NationStates Jolt Archive

But kinky people make the best diplomats - they are already skilled at negotiation :D

Edit: Umm... that might be a little too scene related for most people to get


Indeed. Enlighten us (though I may well regret asking).

Indeed. Enlighten us (though I may well regret asking).

When you meet someone interesting at a party or whatnot, and you want to play with them, some important issues need to be discussed first.

You have to set limits on what is and is not acceptable (only easily concealable bruises, no CBT, no single tail, no candles, etc), what kind of things you want done, what you expect out of a scene, what level of aftercare is expected (this is probably the most oft forgotten bit), what safe-words to use (I personally prefer the traffic light system), etc. etc.

This little discussion is called negotiating a scene.

Those really skillful at it can seamlessly integrate it into just chatting and flirting with someone rather than asking blunt questions. Every now and then I realize I am in the middle of negotiations and not just making small talk – a subtle way of seeing if someone is interested, if their preferences match up with yours, and offering a chance to turn someone down without any loss of face or awkwardness.

But kinky people make the best diplomats - they are already skilled at negotiation :D

Edit: Umm... that might be a little too scene related for most people to get

I actually understood that....

When you meet someone interesting at a party or whatnot, and you want to play with them, some important issues need to be discussed first.

You have to set limits on what is and is not acceptable (only easily concealable bruises, no CBT, no single tail, no candles, etc), what kind of things you want done, what you expect out of a scene, what level of aftercare is expected (this is probably the most oft forgotten bit), what safe-words to use (I personally prefer the traffic light system), etc. etc.

This little discussion is called negotiating a scene.

Those really skillful at it can seamlessly integrate it into just chatting and flirting with someone rather than asking blunt questions. Every now and then I realize I am in the middle of negotiations and not just making small talk – a subtle way of seeing if someone is interested, if their preferences match up with yours, and offering a chance to turn someone down without any loss of face or awkwardness.

My thanks. If I might make one further inquiry though - what is "aftercare"?

Right now I'm sufficiently bored to pretend to be Freudian, and toss around potential causal factors in my brain.

My thanks. If I might make one further inquiry though - what is "aftercare"?

aftercare is sort of a physical and psychological "check up" to make sure everything after this kind of interaction is alright. Obviously due to the nature of things physical injury is quite possible, and it's often thought advisable to talk afterwards, make sure everyone is feeling physically and emotionally OK.

You know the "are you feeling ok, are you comfortable with anything that occured, is there anything you did not like, why not" that kind of thing.

aftercare is sort of a physical and psychological "check up" to make sure everything after this kind of interaction is alright. Obviously due to the nature of things physical injury is quite possible, and it's often thought advisable to talk afterwards, make sure everyone is feeling physically and emotionally OK.

You know the "are you feeling ok, are you comfortable with anything that occured, is there anything you did not like, why not" that kind of thing.

Grand. Thanks for the answers.

I've always just found it an effort to be...different, for the sake of being different.

Kind of like shopping at Hot Topic?

Grand. Thanks for the answers.

No problems. I've always found the terminology to be a bit...funny, myself. I rarely use it, but some seem to swear by it.

I've always just found it an effort to be...different, for the sake of being different.

Kind of like shopping at Hot Topic?

....in a manner of speaking, yes. My whole thing in regards to this topic is that these kinds of relationships, or interactions, with a focus on BDSM (or any of its wonderful subcomponents, B/D, D/S, S/M, take your pick on how many combinations you prefer) are not "odd", they're not "strange", they are simply...part of the spectrum of humanity.

They are the way some people choose to make their sex life. One of my things has always been to try and lessen the views from the "outside" that this is somehow abnormal or strange. It doesn't help when those on the "inside" try to come up with whole new terminology for things that really are no different, and exist all the same, in more "vanilla" interactions.

....in a manner of speaking, yes. My whole thing in regards to this topic is that these kinds of relationships, or interactions, with a focus on BDSM (or any of its wonderful subcomponents, B/D, D/S, S/M, take your pick on how many combinations you prefer) are not "odd", they're not "strange", they are simply...part of the spectrum of humanity.

They are the way some people choose to make their sex life. One of my things has always been to try and lessen the views from the "outside" that this is somehow abnormal or strange. It doesn't help when those on the "inside" try to come up with whole new terminology for things that really are no different, and exist all the same, in more "vanilla" interactions.

I'd imagine not. Redeveloping existing language is a surefire way to alienate a group from society.

Although, for all I know, some people might even get a kick out of this alienation, making sure that everyone knows that one has interests that are divergent from the average. Making it known somehow makes the culturally forbidden/taboo nature of the act all the more so.

