Why do you cede or accept control outside the bedroom?

[NemoAlia]

So far, in my careful and constant study of myself, I haven't found a deep-seated need to serve. (Although it's been hinted I'd be a better, or at least more natural, submissive if I had one.)

With most casual partners, I make an "are you kidding?" face if they expect me to do anything subbish outside the bedroom.

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. Even though we're not "in scene" at the moment, it's kind of like our relationship is one continuing scene -- on some level or another.

My hope (for his sake) is that this non-sexual submission isn't just a honeymoon phase, but that it will continue and grow as we continue our relationship.

 

[insertcutename]

I should have picked the second choice, but when it comes down to it, I feel the need to be controlled in some ways.

Before I met my Daddy, I never would have thought of myself or labelled myself as a "submissive" person. The farther we get into our relationship, I would like him to have as much control over my life that he would enjoy. My submissive tendancies are purely selfish. I get pleasure out of pleasing him. Seeing him satisfied by something I have done for him, sexual or otherwise, hearing him praise me, it's undiscribable. No word I can come up with quite explains it.

 

[SpectreT]

<snip>
I've heard people say there is no such thing as non-BDSM sex, and I can definitely see the argument for that. But outside the bedroom is different. Again, fascinating. Thanks for giving me something to think about.

<snip>

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); vanilla sex, however, is not only possible - it's the most common variety.

 

[kat_42]

Greetings.

To me the first two and the fourth were all saying the same thing in different ways. I picked 4 becasue it said it in the way that seemed to suit my lifestyle the best.

 

[BiBunny]

So far, in my careful and constant study of myself, I haven't found a deep-seated need to serve. (Although it's been hinted I'd be a better, or at least more natural, submissive if I had one.)

With most casual partners, I make an "are you kidding?" face if they expect me to do anything subbish outside the bedroom.

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. Even though we're not "in scene" at the moment, it's kind of like our relationship is one continuing scene -- on some level or another.

My hope (for his sake) is that this non-sexual submission isn't just a honeymoon phase, but that it will continue and grow as we continue our relationship.

I think I'm sort of the same way, even though I did eventually pick that I have a need to serve. Truth be told, I have a need to serve Master--and that's it. No one else has ever been able to get anything other than a laugh out of me for trying to tell me what to do.

 

[Netzach]

So far, in my careful and constant study of myself, I haven't found a deep-seated need to serve. (Although it's been hinted I'd be a better, or at least more natural, submissive if I had one.)

With most casual partners, I make an "are you kidding?" face if they expect me to do anything subbish outside the bedroom.

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. Even though we're not "in scene" at the moment, it's kind of like our relationship is one continuing scene -- on some level or another.

My hope (for his sake) is that this non-sexual submission isn't just a honeymoon phase, but that it will continue and grow as we continue our relationship.

This reminds me of my hub. I've noticed, and perhaps this isn't the case with you, that the LESS of an issue I make about it, and the more positive strokes I give when it does happen, the more often it happens. If I get crabby or insistant, M digs his little heels in a bit and it's just not worth it. A little sugar goes a long way.

 

[NemoAlia]

This reminds me of my hub. I've noticed, and perhaps this isn't the case with you, that the LESS of an issue I make about it, and the more positive strokes I give when it does happen, the more often it happens. If I get crabby or insistant, M digs his little heels in a bit and it's just not worth it. A little sugar goes a long way.

Yeah, E says, "You catch more flies with honey..."

 

[FurryFury]

I am constantly doing little service things for my husband, my kids, my cats, my friends and so on. They may not know it. I may not talk or even think about it most of the time but it's there.

I also feel a need to lead, teach and so on, numerous others, including but not limited to the list above. These two things are just natural parts of me, rarely thought in detail about.

I'll allow anyone who interacts with me certain aspects of control that they may be unaware of. My husband I allow a very great deal of control in certain areas. Still there is a great deal I take control of as well. Why? Because someone has to, someone I trust to handle things the "right" way. That usually turns out to be me.

