I know I will regret this..................

[FurryFury]

Think that my posts on this subject shows a lack of respect for you or anyone.

Fury

 

[alice_underneath]

Think that my posts on this subject shows a lack of respect for you or anyone.

Fury

Thank you for clarifying. It occurs to me that we may be focusing on two different things, so let me begin by clarifying something too.

I do not have a problem with the assertion that most BDSM relationships involve a higher degree of physical trust than most vanilla relationships.

But we are not just talking about physical trust here. We are talking about respect, trust (all kinds), honest and open communication (all kinds), and love. All the elements of emotional intimacy.

So I have a question for you. Do you agree with both of the following statements?

#1. No one has the right to say that the Johnsons had a relationship that was stronger, more meaningful, and more intimate than the relationship that bob and his Master enjoyed.

#2. No one has the right to say that Bob Harris and his Master had a relationship that was stonger, more meaningful, and more intimate than the relationship that the Johnsons enjoyed.

In my opinion, a response of "yes to both" is not disrespectful.

On the other hand.... "no" to either 1 or 2 is an answer that is not just disrespectful, but bigoted as well.

Bigotry and ignorance work both ways. That is really my point here.

Alice

 

[Purple Sage]

Yikes!
It seems to me that there's a fairly serious failure to communicate going on here. Geoff seems to me to have pointed out the key feature of it- that Bob was writing from the perspective of an oppressed minority. I'm sorry, Alice, but feeling excluded or disrespected by some members of such a minority really isn't the same thing. One reason has to do with power- and it's not clear to me that anyone here has the power to oppress you. This is simply not the situation with many people who are gay, kinky or both.
While I myself find a lot of the 'absolute' statements made by people of all ilks to be both false and irritating, I understand the urge of people who are widely denigrated by others with more power to make them. The appropriate way to view those statements is not as questions of absolute fact, but as political utterances. It's difficult to find much in the realm of political discourse that is true in the way that things are true in, say, the biological sciences, yet many scientifically falsifiable political statements have a deeper truth of great importance.

Alice- I think you might find it illuminating to recast your request for respect in some different terms. Would you think it appropriate (as opposed to 'justifiable' in some absolute sense) to make a similar request of say, a group of angry black youth? While in the abstract it might seem perfectly reasonable to suggest that all people, regardless of color, should be treated with equal respect, if in fact that's not what's happening, and you're a member of the priveleged group, it seems to me that going with the flow a little when the oppressed are cranked off about their oppressors might be perfectly reasonable too.

As far as I can see, people on this board have treated you respectfully- but then I'm relatively new here. To take personally the ancient writings of someone not even present seems overly sensitive. I hope you will see this post as a respectful attempt to share some insight, and not as a personal attack.

 

[alice_underneath]

Though perfectly healthy when she gave that little speech, Mrs. Johnson died six weeks later. She had lost her soulmate, the one who made her whole. And her life was over.

If he had had a chance to get to know Mr. and Mrs. Johnson..... somehow I think Bob Harris would have understood.



Respectfully,

Alice

I am quoting myself (from post 404 on this thread) for an important reason.

The point of my comment at the end was that Bob Harris really does seem like a decent guy. I do not believe he was a bigot or a person who treated others (even 'nillas ) with disrespect.

My sincere and honest opinion is that, if he had had a chance to get to know Mr. and Mrs. Johnson...... he would have understood that their relationship was just as strong, just as meaningful, and just as intimate as the one he shared with his Master.

I am reiterating the point here, because I do not want my subsequent comments (responding to Cati or others) to be misconstrued as an attack on Bob Harris himself.



Alice

P.S. Dinner duty is calling, and I need to drop off the thread for the evening. Best wishes to all.

 

[FurryFury]

Thank you for clarifying. It occurs to me that we may be focusing on two different things, so let me begin by clarifying something too.

I do not have a problem with the assertion that most BDSM relationships involve a higher degree of physical trust than most vanilla relationships.

But we are not just talking about physical trust here. We are talking about respect, trust (all kinds), honest and open communication (all kinds), and love. All the elements of emotional intimacy.

So I have a question for you. Do you agree with both of the following statements?

