Not Dom, not sub...

[Ebonyfire]

I identify myself as a dom, but I vary from being dominant to being equal (vanilla).

Since when has vanilla meant equality? And when did D/s mean that there was inequality between partners?

Vanilla just means non-kinky or non-lifestyle.

 

[SirFace]

Since when has vanilla meant equality? And when did D/s mean that there was inequality between partners?

Vanilla just means non-kinky or non-lifestyle.

I read it as equally dominant or submissive in their vanilla life. Not as a reference that a D/s style is unequal.

 

[Ebonyfire]

I read it as equally dominant or submissive in their vanilla life. Not as a reference that a D/s style is unequal.

But that is usually not the case. I would venture to guess that very few vanilla relationships are equally dominant and submissive.

 

[SirFace]

But that is usually not the case. I would venture to guess that very few vanilla relationships are equally dominant and submissive.

Probably true, I believe ours was. I am having fun exploring the D side now. Had an exceptional experience today that was mind blowing.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Probably true, I believe ours was. I am having fun exploring the D side now. Had an exceptional experience today that was mild blowing.

That is great!

My experience of vanilla relationships involves a male person trying to either "put me in my place" or try to "control my life". Equality did not enter into it.

Eb

 

[SirFace]

oops, i meant mind blowing.

 

[Ebonyfire]

oops, i meant mind blowing.

I got your point! I read fluent typos!

 

[Private_Label]

Oddly my LIC posts have already put me in touch with new contacts working in my field. An unexpected bonus.

Sorry jen, but the way that sentence is worded makes me thing this is an ALT nick for you, because you refer to yourself in the third person.

Madama Minitopic, your input would be appreciated here to work out the language barrier issues.

My LIC threads are all Kosher.

I'm not an expert on Jewish food laws, but does Sadism count as dairy or as meat?

 

[Private_Label]

Attempting to make this a two track thread....

Okay, those who don't closely identify wholly in either the "Dom" camp or the "Sub" camp, how so, and why not? Is it that D/S isn't your thing?

Skipping the "not enough RL experience" excuse... But I am somewhere in the switch/middle ground...

In my family unit, I'm a trail blazer. Places other family members are too shy to move forward and ask questions, I usually do, even if my family can't understand why I am able to do it. I just don't believe in "making do" if asking someone a simple question will make my life more enjoyable. At work I am a "self-starter" I am able to jump right in and get to work without being managed, and due to the length of time I have been working for the company I sometimes answer questions for clients that should probably be fielded by my superiors. As I work in a service rather than a product oriented field, I don't see how sending clients through the layers of phone maze to get to the proper person if I can answer their question in less time than it take me to locate the proper person. Some supervisors have appreciated that, and others slap me down for overstepping my boundaries. - This tells me that I would probably make a piss poor slave, and an unhappy one to boot. However, I like being able to help people during a time when they are upset and need to know that someone is there to help them get through a difficult stage of life. I like to see that they have access to information that will help make the situation flow smoother.

I don't want to be the "top dog." I prefer to work though consensus, if I am the group leader. I don't like the nitty gritty management crap that comes along with being the top brass. Better to be the grunt worker and not have to worry about pleasing everyone on the board of directors.

You know that poster that says "Lead, Follow or Get out of the WAY!" I'm the one who gets out of the way.

I have personal issues with control. While I can be spontaneous, I like to know when and where I am going, and have stuff penciled in to my schedule in advance. While I have no problem with someone coming and drawing in pen on my arm, I get upset if they hide something that belongs to me. It's one of the biggest areas that I will give a knee jerk reaction if the boundary is crossed (accidently usually), and one that I continually pulling apart to understand why I have certain reactions, so I can keep the knee jerk down to a twitch rather than a metaphorical arm breaker.

All of which are aspects of my personality that feed into how my kink expresses itself.

I discovered, through what limited experience I have, that certain aspects of humiliation make me very, very aroused. So much so that I become an insatiable and need sex (which so far has only been expressed in phone sex and IMs). So that aspect of someone having control over me, I think I would be able to turn over to someone I trust. I just don't know how much control over other aspects of my life I would be willing to turn over to another, because even if I trust them, I would still have the underlying control issues.

So I see myself as a sub, but not one who would be comfortable with 24/7.

I would much rather work with my life partner through consensus rather than having me decide the hows and whens, or having him dictate all the hows and whens.

