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 11:21:39 AM)

quote:

1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

If I voice a need, and a dominant calls that selfish. Isn't that him being devoted and caring only for himself, concerned primarily with his own interests, benefits and welfare, regardless of me? Because he does not care about the emotional damage it does to me, by denying me or even trying to criticized me for having needs, by calling me selfish.

quote:

Oh, so in that vein, everything you do that is giving is only disgruntledly (not a word)?

Not really, I never ever give anything because I have to. It is my life philosophy that if I give anything, it has to be unconditional, or else, I will give nothing at all. I will never give anything because I have to, or pressured to do it. So if I do submit, it's because I choose to do so unconditionally. I also don't see it as "give" and "take", because then you start counting every "give" and "take". If one gives, then one just gives and don't even think about it as anything. That's why I don't seem very "submissive" or "giving", because if I can't do it unconditionally, I will not do it. I do not want to feel disgruntled about it.

quote:

OR... could it possibly be that, like me, when a dominant makes a choice like that, it is still giving, but with an open and grateful heart for the pet who does so much for us?

So the heart of this is that I want to know is, do you think a submissive should give first or a dominant should give first? I mean, as much as one wants to say a submissive should just feel happy about giving because he or she is submissive, BUT, they can't possibly during their search, be constantly doing that with everybody and anybody. And the thing is, the perspective of a female dom versus a male dom is very different. For example, a female sub may want to be wooed, but a female dom wants to be wooed too. So in the end, as long as one is female, regardless whether the male is dom or sub, they still majorityly expect the male to do the wooing, things like that. I mean, would you woo a male sub? I think few male dominants expect their sub to woo them.




RedMagic1 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 11:41:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
disgruntledly (not a word)?

This surprised me so I looked on wordnik, and its first use was at least 70 years ago.



NookieNotes -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 11:41:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

So the heart of this is that I want to know is, do you think a submissive should give first or a dominant should give first?


I think if this is the question, you've already lost.

Wooing is not the only kind of giving. There are as many ways to give of onesself are there are grains of sand. Every person is different. And yes, Male dominants expect wooing. They may not call it that, but it is essentially the same thing: "Show me what I should expect to get out of this relationship."



NookieNotes -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 11:43:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
disgruntledly (not a word)?

This surprised me so I looked on wordnik, and its first use was at least 70 years ago.


You're right, I'm wrong. I was looking for the definition, and the dictionary I was using online asked me if I meant "disgruntled."

That is my bad, as I thought it was a word as well, and did not research further.



Greta75 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 11:51:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
And yes, Male dominants expect wooing. They may not call it that, but it is essentially the same thing: "Show me what I should expect to get out of this relationship."

You are side-tracking the question though. If a male dominant see a female he likes, his gonna woo her.
What if you see a sub male you like, would you woo him?
I think a male dominant will only expect to be wooed if it's a sub his not really interested in or luke warm towards. If he really likes her, his gonna go after her.



NookieNotes -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 12:40:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
And yes, Male dominants expect wooing. They may not call it that, but it is essentially the same thing: "Show me what I should expect to get out of this relationship."

You are side-tracking the question though. If a male dominant see a female he likes, his gonna woo her.
What if you see a sub male you like, would you woo him?


Yes. Of course. I think that is what a relationship is about. TWO people wanting to woo.

That's why I said that Male dominants want to be wooed. For the same reason. They want to be shown that they are wanted and what they will get out of a relationship.

It goes all ways.

quote:

I think a male dominant will only expect to be wooed if it's a sub his not really interested in or luke warm towards. If he really likes her, his gonna go after her.


Yes, he will go after her. And will expect her to reciprocate interest as well, with wooing of the sort he needs.

woo, verb
To seek the affection of with intent to romance.

Definitions. They say what a word means. You think male dominants don't expect their female submissives to seek their affection? To do sweet things to show their romantic feelings?

You don't think female dominants do this to male subs?

What, in your view, happens in male/male relationships, then, if wooing is a female pasttime? No wooing?

Silly stuff.

You have a lot of rules, as shiftyw said in the other thread. Seems restrictive.



ivone57 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 2:09:39 PM)

I think the difference is you get spanked in one and not the other... lol... [:)]



Gauge -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 9:16:57 PM)

This is a fast reply.