I'd imagine not. Redeveloping existing language is a surefire way to alienate a group from society.

Quite. I mean take a look at what was said before. Negotiating a scene being setting limitations, finding out if interests are compatable, finding out if there is interest there.

We call that flirting.

What difference does it make if your end goal is to have a nice roll in the sack with the cute girl, or tie her up and whip her (or, vice versa of course)?

If we consider BDSM activities as wierd, different, or strange, then we can see why we might need different terminology. Those strange people have to go through these other steps. But if we get rid of the idea that this type of sexual activity is "different" we can begin to see that a lot of the "terms" we use really just mirror terms we already have. Negotiating with someone, finding out if you're compatable, finding out if they're attractive, determining what you are both willing to do...we do this already, every body does, all the time. "Do you only want me to hit you where it won't show" is functionally no different than "do you want me to wear a condom?"

If we get rid of the notion that these activities are different and out of place, we can begin to see that a lot that goes into it is really no different than what goes into "normal" (god I hate that term in this context) interactions. The interactions are the same, the end goal might be slightly torqued, but that's it.

Although, for all I know, some people might even get a kick out of this alienation, making sure that everyone knows that one has interests that are divergent from the average. Making it known somehow makes the culturally forbidden/taboo nature of the act all the more so.

I'm sure there's some of this. Some people like the idea of being "different" and I think that's where this all propogated from. I prefer to argue that human sexuality simply is what it is, and that these types of relationships are not "different" or "unusual", just part of the umbrella.

Quite. I mean take a look at what was said before. Negotiating a scene being setting limitations, finding out if interests are compatable, finding out if there is interest there.

We call that flirting.

What difference does it make if your end goal is to have a nice roll in the sack with the cute girl, or tie her up and whip her (or, vice versa of course)?

If we consider BDSM activities as wierd, different, or strange, then we can see why we might need different terminology. Those strange people have to go through these other steps. But if we get rid of the idea that this type of sexual activity is "different" we can begin to see that a lot of the "terms" we use really just mirror terms we already have. Negotiating with someone, finding out if you're compatable, finding out if they're attractive, determining what you are both willing to do...we do this already, every body does, all the time. "Do you only want me to hit you where it won't show" is functionally no different than "do you want me to wear a condom?"

If we get rid of the notion that these activities are different and out of place, we can begin to see that a lot that goes into it is really no different than what goes into "normal" (god I hate that term in this context) interactions. The interactions are the same, the end goal might be slightly torqued, but that's it.

Absolutely. I have had discussions of limits and boundaries, what we like and what we don't like, etc., etc. I cannot imagine that, in essence, it is any different from what "negotiations" would entail.

Absolutely. I have had discussions of limits and boundaries, what we like and what we don't like, etc., etc. I cannot imagine that, in essence, it is any different from what "negotiations" would entail.

basically yeah. Which is why I don't like the seperate terminology. It has the connotation that it's somehow "different" when in essence it's really the same thing EVERYBODY does, it's just what you end up with might look slightly different.

But the process is still pretty much the same.

We call that flirting.
Flirting and negotiating a scene are completely different things.
(will expand on this in a bit)

What difference does it make if your end goal is to have a nice roll in the sack with the cute girl, or tie her up and whip her (or, vice versa of course)?
The difference there is functionally negligible. This goes back to negotiation and flirtation being completely different things.

If we consider BDSM activities as wierd, different, or strange, then we can see why we might need different terminology. Those strange people have to go through these other steps. But if we get rid of the idea that this type of sexual activity is "different" we can begin to see that a lot of the "terms" we use really just mirror terms we already have. Negotiating with someone, finding out if you're compatable, finding out if they're attractive, determining what you are both willing to do...we do this already, every body does, all the time. "Do you only want me to hit you where it won't show" is functionally no different than "do you want me to wear a condom?"

If we get rid of the notion that these activities are different and out of place, we can begin to see that a lot that goes into it is really no different than what goes into "normal" (god I hate that term in this context) interactions. The interactions are the same, the end goal might be slightly torqued, but that's it.

Couple big things…

These terms are not derogatory things others come up with to dehumanize kinky people – they are terms we ourselves use because they convey a different meaning than the commonly accepted terms you think they replace.

Asking “do you want me to wear a condom?” is not flirting. It is actually a great reason why, despite usually having a wider range of partners while engaging in behavior considered risky from a disease standpoint, kinky people have a substantially lower risk of contracting a disease than ‘mainstream’ people.

Seriously… maybe I’m just weird… does anyone else here consider “do you want me to wear a condom” flirting?

