Serious relationships - are we that weird?

[graceanne]

If Ma'am would like I could switch to a better example...

I know where you live.

I loved your analogy, and your point is great.

Smart ass.

 

[evesdream]

You know, I'm thinking about serious relationships I've been in, the ones with deep love, ongoing reason to trust, a lot of faith and history with the other person.

I'm thinking about some of the extremes you read about in the paper and in literature all the time in purely vanilla relationships. People kill, lie, cheat, steal, kill their children, go insane, drive cars off cliffs, stab the local official and then jump off the parapets - you catch my drift.

You don't have to be kinked to give way to dangerous behavior in the name of the object of your desire.

Also, if vanilla people in love will do all and any of that "for one another" is it really that weird if I have my husband meow like a cat for my amusement?

Is it really that weird that he'd say yes to this?

When I was with my completely vanilla partner, I think either of us would have done a lot of things in the name of "it would really mean a lot to me if..."

Are we just caught up in building this really elaborate nomenclature because we like that facet of love?

Well, when part of the reason that I'll do what means a lot to him, is because he'll beat me and/or put me in a cage if I don't, it seems a little different.

 

[Quint]

.............

 

[Netzach]

Well, when part of the reason that I'll do what means a lot to him, is because he'll beat me and/or put me in a cage if I don't, it seems a little different.

Ah. I guess my analogy holds better if I'll beat you and put you in a cage if you do. If you don't I'll assume you don't really care much and move on, either in little possibly fixable ways or in larger ones. There's always someone who will appreciate my efforts.

This isn't a rip on those who operate the other way, but this is my MO.

 

[ms.read]

For people who practice the BDSM lifestyle, No I don't think you are that wierd at all, Both the dom(me)s and Subs are confident and assertive in what you want out of a relationship, and your partners (if they love you) are there to please you and vice versa. I think in some 'vanilla' relationships, some people don't talk about what they want out of the relationship, until one day they get up the courage (or anger and frustration) and show thier partners what they want without the partners consent. And this is where you get the "beserk people who do the wierd things IN THE NEWS" that are way out of control becuase they are uneducated about thier desires and how to implement them in a relationship with out anyone getting hurt.

I have some interesting desires and so have been researching things in the "alternate" lifestyle because I don't have experience in what I want. The term "Sane,Consensual, and Safeword" or something like that is the best slogan I have heard /read as of yet.

I don't think there are the balck and white lines of Vanilla and BDSM anyway, there are too many variables in every relationship to label them.

 

[midwestyankee]

I've been trying to get my head around this thread since it first appeared and I may yet but I'm still a little confused by your very last line, Netz.

When you say, "Are we just caught up in building this really elaborate nomenclature because we like that facet of love?," you seem to be ignoring all those who live the nomenclature for its own sake. I trust that this was intentional on your part, but I thought I'd ask.

It does make sense to me that couples would find many different ways to express their love, including making cat-like noises on demand or submitting to being put in a cage as punishment for an offense against one's rules. And such tasks are certainly no more or less onerous to the one who accepts them than the chore of repainting the dining room for the fourth time in three weeks just to get the color right. Love is action, after all.

Still, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to elaborate on your musing about building the nomenclature.

 

[Netzach]

I've been trying to get my head around this thread since it first appeared and I may yet but I'm still a little confused by your very last line, Netz.

When you say, "Are we just caught up in building this really elaborate nomenclature because we like that facet of love?," you seem to be ignoring all those who live the nomenclature for its own sake. I trust that this was intentional on your part, but I thought I'd ask.

It does make sense to me that couples would find many different ways to express their love, including making cat-like noises on demand or submitting to being put in a cage as punishment for an offense against one's rules. And such tasks are certainly no more or less onerous to the one who accepts them than the chore of repainting the dining room for the fourth time in three weeks just to get the color right. Love is action, after all.

Still, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to elaborate on your musing about building the nomenclature.

Um, I think I could if you explain what this means
"
When you say, "Are we just caught up in building this really elaborate nomenclature because we like that facet of love?," you seem to be ignoring all those who live the nomenclature for its own sake. I trust that this was intentional on your part, but I thought I'd ask."

with an example?

You mean like me and H, because we're not profoundly and deeply in love?

I do think it's adoration that drives him, without a doubt. And admiration that drives me. But you are probably right that without the matrix of "BDSM D/s slave" we would not have met one another.

I guess I'm talking about people who are in long-term romantic entanglements, as many seem to be or strive to be in D/s rels.

