RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning...

RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (Full Version)

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

Message

dreamysubmale -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 9:46:51 PM)
Know the person first. You don’t want to find yourself attached to someone who you can no longer stand and is nothing like the person you thought he/she was when first attracted to. So, what then? Kink alone, doesn’t take care of the other problems in the relationship (such as money, sex etc).

Spool -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 10:09:01 PM)
I wrote this to a submissive whose profile seemed based more in fantasy than reality, but I feel it applies to the original message... One thing I never really get in the BDSM world - this idea that two strangers can hit it off and live happily ever after. Maybe the perception is the dominant will recreate the submissive as he sees fit. I have to call B.S. to this idea - the best you can get by "recreating" someone is a doormat or a robot. (I acknowledge this may be what some people want, both dominant and submissive - NOT ME) I don't care if it is bdsm or vanilla, there has to be some kind of mutual spark and time and room for that spark to grow into something with the potential to be healthy and lasting. Without this, I see a "sweet, beautiful, optimistic" girl becoming a "disenchanted, beautiful, bitter" girl over the next few years and remaining that way until she rediscovers herself around 40. I wish you luck - but please, for your own sake, consider your friends who have the healthiest relationships. Remember the time it took for those relationships to grow. Think about the reality involved between them, how they relate with each other in the real non-fantasy world. Choose your prince wisely.

MsMillgrove -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 10:21:24 PM)
I hate the word "vanilla", because it seems to mean something different to everyone. When you come to CM as I have.. to look for a potential sub for a d/s relationship, there seems to be so much "romance" here. Everyone seems to be looking for the total package--the wife, the lover, the lifelong partner in kink. Is there no room for someone like me who wants to be a mistress. Who wants a submissive Only. Not a lover. Not a husband. I don't want to "date". I want to meet and exchange thoughts. Do you like how I look? Do i like the way you present yourself? Of course I don't want to play with you--the potential sub I meet here. I hardly know you. I hate the idea of playing with total strangers. Twice under the supervision of a mentor domme I have flogged a total stranger and it made me feel terrible. I wanted to learn the technique, but practicing on a stranger made me almost ill. Why is this experience of meeting someone, visiting together defined as "vanilla"? When new neighbors come.. we greet them and visit. We get to know each other. That's all I want to do with a sub candidate. I want to see the person as a sub. How can I do this if I am addressed by my first name and treated as tho we met through match.com? Trust comes slowly, built through a long time of shared experiences, many that are not "play", not kink. Through non-kink shared experiences we begin to have private jokes and words and glances that have meaning only to us. That is intimacy, even more so to me than some sex act. That is a d/s dynamic. Am I in some tiny minority here? I feel it is so.

LadyPact -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/5/2008 2:37:53 AM)
My greetings to your Master. I'm probably the worst person to respond to this OP, because I am literally both. In clip's case, we met as Top and bottom. The D/s developed from there. With bleaux, we started as friends first. The D/s came later. Which is better than the other, I can't say. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Personally, I don't date vanilla. I don't see the point in it. If I did, I'd be spending My time on AFF.

SlayerZ -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/5/2008 4:35:49 AM)
This totally makes sense to me. I don't think it's a waste of time dedicated a set parameter of time to form a vanilla bond. With any healthy relationship you have to lay a certain amount of groundwork. In my eyes it's an integral part of any relationship. It doesn't really matter what the groundwork is made of, as long as it's there and that it exist I mean, if you have every intention of delving into a BDSM-D/s relationship with something that you want to hold longevity then it wouldn't hurt anyone to put a cap on it, get to know one another, develop and forge an emotional relationship. Personally I couldnt have a relationship (a vanilla one or a D/s) with someone who I didn't care for and for whom I didn't share any type of bond emotional or spiritual bond with. (Struggles to resists the bond/age play on words...)

