Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 4:36:16 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I feel there is an erroneous confluence of aspects of civil society (vanilla) and interests in fetish pleasure.

To me, BDSM is merely one or more fetish pleasure where the participants need not exhibit either dominance or submission. For many, that activity or activities are merely a unique stimulation. In fact...I refer you to DeSade.

That various forms of D/s exist in vanilla life, such as say on the dance floor, I lead...she follows, has no consequence.


Yes, fetishists and S/m players may, or may not, also enter into a D/s dynamic. The OP questions won't pertain to those who don't engage in committed, D/s relationships.

I disagree that dancing is a form of D/s in vanilla life. If "submission" = "following" then could we see how a Dominant would be paralyzed? IMO, there is something more going on in D/s than fantasy in one's head. Call me vanilla, but if there's dominance on a dance floor, that's Baryshnikov (look at that, HIS name came up in the dictionary when I mis-spelled it).

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 4:50:58 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline 		catize, I think your sentiments reflect those of some others, too. That is why I asked about otherwise average people who are in committed, D/s relationships.
quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

One does not need to be dominant in the world to be worthy of submission at home.


Why not?

I'm not saying anyone should think or feel or relate differently than they do. I'm asking what the criteria is to come to that philosophy, no matter which side of the kneel one takes and no matter the sex of the D/s participant.



(in reply to catize)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 5:15:24 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline 		DaddySatyr - beautifully written mission statement. Thanks for posting that.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Years ago, on this site, I wrote a response that turned into a "mission statement" where I never mentioned finances. However, personally, I think "Integrity" covers fiscal responsibility.

In a perfect world, I would lay "financial security" at the dominant's doorstep (maybe). But, we don't live in a perfect world.



That's interesting for a few reasons. Why "Integrity" and not... "Duty" or "Loyalty" or "Respect" for instance?

Is there a reason why the mission statement did not specifically address a Dominant's responsibility to the submissive's financial security? As I wrote in the OP, I've observed that people in BDSM seem to avoid financial discussions (unless berating a FinDom or Finslave).

ETA- Another question...

Do you think that when financial security is NOT being offered as responsibility the Dominant accepts, that the Dominant should then relinquish any desire to control the submissive's money, purchases, savings, etc...?

< Message edited by BecomingV -- 6/9/2014 5:32:18 PM >

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 5:18:56 PM   
GoddessManko


Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/6/2013
From: Dante's Inferno
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

theunlisteddark - I agree and disagree. I do think that vanilla dominance is different from BDSM dominance and I don't agree that the world is a hierarchy (except to those who perceive it as such.) I'm really not splitting hairs when I say there's a difference between the existence of hierarchies and the totality of hierarchy as a state of being.
ORIGINAL: theunlisteddark

If anyone is familiar with the Leather community and the Pillars of Dominance, this is a part of BDSM culture steeped in respect earned through the attainment of character management and mostly, taking responsibility for self before taking responsibility for others. (which is why "Humility" is the foundational pillar)

Which brings me back to the financial part of my OP, and how it relates to Dominance in the BDSM community. Your thoughts?


I disagree on so many levels. I have taken on the role of the matriarch of my siblings, I own my own business, and yes, there are elements of my alpha nature throughout all of this, but in no way does it place me in an hierarchy above them in any way. Nor do my finances, those are just due to luck, opportunity and financial savvy. The same is applicable for sports, music, art, IQ etc. Why is it that you think of finances are deemed as some sort of caste system for society itself? I have met many idiot millionaires. Some lose everything as quickly as they INHERIT or earn it, some gamble it away, some are drug addicts. I am wondering why your thoughts on dominance circumvent what's in the wallet vs the heart or brain. Some people CHOOSE to live without money as a form of protest, some of them are highly intelligent and productive members of society, what of them? Because they refuse to be a part of the logistical system they are on the bottom of the societal totem pole? Come on now. I could have just as easily done the same thing, decide not to become an entrepreneur and live quite happily overseas in a home with no property taxes and enough food to sustain myself growing in my backyard. Many things in life boils down to choice. Just because someone's conscience conflicts with the elements of the financial sector makes them no less of a person. I admire someone with the tenacity to work a job that makes $5 an hour than someone who inherits $5 million. Perhaps that makes me STRANGE. And that's perfectly fine.
My little empire I built myself just to prove a point, There was no emotional attachment to it and I have no problem letting it go at any time.
Gauge is quickly becoming one of my favorite posters on the forum, no need to respond to the compliment, just an observation. :)

