Kinked or Mundane?

[BeachGurl2]

I've been reading the above discussion/debate with growing interest and have a few thoughts that I'm going to try to get down here into some coherent order. Forgive me if I fail miserably.

My best friend of almost 30 years just turned 40 and has never been married nor had children. She's lived with a few different boyfriends over the years, but those relationships always break up badly, usually because she walks. And the reason that she walks almost every time is because he tried bossing her around - her words, not mine. Is she dominant? Nope, not a bit. Just an independent, commitment phobic female. In her world, everyone is independent. Money is separated, careers and life choices are made by each person without regard to the other. It's her sofa and his coffee table, no matter how many years they lived together. And according to her stories, they have the most boring sex I think I've ever encountered. In fact, it was her definition of vanilla sex that I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread.

What the hell difference does all that make? With all due respect, SpectreT, even if there are times when one of them seems to have more power than the other, when one of them seems to give up their power to the other, I would never in my wildest imagination say that she has a D/s dynamic to any of her relationships, conscious or otherwise.

In my world, I just don't agree that what I call vanilla relationships include a D/s dynamic. Even when one of them seems to hold more power than the other, I do not consider that D/s or a power exchange. I see those things as compromise in an otherwise equal relationship. So what if he makes the decision today? Tomorrow she makes the decision. In my mind, just because he held the power today, that does not mean it's been a true power exchange. It means that they compromised and tomorrow she gets her turn. And sometimes, when they can't agree, they don't do either.

In a true power exchange, there is no compromise unless the one in power decides to grant it. As a submissive, I can state my desires, but there is never a situation where today I know I'll get to have my way. Unless I have earned a special consideration or my Dom is feeling especially generous. The difference is this: in the vanilla situation, either person has the ability to say 'no' without real repercussions other than maybe an argument. In the D/s situation, if I, as a submissive, decide that today I'm going to say 'no', I better plan on walking away, because there won't be a small fight and makeup session later. Do I have the power and ability to say 'no'? Of course, I do. Every human on Earth does. However, once I have submitted, unless I'm prepared to truly walk away for good, I don't have the option of saying 'no', unless I have a damn good reason and can express it well. And that passive-aggressive act that you mentioned would never cut it in a D/s relationship, unless he's just into really bratty subs.

Sure, in vanilla relationships, sometimes they use handcuffs. And sometimes someone might get a swat on the butt. But I don't believe that makes their relationship 'kinked', to use your word. Just my 2 cents. As usual, probably not worth a penny.

 

[Miss_Adagio]

Interesting topic. In my opinion, (once again wading into things I know little about so feel free to set me straight) what makes something kinked is society. Kinky means a "mental or moral peculiarity" (according to my Oxford dictionary at least!)

At it's base, isn't BDSM etc just a sexual preference, just like "mundane" sex or gay sex or whatever kind of relationship you can think of? I mean if 90% of the population was into BDSM and you secretly went home at night to your partner and had nice "normal" sex, you would be kinky.

Getting back to the question, where do I get my line of Mundane vs. Kinked? I think society as a general. So now I wait in anticipation for an Oprah special on "How to Spank That Special Someone into Submission" and THEN I will feel mundane. (Hmmm, not entirely sure of Oprah in leather though )

 

[SpectreT]

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?

Well, this discussion is helping me greatly in distilling and hopefully clarifying my thoughts on this. The second post is version 2.0 - still the same product, just rephrased for greater clarity. You skipped over a clarifying part, about looking at the cases.

Another statement, which may help with where I'm coming from: I don't think I've observed a consensus decision, either. I've seen situations where the decision maker chooses to hear other opinions, then makes the decision. A subtle, but key difference. To be honest, I thought that the sort of egalitarian relationship where everyone gets a vote was a myth, but then again, I can't lay claim to having seen every relationship under the sun. Hence, my careful phrasing in the original (version 1.0) statement: "I have never seen..."