I'm sure there's some of this. Some people like the idea of being "different" and I think that's where this all propogated from. I prefer to argue that human sexuality simply is what it is, and that these types of relationships are not "different" or "unusual", just part of the umbrella.

This is something we can agree upon – sexuality is not something that is easily quantified. It is a wonderful kaleidoscope of possibilities.



Now… down to the terminological differences…

Flirtation and negotiation: this is a rather large undertaking to explain thoroughly so that everyone can understand. I will try to be as succinct as possible.

Flirtation is what you do as a fun light-hearted interaction between people full of sexual innuendo, teasing, and generally with the purpose of enticing potential mates. You make jokes, you say things you really don’t mean, and can misconstrue intentions. It can even be with people you have absolutely no intention of it ever progressing.

Negotiation is more of a practical nuts-and-bolds explicit definition of terms. It is very precise and honest communication between people who have already pretty much established that there is mutual interest and are just dealing with the particulars. A frank and open discussion is important when you are dealing with the potential for serious physical and psychological harm (before any start yelling about how all sex has that, I am excluding cases of non-consensual things such as rape, which is so blatantly an obvious cause of physical and emotional harm I don’t think it worth including in a discussion about consensual activities).

I guess the best way to put it is that flirting is what you do when you are out on a date.
Negotiation is when you walk her to her door and she asks if you want to spend the night.

Negotiation is more of a practical nuts-and-bolds explicit definition of terms. It is very precise and honest communication between people who have already pretty much established that there is mutual interest and are just dealing with the particulars. A frank and open discussion is important when you are dealing with the potential for serious physical and psychological harm (before any start yelling about how all sex has that, I am excluding cases of non-consensual things such as rape, which is so blatantly an obvious cause of physical and emotional harm I don’t think it worth including in a discussion about consensual activities).

You misunderstand my point. "Do you want me to wear a condom" isn't flirting.

It IS however a conversation every sexually active person does, or should, have.

I don't mean to say that negotiation is the equivalent of flirting. I am saying that the premise of what negotiation IS, the "dealing with the particulars", setting boundaries, setting limits, discussing interests, this is not applicable only to BDSM/kink relationships.

It happens in ALL relationships. Everyone does, or should, have that conversation. The only difference is that some activities have a higher risk of physical injury, and ok that should be considered.

But more to my point, I dislike inventing, or using words, to discuss things only in that context. To say that "negotiation" is something in BDSM relationships implies that other "vanilla" relationships don't do the EXACT SAME THING.

They do, or they should.

Therefore I don't like terminology like this. I don't like creating seperate catagories. I don't like making it seem that kink activities are somehow "different" in any meaningful way so that you need a whole new sense of operations. Having discussions, setting boundaries, discussing ideas, knowing your partner, this is exactly what every single healthy relationship should do. This is not something unique to BDSM/kink lifestyles. Therefore I don't feel the need to use seperate vocabulary to describe it.

You call it "negotiations" for BDSM relationships. I call it the exact same thing any person should do, regardless of the type of sex they're about to have. That's why I'm against labeling it as something different. It's not. It's the same thing everybody does, or should do (and I'm sure there are as many kink people who are just as guilty of not doing it as there are other types). It's not any different than the same interaction that everybody has. Why treat it any differently? It only serves to suggest that this is somehow "different"

You suggest that they have different connotations. Frankly I don't think so. It connotates the same type of behavior that every emotionally healthy sexually active person should have with his/her partner(s). Why treat it differently?

To put it in a simple way. I do not think that what goes on in "negotiation" is, in concept any different than what goes on in every other healthy sexual relationship. Why treat it differently? What purpose does that serve other than to propogate the idea that these relationships are "different"?

I never meant to imply that negotiation is limited to BDSM relationships.
It is a term used by kinky people, and not the general population, simply because the general population really doesn’t have much call for such a term. It is a question of specialized jargon. Every specialty has words it uses because it needs greater terminological exactitude than is provided by the common language.

To use an old meme – Eskimos have 50 words for snow, English generally gets by with just one word for it. Kinky people use a slightly different meaning of ‘negotiation’ because it is a lot easier than saying “discussing their proclivities, sexual histories, what they are comfortable doing, how they will let you know they want to stop (given that “stop” can be used when you really don’t want to stop but need some way to convey when you are serious about stopping), and so on and so forth”.

Pick any subgroup – electricians, economists, sailors, trainspotters, actors, or anything – and you will find they have words they use in a different context than the general public.

