RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests?

RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (Full Version)

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

Message

defiantbadgirl -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 1:28:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl What I'm saying is for those of us who seek a monogamous relationship, there is no way a relationship can remain monogamous without both vanilla and kink. Wow! That's a new one. Tens of thousands of married monogamous vanilla couples have been doing it wrong for years. Lol, it could explain the divorce rate though. This is a bdsm thread. Therefore, I was referring to the bdsm population.......duh. Nobody into kink could remain happily monogamous to a totally vanilla partner. Nor could any monogamous relationship last long term with no vanilla common interests. It takes both.

GeekyGirl -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 1:41:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DiurnalVampire Why would a LTR require someone to be completely monogamous? I think i missed to correlation. DV I think the poster was trying to say that a Kinkster would have a difficult time being monogamous with a VANILLA partner. I don't believe she was referring to consentual poly or a relationship were both partners were kinky. I think she trying to allude to the common excuse, "I cheat on my spouse cause she's vanilla and I need more than that..we have everything in common EXCEPT BDSM." Although, when reading the orginal post, I wasn't even considering the concept that he might be thinking of dating vanilla girls...when he was discussing difference in BDSM, I thought he meant "I like leather restraints and he likes metal ones" as opposed to "I like kink and she doesn't".

twicehappy -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 1:42:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl duh. Nobody into kink could remain happily monogamous to a totally vanilla partner. Nor could any monogamous relationship last long term with no vanilla common interests. It takes both. Duh yourself, that is not what you wrote. I responded to the post as written. And i'll still disagree with you. Depends on the couple and the individuals within the couple. Perhaps you mean you could not do this. Disclaimer: the above is the author's personal opinion and is not the opinion or policy of her owner or of the little green men that follow her around all day all day. This post may or may not cite its references or sources. The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... IMPORTANT: This post is intended for the use of the individual to whom I was responding and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humor or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any whining, bitching or taking personally of this post is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social fauxpas. No animals were harmed in the composition of this post, although Benji is authorized to hump your leg and piss on your carpet for taking the contents of afore mentioned post and either embracing it as personal or responding with any sentence containing the words " weal" or " twue" or any other Fuddism for that matter. (Mnottertail holding a written grant of exception to this rule). My opinion is neither copyrighted nor trademarked; If you like, I'll trade for one of yours.

GeekyGirl -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 1:43:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl What I'm saying is for those of us who seek a monogamous relationship, there is no way a relationship can remain monogamous without both vanilla and kink. Wow! That's a new one. Tens of thousands of married monogamous vanilla couples have been doing it wrong for years. Lol, it could explain the divorce rate though. Again ya'll are misunderstanding her, I think. I believe she is trying to say that those of us who are both monogamous AND kinky, will never be happy in a MONGAMOUS VANILLA relationship. Which I agree with. ETA: Maybe I only picked up on what she was saying because I feel the same way....I could never be in a monogamous vanilla relationship.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 1:56:40 PM)
Exactly. Thank you. I just can't understand why so many are confused about such a simple concept. It truly is amusing.

GeekyGirl -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 2:02:09 PM)
You were a little roundabout in the way you said it, and people jumped to take offense. I understood because I'm in the same boat...How could I, as a monogamouse kinky person, ever be happy with a monogamous vanilla person?

DiurnalVampire -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 2:08:27 PM)
I dont know about that either. I have been in perfectly happy vanilla relationships. Its a matter of being happy with the person you are with. My kink doesnt rule my life, so if I meet someone who I am happy with who happens to be vanilla, I personally know I can be with that person and step away from the lifestyle. I have done it before. If I werent with Angel and I met someone again, I would do it again. And quite onestly, if thing swith Angel and I for some reason fell to the vanilla and I had to decide between my kink and keeping him, I would step away. For SOME people, perhaps, being in a LDR or any long term monogamous relationship might require both kink and vanilla aspects. But not for everyone. I am fairly sure I am not the only lifestyler here who has or would make the choice to take someone they fell in love with over an open relationship, even if they had to forgo their kink for it. If I am alone in this position, then please disregard my opinion. It is, of course, only mine. DV

GeekyGirl -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 2:14:18 PM)
Perhaps it has to do with ones attachment to kink. I would be bored to tears without it. For me, it has to be not just kinky but VERY kinky. That actually contributed to the ruin of my last relationship because although he WAS a dom and WAS kinky he wasn't nearly kinky ENOUGH. Going vanilla would be out of the question for me.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 2:14:31 PM)
The OP (who is obviously into kink or he wouldn't be on this site) wanted to know which was more important for a LTR kink or vanilla and I said both, then explained why. I specifically said I wasn't bashing polygamists. I've never understood what is so confusing about having both aspects within the same partner. For some reason, this simple concept is baffling to many.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 2:31:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: susie quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl A long term relationship does not necessarily require monogamy. For the record, I have alot more respect for polygamists than those who go around having casual sex with multiple acquaintences. Polygamists stay faithful within their group and therefore don't spread disease. What I'm saying is for those of us who seek a monogamous relationship, there is no way a relationship can remain monogamous without both vanilla and kink. Excuse me there is such a thing as safe sex you know. Just because some people decide to have "casual sex with multiple acquaintences" does not mean they spread disease. I think you should consider what you are posting before making sweeping statements such as that. Safe sex involves no unprotected sex (including unprotected oral) for 6 months just to get an accurate result on an HIV test.

