What is nilla sex?

Perhaps a better word than vanilla could have been chosen. Straight was off the table. Would some be upset if straight meant vanilla? Would they say their sex was just as crooked?

I use vanilla in the literal bdsm sense. Not in a judgmental way of calling someone else's choice bland or boring. Come up with a better word and I'll use it.
 
SEVERUSMAX said:
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.

I'm saying a lot of the attitudes above are dismissive of anything "vanilla." And I can't argue that there's a lot of persecution and limitation out there, it would be stupid and I'd be sticking my head in the sand.

But I think it's a shame when we're taught to expect derision at every turn to the point where we make enemies when there may not in fact be any. I've seen people in the community dis people who they don't think play to their level, or play their way, or speak really insultingly about vanilla sex in a way that would turn off or hurt anyone who was first exploring or playing out part-time urges.

People who DO "just play at it" are a very valuable bridge between "us" and "them." And they're the most maligned and shat on in the community, as I've seen it.
 
WriterDom said:
Perhaps a better word than vanilla could have been chosen. Straight was off the table. Would some be upset if straight meant vanilla? Would they say their sex was just as crooked?

I use vanilla in the literal bdsm sense. Not in a judgmental way of calling someone else's choice bland or boring. Come up with a better word and I'll use it.

Ditto.

Catalina :rose:
 
I think the word is prefectly fine, I think it's been loaded with those connotations, but that doesn't mean they're always there.
 
Netzach said:
I'm saying a lot of the attitudes above are dismissive of anything "vanilla." And I can't argue that there's a lot of persecution and limitation out there, it would be stupid and I'd be sticking my head in the sand.

But I think it's a shame when we're taught to expect derision at every turn to the point where we make enemies when there may not in fact be any. I've seen people in the community dis people who they don't think play to their level, or play their way, or speak really insultingly about vanilla sex in a way that would turn off or hurt anyone who was first exploring or playing out part-time urges.

People who DO "just play at it" are a very valuable bridge between "us" and "them." And they're the most maligned and shat on in the community, as I've seen it.

Which is a shame. I am not one to frown upon anyone's lifestyle myself. Not anymore. In the past, when I was new to kink, I did. But that was a convert's excessive enthusiasm. And I've made comments in the past regarding monogamy. But, in reality, I don't frown upon people for being what appeals to them. That includes "vanilla", monogamy, polygamy, polyamory, swinging (one of my own lifestyles), BDSM, golden showers, homosexuality, bisexuality (another of my own lifestyles), cuckolding, cross-dressing, transgender, cohabitation, celibacy, etc. That's a matter of being oneself. To borrow a certain principle for most of the major religions, I believe in treating people with the same open mind that I want them to treat me with.

That means respecting my sister's choice to wait until marriage for sex (thankfully, she's married now, so she's finally getting laid), my brother's preference for the more "middle-of-the-road" lifestyle of simple, monogamous cohabitation (assuming that he's not cheating on his gf like he did with his wife), my uncle's single womanizing lifestyle, my friend Tim's breast fetish, etc. Not for me to judge. I have learned that the most I can do is to try to get them to understand me and accept me. If they can't, then they need to come to terms with their intolerance. I just need to give them time to do so.
 
Netzach said:
I think the word is prefectly fine, I think it's been loaded with those connotations, but that doesn't mean they're always there.

True in part, but connotations often do not come from the one speaking the word, but those listening and interpreting it differently than intended. While I want people to let me live my life the way I choose, I also have no issue with those who choose vanilla, but that does not mean I then claim it is the same or equal in how I process it for myself, or that I like both because then I am being a hypocrite because for me it isn't and vanilla does not do it for me on a personal choice level. That is how I have interpreted what most others have been saying also.

Catalina :rose:
 
catalina_francisco said:
True in part, but connotations often do not come from the one speaking the word, but those listening and interpreting it differently than intended. While I want people to let me live my life the way I choose, I also have no issue with those who choose vanilla, but that does not mean I then claim it is the same or equal in how I process it for myself, or that I like both because then I am being a hypocrite because for me it isn't and vanilla does not do it for me on a personal choice level. That is how I have interpreted what most others have been saying also.

Catalina :rose:

I think we have to take responsibility for how we say things, not just throw it at people. I think there's a lot of difference between "it's not my thing" and "ugh God, fuck, I'm glad THAT's behind me."
 
Netzach said:
I think we have to take responsibility for how we say things, not just throw it at people. I think there's a lot of difference between "it's not my thing" and "ugh God, fuck, I'm glad THAT's behind me."

Perhaps if you like sanitising your speech (which has its own problems because no matter how you word something, it is going to upset one group/person or another who feel you are not one of them and take it personally) but I am fairly open and for me it was a long time in coming to find where I belong, so in all truth I am glad that it is behind me because now at almost 48 I am on a much more fulfilling and happier path for me....that doesn't seem such a bad thing to admit to me, or feel I should play down. Bottom line is we are all different and different things suit each of us...why feel we have to apologise for who we are and where we are happiest? Being who you are really shouldn't upset anyone unless there are issues they haven't processed within themselves and your comfort triggers their unease.

