Keeping it vanilla at the beginning...

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

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

Message

hejira92 -> Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 2:18:05 PM)
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?

persephonee -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 2:30:22 PM)
For me, i think that they mean to not go directly into a hardcore sexually charged D/s exchange. i prefer to get to know the man even briefly as someone i would meet on the street and see if at the base of it all we are compatible that way before seeing if the heat is on in the D/s dept. Once that switch is flipped, im only able to concentrate on that aspect...but im unruly and way too "sexually charged".[:D]

CruelDesires -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 2:35:37 PM)
Get to know the person before you unleash the kink? :-) C-D

mangle -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 2:36:17 PM)
I guess I would interpert it to prett much mean that they did not want any 'play' involved to start with...Play meaning scenes and such. I guess lol. Like you, it's not something that I can easily wrap my mind around because submissive is just who I am always; I start that way and I end that way.

Subductrssss -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 2:44:28 PM)
For me and for me only it means that I do not expect to be forced to make a choice of "Let me handcuff you now or all talking is over". For me it is probably sex and probably hard forceful sex but knowing that I won't find myself having to fight my way out of being bound or gagged. Pull my hair, pound into me, take me higher and higher but please don't make me think that You cannot control Yourself in the play aspect until we take that aspect of the relationship further.

Rogue86 -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 2:45:15 PM)
An informed submissive protects his or herself by knowing the nature of the One to whom they submit. An informed Dominant does something similar. It is not only physical harm, but emotional harm that can come from jumping into things without knowing what you're getting into. Sure, there are those who play right from the get-go. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, as long as you've done some homework and taken steps to remain safe - i.e. playing in public, or letting a friend in the life know where you are and when you'll check in. I"ll admit I"m always amazed by those who are willing to go "no limits, balls-to-the-wall with someone they haven't really gotten to know yet. Then there are those for whom BDSM is less sexual, where sex - vanilla or not - is not an option or the focus of what they seek.

LadyLupineNYC -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 2:52:30 PM)
When my boy and I first started talking he was still station in Iraq, had never ‘submitted’ before (he did have some ‘failed’ interaction with professionals in Germany, but just enough to know he wanted a LOT more), and was, to be honest, terrified. The very first phone call he made to me, after having walked 20 mins from one end of his base to another was both nerve-racking and not private. So I kept it ‘vanilla’, as I would during all of our conversation while he was in Iraq and later when we reconnected when he was back in KS (though by then we did discuss kink a LOT more, mostly to check for compatibility). I did it for a variety of reasons: I knew he would have no privacy while in Iraq, so trying to get him to have an open conversation was going to be a lost cause and we were limited on time as it was (we did IM and email everyday so anything more ‘kink’ was addressed in those communications, not that was still not most of our conversations); secondly, I wanted him to see me as a ‘person’ before he saw me as ‘Mistress’ (something I feel more s-types need to understand esp. when they are new); third, I am just not that ‘type’ of Domme, I had no need to order him around as he was naturally very submissive towards me and I was naturally very dominant- acting any way overtly kinky towards each other would have seemed play acting as so most of out conversations in that area were, and somewhat still are) more philosophical.

impishlilhellcat -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 2:54:34 PM)
For me my whole life isn't kink. I do tend to have those boring vanilla moments (basically the everyday and mundane types of things) and so typically I like to see how someone fits into my life in all dynamics. I like to see how I connect with the other person intellectually, how we connect on a kink level, how we fit together in everyday life etc... But I guess that I would interpret it as starting off slow. Basically dating before jumping into anything hot and heavy and seeing how the two people involved connect with each other on a basic raw level. For example it's possible to connect with someone on a sexual, but not on an intellectual level. It is possible to connect with someone on kinky level, but not all aspects of our lives consist of being kinky or D/s related. While the underlying is always there and while someone may always be submissive there are aspects in their life where eventually they are going to have to step up and take control of something whether it be job related, child related etc.... Some people are complete messes in their every day life and some are in complete total control maybe by starting off in a vanilla way it's easier to get a feel for what you are getting into rather than finding out later on.

lateralist1 -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 3:35:47 PM)
I think my experience has told me not to go into sex or BDSM until I find out if I can connect on an intellectual level and as a vanilla D/s couple. It was ok when all I wanted was one night stands but it's not ok now I am looking for a ltr. Problem is it's very easy for people to cover up so it takes a long time. Also people change with experience and if that isn't with me then I can't stop them going into things that I would never have taken them into. Basically I think what I'm saying is that there just isn't a way unless a sub is prepared to give our relationship a lot of time with no other dominant's influence.

kallisto -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 3:41:41 PM)
If I'm not compatible with a man on every day issues, I won't be compatible with him in a D/s relationship. There has to be that mental/emotional/interllectual connection.

mypassion -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 4:16:05 PM)
No offense, but in my opinion submitting right off the bat to a person you are just meeting is completely ridiculous and dangerous. First off, a person may be submissive but they still have thoughts, ideals and beliefs of their own. So if you submit to a Dom from the get go how can you possibly know if their thoughts/ideals/beliefs are anywhere near compatible with yours? Where is the time to judge whether this person is worthy of my respect and submission if I am submitting to them before I even know them? And secondly its down right dangerous, depending on the level of submission we are talking here. Think about it... You meet somebody on CM and decide to go out for a cup of coffee and as soon as you meet you are willing to submit to this person? Really? Or even in real life... You meet somebody at work and find out that not only are they cute they are dominate and BAM! you must submit.... Seriously? Like I said, no offense intended... This just simply baffles me. passion

