What is nilla sex?

[ImmortaleAmante]

Originally Posted by O'Mac
I think Vanilla sex is a often a dirogatory term used by many self-righteous bondage lifestylers to describe the sexual activity of those not interested in BDSM. While many would attempt to protray those uninterested in BDSM as sexually-stunted, inhibited, or even afraid of the lifestyle, they are not understanding the basic fact that different people have different preferences.


Nice to see i am one of many who feel that the term vanilla sex is a derogatory term.


Variety is the spice of life and i know plenty of so called vanillas who are living proof of this, the scene DVS talks of is one i know plenty of people who would not consider themselves part of this so called lifestyle have played out in different extremes. One night they go extreme another night they play softer, they explore and enjoy. As far as i can see that is no different to anyone here. it simply boils down to what O'Mac said.

Different people have different preferences.

 

[Kajira Callista]

So if i like sex...even if it is missionary do i like nilla sex?

I dunno sex is sex and is wonderful if done right...even if no one is sticking me with needles while it is happening.

You all are confusing me ya know.

 

[DVS]

So if i like sex...even if it is missionary do i like nilla sex?

I dunno sex is sex and is wonderful if done right...even if no one is sticking me with needles while it is happening.

You all are confusing me ya know.

Well, missionary position is the first position I ever learned. Maybe it's the one that's been around the longest, too. And, ss long as it's the missionary position and you are a willing participant, it would be considered vanilla sex.

Oh, but if you were forced into that postion..against your wishes, thrown onto the bed, etc., then it's maybe not just vaniila. It could be BDSM. And, if you are held there against your wishes by the weight of the man, I'd say that's more likely rape...vanilla or otherwise.

Now, if you're held in the missionalry position by ropes and you are a willing participant, that's probably BDSM.

 

[Kajira Callista]

Well, missionary position is the first position I ever learned. Maybe it's the one that's been around the longest, too. And, ss long as it's the missionary position and you are a willing participant, it would be considered vanilla sex.

Oh, but if you were forced into that postion..against your wishes, thrown onto the bed, etc., then it's maybe not just vaniila. It could be BDSM. And, if you are held there against your wishes by the weight of the man, I'd say that's more likely rape...vanilla or otherwise.

Now, if you're held in the missionalry position by ropes and you are a willing participant, that's probably BDSM.

 

[O'Mac]

Variety is the spice of life and i know plenty of so called vanillas who are living proof of this, the scene DVS talks of is one i know plenty of people who would not consider themselves part of this so called lifestyle have played out in different extremes. One night they go extreme another night they play softer, they explore and enjoy. As far as i can see that is no different to anyone here. it simply boils down to what O'Mac said.

Different people have different preferences.

Exactly, Amante! And to be frank, I tend to have "vanilla" sex just as often as I have intercourse with bondage. It's still really fun and I will even prefer it over BDSM (*gasp!*) at times when it's spontaneous or I'm too tired to get the bondage gear out and ready.

If people think non-BDSM sex is uncreative or boring, they must be doing something wrong.

 

[Netzach]

That can go both ways, of course.
I think sicko is often a derogatory term used by many self-righteous normal people to describe the sexual activity of the crazy people interested in BDSM. While many would attempt to portray those interested in BDSM as sexual weirdos, deviants, or even sickos that beat women for kicks, they do not understand the basic fact that different people have different preferences.

The rest of this post is mostly a rant...disreguard, if you are looking for thread friendly posts.

It's just that this is a BDSM board and, as someone has already pointed out, we are tainted against vanilla sex, because we have either tried to be "normal" and it didn’t work, or it just didn't fulfill our needs, sexually and emotionally.

I know of several doctors who think we are addicted to deviant sex, because we can't get off on a normal loving relationship. One of those is a friend of mine. We just don't talk about it, now that I know he thinks I'm sick.

Personally, I don't understand what part of BDSM sex isn't loving. The vanilla world doesn't understand, and anything that isn't understood is criticized or condemned. If they want to call themselves normal, that's fine with me. I don't mind being abnormal.

I know there are those who are completely fulfilled with a vanilla sex life. I see nothing wrong with that. It's when someone tries to force me to live within their world that I start to get bothered.

Sex between two people is just that...between two people. If they are both consenting, nobody else needs to be involved...or bothered by it. I like my sexual urges. I think I'm actually pretty healthy, sexually. If I were to repress my urges for kinky sex, that would cause stress and a shorter life.

I've had munches canceled because Fred Phelps' bunch were going to picket the places we were going to meet. I've had the religious right get hold of a member list and almost "out" a group I was in. We had to disband, for fear of losing our jobs if they posted our names. Yes, sombody in the group ratted us out.