Catalina :rose:
 
I don't see being considerate of other levels of interest and other kinds of play than the ones I'm into as self-censorship. If they were I'd be in a much much smaller inner sanctum of Femdoms who think PVC is cheesy and don't eat wheat. I'm glad to admire the skill of "man who likes to stick very large things up his ass" as much as I do my own. And "woman who sutures partner's dick into his dick-cavity" has a thing or two to show me, even though she's no Domme. Likewise one of the most sexually exploratory, fearless, and savvy women I know still gets a glazed and confused look when I talk about powerplay.

Because of things like ....oh, the sociopolitical climate...I don't think we can afford to dismiss vanilla sexuality when sexuality of any non babymaking kind is under attack by people who are going to affect us MUCH more than the people we may meet when we talk about sex.

I know where I've had this discussion before....

it was in the lesbian community. I was bringing up the fact that if you keep trashing men and trashing anyone who fucks them you will alienate bisexuals and women leaving married relationships - if you pile every evil of the world onto the nuclear family just because some assholes want to mandate it, you are going to alienate women who do have kids or women who have supportive families.

Now, it's true you can say "well they should not feel so sensitive - we think they are critical to the movement, as long as they shut up and don't assert their validity."

But that's not going to get them to cover your back or give a crap about anything. Which is what killed Feminism, if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
FurryFury said:
I think this has turned into a pretty interesting thread!

Fury :rose:
A great thread. I went back to read from the start. I felt there was always aggression, domination and power in the subtext of the great vanilla sex I've had. The thing is that it wasn't made explicit. I have always been attracted to men who had assertiveness and a willingness to be powerful as a part of their personalities, and this, along with gentleness, always came through in the sex. Now I want more - more overt expression, more intensity, more attention to power, aggression, control and submission.

I can understand if some experienced BDSM folks would look down on a relatively soft newbie, and I won't be wounded by that. I believe that the quality of a sexual encounter cannot be easily judged from outside the experience, and has to do with the attunement of the people involved. Great sex means being intune to your desire, and to your partner, and fully alive to your body. I could imagine that BDSM sex could be boring too, to someone who wasn't turned on by it.

Newbie Bits and Bites and Encore

Sorry :( You must be at least this old
40
to try this ride.
 
Olivia_Yearns said:
A great thread. I went back to read from the start. I felt there was always aggression, domination and power in the subtext of the great vanilla sex I've had. The thing is that it wasn't made explicit. I have always been attracted to men who had assertiveness and a willingness to be powerful as a part of their personalities, and this, along with gentleness, always came through in the sex. Now I want more - more overt expression, more intensity, more attention to power, aggression, control and submission.

I can understand if some experienced BDSM folks would look down on a relatively soft newbie, and I won't be wounded by that. I believe that the quality of a sexual encounter cannot be easily judged from outside the experience, and has to do with the attunement of the people involved. Great sex means being intune to your desire, and to your partner, and fully alive to your body. I could imagine that BDSM sex could be boring too, to someone who wasn't turned on by it.

Newbie Bits and Bites and Encore

Sorry :( You must be at least this old
40
to try this ride.


Yeah who was saying...bad sex is bad sex.

I think the most turned on I ever was in my life was having my shoes licked.

I think the most bored I've ever been in my life was having my shoes licked at another time and place.
 
Netzach said:
I think the most turned on I ever was in my life was having my shoes licked.

I think the most bored I've ever been in my life was having my shoes licked at another time and place.
YEAH! Those two lines approach poetry.

Newbie Bits and Bites and Encore

Sorry :( You must be at least this old
40
to try this ride.
 
There was a time when I wasn't so thick skinned that I would have been offended, or put on the defensive based on some of Cat comments and maybe a few others in this thread as well, but I have come to learn over time that she is just speaking from her point of view and experience. At least she confined her comments to vanilla sex and how glad she is to be past that in her own life. And even if she does have "some" negative views, or considers it as lacking, she attributes that directly to her own expereince and speaks directly about the sex involved. This is different from some of the other comments in the thread where the negativity extended past just the sexual aspect and saw fit to lump in people.

My interest in this thread is not to be a defender of vanilla sex per se, but I do think that vanilla sex should be represented in a fair way. Catalina's comments align with my view, in that she has been there, did vanilla sex "well", and still makes it clear that for her, her preference is clearly to never to go back. To which I say good.

But it should be noted that this issue is not just an experience issue, but also a prefrence issue as well. While experience does count for alot, the prefrence side of the issue does allow for differring of opinion without neccessarily being in disagreement.