I still believe the basic idea, which may need further refining, may hold up more often than not - people don't often spend copious amounts of time analyzing their actions and motivations every step of their way, after all - But I certainly allow for the probability that for some, my theory is simply not applicable. Moreover, the original statement didn't accurately phrase my basic idea, hence the refinement. (To make it graphic, a layer of the onion has been peeled away. Still the same onion, just a little lighter.)

And to me, D/S dynamic means someone's in charge. I tried, unsuccessfully, to explain that I didn't mean total charge in every facet of the relationship, but in each facet, there's a decision maker and an opinion. There may be an overall theme (one partner is in charge of domestic issues, the other has the purse strings), or it may be a hodge-podge jigsaw puzzle. But there's a person who says what goes, and a person who goes with it. (perhaps that's another dividing line - that there's not one single person totally in charge of all aspects. And so, the theory gets revised again. I'll call it 2.1 now.)

edit to addBeachGurl2 - I'm not ignoring your post. I just need some time to digest it, and respond to it. I get the impression that I've pissed you off somehow, and I don't want to add fuel to the fire. I'll be back when I've found my tact and diplomacy.

 

[BeachGurl2]

edit to addBeachGurl2 - I'm not ignoring your post. I just need some time to digest it, and respond to it. I get the impression that I've pissed you off somehow, and I don't want to add fuel to the fire. I'll be back when I've found my tact and diplomacy.

No, I'm not at all mad. If it seemed that way I apologize. (I was a bit frustrated from another thread and must have brought that frustration here. Sorry.)

 

[JMohegan]

I still believe the basic idea, which may need further refining, may hold up more often than not - people don't often spend copious amounts of time analyzing their actions and motivations every step of their way, after all - But I certainly allow for the probability that for some, my theory is simply not applicable.

I agree with you here, on a "more often than not" basis.

To be fair, I should also point out that both my sister and my friend (indeed, my entire family and all of my close friends) may not be representative of the non-D/s population at large in terms of "awareness" on the concepts of power exchange, interpersonal control, etc.

Over the years, we have had many discussions about my lifestyle, including D/s, SM, what I do & why. For privacy reasons, bedroom topics are discussed in only the most general of terms. But we have talked about non-bedroom D/s at length, and in great detail.

The result is that my family and friends understand, respect, and accept not only me, but the lifestyle itself. When I balk at anything that sounds like disrespect for the non-kinky, I am really just returning a favor. They have covered my back many times, in many different ways. And I grateful for it.


I have a question for you, SpectreT. On which side of your dividing line would you place couples in which one partner is clearly aware of his/her control (and wields it deliberately), while the other partner remains seemingly oblivious of the dynamic? I am thinking now about a non-lifestyle couple with one partner who is intentionally manipulative. Almost machiavellian, if you will.

 

[Netzach]

Personally, I think where we're getting in trouble is in looking at power dynamics and ascribing D/s to them.

There is never a total balance of power between any two people, I totally agree. I don't think that makes D/s part of the dynamic though.

I don't see how a domestic relationship between people who do NOT consider themselves kinked in any way can be "D/s" any more than I think it's D/s that someone goes to work and does what their boss tells them to even if it's really stupid, or that someone else is in the army, or that someone else prescribes medicines for her patients.

I get my way more often because I'm the wife than because I'm the Goddess, believe it or not, and I think the rope under my bed and the really weird cache of transformation and slavery stories are more evidence of our being kinked than the fact that I get my way.

 

[Netzach]

"kinked" for me is a political construct.

Would you get fired, strung up, shunned, or marginalized by a great number of people if everything about your sexuality were tattooed on your forehead?

Y - kinked

N - not

 

[JMohegan]

Would you get fired, strung up, shunned, or marginalized by a great number of people if everything about your sexuality were tattooed on your forehead?

For what goes on inside my bedroom: yes to all of the above.

For what goes on outside my bedroom: yes to all but the first and possibly the second. A literal reading of "strung up", no. Figurative, yes.

 

[Netzach]

For what goes on inside my bedroom: yes to all of the above.

For what goes on outside my bedroom: yes to all but the first and possibly the second. A literal reading of "strung up", no. Figurative, yes.

I can comfortably assume yes to all.

