Defining Vanilla, and that which isn't...

[serijules]

What if you get aroused by having slugs crawl on/about/through your genitals/erogenous zones? Would that be vanilla? Or if you're a friend of Squeekypony, and dig inflatable animals?

The branches of BDSM or kink or fetish or whatever one would like to call it are endless.

I feel it is a state of mind, not just a physical interest in something.

 

[serijules]

To clarify, rather than say...(as I did) "I classify anyone not admittedly interested in some aspect of BDSM to be vanilla."

I should say I classify anyone that doesn't embrace or recognize their desires as vanilla. I have a friend who has sex with men, often, in many different ways, yet forcefully says that he is not "into" men. Huh?

Labels aside, (if he doesn't want to call himself bi-sexual that is fine, I'm not talking about labels here) a red apple is not going to change colour just because you don't want to call it red. You can call it whatever the hell you want, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is red. So said friend can fuck every guy in the city for all I care, until he stops denying that he enjoys fucking men, he's vanilla by my defintion of the word and not someone I will talk to about gay sex experiences or whatnot because it makes him uncomfortable and defensive, just as I would not talk to a vanilla about my bdsm experiences.

This is an interesting discussion, thanks for bringing that oversight of mine to light Technodivinitas. It made me think.

 

[crazybbwgirl]

Here you guys go again with the semantics. I have no idea how to lable or classify vanilla vs. bdsm - but I sure know it when I see it (or do it! lol)

 

[Technodivinitas]

To clarify, rather than say...(as I did) "I classify anyone not admittedly interested in some aspect of BDSM to be vanilla."

I should say I classify anyone that doesn't embrace or recognize their desires as vanilla. I have a friend who has sex with men, often, in many different ways, yet forcefully says that he is not "into" men. Huh?

Labels aside, (if he doesn't want to call himself bi-sexual that is fine, I'm not talking about labels here) a red apple is not going to change colour just because you don't want to call it red. You can call it whatever the hell you want, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is red. So said friend can fuck every guy in the city for all I care, until he stops denying that he enjoys fucking men, he's vanilla by my defintion of the word and not someone I will talk to about gay sex experiences or whatnot because it makes him uncomfortable and defensive, just as I would not talk to a vanilla about my bdsm experiences.

This is an interesting discussion, thanks for bringing that oversight of mine to light Technodivinitas. It made me think.

Thanks for filling the thread with interesting conversation, sj!
So, from what I gather, there's a sort of unspoken subculture among African American men, (possibly outside that cultural group, but that's what I've heard of,) refered to as "the low-down", wherein men have sex with other men, sometimes even in groups, but all keep their mouths shut (after the fact, of course, ) about the interaction, even to each other, and all sort of silently agree to their mutual Het'ness, and that they're just satisfying the urges that they haven't currently got a woman to do so with... Or something like that. Yes. Denial is a scary thing sometimes, isn't it?

So, in regard to your last comment, in a sense, what Vanilla really is is that whole scope of people we simply can't be honest with, because they couldn't cope. I like that- by that defiition, someone whose sexual drives are purely Ward & June Cleaver for themselves, but who is totally comfortable around the topics of Kink, (or even around people actively practicing it,) would NOT be classed as Vanilla.
Yes. That's a good def. I think I shall keep it!

 

[Netzach]

Model cars...? Okay. Fetish I'm not familiar with there, and that is a serious rarity. If you aren't being colorfully sarcastic with that, I deeply need for you to enlighten me, 'cause that one needs to be in the collection!

No really it's out there, it's kind of tied in with giantess/giant fantasy or crushing/stomping or boot fetish...there's some guy who wears women's boots and has a whole site of him stomping on inanimate objects and destroying them. Others take it to extremes and do it to small critters, not my scene.

 

[Technodivinitas]

Okay- I'm with you on the trampling thing. Have more than a slight boot fetish myself. But ~dayam! I was beginning to think I'd scoured every fetish there was in the world, and grokked at least most of them! Giantess? That's new to me too! (Though I kinda see it. Oh hey. Attack of the 50 ft. woman. I remember that... )

Thanks, NZ! New stuff=good stuff! (And you know I wasn't making up the inflatable animals and slugs things, yes?)

