RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla?

RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (Full Version)

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

Message

Greta75 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 5:10:36 AM)
quote: Maybe over there they take the marriage vows more seriously and stay together even if they really don't want to be. Maybe that would explain it; the difference in cultures. You assume "keeping things from each other" equals not wanting to be together. It is not connected. It's about loving someone, but not trusting that person 100%. Maybe it's 90% or 80%, but you still love that person. But you will still be with each other. I don't think you need to trust someone completely to fall inlove with someone in a vanilla setting because I guess to me, vanilla relationship isn't about giving up control over your own life to someone else. It's basically him managing his own life and I'm managing my own life and basically, I have full control, there's no fear as long as I'm the driver of my own life. No trust needed. I just need to like the person enough and accept that human beings are all flawed and prone to errors. But in D/S, I need to trust that person 200% as I am giving up control.

NookieNotes -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:02:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 It's basically him managing his own life and I'm managing my own life and basically, I have full control, there's no fear as long as I'm the driver of my own life. No trust needed. I just need to like the person enough and accept that human beings are all flawed and prone to errors. For me, this feels so wrong to read. I'm not saying it's not a valid viewpoint. It is perfectly valid for you. Here's what it makes me think: 1. To me, this suggests that vanilla relationships are by definition NOT as deep or trusting. I think that's BS. 2. It also sounds like the main reason most relationships (vanilla or D/s) fail. Not being 100% open. Not trusting enough. Any non-trust (in my view) leads to small lies, evasions, and sidesteps which chip away at whatever else you've built. 3. People are humans, flawed, and prone to errors in every relationship. D/s or no. 4. In any relationship, there is trust needed. Because whether you share 80%, 90%, 100%, or whatever, there is still vulnerability and your partner can cut you deeply with their anger and words. So, it seems like there is an inherent snobbery or devaluing of vanilla relationships as something lesser, here, which they are not. They have the potential for ALL that we have in D/s relationships, minus only the ACKNOWLEDGED power exchange. To me, that is the only difference. I'd love if someone can show me where I'm wrong.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:16:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: Maybe over there they take the marriage vows more seriously and stay together even if they really don't want to be. Maybe that would explain it; the difference in cultures. You assume "keeping things from each other" equals not wanting to be together. Absolutely not!! But it is a trust issue. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 It's about loving someone, but not trusting that person 100%. Maybe it's 90% or 80%, but you still love that person. But you will still be with each other. In my book, if you don't have 110% trust in each other, you're with the wrong partner. I have never been 'in love' with someone that I don't completely trust. To me, the bedrock of a relationship is trust; love comes as part of that and cannot be separated. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 I don't think you need to trust someone completely to fall inlove with someone in a vanilla setting That's where we fundamentally differ. And in that sense, BDSM and vanilla are identical to me; there is no difference. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 because I guess to me, vanilla relationship isn't about giving up control over your own life to someone else. Giving over control, whether partly or fully (as a /s), happens in vanilla relationships too. It isn't necessarily just a BDSM thing. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 It's basically him managing his own life and I'm managing my own life and basically, I have full control, there's no fear as long as I'm the driver of my own life. No trust needed. I just need to like the person enough and accept that human beings are all flawed and prone to errors. In that scenario, I wouldn't love them nor trust them and they wouldn't be my partner. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 But in D/S, I need to trust that person 200% as I am giving up control. Giving up control, as I said earlier, isn't just a BDSM thing. So I don't differentiate between the two when it comes down to trust. To me, that always has to be 110% or they won't be with be as a partner in either setting. If you cannot give up any level control in a vanilla setting (and in most, one or the other does this to varying degrees. It's called 'give and take'), you might just as well stay single. quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes For me, this feels so wrong to read. I'm not saying it's not a valid viewpoint. It is perfectly valid for you. Here's what it makes me think: 1. To me, this suggests that vanilla relationships are by definition NOT as deep or trusting. I think that's BS. 2. It also sounds like the main reason most relationships (vanilla or D/s) fail. Not being 100% open. Not trusting enough. Any non-trust (in my view) leads to small lies, evasions, and sidesteps which chip away at whatever else you've built. 3. People are humans, flawed, and prone to errors in every relationship. D/s or no. 4. In any relationship, there is trust needed. Because whether you share 80%, 90%, 100%, or whatever, there is still vulnerability and your partner can cut you deeply with their anger and words. So, it seems like there is an inherent snobbery or devaluing of vanilla relationships as something lesser, here, which they are not. They have the potential for ALL that we have in D/s relationships, minus only the ACKNOWLEDGED power exchange. To me, that is the only difference. I'd love if someone can show me where I'm wrong. I thoroughly agree with this. Greta is cheapening vanilla because she treats vanilla differently and is judging it by different rules and standards. In fact, for most people, A good and decent long-term vanilla relationship is just as deep (and fulfilling) as any D/s or M/s relationship is and for exactly the same reasons.

