RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (Full Version)

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



Message


nephandi -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 10:00:10 AM)

Vanilla is a term to mean that a person have completly common, unflavord sexsual tastes, no kinks, no roles sosiety find unusual, no nothing. So no i would not call Gor vanilla.




juliaoceania -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 10:33:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nephandi

Vanilla is a term to mean that a person have completly common, unflavord sexsual tastes, no kinks, no roles sosiety find unusual, no nothing. So no i would not call Gor vanilla.


I know only one person that I have been with intimately that had no kinks or fetishes (ones he talked about anyways[:D]). My close female friends all have had kinks and liked role play (the vanilla ones). Most people have kinky fantasies, role play, and are sexually imaginative at times.. so the vast majority of people are probably not vanilla.




SimplyMichael -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 10:33:17 AM)

Merc,

I am not trying to define labels nor judge anything.  I am trying to discuss the concept that at their core, our relationships are no different than any others, with the one exception (and it isn't always even an exception) that we openly discuss what sort of power exchange or even lack of one we plan on basing the relationship on.  In other words, what we do isn't different only that we have words and openly discuss the power dynamic because we have a language for it.




dawntreader -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 10:38:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorelei115

What it is that we do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIITWD


Thankyou !




Mercnbeth -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 10:47:12 AM)

quote:

In other words, what we do isn't different only that we have words and openly discuss the power dynamic because we have a language for it.


Mike,
In complete agreement but do you think based upon the responses, that point was understood?

I used this on a post recently; "England and the USA, two great societies separated by a common language." I'm sure it's not an exact quote and I forgot who originally said it; (Churchill?) but it can be applied to the point you are making. In total we are; " A community separated by uncommon definitions".

However, it seems to matter more in the on-line community. I've rarely, if ever, come across it outside on-line banter. Maybe its because at clubs, munches, parties, or just meeting people the conversation rarely covers terms or labels? We were at a munch last night with 30+ people hooked up, or trying to be, and no disclosure of orientation was required. There was no hand out providing definitions.

Begging the question, why does it seem so important on-line?




SimplyMichael -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 10:50:40 AM)

Merc,

Because in the real world, actions speak louder than words and the inverse is true online.  But people, PLEASE lets not go down that path!  I want to keep this focused on relationships. 

Michael




denika -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 10:59:42 AM)

Rob and I are one of the weird ones with an equal marriage, at least for the past 15 years. No one person had any more authority ot power over the other we make choices together. We are far from vanilla tho *s* even before I started to explore my SM side we started from day one with the understanding that neither of us were monogomous minded and went from there.   With time and experience Rob is slowly getting a bit more comfortable in taking a leadership role in our relationship. Are we any 'kinkier' than when we were not participating in BDSM?  I think that would depend on a persons definition of kink.

I can't make a comment about Gor since I couldn't even get past the first two pages, I'm sorry but they are poorly written. Please don't flame me, it's just a personal opinion of the writing and story structure.


denika




Stephann -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 1:06:46 PM)

Micheal and others,

Good topic and questions.  First, I'll briefly say that the semantics and label rejection shouldn't be a problem on this topic, as long as everyone is specific in their points.  I remember LA mentioning once how symbols have power, and I took it to heart.  Labels are symbols, even if they don't have the same impact on everyone, it doesn't detract from the intent of the user.  With this in mind, the symbolic 'vanilla' relationship I will refer to as a relationship between two (or more) people that are not BDSM/D/s/M/s/Gor/AlphabetSoup aware.  Dominance and submission exist in both quantities in all relationships whether the participants are aware of these factors or not; when we breath air, we're taking in 78% nitrogen whether we know it or not.

D/s existing in all relationships is expressed differently, by different people.  The vanilla man you mentioned shows the impact of a man who appears to be generally submissive to his wife.  This doesn't mean he is incapble of dominance; if he has people working under him, they must naturally respect his authority.  It means that in his relationship with the woman he loves, he is submissive to her.  It is not impossible to conceive that should he subsequently marry another, much more submissive woman, that he would assume a dominant role.  We don't necessarily set out to 'be' more dominant or submissive, especially if we are unaware of these dynamics.  Most people will live and die without learning the terminology that we use daily on these boards; yet somehow manage to muddle through, and find happiness in the same way we muddle through life only knowing one word for 'snow.' 

I am of the opinion that when we come to understand how these forces influence our lives, we assert a greater deal of control over them in the same way that we can assert control over our own bodies through diet and exercise.  A similar example might be the realization for a person that they are homosexual, well into their 20s, 30s, or 40s.  Odds are, those feelings were always dormant, but lack of attention paid to sexual preferences doesn't not necessarily mean those preferences do not influence our actions.  I know from my personal experiences, understanding how dominance and submission impacts all relationships, I have a better understanding of why people react the way they do to other people.  It's worth mentioning, that I am not speaking strictly of romantic relationships, but all relationships in general; the private dentist/patient relationship is worth looking it, as on one hand the dentist is in an authoritarian role, but at the same time in a 'customer service' role.  These are, on the surface, conflicting expectations socially (and a good reason why medical professions often employ secretaries and nurses to 'bully' patients into co-operating.)  I remember one dentist well, who was consistently did not use enough local pain medication, even after we'd spoken of the issue twice, and I eventually changed dentists.  His professional opinion was that less local anesthesia was better during said root canal, which conflicted with my expectation he provide acceptable customer service.

