Where is the vanilla line? If he grabs my hair during sex, does that make it not vanilla? If he moves me where he wants me, and I of course comply with it because doing what he wants turns me on, does that make it not vanilla? Does whispering "Take it, come on, take it" during sex make an otherwise vanilla experience BDSM? Does that even make any sense?
Is there a set of actions that is vanilla? Or is the entire range of vanilla actions already encompassed by TTWD? Is it like this:
Or is it like this?
I know they're not completely separate - they can't be. But are there things included in vanilla sex that no one involved in TTWD will do? I doubt it, which leans me more toward the first diagram. We have these labels, but I can't seem to properly define them. I say I enjoy vanilla sex with my man, but I'm not sure I even know what that is anymore.
Where do you draw the line?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I was wondering. I'm not sure that having tasted D/s that 'my' vanilla really IS vanilla anymore. I'm not sure I ever really knew vanilla in the first place.
ReplyDeleteHow much of a BDSM element does there need to be for you to enjoy it? (hard to analyze, I know)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou pose an excellent question, Conina! I wish I had a great answer for you...but I don't! :-)
ReplyDeleteI suppose I can respond to your question with another question... You post two charts as the range of possibilities between TTWD and Vanilla Sex. Could it be that TTWD and Vanilla are a whole lot more intertwined and messy than we think? Instead of two neat circles, could it be a big, amoeba-like blob that's blended together? At least this has been my experience with TTWD and my Master/Daddy...
Just some food for thought!
Thanks for posting!
Baby Girl :-)
maui girl: I love the term "vanilla plus" - it's perfect! THAT'S what I still enjoy with my husband. Your description of what you could get by with sounds lovely too. Mmm.
ReplyDeleteBaby Girl: Math tools don't provide me with an amoeba. ;) But that blendedness is what I was trying to, maybe, possibly, illustrate. It's also possible that there's some other more complicated diagram that would get more at the heart of it. It is very messy - but that's part of the beauty of it, isn't it?
Interesting and good question. Just a thought, maybe you are looking at it all wrong. To me it looks as though you have two definitive circles. One for vanilla and one for ttwd. Maybe the circles aren't definitive. It's possible you are putting too much emphasis on defining what it D/s and what is not. You should just concentrate on what works for you, what you each need, and then pushing those boundaries a bit for some spice.
ReplyDeleteThere does not have to be any labels attached to what you are doing to separate and distinguish them. You can have your own "Conina" dynamic. There are no rules or set ways to do this. You just do what works for you. It doesn't have to be clearly defined. As long as it fits and works for the two of you, then that's all that matters.
Just some thoughts!
DV
Hi, DV, thanks for the thoughts. :)
ReplyDeleteI was afraid someone might think I was stressing over the definition. We are perfectly comfortable with the dynamic that we have (we have been doing this longer than I seem to have expressed), but I had asked him the question if he thought he could go back to vanilla... and he asked me what exactly I thought vanilla was. When I found I couldn't rightly answer him, I thought I'd crowdsource it.
I totally appreciate and understand what you're saying. It's not D/s I'm trying to define, it's when vanilla stops being vanilla - which may sound like the same thing. I get that.
Thanks again, I really appreciate it.