If I had a partner who needed me to sometimes be the one in control in order to satisfy some of his needs, I think I would be able to do them without any reservations as some subs have expressed when they are requested to "top."

So back to the question at hand... "why not wholly sub or Dom?"
Some aspects of being submissive I find arousing. There are some aspects of Topping that I would enjoy without reservation, if they make my partner happy.


Is reciprocity essential?

Yes. I want to give pleasure as well as receive it.

If so, how much reciprocity?

Roughly equal over time.

How flexible are we with our kinks?

Well... I'm finding things that I wouldn't have considered doing last year have moved from my hard limit list to my soft limit list, at least until I try it a time or two.

Can somewhat mismatched kinks still lead to a productive and worthwhile relationship?

Yes somewhat mismatched can work. But like any relationship, it will take work, constant tending and lots of communication, and being honest with yourself and your partner about what you really want out of the relationship.

 

[Let_it_come]

Sorry jen, but the way that sentence is worded makes me thing this is an ALT nick for you, because you refer to yourself in the third person.

Madama Minitopic, your input would be appreciated here to work out the language barrier issues.





I'm not an expert on Jewish food laws, but does Sadism count as dairy or as meat?

Hello!
Just popping in to tidy this up then I'll run off back to my Sadism micro-topic thread!
On Lit. I'm just LIC, elsewhere on the net I've a ton of other names. I'm always Jenny tho'.
Good qustion on Kosher Sadism - I'm going to say meat. Why? Just my POV!

 

[MechaBlade]

Since when has vanilla meant equality? And when did D/s mean that there was inequality between partners?

Vanilla just means non-kinky or non-lifestyle.

I never said vanilla meant equality. I was saying, for me, when I'm in an equal mood I have vanilla-ish sex. Vanilla meaning "non-bdsm".

And D/s is "inequal" in the way that there is a dominant and a submissive, a top and a bottom.

 

[Ebonyfire]

And D/s is "inequal" in the way that there is a dominant and a submissive, a top and a bottom.

And I said I disagree, which is my right to do so. I am speaking for my own opinion.

I would not want to have a submissive who was not equal to me. I doubt if my slave see this as an unequal situation. To each to his or her own [opinion]. It is more synergistic, in my book.

EB

 

[Hester]

And I said I disagree, which is my right to do so. I am speaking for my own opinion.

I would not want to have a submissive who was not equal to me. I doubt if my slave see this as an unequal situation. To each to his or her own [opinion]. It is more synergistic, in my book.

EB

i have to agree with you wholeheartedly. i can't abide even the thought of being topped by someone who is not at least my equal in certain respects, and this is amplified even more if i am the top.

 

[Pure]

something about all the 'equality' talk does not seem right, in my view. for any given pair of people, they aren't usually equal, in most if not all respects. of course a PC couple may talk it up a great deal.

it's particularly perplexing why self-identified 'doms' and 'subs' want to talk equality since they go on to set up UNequal arrangements.
"I want my sub to be equal so he can sign a contract to henceforth be unequal, that is, subject to my command and dedicated to the fulfillment of my desires (which is to become the goal of his desires)."


IF equality is so fine and so sought after, why not proceed to egalitarian kink? dump chocolate-coated cherries on each other and fuck like minxes.

In regard to SM, which is one topic of this 'not dom not sub' thread, i'm not sure why anyone is concerned with equality, tho' i do understand Hester and bright ladies who don't want to be in the company of boobs (idiots).

In regard to SM, i can see, on the one hand, the advantages of *near* equality--for the same reason as in a boxing match: the process is prolonged, more interesting. this applies whether one is seeking victory (S) or wanting struggle in vain(M).

on the other hand, i don't see why a sadistic person is obliged to pass up on a weaker person (provided they're not retarded, a child, insane, etc.), nor why a maso bottom has to find his torture from an 'near equal' top, as opposed to a superior or vastly stronger one.

 

[SpectreT]

something about all the 'equality' talk does not seem right, in my view. for any given pair of people, they aren't usually equal, in most if not all respects. of course a PC couple may talk it up a great deal.

it's particularly perplexing why self-identified 'doms' and 'subs' want to talk equality since they go on to set up UNequal arrangements.
"I want my sub to be equal so he can sign a contract to henceforth be unequal, that is, subject to my command and dedicated to the fulfillment of my desires (which is to become the goal of his desires)."