#1. No one has the right to say that the Johnsons had a relationship that was stronger, more meaningful, and more intimate than the relationship that bob and his Master enjoyed.

#2. No one has the right to say that Bob Harris and his Master had a relationship that was stonger, more meaningful, and more intimate than the relationship that the Johnsons enjoyed.

In my opinion, a response of "yes to both" is not disrespectful.

On the other hand.... "no" to either 1 or 2 is an answer that is not just disrespectful, but bigoted as well.

Bigotry and ignorance work both ways. That is really my point here.

Alice

Actually I don't think I have to answer that question to be respectful or deemed respectful IMO. I intensely dislike the idea I have to do something someone else says or become something that I know I am not.

Again, I have never meant to show any disrespect period on this subject. I don't think I have but people are always free to judge others anyway they wish.

As an aside, I don't think trust in such relationships is just physical either.

I don't see this as an either / or issue in general. It would never occur to me to turn it into one.

I think you are so passionate about this because you feel it disparages your relationship or vanilla relationships in general. I've been in nothing but nilla relationships for my entire life up until about a year ago. I would never do that and I don't think the original citation was meant to either. I know this for certain I do not mean show disrespect in talking over this issue to anyone in any way.

Fury

 

[alice_underneath]

Alice- I think you might find it illuminating to recast your request for respect in some different terms. Would you think it appropriate (as opposed to 'justifiable' in some absolute sense) to make a similar request of say, a group of angry black youth?

Mr. Sage,

Nice to see you again.

I am sorry to say that I am dashing off to dinner, and can not respond adequately for a few hours at least.

Very quickly on the subject of black pride....

If Martin Luther King's message had included an assertion that somehow black people are better than whites, I seriously doubt we would be honoring him with a national holiday.

One type of relationship is not better (as in: stronger and more emotionally intimate) than the other. They are just different.

Equal respect for all. That's my point.

Talk to you later.

Alice

 

[bridgeburner]

I know I should just let this drop but I really see things a bit differently.

Let's say you have a "normal" job. You are a secretary. You have a very good relationship with your boss. Both of you communicate well and respect each other as much as two people in that sort of relationship can.

Now, let's say you have an abnormal job. You are the girl who stands still while your boss man throws knives at you. Both of you communicate well and respect each other as much as two people in that sort of relationship can.

Just off hand, which relationship do you think might, of necessity, have the greatest amount of trust and communication?

I'm not saying vanilla relationships can't be very wonderful and full, of course they can be that way and many are.

I'm just saying it's logical that when you add activities that require more trust and more communication, it stands to reason you would then build those areas to a higher level, doesn't it? I don't think many people do BDSM things casually but I could be wrong. It certainly wouldn't work for me.

Furry,

Do you really feel it's the physical aspects of BDSM that require the most trust? I mean, are you saying that people living extreme D/s lifestlyes without Bondage or S&M don't have as much trust in their relationships as people who paddle?

I'd rather take a beating than give my heart where I know it'll be tossed back in my face.

There are all kinds of trust and all kinds of killing blows.

-B

 

[Purple Sage]

Mr. Sage,

Nice to see you again.

I am sorry to say that I am dashing off to dinner, and can not respond adequately for a few hours at least.

Very quickly on the subject of black pride....

If Martin Luther King's message had included an assertion that somehow black people are better than whites, I seriously doubt we would be honoring him with a national holiday.

One type of relationship is not better (as in: stronger and more emotionally intimate) than the other. They are just different.

Equal respect for all. That's my point.

Talk to you later.

Alice

That's a wonderful goal. It just seems a little precious for people who come from a position of majority acceptance, 'normalcy' and power to demand this of people whose experience is of discrimination, exclusion and oppression. I'm merely suggesting that an alternative would be to accept that some people are angered by the treatment they have received and that this is likely to distort their expression, particularly vis a vis those who they perceive as oppressors and excluders. That might be a useful step in understanding what they are really saying, which is not likely to happen as long as the dialogue is stuck on your demands for respect.
I hope you don't see defending, supporting, respecting, criticizing or denigrating the accepted majority position on something as being identical to doing these things with regard to the position of a small minority who have experienced life-changing discrimination for their views, lifestyle or innate traits. The impact is different because the life experiences and most importantly the POWER of the two groups is different. Focusing on the 'different but equal' perspective without regard to this is to abstract the discussion from reality.