Greta75 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:23:10 AM)
At 80% to 90% trust, for me, that's very high level of trust already, enough for a vanilla relationship. The 10% are things that won't be major but minor stuffs. But when it comes to D/S, even the minor stuffs start beginning to matter, as yea, it's relinquishing control for me. I personally cannot imagine being in a vanilla relationship and relinquishing any bit of control. And usually, that's how my vanilla relationships are like, I get full decision on everything. My love for someone does not come from trust, so it's not related, as love is unconditional. I kinda see it like, even if you don't trust your kid, you will still love your kid right?

Greta75 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:28:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Greta is cheapening vanilla because she treats vanilla differently and is judging it by different rules and standards. In fact, for most people, A good and decent long-term vanilla relationship is just as deep (and fulfilling) as any D/s or M/s relationship is and for exactly the same reasons. I am not cheapening vanilla, but it's a reality in this world that many vanilla relationships can still work without 100% trust in each other. And the thing is, the other party will be unaware about the level of trust. It's harder to hide about these things with D/S and bdsm elements, cracks will surface alot faster.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:29:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 My love for someone does not come from trust, so it's not related, as love is unconditional. I kinda see it like, even if you don't trust your kid, you will still love your kid right? Nope. Apples and oranges. Love for your kids is a completely different kind of love that you have for a partner. Like love for a fellow sibling or other member of the family - it's totally different to partner love. Trust and love are inextricably intertwined. Both are unconditional in my book.

Greta75 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:31:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Nope. Apples and oranges. Love for your kids is a completely different kind of love that you have for a partner. Like love for a fellow sibling or other member of the family - it's totally different to partner love. Love is love. The only difference is the sex part with the partner, and I certainly do not need trust to have vanilla sex.

NookieNotes -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:35:38 AM)
Yes, but we are not talking about every type of vanilla relationship to the one type of BDSM. That is comparing Pink Lady apples to every other kind of apple in the world, not just in existence today, but in every time, ever. That just doesn't work. For example, I have a relationship with my plumber. It's even been brought up in this thread. However, I do NOT have a D/s relationship with my plumber, nor would I, so comparing the two makes no sense. Same with a child. Of COURSE it's a relationship. And it may even be love. But there is no comparison to D/s. Period. It's not the same. It could not possibly be the same, so it is not a valid point of discussion. Loving someone and having a relationship is a different beast than being "in love" with someone and having a relationship. Using examples of storge, philia and agape, when what we are really discussing is eros, and only eros, with or without BDSM, is just wasting time and muddying the waters.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:37:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Greta is cheapening vanilla because she treats vanilla differently and is judging it by different rules and standards. In fact, for most people, A good and decent long-term vanilla relationship is just as deep (and fulfilling) as any D/s or M/s relationship is and for exactly the same reasons. I am not cheapening vanilla, but it's a reality in this world that many vanilla relationships can still work without 100% trust in each other. And the thing is, the other party will be unaware about the level of trust. It's harder to hide about these things with D/S and bdsm elements, cracks will surface alot faster. I think you are definitely cheapening vanilla relationships. And in reality, outside of Singapore, most relationships fail, not thrive or even survive for long. You seem to forget that you are living in a strange world that doesn't fit most western societies. And by saying "I personally cannot imagine being in a vanilla relationship and relinquishing any bit of control" makes you a total Domme. And personally, I think that attitude is very selfish. So in that sense you may just as well be single. 80%, 90% trust isn't enough for me to 'love' someone. Like them a lot perhaps. But without 110% trust, the love just isn't there. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Nope. Apples and oranges. Love for your kids is a completely different kind of love that you have for a partner. Like love for a fellow sibling or other member of the family - it's totally different to partner love. Love is love. The only difference is the sex part with the partner, and I certainly do not need trust to have vanilla sex. Sex and love are completely different. You seem to be mixing up the terms in your arguments.