I do not treat the concept ‘differently’ with non-kinky relationships. There is not even anything intrinsically kinky implied by the term at all! All relationships have ‘negotiation’ going on. I have never said otherwise. The difference is that kinky people are far more direct and explicit about these discussions than most people and undertake them far more often. This is why a word is needed which does not exist with the same implications as in other social circles.

Rather than accusing us of simply making up other words to somehow separate us from ‘normal’ society, take a moment to think about why we use such terms.

Can you honestly tell me that the vast majority of the population has a word that can convey the same meaning? I would really love to know, as I have never been exposed to it and would love to learn what I have been missing out on.

I never meant to imply that negotiation is limited to BDSM relationships.
It is a term used by kinky people, and not the general population, simply because the general population really doesn’t have much call for such a term. It is a question of specialized jargon. Every specialty has words it uses because it needs greater terminological exactitude than is provided by the common language.

And this is where i absolutly disagree. To say that the "general population really doesn't have much call for such a term" is to say that there's something "about" BDSM relationships that are somehow different. This is my point. THe conversations that go on in terms of "negotiation" are IDENTICAL in concept to the conversations that go on in other sexual relationships. It's the same thing. The result might be slightly different, but the content and purpose of that conversation remains the same.

To say that BDSM relationships "have a use for the term" and non BDSM relationships don't is to say that BDSM relationships contain some functional or substantive difference. I don't believe that.

To use an old meme – Eskimos have 50 words for snow, English generally gets by with just one word for it.

Actually a false meme:

There is no one Eskimo language. A number of cultures are referred to as Eskimo, and a number of different languages are termed Eskimo-Aleut languages.

Eskimo languages have more than one word to describe snow. For example, Yupik has been estimated to have around 24 — but English has at least 40, including "berg", "frost", "glacier", "hail", "ice", "slush", "flurry", and "sleet".

It is reasonable to suppose that Eskimo languages would have several extra words to describe snow, which is specifically the point of Boas's theory. This is because they deal with snow more than other cultures, just as artists have more words to describe the various details of their profession — what a non-artist calls "paint", the artist identifies as "oil paint", "acrylic paint", or "watercolor". This does not mean that these two individuals see two different things, nor does it mean that the artist would be confused by the idea that oil paint and acrylic paint are related.

In fact, the number of Eskimo words for snow is unbounded, because Eskimo languages (like many native North American languages) are polysynthetic. Polysynthetic languages allow noun-incorporation, resulting in a single word that is the equivalent of a phrase in other languages (Spencer 1991), having a system of derivational suffixes for word formation to which speakers can recursively add snow-referring roots. As in English, there is a handful of these snow-referring roots, such as for "snowflake", "blizzard", "drift". What an English speaker would describe as "frosty sparkling snow" a speaker of an Eskimo language such as Inuinnaqtun would call "patuqun", and express "is covered in frosty sparkling snow" as "patuqutaujuq". The concept is the same in both languages. This is true of things other than snow: "qinmiq" means "dog", "qinmiarjuk" "young dog", and "qinmiqtuqtuq" "goes by dog team".


Kinky people use a slightly different meaning of ‘negotiation’ because it is a lot easier than saying “discussing their proclivities, sexual histories, what they are comfortable doing, how they will let you know they want to stop (given that “stop” can be used when you really don’t want to stop but need some way to convey when you are serious about stopping), and so on and so forth”.

Why would they need that term? Don't non BDSM people still have the same discussions about proclivities, sexual histories, what they're comfortable doing, etc etc? Isn't this a conversation that happens in pretty much every healthy sexual relationship, regardless of its aspects?


Pick any subgroup – electricians, economists, sailors, trainspotters, actors, or anything – and you will find they have words they use in a different context than the general public.

Ahhh, but there's the difference. An electrician is different than a non electrician. A sailor is different than a non sailor. They use different terminology because they DO THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT.

I argue that there is no real difference here.

I do not treat the concept ‘differently’ with non-kinky relationships. There is not even anything intrinsically kinky implied by the term at all! All relationships have ‘negotiation’ going on. I have never said otherwise.

Then why call it anything different?

The difference is that kinky people are far more direct and explicit about these discussions than most people and undertake them far more often.

See here's the thing. I see that conversation as a sign of sexual maturity. I think ANY sexually mature person should have it. There are sexually mature people that do, there are sexually immature people who don't. There are sexually immature people in both BDSM and non BDSM contexts. People who have a healthy sex life have this conversation. I disagree strongly that kinky people are far more direct and explicit. Sexually mature people are.

