Kinked or Mundane?

[SpectreT]

... What's the dividing line, for you? (Continued discussion from JMohegan's thread about Control outside the Bedroom; I derailed that thread enough with this.) I chose "Mundane" because "Vanilla" is a loaded words to some people.

In that thread, I put forward my own "Dividing line", which I'll sum up here.

BD, DS, SM, it doesn't matter what portion of kink you're drawing from, if there isn't a conscious thought of "Kink", it isn't kink. (It can, however, be kinky.) if there isn't an awareness of the "PYL/pyl" roles, it's not kink, no matter the activity. (Though it's hard to imagine someone bullshitting themselves so hard that they're not aware they're doing something kinked in a tie-up and flogging scenario, however. In such an SM example, there's "Somebody dealing it out" and "Somebody Taking It", which are the most basic levels of PYL/pyl labels I can think of; and if they're even thinking that much into it; they're kinked. You don't need fancy terms - I don't know who said it, but you can know he name of a bird in forty languages, but that doesn't tell you shit about what its feathers look like, what it eats, and where it builds its nests - but you need an awareness of roles, to make it to the kinked side of the line. A titty twister isn't a kinky sex practice unless you think it is, or derive that idea from the context the nipple tweak was delivered in, for another example.)

And if you thought that was convoluted, stick around for the next part: DS. I have never seen a relationship that is free of D/S. I have seen many relationsips where the people involved are completely unaware of their D/S dynamic. That lack of awareness makes it Mundane rather than Kinked, as far as I'm concerned.

... So that's my truncated, meandering treatise on Kinked versus Mundane sexuality and self-expression. I'm curious to know your thoughts on this, gang. And, JMohegan, when you've collected your notes and interviews from the review board on my "fascinating" viewpoint, let me know if they're feeling like handing out my Piled Higher and Deeper for this contribution.

 

[Shankara20]

My first thoughts on the matter – subject to change up to and including turns of 180 deg or more, depending on caffeine intake.

Kink is an area on my continuum of “arousal interests” between mundane and fetish – using your definition of “mundane” and my definition “fetish” as being obsessive and/or compulsive.

Mundane = that’s nice, but I can take it or leave it, if we work with it long enough I might get aroused.

Kink = mmmmm, that’s something extra that increases my arousal.

Fetish = I MUST have it as part of any arousal experience, Kink = mmmmm, that’s something extra that increases my arousal.

Great question

 

[FurryFury]

I have a lot of mundane (but still great) sex while thinking D/s thoughts what does that make the sex?

Fury

 

[Evil_Geoff]

I have a lot of mundane (but still great) sex while thinking D/s thoughts what does that make the sex?

Fury

FUN!!

 

[FurryFury]

FUN!!

Fury

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Sexually:
Mundane = little or no interest in anything beyond missionary, cowgirl, normal oral, or doggy style with single partner
Kinked = enjoys and willing to try other positions, may have multiple partners, can use toys, engages in SM play, etc
Fetish = will ONLY do it in one position or way, or finds other ways distasteful/not pleasurable.

D/s:
Mundane = little or no conscious exchange of power/traditional relationship modelling, most decisions by consensus.
Kinked = Conscious surrender of authority by one partner to the other who consciously accepts and acknowledges that surrender of authority, decisions may be discussed but one person has final yes/no authority.
Fetish = will ONLY maintain the relationship if the power dynamic is followed in all prescribed areas.

How's that?

 

[midwestyankee]

Sexually:
Mundane = little or no interest in anything beyond missionary, cowgirl, normal oral, or doggy style with single partner
Kinked = enjoys and willing to try other positions, may have multiple partners, can use toys, engages in SM play, etc
Fetish = will ONLY do it in one position or way, or finds other ways distasteful/not pleasurable.

D/s:
Mundane = little or no conscious exchange of power/traditional relationship modelling, most decisions by consensus.
Kinked = Conscious surrender of authority by one partner to the other who consciously accepts and acknowledges that surrender of authority, decisions may be discussed but one person has final yes/no authority.
Fetish = will ONLY maintain the relationship if the power dynamic is followed in all prescribed areas.

How's that?

This analysis makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

And if you thought that was convoluted, stick around for the next part: DS. I have never seen a relationship that is free of D/S. I have seen many relationships where the people involved are completely unaware of their D/S dynamic. That lack of awareness makes it Mundane rather than Kinked, as far as I'm concerned.

1. Spec your really playing with my head here.....smiles . Is this to say in your opinion that say in the example of my parents that their relationship being a standard form of westernised patriarchal was a manifestation of D/s just not formally recognised ?