< Message edited by GoddessManko -- 6/9/2014 5:19:29 PM >

_____________________________

Happy consent is the name of the game. You are my perfect Mistress. - my collared.

http://submissivemale.blogspot.com/

The Bird of Hermes is my name, eating my wings to make me tame.

(in reply to BecomingV)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 5:29:55 PM   
catize


Posts: 3020
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline 		Because I hold the belief that no matter our job, no matter our income, no matter if we are D/s, T/b, M/s or vanilla, we are all important enough to be above 'average' ie: important, to someone. What we do at work can be interesting or not, but if we are happy with something about the job, we do not have to be bored...or boring. What we do at work or in our own time can be pretty interesting to 'us'.........or our partner or our family or those who have the same interests. If someone is a stock car racer on weekends, who is more 'average'? The person driving the car or the folks who keep the car maintained and fueled? There would be no race without everyone, including the spectators who buy food and drink while spectating. Is the beer and food delivery person more average than anyone else? So who is 'average'?
'Average' is a word that smacks of dullness and feels like 'not very important in the grand scheme of things'. I like to think that everyone can be above average in parts of their lives. Because even the job considered by many as 'lowly' is important--trash truck drivers, stay at home parents, where would the rest of us be without these workers?
So if a dominant man is interesting to me as his submissive, I don't care what he does for a living as long as he works. Nor do I care how much money he makes as long as we, together, can pay the bills and live our lives as D/s (or whatever acronym we choose to live with.)

ETA another thought

< Message edited by catize -- 6/9/2014 5:41:53 PM >

_____________________________

"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 BecomingV)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 5:39:10 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline 		slaveoubliette - I'm sorry. I sincerely have no idea what the "vanilla expression of BDSM" means. Please elaborate and I'll go back and read the rest once I understand your premise.
quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveoubliette


quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

The BDSM form of dominance sets a lower standard than vanilla dominance. You only need be perceived as a Dominant by a submissive in BDSM, whereas, vanilla life requires superiority in a factual, achievement-related or monetary sense. Agreed?

no slave respectfully disagrees.... in the vanilla expression of BDSM




(in reply to slaveoubliette)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 5:44:48 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline 		post deleted

< Message edited by BecomingV -- 6/9/2014 5:53:47 PM >

(in reply to eliseobeys)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 5:55:34 PM   
GoddessManko


Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/6/2013
From: Dante's Inferno
Status: offline 		BecomingV, are you trying to convince yourself of something? I'm not sure why you are responsive to some posts and ignoring the ones directly addressing your OP. Anyway, have at it. :)

_____________________________

Happy consent is the name of the game. You are my perfect Mistress. - my collared.

http://submissivemale.blogspot.com/

The Bird of Hermes is my name, eating my wings to make me tame.

