Mixing With Vanilla Pt 01

Really, this is one of those situations that I've heard of so many times that it actually contributed to my impetus to start writing about all of this. I recently received a mail from a man in a long term relationship requesting advice. He indicates that while this relationship of his is healthy and solid, it's also exclusively vanilla, and he wishes to explore his dominant side. And further, that he feels his partner has submissive tendencies that would make adding elements of D/s to their sex life mutually enriching and exciting. And I feel that is so commonplace that I thought it might be useful to finally address it directly.

The truth is, if you are in a relationship and you identify strongly with a dominant or submissive nature, and you feel your partner has an unexpressed correspondingly opposite inclination, odds are you're completely right. If you do have this tendency, it would be difficult to imagine that it does not manifest in your behavior. And since you're in a relationship, it follows that this behavior is compatible with their preferences.

Introduction.

The first thing I'd say to those in this situation is that I don't really think the bedroom is the best venue to introduce more structured power exchange into an existing relationship. We tend to view sex as the culmination of a relationship; the consummation of a courtship. That courtship might be as brief as an evening in a nightclub or as long as long as months or years of dating. The point is that what happens before the sex sets the tone to be agreed upon by the physical intimacy that 'seals the deal' so to speak, even in casual contexts.

Since sex is largely by default considered sort of a later stage in a romantic relationship, and that stage is founded on the what a couple shares prior to it, trying to change the tone of a relationship with sex is often a bit like trying to alter the terms of a contract after it's signed. Often a partner can feel disturbed, tricked, alienated, or even cheated. Confronted by it, they can have an 'I didn't sign up for this' reaction.

So, my usual suggestion is to first try a more subtle sort of renegotiation of selective aspects of the relationship, slowly and easily, over a little bit of time where the partner can experience and accustom to it. In other words, try consciously demonstrating positive aspects of dominant behavior consistently in other parts of the relationship and allow them to respond. Hopefully, if we're correct in our suspicion of a submissive nature, that response should be a positive one.

Stated differently, a dominant can subtly try power exchange on for size for both parties, rather than engaging in some awkward discussion that abruptly risks alienation and rejection. The more open talk about power exchange can be postponed until after a positive example has been set for it, to show your partner what you have in mind, rather than resorting to some abstract hypothesis that might seem frightening.

In a sense, dominants have it easier than submissives in this situation. The reason being, a dominant essentially builds this social construct that others will encounter and inhabit to the degree they wish to be submissive to it. A dominant can build this structure on his own, so to speak, without requiring cooperation. But a submissive who builds such a construct is essentially being dominant, and not likely to draw a lot of personal emotional satisfaction from the arrangement. So submissives in this situation would need an entirely different approach that we can discuss another time.

Additionally, it has the benefit of giving the nascent dominant an opportunity to stick their 'toe in'. Often times in relationships there are things that we are lead to believe that we want, that we should want, that will make us happy and satisfied, but out self awareness and insight were mislead upon. And taking a little 'test run' might just alter their views of what they really do want in a relationship.

In discussion, once, when relating basically this approach that I'm about to share, a friend who was incidentally a lady who I have great respect and affection for, complained that she felt this approach was overly manipulative. I respect that opinion, and people who conducted their relationships in that straight-forward, 'face value' fashion in which she conducted hers. But I stated why I disagreed and eventually she came to.. well, to still object but a little less firmly, to be honest. But, there was concession! Before commencing I'd like to share the grounds that I disagreed upon, now, as I think they'll be pertinent in a cautionary and instructive sort of way.

As I've said elsewhere, the difference between being a good, healthy dominant, and being manipulative, lies in the simple criteria of being responsible and accountable for the behavior that you compel in a partner. It's similar to the difference between a parent offering a sweet to a child as a reward and an adult using a sweet to lure a child into a van. When you are a good dominant you are leading both of you to a better place based not just upon your nature, but theirs as well, and wherever you turn up, you take full responsibility and accountability for the results; good or bad, for better or worse.

What I'm describing is really sort of a snapshot, a microcosm, of really what it means to be a good dominant. Being a good dominant is not about handcuffs or floggers. It basically means consciously directing aspects of a relationship that are often more random, but doing so in a communicative way that takes full responsibility and accountability for the results. True, it's a more delicate process than an 'established' dominant undergoes with a 'professed' submissive when their relationship begins out under fully kinky pretext. But it's still the process of building intimacy and trust and guiding how a relationship evolves to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. That satisfaction, not incidentally, might not be reached, or at least reached so easily, if the burden of full responsibility was distributed equally between both partners.

To those who might call it deceptive, I'd counter that those who suppress their wants and don't communicate them to those with which they share intimacy are, in my opinion, the ones being deceptive. The ones who act happy and put on a brave face, and say they couldn't possibly be more satisfied. I honestly have yet to see a relationship where that approach truly benefitted either party in the long run.