 

[serijules]

I like that- by that defiition, someone whose sexual drives are purely Ward & June Cleaver for themselves, but who is totally comfortable around the topics of Kink, (or even around people actively practicing it,) would NOT be classed as Vanilla.
Yes. That's a good def. I think I shall keep it!

In my little circle of friends, there is a lesbian partner and a handful of wives and husbands that have no interest in the scene. All of them are aware of their partners' interests and are very supportive, even to the point of watching a scene sometimes and inviting their partners' kinky friends into their homes. I don't consider them to be vanilla...maybe some in-between flavour of vanilla ripple if we are going to stick with this cutsy metafor, but not vanilla. They are people that I can talk to about my interests in front of to a degree and not worry about upsetting them. I have a lot of respect for those such people, I believe it is an example of having an open-mind at its finest.

 

[RavenSpirit2k4]

To me, a kinkster is someone for whom certain kink(s) is a major part of their lives, even if only their sex lives.

I've known people who like candle wax, spanking or paddling, being restrained and such, but they weren't really masochists, sadists, dominants or submissives. It was just something fun and naughty to do occasionally for them. Most of them wouldn't understand the passion or need for it a lot of us have. The same applies to other fetishes that aren't neccessarily a part of BDSM, such as crossdressing or age play; some are serious about it, some just dabble for fun

I gues you could divide it up into serious kinksters, the kind of kinky and the plain vanilla. But these are such broad generalizations that, like many labels, there are too many it doesn't really apply to. Not to mention the fact that people's taste for kink can change dramatically.

 

[bluntforcemama]

We had flame wars over Vanilla when we introduced it to the general lit population. They took it as meaning we have better sex than they do.

So be careful.

A simple v might work.

Ah, I remember those days. As I recall we were on opposite sides of the war.

 

[WriterDom]

Ah, I remember those days. As I recall we were on opposite sides of the war.

Yes, you and I had a few wars that really didn't need to happen. I'm glad you are posting again. I love your av.

 

[bluntforcemama]

Yes, you and I had a few wars that really didn't need to happen. I'm glad you are posting again. I love your av.

Thank you. Yes, the wars got our blood moving though, didn't it?

 

[Pure]

Hi techno,
you and others have raised good points, esp. serijules

T: To me, Vanilla isn't straight missionary sex, in the dark, exclusively for the purpose of procreation, and satisfying a Husband's animal needs. It's what's acceptable. Nowdays, gay can certainly be vanilla, at least in the major metropolitan areas. Vanilla is sex between equals. Vanilla sex is egalitarian, and politically correct.

What it isn't, to me, is any kink, or any fetish, from mild sensation-play, (a bowl of ice, a mink bedspread, etc...) to power-exchange, to roleplay, and on out the concept spins.

To me, if you are even a little kinky, in any way at all, you are not vanilla,

I like parts of your definition, but i don't see why make 'vanilla' an insult or put down, i.e., "in the dark." This applies to serijules' proposal, that you're vanilla if you don't admit to any kinks.

Likewise I don't see the point of-- 'vanilla' won't get you fired (Netzach); consider premarital sex and a puritanical boss; consider a boss who likes to watch.

It all goes back to psychologists trying to define 'normal' and 'deviant' sexual activity. In a way I agree with Techno as saying in effect, 'vanilla is non deviant'. Iow all extra apparatuses, narrow foci, and off-the-main-track procedures make you deviant (or in the slang, 'kinky').

That said, I don't see why every kind of kink has to be put under BDSM (as Winston said), though it's common around here. Sometimes the outside activities, and linkages with them are obvious, as when people talk of "The BDSM and Fetish" scene. For clearly 'fetish' (e.g. for hair on the breasts) need not be bdsm.

The most problematic point, however, techno, is say "vanilla is sex between equals." That rules out many or most of your 'do it in the dark' or 'puritanical' types. Traditional marriage is patriarchal, and 'equal marriage' has emerged on a large scale only the last 30-40 years.