2. I am not keen on the word 'mundane' either its seems discriminatory in a negative connotation towards people living outside of D/s. Just adding the term vanilla has always seemed kind of strange to me as well. The term 'nilla' just makes me want to pull my hair out.

3. Also when you say 'relationship' are you defining the experience to the 'bedroom' or extending it into all areas of intimacy and dynamics applicable of such 'outside the bedroom' as well please ?

Finally its rather cool that your the kind of poster here in Lit I feel I can request all these questions from and know your aware I am not looking to provoke rather that I am asking so I can understand better and rejoin the dialogue here on this thread.

 

[SpectreT]

The last shall be first

Replied to. (I'll get there with everyone's thoughts, but these were the freshest in my mind, so here goes...

1. Spec your really playing with my head here.....smiles . Is this to say in your opinion that say in the example of my parents that their relationship being a standard form of westernised patriarchal was a manifestation of D/s just not formally recognised ?

It's not perfect, but yes, it works in a limited degree as an example of what I meant. There's always negotiation and compromise, even (perhaps especially) in formal D/S relationships. What puts it (standard westernized patriarchal) on the non-kinked side is the lack of consciousness of assuming the roles, and to make it more complicated, modern nonkinked relationships have the authority scattered into different areas of life, now with either partner assuming one role in one area, and another role in a different area.

2. I am not keen on the word 'mundane' either its seems discriminatory in a negative connotation towards people living outside of D/s. Just adding the term vanilla has always seemed kind of strange to me as well. The term 'nilla' just makes me want to pull my hair out.

I'll try, but political correctness was never my strong suit. I prefer blunt and descriptive, but never insulting. I'll work with "nonkinked"; that's about as neutral as I can make it.

3. Also when you say 'relationship' are you defining the experience to the 'bedroom' or extending it into all areas of intimacy and dynamics applicable of such 'outside the bedroom' as well please ?

That would be the whole enchilada; in and out of the bedroom, every facet. Like I said in part 1, above, modern relationships make it a very complicated topic, and one that I look forward to a great discussion on, as we've got a great group of minds here.

Finally its rather cool that your the kind of poster here in Lit I feel I can request all these questions from and know your aware I am not looking to provoke rather that I am asking so I can understand better and rejoin the dialogue here on this thread.

That's what I'm here for. I want people to think; to be aware, of themselves and others. I like to share my ideas, and hopefully learn from the ideas of others.

 

[SpectreT]

Sexually:
Mundane = little or no interest in anything beyond missionary, cowgirl, normal oral, or doggy style with single partner
Kinked = enjoys and willing to try other positions, may have multiple partners, can use toys, engages in SM play, etc
Fetish = will ONLY do it in one position or way, or finds other ways distasteful/not pleasurable.

D/s:
Mundane = little or no conscious exchange of power/traditional relationship modelling, most decisions by consensus.
Kinked = Conscious surrender of authority by one partner to the other who consciously accepts and acknowledges that surrender of authority, decisions may be discussed but one person has final yes/no authority.
Fetish = will ONLY maintain the relationship if the power dynamic is followed in all prescribed areas.

How's that?

Looks like we're reading from the same composer, more or less. Funny, I used to pride myself on my economy of words in communicating an idea. Along comes Geoff, and leaves me eating his laconic dust.

 

[SpectreT]

My first thoughts on the matter – subject to change up to and including turns of 180 deg or more, depending on caffeine intake.

Kink is an area on my continuum of “arousal interests” between mundane and fetish – using your definition of “mundane” and my definition “fetish” as being obsessive and/or compulsive.

Mundane = that’s nice, but I can take it or leave it, if we work with it long enough I might get aroused.

Kink = mmmmm, that’s something extra that increases my arousal.

Fetish = I MUST have it as part of any arousal experience, Kink = mmmmm, that’s something extra that increases my arousal.

Great question

I think I get it. Kink is the whole middle ground, with "Mundane" and "Fetish" at extremes, then?

 

[SpectreT]

I have a lot of mundane (but still great) sex while thinking D/s thoughts what does that make the sex?

Fury

Well, if the sex isn't all that kinky, but the thoughts are - well. All right, this one's a headscratcher. I'll just second Geoff's response for now.

...And add that it kind of depends on what the D/S thoughts are, and if your partner shares them to some degree or other.

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

Well, if the sex isn't all that kinky, but the thoughts are - well. All right, this one's a headscratcher. I'll just second Geoff's response for now.

...And add that it kind of depends on what the D/S thoughts are, and if your partner shares them to some degree or other.

Heh .....was going to add this earlier but as Fury posted and etc etc. I consider descriptors of sex between myself and a Dominant partner as always being 'kinked', even if the most accurate terminology for a specific liaison happens by example to be missionary.