OK, hold the phone. Time for me to speak frankly and I really don't give two shits what happens after that.

Number 1:

Make no fucking mistake whatsoever, submissives may give up control, but most dominants take fucking responsibility for EVERYTHING that happens after that point. My take is not more than my give, What I take I give in return in my responsibility and control. That exacts as much of a price as a submissives precious control. Jesus. H. Christ.

Number 2:

The vanilla perception about BDSM means fuckall to what a relationship means. The vanilla perception of BDSM is that that we are all unnatural fucking deviant perverts... we are, but we are people just like them and we live and die just like vanilla people. For fuck sake people, we are all the fucking same.

Number 3:

I have explained the BDSM dynamic to vanilla people, only to have them understand exactly what I was saying... why? Because I bothered to care to explain the dynamic with clarity and a singularity of thought in that partners are exactly that... partners. Without submissives, dominants would be nothing. Without dominants, submissives would be nothing. Deal with it.

Number 4:

I so fucking tire of the tripe that relationships can exist without trust. It is impossible. Anything less than 100% trust is a living arrangement, nothing more.

Number 5:

There is no number 5.

Number 6:

Let's make something clear I tried to wade through the last several pages but I just couldn't do it. I wish this hadn't touched a nerve with me, but it did. What one person's perception is doesn't make it applicable to everyone, just them, no one else. Speaking in absolutes only makes things worse, so, when making a point, don't use absolutes. Speak generally, and make certain you aren't speaking for everyone.

What you have read here is my fucking opinion, my fucking experience and nothing fucking more.

Jesus. H. Tapdancing. Christ.

Number 7:

Carry on.



shiftyw -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 9:19:47 PM)

See this thread realllllly went to shit fast...



littleladybug -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 11:10:21 PM)

Wow...after reading all of this, I am *so* totally glad I'm a sub. And a sub with limits to boot...go figure.

"Real sub", "not real sub"...there's only one opinion that matters, and that is the one of the person that I am with. I do what I do because it gives me pleasure to do it. I have no doubt that he feels the same way. I am a firm believer in that every relationship is selfish in some way. If it wasn't, there would be no point in being in it. Now...if I ever heard from him a "laundry list" of how hard it is to be a Dom, that would probably be the end of the relationship. But, luckily, it never gets to that point, because I've never been one to keep any sort of list...especially not one like that...so the conversation is not likely to come up.

To answer the OP...yes, I believe that any successful relationship, no matter how the parties define it, share the core values of trust and respect. For me, moving "from vanilla" had everything to do with the leadership qualities that I saw in some Dominant males. It was the idea that I could have a relationship with trust and respect and *then some*.




ResidentSadist -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (11/30/2014 11:47:19 PM)

I think the answer is very simple. There is an intrinsic difference at the core because satisfying the needs of a leather relationship cannot be accomplished with vanilla or vice versa. If your expressions of the relationship like love, trust etc aren't in the same language, you won't "feel" connected or be satisfied.

Vanilla gift of love = he went to Jared
BDSM gift of love = he went to Pet Smart

My 2 cents.



Charles6682 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (12/1/2014 2:07:52 PM)

Is there a difference? In the end, I find they can be one in the same. There's some for for thought.



BecomingV -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (12/7/2014 8:21:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterVenom13

Would you say that a D/s relationship and a Vanilla relationship are ultimately no different from each other?


I see the relationships as being the same.

However, the vanilla marriage versus the BDSM collar differ in terms of legality and finances. If a married vanilla couple are engaged in a supremacist type of relationship, in which the partners do not act as equals, when they break up, the spouse who didn't exert power will have legal rights in terms of property, investments, savings, etc... whereas the BDSM collar offers no such legal recourse to any of those things. It would be more like the vanilla version of living together.

So, it's the lifelong commitment of marriage versus collaring that presents differences.

Also, the courts are beginning to consider BDSM contracts when abuse cases come up, but for now, it still seems to be risky to be violent, whether in BDSM or in vanilla relationships.



