BDSM 101

BDSM 101 (Full Version)

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

Message

Master96 -> BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 3:41:14 PM)
I want first to make it clear that I'm not here to offense anyone, nor to judge any person. I think the first thing we should be aware of, when we get into D/s relationship. To understand that it is a "vanilla'" one at the background. I'm wondering about Gorean people, or the Gynarchist Lesbian Sorority. I understand that everyone has the right to live as they want, and have the free right to think and speech. But, I think it is rude to say, for example, that all women are slaves to superior men. I may not making sense with my words. But I think to be a submissive is something to be praise of. Even if s/he is into humiliation :p Also, I think we have to keep in mind that submissive people are persons, "vanilla" ones. I feel my words aren't complete.... I'm posting this to ask for help to make things clear :) Thanx,

BitaTruble -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 3:47:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Master96 I want first to make it clear that I'm not here to offense anyone, nor to judge any person. I promise not to be offended. :) quote: I think the first thing we should be aware of, when we get into D/s relationship. To understand that it is a "vanilla'" one at the background. I'm still promising not to be offended, but I don't agree with this statement. I don't have a 'vanilla' background in regard to my M/s relationship. It's core is M/s and prior to that it was D/s. quote: I'm wondering about Gorean people, or the Gynarchist Lesbian Sorority. I understand that everyone has the right to live as they want, and have the free right to think and speech. But, I think it is rude to say, for example, that all women are slaves to superior men. I don't think it's rude, but I do think it's inaccurate. quote: I may not making sense with my words. But I think to be a submissive is something to be praise of. Even if s/he is into humiliation :p That's cool, I guess. I don't agree with it. Being praised for an orientation seems a bit on the silly side to me, but I certainly wouldn't take issue with someone who thought submission should be praised. :) quote: Also, I think we have to keep in mind that submissive people are persons, "vanilla" ones. I'm a person, but I'm not a 'vanilla' person. I'm a slave person. :) quote: I feel my words aren't complete.... I'm posting this to ask for help to make things clear :) Thanx, You seem to have a pretty clear idea of what you think. Some will agree with you, some won't, but I don't think you were unclear in stating your opinions. Celeste

topcat -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 4:03:03 PM)
M. 96- I think the most important key thing to remember is that there is no such thing as BDSM, or D/S or SM, or whatever you call it. There is no 'scene' Or, to be more clear, there is no one unifed scene- everyone's scene begins and ends at the boundries of their skull. Those that are really lucky find someone who's idea of what this stuff is all about overlaps their own. Stay warm, Lawrence

porthuronsub -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 4:20:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Master96 But, I think it is rude to say, for example, that all women are slaves to superior men. Some would argue that all men are inferior to women, I would be on that side. I am a sub and HARDLY vanilla. Don't know where that association came from but totally inaccurate. But not to worry, I am not offended.

SmokingGun82 -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 4:58:41 PM)
I have to agree with topcat- what you've said is simply your opinion. Some will agree or disagree politely. Some will agree, enthusiastically. Some will disagree, vehemently. some will tell you you're an idiot, and someone will try to say that you're obviously gay because you used the word lesbian... but at the end of the day, it's still your thing, just like the Gorean's have their thing, and submissive males have their thing, and everyone else has their own thing. If you think there's an underlying vanilla-ness to your relationships, good on ya. Best, M.C.

Devilslilsister -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 5:31:33 PM)
i'm not vanilla............ i'm blueberry how dare you mix up my flavor!

porthuronsub -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 5:34:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Devilslilsister i'm not vanilla............ i'm blueberry how dare you mix up my flavor! cute....

Devilslilsister -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 5:39:51 PM)
well i am drinking a Liter of Blueberry smoothie......... seemed as good as anything else to say = )

porthuronsub -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 5:53:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Devilslilsister well i am drinking a Liter of Blueberry smoothie......... seemed as good as anything else to say = ) Don't forget what happened to the girl at the Wonka factory...blueberry stuff can be dangerous

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 6:07:58 PM)
Not all relationships are vanilla at the background. I don't consider it rude that someone says such things, I consider it fairly ignorant. I'd consider it rude if they tried to convince me of their views.

ownedgirlie -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 6:12:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Master96 Also, I think we have to keep in mind that submissive people are persons, "vanilla" ones. To me, "vanilla" (although I never did care for that term a whole lot) means not a slave. I am a slave. I am not a "vanilla" person, I am....well to quote Celeste, "a slave person." Like others, I take no offense to your sentiments. But I disagree with this one in particular.

topcat -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 6:19:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Not all relationships are vanilla at the background. I don't consider it rude that someone says such things, I consider it fairly ignorant. I'd consider it rude if they tried to convince me of their views. Actually, I'd argue quite the opposite- that all human interactions involve a power differential at some level, and sexual interactions even more so- therefore, I posit that 'vanilla' does not in fact exist... Discuss.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 6:21:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: topcat Actually, I'd argue quite the opposite- that all human interactions involve a power differential at some level, and sexual interactions even more so- therefore, I posit that 'vanilla' does not in fact exist... Discuss. There's a distinct difference between a relationship which HAS a power differential within it and a relationship which is BASED UPON having and authority transfer. The latter is what I consider "non vanilla."