How about that ........

Thank you for your replies above SpecT.

 

[CutieMouse]

I have to say, SpectreT (I had this urge to just say T... but that made me think of Mr. T, and that was just oo much of a bad 80s flashback to do to anyone), that there just isn't enough caffeine in the universe for me to really digest what you wrote in the OP.

Shank and EG's posts seem to be the Cliff Notes version- so I concur with them.

However, my vote/views are a bit moot, given the current, ongoing, [depressingly real] lack of intimacy in my Life- mundane, or otherwise.

 

[SpectreT]

I have to say, SpectreT (I had this urge to just say T... but that made me think of Mr. T, and that was just oo much of a bad 80s flashback to do to anyone), that there just isn't enough caffeine in the universe for me to really digest what you wrote in the OP.

Shank and EG's posts seem to be the Cliff Notes version- so I concur with them.

However, my vote/views are a bit moot, given the current, ongoing, [depressingly real] lack of intimacy in my Life- mundane, or otherwise.

Heh. Been a while since anyone 'round here has called me "T", and I miss the folks who did... As to "Eighties Flashback", Mr. T has a new "Reali-T" show, called "I Pity the Fool". Think of it as Dr. Phil with a mohawk. Caught an episode of it, and found it surprisingly moving.

As to "Cliff Notes", I'll write my own, as I think I just got it down to a one-liner.

Kink is where the Heart (and/or) Mind are, not in the toys, number and kind of genitals involved, furniture, positions, et cetera...

or,

If you're not "feelin' it", to quote the vernacular, you're not kinking. (Can I get away with making kink a verb there? Since it's already a grammatical shambles...)

As to the white text, well... Time will help put some distance from the hurt, and the rest can be taken care of when you're not risking "rubbing a raw nerve."

 

[Shankara20]

I think I get it. Kink is the whole middle ground, with "Mundane" and "Fetish" at extremes, then?

I dona-know, I guess. When I read your OP this morning I spent some time trying to sort out "what do I consider my 'kinks' to be?" and the answer that surfaces was "just about everything that I consider it worth getting up for".

That might be a function of my getting older, but I find that it takes a little "something extra" to make it worth the effort to involve someone else in my sex life.

About a year ago someone I met started to flirt. So I responded somewhat. As we got to know each other it became clear that if there were going to be any sexual contact at some point I would need to deal with my piercings and lace undies. The closer we got to the subject I got the more I realized that this would be new territory for the other person and there was some resistance on their part, but they were willing to "try to work through it". The whole BDSM area was new, but "sorta interesting".

I soon called off the relationship for several reasons. Sexual contact never happened. I just could not go there. It might have been pleasant 'mundane' sexual experiences I passed on, but without at least the reasonable potential that I could finely dust off my floggers and cuffs and be dressed in my panties - a few of my kinks - it just was not worth the emotional risk of becoming involved.

So that was what was behind my mundane-kink-fetish continuum answer. I can do mundane, I don't have an obsession, a fetish, I "must" have in order to function. I do have a wide range of kinks I want to be able it play with if I am going to become involved.

So I think my answer to your question here is "yes".

 

[FurryFury]

Well, if the sex isn't all that kinky, but the thoughts are - well. All right, this one's a headscratcher. I'll just second Geoff's response for now.

...And add that it kind of depends on what the D/S thoughts are, and if your partner shares them to some degree or other.

I've never had sex that I wasn't also having D/s thoughts during.

I won't going into just what they are NOW. The Daddy Room and Buffets are two stories posted at Lit are based on what some of them were in the past. If I did give up what they are now, (they are a lot darker now, ) then I worry they will lose the taboo potency I enjoy about them. I've seen it happen with other things I've written.

My partner shares them and/or has alternate versions of them to some degree and sometimes, we actually have a scene. That has slacked off a LOT lately mostly because I haven't been energetic and creative for a while.

Fury

 

[Netzach]

I don't know to what degree the sense of "outlaw" has to come

1. from the participants

(If I think that missionary sex with my husband is "kinky" if I believe he's controlling me -- is it?)

2. from the society

(If I don't think that putting my husband in panties and calling up my best friend and making him serve us martinis is kinked is it NOT?)

but I think you're onto a viable theory.

 

[SpectreT]

I don't know to what degree the sense of "outlaw" has to come

1. from the participants

(If I think that missionary sex with my husband is "kinky" if I believe he's controlling me -- is it?)

2. from the society

(If I don't think that putting my husband in panties and calling up my best friend and making him serve us martinis is kinked is it NOT?)

but I think you're onto a viable theory.

