Kinked or Mundane?

[Evil_Geoff]

Looks like we're reading from the same composer, more or less. Funny, I used to pride myself on my economy of words in communicating an idea. Along comes Geoff, and leaves me eating his laconic dust.

Wow! I don't think I've been described as laconic before! Heheheheh!
Then again, I pride myself on my short poetry and haiku, so I can see it bleeding over into other areas as well.

 

[JMohegan]

And, JMohegan, when you've collected your notes and interviews from the review board on my "fascinating" viewpoint, let me know if they're feeling like handing out my Piled Higher and Deeper for this contribution.

Finished collecting my notes this weekend, but am too wiped out at the moment to pass them on. Tomorrow or the next day - you have my word.

For now, just a quick note about terminology.

I am a reasonably self-confident person. But I am not so arrogant as to believe that whatever I do in my bedroom trumps whatever anybody else is doing.

And until the day that God Almighty shows up in all of our homes with orgasm and personal satisfaction/happiness meters, measuring all partners and lining everyone up according to style, preference, kink, non-kink, whatever.... I'm gonna avoid terminology that sounds like one flavor of sexuality is bland or dull, and the other more exciting.

I'll work with "nonkinked"; that's about as neutral as I can make it.

I'll work with that, too. Non-D/s, non-BDSM, etc.

Anything else smacks of an arrogance that I just can't stomach.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Sexually:
Mundane = little or no interest in anything beyond missionary, cowgirl, normal oral, or doggy style with single partner
Kinked = enjoys and willing to try other positions, may have multiple partners, can use toys, engages in SM play, etc
Fetish = will ONLY do it in one position or way, or finds other ways distasteful/not pleasurable.

D/s:
Mundane = little or no conscious exchange of power/traditional relationship modelling, most decisions by consensus.
Kinked = Conscious surrender of authority by one partner to the other who consciously accepts and acknowledges that surrender of authority, decisions may be discussed but one person has final yes/no authority.
Fetish = will ONLY maintain the relationship if the power dynamic is followed in all prescribed areas.

How's that?

Pretty simplistic definitions, but I'd have to say on the same track as my own thoughts. I'm not sure how I feel about the term 'mundane' though. I actually like the term 'vanilla' as I think it's more descriptive and less biased. 'Mundane' seems to place a judgement on it in a way that 'vanilla' doesn't.

For me, a relationship that is 100% vanilla just doesn't cut it. Does that mean that within the D/s context, a sexual encounter can't fall under the vanilla umbrella? No, not at all. Vanilla sex acts have their place and their importance. However, even within that, there is still a level of submission that's just there because it is part of who I am.

 

[FurryFury]

To Mikcd,

I think the sort of harassment and intolerance you are engaging in is pretty horrible.

I have found Neonflux's posts to be interesting. Even if I had not it would still piss me off to see anyone pulling this kind of crap on anyone else.

Everyone makes mistakes. This is one of yours. Learn from it and cut it the fuck out.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter,

Fury

 

[BeachGurl2]

To Mikcd,

I think the sort of harassment and intolerance you are engaging in is pretty horrible.

I have found Neonflux's posts to be interesting. Even if I had not it would still piss me off to see anyone pulling this kind of crap on anyone else.

Everyone makes mistakes. This is one of yours. Learn from it and cut it the fuck out.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter,

Fury

You go, girl! I fully agree!!

 

[neonflux]

Sweet FuryFurry and BeachGurl2, thank you

 

[SpectreT]

Any further trolling should be henceforth cheerfully ignored, please. Acknowledgeing them only feeds the yawning black hole of emotional need that prompts such attention seeking.

 

[neonflux]

Any further trolling should be henceforth cheerfully ignored, please. Acknowledgeing them only feeds the yawning black hole of emotional need that prompts such attention seeking.

I absolutely know that you're right, but sometimes there are things that one just needs to day.

 

[JMohegan]

And, JMohegan, when you've collected your notes and interviews from the review board on my "fascinating" viewpoint, let me know if they're feeling like handing out my Piled Higher and Deeper for this contribution.

First off, a quick note on why I contacted the "review board" before responding.