porthuronsub -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 6:25:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: topcat Actually, I'd argue quite the opposite- that all human interactions involve a power differential at some level, and sexual interactions even more so- therefore, I posit that 'vanilla' does not in fact exist... Discuss. There's a distinct difference between a relationship which HAS a power differential within it and a relationship which is BASED UPON having and authority transfer. The latter is what I consider "non vanilla." I concur

slavegirljoy -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 7:14:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Master96 I want first to make it clear that I'm not here to offense anyone, nor to judge any person. I think the first thing we should be aware of, when we get into D/s relationship. To understand that it is a "vanilla'" one at the background. I'm wondering about Gorean people, or the Gynarchist Lesbian Sorority. I understand that everyone has the right to live as they want, and have the free right to think and speech. But, I think it is rude to say, for example, that all women are slaves to superior men. I may not making sense with my words. But I think to be a submissive is something to be praise of. Even if s/he is into humiliation :p Also, I think we have to keep in mind that submissive people are persons, "vanilla" ones. I feel my words aren't complete.... I'm posting this to ask for help to make things clear :) Thanx, Not sure how you are using the term "vanilla", since terms, such as this, used in a BDSM or sexual context often get used by different people in very different ways but, as i have always understood it, since i first began hearing it back in the mid '70's, "vanilla" simply means "plain" or "conventional", as opposed to "kinky". And, in that context, i am absolutely not "vanilla" in any way, although i am very good at playing one in public. The relationship that i have with my Master has no "vanilla" in it's background. W/we began O/our relationship as a Master and slave and remain so. Even though W/we do engage in many "vanilla" activities, the heart and soul (background) of O/our relationship is based on O/our mutual BDSM interests and His sadism coupled with my masochism. Can't speak to the Gorean aspect, since i have no real understanding of what Gorean is. slave joy Owned property of Master David

LotusSong -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 7:18:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: topcat M. 96- I think the most important key thing to remember is that there is no such thing as BDSM, or D/S or SM, or whatever you call it. There is no 'scene' Or, to be more clear, there is no one unifed scene- everyone's scene begins and ends at the boundries of their skull. Those that are really lucky find someone who's idea of what this stuff is all about overlaps their own. Stay warm, Lawrence .. the NEXT thing you are going to tell me is Santa and the Easter Bunny dont exist.... aren't cha?? [sm=river.gif]

Evanesce -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 7:41:19 PM)
Ummm... What Celeste said pretty much sums up my opinion on the subject. I'm certainly not vanilla in any sense of the word. I don't even like vanilla flavoring! To say that the Master/slave relationship is, in fact, a relationship, would be accurate. To say it is a vanilla one at its core, would not.

topcat -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 8:30:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: topcat Actually, I'd argue quite the opposite- that all human interactions involve a power differential at some level, and sexual interactions even more so- therefore, I posit that 'vanilla' does not in fact exist... Discuss. There's a distinct difference between a relationship which HAS a power differential within it and a relationship which is BASED UPON having and authority transfer. The latter is what I consider "non vanilla." Dear Liz- *I beg to differ. Any interaction between two persons is, at its base, a power/authority differential, whether it is recognised or not. Defining it or recognising it is detail.* Stay warm, Lawrence

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 9:18:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: topcat Dear Liz- *I beg to differ. Any interaction between two persons is, at its base, a power/authority differential, whether it is recognised or not. Defining it or recognising it is detail.* Stay warm, Lawrence I don't think recognizing it is the difference. I recognize that my mother and I have a certain authority dynamic between us. That doesn't mean our relationship is non-vanilla. What differentiates that from my relationship with my owner was that I based getting into that relationship on there being a specific authority dynamic. If the authority dynamic between my mother and I changed, we'd still be mother and daughter. If the authority dynamic changed between my partner and I, we'd still be partners. Our relationship is based on vanilla dynamics. If the authority dynamic had changed between my owner and myself, the relationship would cease to exist.

BitaTruble -> RE: BDSM 101 (2/21/2007 9:34:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: topcat Dear Liz- *I beg to differ. Any interaction between two persons is, at its base, a power/authority differential, whether it is recognised or not. Defining it or recognising it is detail.* I'm not LA, but I do disagree with this completely. Most of my interactions with others do not have a base of power/authority. The base of the vast majority of my interactions is friendship. One of my best friends in CA is a male submissive. We'd take turns picking out movies to watch together (although sometimes we just flip a coin when neither of us could decide what we'd rather do [:D]) choosing where we'd go to eat, we were respectful of the other when one was speaking, we bounced ideas off of each other and planned surprises for our dominants together .. no power/authority dynamic at all. It was an equal and interative relationship in all it's aspects and that is typical of those I call friend. Celeste

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125