The ONLY argument you might get is correlation, not causation. I disagree strongly that kinky people do them more often. I would say, perhaps, that coming to grips with a sexuality that is outside the "mainstream" perhaps leads one to developing some degree of sexual maturity, and as such perhaps, as a group, on average, they are more open about it because the process of accepting oneself in that position leads to it.

But not always. And again, I don't think having that conversation has anything to do with kink, it has to do with emotional maturity.

This is why a word is needed which does not exist with the same implications as in other social circles.

That's just it, the special word is not needed, because the meaning of that word does not encompass anything unique to BDSM relationships in the slightest.

It doesn't mean anything other than that which normally sexually mature people should discuss.

Rather than accusing us of simply making up other words to somehow separate us from ‘normal’ society, take a moment to think about why we use such terms.

I am not saying that this is the purpose. I argue that this can be the affect, and we should be mindful of that.

To say that the "general population really doesn't have much call for such a term" is to say that there's something "about" BDSM relationships that are somehow different.
Yeah, there is… that’s why they are called BDSM relationships and not just relationships. ;p

Though perhaps your confusion stems from the use of the word ‘relationship’.
It would be more accurate to just talk about BDSM play.

This is my point. THe conversations that go on in terms of "negotiation" are IDENTICAL in concept to the conversations that go on in other sexual relationships. It's the same thing. The result might be slightly different, but the content and purpose of that conversation remains the same.
No, they really are not. If you are going to play you have to be very explicit compared to vanilla sex. The vast majority of people do not sit down and discuss everything, they just figure it out as they go along.

Can anyone tell me they sit down with a one-night-stand before starting to get physical and go over which positions they like, how they feel about biting or scratching, and any number of other details?

To say that BDSM relationships "have a use for the term" and non BDSM relationships don't is to say that BDSM relationships contain some functional or substantive difference. I don't believe that.
Once again, most vanilla play is fairly safe as it is fairly standardized, so most people do not bother with discussing the particulars as a matter of practical necessity. People talk about it to either make sure there are not any major issues (which usually is just assumed it would be disclosed but default assumption that there isn’t) or to excite and tantalize.

When you want to do something slightly unusual, then people talk about it. This is usually with an established partner so you already know they quite well and do not need to engage is significant negotiations. That is not to say they do not ‘negotiate a scene’, they just have no need for a term for it.

Are you aware of what BDSM is? How can you say there is no substantial difference between having vanilla sex and being in a BDSM scene (which, by the way, does not necessarily mean any sex will occur at all)?

Actually a false meme:
You really missed the point there.
I know it’s a false meme, but it is a meme most people have heard of nonetheless.
A statement does not have to be accurate to convey meaning.

Why would they need that term?
Please read an entire post before replying to it.

Don't non BDSM people still have the same discussions about proclivities, sexual histories, what they're comfortable doing, etc etc? Isn't this a conversation that happens in pretty much every healthy sexual relationship, regardless of its aspects?
Yes, non-kinky people have negotiations. I clearly stated that in my last post. Please try to pay attention.

Ahhh, but there's the difference. An electrician is different than a non electrician. A sailor is different than a non sailor. They use different terminology because they DO THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT.
A ‘kinky’ person is different than a non-kinky person. Refusing to acknowledge this is absurd. This is a fundamental concept you seem to be missing. I am not saying that kinky sex is wrong, or unusual, or that it makes us a different species. If kinky people didn’t do anything that was different, we wouldn’t be called kinky would we?

Vegans do something that is different than the average person. Does this mean they have a different way of eating? Does this somehow imply digestion is a completely different process for them? Are they a completely different species (actually I wonder about that one from time to time)? No, it merely acknowledges they behave differently than the ‘average’ person.

You are really striking me as the hyper-politically correct person who thinks it is appalling to recognize that everyone is not the exact same height because it might be considered heightist.


I see that conversation as a sign of sexual maturity. I think ANY sexually mature person should have it.
I agree completely. I have never said only those who are kinky could have such a conversation, only that there is little need for a quick term for it.

I disagree strongly that kinky people are far more direct and explicit.
Where do you live? I would love to know what culture is so sexually open that the average person is as direct and explicit as a kinky group. I will be organizing a mass migration of a few thousand people right now, with many more to follow when word spreads. :)

I disagree strongly that kinky people do them more often.
Umm… wow… you really don’t have a clue what goes on at kinky parties do you?
Trust me. Kinky people have this discussion one hell of a lot more than the typical ‘normal’ person.

Most people do not actually do an explicit negotiation. Vanilla relationships really don’t need to be that explicit. Most people just sort of let things happen unless there is anything specific, in which case it is just disclosure not negotiation. I really do not think most people discuss sex in such detail before they hop in bed together. The vast majority of my sexual encounters have not involved a negotiation because it simply hasn’t been necessary.