 

[FurryFury]

Furry,

Do you really feel it's the physical aspects of BDSM that require the most trust? I mean, are you saying that people living extreme D/s lifestlyes without Bondage or S&M don't have as much trust in their relationships as people who paddle?

I'd rather take a beating than give my heart where I know it'll be tossed back in my face.

There are all kinds of trust and all kinds of killing blows.

-B

No, I don't believe that. I never said that I did. I was simply trying to open up a mind with my off the cuff example.

Actually, I'd rather take a beating than give my heart under those circumstances as well.

I just think it stands to reason that there is more communication and trust in a relationship which delves into any of these areas. That's isn't an indictment of vanilla relationships at all or rather it's not meant to be perceived that way. It's just an opinion that seems logical from my experiences thus far in both kinds of relationships.

Fury

 

[~Blacklace~]

So how bout them Cubs eh? I hear they suck this year....

to all who so obviously feel so passionately in this thread, I am not gonna stick my nose in the middle of this very heated discussion, just want to say this.... I think some things arent as easy to 'debate' in text alone. Theres no inflection of tone, etc. Like I wouldnt tell someone in an email 'I love you' for the first time. Its just not the same. And I think this thread proves the point that some things are better said face to face......

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming....up next dancing gorillas and juggling cats!

 

[greenmands]

How about gorillas dancing while juggling cats?

 

[alice_underneath]

With a nod to Blacklace's excellent point....

[TONE = calm, 100% respectful, and sincere]

I would like to reiterate once again my personal view of Bob Harris, as gleaned from the articles presented on this thread.

In post # 395 - the very first post that I wrote in response to his articles - I wrote: "He seems to have been a genuinely decent person, worthy of respect and admiration."

In responding to Evil Geoff (in post #417), I re-posted that statement, noting: "That was honest and sincere. Nothing I wrote subsequently changes that."

In post #429, I wrote: "I do not believe he was a bigot or a person who treated others (even 'nillas ) with disrespect."

I am repeating all of these comments once again to avoid any possible confusion over my opinion about Bob Harris.

I disagreed with comments that Bob Harris made, and explained why. Geoff helped me to understand the context, and I appreciate that insight very much.

Reading the essays from a different time, place and perspective, I still disagree with the comments. But I understand why he wrote them, and I do not think less of him for doing so.