ExiledTyrant -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:40:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Greta is cheapening vanilla because she treats vanilla differently and is judging it by different rules and standards. In fact, for most people, A good and decent long-term vanilla relationship is just as deep (and fulfilling) as any D/s or M/s relationship is and for exactly the same reasons. I am not cheapening vanilla, but it's a reality in this world that many vanilla relationships can still work without 100% trust in each other. And the thing is, the other party will be unaware about the level of trust. It's harder to hide about these things with D/S and bdsm elements, cracks will surface alot faster. I think you are definitely cheapening vanilla relationships. And in reality, outside of Singapore, most relationships fail, not thrive or even survive for long. You seem to forget that you are living in a strange world that doesn't fit most western societies. And by saying "I personally cannot imagine being in a vanilla relationship and relinquishing any bit of control" makes you a total Domme. And personally, I think that attitude is very selfish. So in that sense you may just as well be single. 80%, 90% trust isn't enough for me to 'love' someone. Like them a lot perhaps. But without 110% trust, the love just isn't there. Waits for the Miss Swan retort

Greta75 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:43:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 I think you are definitely cheapening vanilla relationships. And in reality, outside of Singapore, most relationships fail, not thrive or even survive for long. I meet Caucasians from all the world in Singapore and regardless, Europe, or US or Australia, I observe the same thing. We have a huge Caucasian population here. quote: And by saying "I personally cannot imagine being in a vanilla relationship and relinquishing any bit of control" makes you a total Domme. It can't possibly make me a domme, as I do not control his life and he does not control my life. quote: And personally, I think that attitude is very selfish. So in that sense you may just as well be single. In some ways, it may be selfish to be in a relationship and want to control your partner's life. Especially in vanilla setting, that is definitely selfish. It's about loving and accepting your partner the way they are and supporting them and not controlling them. So not taking control is selflessness. The person shouldn't have to give up control, if they didn't have a controlling partner. To me, vanilla men are never controlling, at least in my experience, they never are. And if they are controlling, there is usually a good chance they aren't really vanilla but dominant. Because to me, vanilla means, no kinky sex and no d/s completely. Once you have a d/s into it, it's no longer vanilla.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:43:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant Waits for the Miss Swan retort Maybe I'm not 'splainin myself very well. Can you see what I'm getting at ET??

NookieNotes -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:50:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Trust and love are inextricably intertwined. Both are unconditional in my book. and quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Love is love. The only difference is the sex part with the partner, and I certainly do not need trust to have vanilla sex. You are both taking personal experiences and making them a reality, arguing from that viewpoint. Which it seems to me inherently flaws your positions. While I tend to agree with freedomdwarf1 that his is a better frame for myself, I don't use that as a point of position to answer the original question. quote: ORIGINAL: MasterVenom13 Would you say that a D/s relationship and a Vanilla relationship are ultimately no different from each other? I mean when you break them down a few details may be different but the core values of both relationships types are the same like trust and respect. I ask because I know some people say a Vanilla relationship is different from a BDSM relationship but I've never really seen the difference. In which case, we have to look at what a relationship IS, how it is defined for each side, and then compare the ideal against the ideal, not one person's reality against another persons. Or even a hundred other persons'. Aside from the acknowledged power exchange, a vanilla relationship and a D/s relationship by definition do not have other differences. Same with a swingers relationship, minus swinging. Same with a kinky sex relationship minus the kinky sex. Same as a marriage with children minus the children. Yes, relationships can be built without 100% trust in the vanilla world. They can in D/s as well. They are. ALL THE TIME. Logically: There is no such thing as 200%, 110%, or even 100.000001%. There is just 100%. All the trust you have. All there is. Imagine that that last 1% of trust is that of Abraham to God when commanded to kill Isaac. Do you have THAT trust in your partner? The trust that would allow you to follow that command, knowing that their is greater good for you in it? Only you can answer that. I do NOT have that kind of trust in my relationships, BDSM or no.

ExiledTyrant -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:51:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant Waits for the Miss Swan retort Maybe I'm not 'splainin myself very well. Can you see what I'm getting at ET?? Yes, FD, I can. However, Greta will always maneuver things to fit within here own "concept" and failing to do so she will get all "Miss Swan" on your ass. I wish she would just bite the bullet already and switch over to Domme rather than the "Do-me my way and only my way" sub, that shit is getting old. Jus sayin

Greta75 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:52:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Can you see what I'm getting at ET?? You are saying that you are one rare person in the world who can't be in a relationship with someone without 110% trust, whether vanilla or bdsm. But I'm saying, that is not true for most people. Also, this kink community may not be the best place to seek answers for this part, as most kink people need the trust thing big time, because no matter what, they got the kink thing going that is like something in the closet, or well, yes, for some, they are already outing themselves to public, but for many, I am sure, they haven't out themselves publicly.