In general I tend to always put others before me, particularly my kids and husband. I'm working on that because quite honestly, it stresses me and seems to actually "help" them very little.

Fury

 

[JMohegan]

I should have picked the second choice, but when it comes down to it, I feel the need to be controlled in some ways.

Before I met my Daddy, I never would have thought of myself or labelled myself as a "submissive" person. The farther we get into our relationship, I would like him to have as much control over my life that he would enjoy. My submissive tendancies are purely selfish. I get pleasure out of pleasing him. Seeing him satisfied by something I have done for him, sexual or otherwise, hearing him praise me, it's undiscribable. No word I can come up with quite explains it.

I think that statement in red is true for a lot of people. Either because they were unaware of the D/s dynamic prior to meeting a person who introduced them to it, or because it just took one special person to bring out urges or needs that had previously been dormant.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

 

[JMohegan]

Greetings.

To me the first two and the fourth were all saying the same thing in different ways. I picked 4 becasue it said it in the way that seemed to suit my lifestyle the best.

Greetings, Kat. Welcome to the thread, and the board.

I see your point, in the sense that options 2 and 4 are really describing two specific types of control.

However, I separated them out as distinct options because I think 2 and 4 reflect very specific needs that are not always present when someone (like me) says, "I have a need for control outside the bedroom".

To explain what I mean (and because you are new to the board), I will show you two things.

First, as a reference for the type of control I had in mind in option 2, click here to find a link to a detailed draft contract that was posted recently. Notice that the submissive specifically asks the Dominant to "use the power vested in his role; to mold and shape me; assisting me to grow in strength, character, confidence, and being, and that he continue to help me to develop my artistic and intellectual abilities." That is a very specific type of power exchange, and that's what I had in mind with option 2.

With option 4, I had in mind relationships in which the partners have a need for very detailed and focused control outside the bedroom. To see examples of the level of control I was referring to, read the first few pages of posts on this thread.

I hope that helps explain the distinctions between options 1, 2, and 4, and why I made them.

 

[JMohegan]

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); vanilla sex, however, is not only possible - it's the most common variety.

SpectreT,

I haven't forgotten my promise to you in post 75, but I'm holding off on a response until I have a chance to discuss your theory with my sister and a close non-D/s friend.

As for your comment about vanilla sex, I've had this discussion many times with a guy who swears there's no such thing. Every time I try to oppose his theory, he comes back with a question I can't answer. He says, "Okay. If vanilla sex exists, prove it to me by explaining what it is in detail. Let's say you wanted to have it. What would you do?"

I'll be honest with you here. I have no fucking idea. Sex, to me, is conquest and power and me physically dominating another human being. Even in slow motion, with lots of tenderness and warm feelings being expressed, that's how it feels. And it's been true for me from the first time I ever had sex. Long before I ever tied anyone up or whacked a backside, I was controlling whatever went on in my bed.

And every single guy I've ever talked to - every last one - admits to feeling an extra surge of excitement when he does something like taking her a bit roughly in the rear, or pinching her nipples hard..... and then listening to her moan. Not extensive pain play, but an experience involving erotic pain nonetheless.

I don't have a strong opinion about this. It is really just semantics once again.

But I do find it amusing to contemplate exactly how someone would go about having "vanilla sex". As I said before, I have no fucking idea.

 

[SpectreT]

SpectreT,

I haven't forgotten my promise to you in post 75, but I'm holding off on a response until I have a chance to discuss your theory with my sister and a close non-D/s friend.

As for your comment about vanilla sex, I've had this discussion many times with a guy who swears there's no such thing. Every time I try to oppose his theory, he comes back with a question I can't answer. He says, "Okay. If vanilla sex exists, prove it to me by explaining what it is in detail. Let's say you wanted to have it. What would you do?"