I can't agree that the relationship is based on the expectation of authority.  Vanilla folk don't usually enter a relationship with a clearly formed intention of asserting or deferring to authority.  Non-Vanilla folk i.e. those familiar with WIITWD will likely have some concept of how authority will impact their relationship, be it giving, receiving, exchanging, borrowing, selling, or playing rock-paper-scissors for it but the inherent awareness of how authority exchange will impact their interaction gives them a base from which to draw from.  Authority exchange needn't be a focal point for a relationship to be successful; personally, I think successful relationship derive from exchanges of more personal elements, such as mutual interests, compatible goals, musical/artistic/literature/cultural tastes, shared activities, and a whole host of other non-sexual, non-D/s, non-Gorean, non-BDSM, non-Campbell's Soup influenced issues. 

A quick note on online verses offline; it would seem that online, we tend to explore the theory behind relationships in far greater detail than we would in a typical public conversation.  This seems to hold true for many types of conversations that we wouldn't likely have with people who were not close friends, and not just on WIITWD topics.  I simply don't have a large enough pool of real life, kink aware friends to be able to engage in these sorts of conversations with; thus I enjoy them here.  In large part, much of what I write is for the purpose of forcing my mind to the task, so that I might understand an element or aspect of that concept better.  That my ramblings have any value to the public or community at large ends up only being a bonus. 

Stephan




LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 1:08:56 PM)

I forgot your great long posts :)




Wulfchyld -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 1:19:39 PM)

~Quicky~

Do you think WIITWD is any different than WIITWW?

WIITWD is an acronym that cliques us into a group of like minded people. Here, on this site, we can clique into smaller cliques based on our clear interests. I am a M/s TPE person that has occasional lapses into sadism. Yet it is not sadism that I am here for. It is the 24/7 TPE. The sadism occasionally intrigues me, but I prefer the mind fuck of captivity, kidnap, and interrogation play. My most, common, tyrannical acts of sadism would be spanking that ass while nailing her on her hands and knees. I revel in sensation, not just pain.

WIITWW is an acronym that cliques people together as well. We splinter into our smaller groups based on Armani, J.C. Penny, Levi Straus, Wal-Mart rack wear, etc… Some makes you squick and others just fascinate you.

WIITWD will often marry WIITWW and becomes clear at events and play parties. The Goreans will clique based on WIITWW tells others WIITWD, same with age play, infant play, leather, etc…

As much as people protest the label… it is ever present.




AZSweetie -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 1:45:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

I am trying to discuss the concept that at their core, our relationships are no different than any others, with the one exception (and it isn't always even an exception) that we openly discuss what sort of power exchange or even lack of one we plan on basing the relationship on.  In other words, what we do isn't different only that we have words and openly discuss the power dynamic because we have a language for it.


WIITWD is no different than What It Is That They Do. There may be different dynamics going on in our relationships but there are  dynamics going on in vanilla ones too. While we may sit and have discussions in WIITWD, vanilla folk may be sitting down having their discussions inWIIT THEY Do..LOL! Ya know. i think even in vanilla reltionships there still is some sort of D/s dynamic going on even if its a tad bit. i look at my grandmother and grandfathers relationship. my granny wore the pants in the family and pretty much always made all the decisions. When she passed my grandfather was so lost. It saddened me to see him that way. After 60 years of marriage, all of the things he hadn't done and had to step up to the plate to take on was difficult for him.
So yeah, i dont think WIITWD is any different than vanilla relationships.




Lashra -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 2:22:59 PM)

Hmm dunno but for me my lifestyle is my lifestyle and I frankly don't care what anyone else thinks about it. I am the Mistress hear me roar...

~Lashra




Stephann -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 2:48:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

I forgot your great long posts :)


Confucius say "wise girl no go make wise men blush."

Stephan





gypsygrl -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 3:10:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Where we clearly differ is in negotiating (or at least exploring and understanding consciously) those roles up front rather than just falling into them and I think THAT is what has the potential to make us more healthy and perhaps even though we end up doing the same thing, that is what really sets us apart, not the actual resulting relationship.

So, considering that women used to be property in some cultures, we have vows of "love, honor, and, obey", do people agree and if not, how does WIIWD differ from the roles adopted unconsciously in a vanilla relationship?   I am only talking about the roles, not the actions in a relationship.