[/TONE]

~~~~~~~~~~~

[TONE = calm but serious]

If I understand why Bob Harris wrote the comments, and I respect the man, what's my problem?

Well, my problem is that some people here are picking up on Bob's comments and either agreeing with them or expanding upon them.

For example, in post #408, Cati wrote:

"To be able to submit completely to one's Dominant and offer them your heart, mind and soul and often ones very life...damn straight you'd better have a greater degree of trust, respect and honesty in your relationship. I feel that BDSM is more more of everything...passion, emotion, sensation, sex and LOVE."

Comments like that assert that the emotional intimacy enjoyed in BDSM relationships is stronger, more meaningful, and more intense than the emotional intimacy in other relationships.

I disagree strongly with that assertion, and find it profoundly offensive and insulting to my neighbors, my friends, and my family.

[/TONE]

 

[alice_underneath]

To take personally the ancient writings of someone not even present seems overly sensitive. I hope you will see this post as a respectful attempt to share some insight, and not as a personal attack.

Your post was very respectful, Mr. Sage, and I appreciate it very much.

I hope you will read post #437, which I just wrote. It should clarify that I am not taking personally the comments of bob Harris.

I am offended by the comments of Cati and FurryFury, not bob.

Alice

 

[FurryFury]

<snip> I am offended by the comments of Cati and FurryFury, not bob.

Alice

Miss Alice,

I am very sorry that I offended you. That wasn't my intention. I'm surprised that is the way you took my comments. It saddens me that this is the case. I like you and respect you a great deal, as I thought you knew.

Fury

 

[alice_underneath]

I think you are so passionate about this because you feel it disparages your relationship or vanilla relationships in general.

I am offended by the comments made by you and Cati because this is what I am hearing you say: My [cati's or fury's] BDSM relationship involves more respect, trust, honest and open communication, and love than Alice's sister's vanilla relationship, Alice's best friend's vanilla relationship, Alice's neighbor's vanilla relationship..... etc., etc., etc.

Am I "hearing" you wrong, Miss Fury?

 

[alice_underneath]

I'd rather take a beating than give my heart where I know it'll be tossed back in my face.

There are all kinds of trust and all kinds of killing blows.

-B

Thank you, bridgeburner.

Thank you very much.

Alice

 

[FurryFury]

I am offended by the comments made by you and Cati because this is what I am hearing you say: My [cati's or fury's] BDSM relationship involves more respect, trust, honest and open communication, and love than Alice's sister's vanilla relationship, Alice's best friend's vanilla relationship, Alice's neighbor's vanilla relationship..... etc., etc., etc.

Am I "hearing" you wrong, Miss Fury?

Dear Miss Alice,

I never said that at all.

What I did say was that I believe based on my experiences that it does take more communication and trust to go into a kinky relationship than a vanilla one. At least, I've found that to be true and I think it's logical.

However I never said that my relationship was better or deeper than anyone else's and I never would say something like that.

I see this as a philosophical question really. I can't be in your relationship and I don't want to judge other people's relationship so all I can do and all I did do was say what I have known in mine and what I theorize.

At no time did I attempt to denigrate any relationship vanilla or otherwise saying that it was less. At no time did I mean any disrespect to anyone or their relationships. I'm just not that type of person which I would think was a pretty obvious thing.

At the very least I would expect us to be able to respectfully disagree on a subject from time to time without being completely offended or feeling disrespected.

Fury

 

[alice_underneath]

I just think it stands to reason that there is more communication and trust in a relationship which delves into any of these areas. That's isn't an indictment of vanilla relationships at all or rather it's not meant to be perceived that way. It's just an opinion that seems logical from my experiences thus far in both kinds of relationships.

Respectfully and sincerely, Miss Fury, I say to you once again....

I believe that this is true for you.

I celebrate your joy and the fulfillment in your relationship.

I am very sorry that I offended you. That wasn't my intention.

Thank you for apologizing, Miss Fury.

I believe you when you say that it was not your intent to insult me, and I sincerely hope we can reach an understanding here.

Alice

 

[bridgeburner]

No, I don't believe that. I never said that I did. I was simply trying to open up a mind with my off the cuff example.

Actually, I'd rather take a beating than give my heart under those circumstances as well.

I just think it stands to reason that there is more communication and trust in a relationship which delves into any of these areas. That's isn't an indictment of vanilla relationships at all or rather it's not meant to be perceived that way. It's just an opinion that seems logical from my experiences thus far in both kinds of relationships.

Fury

Fury,

I'm just trying to understand what exactly folks are saying because as it stands I have to agree with Alice. It appears that people are insisting that BDSM relationships are inherently stronger/more trusting/faster/able to leap tall buildings...er,you know what I mean and yet somehow that shouldn't be taken as insulting or in any way disrespectful of vanilla relationships which must of necessity be weaker/less trusting/less communicative/side-kick or alter ego characters.