I'll be honest with you here. I have no fucking idea. Sex, to me, is conquest and power and me physically dominating another human being. Even in slow motion, with lots of tenderness and warm feelings being expressed, that's how it feels. And it's been true for me from the first time I ever had sex. Long before I ever tied anyone up or whacked a backside, I was controlling whatever went on in my bed.

And every single guy I've ever talked to - every last one - admits to feeling an extra surge of excitement when he does something like taking her a bit roughly in the rear, or pinching her nipples hard..... and then listening to her moan. Not extensive pain play, but an experience involving erotic pain nonetheless.

I don't have a strong opinion about this. It is really just semantics once again.

But I do find it amusing to contemplate exactly how someone would go about having "vanilla sex". As I said before, I have no fucking idea.

Spectre's guide to vanilla sex (male perspective):

1) Indulge in foreplay.
2) Insert penis.
3) Thrust.
4) Repeat step 3, above, until...
5) Ejaculate (generally accompanied by orgasm)
6) Roll over.
7) Start snoring.

Step five is the goal; the rest is just process.

...and that ends the tongue in cheek breakdown.


Seriously, if it doesn't involve costumes, tie-up games, "sensation play", or something of the like, it doesn't rate as kinked in my book, as any D/S of such is simply an extension of the rest of the relationship, which in order to be vanilla requires an unconscious "power dynamic" rather than a D/S aware and negotiated one. (Convoluted run-on sentence, anyone? )

So, at the risk of seeming shallow, yes the trappings matter, specifically as a lens to focus the dynamic, a reminder of exactly what's up.

The "ego trip" you're discussing (power tripping on rough play) (quotes around "ego trip" to indicate a label that may not be semantically exactly accurate, but sufficient for my purposes) isn't D/S, at least from my point of view, it's more like robots running their "male or female societal indoctrination sexual behavior" punch cards, with maybe a dangling chad here or there, but still not breaking into the other side of the line.

 

[JMohegan]

Seriously, if it doesn't involve costumes, tie-up games, "sensation play", or something of the like, it doesn't rate as kinked in my book, as any D/S of such is simply an extension of the rest of the relationship, which in order to be vanilla requires an unconscious "power dynamic" rather than a D/S aware and negotiated one. (Convoluted run-on sentence, anyone? )

So, at the risk of seeming shallow, yes the trappings matter, specifically as a lens to focus the dynamic, a reminder of exactly what's up.

The "ego trip" you're discussing (power tripping on rough play) (quotes around "ego trip" to indicate a label that may not be semantically exactly accurate, but sufficient for my purposes) isn't D/S, at least from my point of view, it's more like robots running their "male or female societal indoctrination sexual behavior" punch cards, with maybe a dangling chad here or there, but still not breaking into the other side of the line.

Entertaining verbiage aside (and this was entertaining), I'm still not clear on where you would draw the line between biting nipples to cause a little erotic pain and nipple clamps that you would consider a clear "trapping" confirming the presence of SM play. There is a line in there somewhere; I just don't know how you could possibly draw it.

I'm also entertaining myself at the moment imagining what happens in allegedly vanilla sex in order to effect a position change. Where would you draw the line between me flipping her over onto her back, and a direct command to move that you would recognize as obvious D/s?

I don't know the answers to these questions, and of course it doesn't really matter. But I did find your post amusing. Thanks for the lol.

 

[SpectreT]

Entertaining verbiage aside (and this was entertaining), I'm still not clear on where you would draw the line between biting nipples to cause a little erotic pain and nipple clamps that you would consider a clear "trapping" confirming the presence of SM play. There is a line in there somewhere; I just don't know how you could possibly draw it.

I'm also entertaining myself at the moment imagining what happens in allegedly vanilla sex in order to effect a position change. Where would you draw the line between me flipping her over onto her back, and a direct command to move that you would recognize as obvious D/s?

I don't know the answers to these questions, and of course it doesn't really matter. But I did find your post amusing. Thanks for the lol.

The line is right... over... there.

yep, that clarified it.