 

[SpectreT]

"kinked" for me is a political construct.

Would you get fired, strung up, shunned, or marginalized by a great number of people if everything about your sexuality were tattooed on your forehead?

Y - kinked

N - not

Big fat "Y" here - but I balk at taking "strung up" literally, as well. I accept it as hyperbole, though.

 

[SpectreT]

I have a question for you, SpectreT. On which side of your dividing line would you place couples in which one partner is clearly aware of his/her control (and wields it deliberately), while the other partner remains seemingly oblivious of the dynamic? I am thinking now about a non-lifestyle couple with one partner who is intentionally manipulative. Almost machiavellian, if you will.

Pretty damn shady, is what I'd call it. I have a really overdeveloped sense of honesty, fairness and justice (which works against me far more often than it's helped me), and that sort of thing ticks me off. It's certainly not what I would consider good practice, and if the unaware partner was completely miserable in the relationship, I'd be genuinely upset over it.

If, on the other hand, the unaware partner is happy in the relationship, I still wouldn't like it - but I'd leave well enough alone. Relationships that foster happiness are rare, and destroying one because I feel it's dishonest is contemptible by my own ethical standards (for myself - I'm not the guy to dictate to anyone else what their ethical standards should be).

All of which didn't answer your question. Let's see, it's a multiple guess question, here's the choices:

1) D/S
2) Non D/S
3) Neither; they're not even playing the same sport, let alone on the same scorecard.
4) Punt

My first inclination is 4, but I already did that with the rest of the post. #3 is Spectre's correct answer.

 

[SpectreT]

I've been reading the above discussion/debate with growing interest and have a few thoughts that I'm going to try to get down here into some coherent order. Forgive me if I fail miserably.

My best friend of almost 30 years just turned 40 and has never been married nor had children. She's lived with a few different boyfriends over the years, but those relationships always break up badly, usually because she walks. And the reason that she walks almost every time is because he tried bossing her around - her words, not mine. Is she dominant? Nope, not a bit. Just an independent, commitment phobic female. In her world, everyone is independent. Money is separated, careers and life choices are made by each person without regard to the other. It's her sofa and his coffee table, no matter how many years they lived together. And according to her stories, they have the most boring sex I think I've ever encountered. In fact, it was her definition of vanilla sex that I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread.

What the hell difference does all that make? With all due respect, SpectreT, even if there are times when one of them seems to have more power than the other, when one of them seems to give up their power to the other, I would never in my wildest imagination say that she has a D/s dynamic to any of her relationships, conscious or otherwise.

First of all, just to let you know, every time I hear or read the phrase, "with all due respect", it translates as, "I have no respect for you at all, and the point I'm about to address is ten pounds of excrement in a five-pound bag". I assume that wasn't your intent, but it got my hackles up right away. That's why I back-burnered responding to this post - like I said, I didn't want to get confrontational right back if I wasn't being confronted.

At the risk of sounding condescending, which I don't want - If she's that reserved, if it's still "Her sofa" and "His coffee table", it hasn't even reached a relationsip dynamic yet. Relationships, to me, are all about building an "Our", and it doesn't sound like she was getting there with it.

In my world, I just don't agree that what I call vanilla relationships include a D/s dynamic. Even when one of them seems to hold more power than the other, I do not consider that D/s or a power exchange. I see those things as compromise in an otherwise equal relationship. So what if he makes the decision today? Tomorrow she makes the decision. In my mind, just because he held the power today, that does not mean it's been a true power exchange. It means that they compromised and tomorrow she gets her turn. And sometimes, when they can't agree, they don't do either.

To me the difference goes back to nonD/S do the negotiation and compromise on a case by case basis, D/S does it up front and all at once, consciously and overtly.