In post 73 on the other thread, you wrote:

From my point of view, what makes one D/S and another Vanilla is that one is conscious of the dynamic from a certain point of view, the other isn't aware of it (the dynamic) at all.

There is an implicit condescension in such an assertion, which you repeat in post 1, above:

I have never seen a relationship that is free of D/S. I have seen many relationsips where the people involved are completely unaware of their D/S dynamic. That lack of awareness makes it Mundane rather than Kinked, as far as I'm concerned.

While speculation is usually harmless, I am generally uncomfortable making assertions based on the idea that I know more about the dynamic of other people's personal relationships than they do.

So I spoke at length to my non-D/s sister and a close non-D/s friend. Their reactions to a few tangible examples (which I'll discuss in my next post) should give you an idea of where the "dividing line" between D/s and non-D/s is for them.

 

[JMohegan]

Example #1: Where do we go on vacation?

From post 73 on the other thread:

Each partner finds their strength in the relationship, and that's what they do......

A friend of mine is awful with money, for one example, so his wife handles the finances. She's got the first and last word on the money. He picks their furniture and vacation spots, because he's got the skills there. I consider that as much a case of "ceding or accepting control" as any overtly BDSM relationship.

I read just this part of your post to the "review board", and asked for their reaction to it. The red and blue text below constitute the responses on vacations from my sister and my friend, respectively.

"I think he is confusing dividing up tasks with handing over control. I have more time and interest in checking out hotels, air fare, etc., so I do this. But the important decision - where we are going, and when - is made jointly. If for some reason we can't agree and I get my way one year, then he gets his way the next. That's taking turns, not ceding control."

"She loves traveling, and wants to decide where she goes on vacation every year. If I want to come, I do. If not, I stay home or go somewhere else. She controls herself, but not me."


Example #2: Fetching that glass of water in the middle of the night.

From post 76 on the other thread:

But with my Dominant (you know, Mr. Right) I find that I'm okay with being expected to do his housekeeping every now and then, or with having to be the one who pads across the freezing tile to get that midnight glass of water.

Again, my sister's response is in red; my friend's is in blue.

"You know I respect you and your relationships, Jack, but there's no way in hell that I'd do this if I was expected to. As a favor, sure. To be nice, no problem. But only if he returns the favor sometimes. It's about taking turns doing nice things for each other, not doing what he tells me to."

"You've gotta be kidding me. This isn't the fifties. Lucky bastard. Where the fuck do you find women who think like this in 2006?"


Example #3: What does she wear?

From post 70 on the other thread:

I do not micromanage a partner's attire, but I do have a few specific rules, such as - no turtlenecks or scarves, and nothing but an occasional, very thin & delicate, necklace worn in my presence.

These are not suggestions. They are rules that I expect to be obeyed.

"You know I've always found this adorably romantic about you, Jack, and if ________ [her husband] expresses a preference for what I wear, I'll almost always try to please him by wearing what he wants. But I do reserve the right to wear what I want if I'm not in the mood to be indulgent. I think that's the difference between ceding control and the alternative. If I'm in the mood, I'll do it. If not, I won't."

"I don't know how you get away with this shit, man. Anything that comes out of my mouth sounding like an order or a rule that she has to follow, and she's just gonna start laughing."


Conclusion

After comparing these responses to the dynamic that has existed in my own relationships, I'd describe the "dividing line" between D/s and non-D/s outside the bedroom as follows.

If the dynamic functions as taking turns, doing favors, and deferring to a partner's authority on a maybe/maybe not basis, then the relationship is non-D/s.

In contrast, if obedience is consistently expected and given in at least one material aspect of the relationship, regardless of mood and inclination on the part of the one who is obeying, then the relationship is D/s.

 

[saw_man1]

.

You are one miserable worthless piece of shit.

 

[SpectreT]

Good points, all, JMohegan. I don't know the people you've interviewed personally, so I can't make any observations based solely on those quotes. I can only ask you to trust me on my observations of the couple I'm discussing. I've known him for years, and when we're alone together, he's still the same guy. On the phone with her, or whenever she and her friends are home, he changes completely. Observations of her, her interactions with others, her reading materials, a thousand little things that individually don't mean anything, but collectively form a mosaic, especially combined with his behavior. There's a strong subconscious D/S dynamic there, at least on his side - I don't know if it's conscious or subconscious on her side. There are rules, he follows them. End of story.