Which brings me to the other side of the proposition: You seem to say(or imply) that BDSM involves 'power exchange'. That's a hard term to define (in fact it's often said to be between equals), but if you mean one party having power over or directing or controlling another (in an non criminal way), I don't see that as true of all bdsm; e.g., that fellow Bob the masochist who drove nails through his tenderest parts.

I'd say lots of normal sex has 'power over'; and much of bdsm does, but not all bdsm is power related. To put it in a nutshell, much 'bdsm'-labelled sexual activity is between equals. (E.g., all the paid stuff where one party is not in dire economic circumstances.)

What does all this amount to, IMO? Assuming 'normal'(vanilla) and 'deviant'(kinky) make any sense--a large assumption-- normal is a path of more or less straightforward penetrative fucking to climax; minor temporary 'kink' stops are allowed, e.g., briefly tonguing your partners anus.

In the spirit of techno, I say, imo, all variations from that path, insofar as they result in no climax, or no 'inside' climax', are kinky. (This follows Freud.) Kink (deviance), in a word, takes a part for a (w)hole. E.g., having only to tongue a woman to climax, or having to masturbate over her stockings.

BDSM is a very large basket (smaller than all kink), but I'd say it's those kinks involving control, aggression, pain, and/or humiliation-- whether inflicted or undergone-- as preferred (or perhaps obligatory) paths to orgasm.

That's my 3 cents.

 

[FungiUg]

That's my 3 cents.

Wow... I read a Pure post and agreed with it all!

 

[Kajira Callista]

Wow... I read a Pure post and agreed with it all!

hehehe me too!

 

[rosco rathbone]

I've come to think of vanilla as the sex of people who don't emotionalize sex to the degree I do. It has come as a suprise to me to learn that not everyone centers their universe on the libido. I do, and so do many if not most of you. That's why I'm perfectly content to accept extremely intense "egalitarian" sex as non-vanilla.

 

[Richard49]

Thanks for filling the thread with interesting conversation, sj!
So, from what I gather, there's a sort of unspoken subculture among African American men, (possibly outside that cultural group, but that's what I've heard of,) refered to as "the low-down",

I believe the term is "down load"

 

[Richard49]

BDSM is a very large basket (smaller than all kink), but I'd say it's those kinks involving control, aggression, pain, and/or humiliation-- whether inflicted or undergone-- as preferred (or perhaps obligatory) paths to orgasm.

That's my 3 cents.

I agree

 

[FungiUg]

I've come to think of vanilla as the sex of people who don't emotionalize sex to the degree I do. It has come as a suprise to me to learn that not everyone centers their universe on the libido.

Ah... you mean you're a sex addict? (As am I.) There's an element of truth there, but I think it's possible to still be addicted to sex and still be "vanilla". I don't really think quantity or emotional involvement ("need") go into the definition. You can eat a mouthful or a tubful, but it's still the same flavour.

 

[serijules]

I like parts of your definition, but i don't see why make 'vanilla' an insult or put down, i.e., "in the dark." This applies to serijules' proposal, that you're vanilla if you don't admit to any kinks.

*snip*

That's my 3 cents.

I don't see vanilla as being an insult in any of the definitions offered. It's like when someone looks at another dressed up in classic kink dress and whispers "she's kinky..." and they get all up in arms about it while I'm sitting here thinking, "yeah, so, whats the problem, you *are* kinky..."

Not to say that vanilla's are closed-minded, but I don't consider most to be *as* open-minded as a non-vanilla, at least in regards to this issue. That isn't an insult though, if I were to insult them, I would be calling them closed-minded wimps, not just plain ole 'vanilla'.

Sure, the way it is said can imply insult or put down, but I don't see that happening in this discussion at any rate.

 

[Technodivinitas]

I believe the term is "down load"

...or down-low... yes. Something like that. I'll buy your version, if tha's whatch're sellin- I am the great unwashed clueless on this one.