In a true power exchange, there is no compromise unless the one in power decides to grant it. As a submissive, I can state my desires, but there is never a situation where today I know I'll get to have my way. Unless I have earned a special consideration or my Dom is feeling especially generous. The difference is this: in the vanilla situation, either person has the ability to say 'no' without real repercussions other than maybe an argument. In the D/s situation, if I, as a submissive, decide that today I'm going to say 'no', I better plan on walking away, because there won't be a small fight and makeup session later. Do I have the power and ability to say 'no'? Of course, I do. Every human on Earth does. However, once I have submitted, unless I'm prepared to truly walk away for good, I don't have the option of saying 'no', unless I have a damn good reason and can express it well. And that passive-aggressive act that you mentioned would never cut it in a D/s relationship, unless he's just into really bratty subs.

I don't entirely agree with the bolded line, as per my response to the bit above about the timing of compromise and negotiation. And I agree that the passive-agressive "martyr" act my mother puts on wouldn't fly in a D/S relationship. It wouldn't fly because both partners in a D/S relationship are aware of their roles, and agreed to their place. Non-D/S relationships with an uneven power balance never had the chance to consciously negotiate their roles, and may not have a model or a mental map for their place, thus may act in a manner inappropriate to their behavioral model's place.

Sure, in vanilla relationships, sometimes they use handcuffs. And sometimes someone might get a swat on the butt. But I don't believe that makes their relationship 'kinked', to use your word. Just my 2 cents. As usual, probably not worth a penny.

Using the toys dosn't make it kinked, it makes it kinky. Kind of like chocolate flavored breakfast cereal with no chocolate in the ingredients is "chocolatey".

 

[SpectreT]

Mundane I find an interesting choice of terminology, as it's original meaning was "of this world" as opposed to being "sacred." I find it interesting because I think that BDSM practice, due to its intensity carries with it a greater possibility of spiritual experience/connection than non-kink sex. That said, I also think that every sexual encounter, even the most casual, has within it the potential for connection to the divine, so I am divided, In some ways I prefer the term "vanilla," because to me it actually seems less loaded - vanilla being one taste preference out of many...

*drags out soapbox* Like you, I prefer the term vanilla - looked at completely objectively, it's not a perjorative at all. Vanilla has over 250 flavor notes, making it one of the most complex flavors available. It is also the single most popular flavor of ice cream. To me, calling nonkinked sexuality "vanilla" is acknowledging its richness, diversity, subtlety and popularity. But the eyes of the reader may see something other than this intent, as it has a long history of condescention, looking down on the nonkinked. So, in an effort not to offend, I decided not to use my favorite word, though anyone reading this post now knows what I think of vanilla.

What is interesting to me is how people define kink. Some folks see having multiple partners as "kink." So would you agree with their definition. I'm not sure, however, I do have to say that I like your argument.

Polyamory isn't specific to kink, so it isn't necessarily kinky. I do believe, if the participants' hearts and minds are in the right place it can not only work, but be beautiful. It's definitely not for everyone, but love isn't something limited by numbers, and can't be quantified.

I love that you wrote this and I agree with you whole heartedly - all relationships have some element of D/s regardless of the gender make-up of the partners. The fact that in non-kink relationships this dynamic is most often unacknowledged & subconscious, may actually leave more room for abuse than those who engage in same might be willing to admit, or at least that was my experience in the non-kink world. Most of the folks I know who are into BDSM formally are not only intelligent but very self-aware and, even when they have their demons, much more stable because of this awareness. That said, I do realize that this is something of a gross generalization...

Neon

Two writers and philosophers said it better than me:
"Know thyself"
"To thine own self be true"

Those are number one and two in my own personal decalogue of general rules I try to live up to.

There may be a correlation between intelligence, self-awareness, and nonstandard relationships and sexuality, but to my knowledge, no one's done a great in-depth study of the idea. If anything, I think it's more of a self-fulfilling prophecy sort of thing. BDSM requires some self-awareness to start, feeds on it, exercises it, and makes it grow. It gives its participants more practice in observing others (paying attention), more paractice in achieving goals, more practice in overcoming obstacles, just more practice in being self-aware human beings. Not saying it's the only route to such, just that it is a route to improved self-awareness, is all.

 

[midwestyankee]

Another potentially off-the-wall thought hit me this morning regarding this discussion. My apologies in advance if this sidetracks the discussion.

