do you plead?

*laughs*



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375