EmpressElsa -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (12/8/2014 3:37:08 AM)

For me, they are very different! However, there are D/s relationships I have seen where I couldn't distinguish a difference.

This is one of those questions that cannot be definitively answered because what constitutes a "D/s relationship" will be defined differently by each couple.





Charles6682 -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (12/8/2014 11:50:49 AM)

The issue of trust, love and etc, are the same in any relationship. Sure, there are some differences as far as sexual needs go. What I meant by the 2 can be as 1, is if someone in fetish, always enjoys having a vanilla life as well. A kinky assertive girlfriend would do fine for me, as so would a Domme who likes to do vanilla things as well.



GoddessManko -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (12/8/2014 12:17:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

That doesn't happen like that in real life - at least not outside of Singapore.
You'll find that someone in pretty much all partnerships, tends to take the lead.
Very very few stay on equal and autonomous levels.
And for most, that give and take is what makes the relationship.




I think that's true that someone in pretty much all partnerships tends to take the lead. But I also think that some of the struggles with a vanilla relationship (or any kind of relationship without a very clear power structure), is who takes the lead when. So there is give and take, yes. There has to be, because at any moment one partner might have to suddenly be more flexible than he or she would like to be, given who has the control of that certain situation.

I defer to him. He takes my opinions into account, but he does not defer to me. And yeah, you know what? As I'm typing this I'm thinking - yes, to do this it does take a significantly deeper level of trust in him than I have had in previous vanilla relationships. I don't always agree with him, but I have learned through experience that he has infinitely more foresight than I do. And I trust him. I don't know if I could have gotten past the "I don't agree with him" stage in a vanilla relationship. There is no deferring. I would have just fought until one of us finally caved, probably for no other reason than I had the power to do so. So maybe it's not that my vanilla relationship couldn't have had as much trust as my current, but that there was no opportunity to have to build that level of trust in the first place. (Maybe?)


I agree with you both entirely. "Ladies first" is a common theme among vanilla men who are "chivalrous". Then on the other side, there are "subs" who have a list of kinks they wish fulfilled and a timetable on when to do it. It is all pretty interchangeable. Also I too have found that my personality shifts in a vanilla setting vs a BDSM setting. The only thing I would really miss is rope. And not "uncontrollably". Choice is extremely important to me in all facets of my life. I agree with what you stated 100% as "trust" being the defining factor of a successful D/s relationship, and that a sub has to be willing to "let go" and trust, this cannot be taught. Boundaries are very important in this pursuit and subs for the most part should understand that the rules of engagement in D/s differ.
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

I haven't met a D type who didn't want to take more than give. Also, who did not start feeling upset if he feels his giving more than receiving. So I believe that as an S, you have to give more than take. Or else, you get accusations from ET for example that you are not an S, because you want to take more than you want to give.




I am submissive, and according to my own definition of my submission (which is not a popular one, I know), the Dominant partner is absolutely entitled to take more than give. It's kinda the whole point. I am serving him. Now, he cares for me and believe me, he gives in incredible and courageous ways. But he does these things for me and with me because he wants to; because ultimately, there is benefit for him. I am serving him.

Obviously, I get benefit too, and I live this way because I want to, as well. But I change my behavior and actions to suit his needs and desires. Not the other way around. So personally, I wouldn't call myself submissive if I was expecting him to "give" in the same ways that I do. I expect and I want him to take.


This is great, much like IHH's dynamic. For me such behaviors, perceptions and thoughts of submission are what makes the quintessential. Not the kink.



Bhruic -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (12/8/2014 2:51:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
I never have, and never will, keep anything from my partner and I expect the same in return.
Keeping things from your partner invites mistrust and that never bodes well in any relationship.
So in that sense, there is no difference between my D/s relationship than the vanilla side.
There is an absolute and total trust between my partner and I.

Yes, but my point is, vanilla couples can keep alot of themselves away from each other and still have long term 20 to 30 yr marriages. Vanilla relationships seriously sometimes can function long term on surface depth for alot of people.
But try that in D/S it wouldn't last.


I agree! In a vanilla relationship, I think people really do have secret lives in a way that D/s relationships naturally move away from.

And the vanilla relationships you describe were really common a generation of two ago, when divorce was frowned upon and a stigma.