I would say, perhaps, that coming to grips with a sexuality that is outside the "mainstream" perhaps leads one to developing some degree of sexual maturity, and as such perhaps, as a group, on average, they are more open about it because the process of accepting oneself in that position leads to it.
I agree with this to a point, but it is far more of a mutual development. You cannot really come to terms with your sexuality (and any unusual variety in it) unless you are mature enough for such introspection.

But not always. And again, I don't think having that conversation has anything to do with kink, it has to do with emotional maturity.
What does emotion have to do with it? We are talking about discussing what activities you want to engage in. This is absolutely not about any kind of ‘emotional bond’ or anything. A lot of play is no more emotionally invested than a one-night-stand.

That's just it, the special word is not needed, because the meaning of that word does not encompass anything unique to BDSM relationships in the slightest. It doesn't mean anything other than that which normally sexually mature people should discuss.
It is not a unique concept, I have never claimed it was. However the kinky subculture does need a word to convey the concept to a degree far beyond what vanilla activities require. BDSM play pretty much requires negotiation (in the full sense and with all the implications inherent in the kinky subculture meaning), where as vanilla activities generally get by with simple communicating the necessaries with body language.
There is an entire world of difference between two vanilla people making little comments before sleeping together an some BDSMers negotiating before a scene.



So you haven’t answered me… if there is no need for using the term ‘negotiation’ by kinky people, what is the mainstream word that conveys the same meaning?

If you want to argue that there is no need for such a term, then you might as well argue that there is no need for language at all as we could get by with grunting and erratic gestures.

If it wouldn’t get me banned faster than a cheetah on meth, I would try to transcribe a couple of the negotiations I had on Saturday night. Perhaps then you would see that it is something substantially beyond what 90% of the population would even think about doing before playing with someone.

Though perhaps your confusion stems from the use of the word ‘relationship’.It would be more accurate to just talk about BDSM play.

I meant relationship in the sense of people...well...relating. Not relationship as in comitment. As in involvement of people in an event can be considered an involvement relation to each other.


Can anyone tell me they sit down with a one-night-stand before starting to get physical and go over which positions they like, how they feel about biting or scratching, and any number of other details?

I think it's fair to say they do, or should, discuss what needs to be discussed.


That is not to say they do not ‘negotiate a scene’, they just have no need for a term for it.

Yes, non-kinky people have negotiations. I clearly stated that in my last post. [posts taken out of order to demonstrate a point]

There is a strange dichodemy between your first point and your second. If non BDSM people engage in a degree of negotiation, and BDSM people engage in a degree of negotiation, why does one "have a need" for it, and the other does not.

Let me be clear. I am not opposed to the word. I don't mind the word being used. I just think that what the word implies, in the context of BDSM relationships, is a process that goes on in non bdsm relationships as well. The act of "negotiating" as you say, occurs in both. You say that "non kinky" people engage in negotiation, but don't need a term for it.

Why not simply use it as an inclusive term, make it mean the general process that goes into it, regardless of whether one is "kinky", "vanilla", or some degree in between.


Are you aware of what BDSM is?

You have NOOO idea.

How can you say there is no substantial difference between having vanilla sex and being in a BDSM scene (which, by the way, does not necessarily mean any sex will occur at all)?

The ACTS are different of course. But then again you're guilty of your own problem. Use the term "vanilla" sex as all inclusive. Even "vanilla" sex itself varies, from person to person.

Which is why, generally, I don't like the labels AT ALL. Which is my point. I don't like labels. I don't like placing people into catagories. You lump sex into "vanilla" (and I admit, I did this too, not because I like it, but because it facilitates conversation).

can break some things into catagories easier than others. A sailor, and a non sailor are easily definable. One sails, the other does not. A vegan is one who does not eat anything from an animal. A non vegan does. All of these catagories are reasonably easily definable and easily catagorical.

Human sexuality isn't. Yes "kinky" people have sex (and sexually related acts) differently than "vanillas", but the fact is, every single person on this planet has sex a little bit differently than every OTHER person on this planet. Human sexuality isn't....catagories. It's a spectrum. I don't like the terminology PRECISELY because it divides into catagories. I don't think it's a good thing to define sexual proclivities into a box, you're vanilla, you're kinky, you're a dom, you're a top, you're a sub, you're a bottom.

We all have interests, and those interests vary, and yes, I understand that when one engages in a subculture it's useful to have vocabulary that's helpful to fascilitate understanding. I understand it has utilitarian functionality. Doesn't mean I have to LIKE it.