I'm just frustrated with our tendency to cast every single behavioral tic of "and she got him his beer" with our kink, as much as I'm leery of every vanilla person's insistence that there's no sexual tint to the fact that she rubs his feet every single night, or something like that.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I'm just frustrated with our tendency to cast every single behavioral tic of "and she got him his beer" with our kink, as much as I'm leery of every vanilla person's insistence that there's no sexual tint to the fact that she rubs his feet every single night, or something like that.

I can identify with your thoughts here. I read many people's list of what they do and see as signs and depth of their submission and I can't help but think their list consists of things I did in my vanilla marriage, sometimes everything on the list was a part of who I was in that marriage and subsequent relationships (even sometimes what was doine for me on occasion) and yet I don't think it equates to being kinky or demonstrating a willingness to submit as much as something you do out of a desire to give to the one you love regardless of kink and D/s.

Catalina

 

[midwestyankee]

Let me try to express my thought more clearly. Your original post concerns itself only with people in deep relationships. But then your last line poses the question about "building this really elaborate nomenclature." I take it that by nomenclature you mean the language we use to describe all the various parsings of power exchange within a relationship.

But the same parsings go on between people who are not in deep relationships, between casual play partners, for example. There the power exchange is usually temporary, though still consensual, and might recur on numerous occasions with the same partners.

So it seems to me that since the nomenclature of power exchange exists outside the realm of deep relaitonships - and exists for many of the same reasons of clear communication and cleanly delineated roles - that it can't be solely because we like the service/served aspect of a loving relationship.

 

[ecstaticsub]

I can identify with your thoughts here. I read many people's list of what they do and see as signs and depth of their submission and I can't help but think their list consists of things I did in my vanilla marriage, sometimes everything on the list was a part of who I was in that marriage and subsequent relationships (even sometimes what was doine for me on occasion) and yet I don't think it equates to being kinky or demonstrating a willingness to submit as much as something you do out of a desire to give to the one you love regardless of kink and D/s.

Catalina

Thanks. This is exactly what was in my head but couldn't find the words for. In someways I "submit" more in my vanilla marriage then in my D/s relationship simply because I do what needs to be done to keep the family together and moving forward. (though I think in reality I submit more to the military that my husband works for then to my husband..)

 

[evesdream]

I dunno, beats the hell out of getting into an argument.

Strange...but true!

Ah. I guess my analogy holds better if I'll beat you and put you in a cage if you do. If you don't I'll assume you don't really care much and move on, either in little possibly fixable ways or in larger ones. There's always someone who will appreciate my efforts.

This isn't a rip on those who operate the other way, but this is my MO.

I was wondering about this aspect of your domain. Without sheer brute force on deck, it seems you'd have to find a completely willing partner, not a sometimes willing one (when it's a big guy).

It's my expansive rape fetish that fucks me up, I guess. Hello, adrenaline.

 

[snowy ciara]

Also, if vanilla people in love will do all and any of that "for one another" is it really that weird if I have my husband meow like a cat for my amusement?

Is it really that weird that he'd say yes to this?

Meow?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the original post. But this bit struck me as funny because I have meowed at someone else's behest before.

 

[Netzach]

Let me try to express my thought more clearly. Your original post concerns itself only with people in deep relationships. But then your last line poses the question about "building this really elaborate nomenclature." I take it that by nomenclature you mean the language we use to describe all the various parsings of power exchange within a relationship.

But the same parsings go on between people who are not in deep relationships, between casual play partners, for example. There the power exchange is usually temporary, though still consensual, and might recur on numerous occasions with the same partners.

So it seems to me that since the nomenclature of power exchange exists outside the realm of deep relaitonships - and exists for many of the same reasons of clear communication and cleanly delineated roles - that it can't be solely because we like the service/served aspect of a loving relationship.

I think you are being too literal and I was being too cranky and vague. I'm just decrying the knots that we like to tie ourselves in via our own elaborate fetishes for labeling.

 

[saw_man1]

xxxxx

 

[Toa_lin]

simply and sweetly, I beleive this wasn't intended as a long winded, higly philosophical discussion. That it wasn't long thought out and rehersed and checked fro any errors, merely a short outburst and venting of some built up feelings at some late or early hour, and was meant to be taken as such.

If I am I wrong, please tell me, and I will meow my way into somewhere that i'm not so foolishly misconstruing the OP's intention's

 

[lucky-E-leven]

You know, I'm thinking about serious relationships I've been in, the ones with deep love, ongoing reason to trust, a lot of faith and history with the other person.