In theory at least, it seems to be possible for a relationship to work according to a D/s dynamic that would not involve any practices either sexual or S/M, other than those that most folks would consider to be vanilla (or mundane or non-kinked: pick your label, so to speak). Does anyone have any experiences or observations that would support or reject this hypothesis?

The reason I raise this question is this: are we defining acts as kinked or its opposite in terms of the nature of the relationship within which the acts are performed or in absolute terms with respect to the acts themselves, regardless of the context in which they are performed?

 

[SpectreT]

One more note on my careful word use, which may have led to some confusion.

Key phrases to look out for in my original postulate are in bold:

I have never seen any relationship that is completely free of D/S.

I've gone over "I have never seen" - its limitations (my own observation not being omnicient) are obvious.

Here I'll tackle "completely free of".

Note I didn't say all relationships are D/S. I just said they don't escape it entirely. It seemed that some read my statement to mean that I think all relationships are D/S, and some of us are just more aware of it than others. As I hope I've shown in this discussion so far, this was not the intent of my statement. The intent of my statement was to get people thinking about the people around them, the relationships they have (friendships, co-workers, lovers, spouses, whatever), and where there might be elements of dominance and submission in them.

The first purpose of this thread was to clarify somewhat the line I draw between kinked and nonkinked, and to me, that line is conscious wilful entry into the kinked side of things. The second purpose of this thread, which I feel is being achieved quite well (with one hiccup), is discussion and hypotheses from the other minds we have here, a sharing of ideas, and a challenging of preconceptions.

 

[SpectreT]

Another potentially off-the-wall thought hit me this morning regarding this discussion. My apologies in advance if this sidetracks the discussion.

In theory at least, it seems to be possible for a relationship to work according to a D/s dynamic that would not involve any practices either sexual or S/M, other than those that most folks would consider to be vanilla (or mundane or non-kinked: pick your label, so to speak). Does anyone have any experiences or observations that would support or reject this hypothesis?

The reason I raise this question is this: are we defining acts as kinked or its opposite in terms of the nature of the relationship within which the acts are performed or in absolute terms with respect to the acts themselves, regardless of the context in which they are performed?

I was fine until the last sentence - which I've finally parsed. Took an act of will, though - I need more sleep.

Absolutely dead on about relationships working according to a D/S dynamic without any kinky bedroom practices (though I think that's less fun ).

As to the last, we're not defining acts as "kinked" or not at all. That's a whole other show. We might bring in specific acts to act as examples, to raise a question or challenge a premise, but it's beyond the scope of this discussion to try to include a laundry list of Kinked versus Nonkinked sex practices. (But to add my $0.02, it's the context and frame of mind of the participants)

 

[midwestyankee]

I was fine until the last sentence - which I've finally parsed. Took an act of will, though - I need more sleep.

Absolutely dead on about relationships working according to a D/S dynamic without any kinky bedroom practices (though I think that's less fun ).

As to the last, we're not defining acts as "kinked" or not at all. That's a whole other show. We might bring in specific acts to act as examples, to raise a question or challenge a premise, but it's beyond the scope of this discussion to try to include a laundry list of Kinked versus Nonkinked sex practices. (But to add my $0.02, it's the context and frame of mind of the participants)

As Maxwell Smart used to say, "Sorry about that, Chief." Sometimes I get a little lawyerly in my diction though I've never even played a lawyer on tv (or anywhere for that matter).

Now what I understand you saying here is that you're searching for our individual dividing lines between kinked and its opposite with respect to relationships only, right? That's doable. I think. My doubt is because there is a parallax problem in the mix here.

I'm going to begin with the idea that "kinked is in the eye of the beholder." I'm more than a little astigmatic, so in this beholder's eyes the dividing line can take two forms.

First, we have to consider the presence or absence of a consciously chosen D/s dynamic between the two partners. As a newbie to the world of D/s, I only know D/s as a willing acceptance by each partner of the other's role within the dynamic. Without conscious submission to a willing dominant, you don't really have a D/s dynamic in this view. This dynamic can operate solely in the bedroom (or dungeon, or the kids' playroom when they're not around, if you wish) or throughout all aspects of life. Either way, if there is a D/s dynamic in action, then the relationship is kinked.