Anyway, vanilla sex is fine, as long as the righteous 'nillas leave sicko me the fuck alone.

I don't quantify Fred Phelps as vanilla. I don't think having paranoid unhealthy fucked up terror in response to sex is vanilla.

 

[Netzach]

Exactly, Amante! And to be frank, I tend to have "vanilla" sex just as often as I have intercourse with bondage. It's still really fun and I will even prefer it over BDSM (*gasp!*) at times when it's spontaneous or I'm too tired to get the bondage gear out and ready.

If people think non-BDSM sex is uncreative or boring, they must be doing something wrong.

I don't think that's it either. I think I can have totally hot and fun sex sans l powerplay or SM, but eventually I am going to go crazy if that's all I can have.

 

[graceanne]

Me and K probably have more 'nilla sex than not. When he's worked a hard day, and I'm wiped cause of whtever reason (the list is too long for a simple post) neither of us has the energy to do anything other than have sex, and roll over and go to sleep.

 

[Proudsubinatl]

Thanks

 

[O'Mac]

Originally Posted by DVS
That can go both ways, of course.
I think sicko is often a derogatory term used by many self-righteous normal people to describe the sexual activity of the crazy people interested in BDSM. While many would attempt to portray those interested in BDSM as sexual weirdos, deviants, or even sickos that beat women for kicks, they do not understand the basic fact that different people have different preferences.

The rest of this post is mostly a rant...disreguard, if you are looking for thread friendly posts.

It's just that this is a BDSM board and, as someone has already pointed out, we are tainted against vanilla sex, because we have either tried to be "normal" and it didn’t work, or it just didn't fulfill our needs, sexually and emotionally.

I know of several doctors who think we are addicted to deviant sex, because we can't get off on a normal loving relationship. One of those is a friend of mine. We just don't talk about it, now that I know he thinks I'm sick.

Personally, I don't understand what part of BDSM sex isn't loving. The vanilla world doesn't understand, and anything that isn't understood is criticized or condemned. If they want to call themselves normal, that's fine with me. I don't mind being abnormal.

I know there are those who are completely fulfilled with a vanilla sex life. I see nothing wrong with that. It's when someone tries to force me to live within their world that I start to get bothered.

Sex between two people is just that...between two people. If they are both consenting, nobody else needs to be involved...or bothered by it. I like my sexual urges. I think I'm actually pretty healthy, sexually. If I were to repress my urges for kinky sex, that would cause stress and a shorter life.

I've had munches canceled because Fred Phelps' bunch were going to picket the places we were going to meet. I've had the religious right get hold of a member list and almost "out" a group I was in. We had to disband, for fear of losing our jobs if they posted our names. Yes, sombody in the group ratted us out.

Anyway, vanilla sex is fine, as long as the righteous 'nillas leave sicko me the fuck alone.

Again though, this is tied into what I and several others have acknowledged. The anti-BDSM crowd and others like them are becoming a lot less vocal, and the lifestyle itself is becoming more accepted and mainstream. The ironic reality that I have noticed, is that so many within the lifestyle absolutely absolutely abhor this trend of acceptance.

I mean, let's face the plain facts here. We are are no longer considered sexually abnormal to most psychiatric circles, and many would agree that with consent there is little moral debate to the issue. I think it's quite sad at times to watch some in our group wave the placards (metaphorically speaking) and argue how "we're just like anyone else" and what we do isn't abnormal in the slightest. Well the cold hard truth of the matter is that no-one is paying attention anymore. It seems half the time we're arguing to people who don't need to be convinced anymore.

Yes, there will always be a small but vocal minority opposed to the lifestyle. That always happens with almost any social trend. But I have to worry about what exactly drives people in the lifestyle to not accept the fact that what we do no longer concerns most other people. Drawing a line in the side and attempted to further divide "us" and "them" only adds more useless debate to a social discussion that has long run it's course.

 

[chris9]

Vanilla sex as I use the term and always understood it used here has nothing to do with 'boring', 'without passion' as it was described here. It's sex within a relationship of equals, without power exchange, a 'normal' relationship.

It can be kinky, trust me on that one I have a 'nilla partner, and we most certainly don't stick to missionary position, five minutes, done, sleep. We try out different things to please each other, use toys, different positions. Sometimes it involves BDSM play. Then I'm the bottom, he's the top. I'd still consider it as kinky vanilla sex, because it's not about him having the power and doing whatever he wants, because he takes the power only to please me.
Vanilla is just an easy way of saying non-D/s. It can involve some parts of BDSM, and if you read any sexual advice in books and stuff, many will suggest at least trying bondage to get some spice (back) into sex.