I'm not following your logical progression. Could you lay it out for me? I don't mean to pry and if you're not comfortable I'll certainly understand that, but I know several couples in which one or the other partner is almost totally dependant on the other for care and I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which more trust or communication might develop or be necessary.

-B

 

[alice_underneath]

Dear Miss Alice,

I never said that at all.

What I did say was that I believe based on my experiences that it does take more communication and trust to go into a kinky relationship than a vanilla one. At least, I've found that to be true and I think it's logical.

However I never said that my relationship was better or deeper than anyone else's and I never would say something like that.

I see this as a philosophical question really. I can't be in your relationship and I don't want to judge other people's relationship so all I can do and all I did do was say what I have known in mine and what I theorize.

At no time did I attempt to denigrate any relationship vanilla or otherwise saying that it was less. At no time did I mean any disrespect to anyone or their relationships. I'm just not that type of person which I would think was a pretty obvious thing.

At the very least I would expect us to be able to respectfully disagree on a subject from time to time without being completely offended or feeling disrespected.

Fury

Miss Fury,

Thank you for clarifying here.

I obviously misinterpreted your comments in post #422:

Just off hand, which relationship do you think might, of necessity, have the greatest amount of trust and communication?

I'm not saying vanilla relationships can't be very wonderful and full, of course they can be that way and many are.

I'm just saying it's logical that when you add activities that require more trust and more communication, it stands to reason you would then build those areas to a higher level, doesn't it?

I read that to mean that a BDSM relationship requires more trust and more communication that a vanilla relationship.

More trust and communication sounds like "deeper and better" to me.

When you said "more", if you meant to compare your relationships, past and present..... rather than comparing BDSM relationships to vanilla relationships, then I clearly misunderstood what you were saying, and I apologize.

Alice

 

[FurryFury]

Respectfully and sincerely, Miss Fury, I say to you once again....

I believe that this is true for you.

I celebrate your joy and the fulfillment in your relationship.

Thank you for apologizing, Miss Fury.

I believe you when you say that it was not your intent to insult me, and I sincerely hope we can reach an understanding here.

Alice

You're welcome Miss Alice, you know, I have never wanted to be at odds with you. I'm really surprised that we are and that we are over this.

I was merely saying what my experience has been so for. My relationship is not perfect or better than anyone else's. That is not what I am saying.

The other thing I was saying was that certain things seemed logical to me. For instance that a BDSM relationship would of necessity, involve more trust and more communication. I'm merely postulating and theorizing.

Let me put it another way. If you are more frequently using a muscle it gets stronger. It seems to me when you have to more frequently communicate and give that sort of trust it would increase those areas.

Again, I always felt that the trust and communication in my relationship was fantastic, compared to every other relationship I'd been in to that point.

I don't think it's a fighting issue particularly since I am absolutely not saying that any relationship is better or worse than another.

Alice, I think you might want to examine just why a simple discussion is hitting your "red button" here. There has to be a reason why this is blowing up so passionately for you when I'm only trying to discuss with respect such an issue.

I certainly never meant to hurt you. I would never mean to do that.

Fury

Fury,

I'm just trying to understand what exactly folks are saying because as it stands I have to agree with Alice. It appears that people are insisting that BDSM relationships are inherently stronger/more trusting/faster/able to leap tall buildings...er,you know what I mean and yet somehow that shouldn't be taken as insulting or in any way disrespectful of vanilla relationships which must of necessity be weaker/less trusting/less communicative/side-kick or alter ego characters.

I'm not following your logical progression. Could you lay it out for me? I don't mean to pry and if you're not comfortable I'll certainly understand that, but I know several couples in which one or the other partner is almost totally dependant on the other for care and I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which more trust or communication might develop or be necessary.

-B

I can't speak for what "folks" are saying. I can only speak on what I am trying to say.

I am not insisting that BDSM relationships are inherently anything. I'm saying it doesn't sound implausible but rather makes theoretical sense to me that what Bob Harris was saying could very well be true for many in BDSM relationships.

See the above fourth paragraph for another example. To me this is a discussion that is not meant to disrespect anyone or make absolute statements about relationships. I'm not the sort to do that.