Second, it seems to me that it's quite possible for a relationship to prosper with rough equality of power in all aspects of life except for the bedroom and yet still be a kinked relationship. In this case the couple's sexual practices would have to be consciously framed in a D/s or S/M dynamic. It wouldn't matter if both partners were switches or each took a particular role all the time. If the bedroom is home to distinctly kinked practices that the participants engage in willingly and knowingly along D/s or S/M lines, then it's a kinked relationship.

Just my couple of pence.

 

[Netzach]

really neat definition of kinky from an intimate friend today... in his professional life he encounters the concept of "kinks" all the time, from a physical standpoint...it's the curvature that happens when a point is stressed beyond its capacity...

so he always conceptualized kink as the sexual behavior that comes to the fore when the person is stressed to their max. So it's those things that you may not do every time you have sex, but if someone told you "you can never do it again" you'd either have to shoot yourself or the person prohibiting you from doing it or you'll just plain go crazy.

I thought this was really interesting.

 

[SpectreT]

really neat definition of kinky from an intimate friend today... in his professional life he encounters the concept of "kinks" all the time, from a physical standpoint...it's the curvature that happens when a point is stressed beyond its capacity...

so he always conceptualized kink as the sexual behavior that comes to the fore when the person is stressed to their max. So it's those things that you may not do every time you have sex, but if someone told you "you can never do it again" you'd either have to shoot yourself or the person prohibiting you from doing it or you'll just plain go crazy.

I thought this was really interesting.

By that definition, I'd have to say "orgasm" is the only "kink" I am aware of having; the rest are all nice garnishes (some really nice, and I'd miss them whole bunches), but not quite that important.

 

[SpectreT]

As Maxwell Smart used to say, "Sorry about that, Chief." Sometimes I get a little lawyerly in my diction though I've never even played a lawyer on tv (or anywhere for that matter).

Now what I understand you saying here is that you're searching for our individual dividing lines between kinked and its opposite with respect to relationships only, right? That's doable. I think. My doubt is because there is a parallax problem in the mix here.

I'm going to begin with the idea that "kinked is in the eye of the beholder." I'm more than a little astigmatic, so in this beholder's eyes the dividing line can take two forms.

First, we have to consider the presence or absence of a consciously chosen D/s dynamic between the two partners. As a newbie to the world of D/s, I only know D/s as a willing acceptance by each partner of the other's role within the dynamic. Without conscious submission to a willing dominant, you don't really have a D/s dynamic in this view. This dynamic can operate solely in the bedroom (or dungeon, or the kids' playroom when they're not around, if you wish) or throughout all aspects of life. Either way, if there is a D/s dynamic in action, then the relationship is kinked.

Second, it seems to me that it's quite possible for a relationship to prosper with rough equality of power in all aspects of life except for the bedroom and yet still be a kinked relationship. In this case the couple's sexual practices would have to be consciously framed in a D/s or S/M dynamic. It wouldn't matter if both partners were switches or each took a particular role all the time. If the bedroom is home to distinctly kinked practices that the participants engage in willingly and knowingly along D/s or S/M lines, then it's a kinked relationship.

Just my couple of pence.

...And to think I used to translate Academia into Common as a hobby. My brain, fully capable of processing that, is happily chasing its tail over... there somewhere.

What I got that was directly on topic was: To your way of thinking, to call a relationship D/S, requires a conscious decision to enter a D/S dynamic. I concur with that. Now on to elements in non D/S relationships that strongly resemble D/S dynamics in an overtly D/S relationship - like the glass of water example. You didn't specifically address that, so on the second point of my discussion I can neither concur, nor dissent.

Tangentially, you threw in sexual practices, and explained your rationale for including them in this discussion (namely, that if their bedroom stuff is D/S or S/M, it's a kinked relationship). Here. I do not entirely agree. To my way of thinking, it takes more than spanking (for one example) to make it a kinked relationship. There has to be something of the peoples' minds involved seeing it as a kinky practice, either wholly within their own eyes, or as a reflection of what they believe their community's standards may be.