Based on your interviews, and your own observations, your line appears to divide blatant and overt from subtle and covert. To use the glass of water example, eleven times out of ten, my mother would get up and get that glass of water for my father, and become passive-agressive bitchy about how she does "everything", and he doesn't move. "What do the men in this family do?" is an often heard whine. If you told her she was submitting to his will in this (which I've done many times), she'd give something similar to what your sister said in response. To me, it's more important who gets the water than who talks about taking turns and being fair in the relationship, regarding whether I'd say there's a D/S dynamic there. And D/S isn't all one way, either, though these examples make it seem so. Even in D/S, I'd bet the submissive would say that their dominant "does nice things for them", by their own definitions.

It was never my intent to appear condescending (which you've accused me of at least twice), and I (intentionally) haven't given enough information about my friend's relationship to let you know that it's based on a serious, long-term observation, with several "second opinions".

On to the "maybe, maybe not" of taking orders. Every nonkinked relationship I've observed, were I to interview the participants, they'd say they have no compulsion to obey a request (A politely phrased order), but I only see one material difference between that and a kinked (Which is to say, for the purposes of my comments here, overtly D/S) relationship is that the nonkinked takes it on a case by case basis, where the kinked formalizes it and generalizes it. Start watching the cases in that case by case scenario, and see if you find a pattern emerging. (Not that I do so all the time, or consciously. Sometimes an overall impression hits me, and I have to start tracing it back to the things I may have observed. Again, I spend too much time inside my own head.)

And, last point, which I think I've been dancing around. Your interviews captured conscious thoughts regarding overt orders and rules, something completely outside the possibility of being subconscious, and did not involve observed actions and interactions. I was specifically discussing things that one or the other or both people in a relationship aren't aware of, or don't let themselves be aware of. It doesn't matter to me whether Dominant Partner says "Bitch, get me some water." or "Honey, could you get me some water?" Does Bitch/Honey go get the water? Rinse and repeat over the plethora of little things that make up a life, then weigh it out. The scales have never balanced, that I've seen. Somebody's in charge.

One truly final note.

I was a little snarky, with the "review board" comment. As much as you said it wasn't intended in a denigrating way, having three of my posts in a row essentially dismissed with a "fascinating" really bugged me. Charles Manson's mind is "fascinating". The giant hissing cockroach is "fascinating". Things that are ugly and bizarre and need to be picked apart are "fascinating". It bugged me more when you indicated that you needed help to respond to my posts. It felt like you were viewing my thoughts as a strange, disgusting alien concept, and needed a dissection team. Bottom line is, I apologize for any venom in my posts. I'm trying to work though it.

 

[SpectreT]

You are one miserable worthless piece of shit.

please stop feeding the trolls.

 

[JMohegan]

Good points, all, JMohegan. I don't know the people you've interviewed personally, so I can't make any observations based solely on those quotes. I can only ask you to trust me on my observations of the couple I'm discussing. I've known him for years, and when we're alone together, he's still the same guy. On the phone with her, or whenever she and her friends are home, he changes completely. Observations of her, her interactions with others, her reading materials, a thousand little things that individually don't mean anything, but collectively form a mosaic, especially combined with his behavior. There's a strong subconscious D/S dynamic there, at least on his side - I don't know if it's conscious or subconscious on her side. There are rules, he follows them. End of story.

I know lots of couples like this. Guys who defer to their wife or SO in a thousand explicit ways, without ever acknowledging that power has been exchanged.

I also know "D/s" couples in which the cute lil subbie manipulates her partner to such an extent that the alleged dynamic of the relationship is clearly reversed.

If your observation had been that many couples profess a dynamic that does not play out de facto, then I would have immediately agreed 100%.

