If sub does something, should Dom be willing to? (and vice versa)

Foreverbunny91 · Dec 2, 2011

That's not what I meant really, either... In a D/s type situation, it would be "I do this for you, if you dominate me," so it's already a trade of sorts. A sub of course should be able to ask them to do something different, depending on the situation, IMO. But that is all situational. Perhaps a sub has no real preferences and their only preference is to be totally and utterly dominated in every possible way? Then I'd say whatever the dom wants is fair play.

And I did not mean systematically, either. That's a big turn-off even in a vanilla relationship, because no one wants to stand there and argue about who got what they wanted the last time or how many BJs person A gave person B in comparison to how many hours of roleplay, etc. But if someone is recieving far more than they are giving, you really need to re-evaluate what you're doing. If someone is miserable and giving all the time and the other person is always taking, then that's really no relationship at all. You don't need to be tit for tat, and yes, sometimes there is going to be a slight imbalance. Perfection will never be reached, but in a very GENERAL sense, you need a fair trade. If it's not fair, then you need to change something or find a better partner for yourself.

Power is a LOT different than both partners being mutually satisfied and getting what they want. Some folks can surrender all power to another person and still get exactly what they want. In a vanilla relationship, that's highly unlikely, of course. If someone is ever in sexual situation where they completely surrender all power to someone and do not get any satisfaction from it, I highly doubt that was consensual sex. But if they got satisfaction from it, then it's just a fair trade

Knots · Dec 2, 2011

Foreverbunny91 said:
That's not what I meant really, either... In a D/s type situation, it would be "I do this for you, if you dominate me," so it's already a trade of sorts. A sub of course should be able to ask them to do something different, depending on the situation, IMO. But that is all situational. Perhaps a sub has no real preferences and their only preference is to be totally and utterly dominated in every possible way? Then I'd say whatever the dom wants is fair play.

And I did not mean systematically, either. That's a big turn-off even in a vanilla relationship, because no one wants to stand there and argue about who got what they wanted the last time or how many BJs person A gave person B in comparison to how many hours of roleplay, etc. But if someone is recieving far more than they are giving, you really need to re-evaluate what you're doing. If someone is miserable and giving all the time and the other person is always taking, then that's really no relationship at all. You don't need to be tit for tat, and yes, sometimes there is going to be a slight imbalance. Perfection will never be reached, but in a very GENERAL sense, you need a fair trade. If it's not fair, then you need to change something or find a better partner for yourself.

Power is a LOT different than both partners being mutually satisfied and getting what they want. Some folks can surrender all power to another person and still get exactly what they want. In a vanilla relationship, that's highly unlikely, of course. If someone is ever in sexual situation where they completely surrender all power to someone and do not get any satisfaction from it, I highly doubt that was consensual sex. But if they got satisfaction from it, then it's just a fair trade

That's (in bold) precisely what you seemed to be describing and principally what I had a problem with, so now that you've retracred that I'm slightly happier but I still want to challenge your revised statement, and I think mostly in terms of semantics...

"but in a very GENERAL sense, you need a fair trade."

"Fairness" is perhaps the wrong word to use, as I think few vanilla relationships are "equal" which fairness naturally implies (anecdotally; you do get vanilla relationships with phenomenally high power exchange levels going on). Equally "trade" implies a direct exchange, whereas working relationships are much more fluid.

So cutting away this wording, all workable social relationships require continous attention from both parties to ensure that the other is content, in the bedroom and out of the bedroom. This is to a great degree "natural social instinct", and far less crude than what your idea of "trade offs" implies.

Foreverbunny91 · Dec 4, 2011

To be more clear, I suppose SOMETIMES it can be systematic, but I don't really agree with it. My overall statement is that each partner deserves to get roughly the same amount that they give, and if systematically is only way to do it, that's better than having a neglectful imbalance of giving/recieving... But relationships that HAVE to run like that, really aren't good relationships and are rarely ever healthy or long-lasting.

*ahem* And I've known plenty of vanilla relationships with a rather unhealthy power imbalance. (Unhealthy meaning it wasn't really consensual, and the boyfriend was an arse with some pretty nasty psychological pathologies... Not that mentally ill persons are all assholes- Technically, I'm one myself.) And of course, there's always what I call "prostitution marriages" where the couple basically does a money-for-sex exchange. Those you could arguably say fall under the crude idea of trade-offs you had thought I was meaning

I still think if someone asks someone to do something they don't want to, they should be open to the idea of trying it themselves first, in order to make their partner feel safer and more secure.

Knots · Dec 4, 2011

Foreverbunny91 said:
To be more clear, I suppose SOMETIMES it can be systematic, but I don't really agree with it. My overall statement is that each partner deserves to get roughly the same amount that they give, and if systematically is only way to do it, that's better than having a neglectful imbalance of giving/recieving... But relationships that HAVE to run like that, really aren't good relationships and are rarely ever healthy or long-lasting.

*ahem* And I've known plenty of vanilla relationships with a rather unhealthy power imbalance. (Unhealthy meaning it wasn't really consensual, and the boyfriend was an arse with some pretty nasty psychological pathologies... Not that mentally ill persons are all assholes- Technically, I'm one myself.) And of course, there's always what I call "prostitution marriages" where the couple basically does a money-for-sex exchange. Those you could arguably say fall under the crude idea of trade-offs you had thought I was meaning

I still think if someone asks someone to do something they don't want to, they should be open to the idea of trying it themselves first, in order to make their partner feel safer and more secure.

I'm glad you aren't advocating silly systematic trade offs.