I'm thinking about some of the extremes you read about in the paper and in literature all the time in purely vanilla relationships. People kill, lie, cheat, steal, kill their children, go insane, drive cars off cliffs, stab the local official and then jump off the parapets - you catch my drift.

You don't have to be kinked to give way to dangerous behavior in the name of the object of your desire.

Also, if vanilla people in love will do all and any of that "for one another" is it really that weird if I have my husband meow like a cat for my amusement?

Is it really that weird that he'd say yes to this?

When I was with my completely vanilla partner, I think either of us would have done a lot of things in the name of "it would really mean a lot to me if..."

Are we just caught up in building this really elaborate nomenclature because we like that facet of love?

I think the difference between being "kinked and off the hook" and being "vanilla and off the hook" is that the kinked crowd has a tendency toward recognizing, accepting, and owning their particular bent. It's my opinion that those vanilla folk that do extreme things "in the name of love" and leave it at that are lazy cowards. Too afraid to call it what it is, their explanation for their extreme behaviors is that they were consumed by their love and acted out.

Kinky people are just more honest. Sure, it gets a little extreme with the constant labeling and sub-labeling (no pun intended), but what it really looks like to me is that kinky people that bother to take the time to recognize their needs, desires, and actions are off the beaten path means they're being honest with themselves.

I guess, in a nutshell, it looks to me like the kinksters are students of their own psyches while non-kinksters are ashamed of their natural inclinations and hiding behind something everyone recognizes; Passionate Love. I think the nomenclature point is a good one, because it seems there is a large population of people simply looking for something to identify with and belong to. I also think, considering the cerebral quality of conversation around here most of the time, that the true kinksters are striving to develop a common language for the things they feel a deep need to express, exchange, and understand.

 

[RJMasters]

You know, I'm thinking about serious relationships I've been in, the ones with deep love, ongoing reason to trust, a lot of faith and history with the other person.

I'm thinking about some of the extremes you read about in the paper and in literature all the time in purely vanilla relationships. People kill, lie, cheat, steal, kill their children, go insane, drive cars off cliffs, stab the local official and then jump off the parapets - you catch my drift.

You don't have to be kinked to give way to dangerous behavior in the name of the object of your desire.

Also, if vanilla people in love will do all and any of that "for one another" is it really that weird if I have my husband meow like a cat for my amusement?

Is it really that weird that he'd say yes to this?

When I was with my completely vanilla partner, I think either of us would have done a lot of things in the name of "it would really mean a lot to me if..."

Are we just caught up in building this really elaborate nomenclature because we like that facet of love?

Point #1

I think in part that the elaborate nomenclature is a way to distinguish the facet of love we are attracted to from the - kill, lie, cheat, steal, kill their children, go insane, drive cars off cliffs, stab the local official and then jump off the parapets type of behavior.

I dare say that mainstream would see SM practices or even D/s practices as tell-tale signs that the aforementioned behavior is but a decision away.

In a way of attempting to explain this facet of love we desire, it is in part neccessary to be able to use words in which to communicate it. Hence the propencity to label and define things for clarification.

Because I hold down my wife by the back of her neck and go to town with my hand on her upturned ass till she cries, does not equate to spouse abuse. Main stream would not see it that way. They would think my wife is stuck in an abusive relationship.

Perhaps it is futile to try to offer any explanation to the mainstream who will not understand anyways and equally futile to point out their own inconsistancies of violent eruptions in their own vanilla relationships.

Edited to add: The fact that they see eruptions of this nature in their own relationships as failures, they cannot understand or accept a relationship where SM or D/s type practices are expressed. They see them in the light of their own failures which is why they see them as bad, unstable, crazy, or abusive.

Point #2

There are many who have expereinced failed vanilla relationships and have sought out something....for a lack of a better term...."more". Perhaps a better word would be something different. Again there is in part a need to seperate one's self from the old...in this case that would represent vanilla type relationship which failed them in the past. The nomenclature helps in part as a bridge of understanding and distinction. This often equates to self definition and can even lead to one trying to live up to the definition of the role rather than the normal expression of who they are or why they do what they do because it is satisfying and pleasurable.

Point #3

I think the biggest mistake people make who are new to all of this, is learning all the nomenclature and then trying to change their relationship or themselves in order to fit.