To me BDSM relationships are no more about dependence than any other sort. I rather hate the idea of being dependent in a relationship myself. Just thinking about it makes me feel ill. To me that's not even on topic in this discussion.

Why is it so horrible and so perceived as condemning of other relationships if BDSM relationships were to be possibly more full of trust and communication because they had to exercise those qualities more often and under a different set of circumstances along with all the normal ways those qualities would be in involved in a 'nilla relationship? Why is that idea so threatening and so terrible? I'm honestly puzzled why this has so blown up.

Fury

Miss Fury,

Thank you for clarifying here.

I obviously misinterpreted your comments in post #422:

I read that to mean that a BDSM relationship requires more trust and more communication that a vanilla relationship.

More trust and communication sounds like "deeper and better" to me.

When you said "more", if you meant to compare your relationships, past and present..... rather than comparing BDSM relationships to vanilla relationships, then I clearly misunderstood what you were saying, and I apologize.

Alice

Dear Miss Alice,

I think such a relationship might require more but again, I'm theorizing about all this and I don't mean anything bad or less about vanilla relationships. This is an idea and a discussion to me and not a blanket statement in which I claim to be an expert with data at my finger tips, that in any way judges or quantifies anyone's relationship.

Fury

 

[alice_underneath]

The other thing I was saying was that certain things seemed logical to me. For instance that a BDSM relationship would of necessity, involve more trust and more communication. I'm merely postulating and theorizing.

So you are "postulating" that BDSM relationships involve more trust and communication than vanilla relationships. Is that right?

Let me put it another way. If you are more frequently using a muscle it gets stronger. It seems to me when you have to more frequently communicate and give that sort of trust it would increase those areas.

There are many ways to strengthen muscles, Miss Fury. Don't you agree?

Swimming.... running..... biking..... weight lifting.....

And there are many different ways of building trust.

Alice, I think you might want to examine just why a simple discussion is hitting your "red button" here. There has to be a reason why this is blowing up so passionately for you when I'm only trying to discuss with respect such an issue.

Addressing me in a condescending fashion is unlikely to help us resolve our differences here.

I am not insisting that BDSM relationships are inherently anything. I'm saying it doesn't sound implausible but rather makes theoretical sense to me that what Bob Harris was saying could very well be true for many in BDSM relationships.

"Many" is not what you said before. Respectfully, Miss Fury, you are changing your tune here. Normally, I would not point this out to you. But it is unfair for you to accuse me of overreacting to your comments, and then misrepresent what you have been saying on this thread.

Why is it so horrible and so perceived as condemning of other relationships if BDSM relationships were to be possibly more full of trust and communication because they had to exercise those qualities more often and under a different set of circumstances along with all the normal ways those qualities would be in involved in a 'nilla relationship? Why is that idea so threatening and so terrible? I'm honestly puzzled why this has so blown up.

Gracious, you are confusing me Fury. Are we now back to absolutes here?

Your idea is not "threatening", but it is offensive. Why? Let's flip it around here.

What if a hypothetical guy named Joe came here and said: "People in vanilla relationships treat each other with more respect than people in BDSM relationships."

I would respond by saying: You do not understand what you are talking about, Joe, and your comment is profoundly offensive.

What would you say, Miss Fury? Would you consider his comment to be a negative judgment about BDSM relationships? Would you consider his "theory" disrespectful? Would you consider his words insulting to all of the PYLs and pyls on this Board?

Can you honestly tell me that you would be "surprised" if people had a strong reaction to his words? If not, then can you please explain to me why you are "surprised" by my reaction here?

Alice

 

[FurryFury]

So you are "postulating" that BDSM relationships involve more trust and communication than vanilla relationships. Is that right?

There are many ways to strengthen muscles, Miss Fury. Don't you agree?

Swimming.... running..... biking..... weight lifting.....

And there are many different ways of building trust.

Addressing me in a condescending fashion is unlikely to help us resolve our differences here.

"Many" is not what you said before. Respectfully, Miss Fury, you are changing your tune here. Normally, I would not point this out to you. But it is unfair for you to accuse me of overreacting to your comments, and then misrepresent what you have been saying on this thread.

Gracious, you are confusing me Fury. Are we now back to absolutes here?

Your idea is not "threatening", but it is offensive. Why? Let's flip it around here.

What if a hypothetical guy named Joe came here and said: "People in vanilla relationships treat each other with more respect than people in BDSM relationships."