I think people are, in general, not ultimately satisfied with a relationship where there is a deficiency of sharing, of your heart and soul, and secret emotional lives.

That is why I think that once divorce began to become more accepted, it's rate rose quickly. People realized that they didn't have to be doomed to live in a relationship where there was not enough communication and mutual sharing of oneself, where they potentially felt lonelier than when they were alone.



PandoraFoxxx -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (12/8/2014 2:56:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
I never have, and never will, keep anything from my partner and I expect the same in return.
Keeping things from your partner invites mistrust and that never bodes well in any relationship.
So in that sense, there is no difference between my D/s relationship than the vanilla side.
There is an absolute and total trust between my partner and I.

Yes, but my point is, vanilla couples can keep alot of themselves away from each other and still have long term 20 to 30 yr marriages. Vanilla relationships seriously sometimes can function long term on surface depth for alot of people.
But try that in D/S it wouldn't last.


I agree! In a vanilla relationship, I think people really do have secret lives in a way that D/s relationships naturally move away from.

And the vanilla relationships you describe were really common a generation of two ago, when divorce was frowned upon and a stigma.

I think people are, in general, not ultimately satisfied with a relationship where there is a deficiency of sharing, of your heart and soul, and secret emotional lives.

That is why I think that once divorce began to become more accepted, it's rate rose quickly. People realized that they didn't have to be doomed to live in a relationship where there was not enough communication and mutual sharing of oneself, where they potentially felt lonelier than when they were alone.

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D] All of this! I've also found the lines of communication are not only wide open but there is little to no judgement as well.



Bhruic -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (12/8/2014 2:56:49 PM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
And yes, Male dominants expect wooing. They may not call it that, but it is essentially the same thing: "Show me what I should expect to get out of this relationship."


Amen!!! I sometimes find that lacking in my own experience, and it is very difficult. Obedience and all the things that go with D/s are wonderful... but I want a relationship too! A meaningful and complex relationship where there is MUTUAL trust and communication.



GoddessManko -> RE: Is there really a difference between BDSM and Vanilla? (12/8/2014 3:54:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
I never have, and never will, keep anything from my partner and I expect the same in return.
Keeping things from your partner invites mistrust and that never bodes well in any relationship.
So in that sense, there is no difference between my D/s relationship than the vanilla side.
There is an absolute and total trust between my partner and I.

Yes, but my point is, vanilla couples can keep alot of themselves away from each other and still have long term 20 to 30 yr marriages. Vanilla relationships seriously sometimes can function long term on surface depth for alot of people.
But try that in D/S it wouldn't last.


I agree! In a vanilla relationship, I think people really do have secret lives in a way that D/s relationships naturally move away from.

And the vanilla relationships you describe were really common a generation of two ago, when divorce was frowned upon and a stigma.

I think people are, in general, not ultimately satisfied with a relationship where there is a deficiency of sharing, of your heart and soul, and secret emotional lives.

That is why I think that once divorce began to become more accepted, it's rate rose quickly. People realized that they didn't have to be doomed to live in a relationship where there was not enough communication and mutual sharing of oneself, where they potentially felt lonelier than when they were alone.


LOL, I agree with Greta only to the tiniest extent one can imagine. I'm sorry, I would love to agree on this but I feel like this is a way for us to "set ourselves apart" which is somewhat of a fallacy. People will lie or hide things no matter their sexual preferences. D/s/switch or vanilla. I think that's more an individual trait than an entire group of people statistically. But then I know some people have "fears of the unknown" for any given reason. I agree with freedomdwarf's perspective 100%. Yes, some people settle. But they settle in this lifestyle as well, to be coupled whether happily or unhappily. *points to married subs in my inbox for point of reference.*
I would never see this lifestyle as more or less than vanilla unless proven otherwise, and it hasn't.
It's only different in my mind and gives way to more explorative methods of connecting with a friend, playmate, client or significant other. If anything I would say the sex industry is much more accepted within this lifestyle than vanilla if that was the context Greta was referring to. Polyamory and the like as well. But people can be married til death and never need this lifestyle or anything other than each other, it happens.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.589844E-02