Based on your interviews, and your own observations, your line appears to divide blatant and overt from subtle and covert. To use the glass of water example, eleven times out of ten, my mother would get up and get that glass of water for my father, and become passive-agressive bitchy about how she does "everything", and he doesn't move. "What do the men in this family do?" is an often heard whine. If you told her she was submitting to his will in this (which I've done many times), she'd give something similar to what your sister said in response. To me, it's more important who gets the water than who talks about taking turns and being fair in the relationship, regarding whether I'd say there's a D/S dynamic there. And D/S isn't all one way, either, though these examples make it seem so. Even in D/S, I'd bet the submissive would say that their dominant "does nice things for them", by their own definitions.

I won't disagree with most of what you wrote there, especially that last part. And the example with your mother helps me understand where you're coming from. But it doesn't change the conclusion in my post, above.

I honestly don't know any women like your mother. Neither in my family nor in my circle of close friends. I don't know if this is cultural, regional, or just happenstance. But feminist expectations have an ironclad grip on female behavior in my corner of the world. And while I have known many henpecked husbands, I don't know a single woman who behaves in a comparable way.

It was never my intent to appear condescending (which you've accused me of at least twice), and I (intentionally) haven't given enough information about my friend's relationship to let you know that it's based on a serious, long-term observation, with several "second opinions".

Okay. But you did extrapolate from your observations to make a global assertion. Right?

In post 78 on my thread, you wrote: "From my point of view, it's the other way around; there's no such thing as a vanilla relationship (that is to say, free of some form of dominance ad submission, conscious or otherwise)."

As I stated in post 34, above, I view your remarks as harmless speculation. But one key reason why I don't find them offensive is that I am assuming an absence of non-D/s people on this board.

Non-confrontational speculation is thought-provoking. But if you walked up to my sister and said: "You're operating with a dynamic that you just aren't aware of," presumably you would understand if she was a bit put off by your cheek.

On to the "maybe, maybe not" of taking orders. Every nonkinked relationship I've observed, were I to interview the participants, they'd say they have no compulsion to obey a request (A politely phrased order), but I only see one material difference between that and a kinked (Which is to say, for the purposes of my comments here, overtly D/S) relationship is that the nonkinked takes it on a case by case basis, where the kinked formalizes it and generalizes it. Start watching the cases in that case by case scenario, and see if you find a pattern emerging. (Not that I do so all the time, or consciously. Sometimes an overall impression hits me, and I have to start tracing it back to the things I may have observed. Again, I spend too much time inside my own head.)

I agree 100% with the bolded text. Hence my definition of D/s, given at the end of my previous post: If obedience is consistently expected and given in at least one material aspect of the relationship, regardless of mood and inclination on the part of the one who is obeying, then the relationship is D/s.

I think where we are disagreeing is over the notion that all non-D/s people somehow are ignorant of the fact that they are deferring to their partners on a case by case basis. I think many of them know exactly what they are doing, but do not consider it "power exchange" because they retain the right of refusal within the agreed upon bounds of the relationship.

One truly final note.

I was a little snarky, with the "review board" comment. As much as you said it wasn't intended in a denigrating way, having three of my posts in a row essentially dismissed with a "fascinating" really bugged me. Charles Manson's mind is "fascinating". The giant hissing cockroach is "fascinating". Things that are ugly and bizarre and need to be picked apart are "fascinating". It bugged me more when you indicated that you needed help to respond to my posts. It felt like you were viewing my thoughts as a strange, disgusting alien concept, and needed a dissection team. Bottom line is, I apologize for any venom in my posts. I'm trying to work though it.

SpectreT, I sincerely apologize for giving this impression. "Dismissing" your comments was the exact opposite of my intent.

I am a guy who tries like heck to say exactly what he thinks. If I thought your comments were ugly, bizarre, or morally questionable, I would have said so.

"Fascinating", to me, means extremely interesting. I have never heard anyone say: "there's no such thing as a vanilla relationship" (applied to non-bedroom only.) I was surprised, yes. Intrigued, yes. Disgusted, no.

And the reason I asked for help in responding to your theory is that I wanted to do it justice by taking the time to discuss it with people who actually know what they're talking about (first hand) when it comes to non-D/s relationships.

The fact that I spent a considerable amount of time in having these conversations (and asked others to spend time doing so as well) is a mark of my respect for your ideas, not the other way around.