I would respond by saying: You do not understand what you are talking about, Joe, and your comment is profoundly offensive.

What would you say, Miss Fury? Would you consider his comment to be a negative judgment about BDSM relationships? Would you consider his "theory" disrespectful? Would you consider his words insulting to all of the PYLs and pyls on this Board?

Can you honestly tell me that you would be "surprised" if people had a strong reaction to his words? If not, then can you please explain to me why you are "surprised" by my reaction here?

Alice

Actually Alice I wasn't then and never have been, speaking in absolutes because, I will say it again, I am discussing ideas and theories here, not pretending to know everything about every or even most relationships of either kind in the world.

My comment about why this was pushing your hot button so much, was not meant to be condescending at all. I put it in the nicest way I could. It was an honest question that you might want to look at for yourself. You don't have to grace me with the answer of course. It just really seems this is all way out of proportion to the issues and discussion involved. There must be a reason why. Knowing you to usually be a very fair minded and thoughtful person I thought you might actually think about that instead of assuming this was another offense which it was not meant to be.

I have never changed my tune, what I am saying, and from the very first have said is what I felt about my own relationship as it moved from a long standing wonderful 'nilla one to a newly kinky one AND what I postulated was quite logical for a BDSM relationship in general compared to a vanilla one in general. This STILL does not IMO say, Nilla relationships are bad, less or whatever than BDSM relationships but that they might be different in this way. They might be. I don't know or pretend to know. I'm just applying logic to what I know and guess that, yes, it's possible. It's not supposed to be percieved as a judgement call at all.

As for this hypothetical posting, Miss Alice people say things like that and believe things like that about BDSM relationships all the time. Do you see me going on and on in a thread about it? No you don't. Would I say something to the guy? Yes, I would. However I understand that is just the way people think. I won't continue to discuss even calmly something after the point when it's clear the other person will refuse to do the same or that no progress is being made.

However that is NOT what happened here IMO. What happened here is some essays were put on this thread. In those essays from another time, by a man who is no longer with us, he said some things from his own point of view. You didn't like one of those things and asked some questions of the board members who wished to discuss it. That is all I have been trying to do, discuss it. It's been turned into something else, a conflict which I never intended it to be.

At this point, I can see that whatever I say about this will be misinterpreted. That's just sad to me because I have really tried to communicate here without judgement, absolutes or disrespect. In the past we have always held each other with respect and known that was the case. How that can change over a discussion and some theories I'm not quite sure but I'm done here now.

Therefore I will quit this discussion. I can see it no matter what I say it is just becoming a circular argument leading nowhere. I will now simply and respectfully agree to disagree.

I wish you well as always Miss Alice.

Fury

 

[RJMasters]

I once knew a married vanilla couple who went moutain climbing together. They often held each others very lives in the others hands. I wonder how their trust level was?

I think there is a misconception here in what is actually being compared. A relationship regardless of it being D/s or Vanilla are based on many of the same princples which make any couple love, care and respect one another. Trust is trust no mater how you want to slice it.

When you begin to add BDSM and some deeper exchanges of Dominance and submission. the idea I see being presented here in these arguments are that because of this additional things added to the relationship, it somehow means that trust, love and respect is "added to" and therefore "equates to being better or deeper or more signifigant. I see this as untrue.

Just like in the people I knew who climbed mountains together, they obviously had something which is not normally shared by other vanilla relationships nor D/s/BDSM for that matter. Yet for all that trust they had in one another it still did not prevent them from getting a divorce a few years later.

There are elements of BDSM which require more experience and "expertise" in order for there to be trust to do "that activity". Caning, flogging etc... all of these activities do require trust, but not a deeper or more significant trust....only trust that one knows what they are doing so that both can enjoy it and be healthy afterwards.

NOW....if you want to say that people in D/s relationship and BDSM have a much broader range of EXPERIENCES together which often allow them to grow in ways that others do not experience or know in vanilla relationship...then fine. But I still think you can't say that it is more or less fulfilling categoriclly, because it is subjective and relative to each relationship. What makes you 100% satisfied as a person in a D/s/BDSM relationship is not what satsifies 100% another person in a vanilla relationship.