susie -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 2:41:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl quote: ORIGINAL: susie quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl A long term relationship does not necessarily require monogamy. For the record, I have alot more respect for polygamists than those who go around having casual sex with multiple acquaintences. Polygamists stay faithful within their group and therefore don't spread disease. What I'm saying is for those of us who seek a monogamous relationship, there is no way a relationship can remain monogamous without both vanilla and kink. Excuse me there is such a thing as safe sex you know. Just because some people decide to have "casual sex with multiple acquaintences" does not mean they spread disease. I think you should consider what you are posting before making sweeping statements such as that. Safe sex involves no unprotected sex (including unprotected oral) for 6 months just to get an accurate result on an HIV test. Congratulations. Now please explain why you make the assumption that people having casual sex spread disease. Casual sex does not equal unprotected sex. Perhaps it does to you and those you associate with, it certainly does not for me.

agirl -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 2:46:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl What I'm saying is for those of us who seek a monogamous relationship, there is no way a relationship can remain monogamous without both vanilla and kink. This is a bdsm thread. Therefore, I was referring to the bdsm population.......duh. Nobody into kink could remain happily monogamous to a totally vanilla partner. Nor could any monogamous relationship last long term with no vanilla common interests. It takes both. I'm not sure if I qualify myself as into kink to the extent that it's an urge that I can't possibly live without......but I can envisage being happy and monogamous in a vanilla relationship. There's a hell of a lot of exciting and interesting people in the world and while I live an M/s life, it's not the be all and end all of ALL ways of being. Each individual brings the possibility of a new way of relating........it's certainly possible that sans M/s, I'd be happy. If M/s was stripped away from my relationship, I'd still be monogamous, I'd still respect M in exactly the way I do now and I'd still be happy........I can't see much changing. agirl

asubmissiveheart -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 2:48:22 PM)
The question was which one was more important, we were never asked to make a choice.

softcoresicko -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 2:48:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DiurnalVampire I dont know about that either. I have been in perfectly happy vanilla relationships. Its a matter of being happy with the person you are with. My kink doesnt rule my life, so if I meet someone who I am happy with who happens to be vanilla, I personally know I can be with that person and step away from the lifestyle. I have done it before. If I werent with Angel and I met someone again, I would do it again. And quite onestly, if thing swith Angel and I for some reason fell to the vanilla and I had to decide between my kink and keeping him, I would step away. For SOME people, perhaps, being in a LDR or any long term monogamous relationship might require both kink and vanilla aspects. But not for everyone. I am fairly sure I am not the only lifestyler here who has or would make the choice to take someone they fell in love with over an open relationship, even if they had to forgo their kink for it. If I am alone in this position, then please disregard my opinion. It is, of course, only mine. DV Diurnal Vampire, That sounds like my take on relationships as well; the person is more important than the kink. Although, I have limited experience in relationships in general, so perhaps, as GeekyGirl said, I'd be bored without kink in life. I was just trying to feel out my fellow fetishicists, to find out how important they considered the kinky aspects of their relationships. And thank you for your comments, defiantbadgirl; I do hope to have both aspects in the same (monogamous) relationship, so your comments proved quite helpful. Perhaps I should have been clearer in my original post, so that I didn't stir up so many hard feelings...

defiantbadgirl -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 2:48:59 PM)
Very simple Susie. How many people do you know that actually practice safe oral sex? This includes no bj without a condom and no oral on females without a female condom. Yet these same people who have multiple casual partners go around bashing polygamists. I could never be polygamous because I'd be jealous, but for those into casual sex to bash a group of people who are faithful within the group while they go out and spread disease is flat out hypocritical.

mnottertail -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 2:51:40 PM)
Simple--- Safe for me, always. If I figure you for a biter or a spitter, you get a knife at your throat. Never caught a whiff of a toothmark on my manliness yet. Ron

asubmissiveheart -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 2:52:59 PM)
Many here did not seem to read the OP's original question. He did not ask you to choose, he asked which one was more important {meaning when you have both in a relationship}. It was never an either/or situation. For me vanilla interests mean a lot more for a long term relationship to work. Most people spend the majority of their lives in vanilla activities whether they like it or not. BDSM activities if you are lucky would be at the most 25% of your time. Having shared vanilla interests is the only way I would be in a serious relationship with another person.

softcoresicko -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 2:58:38 PM)
Thank you very much, asubmissiveheart; your comments are quite appreciated. I will certainly keep looking for someone with whom I can share my vanilla interests. Thank you again.

agirl -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 2:58:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Simple--- Safe for me, always. If I figure you for a biter or a spitter, you get a knife at your throat. Never caught a whiff of a toothmark on my manliness yet. Ron Nor likely to, I imagine ......grin agirl

MercilessMarcy -> RE: More important to a LTR: BDSM or vanilla interests? (2/3/2007 3:02:41 PM)
Which is MORE IMPORTANT ? Erotic is tickling your ass with a feather, Kinky is using the whole chicken. One is frustrating, one is invigorating! Okay, seriously folks, this is a BDSM forum, none of us are going to happily give up our kinks. That being said, for ME to be happy and not bored to tears I require balance. I need to enjoy my whole world, not just part of it. My partner needs to share the same values and standards, same code of ethics. I can always learn to enjoy theatre in the round, star gazing, power boating, bowling, etc. I have no problem sending him off to enjoy poetry reading (insert any activity) while I go catch the latest action-adventure movie (insert any activity). However, what's fun for one is twice as nice for two. I love sharing the same experience and both of us loving it. Vanilla or Kink.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.320313E-02