On the other hand I don't think I would consider sex in a D/s relationship 'vanilla' even if it doesn't involve any type of BDSM play. The D/s dynamics will still be there.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not the sex that's different, it's the relationship being without power exchange.

 

[Sweetness_15]

Haha! I love Google.

What a definition.


Vanilla sex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vanilla sex is sometimes used as a derogative term that refers to what a society regards as standard or conventional sexual behaviour. Different cultures, subcultures, and individuals have different ideas about what constitutes vanilla sex. Often it is interpreted as sex that does not involve such elements as BDSM, kink, or fetish activities.

Among homosexual men it sometimes implies that the activity is non-insertive (i.e. intercrural intercourse, manual stimulation, frottage etc.).

Among heterosexual couples in the Western world, vanilla sex often refers to the missionary position.


An erotic wall painting from Pompeii, adventurous heterosexual vanilla sex.The term "vanilla" derives from the use of vanilla extract as the basic or most popular flavouring for ice cream, and by extension meaning "plain" or "conventional". Thus, the term "vanilla" is sometimes used as an insult to describe someone who is overly conventional or unwilling to take risks, in both sexual and non-sexual contexts. (The term is not wholly accurate, however, as the concept of vanilla - in ice cream and other foods - can be very flavorful and interesting, and is rarely as bland as the stereotype would indicate.)

“Vanilla sex” may also be intended by the user to indicate "Caucasian" in the stereotypical but unfounded belief that such cultures are less sexually adventurous and promiscuous than others. Generally speaking, there is a much broader variance of sexual behavior within individual cultures than between them, and no such stereotype holds up under scrutiny.

The term could also be used to refer to vaginal intercourse, which does have perhaps a backwards folk etymology. Vanilla in English comes from the dimunitive form of the Spanish word vaina, which means "scabbard" or "sheath" — the original meaning of the Latin word vagina.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Exactly, Amante! And to be frank, I tend to have "vanilla" sex just as often as I have intercourse with bondage. It's still really fun and I will even prefer it over BDSM (*gasp!*) at times when it's spontaneous or I'm too tired to get the bondage gear out and ready.

If people think non-BDSM sex is uncreative or boring, they must be doing something wrong.

LOL, no more than thinking non-vanilla sex has to include bondage (or any use of toys or equipment for that matter) to make it BDSM. I'm a grannie and have an externsive history of sexual exploration and experience (was into anal and oral in mid teens for instance which does not seem to have been usual 30 something years ago), and sorry, it just does not do it for me like BDSM sex does and believe me, I am sure I was not doing anything 'wrongly' and could probably teach you a thing or two.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Again though, this is tied into what I and several others have acknowledged. The anti-BDSM crowd and others like them are becoming a lot less vocal, and the lifestyle itself is becoming more accepted and mainstream. The ironic reality that I have noticed, is that so many within the lifestyle absolutely absolutely abhor this trend of acceptance.

I mean, let's face the plain facts here. We are are no longer considered sexually abnormal to most psychiatric circles, and many would agree that with consent there is little moral debate to the issue. I think it's quite sad at times to watch some in our group wave the placards (metaphorically speaking) and argue how "we're just like anyone else" and what we do isn't abnormal in the slightest. Well the cold hard truth of the matter is that no-one is paying attention anymore. It seems half the time we're arguing to people who don't need to be convinced anymore.

Yes, there will always be a small but vocal minority opposed to the lifestyle. That always happens with almost any social trend. But I have to worry about what exactly drives people in the lifestyle to not accept the fact that what we do no longer concerns most other people. Drawing a line in the side and attempted to further divide "us" and "them" only adds more useless debate to a social discussion that has long run it's course.

Geez O'Mac, don't know where you are but I haven't noticed lately that it is being accepted by the majority of mainstream, even here where it is perfectly legal. As to wanting it to remain unacceptable, presumably you mean for the thrill, naughty factor, that is not our scene either and has little to do with our world as we do not practice our lifestyle in a social context such as partying and clubs, we just live it 24/7 in our own private life. Be careful, George Bush would not like being referred to as part of a small, but vocal minority...he is on a crusade and likely to feel the need to exercise his power even more to dispel such notions!!

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Vanilla sex as I use the term and always understood it used here has nothing to do with 'boring', 'without passion' as it was described here. It's sex within a relationship of equals, without power exchange, a 'normal' relationship.