A ‘kinky’ person is different than a non-kinky person. Refusing to acknowledge this is absurd.

It's only different if you catagorize sex and sexual desire. I don't. I don't even LIKE the term kinky and non-kinky. I think it's an impossible, and quite arbitrary line to draw. They only way to say that a "kinky" person is different than a "non-kinky" person. is that they like different sexual activities.

This is true for every single person on the planet. You can divide the world into sailors and non sailors easily enough. Electricians and non electricians. Vegans and non vegans.

YOu can't do that with sex, because there's no true distinction, there's no "beyond this there be kinky people" line on the map. It's gradiant, it's a spectrum.

The distinction between vegan and non vegan is quite real, and quite inherent and obvious in the definition of the term. You can't catagorize human sexuality into such general distinctions and any attempt to do so is, fundamentally, arbitrary.

If kinky people didn’t do anything that was different, we wouldn’t be called kinky would we?

To say that kinky is different than non kinky because kinky do things differently in regards to sex is so arbitrary as to render it meaningless. The problem again, is that EVERYBODY does SOMETHING different when it comes to sex.

Vegans do something that is different than the average person.

Yes, but that which the vegan does differently than an non vegan is readily identifiable. They don't consume animal products. Boom, definition. Distinction.

A sailor does something differently than a non sailor. He sails. Boom, definition. Distinction.

What seperates a kink person from a non kink person? Can you give me the defining line? Can you give me the acts, if I enjoyed, would make me kinky, but if I did not, I would not?

A woman who enjoys plain sex except every now and then enjoys a light spanking, is she kinky or no?

The line is impossible to pin down, and thus, arbitrary. I don't believe human sexuality can be so redily catagorized as simply as the acceptance of, or refusal to, consume animal products.

You are really striking me as the hyper-politically correct person who thinks it is appalling to recognize that everyone is not the exact same height because it might be considered heightist.

Not at all, I have no problems drawing distinctions when those distinctions can be so drawn. Someone who is taller than me is taller than me, and shorter than me means shorter. But are you more kinky than me? Less? Are you kinky and me not? Vice versa? How the hell do you draw that line? It's amorphous, undefined, artificial.

Where do you live? I would love to know what culture is so sexually open that the average person is as direct and explicit as a kinky group. I will be organizing a mass migration of a few thousand people right now, with many more to follow when word spreads. :)

Sorry, I was not clear. I agree that people who we would define as "kinky" tend to be more sexually open than average. I disagree that it is BECAUSE they are kink. Rather...the process that one goes through learning to accept that, and overcome social pressure has a tendancy to lend itself to sexual maturity.

Kinky people tend to be more sexually open not because they are kinky, as in there's nothing inherent about one that leads to the other, but that the process of accepting oneself and ones "kink" tends to lead to greater sexual maturity.

Vanilla relationships really don’t need to be that explicit.

I think it's safe to say, and I think you will agree with me, that every relationship, every paring, every scene or one night stand, should be exactly as explicit as it needs to be to make sure everyone's ok.

What does emotion have to do with it?

Typo on my behalf, meant "sexual maturity" not "emotional maturity"


BDSM play pretty much requires negotiation (in the full sense and with all the implications inherent in the kinky subculture meaning), where as vanilla activities generally get by with simple communicating the necessaries with body language.

I think it's fair to say that BOTH parties are negotiating. Both parties are doing exactly the same thing, relaying what information needs to be relayed. Sometimes that relaying needs to be more explicit depending on the kind of play you engage in. But it's still the same thing, communication which conveys what needs to be conveyed.

There is an entire world of difference between two vanilla people making little comments before sleeping together an some BDSMers negotiating before a scene.

Not...necessarily. Some may be more explicit than others, cover more bases than others, set more boundaries than others. But WHAT it is, the core of what it is, is still the same, conveying all necessary information your partner needs to know about your limitations and comforts.



So you haven’t answered me… if there is no need for using the term ‘negotiation’ by kinky people, what is the mainstream word that conveys the same meaning?

If you want to argue that there is no need for such a term, then you might as well argue that there is no need for language at all as we could get by with grunting and erratic gestures.

I don't mean to say that there is no need for the term. I mean there is no need for the term that specifically, and ONLY refers to "kinky" people.

if "vanilla" people engage in the same type of negotiation, albiet typically more subtly and less explicitly and in less detail, why does the term NEED to be limited to describing only that interaction when done by "kinky" people, when you'd likely have one HELL of a time defining what "kinky" means, as upposed to "non kinky" in the first place.