IF equality is so fine and so sought after, why not proceed to egalitarian kink? dump chocolate-coated cherries on each other and fuck like minxes.

In regard to SM, which is one topic of this 'not dom not sub' thread, i'm not sure why anyone is concerned with equality, tho' i do understand Hester and bright ladies who don't want to be in the company of boobs (idiots).

In regard to SM, i can see, on the one hand, the advantages of *near* equality--for the same reason as in a boxing match: the process is prolonged, more interesting. this applies whether one is seeking victory (S) or wanting struggle in vain(M).

on the other hand, i don't see why a sadistic person is obliged to pass up on a weaker person (provided they're not retarded, a child, insane, etc.), nor why a maso bottom has to find his torture from an 'near equal' top, as opposed to a superior or vastly stronger one.

Ah, the joys of the American English language.

There are as many definitions of "equal" as there are people to use the word. The Authority and Responsibility factors, henceforth known as "Power" in my post, are not equal in a BDSM relationship. They are negotiated by equals, though. Every last one of us is a Human (I hope), though I sometimes suspect we're not all H. Sapiens Sapiens, especially when I look in the mirror - I'm a bit of a throwback, physically. (Yes, that was humor.)

And didn't I put a bullet in the brainpan of the sadism zombie that had been shambling all over this thread, trying to eat everyone's brains? (yes that was more humor)

Our humanity makes us all ostensibly equals, though there are many character traits and physical advantages and disadvantages that skew this basic level playing field.

My D/S relationship was one where she (Submissive, it turned out when all the dust had settled) by far had the superior willpower in our relationship. (she needed it to put up with my shit - still more humor) Higher physical pain tolerance, too. I had the edge in imagination and creativity, and absolutely had the physical size and strength advantage. I could go on all day, citing each example of which of us was superior in what way, but what it boiled down to, is we were equal partners in the relationship. For the time we were together once she'd "polarized", she gave to me that control that she didn't want; gave me trust and respect. In return, I gave her the benefit of my imagination and creativity, and gave her my trust and respect.

If she hadn't been superior to me in several ways; I couldn't have given her the trust and respect I did; there wouldn't have been a relationship. I couldn't have topped her without the knowledge of her inner strength. So in a sense, you're right, Pure. "All Men are created unequal", as Heinlein wrote, but he finished that thought with: "who's unequal - and in what ways? Differences are crucial." Under no circumstances would I be fool enough to consider a submissive an inferior. Nor would I be idiot enough to assume a Dominant is superior. The exchange of "power" gives the outward appearance of such, but outward appearance is not the whole story.

My basic point being, sure, we're all unequal, but we're unequal in so many ways that we're equal. (Yogi Berra is so going to sue me for gimmick infringement.)

 

[Let_it_come]

And didn't I put a bullet in the brainpan of the sadism zombie that had been shambling all over this thread, trying to eat everyone's brains? (yes that was more humor)

Well, really...
the things you people say!
Be nice, Slim.

 

[SpectreT]

Well, really...
the things you people say!
Be nice, Slim.

Don't read too much into it - I was referring to the way we all got sidetracked, not to any specific poster.

 

[Let_it_come]

Don't read too much into it - I was referring to the way we all got sidetracked, not to any specific poster.

I know, but you see I'm a sensitive little sadist...
I don't like to be hurt...
Unless you were taking enormous perverse pleasure in it, then I'm interested...

AND JUST WHERE IS MECHABLADE? I girl needs someone to talk to sometimes...

(Let's not let this sprawl here? You guys to 'Doms & Subs' here, I'll do 'Sadists' elsewhere. It's just neater that way.)

Tidy-Minded Jen.

 

[Hester]

okay let me put it this way---i want a partner who is my match.

define as you please.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Ah, the joys of the American English language.

There are as many definitions of "equal" as there are people to use the word. The Authority and Responsibility factors, henceforth known as "Power" in my post, are not equal in a BDSM relationship. They are negotiated by equals, though. Every last one of us is a Human (I hope), though I sometimes suspect we're not all H. Sapiens Sapiens, especially when I look in the mirror - I'm a bit of a throwback, physically. (Yes, that was humor.)

And didn't I put a bullet in the brainpan of the sadism zombie that had been shambling all over this thread, trying to eat everyone's brains? (yes that was more humor)

Our humanity makes us all ostensibly equals, though there are many character traits and physical advantages and disadvantages that skew this basic level playing field.