(in reply to BecomingV)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 6:35:27 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

Because I hold the belief that no matter our job, no matter our income, no matter if we are D/s, T/b, M/s or vanilla, we are all important enough to be above 'average' ie: important, to someone. What we do at work can be interesting or not, but if we are happy with something about the job, we do not have to be bored...or boring. What we do at work or in our own time can be pretty interesting to 'us'.........or our partner or our family or those who have the same interests. If someone is a stock car racer on weekends, who is more 'average'? The person driving the car or the folks who keep the car maintained and fueled? There would be no race without everyone, including the spectators who buy food and drink while spectating. Is the beer and food delivery person more average than anyone else? So who is 'average'?
'Average' is a word that smacks of dullness and feels like 'not very important in the grand scheme of things'. I like to think that everyone can be above average in parts of their lives. Because even the job considered by many as 'lowly' is important--trash truck drivers, stay at home parents, where would the rest of us be without these workers?
So if a dominant man is interesting to me as his submissive, I don't care what he does for a living as long as he works. Nor do I care how much money he makes as long as we, together, can pay the bills and live our lives as D/s (or whatever acronym we choose to live with.)

ETA another thought


The word average means "typical" and "usual." Negativity attached to that is connotation. If the whole OP is read, it states that it's presumed that the D/s participants are loved and considered special to one other person with whom they share a commitment. So, context.

IMO, whether vanilla OR BDSM, if a person is actively engaged in anything they feel passionate about, they've got my interest. (No, not KKK people or any such other passionate forms of madness) If they earn a lot, but gripe and whine about it, this I cannot respect or tolerate. It makes me feel pity. It would be a leap to take that stance and extrapolate it into some kind of indictment of those who have currently taken a demotion of sorts due to the economy. Because that same person can still follow a passion during their free time and if they are in control of their attitude, then they won't be whiners while they do their day job.

I divorced a multi-millionaire when I was 22 with 4 kids aged 3, 2, 1 & newborn. Nothing notable there, except, he had to hire a lawyer for me, because I wanted to just walk away and the lawyer informed me that if I refused child support, the court would question my ability to parent rationally. Who in their right mind turns down money? Me, because I consider the source and never wanted any man's money. I always wanted my own and despite my youth, had both the confidence and the ability to provide for my own family. I went to live in other countries, where child support cannot be enforced and told him to deal with the kids directly. ie/ He could provide dance lessons if they expressed an interest. Or, send books of his choosing so they could relate. His money was never valued by me... rather, the time and attention he offered the children. Some people become extremely uncomfortable when they are not valued by the size of their wallets. He needed a partner who found happiness at the end of a dollar bill, and that wasn't me.

So, I hope that clarifies... I don't equate "riches" with "dominance." Not by a long shot. And, my OP did list multiple areas of expertise and attainment.

My questions do not imply that dominants need be wealthy at all. I assert that I observe the opposite to be true. Almost all Dominants are average people outside of a BDSM perception. If anything, it's submissives who tend to be the Alphas in careers and in vanilla society, in my experience. So, I see a difference in vanilla criteria for dominance versus BDSM criteria. Thus, my OP questions.

(in reply to catize)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 6:38:14 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline 		GoddessManko - stomps foot,

LOL, patience Dear, I'm just one person doing my best to be clear and I have no intention of skipping anyone.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

BecomingV, are you trying to convince yourself of something? I'm not sure why you are responsive to some posts and ignoring the ones directly addressing your OP. Anyway, have at it. :)


ETA - I did skip over yours for now, because when a post is written in stream of consciousness form (no paragraphs) it's not as user-friendly and takes time to sort through. I don't think others should wait.

< Message edited by BecomingV -- 6/9/2014 6:41:07 PM >

(in reply to GoddessManko)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 6:52:56 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline 		eliseobeys - I've edited your quote for points for reply...
quote:

ORIGINAL: eliseobeys

I believe it is unwise to draw spurious analogies between an individual personality trait inherent in our physiology and the various factors that contribute in part or whole (including luck and guile) to financial affluence.

Sounds akin to saying that the only true masters are those who are somehow wealthy.

So if you fall on hard times you must retire your leathers?


The premise suggested is not a new one.


Okay, you believe that dominance is inherent physiologically. I don't.

What did I write that suggests mastery = wealth?

I don't think that nor do I see where you read it. I asked others about their criteria for perceiving dominance in a BDSM culture because it is different than dominance in vanilla culture.

What is the premise to which you refer?