However, your generalisations are far reaching and you only really state the "negative situations" and I feel obliged to counter them.

Plenty of "good couples" have someone who really gives and someone who really takes and there's plenty of vanilla relationships with a *healthy* power imbalance; some people really do want someone who can just "take control".

I've came across the attitude of "us and them" when it comes to vanilla and BDSM stuff before, and it's really not like that. You don't need to be into whipping someone all night long to power exchange or into power exchange to whip someone all night long. Yet people follow the "power exchange works for them!" attitude because they only seem to notice advert, un-healthy power exchange with vanilla couples.

Foreverbunny91 · Dec 4, 2011

I tend to notice the unhealthy over the healthy, as that's what I was raised to do. Furthermore, the good in things does not really matter much to me in contrast to the bad. Even if there is more positive then negative attributes to a certain something, you cannot overlook the negative and the people who may be suffering because of it. If you would like a grim reality, I may give examples.

And to defend my generalizations, please keep in mind my areas of study rely on generalizations for all research and to even exist. I almost always talk in generalizations when talking about other human beings, with some obvious exceptions.

I also do NOT have an "us and them" way of thinking when it comes to BDSM. That's insane, as I'm honestly more vanilla than kink... I really cannot and will seperate myself from either, as doing so would be rather cold. I just like my generalizations

And of course, there are healthy vanilla power imbalances, silly! I never said there wasn't. The exact percent that can be considered healthy, however, is up for debate. You may also bring into this whether or not the societal pressures, psychological issues or circumstantial factors that played a role on the consent of a certain power imbalance are healthy... But that may take all night!

Knots · Dec 4, 2011

Foreverbunny91 said:
I tend to notice the unhealthy over the healthy, as that's what I was raised to do. Furthermore, the good in things does not really matter much to me in contrast to the bad. Even if there is more positive then negative attributes to a certain something, you cannot overlook the negative and the people who may be suffering because of it. If you would like a grim reality, I may give examples.

And to defend my generalizations, please keep in mind my areas of study rely on generalizations for all research and to even exist. I almost always talk in generalizations when talking about other human beings, with some obvious exceptions.

I also do NOT have an "us and them" way of thinking when it comes to BDSM. That's insane, as I'm honestly more vanilla than kink... I really cannot and will seperate myself from either, as doing so would be rather cold. I just like my generalizations

And of course, there are healthy vanilla power imbalances, silly! I never said there wasn't. The exact percent that can be considered healthy, however, is up for debate. You may also bring into this whether or not the societal pressures, psychological issues or circumstantial factors that played a role on the consent of a certain power imbalance are healthy... But that may take all night!

I really do not need you to illustrate how unfortunate some people in this world can be. I find your implication that I need you to illustrate how grim the world can be to me to be positively patronising and if you're going to set the rule via the exception then I suggest you go and start a petition to get all dogs put to sleep the next time one person is hurt by a single violent dog.

Yes and anyone who's worth anything in your area of study is wary of the extreme danger in far reaching generalisations and language which implies generalisations are law. It concerns me when psychology students seem to think bad practice is acceptable because it's easy to follow bad practice.

You demonstrate a clear inability to read what I say. I was challenging your implications and not once did I state or imply that you'd said there wasn't vanilla power imbalances, but that you'd only taken the time to mention the negative ones; this is again wrong and dangerous.

I will not have someone who's started a psychology course and thinks they're the best thing since sliced bread make dangerous generalisations on a forum like this unchallenged, it'd be morally wrong to do so. I care little for how much you try to patronise me or imply I am somehow ignorant.

Smallest · Dec 4, 2011

Both of you have valid points, but either calm down and stay on topic or take it to PM.

subarama30 · Dec 5, 2011

I think what she meant was, for example, I will not entertain the idea of anal. I do not like anything about it and I will not do it but my partner has brought the idea up many times over the course of our relationship. I have always replied, 'I will do it, if you do it first'. Meaning that if he wants me to do something that I find gross, he should be experience it for himself as I believe years of porn stars gagging for it has made many men think it is the most enjoyable thing in the universe for a woman and they can't understand what the big deal is...

I am not saying it works for everything, obviously I like impact play etc and my guy doesn't and I wouldnt want to do it to him anyway but I think sometimes people do not understand why another person has a particular dislike or aversion and they should maybe think harder about why someone might.

Whenever I see my man wince and cringe at the idea of getting something jammed up his behind it makes me smile as he was always so quick to think 'all women would like it if they just tried it' even though he has never done it with any women before.

JettOnly · Dec 5, 2011

Sub, nice point well made

I suppose thinking about this more my thinking is
We all like different things and may or may not understand why another person is into them
I dont think a dom should ness have to do everything they expect a sub to as they wouldnt ness be in the same mindframe and wouldnt enjoy the same things

BUT
Possibly when buying things they should be thinking about what the toys will do
'is this clip firmer than the one we already have - oh yeah b*gger'
'does that wax drip hotter?'
'how flexable is that cane?'
then they have an idea of what they are bringing out - not whether they could cope with it or enjoy it - but how dose it compare

Yes if someone is pressurising you into something you dont like then suggesting they go first in some situations may give them an idea why you are not into it
But then again at the same time really you should also just be able to say 'feck off presurising, I said no, its not for me'

If sub does something, should Dom be willing to? (and vice versa)

Foreverbunny91

Member

Knots

Member

Foreverbunny91

Member

Knots

Member

Foreverbunny91

Member

Knots

Member

Smallest

Moderator

subarama30

Member

JettOnly

Member

Similar threads