 

[Marquis]

It's important to me that the "kink" in my life is self-referential in a way. It wouldn't be nearly as much fun if I was just doing it without knowing I was twisted for it, but I can't say it wouldn't be any fun at all.

 

[nymphee]

There's always that wonderful moment of enlightenment when you realise just how filthy whatever it is you're doing is though.

 

[midwestyankee]

I've been following this thread with some interest. As I was exercising today a few of the points came into mind and I started to wonder something about long-term relationships. A remarkably large percentage of people that I know are somewhat unhappy in their marriages. I suspect that this is more generally true than we all like to admit. If it were not generally true, then I'm guessing that all the "Take my wife.....please" brand of humor would fall flat and audiences wouldn't laugh.

I am a child of the sixties and came to maturity and marriage during the seventies. Most of the people with whom I associate are of this general age bracket, so my direct observations include my own generation as well as that of my parents (married in the first few years after WWII). In my parents' generation, many of the relationships were overtly unequal in power exchange. And many of those marriages lasted a long, long time. My parents are now beyond their 55th anniversary and many of their friends are doing as well. Not so with the marriages in my generation. So many marriages in my generation have folded. This is where my exercise-induced pondering comes in.

I think it's a fair generalization to say that the women's liberation movement had a profound effect on the typical power-exchange dynamic within marriages. It became nearly dogmatic to profess that the two parties in a marriage were equal partners, with equal power and equal rights within the relationship. But what if the natural tendencies of one or the other favored a more unequal balance of power? What then?

Would it develop over time that the party(ies) whose natural tendence was to prefer an unequal balance of power (and here it doesn't matter which direction this person would prefer) would become dissatisfied with the arrangement? Further, would it likely develop that such dissatisfied parties would eventually want to end the relationship? But, given the times, many would have to find socially acceptable reasons to sabotage and/or outright destroy the relationships rather than admit that liberation had failed them. I'd even suspect that for many that clarity of insight may never have arrived.

So, that's what was on my mind as I was exercising. Is our high divorce rate in any way related to a society inability to recognize and accept an unequal power-exchange dynamic in a relationship such as one would find in a typical D/s relationship?

Could more D/s be an answer to the rising divorce rate?

Disclaimer: these ponderings are raised simply as questions for discussion and do not represent any form of thorough analysis.

 

[FurryFury]

As someone who also grew up in the sixties, and has been divorced, I'd have to say that "equality between the sexes" vrs D/s had nothing to do with my divorce. I suspect that the reason why divorce is raging out of hand is that people get married to the wrong people for the wrong reasons and then take the easier (perhaps saner too) way out instead of being fanatically loyal or working on the relationship. That's just my POV.

Fury

 

[midwestyankee]

As someone who also grew up in the sixties, and has been divorced, I'd have to say that "equality between the sexes" vrs D/s had nothing to do with my divorce. I suspect that the reason why divorce is raging out of hand is that people get married to the wrong people for the wrong reasons and then take the easier (perhaps saner too) way out instead of being fanatically loyal or working on the relationship. That's just my POV.

Fury

I don't doubt for a minute that what you describe here is operating in the vast majority of cases.

The phenomenon that I raised could actually be in operation at a layer below the "married the wrong person" syndrome. I thought about this a bit, in fact, and it occurred to me that someone who had not achieved the insight of recognizing his or her own tendencies toward unequal power-exchange might conclude that he or she had married the wrong person and yet not quite know why the two of them are not right for each other.

If I recall correctly, either Jay Wiseman or John Warren provides a demographic breakdown of people who engage in or have tried D/s practices. I believe that the final number is that roughly 5% of people are committed to using D/s practices to some extent in their relationships. I just wonder to what extent some simmering undiscovered D/s preferences might be contributing under the surface to problems in long-term relationships.

 

[SpectreT]

I won't disagree with most of what you wrote there, especially that last part. And the example with your mother helps me understand where you're coming from. But it doesn't change the conclusion in my post, above.

I honestly don't know any women like your mother. Neither in my family nor in my circle of close friends. I don't know if this is cultural, regional, or just happenstance. But feminist expectations have an ironclad grip on female behavior in my corner of the world. And while I have known many henpecked husbands, I don't know a single woman who behaves in a comparable way.