(in reply to eliseobeys)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 7:03:00 PM   
catize


Posts: 3020
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:


The word average means "typical" and "usual." Negativity attached to that is connotation. If the whole OP is read, it states that it's presumed that the D/s participants are loved and considered special to one other person with whom they share a commitment. So, context.


Yet 'average' used as typical and usual still does not apply for me; we are all more different than alike in our own skins due to culture, upbringing, health, what we happen to be passionate about. Perhaps I simply do not understand the point you are making in your OP?

_____________________________

"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 BecomingV)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 7:05:07 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Calandra

While I agree that a Dominant should make sound financial decisions that benefit themselves and any who are under their wing, I do NOT agree that a Dominant must make the financial lion's share of the household income.

Many people who are naturally Dominant, nurturing, and gifted at organizing others could easily be overlooked just because they are not 100% financially secure on their own. Sometimes people use "Dominance" to take advantage of others, but those people also show their poor character in other ways if a submissive is looking. Is that person lazy? Do they shift blame for their adversities, or do they work hard to overcome and find solutions to their problems? Do they know how to take resources and make something work?



<edited to add that My response was to the thread at large, not to a particular poster, sorry if there was any confusion>


Calandra - Your post most closely expresses my own views on the responsibility of Dominants and submissives as it relates to financial issues.

I'd add that sometimes the most responsible decision for a Dominant to make is to defer to the financial expertise of their submissive, if that's the person in the relationship who has talent with money management. It takes humility to do that.

Like your dish-washing example shows, there are some who still attach a dominant or submissive meaning to specific acts and limit themselves, accordingly. Such as, house-keeping, oral sex and bottoming. Some think that submissives who work for pay need to turn over their paychecks to the Dominant. Others think that D/s does not include financial relating of any kind. Some Dominants take total control of the submissive's time, thereby affecting financial security by limiting the opportunities of the submissive AND they don't create a plan for basic needs, should the relationship end. I'd like to read posts from more people who vary in their views and experiences with D/s and financial security.

(in reply to Calandra)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 7:51:09 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

quote:


The word average means "typical" and "usual." Negativity attached to that is connotation. If the whole OP is read, it states that it's presumed that the D/s participants are loved and considered special to one other person with whom they share a commitment. So, context.


Yet 'average' used as typical and usual still does not apply for me; we are all more different than alike in our own skins due to culture, upbringing, health, what we happen to be passionate about. Perhaps I simply do not understand the point you are making in your OP?


We are each unique. Agreed.

So, in lieu of "typical," "average," and "usual," what is your word of choice? I've been reading the boards long enough to know that there's a term, "precious little snowflake" for those who reject commonalities as a basis of humanity. Please clarify.

In Tarot, there's a card called, "The World." It's the last of the Major Arcana (think, major spiritual life lessons, or key of wisdom). One meaning for the card is that when we've evolved in our humanity, we find ourselves living with paradox. We are each born alone, die alone and live as unique beings. This keeps us separate from each other, yet that very same shared experience, unites us through its commonality.

So, when I use the word, "average," I speak to the commonality rather than to the exceptional.

I put the "point" of my post in the form of 2 questions in bold. I didn't actually present much of my own perspective, until now. It's not about me seeking advice, agreement or disagreement, validation or other such responses. I'm thinking this issue out and would like to expand my view, based on other people's input, experience and opinions.

My motivation is two-fold. First, ^^^ that. Secondly, I've had personal experience locally, with abandoned submissives and slaves who suddenly found themselves homeless and penniless when their relationship ends. That happens in vanilla life, too, but in BDSM, Dominance is touted as being a responsibility. My questions relate to the notion that people aren't being shy about discussing kink, but become silent when it comes to taking financial responsibility. (whether that be a submissive who refuses to provide for their own future, should "the end" occur or a Dominant who takes control of areas that affect a submissive's financial security) I see a need for the discussion - so call that, "my point." And, thank you for contributing your views.