Not to put too fine a point on it (I hope), but it's not so much "From the society" as "From the Participants' awareness of the society's norms", at least for the purposes of my model. Glad to provoke some thought, and thanks for the opportunity to clarify somewhat.

 

[Shankara20]

"From the Participants' awareness of the society's norms",

What about "Participants' assumption of the society's norms"? I'm wondering what ones interpretation of varied impute to define society's norms plays in setting ones threshold of kink. A boy growing up on a farm in Kansas may experience a set of norms very different that a boy growing up in the Castro area of San Francisco. How they define there own kink might be very very different.

I'm not trying to split hairs in your "fine point" - just move the discussion along.

 

[SpectreT]

What about "Participants' assumption of the society's norms"? I'm wondering what ones interpretation of varied impute to define society's norms plays in setting ones threshold of kink. A boy growing up on a farm in Kansas may experience a set of norms very different that a boy growing up in the Castro area of San Francisco. How they define there own kink might be very very different.

I'm not trying to split hairs in your "fine point" - just move the discussion along.

Easily rectified with but a single change in word - "Participants' awareness of their society's norms."

While assumption is possible, I don't like the flavor of that word in my statement. While it's true no one really knows what's genuinely "normal", as sex is one of the great topics everyone lies about - it is possible to be aware of the "local consensus", if you will. (And almost impossible to be unaware of it, conversely, IMO.)

 

[Shankara20]

Easily rectified with but a single change in word - "Participants' awareness of their society's norms."

While assumption is possible, I don't like the flavor of that word in my statement. While it's true no one really knows what's genuinely "normal", as sex is one of the great topics everyone lies about - it is possible to be aware of the "local consensus", if you will. (And almost impossible to be unaware of it, conversely, IMO.)

Well stated.

I need more coffee, or perhaps a nap, to continue - but I will.



hold on - a question is forming in my mind.....

(delete last typing) - nope, can't articulate it,........ yet...

 

[neonflux]

... What's the dividing line, for you? (Continued discussion from JMohegan's thread about Control outside the Bedroom; I derailed that thread enough with this.) I chose "Mundane" because "Vanilla" is a loaded words to some people.

Mundane I find an interesting choice of terminology, as it's original meaning was "of this world" as opposed to being "sacred." I find it interesting because I think that BDSM practice, due to its intensity carries with it a greater possibility of spiritual experience/connection than non-kink sex. That said, I also think that every sexual encounter, even the most casual, has within it the potential for connection to the divine, so I am divided, In some ways I prefer the term "vanilla," because to me it actually seems less loaded - vanilla being one taste preference out of many...

BD, DS, SM, it doesn't matter what portion of kink you're drawing from, if there isn't a conscious thought of "Kink", it isn't kink. (It can, however, be kinky.) if there isn't an awareness of the "PYL/pyl" roles, it's not kink, no matter the activity. (Though it's hard to imagine someone bullshitting themselves so hard that they're not aware they're doing something kinked in a tie-up and flogging scenario, however. In such an SM example, there's "Somebody dealing it out" and "Somebody Taking It", which are the most basic levels of PYL/pyl labels I can think of; and if they're even thinking that much into it; they're kinked. You don't need fancy terms - I don't know who said it, but you can know he name of a bird in forty languages, but that doesn't tell you shit about what its feathers look like, what it eats, and where it builds its nests - but you need an awareness of roles, to make it to the kinked side of the line. A titty twister isn't a kinky sex practice unless you think it is, or derive that idea from the context the nipple tweak was delivered in, for another example.)

What is interesting to me is how people define kink. Some folks see having multiple partners as "kink." So would you agree with their definition. I'm not sure, however, I do have to say that I like your argument.

And if you thought that was convoluted, stick around for the next part: DS. I have never seen a relationship that is free of D/S. I have seen many relationsips where the people involved are completely unaware of their D/S dynamic. That lack of awareness makes it Mundane rather than Kinked, as far as I'm concerned.

I love that you wrote this and I agree with you whole heartedly - all relationships have some element of D/s regardless of the gender make-up of the partners. The fact that in non-kink relationships this dynamic is most often unacknowledged & subconscious, may actually leave more room for abuse than those who engage in same might be willing to admit, or at least that was my experience in the non-kink world. Most of the folks I know who are into BDSM formally are not only intelligent but very self-aware and, even when they have their demons, much more stable because of this awareness. That said, I do realize that this is something of a gross generalization...

Neon

 

[mikcd]

neon herpes

 

[neonflux]

neon herpes

Oh for Goddess' sake, grow up! Sorry, SpectreT, have no intention of hijacking your thread...