Northeast United States, They've been married for thirty-seven years, to give you the general demographic. Both into their fifties.

Okay. But you did extrapolate from your observations to make a global assertion. Right?

Too much chowder from not enough clams - true. However, I did plead the most glaring examples (My parents, and my friend's marriage) rather than dragging out every single case, instance, and observation. Not being posessed of total recall, I'd need a lot of time and notebooks. Clowning aside, I probably could come up with a decent PhD paper for Psychology on this if I ever did get around my own inertia and make those notebooks. I'd also be a colossal asshat, in my own eyes, for using friends and family like that.

In post 78 on my thread, you wrote: "From my point of view, it's the other way around; there's no such thing as a vanilla relationship (that is to say, free of some form of dominance ad submission, conscious or otherwise)."

As I stated in post 34, above, I view your remarks as harmless speculation. But one key reason why I don't find them offensive is that I am assuming an absence of non-D/s people on this board.

Non-confrontational speculation is thought-provoking. But if you walked up to my sister and said: "You're operating with a dynamic that you just aren't aware of," presumably you would understand if she was a bit put off by your cheek.

I was assuming a lack of nonkinked people reading this as well, hence the way I framed my statements. If I were trying to call someone's attention to an observed dynamic, I'd first look for a conversational opening (hence it probably wouldn't ever get discussed), then perhaps mention an observance of a behavior I've made, and ask them what they think of it, rather than start out telling them my premise and putting them on the defensive.

I agree 100% with the bolded text. Hence my definition of D/s, given at the end of my previous post: If obedience is consistently expected and given in at least one material aspect of the relationship, regardless of mood and inclination on the part of the one who is obeying, then the relationship is D/s.

I think where we are disagreeing is over the notion that all non-D/s people somehow are ignorant of the fact that they are deferring to their partners on a case by case basis. I think many of them know exactly what they are doing, but do not consider it "power exchange" because they retain the right of refusal within the agreed upon bounds of the relationship.

Not quite my intent or point to say that they're unaware of this deference on a case by case basis - they just aren't framing it as a D/S dynamic in their minds, was more what I was getting at. And IMO, there's always a right of refusal in any relationship, D/S or otherwise. The consequenses and ramifications of exercising that right of refusal are vastly different, however.

SpectreT, I sincerely apologize for giving this impression. "Dismissing" your comments was the exact opposite of my intent.

I am a guy who tries like heck to say exactly what he thinks. If I thought your comments were ugly, bizarre, or morally questionable, I would have said so.

"Fascinating", to me, means extremely interesting. I have never heard anyone say: "there's no such thing as a vanilla relationship" (applied to non-bedroom only.) I was surprised, yes. Intrigued, yes. Disgusted, no.

And the reason I asked for help in responding to your theory is that I wanted to do it justice by taking the time to discuss it with people who actually know what they're talking about (first hand) when it comes to non-D/s relationships.

The fact that I spent a considerable amount of time in having these conversations (and asked others to spend time doing so as well) is a mark of my respect for your ideas, not the other way around.

Let's consider that hatchet (which, apparently, I was carrying) buried, then. Now, we know what your sister and your friend consciously think of such things. How do they behave? My point was in the divide between conscious thought and behavior in relationship dynamics, vis a vis unconscious power exchange.

 

[FurryFury]

I don't doubt for a minute that what you describe here is operating in the vast majority of cases.

The phenomenon that I raised could actually be in operation at a layer below the "married the wrong person" syndrome. I thought about this a bit, in fact, and it occurred to me that someone who had not achieved the insight of recognizing his or her own tendencies toward unequal power-exchange might conclude that he or she had married the wrong person and yet not quite know why the two of them are not right for each other.

If I recall correctly, either Jay Wiseman or John Warren provides a demographic breakdown of people who engage in or have tried D/s practices. I believe that the final number is that roughly 5% of people are committed to using D/s practices to some extent in their relationships. I just wonder to what extent some simmering undiscovered D/s preferences might be contributing under the surface to problems in long-term relationships.

I see where you are going with this. I do think that if people knew themselves better that would help a GREAT deal!

