Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Explaining to Vanilla


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Explaining to Vanilla Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 1:55:46 AM   
colouredin


Posts: 4279
Joined: 2/2/2007
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by colouredin -- 6/4/2009 1:57:26 AM >

_____________________________

Resident Lime(y) Tart
There would be no gossip without secrets
I don't want to be anything other than what I've been trying to be lately

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELvfMJoKDAk
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 2:44:10 AM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

"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 colouredin)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 3:44:59 AM   
littlewonder


Posts: 15659
Status: offline 		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.


(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 3:47:58 AM   
colouredin


Posts: 4279
Joined: 2/2/2007
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

Resident Lime(y) Tart
There would be no gossip without secrets
I don't want to be anything other than what I've been trying to be lately

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELvfMJoKDAk

(in reply to littlewonder)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 4:45:14 AM   
DesFIP


Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!


(in reply to colouredin)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 5:53:17 AM   
pompeii


Posts: 934
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Silicon Valley, San Jose, California
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 6:24:53 AM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to pompeii)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 7:34:26 AM   
leadership527


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

_____________________________

~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 colouredin)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 7:44:02 AM   
leadership527


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

_____________________________

~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 NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 7:44:54 AM   
DesFIP


Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!


(in reply to leadership527)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 7:45:15 AM   
DavanKael


Posts: 3072
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline 		Probably one good post loaded with derision and then I'd have left it alone (Unless I felt like sparring). 
  Davan

_____________________________

May you live as long as you wish & love as long as you live
-Robert A Heinlein

It's about the person & the bond,not the bondage
-Me

Waiting is

170NZ (Aka:Sex God Du Jour) pts

Jesus,I've ALWAYS been a deviant
-Leadership527,Jeff

(in reply to leadership527)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 7:45:58 AM   
slaveluci


Posts: 4294
Joined: 3/2/2007
From: Little Rock, AR
Status: offline
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


_____________________________

To choose a good book, look in an inquisitor’s prohibited list. ~John Aikin

(in reply to colouredin)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 7:48:36 AM   
LaTigresse


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


_____________________________

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 DavanKael)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 7:53:41 AM   
VampiresLair


Posts: 1307
Joined: 9/3/2008
Status: offline
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


_____________________________

Separately we are DiurnalVampire and DVsFox

10/18 Wedding date. 1 year and still blissfully happy

10/13/10 3 year anniversary of his becoming my Fox

Talk impolitely to me, baby - Thanks sunshinemiss



(in reply to colouredin)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 8:05:01 AM   
ShaharThorne


Posts: 11071
Joined: 2/24/2009
From: Somewhere in TX
Status: offline 		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!

_____________________________

Goddess of Yarn

You are making two and a half feet of irresistible, tubular sex! -Lola, Kinky Boots

Founder: Bitch with Tits

Whip me, beat me, make me feel cheap and have great sex

(in reply to DavanKael)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 8:49:05 AM   
playme2


Posts: 7
Joined: 5/31/2009
Status: offline 		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"

(in reply to colouredin)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 10:55:17 AM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

"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 leadership527)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 1:14:12 PM   
lateralist1


Posts: 886
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 3:11:00 PM   
Apocalypso


Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/20/2009
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Apocalypso -- 6/4/2009 3:38:06 PM >

_____________________________

If you're going to quote from the Book of Revelation,
Don't keep calling it the "Book of Revelations",
There's no "s", it's the Book of Revelation,
As revealed to Saint John the Divine.

(in reply to colouredin)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Explaining to Vanilla - 6/4/2009 3:17:55 PM   
leadership527


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


_____________________________

~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 Apocalypso)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Explaining to Vanilla Page: [1] 2   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

0.189