It can be kinky, trust me on that one I have a 'nilla partner, and we most certainly don't stick to missionary position, five minutes, done, sleep. We try out different things to please each other, use toys, different positions. Sometimes it involves BDSM play. Then I'm the bottom, he's the top. I'd still consider it as kinky vanilla sex, because it's not about him having the power and doing whatever he wants, because he takes the power only to please me.
Vanilla is just an easy way of saying non-D/s. It can involve some parts of BDSM, and if you read any sexual advice in books and stuff, many will suggest at least trying bondage to get some spice (back) into sex.

On the other hand I don't think I would consider sex in a D/s relationship 'vanilla' even if it doesn't involve any type of BDSM play. The D/s dynamics will still be there.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not the sex that's different, it's the relationship being without power exchange.

Great post Chris.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

I have to disagree. What chris said makes sense on one level, but how far will you draw that conclusion?

What if a couple is not into powerplay at all but does very heavy sm?

And I know a lot of people in this category. Calling what they do vanilla is really inappropriate.

I'd say that vanilla is defined by either painplay past nipple pinching 101 and powerplay/roleplay of any kind negates vanilla.

I also think that, while I'm probably not running for office anytime soon, no one's burning me in effigy in the town square either and I don't think I'd lose my housing if my kinks came to be known to my landlords. I just think it would be more uncomfortable when they came by, so why bother.

I don't think O'Mac is off base in pointing out that we're not as held back as we used to be, whatever the political climate, the social mores have changed a bit in the last few decades regarding sexuality, and I think the persecution complex wears a little thin myself. Find version 1.5 of this same argument in the GLBT community any given day.

We're accepted, we're villified, I think the jury's out on that. All I know is that if I want to rent a rubber room on my honeymoon in Amsterdam it's no problemo.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I have to disagree. What chris said makes sense on one level, but how far will you draw that conclusion?

What if a couple is not into powerplay at all but does very heavy sm?

And I know a lot of people in this category. Calling what they do vanilla is really inappropriate.

I'd say that vanilla is defined by either painplay past nipple pinching 101 and powerplay/roleplay of any kind negates vanilla.

I also think that, while I'm probably not running for office anytime soon, no one's burning me in effigy in the town square either and I don't think I'd lose my housing if my kinks came to be known to my landlords. I just think it would be more uncomfortable when they came by, so why bother.

I don't think O'Mac is off base in pointing out that we're not as held back as we used to be, whatever the political climate, the social mores have changed a bit in the last few decades regarding sexuality, and I think the persecution complex wears a little thin myself. Find version 1.5 of this same argument in the GLBT community any given day.

We're accepted, we're villified, I think the jury's out on that. All I know is that if I want to rent a rubber room on my honeymoon in Amsterdam it's no problemo.

Okay, you're not persecuted in Amsterdam. Another reason to visit some time. But I live in Houston, TX. And if you think that BDSM is accepted by the neighbors in my town, you should meet my landlady. She's NOT a member of the religious right, has nothing against gay people (or so she claims), but she is hardly the sort to accept BDSM. It's a damn good thing that she doesn't know about my lifestyle. She freaked out when she overheard spanking. THAT was too much for her. Enough said.

 

[Netzach]

Okay, you're not persecuted in Amsterdam. Another reason to visit some time. But I live in Houston, TX. And if you think that BDSM is accepted by the neighbors in my town, you should meet my landlady. She's NOT a member of the religious right, has nothing against gay people (or so she claims), but she is hardly the sort to accept BDSM. It's a damn good thing that she doesn't know about my lifestyle. She freaked out when she overheard spanking. THAT was too much for her. Enough said.

I'm in Minneapolis.

Is that persecution, seriously? People not approving of your overheard sex sounds?

I think we want it all ways. We want to be accepted, but we are pissed that kids are wearing fashion collars. We want to be "like everyone else" but we are pissed when the media co-opts us for flavor. We feel persecuted when we go into a starbucks in leather and get stared at -- but boy are we more pissed when no one pays attention. We're so in love with our own myths about how outlaw and transgressive we are, but the minute a price gets paid we bitch and moan about it.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I'm in Minneapolis.

Is that persecution, seriously? People not approving of your overheard sex sounds?

It is when you can't be yourself openly, for fear of eviction. And my county still has restrictions on sex toys, by the way.

 

[Netzach]

Maybe in that situation one needs to form partnerships with people for a common goal. Like those boring vanilla SM phobic women who still like their vibrators and are just as pissed about that as you are. Or the people losing revenue.

Additionally, I don't know anyone who can totally be himself without fear of eviction. Most people are given to sloppiness, pot-smoking, putting dings in wood floors, owning yammering dogs, scratching their asses and whatnot.

It's one thing to be evicted because someone uncovered that you are a member of the Houston BDSM Roundtable and Quilting Society.