Point #4

Terms like Kink vs Vanilla or normal sexuality vs kinky sexuality are ways people try and make distinction or see themselves as different. You have to go back and ask the question what is normal? How do you define normal? And for some, you can exchange the word normal in those questions with the word vanilla. Normal is relative. What is normal for one person is not for another. I have heard people try to explain this as a spectrum with vanilla on one side and kink on the other. To a degree this does work, however this also falls short in escaping the scope of nomenclature because it is still defining. There is only one way to truly escape the nomenclature and that is to see kink and vanilla in an equivilant way. Like many things in life, things can hold equality, yet be different.

This leads to the philisophical question, am I really all that different than you? Are the reasons behind WITITWD that much different than the reasons they do WIITTD? I think the answer is yes there is differences in the motivations, and desires, but these are just different paths being taken in order to arrive at the same destination....and that destination is perhaps the only unifying thing.

What is that destination? We are seeking a life that is satisfying to us. In regards to relationships, this typically means being with someone who completes us and makes life better, richer and fuller. in this regard, I am no different than vanilla people nor are they different than I, even though we have choosen differnt paths based on our own individual needs, wants and desires.

 

[catalina_francisco]

As always with Netzach, a very thought provoking discussion....

 

[Marquis]

Wrong thread!

 

[NomadLady]

Point #1

I think in part that the elaborate nomenclature is a way to distinguish the facet of love we are attracted to from the - kill, lie, cheat, steal, kill their children, go insane, drive cars off cliffs, stab the local official and then jump off the parapets type of behavior.

I dare say that mainstream would see SM practices or even D/s practices as tell-tale signs that the aforementioned behavior is but a decision away.

In a way of attempting to explain this facet of love we desire, it is in part neccessary to be able to use words in which to communicate it. Hence the propencity to label and define things for clarification.

Because I hold down my wife by the back of her neck and go to town with my hand on her upturned ass till she cries, does not equate to spouse abuse. Main stream would not see it that way. They would think my wife is stuck in an abusive relationship.

Perhaps it is futile to try to offer any explanation to the mainstream who will not understand anyways and equally futile to point out their own inconsistancies of violent eruptions in their own vanilla relationships.

Edited to add: The fact that they see eruptions of this nature in their own relationships as failures, they cannot understand or accept a relationship where SM or D/s type practices are expressed. They see them in the light of their own failures which is why they see them as bad, unstable, crazy, or abusive.

Point #2

There are many who have expereinced failed vanilla relationships and have sought out something....for a lack of a better term...."more". Perhaps a better word would be something different. Again there is in part a need to seperate one's self from the old...in this case that would represent vanilla type relationship which failed them in the past. The nomenclature helps in part as a bridge of understanding and distinction. This often equates to self definition and can even lead to one trying to live up to the definition of the role rather than the normal expression of who they are or why they do what they do because it is satisfying and pleasurable.

Point #3

I think the biggest mistake people make who are new to all of this, is learning all the nomenclature and then trying to change their relationship or themselves in order to fit.

Point #4

Terms like Kink vs Vanilla or normal sexuality vs kinky sexuality are ways people try and make distinction or see themselves as different. You have to go back and ask the question what is normal? How do you define normal? And for some, you can exchange the word normal in those questions with the word vanilla. Normal is relative. What is normal for one person is not for another. I have heard people try to explain this as a spectrum with vanilla on one side and kink on the other. To a degree this does work, however this also falls short in escaping the scope of nomenclature because it is still defining. There is only one way to truly escape the nomenclature and that is to see kink and vanilla in an equivilant way. Like many things in life, things can hold equality, yet be different.

This leads to the philisophical question, am I really all that different than you? Are the reasons behind WITITWD that much different than the reasons they do WIITTD? I think the answer is yes there is differences in the motivations, and desires, but these are just different paths being taken in order to arrive at the same destination....and that destination is perhaps the only unifying thing.

What is that destination? We are seeking a life that is satisfying to us. In regards to relationships, this typically means being with someone who completes us and makes life better, richer and fuller. in this regard, I am no different than vanilla people nor are they different than I, even though we have choosen differnt paths based on our own individual needs, wants and desires.

This last paragraph says it all....

 

[catalina_francisco]

This last paragraph says it all....

In part true, but as RJ will also tell you, in his own life he has chosen to remain in a relationship which does not allow him to explore or fulfil his needs as far as BDSM go in that it is a vanilla relationship, because he made a commitment, he loves his partner as she does him, and no relationship is without it bumps and problems. If one chooses to run when things get tough or less than perfect and rosy, it becomes very difficult to have a steady long term relationship with honesty and trust. Unfortunately, it is a rare human who can honestly say they are happy 100% of the time...I don't think I have ever met anyone who is.

Catalina