See, your use of language shows me your entire "mental map" is D/S, which does hinder somewhat the ability to articulate the answers to such challenges. Though you seem to be aware of the line subconsciosly, and even peripherally consciously. It's kind of like - no one who speaks only English gets the hint of regret in the Japanese word, "sayonara": they (English speakers) don't have words with any emotion imbedded in them, therefore simply translate "sayonara" as "goodbye". A more literal translation is "If it must be so (regretfully or sorrowfully)." You won't find "Erotic pain" in the nilla lexicon, for one example of your use of language that I'm talking about.

The line I draw involves what goes through their heads. "I'm the boss, and she'll take it" means it's into the D/S end of things. "Hey, she liked when I pinched 'em hard, I wonder how she'll like a little bite?" is pure nilla. Same activity, no clamps required. But if the clamps are there, it's a little harder to bullshit yourself about what's up. You know you're doing something kinky - there's the toys to prove it.

"Tuning the radio dials", as rough nipple play is sometimes called, can be nilla or D/S, and it really is the headspace of one or both partners. But if there isn't a conscious thought of "who's the boss?" or knowing who that boss is on some aware level, it ain't D/S in my book.

I hope that cleared it up a little.

 

[catalina_francisco]

The line is right... over... there.

yep, that clarified it.

See, your use of language shows me your entire "mental map" is D/S, which does hinder somewhat the ability to articulate the answers to such challenges. Though you seem to be aware of the line subconsciosly, and even peripherally consciously. It's kind of like - no one who speaks only English gets the hint of regret in the Japanese word, "sayonara": they (English speakers) don't have words with any emotion imbedded in them, therefore simply translate "sayonara" as "goodbye". A more literal translation is "If it must be so (regretfully or sorrowfully)." You won't find "Erotic pain" in the nilla lexicon, for one example of your use of language that I'm talking about.

The line I draw involves what goes through their heads. "I'm the boss, and she'll take it" means it's into the D/S end of things. "Hey, she liked when I pinched 'em hard, I wonder how she'll like a little bite?" is pure nilla. Same activity, no clamps required. But if the clamps are there, it's a little harder to bullshit yourself about what's up. You know you're doing something kinky - there's the toys to prove it.

"Tuning the radio dials", as rough nipple play is sometimes called, can be nilla or D/S, and it really is the headspace of one or both partners. But if there isn't a conscious thought of "who's the boss?" or knowing who that boss is on some aware level, it ain't D/S in my book.

I hope that cleared it up a little.

Very well explained and demonstrated SpectreT.....geez I'm glad you are back here though I think I have said that before.

Catalina

 

[Bandit58]

I am constantly doing little service things for my husband, my kids, my cats, my friends and so on. They may not know it. I may not talk or even think about it most of the time but it's there.

I also feel a need to lead, teach and so on, numerous others, including but not limited to the list above. These two things are just natural parts of me, rarely thought in detail about.

I'll allow anyone who interacts with me certain aspects of control that they may be unaware of. My husband I allow a very great deal of control in certain areas. Still there is a great deal I take control of as well. Why? Because someone has to, someone I trust to handle things the "right" way. That usually turns out to be me.

In general I tend to always put others before me, particularly my kids and husband. I'm working on that because quite honestly, it stresses me and seems to actually "help" them very little.

Fury

Hi Fury You're describing me in your post! I'm always "doing" for others too. I've found my niche in caring for Master (for those who don't know, He has chronic health problems which necessitate care on a daily basis). I've been told I would make a good nurse, by nurses themselves. I've worked in special ed, as a teacher aide. I've lived on a farm, taken care of animals. I've raised 2 kids When I worked in an office, I took over the shitty boring jobs so the other girls could get on with the "more important" things.

I take care of our finances, because I'm better at it than He is and I'm internet banking savvy That's one area that I won't give control over, to anyone. He's quite happy for me to do this. One less thing for Him to worry about.

I'm learning to put myself first now and then....I've joined a gym which is wonderful stress relief, plus He insists I go and have a facial or massage, just to pamper myself. I'm under no restrictions when it comes to spending money - in fact I have to be told if I want something to just go buy it

 

[FurryFury]

I knew there was some reason why I liked you so much!