 

[midwestyankee]

...And to think I used to translate Academia into Common as a hobby. My brain, fully capable of processing that, is happily chasing its tail over... there somewhere.

What I got that was directly on topic was: To your way of thinking, to call a relationship D/S, requires a conscious decision to enter a D/S dynamic. I concur with that. Now on to elements in non D/S relationships that strongly resemble D/S dynamics in an overtly D/S relationship - like the glass of water example. You didn't specifically address that, so on the second point of my discussion I can neither concur, nor dissent.

Tangentially, you threw in sexual practices, and explained your rationale for including them in this discussion (namely, that if their bedroom stuff is D/S or S/M, it's a kinked relationship). Here. I do not entirely agree. To my way of thinking, it takes more than spanking (for one example) to make it a kinked relationship. There has to be something of the peoples' minds involved seeing it as a kinky practice, either wholly within their own eyes, or as a reflection of what they believe their community's standards may be.

I think that we're basically in agreement then. What I said in my post was, "the couple's sexual practices would have to be consciously framed in a D/s or S/M dynamic." By that I meant that they would see their practices as kinked in pretty much the way that you described.

 

[SpectreT]

I think that we're basically in agreement then. What I said in my post was, "the couple's sexual practices would have to be consciously framed in a D/s or S/M dynamic." By that I meant that they would see their practices as kinked in pretty much the way that you described.

Amazing, how being so careful to be clear, someone can still miss a key phrase that changes the whole meaning of a paragraph. I missed that line, or rather, its impact on the framework of the paragraph. So we appear to be on the same page, as far as we've discussed, then.

 

[neonflux]

*drags out soapbox* Like you, I prefer the term vanilla - looked at completely objectively, it's not a perjorative at all. Vanilla has over 250 flavor notes, making it one of the most complex flavors available. It is also the single most popular flavor of ice cream. To me, calling nonkinked sexuality "vanilla" is acknowledging its richness, diversity, subtlety and popularity. But the eyes of the reader may see something other than this intent, as it has a long history of condescention, looking down on the nonkinked. So, in an effort not to offend, I decided not to use my favorite word, though anyone reading this post now knows what I think of vanilla.

We definitely seem to be on the same wave length here.

Polyamory isn't specific to kink, so it isn't necessarily kinky. I do believe, if the participants' hearts and minds are in the right place it can not only work, but be beautiful. It's definitely not for everyone, but love isn't something limited by numbers, and can't be quantified.

The reason I asked this, and I think that it goes to the heart of your question - who is defining kink and how are they defining it? I belong to a group for HSV+ people called Bay Area Friends - online support + social events. It has over 1200 members, so one would assume that some are kinky, if "hidden." Recently, a friend of mine (Dom, well known in both communities), suggested the possibility of organizing a munch if enough people were interested.

Another member, who is poly but is NOT into BDSM, said that he would be interested in putting together a munch and expanded the definition of kink to include polyamory, swinging, etc. Like you, by my own definition, I do not see these as kinky - one can be kinky and also be poly or swing, but the they are entirely different animals.

I have had friends in the queer leather communities for as long as I can remember (33 years, at least since I was 17). I have brought kinky elements into my own sexual play - light bondage, spanking, minor elements of D/s - for many years. However, I only began to view myself and my play as kinky in the past 6 months or so, beginning with a woman lover who was formally into BDSM, had studied, been in a 24 D/s relationship as a sub and is now exploring her Domme side. (Relationship ended when I got herpes, not because she was afraid of me but because I was too afraid of infecting her.)

So, how would one define "kinky behavior" within a relationshp where people see what they are doing as being kinky but have not made this conscious commitment to BDSM? Perhaps it's something that they engage in to add some "spice." Perhaps they enjoy some S/m play - with a conscious desire to give/receive pain, but this doesn't include a D/s dynamic. One can certainly be on the receiving end of pain and still direct the interaction without seeing this as (or even understanding the concept of) "topping from the bottom." Is this then kinky? And is there a difference between occasionally engaging consciously in kinky behavior and being kinky?