My ex if he had known and accepted himself, he might have possibly have channeled his tendencies into D/s but he, like so many was afraid of himself more than anything else. I can't say I blame him. Hell, I was puzzled and afraid of him too. I've often wondered if things couldn't have at least been better with self knowledge on both our parts and D/s. None the less that isn't why the marriage failed. It failed because he left. It was, in the end, the best thing that ever happened to me.

This whole not really knowing yourself thing is just one reason why I tell young people to be sure to live alone and on thier own for at least a while, masturbate so you don't "need" someone else, try a lot of things out and to not marry before 30.

Fury

 

[midwestyankee]

I see where you are going with this. I do think that if people knew themselves better that would help a GREAT deal!

My ex if he had known and accepted himself, he might have possibly have channeled his tendencies into D/s but he, like so many was afraid of himself more than anything else. I can't say I blame him. Hell, I was puzzled and afraid of him too. I've often wondered if things couldn't have at least been better with self knowledge on both our parts and D/s. None the less that isn't why the marriage failed. It failed because he left. It was, in the end, the best thing that ever happened to me.

This whole not really knowing yourself thing is just one reason why I tell young people to be sure to live alone and on thier own for at least a while, masturbate so you don't "need" someone else, try a lot of things out and to not marry before 30.

Fury

Advice that many of us should have received.

Okay, folks, the show is over. You can go back to your regularly scheduled discussion now.

 

[JMohegan]

It's important to me that the "kink" in my life is self-referential in a way. It wouldn't be nearly as much fun if I was just doing it without knowing I was twisted for it, but I can't say it wouldn't be any fun at all.

I never got off on feeling "twisted", but in the early years I definitely derived satisfaction from the knowledge that I could get women to do things (both in and out of the bedroom) that most guys could not.

Time and one particularly intense relationship changed that perspective, and relative comparisons became irrelevant to my appreciation for kink. But that was definitely a part of my 20's persona.

 

[JMohegan]

Too much chowder from not enough clams - true.

LOL at this phrasing.

I was assuming a lack of nonkinked people reading this as well, hence the way I framed my statements. If I were trying to call someone's attention to an observed dynamic, I'd first look for a conversational opening (hence it probably wouldn't ever get discussed), then perhaps mention an observance of a behavior I've made, and ask them what they think of it, rather than start out telling them my premise and putting them on the defensive.

A long, long time ago, in frustration over a friend's non-lifestyle subservience to a very bitchy female, I once exclaimed: "Christ, you're pussywhipped, man."

It was true, but it was also the last thing I ever said to him because he never talked to me again. I wonder why.

It wasn't exactly a high point for tact in my life.

Not quite my intent or point to say that they're unaware of this deference on a case by case basis - they just aren't framing it as a D/S dynamic in their minds, was more what I was getting at.

Well, okay, but a rose by any other name.... right?

I confess to being confused as to your point now. In post 1, you wrote: "I have never seen a relationship that is free of D/S. I have seen many relationsips where the people involved are completely unaware of their D/S dynamic. That lack of awareness makes it Mundane rather than Kinked, as far as I'm concerned."

What does "D/s dynamic" mean, in this context?

And IMO, there's always a right of refusal in any relationship, D/S or otherwise. The consequenses and ramifications of exercising that right of refusal are vastly different, however.

I agree, but would note that those vastly different "consequences and ramifications" are a big part of the dividing line between D/s and non-D/s, as I see it.

Let's consider that hatchet (which, apparently, I was carrying) buried, then. Now, we know what your sister and your friend consciously think of such things. How do they behave? My point was in the divide between conscious thought and behavior in relationship dynamics, vis a vis unconscious power exchange.

Buried and done.

As for my sister and my friend, if I had noticed visible power exchange (beyond exchanging favors, taking turns, etc.), I would have said so upfront. Their descriptions coincide with my observations of their behavior. That's why I did not include them in my comments about "couples who profess a dynamic that does not play out de facto."

 

[saw_man1]

please stop feeding the trolls.

Sorry man. I do not apologize for what I said and I disagree with your assessment that my comment was fueling the fire of these idiots.

However, had I read further I would have seen your request to leave this ass alone and I would certainly have acquiesced to your wishes.