It's another to be evicted because your landlady can hear your sex sounds.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Maybe in that situation one needs to form partnerships with people for a common goal. Like those boring vanilla SM phobic women who still like their vibrators and are just as pissed about that as you are. Or the people losing revenue.

Additionally, I don't know anyone who can totally be himself without fear of eviction. Most people are given to sloppiness, pot-smoking, putting dings in wood floors, owning yammering dogs, scratching their asses and whatnot.

It's one thing to be evicted because someone uncovered that you are a member of the Houston BDSM Roundtable and Quilting Society.

It's another to be evicted because your landlady can hear your sex sounds.

She can't hear them anymore. I switched rooms to one NOT over her bedroom. The point is, I wasn't out to be obnoxious. Obnoxiousness, I can understand evicting over. Pursuing a fetish is something else.

And I have to be able to come out as a Dom first to form such a partnership. SM phobic women, as you put it, are not likely to get past that fact long enough to form a partnership. If they could, good. There is plenty of mutual self-interest. And I might manage to sleep with a few of them while I am at it. We have a common cause, it's true, in a county where laws are so repressive. But the very fact that the laws are like this and that even supposedly open-minded people are freaked out by spanking to such an extent is not a good and hopeful sign.

I'm just saying that there is a bit more persecution and ostracism where I live than where you do. I live in a Red state, you live in a Blue one.

 

[Netzach]

She can't hear them anymore. I switched rooms to one NOT over her bedroom. The point is, I wasn't out to be obnoxious. Obnoxiousness, I can understand evicting over. Pursuing a fetish is something else.

Ok, so she freaked. You adjusted. She'll never be the wiser. It's sucky, it's not ideal. I hear you - my neighbors have a small kid, I have thin walls and I don't think that he should be subjected to what happens on the other side of them. It would be nice to not have to think about such things ever again.

But this doesn't equal some kind of closed mindedness toward kink - what we're talking about is a division between private life and public life. The Man *is* out to get us. However, he's not represented by every single person who's not in our club, that's my point.

When we're totally dismissive about how the majority of the culture chooses to have sex (not like us) we're cutting ourselves off from having any kind of an honest dialogue about any of it.

 

[Olivia_Yearns]

it's when I have to close my eyes and imagine something else happening

I'm quoting a line from the first page, because it was just so clever and funny. Seriously, I have enjoyed vanilla sex, which is the majority of my experience, but I include some coercive fantasy in 9 out of 10 vanilla orgasms.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I'm in Minneapolis.

Is that persecution, seriously? People not approving of your overheard sex sounds?

I think we want it all ways. We want to be accepted, but we are pissed that kids are wearing fashion collars. We want to be "like everyone else" but we are pissed when the media co-opts us for flavor. We feel persecuted when we go into a starbucks in leather and get stared at -- but boy are we more pissed when no one pays attention. We're so in love with our own myths about how outlaw and transgressive we are, but the minute a price gets paid we bitch and moan about it.

LOL, we aren't into dressing for it, but I also don't care if someone notices my collar and/or knows the significance or not, it just doesn't interest me one way or another unless they thought it entitled them to things they were not entitled to. I also don't care if people wear collars as fashion statements....in my youth I wore similar too, but they were called chokers then..and they were around in previous decades as fashion statements. So basically I don't want it both ways...I want the freedom to live my life my way in terms of D/s, SM, BDSM or any label one wants to apply, that's all....but that also means I don't want people to harrass me about it in public, either by noticing and thinking it is good or bad, or imposing their opinions on us. It doesn't really become an issue though in that sense as we are boringly private and not into clubbing or partying and dress rather ordinary whenever we are dressed.

Catalina

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Ok, so she freaked. You adjusted. She'll never be the wiser. It's sucky, it's not ideal. I hear you - my neighbors have a small kid, I have thin walls and I don't think that he should be subjected to what happens on the other side of them. It would be nice to not have to think about such things ever again.

But this doesn't equal some kind of closed mindedness toward kink - what we're talking about is a division between private life and public life. The Man *is* out to get us. However, he's not represented by every single person who's not in our club, that's my point.

When we're totally dismissive about how the majority of the culture chooses to have sex (not like us) we're cutting ourselves off from having any kind of an honest dialogue about any of it.

Dismissive? Not me. But I think that you underestimate the extent to which it is persecution, and not just privacy. I don't mind keeping things private to an extent, but only to an extent. And some of that privacy issue is a reminder of just how close-minded some people. In adult company, there should be no reason for anyone to get offended by the frank admission of one's lifestyle. Such an admission is necessary to any dialogue, but is discouraged by attitudes where I live. It's not fetish-friendly.