Mercnbeth -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/5/2008 6:16:09 AM)
this slave interprets the term "vanilla" to mean "not alternative". for this slave, vanilla isn't a terms she uses to describe daily activities...it is a term used to describe the contrast between different versions of relationship dynamics, sexual proclivities, music, financial instruments, information technology, etc., with value judgment reserved only for how that relates to self, not others or their choices. to her, "keeping it vanilla...in the beginning", means it will be the standard version of a relationship as our society views it. all of the standard societal norms and mores of an egalitarian relationship are upheld with regards to the relationship of the two people involved---they might even have kinky sex--- but the relationship or interactions of those involved are not those of an alternative style relationship (D/s, M/s, Gorean, poly, etc.) "vanilla" for this slave translates into "not compatible"...even in the beginning. ~ FAST REPLY ~ Edited to add from Merc: So, you meet on a kinky website, with a reasonable expectation that you're going to contact or be contacted by like minded individuals. You actually make contact with that expectation, meet, have a connection and decide to move forward. Then you want to "keep it vanilla" at the beginning expecting an emotional/mental relationship to develop, perhaps including some physical intercourse. Then, once all involved, after establishing the first buds of a relationship - you want to change the dynamic to include some aspect of WIITWD. Do you think that is reasonable? Wouldn't that point where the relationship changes be the same as if you were starting another brand new relationship? By definition you'd be starting a new dynamic. Whether vanilla or 'flavored' being honest and representing yourself and your desires clearly has a better chance of success than putting on a facade in order to deceive a potential partner. Whether you desire 24/7 or 1/2 hour every time February 29th shows up - tell the truth. Have some personal integrity and represent yourself and your desires honestly. Someone is going to get hurt if you lure them in expecting them to change or you to change them. If you are 'vanilla' - be vanilla. If you are flavored disclose and try out the flavors to make sure your partner has similar tastes from the get go. Take it as fast or as slow as comfortable; but don't pretend. It may insure short term success but it also assures long term failure.

NuevaVida -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/5/2008 8:19:09 AM)
Hi hejira, I think like you do on this (big surprise). And, unlike what some have alluded to here, this doesn't mean I am fully and completely submitting to a man the first time we go out. But for me, I have to feel an attitude/mindset of submissiveness to the man before I'll go out with him in the first place. So there is no "only vanilla" at first. There is "potential D/s" at first. Through that mindset, I can still learn about who he is, as he can about me. He is not instructing me (necessarily) to do this or that, but we both feel and acknowledge what is happening. And what we do with that feeling can differ to various degrees, depending on the person and when we meet, etc. As with the man I am seeing now, we talk about everything under the sun. When together, we played but we also just hung out, watched movies, laughed, ate...All throughout, there was an obvious connection of "dominant one" and "submissive one", whether we were doing anything BDSM'y or not. Without that kind of connection, I would probably not be so inclined to pursue the relationship to see if there was something we wanted to build on at a more committed level.

SlyStone -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/5/2008 8:27:42 AM)
"So really, comparing submitting right away to having sex on a first meeting is basically saying that all submission is sexually based." Actually I do think that all submission in the context of bdsm is sexually based, ie it is an expression of at least some part of human sexuality. But that is an arguement for another thread. This is not directed at anyone in particular, just an observation: I think this idea that one should wait months before beginning a bdsm relationship mistakenly regards the bdsm dynamic as somehow more meaningful than a vanilla relationship. In my opinion this belief is far more likely to cause a d/s relationship to fail, as opposed to a lack of a vanilla foundation.

