Serious relationships - are we that weird?

[Netzach]

You know, I'm thinking about serious relationships I've been in, the ones with deep love, ongoing reason to trust, a lot of faith and history with the other person.

I'm thinking about some of the extremes you read about in the paper and in literature all the time in purely vanilla relationships. People kill, lie, cheat, steal, kill their children, go insane, drive cars off cliffs, stab the local official and then jump off the parapets - you catch my drift.

You don't have to be kinked to give way to dangerous behavior in the name of the object of your desire.

Also, if vanilla people in love will do all and any of that "for one another" is it really that weird if I have my husband meow like a cat for my amusement?

Is it really that weird that he'd say yes to this?

When I was with my completely vanilla partner, I think either of us would have done a lot of things in the name of "it would really mean a lot to me if..."

Are we just caught up in building this really elaborate nomenclature because we like that facet of love?

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[SubKekiLee]

awesome post.. You are great Net.

 

[nh23]

Beautiful..

 

[catalina_francisco]

Great post Netzach!! Maybe it is because it is popular to think of our lifestyle and those within it as questionable it is assumed that it can only be superficial and unrealistic in its depth and devotion.

Catalina

 

[twysted73]

Insightful. Very impressive connection of paralells. And another great example to share with someone who'd consider us freaks because of the "unusual" behavior we exibit.

 

[JMohegan]

One husband's meowing like a cat is another husband's repainting of the dining room in a shade that he finds virtually indistinguishable from the last one.

Each somewhat ridiculous. Each done to please.

Are we just caught up in building this really elaborate nomenclature because we like that facet of love?

Yes and no.

People are people are people. The distribution of urges, drives, emotions, and level of commitment is the same across all flavors of relationships.

However, to the extent that behavioral expectations differ markedly from the mainstream, careful delineation of those expectations becomes necessary.

 

[HottieMama]

Great Post Netzach!

 

[missy_me]

.....

 

[Homburg]

However, to the extent that behavioral expectations differ markedly from the mainstream, careful delineation of those expectations becomes necessary.

In short, we're all having a conversation that amounts to "Oh shit, you make him meow too?!? I do that to my girlfriend. It really is a small world!"

 

[FurryFury]

I totally agree with you, as I often do Netzach!

 

[graceanne]

*grr* If you were sub, girlfriend, this would SO go on the sub thought calender.

 

[TerragonSix]

People have to remember that 'normal' is in relativeness. You realize that forty years ago, what might be considered vanilla today, was ultra-kinky back then.

Eventually, when the cycle loosens, what would be considered kinky by normal standards, might be vanilla tomorrow. It's a fairly common trend, occasionally tightened and loosened, but a trend nonetheless.

I suspect that forty years from now, the BDSM way of doing things in the bedroom will be a lot more common, perhaps even considered 'vanilla'. Who knows then what might be considered 'kinky'.

 

[FurryFury]

*grr* If you were sub, girlfriend, this would SO go on the sub thought calender.

*chuckles*

That's just what I was thinking!

 

[JMohegan]

In short, we're all having a conversation that amounts to "Oh shit, you make him meow too?!? I do that to my girlfriend. It really is a small world!"

Ha, ha, yes. I suppose so.

But my comment in response to Netzach's "elaborate nomenclature" remark was intended to note that the need for expanded dialogue (in my version of a D/s relationship) is borne not just because I "like that facet of love," but also because my non-mainstream expectations require explanation and clarification in order to convey exactly what I mean.

For example, it's not just a question of whether or not she would ever meow to please me. It's a question of whether she would be willing & able to commit to meowing when I tell her to, simply because I tell her to, regardless of whether she's in the mood to be agreeable or has other things she'd rather attend to in that moment.

 

[graceanne]

*chuckles*

That's just what I was thinking!

Great minds, and all that.

 

[JMohegan]

*grr* If you were sub, girlfriend, this would SO go on the sub thought calender.

She subs to her Bull. It's on record.

 

[graceanne]

She subs to her Bull. It's on record.

True enough. But in this post she was talking about her slave and asking her husband to meow for her. I'd say this is a toppy post, not a bottomy post.

 

[JMohegan]

True enough. But in this post she was talking about her slave and asking her husband to meow for her. I'd say this is a toppy post, not a bottomy post.

Strict rules! You subs are control freaks, no doubt.

 

[graceanne]

Strict rules! You subs are control freaks, no doubt.

You flatterer. *bats eyelashes*

 

[JMohegan]

You flatterer. *bats eyelashes*

Ha, ha! You know, I think shy once started a support group for "submissive control freaks", or some oxymoron like that. That reminds me - I wanted to tell her something. Off to bump her thread...

 

[Netzach]

True enough. But in this post she was talking about her slave and asking her husband to meow for her. I'd say this is a toppy post, not a bottomy post.

If Ma'am would like I could switch to a better example...

 

[Homburg]

If Ma'am would like I could switch to a better example...

*snicker*

 

[JMohegan]

Ha, Ha, Ha!!

 

[Marquis]

Are we just caught up in building this really elaborate nomenclature because we like that facet of love?

This is basically where I feel like I've come from all along.

I watch these lifetime movies with crazy controlling alpha male "sleeping with the enemy" husbands and I'm like, yo, I totally want to be like that.

Let's just give it a nice name, own up to it and call it ok.