I have a great respect for BDSM, what it means, what formal involvement in it requires and can bring to relationships and self-awareness. And that is where I think the definition of kink lies for me - conscious commitment to and engagement in a way of not only acting but "being" in erotic relationships. To me there is a difference between engaging in kinky behavior and being kinky/claiming one's own kink. The second doesn't require being part of a community (although I personally think that this is important so as not to become too isolated in one's practice). It does require a dedicated commitment to learning technique, to exploring oneself and one's relationships within this context, to a desire to make it more than an occasional bit of sexual "spice."

I hope that I'm making sense and not just rambling...

Two writers and philosophers said it better than me:
"Know thyself"
"To thine own self be true"

Those are number one and two in my own personal decalogue of general rules I try to live up to.

There may be a correlation between intelligence, self-awareness, and nonstandard relationships and sexuality, but to my knowledge, no one's done a great in-depth study of the idea.

I am convinced that it takes a certain level of intelligence and self-awareness to "buck" the status quo. I am not suggesting by any means that the more intelligent one is, the more likely one is to become involved in BDSM. I also see this as a matter of wiring. I am in love with a man for whom S/m in particular is foreign to his "being." There is just not one atom in him that is called to either giving or receiving pain and I would never ask this of him; while I think all of us are capable of some level of D/s (he has actually unbidden told me that he "submits" to me during sex) for various reasons this is something I don't believe I can begin exploring formally with him right now. All of this is becoming something of a dilemna for me as I more and more see BDSM as integral to my own sexual expression. Luckily, he is an incomparable man in many ways, utterly respects who I am and has always been open to my having concurrent relationships with women. (His current acceptance of my relationship with my male BDSM partner is a very complicated matter and not germaine to this thread.)

If anything, I think it's more of a self-fulfilling prophecy sort of thing. BDSM requires some self-awareness to start, feeds on it, exercises it, and makes it grow. It gives its participants more practice in observing others (paying attention), more paractice in achieving goals, more practice in overcoming obstacles, just more practice in being self-aware human beings.

Agreed.

Not saying it's the only route to such, just that it is a route to improved self-awareness, is all.

Hinduism acknowledges 6 paths to enlightenment. And I am convinced there are as many variations on these paths as there are people on this planet.

Neon

P.S., thank you

 

[neonflux]

really neat definition of kinky from an intimate friend today... in his professional life he encounters the concept of "kinks" all the time, from a physical standpoint...it's the curvature that happens when a point is stressed beyond its capacity...

so he always conceptualized kink as the sexual behavior that comes to the fore when the person is stressed to their max. So it's those things that you may not do every time you have sex, but if someone told you "you can never do it again" you'd either have to shoot yourself or the person prohibiting you from doing it or you'll just plain go crazy.

I thought this was really interesting.

It's very interesting but not sure that I agree such behavior comes to the fore due to stress. As I wrote in the previous post, I also see it as a matter of wiring. For some, the need for intimate/intense emotional/sexual contact may become greater in some people when they are stressed. Conversely, my ex of 8+ years withdrew when she was under great amounts of stress. And it may be that when some are under stress, their inhibitions regarding desires they see as "unacceptable" may weaken. However, as I mentioned in my last post, I also believe that the prediliction for BDSM is also a matter of wiring. The more I explore BDSM, the more I am coming to understand it as intrinsic to my own sexual desires, regardless of what my mood is at any given time.

 

[gluttonne]

i don't believe in categorization or in compartmentalization. i do what i enjoy, and kink, by the definitions of many, is certainly a good portion of that. i don't see the point in concerning myself whether what i've just done is considered mundane or kink. then again. i also wouldn't have any interest in sex that could be described as mundane. in for a penny, in for a pound, as i say. and my lovers seem to appreciate it, especially when they're in the throes of passion. sure, they hobble for a while when things are as we generally prefer them, but it is very much SSC. so i guess some people would say i'm all kink all the time. i would disagree, but again, i couldn't be bothered to try to divide things like that. there's satisfying sex, and sex that doesn't happen with that partner again.