What I'm advocating is carefully and selectively unveiling and manifesting, certain parts of your nature to a partner and allowing them the freedom to respond as their nature dictates. You then accept that response, and respect it, and continue to move ahead, whatever that response is. And further, you're doing this in a way that accepts the responsibility for the results staying positive. And I can't think of anything that could be more caring and honest.

I've also heard feminist concerns expressed in regards to this. Now, regardless of your views on sexism, yes, what I'm going to describe does quite closely follow the classical paradigm of a man leading a woman in a relationship in that classical, even archetypal image. I would use the term 'patriarchal', but in context that would make it a bit weird and awkward, for some, wouldn't it? But, as a matter of fact, if you look hard at the old images of Valentinos and Casanovas and the classical, good, old-fashioned lover-boy romantic man, truly, it is great, if mostly vanilla dominant behavior. They whisk a woman off her feet and lead her to follow effortlessly along an enchanted experience of his construction and selection but to her delight dictated by her nature, but to their mutual enjoyment. Often he coaxes her beyond her demure, inhibited inclinations. That's all not such a bad image to keep in mind as a dominant. And yes, I'll even confess, that old fashioned assignation of gender roles is still most common and popular among both sexes.

But! It needn't be that way. A swashbuckling contemporary lady can lead her liberated gentleman along in exactly the same fashion. Or a gentleman can lead another gentleman, lady can lead another lady, or whatever combination. Archetypes convey an idea, not a literal blueprint. And I support anyone's right to conduct their own relationships however they see fit; sub or dom.

So, I'll break this down into three sections. First we'll discuss how to set up that space. Second, we'll discuss what to do within that space. And third we'll cover how to progress that space towards that 'talk' and moving it into more intimate, bedroom situations.

Setting up the space.

In a situation like we've described, as we said, there is likely already some dominant and submissive dynamic established. So, we want to introduce these changes in very specific and separated and defined contexts. In other words, you're building up this alternative structure in specific times and ways and allowing them to respond in a way that they so far haven't frequently done in the relationship. This little experiment will be most effective if it has a fairly definable start and finish and is fairly easily distinguishable from the way your relationship normally operates outside of those boundaries.

Part of the reason is that you want your partner to notice that contrast. You want this behavior distinguished from the norm, the usual, that she's experienced in your relationship thus far, and hopefully to eventually come to prefer this new one. However, you don't want the contrast in behaviors to be so stark as to be shocking or overwhelming in scope so that they might seek to escape them to the more comfortable and familiar space of your usual relationship roles and dynamics.

Also, you want it differentiated from your usual interactions for the more pedestrian use of referring back to it later in your discussions. This way they can say something like, 'I really enjoyed this evening," or, "Something about you seemed different last night," and it can actually provide fodder for healthier discussion. Discussion which, incidentally, they can approach you on, broaching this formerly awkward topic that you might have been fretting talking about. Or, you can ask, "Did you enjoy the other night," giving you an easier way to review their reactions, and thus to modify your approaches in successive sessions.

So, where does one put this separate time to try out your new dominant tendencies? If you have a date night or some other 'together time', either in a structured way or just based upon how your schedules tend to work out, that is the ideal window. If you don't have a 'date night' or maybe something like those lazy Sundays that you spend together recuperating from the week, this is the perfect way to start one. After all, what romantic partner doesn't want a little more attention dedicated to enjoying each other's company away from other demands and distractions?

Whether it's a new thing or a modification of a standing habit, both are equally useful. After all, a conspicuous change to behavior in a long standing routine can be just as noticeable as an entirely fresh new habit. And your taking the noticeable initiative in improving your relationship will almost always make your partner gratefully receptive to the newer behaviors that you plan on adopting.

As I always say, start this out slow. Once date night for a couple of weeks is a good start. It will give them time to notice this new side of you and to recognize some consistency in it emerging. It will also give them time to accustom and consider how they wish to respond.

This period might also require some adjustment to your approach. One size does not fit all, and missteps do happen. It could be it comes on a bad night, or some part of the evening just doesn't go well. Or maybe they don't respond well to your more subtle demonstrations, at first.

Don't be discouraged. Keep this new special time of yours 'sacred' and simply be persistent and adjust your approach according to what you learn in the process. And do not think the time is wasted if it turns out to take a little longer than you initially had hoped. This attentiveness and insight developed on your part is an important part of the process, and this time isn't only for their benefit, but yours, learning to find ways to persuade them to respond.

And only when you notice this period yielding that consistent, positive response from them, three weeks or three months later, you can begin 'upping the dosage' to maybe longer sessions, or two sessions a week. And we'll cover that process of adjustment later in the section on progression.

We'll cover that after the more delicate process of guiding that progress in the next section.