*smiles and hugs*

Fury

 

[JMohegan]

The line I draw involves what goes through their heads. "I'm the boss, and she'll take it" means it's into the D/S end of things. "Hey, she liked when I pinched 'em hard, I wonder how she'll like a little bite?" is pure nilla.

Really? God, this is fascinating. I've never heard that definition of nilla before.

The usage with which I am familiar is: It is vanilla sex if there is neither D/s nor SM.

And SM means: someone is taking pleasure in giving and/or receiving pain.

"Tuning the radio dials", as rough nipple play is sometimes called, can be nilla or D/S, and it really is the headspace of one or both partners. But if there isn't a conscious thought of "who's the boss?" or knowing who that boss is on some aware level, it ain't D/S in my book.

Over the years, I have known a whole hell of a lot of Tops and bottoms who "boss" or are "bossed by" nobody. They're into bullwhips, knife play, fisting, breath play, etc., etc., etc. But anybody obeying anybody else? No way.

One way to look at what they do is to say that it's just an extreme version of tuning the radio dials.... i.e., more intense and elaborate pain play. Kinky all the way, but without the D/s headspace.

Do you know anybody like that? If so, do you really consider their sex to be "nilla"?

 

[SpectreT]

Really? God, this is fascinating. I've never heard that definition of nilla before.

The usage with which I am familiar is: It is vanilla sex if there is neither D/s nor SM.

And SM means: someone is taking pleasure in giving and/or receiving pain.

Same thing goes for SM as goes for DS, in my book. If they're not thinking in SM terms, if that's not where their "mental map" is, then while it looks like kink and walks like kink, it doesn't quack like kink. So it's not quite kink. (It is, however, kinky. Kind of like chocolate flavored breakfast cereal without any chocolate in the ingredients is "chocolatey".)

Over the years, I have known a whole hell of a lot of Tops and bottoms who "boss" or are "bossed by" nobody. They're into bullwhips, knife play, fisting, breath play, etc., etc., etc. But anybody obeying anybody else? No way.

One way to look at what they do is to say that it's just an extreme version of tuning the radio dials.... i.e., more intense and elaborate pain play. Kinky all the way, but without the D/s headspace.

Do you know anybody like that? If so, do you really consider their sex to be "nilla"?

You answered your own question, or rather, framed it in such a way that there can be only one response, per the bolded bit above. If their minds are in an SM framework, with a "Top" and a "Bottom", then it's kink. The original discussion was about control, which heavily implies DS, "Dominant", "Boss", PYL and "Submissive", "Slave", pyl, so that's how I formed my replies. As above, so below. BD, DS, SM, it's all about whether or not the "mental map" is there.

And no, I've never known anyone like that. I've honestly only met a handfull of people IRL who I know are kinked at all, let alone into just SM without some kind of DS. (Though, like I've said, I've never seen any relationship that is totally free of DS - just ones that aren't aware of the dynamic, don't have the "mental map".)

 

[BeachGurl2]

Interesting conversation about vanilla here. I was talking to my best friend of almost 30 years recently about dating and sex. She's never married and never wants to marry, and prefers living on her own rather than with the one she is dating, although she has done the live-in thing a few times. We were talking about what online dating sites we were using. Since she and I had never talked about anything BDSM before, I was hesitant to say. So I asked her if she had heard of any of the BDSM sites. I was totally surprised when she asked me what BDSM was. She's a pretty adventurous person in general, so it just took me aback that she didn't know anything about it.

We started talking about different aspects of BDSM and a little about D/s. As we talked about things sexual, I could hear in the tone of her voice her distaste. She asked me several times, why would you enjoy that? There were some things that she had done without knowing they were BDSM-related, such as being held down and a little rough play. But beyond that, her sex life sounded very boring to me.