SlyStone -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 5:19:31 PM)
"submitting right off the bat to a person you are just meeting is completely ridiculous and dangerous." That is a very pc thing to say but the reality is it happens all the time, and while it may or may not turn out to be completely ridiculous it is probably far less dangerous than going home with someone you meet in a bar for some good old fashioned commitment free sex. I think the question is, what does it mean to you to submit. Is it an act of sexuality or is it an emotional offering, is it a form of play or is it a prelude to a lifetime commitment, is it limitless trust or is it trust offered with caveat, and finally is it an act of will or is it a leap of faith? My take is that people who have chatted online and or on the phone and who have than met for coffee can and may be perfectly ready to engage in a bdsm dynamic. It all depends what you are looking for and how sacred you may hold your submission to be. I see nothing wrong with the OP saying that she accepted the d/s dynamic from the start and went from there because people can grow and people can change, but if we believe the dominant and submissive state (including all the shades of gray that lie in between) to be a natural state of being, than that is the one thing that will not change. So for me it makes perfect sense for those inclined to start from there and work their way up, or down :) whatever the case may be.

tweedydaddy -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 5:20:58 PM)
I had vanilla sex with scores of women before I came to this lifestyle, didn't get to know any of them at all worth a damn. Why in Heaven's name would anyone want to keep things vanilla? The boredom will kill you!

VivaciousSub -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 5:25:50 PM)
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? It makes perfect sense to me. I interpret as "seeing if Y/you are compatible with each other on a variety of levels". I don't date "vanilla" for awhile, but for instance my Sir and I met up and did stuff together a couple of times before we started anything sexual. Our roles were clear from the beginning - hell, we met through CM - but even as a submissive I can choose not to remain in the relationship due to lack of common interests/enjoyment of each other's company.

OsideGirl -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 6:00:22 PM)
I kept it vanilla until I was comfortable enough to bring D/s into it. 1) I tend to be more dominant than most Dominants. I have no interest in being with someone that is weaker than I am. That isn't something that's always clear the moment you meet. Sometimes it takes several dates to determine that. 2) If I haven't even decided if I like you enough for a second date, why would I behave in a manner that makes you believe that I like you enough to be submissive towards you. 3) I believe that if you behave like a submissive and then you decide that you don't want to go on another date with that person....you're sending mixed signals. I think keeping it vanila for awhile cuts down on mixed signals and false hopes. I think keeping it vanilla means that we're focused on learning who each other is and deciding if we like each other. I think the euphoria of D/s and kinky sex is the prime reason why so many people in the community have revolving door relationships. After 90 days the glow wears off and they figure out that they really don't like the person they're with.

silkncarol -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 6:00:24 PM)
I'm with you on this idea too....i want to know the Man....what he thinks, how he feels on many different levels. Since we are who we are, the D/s dynamic will be there .....even if we chose to wait before jumping into the sexual and BDSM side of the relationship. quote: ORIGINAL: kallisto If I'm not compatible with a man on every day issues, I won't be compatible with him in a D/s relationship. There has to be that mental/emotional/interllectual connection.

mypassion -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 6:17:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlyStone That is a very pc thing to say but the reality is it happens all the time, and while it may or may not turn out to be completely ridiculous it is probably far less dangerous than going home with someone you meet in a bar for some good old fashioned commitment free sex. By saying that submitting to somebody you're just meeting can be dangerous I wasn't at all trying to say that it is or isn't more dangerous than a vanilla person sleeping with somebody the first time they meet. I was simply saying that it is dangerous. Period. And also submitting doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sex... So really, comparing submitting right away to having sex on a first meeting is basically saying that all submission is sexually based. Which simply isn't the case. While submission may be synonymous to sex for some for others that is not true. So your comparison, in my opinion, is making a way too generalized statement of what submission is. So because of that I see it as comparing apples to oranges. Submission is different for everybody. While the OP has her opinion and is comfortable submitting right away. I obviously disagree. passion

DesFIP -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 6:52:06 PM)
For me it meant that I wanted to be friends first, not just go straight to the kinky sex. Sure the kinky sex is pretty fantastic but I don't do casual sex. I wanted a relationship and to be honest, very little of our time is spent with the toy bag out. Most of it is spent doing normal stuff, watching a soccer game, going grocery shopping, talking about our day. If that normal everyday connection wasn't there, then why bother taking off my clothes?

sravaka -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 7:34:15 PM)
I think there's a middle ground between jumping promptly into "play" and keeping every hint of one's submissiveness or dominance tightly wrapped up and out of sight. While I tend to prefer that early meetings/activities be ostensibly "vanilla"... I also want to know that the person is in fact what he claims to be. Some of that comes from what he reports about himself, but I also want to feel a kind of D/s spark (tangled up with but distinct from a spark of mutual attraction). It might be there in little things, a tone or a look, e.g.... but whatever it is, it creates an answering submissive response in me. If that's not there, there's not a lot of point in spending 10 dates learning all about his childhood or what books he likes to read, except for purposes of gaining friends. But if the spark is there, it's reassuring if the D/s deepens gradually and organically, just as the other kind of getting-to-know-you inevitably progresses gradually. It's not much different from moving from polite conversation to flirting to intimacy in a vanilla connection. --sravaka

kallisto -> RE: Keeping it vanilla at the beginning... (10/4/2008 8:04:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka I also want to know that the person is in fact what he claims to be. Some of that comes from what he reports about himself, but I also want to feel a kind of D/s spark (tangled up with but distinct from a spark of mutual attraction). It might be there in little things, a tone or a look, e.g.... but whatever it is, it creates an answering submissive response in me. --sravaka Agreed. I think that comes with the compatibility thing.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625