I don't like terms that typically refer to "kinky" people rather than "non kinky" people, because doing so suggests that there's a line between them.

If it wouldn’t get me banned faster than a cheetah on meth, I would try to transcribe a couple of the negotiations I had on Saturday night. Perhaps then you would see that it is something substantially beyond what 90% of the population would even think about doing before playing with someone.

Meh, been there, done that.

[as the mohel said… *snip*]

We seem to be talking past each other on the whole basis of this disagreement.

The term ‘negotiation’ is an inclusive term for what goes on between both kinky and non-kinky people when discussing particulars of what they want and expect out of a sexual encounter. The difference is simply a matter of scope and scale.

The reason why vanilla people do not need a term for it, while kinky people do, is simply a matter of the need to be able to communicate the idea quickly and succinctly. The very process and concept itself often comes up in conversation among kinky people and therefore having a term to describe this process greatly facilitates communication. In contrast, vanilla people rarely have need of a word to describe a detailed discussion to figure out exactly what acts are permissible in an encounter, who is responsible for what, planning out exactly what is going to happen, what to do if something goes wrong, and any other little detail.

It is exceedingly rare for a vanilla encounter to even need such an intricate and explicit discussion. Most simply assume a generic set of parameters consistent with the cultural norms of the area and work from there (on the job training) rather than discussing it. Not always the wisest or safest thing to do, and can lead to unfortunate events, but by far the most typical occurrence.

Even those careful enough to negotiate their encounter in detail beforehand tend not to chat about it with everyone with such commonality that a simple term is really needed to describe it. Additionally, given the broad ranges of what is considered ‘normal’ coupled with the lack of certain metrics common to the kinky subgroup for a standard basis for comparison, there is sufficient scope for ambiguity that, even were a term to be used for vanilla people, it would lack any specific connotation. (yeah… that sentence really got away from me. I are master of grammar).


When I use the terms ‘kinky’ and ‘vanilla’, I do not mean to categorize by sexual behavior. That is so greatly varied and uses so many variables that it would be a truly Sisyphean task. I separate ‘kinky’ people into a subgroup based upon participation in ‘the Scene’ – it is a purely cultural thing rather than based upon any particular sexual preferences. This can also result in slight differences in meaning across regions, but that is entirely consistent with the slang or jargon of any group. Even were you able to clearly delineate between ‘kinky’ and ‘non-kinky’ based on behavior, this would have no impact upon people having a common language, thus I thought it went without saying that any language division between the two categories would be purely a cultural one.



there's no "beyond this there be kinky people" line on the map.
Damnit… now where am I going to go on vacation?

-snip

OOOOOOK, I see where we went off track here.

You were saying "the term is inclusive, just 'vanilla' people don't often have cause to use it, because the explicit, frank type of discussion that usually accompanies it is not usually necessary in those forms of interaction, so they simply just don't really do it very often"

I took what you were saying as "because they don't discuss it in such explicit terms, we can basically use the word only to describe that style of conversation when it occurs in kink context, and make the word only have that meaning in this context."

I think it's agreed upon to say that word word has meaning beyond just "kink" context, and covers basically any form of that kind of explicit, frank interaction for those purposes. It's just that "non-kink" people have less reason to typically engage in it.

Fair enough.

Damnit… now where am I going to go on vacation?

Vegas? Same dif'...

OOOOOOK, I see where we went off track here.

Pretty much from your (and Entropic Creation's) first irrelevant response to the Israeli diplomat thread, I believe. Don't threadjack other people's topics. Start a new topic and cross-link.

It might help if there was an OP? :confused:

It might help if there was an OP? :confused:

"Kinky people make the best diplomats."

Discuss.

It might help if there was an OP? :confused:

Thread splits, especially threadjack splits, do not have an OP. They're split from where they occur, and I have no interest in explaining the mindset of the person who put them there in the first place.

The original thread was about an the Israeli ambassador to El Salvador being recalled because he was caught in a BDSM fetish gear.

I then made a joke about kinky people making good diplomats because they are already experienced with 'negotiation'.

Unfortunately this lead to my having to explain the joke, which resulted in a back-and-forth clarifying what I meant and we ended up with the thread you see here.

I sincerely apologize for this instance of threadjacking - I only intended to make a simple joke. From now on, you either get it, or you dont.

I agree with Arthais101 about terminology. When I was in my first "BDSM" relationship, I didn't even KNOW the terminology. As far as I was concerned, it was just a relationship, though it certainly was "kinky". We didn't call it "negotiation"; we just discussed what we wanted to do. It was different from my "vanilla" relationships, but all my relationships were different from each other anyway.