My D/S relationship was one where she (Submissive, it turned out when all the dust had settled) by far had the superior willpower in our relationship. (she needed it to put up with my shit - still more humor) Higher physical pain tolerance, too. I had the edge in imagination and creativity, and absolutely had the physical size and strength advantage. I could go on all day, citing each example of which of us was superior in what way, but what it boiled down to, is we were equal partners in the relationship. For the time we were together once she'd "polarized", she gave to me that control that she didn't want; gave me trust and respect. In return, I gave her the benefit of my imagination and creativity, and gave her my trust and respect.

If she hadn't been superior to me in several ways; I couldn't have given her the trust and respect I did; there wouldn't have been a relationship. I couldn't have topped her without the knowledge of her inner strength. So in a sense, you're right, Pure. "All Men are created unequal", as Heinlein wrote, but he finished that thought with: "who's unequal - and in what ways? Differences are crucial." Under no circumstances would I be fool enough to consider a submissive an inferior. Nor would I be idiot enough to assume a Dominant is superior. The exchange of "power" gives the outward appearance of such, but outward appearance is not the whole story.

My basic point being, sure, we're all unequal, but we're unequal in so many ways that we're equal. (Yogi Berra is so going to sue me for gimmick infringement.)

In My relationships, I am supreme not superior. As an american black woman I object to the use of superior.

So there.

Eb

 

[Ebonyfire]

okay let me put it this way---i want a partner who is my match.

define as you please.

Works for Me also.

Eb

 

[SpectreT]

In My relationships, I am supreme not superior. As an american black woman I object to the use of superior.

So there.

Eb

As long as we can keep it to a post or two, I won't object to a brief sidetrack for semantics purposes; as it's never my intent to offend.

Can you propose synonyms that work in the context of my post, since you find "superior" and "inferior" offensive? Or is the language as limited in conveying the concepts as I imagine it to be? (or perhaps my grasp of American English - my native language - to be?)

 

[Ebonyfire]

As long as we can keep it to a post or two, I won't object to a brief sidetrack for semantics purposes; as it's never my intent to offend.

Can you propose synonyms that work in the context of my post, since you find "superior" and "inferior" offensive? Or is the language as limited in conveying the concepts as I imagine it to be? (or perhaps my grasp of American English - my native language - to be?)

You did not offend me. Honest. I spent about 2 hours talking to a submissive once because we got hung up on superior vs. supreme. I have found that superior is a term that has been used to infer "better than" rather than "dominant over".

Eb

 

[Ebonyfire]

something about all the 'equality' talk does not seem right, in my view. for any given pair of people, they aren't usually equal, in most if not all respects. of course a PC couple may talk it up a great deal.

it's particularly perplexing why self-identified 'doms' and 'subs' want to talk equality since they go on to set up UNequal arrangements.
"I want my sub to be equal so he can sign a contract to henceforth be unequal, that is, subject to my command and dedicated to the fulfillment of my desires (which is to become the goal of his desires)."


IF equality is so fine and so sought after, why not proceed to egalitarian kink? dump chocolate-coated cherries on each other and fuck like minxes.

In regard to SM, which is one topic of this 'not dom not sub' thread, i'm not sure why anyone is concerned with equality, tho' i do understand Hester and bright ladies who don't want to be in the company of boobs (idiots).

In regard to SM, i can see, on the one hand, the advantages of *near* equality--for the same reason as in a boxing match: the process is prolonged, more interesting. this applies whether one is seeking victory (S) or wanting struggle in vain(M).

on the other hand, i don't see why a sadistic person is obliged to pass up on a weaker person (provided they're not retarded, a child, insane, etc.), nor why a maso bottom has to find his torture from an 'near equal' top, as opposed to a superior or vastly stronger one.

All I have to say is different strokes for different folks.

Eb

 

[catalina_francisco]

In My relationships, I am supreme not superior. As an american black woman I object to the use of superior.

So there.

Eb

I actually have to agree with you. For me it never makes sense when Dominants claim their slave/submissives are inferior, while they are superior...in essence it means (or seems to say) that though they view themselves as better, they have some issues to deal with in that they feel they only deserve inferior subs, not the best or better, or quality. If I were going to own or be served by a slave/submissive, as in most things, I would demand quality and someone who was going to be able to satisfy my needs and make me proud to own or be served by.

Catalina