(in reply to catize)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 7:58:05 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline 		Sorry, DesFIP, I'm confused. What do you disagree with? The points you make seem to echo the OP, while not addressing the OP questions.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Disagree.

I've known several tops in their fields; heads of states, ambassadors, CEOs and so on.

Only one of them was also dominant in his relationship.

The rest of them did not want to come home and do for free what they did all day long for work. Because that way you burn out quickly.

Dominant at work does not equal dominant in relationship.


(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 8:42:40 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: theunlisteddark
My point is finance is just as important an aspect as any if your predisposition is to be Dominant. Lack of finance can be compensated by greater knowledge, compassion, experience, influence, strength, even sexual prowess, or any unlisted factor here. Though I am sure there are those who submit to people inferior to themselves in every way - I just can't fathom why. Probably love, seems to be the go to reason for anything otherwise unexplainable.


^^^ Those are the kinds of factors I am asking about. I think I'll concede that you posed it with better clarity, than I.

Although, having more money than is self-sustaining when choosing to take responsibility for a submissive, would seem necessary.

Or, is that a vanilla notion of say, not proposing marriage before you can afford to be a provider? (again, no sex assigned to the proposer or provider)

When I've seen D/s go badly for the submissive, when it ends... I've noticed that the submissives in dire financial straits, in retrospect, realized they had not considered the value of their time, energy and attention. In vanilla life, the stereotypical Mom sacrificed career, education and wealth creation, by submitting to a value system that put others first. Lots of people can see that when relationships end, finances may suffer.

So, why, when it comes to D/s, does it appear that heads are in the sand regarding money?

My stance on money and relationships, D/s or vanilla, either... is "yours," "mine," and "ours." That's not based on power, trust or romance... it's just financial diversity. Money issues are simple. Don't put all of your eggs in one basket. Economics 101.

So, if a Dominant enters into an agreement to take control of finances, shouldn't there be a plan in place which actively protects the futures of both participants, should the rainy day come?

I reject the idea that this ^^^ takes wealth. The habit of saving even a dollar per week is an act of rebellion against poverty. When finances increase, so will the savings.

I "get" the Fin Domme / Fin Sub kink. To each their own.

What I wonder is, "How is that different from a male Dominant who takes charge of the finances BUT DOESN'T provide financially for the submissive's possible need to end the relationship in the future?"

(in reply to theunlisteddark)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 9:03:39 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline 		Gauge - It means that ass is unusually talented and the ability to take responsibility for a submissive's financial security is within reach! LOL
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge


quote:

ORIGINAL: theunlisteddark

In Gauge's case, somebody could attempt to overpower him financially. They could buyout his job, cut him off from his needs, etc. He could get a new job, manipulate the media into discrediting the attempted Dominator, call on favours from interpersonal relationships, etc. One person would eventually have to relent - whether the person ran out of money in their attempt to control, or Gauge would be forced to submit because he simply didn't have the physical means to resist this persons influence.


And monkeys could fly out of my ass and sing the Canadian National Anthem... what the hell does this even mean?

quote:

My point is finance is just as important an aspect as any if your predisposition is to be Dominant. Lack of finance can be compensated by greater knowledge, compassion, experience, influence, strength, even sexual prowess, or any unlisted factor here. Though I am sure there are those who submit to people inferior to themselves in every way - I just can't fathom why. Probably love, seems to be the go to reason for anything otherwise unexplainable.


Finance has nothing to do with if someone is a dominant or not, nor does it speak to anything but the contents of someones wallet.


^^^ Opinions vary on that point.

I would say that in a vanilla way, dominance is not dependent on finances.

In a BDSM sense, if people are just playing with kink... again, finances needn't be an issue. If they are in a D/s relationship that does NOT involve a D/s dynamic that affects finances or wealth creation, then again, finances needn't be an issue.