Greta75 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:55:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant Yes, FD, I can. However, Greta will always maneuver things to fit within here own "concept" and failing to do so she will get all "Miss Swan" on your ass. I wish she would just bite the bullet already and switch over to Domme rather than the "Do-me my way and only my way" sub, that shit is getting old. Jus sayin So I am not submissive because I refuse to agree with the dominants in this forum. Oh wow!

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:57:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 I think you are definitely cheapening vanilla relationships. And in reality, outside of Singapore, most relationships fail, not thrive or even survive for long. I meet Caucasians from all the world in Singapore and regardless, Europe, or US or Australia, I observe the same thing. We have a huge Caucasian population here. Yes... all caucasian people living in Singapore and generally taking the Singaporean lifestyle. And when you meet people who are not resident there, they are on holiday. You are hardly likely to see much BDSM behaviour in those settings. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: And by saying "I personally cannot imagine being in a vanilla relationship and relinquishing any bit of control" makes you a total Domme. It can't possibly make me a domme, as I do not control his life and he does not control my life. Maybe not a Domme but might just as well be two people that happen to share a home. That, to me, isn't a partnership of any sort except one of convenience. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: And personally, I think that attitude is very selfish. So in that sense you may just as well be single. In some ways, it may be selfish to be in a relationship and want to control your partner's life. Especially in vanilla setting, that is definitely selfish. It's about loving and accepting your partner the way they are and supporting them and not controlling them. So not taking control is selflessness. The person shouldn't have to give up control, if they didn't have a controlling partner. Actually, I see that as ass-backwards. In most vanilla relationships, one or other partner tends to take the lead. The other person tends to let them take the lead; giving up a certain amount of control. That is the 'norm', not the exception. But how much of a power balance there is depends on the relationship. I don't know of anyone I've met where both partners live autonomous lives - except housemates. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 To me, vanilla men are never controlling, at least in my experience, they never are. Then you haven't met that type of man. They are quite common here and in the US and Europe (and Australia, and New Zealand, and most Arabic countries, and Africa... and... and... etc). That's why I say you are living in an isolated society that doesn't match. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 You are saying that you are one rare person in the world who can't be in a relationship with someone without 110% trust, whether vanilla or bdsm. But I'm saying, that is not true for most people. I didn't say a relationship - I said LOVE. Different beast; and you are now mixing up the pot with different terms.

ExiledTyrant -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 6:58:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant Yes, FD, I can. However, Greta will always maneuver things to fit within here own "concept" and failing to do so she will get all "Miss Swan" on your ass. I wish she would just bite the bullet already and switch over to Domme rather than the "Do-me my way and only my way" sub, that shit is getting old. Jus sayin So I am not submissive because I refuse to agree with the dominants in this forum. Oh wow! You should've qualified that with, "he looka like... he looka like... him looka like a man." No Greta, don't be obtuse. Everything about you, every thread, every post is "do-me my way and only my way", if you wan't control switch to Domme FFS.

Greta75 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 7:02:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Actually, I see that as ass-backwards. In most vanilla relationships, one or other partner tends to take the lead. The other person tends to let them take the lead; giving up a certain amount of control. That is the 'norm', not the exception. But how much of a power balance there is depends on the relationship. I don't know of anyone I've met where both partners live autonomous lives - except housemates. I feel like someone gotta be the leader of the house bit is really more like a dominant point of view. If two people are just vanilla vanilla, they just co-exist mutually, usually they find somebody who suits them, similiar interests, same style of doing things, approach to life, etc etc, and nobody has to be in charge, they just co-exist peacefully together and support each other. Both can do what they want, if what they want are align. It's like people being with people who wants to be in charge is also being in a situation where "What they want are align."

Greta75 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 7:06:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant No Greta, don't be obtuse. Everything about you, every thread, every post is "do-me my way and only my way", if you wan't control switch to Domme FFS. What the hell is domme FFS? The "do me my way" is all about compatibility. I am not a slave, just a sub with limits.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875