An interesting note is that she talked a lot about how early in any relationship, there's lots of fumbling while they try to figure out who likes what. No one seems to have the upper hand or want to just take charge. I remember those kinds of relationships, and not with any level of fondness. There's lots of bumping into each other as you both try to move or touch. And if as a submissive, you try to allow him to control things, he fumbles even more because he either doesn't know what to do or he thinks you're not enjoying yourself. So you tend to stick with missionary - which isn't necessarily a bad thing - and he ultimately gets his rocks off, rolls over and goes to sleep. To me, that's vanilla.

 

[cati]

Maybe you all can give your opinion on this. While I do cede control in the bedroom, I have always felt resentful at not being able to express my passion or horniness if you will, with my Dom. I tend to get a little aggressive and really want to go with "the flow" of what my body is feeling, but Master curbs my behaviour all the time. To say the least it can get very frustrating for me at times and I really don't see his point in doing this, afterall he is the one who gets me feeling this way. Why not just sit back... let me do my thing and enjoy my sexually frenzied response? He doesn't allow any sexually dominating positions...argghh!
I think it's cruel and mean....and just plain sadistic.

 

[SpectreT]

Maybe you all can give your opinion on this. While I do cede control in the bedroom, I have always felt resentful at not being able to express my passion or horniness if you will, with my Dom. I tend to get a little aggressive and really want to go with "the flow" of what my body is feeling, but Master curbs my behaviour all the time. To say the least it can get very frustrating for me at times and I really don't see his point in doing this, afterall he is the one who gets me feeling this way. Why not just sit back... let me do my thing and enjoy my sexually frenzied response? He doesn't allow any sexually dominating positions...argghh!
I think it's cruel and mean....and just plain sadistic.

Answered your own question. (I was going to post some snarkyness about 'twoo subs', but decided the comedy value wasn't worth the (justifiable) accusations of trolling.)

 

[cati]

Laffs, ya think? I didn't understand the rest of your post SpectreT.
For example my signature pic...no can do.

 

[kat_42]

Greetings, Kat. Welcome to the thread, and the board.

I see your point, in the sense that options 2 and 4 are really describing two specific types of control.

However, I separated them out as distinct options because I think 2 and 4 reflect very specific needs that are not always present when someone (like me) says, "I have a need for control outside the bedroom".

To explain what I mean (and because you are new to the board), I will show you two things.

First, as a reference for the type of control I had in mind in option 2, click here to find a link to a detailed draft contract that was posted recently. Notice that the submissive specifically asks the Dominant to "use the power vested in his role; to mold and shape me; assisting me to grow in strength, character, confidence, and being, and that he continue to help me to develop my artistic and intellectual abilities." That is a very specific type of power exchange, and that's what I had in mind with option 2.

With option 4, I had in mind relationships in which the partners have a need for very detailed and focused control outside the bedroom. To see examples of the level of control I was referring to, read the first few pages of posts on this thread.

I hope that helps explain the distinctions between options 1, 2, and 4, and why I made them.

Thank You for the welcome, and the kind reply. In many ways, I feel as though perhaps I should have voted 2 (it is very true, moreso after reading your links). Yet, in my heart, I feel it is rather a *divine right to rule* kind of thing, there are those who rule naturally and those who serve naturally, and from that, for me, all else flows. So I suppose I somehow managed to pick the right one!

 

[FurryFury]

Maybe you all can give your opinion on this. While I do cede control in the bedroom, I have always felt resentful at not being able to express my passion or horniness if you will, with my Dom. I tend to get a little aggressive and really want to go with "the flow" of what my body is feeling, but Master curbs my behaviour all the time. To say the least it can get very frustrating for me at times and I really don't see his point in doing this, afterall he is the one who gets me feeling this way. Why not just sit back... let me do my thing and enjoy my sexually frenzied response? He doesn't allow any sexually dominating positions...argghh!
I think it's cruel and mean....and just plain sadistic.

Sounds a bit insecure to me. I like men that can go with the flow and change things up a bit.

Fury