However, in BDSM relationships that do address finances, such as:

"I'll make the financial decisions."
"I'll hand my paycheck over to you / let you live in the house I own / let you determine how I spend my time, etc..."

then, I think taking responsibility for the submissive's future financial security, is very much a reliable sign of Dominance.

And, here's why... if the submissive always has the financial means to leave the relationship without undue hardship - meaning, can afford an apartment, food, transportation, medical care and such, then this couple knows the submission isn't dependence - it's choice, and that the dominance isn't economic abuse; it's responsibility.


(in reply to Gauge)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 9:07:09 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

Frankly, I think you are comparing apples to oranges here, if I understand what you are saying. A fortune 500 CEO may well be lousy in bed and hopeless at any kind of relationship (not uncommon in the "Live to work" crowd). While a skilled Dominant who is a loving partner may well be more than happy "working to live" in a run of the mill 9 to 5 job with a middling salary.

A frivolous example maybe... but watch "The wolf of Wall Street" and tell me if you think DeCaprio's character was a dominant in his relationship?


I would think that^^^ character exemplifies criminality, narcissism and I think it's called, "anti-social personality disorder." None of which is "normal" in either vanilla or BDSM culture. So, that does't make sense to me.

I am saying that the vanilla criteria for being considered dominant varies greatly from the criteria for being considered dominant in BDSM. And, I'm asking for people to state what their criteria is for viewing another as a BDSM Dominant.

So far, some said these things:

~the ability to manage people
~because I view my D as a D
~because I think dominance is physiological
~because I have a value system I follow

THEN, I asked about financial protection for submissives who give over financial power... how do others feel about this kind of D/s relationship... does the Dominant bear responsibility as a Provider? And, does the submissive hold this as a point of decision-making? Why? or Why not?

< Message edited by BecomingV -- 6/9/2014 9:19:45 PM >

(in reply to Bhruic)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 9:35:53 PM   
catize


Posts: 3020
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:


So, in lieu of "typical," "average," and "usual," what is your word of choice? I've been reading the boards long enough to know that there's a term, "precious little snowflake" for those who reject commonalities as a basis of humanity. Please clarify.


I guess the word(s) I might choose are 'of import'...to those we serve in our employment, to our family and friends, to those we meet who need our help. To those we choose to dominate or submit.

The term special little snowflake would ,to me, denote an egocentric point of view---as in **I** am so special that no one else could possibly understand my needs/wants.

I have never had the opportunity to walk away from a multi-zilloinaire, altho I tend to avoid those who believe they could 'buy' my submission. I have always managed my own finances, and have worked hard to maintain my good credit. There were times in the past I did not manage very well, but it was my mess and I worked very hard to clean it up.

And I very much agree that a dominant person needs to be responsible. However, when someone abdicates their responsibilities I do not see the difference between 'nilla or D/s or M/s.

I, too, have tried to avoid terms of gender but I have seen men who have fathered children but do not want to pay for their care after a divorce; I have also seen women who use the child support money for many things other than feeding, clothing or educating their progeny. Or women who marry these divorced men and complain as bitterly about the money going to his original family.

Yes, some of us may hold a dominant person to a higher standard; unfortunately we are all fallible and oh, too very human.

_____________________________

"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 BecomingV)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 9:38:51 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline 		FightingChains - Agreed and the context is exactly that.
quote:

ORIGINAL: FightingChains

Dominance in a relationship is an agreement between two people that they would like one to take the lead.


In a D/s relationship in which one has taken control of the body, time, and finances of another - by choice - then how can it be considered dominant to neglect the future financial welfare of the submissive, should the time come that the relationship ends? And, I'm asking Dominants AND submissives this question.

Although, I wrote the OP questions, instead of writing that ^^^ because it's obvious to me that in the BDSM community, a person can enjoy the title/status of Dominant, regardless of sex, and regardless of how this basic survival issue is handled. So, it's not a matter of "if" that happens, rather, "Why?"


(in reply to FightingChains)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   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