hejira92 -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/5/2008 11:25:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth this slave interprets the term "vanilla" to mean "not alternative". for this slave, vanilla isn't a terms she uses to describe daily activities...it is a term used to describe the contrast between different versions of relationship dynamics, sexual proclivities, music, financial instruments, information technology, etc., with value judgment reserved only for how that relates to self, not others or their choices. to her, "keeping it vanilla...in the beginning", means it will be the standard version of a relationship as our society views it. all of the standard societal norms and mores of an egalitarian relationship are upheld with regards to the relationship of the two people involved---they might even have kinky sex--- but the relationship or interactions of those involved are not those of an alternative style relationship (D/s, M/s, Gorean, poly, etc.) "vanilla" for this slave translates into "not compatible"...even in the beginning. ~ FAST REPLY ~ Edited to add from Merc: So, you meet on a kinky website, with a reasonable expectation that you're going to contact or be contacted by like minded individuals. You actually make contact with that expectation, meet, have a connection and decide to move forward. Then you want to "keep it vanilla" at the beginning expecting an emotional/mental relationship to develop, perhaps including some physical intercourse. Then, once all involved, after establishing the first buds of a relationship - you want to change the dynamic to include some aspect of WIITWD. Do you think that is reasonable? Wouldn't that point where the relationship changes be the same as if you were starting another brand new relationship? By definition you'd be starting a new dynamic. Whether vanilla or 'flavored' being honest and representing yourself and your desires clearly has a better chance of success than putting on a facade in order to deceive a potential partner. Whether you desire 24/7 or 1/2 hour every time February 29th shows up - tell the truth. Have some personal integrity and represent yourself and your desires honestly. Someone is going to get hurt if you lure them in expecting them to change or you to change them. If you are 'vanilla' - be vanilla. If you are flavored disclose and try out the flavors to make sure your partner has similar tastes from the get go. Take it as fast or as slow as comfortable; but don't pretend. It may insure short term success but it also assures long term failure. Thank you, both of you, for summing it up in a way I was unable to in the OP. I wasn't talking about taking dangerous chances with strangers. I wasn't talking about getting to know one another in all aspects of life. I was talking about the basic relationship dynamic. Master is a friendly, well-mannered man. He also has quite a strong, powerful personal presense, when He chooses to show it. He once met someone off yahoo who claimed an interest in the lifestyle, so He was cautious and "vanilla" on their date. Turned out she was was an ex-houseslave of an older couple and she didnt want to see Him again because He wasn't "dominant" enough for her. Wow- what a wrong judgment on her part! (And much to my benefit....) He let His power show from the minute we made contact on cm. And then, when we did meet face to face- I was almost blown away by His presense; I knew this was someone who could handle me. I didn't go home with Him, I didn't submit physically, but we knew, from the first moment, who we were and what our roles in the relationship would be, if it progressed. Mercandbeth- thank you for getting it. And NuevaVida, as you said- big surprise we're on the same page. [:D] Love you, girl.

mypassion -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/5/2008 8:09:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlyStone Actually I do think that all submission in the context of bdsm is sexually based, ie it is an expression of at least some part of human sexuality. But that is an arguement for another thread. This is not directed at anyone in particular, just an observation: I think this idea that one should wait months before beginning a bdsm relationship mistakenly regards the bdsm dynamic as somehow more meaningful than a vanilla relationship. In my opinion this belief is far more likely to cause a d/s relationship to fail, as opposed to a lack of a vanilla foundation. I disagree. That's really all there is to it. And personally I do feel that, for me at least, a D/s relationship goes deeper than a vanilla one does. Like I said this is just me but D/s requires me to go deeper into myself, let go of my sometimes obsessive self-control and just be.... Without having to hide. So yeah, I think that is deeper than vanilla. And honestly if it's not deeper than a vanilla relationship (to us who practice D/s) why can't we be satisfied with vanilla? If vanilla is just as good for us why do we need more?

Marion001 -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/5/2008 8:34:35 PM)
keeping it vanilla in the beginning. if you meet your partner in a non bdsm environment and know that they have an interest but no real experience or very little it is wise to be vanilla. in a relationship like that now actually. live in an area which finding active community members is rather hard, so i have to go will the next best thing...a beginner who is full of enthusiasm but is still a touch skittish...

DesFIP -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/6/2008 3:37:47 AM)
I had a couple of one night stands in college. But that's a long time ago and these days I'd rather go without than have sex outside of a strong relationship. In order to have a relationship I need to know that we share moral values, among other compatibilities. He can exert his dominance without us getting naked with such things as choosing where to eat, what to do, which movie to see etc. So we focused on becoming friends first since both of us wanted that.