In general I agree with you that power dynamics are a characteristic in all relationships, and, except for those strongly committed to gender equality, pretty much the only thing that distinguishes people involved in D/s type relationships is the level of negotiation, communication and awareness of power as a factor in relationships.  There are a couple differences, though.

When I was younger, I hung around with a bunch of folks committed to a radical left agenda and committed to gender equality.  Some of us were straight, some lesbian, some gay, some bi, and some kept changing their mind or wouldn't commit (I fell into the last category).  We all ate brown rice and bean sprouts and none of the women shaved their legs but some of the men did.  And, we all talked about power a lot, both within relationships and as a social/political fact.  The big difference, though, was a commitment to equality.  Within D/s, there isn't that commitment to equality.  In fact, its quite the opposite.

Also, I'm not sure its possible to make a clear distinction between the roles and the actions in all cases.  I understand that some D's are masochists, but, for me at least, I cant distinguish my masochism from my ability to submit.  The actions (those causing pain) reinforces the assymetrical power relationship and, hense, my ability to sumbit.  In addition to being an act of submission: even though I'm a masochist, there's somethings I dont want to do because they hurt, but I do them anyway because I need to submit.  So, at least for me, the actions feed into the roles and further the assymetry, at least in the context of a relationship.  If I'm not feeling the burn, it probably not happening.  Bottomings different.




BitaTruble -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 3:12:51 PM)

quote:

So, considering that women used to be property in some cultures, we have vows of "love, honor, and, obey", do people agree and if not, how does WIIWD differ from the roles adopted unconsciously in a vanilla relationship?  




My answer, there is no difference because the crux of the matter is that one lives the person they are and the relationship they may have with another is simply incidental in that it allows certain freedoms and forms of expression to be understood by another big bag of mostly water. :) I'm a slave, Michael is a Master. We understand one another and appreciate the qualities the other brings to the relationship itself. If Michael and I didn't share this relationship, it would not change the core of either one of us. I don't see this as any different from a vanilla who is also being true to their nature.

Celeste




Stephann -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 3:34:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gypsygrl

When I was younger, I hung around with a bunch of folks committed to a radical left agenda and committed to gender equality.  Some of us were straight, some lesbian, some gay, some bi, and some kept changing their mind or wouldn't commit (I fell into the last category).  We all ate brown rice and bean sprouts and none of the women shaved their legs but some of the men did.  And, we all talked about power a lot, both within relationships and as a social/political fact.  The big difference, though, was a commitment to equality.  Within D/s, there isn't that commitment to equality.  In fact, its quite the opposite.




I'll take a moment to disagree with you, though I don't know if it's the idea or just the way the idea was expressed I am disagreeing with.

D/s represent people who are legally equals, engaging in behavior as if they are not.  No amount of submission relieves a submissive in the US of his/her legal equality.  Thus, D/s represents equality of choice; to decide which sort of person we wish to engage in whatever activities we would like to enjoy.

When I play guitar with a couple friends, they are better.  Far and away better than I am.  I am not their equal, in this skill, and I know it.  Yet I choose to engage in activities with them.  They have no obligation to 'treat me as an equal' - in fact, it would be counter productive and a little insulting if they expected me to perform with the same skill they possess. 

The issue isn't about trying to be equal in all ways; it's about permitting an equal opportunity to be happy.  Happiness comes in many different sizes, shapes, genders, and flavors.  So long as my efforts to be happy do not infringe on other's opportunities to be happy, everyone has the same opportunities.

Take care,

Stephan




gypsygrl -> RE: Is BDSM, D/s, and Gor Vanilla? (2/14/2007 4:24:34 PM)

I was unclear.  I didn't mean to imply that an s-type gives up any civil rights when s/he enters a relationship with a D-type.  And, personally, I'm still committed to a radical left agenda and haven't really altered my opinions in that regard.  Nor have I changed any of my commitments surrounding gender equality as a social/political goal. 

I'm not sure the "inequality" in a D/s-type relationship is necessarily equal people acting as if they weren't.  At some point, depending on the length and intensity of the relationship, differences in power become entrenched and can't be simply revoked.  My ex-husband and I were vanilla, but by the time we separated--his decision--I had lost my ability to be an equal within the context of our relationship (though, when it came to voting and casting my secret ballot, I still went with my conscience.)  It was a slow process, and one we never talked about and we acted as if we were equal, but, in actuality, we weren't.  And, it took me years to get over that with him, even after I moved out of state.  That's why I'm wondering if the roles and the actions can be clearly differientiated.  Some practices seem to have more or less permanent effects. 

I'm not sure what you were getting at with you're discussion of guitar playing.  Differences in talent and discreet skills imply a different kind of inequality than the one I'm talking about. 

I'm not sure there is an issue.  I described a couple issues as they seem relevant to my personal experience.  For me, I can't say its just about equal opportunities for happiness.  If happiness is an issue, its not the only one, and I certainly wouldn't want to reduce things to that.  Not everyone is preoccupied with happiness.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875