The trust and respect can be the same and of the same quality, and adding elemnts of risk or danger does not means one has to trust more...it means that they apply that same trust in doing a dangerious activity. And one would hope that the person holding the cane knows what the hell they are doing, just like you hope to hell that person holding your lifeline on the edge of a mountain cliff knows what they are doing.

Those who once use to be vanilla and were "not satisfied" and then pursued D/s and BDSM and found that this did satisfy them...of course the view and the experience will be clearly biased as they will say that D/s/BDSM is much more satisfying in every way. But that POV is coming from "that" persons POV and that in itself does not constitute the whole of all relationships everywhere.

If you were to have a vanilla couple who were 100% satisfied with their relationship and some how could instantaneously infuse D/s/BDSM kinks into them, you would have a 100% satisfied D/s/BDSM couple. If you had a 100% satisfied D/s/BDSM couple and could somehow remove any desire for D/s/BDSM kinks, you would have a 100% satsfied vanilla couple.

This arguement could be summed up by two kids arguing over icecream flavors.

Kid one: Vanilla ice cream is the best.
Kid two: Nope Butter Pecan is the best because it has vanilla as a base with some added flavoring and it has pecan nuts in it.
Kid one: So, I don't like pecans at all. And that flavoring makes it takes yucky.
Kid two: You just don't know what is good. Butter Pecan is by far better than plain old vanilla any day.
Kid one: is not
Kid two: is too
Kid one: is not
Kid twoL is too
etc....

Mean while they both sit on the curb and enjoy eating their own flavored ice cream and both are just as happy to be doing so.

Git a grip people.

so I say...."It Is what it is, not or is, and that is all that it is."

 

[bridgeburner]

I can't speak for what "folks" are saying. I can only speak on what I am trying to say.

That's reasonable, so if I wander off onto somebody else's beef let me know.;->

I am not insisting that BDSM relationships are inherently anything. I'm saying it doesn't sound implausible but rather makes theoretical sense to me that what Bob Harris was saying could very well be true for many in BDSM relationships.

Okay, you're not insisting, but that's a bit of a dodge. You won't claim absolutely but you're going to say that this person who is claiming absolutely makes sense to you and could easily be right since what he says is supported by your experience. I won't harp on that, but can you see why it's kind of like saying "I'm not telling you I think it's going to rain, but I'm taking my umbrella to work with me."

See the above fourth paragraph for another example. To me this is a discussion that is not meant to disrespect anyone or make absolute statements about relationships. I'm not the sort to do that.

I don't think it was said with the intent to disrespect anyone, but we have to be careful about how we build ourselves up especially if we are members of a disparaged group. If we're fat do we build up the positive aspects of our lives or do we spend our time talking about how skinny people would've been considered unattractive 100 years ago? If we're people of color do we build ourselves up or do we tear down whitey? If we're women do we strive for equality or do we bash men? If we're young do we learn responsibility and grow or do we pout and talk about how oldsters just don't get it? So, when bob elevates his BDSM relationship simply because it is BDSM --- not because of its longevity or its commitment or the depth of their affection --- he disparages all other relationships to some degree. I don't believe that was his intent -- to disparage. His intent was to elevate, but the manner that he chose had the result of also disaparaging because he spoke in a sweeping absolute that encompassed all of humanity.

That which diminishes my brother diminishes me.

To me BDSM relationships are no more about dependence than any other sort. I rather hate the idea of being dependent in a relationship myself. Just thinking about it makes me feel ill. To me that's not even on topic in this discussion.

I think perhaps I didn't explain myself well. You had given an example of the knife thrower to demonstrate a kind of physical trust required in a job to correlate with a physical trust required in a BDSM relationship that would be lacking in a vanilla relationship. What I offered was vanilla relationships that have extreme physical trust issues. They have nothing to do with BDSM but they do involve physical trust and daily and sometimes hourly matters of life and death. My point was that BDSM is not the sole custodian of physical trust. I didn't mean to imply anything about dependence or co-dependency of the psychological sort.

Why is it so horrible and so perceived as condemning of other relationships if BDSM relationships were to be possibly more full of trust and communication because they had to exercise those qualities more often and under a different set of circumstances along with all the normal ways those qualities would be in involved in a 'nilla relationship? Why is that idea so threatening and so terrible? I'm honestly puzzled why this has so blown up.

Would you not be offended if someone were to tell you that you could not love your husband or be loved by him, trust him or be trusted by him as much as a Scientologist? That your relationship would always be lacking, imperfect and not wholly realized because you just weren't the "right" sort of person. You're not a bad person, no, no, dear, you're just not a special person. It's not your fault. Don't be upset about it. It's no big deal.

-B