marieToo -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/6/2008 3:59:05 AM)
It certainly wouldn't work for me, since I have no interest in a relationship that doesn't involve a ds foundation, even from the start. There are others however, who can enjoy both or either (vanilla or ds) And not every bdsm person needs bdsm all the time to enjoy their sex life. In fact I have known bdsmers who say they also enjoy, even prefer "vanilla sex" at times. While this wouldn't work for me, I can understand how someone may want to start out without the complications that ds can sometimes involve, in favor of a more mild start while getting to know the person better. Plenty of people can and have transformed from vanilla to ds in their relationships. Some people can be happy either way. Ds isn't necessarily a "must-have" for every person with every partner.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/6/2008 5:50:12 AM)
The bottom line question is "how is that working for you"? If holding back and going slower, introducing the D/s a bit at time results in better relationships then do it. If offering your soul up on the first date works well then you know your answer. For me, either path at the extremes would turn me off and would not work for me. I want to see her reaction to my dominance from the get go but I sure as hell want to know that the vanilla parts of my life mesh as well. Frankly, that is why I fell so fast for BSB is that the submission she offered me inflamed my passions and the vanilla life she created for herself makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. If either of those had been missing or withheld I might not have fallen for her so hard.

SlyStone -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/6/2008 5:06:24 PM)
quote: I think that is deeper than vanilla. And honestly if it's not deeper than a vanilla relationship (to us who practice D/s) why can't we be satisfied with vanilla? If vanilla is just as good for us why do we need more? I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with depth of meaning, it is that some of us are wired differently from others and are therefore drawn to D/s. D/s is not better or deeper or more meaningful than any other human interaction, it's just different. That's all.

WestBaySlave -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/6/2008 5:34:58 PM)
I find this thread interesting as, during my short time in the scene, I've gone from very submissive to a more vanilla approach initially, often having to asert myself with dominants who want more submission up-front. There are a few reasons, one of which is that I'd want to get to know someone before pursuing any kind of relationship, let alone the master/slave type of situation I'm looking for. Because of this, I often run into difficulty if I'm too submissive up front. I don't want a "cyber master" or to submit to someone long distance, but because my target is small niche of a small nice of a sexual minority, the internet is my main resource in finding potential masters. However, once I was in a relationship - even the beginnings of one - then I'd have no reason to be "vanilla" at all, it's just not something I'm going to give anonymously from thousands of miles away.

HornyToadsMI -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/6/2008 6:06:07 PM)
Some of us started in a vanilla marriage, that evolved into a more. Power exchange is not limited to D/s, but is everywhere. We tried to be "balanced equals" in our marriage....and it is just natural for us to be Him/me. :) quote: ORIGINAL: hejira92 I read on another thread (and have seen many times before) someone saying they wanted to "keep it vanilla" for a while in a new relationship to see if they liked this person, etc, blah, blah. I don't understand. If I wanted to date vanilla, I would. Do they mean they will not have sex? Or they will not have kinky sex right away? For me, when I was dating in BDSM (it's been a few years now), I needed to find out how we related in a D/s way- that was much more important, as that is what I was lookng for. When Master and I first met- we were just that- He was Dominant and I was submissive. We began as we would go on. We didn't have sex right away- His choice [:)]- but ours roles were extremely clear and, anyway, the dynamic encompasses so much more than sex. If you get along in a vanilla way, how could you possibly transfer that knowledge into a power exchange dynamic? People can be totally different when there is no dynamic. How do you interpret this phrase, and does it make sense to you?

Owner4SexSlave -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/6/2008 6:07:58 PM)
For me it simply means being comfortable and getting to know somebody before bringing D/s and the deeper levels of connection into the picture. Getting to know somebody for who and what they are first instead of trying to rush or force a D/s relationship along too early.

Stroke -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/6/2008 6:12:58 PM)
Sure. Why not? Keep it vanilla as far as the BDSM goes. After all a D/s or M/s relationship is not about sex or the BDSM aspects. It is about control. I would think that what the sub/slave needs to know is whether he can control her the way she needs to be. Can he make her feel that tingling in her belly when he commands her? Once the basis of the relationship has been made clear that the compatibility is there, the rest will happen naturally.

mypassion -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/7/2008 8:06:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlyStone I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with depth of meaning, it is that some of us are wired differently from others and are therefore drawn to D/s. D/s is not better or deeper or more meaningful than any other human interaction, it's just different. That's all. My views and opinions are strictly my own and therefore do no apply to anybody else. Honey, I disagree. It's as simple as that.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.203125