With that said, sure I can understand Netzach point about considering the way a person expresses their views on a topic. But something which often doesn't get said is the other side of that...so I am gonna say it.

This is a BDSM forum and though it is open to all to come, those who are of the more vanilla persuaion need to be a bit more thick skinned. Speaking from my experience in being here, I had to learn that the hard way. And as I look back on those times when I felt I was being constantly under attack when ever someone mentioned vanilla in a negative way...I realize that was due more to my own insecurities about myself. And I often made more trouble for myself because if it.

If I had a vanilla forum that was dedicated to exploring and discussing vanilla type sex...and a person from the D/s BDSM persuation came to it, I would rightly expect them to curb their expression so as not to offend all the other memebers in which the forum catered to. I would not want them to be censored(I know that seems contridictory), however I would want them to be mature enough not to force their views upon the group or get pissy because others in the group found d/s BDSM to be iccky.

I think what happens often is that a person gets caught with one foot on each side. I know that was true for me. One foot was squarely planted and still is on the vanilla side of things. The other foot was squarely planted on the D/s BDSM side of things. The resulting conflict seem work its way into many conversations, because vanilla is not just about sex, but can also be a mental approach or attitude towards many things. The problem is though for those who find themselves split, is they "feel" they don't fully belong or are accepted by either group.

I don't know what the complete answer is for these type of folk who feel caught in the midddle, but I do know for me it required me not to look for acceptance in any other place than within my own self. I believe only then can one not feel threatened or offended by either group. Only then will they find a bit of peace with their own level of D/s BDSM and vanilla inside themselves.
 
RJMasters said:
There was a time when I wasn't so thick skinned that I would have been offended, or put on the defensive based on some of Cat comments and maybe a few others in this thread as well, but I have come to learn over time that she is just speaking from her point of view and experience. At least she confined her comments to vanilla sex and how glad she is to be past that in her own life. And even if she does have "some" negative views, or considers it as lacking, she attributes that directly to her own expereince and speaks directly about the sex involved. This is different from some of the other comments in the thread where the negativity extended past just the sexual aspect and saw fit to lump in people.

My interest in this thread is not to be a defender of vanilla sex per se, but I do think that vanilla sex should be represented in a fair way. Catalina's comments align with my view, in that she has been there, did vanilla sex "well", and still makes it clear that for her, her preference is clearly to never to go back. To which I say good.

But it should be noted that this issue is not just an experience issue, but also a prefrence issue as well. While experience does count for alot, the prefrence side of the issue does allow for differring of opinion without neccessarily being in disagreement.

With that said, sure I can understand Netzach point about considering the way a person expresses their views on a topic. But something which often doesn't get said is the other side of that...so I am gonna say it.

This is a BDSM forum and though it is open to all to come, those who are of the more vanilla persuaion need to be a bit more thick skinned. Speaking from my experience in being here, I had to learn that the hard way. And as I look back on those times when I felt I was being constantly under attack when ever someone mentioned vanilla in a negative way...I realize that was due more to my own insecurities about myself. And I often made more trouble for myself because if it.

If I had a vanilla forum that was dedicated to exploring and discussing vanilla type sex...and a person from the D/s BDSM persuation came to it, I would rightly expect them to curb their expression so as not to offend all the other memebers in which the forum catered to. I would not want them to be censored(I know that seems contridictory), however I would want them to be mature enough not to force their views upon the group or get pissy because others in the group found d/s BDSM to be iccky.

I think what happens often is that a person gets caught with one foot on each side. I know that was true for me. One foot was squarely planted and still is on the vanilla side of things. The other foot was squarely planted on the D/s BDSM side of things. The resulting conflict seem work its way into many conversations, because vanilla is not just about sex, but can also be a mental approach or attitude towards many things. The problem is though for those who find themselves split, is they "feel" they don't fully belong or are accepted by either group.

I don't know what the complete answer is for these type of folk who feel caught in the midddle, but I do know for me it required me not to look for acceptance in any other place than within my own self. I believe only then can one not feel threatened or offended by either group. Only then will they find a bit of peace with their own level of D/s BDSM and vanilla inside themselves.
:rose:
 
Olivia_Yearns said:
A great thread. I went back to read from the start. I felt there was always aggression, domination and power in the subtext of the great vanilla sex I've had. The thing is that it wasn't made explicit. I have always been attracted to men who had assertiveness and a willingness to be powerful as a part of their personalities, and this, along with gentleness, always came through in the sex. Now I want more - more overt expression, more intensity, more attention to power, aggression, control and submission.

I can understand if some experienced BDSM folks would look down on a relatively soft newbie, and I won't be wounded by that. I believe that the quality of a sexual encounter cannot be easily judged from outside the experience, and has to do with the attunement of the people involved. Great sex means being intune to your desire, and to your partner, and fully alive to your body. I could imagine that BDSM sex could be boring too, to someone who wasn't turned on by it.


I understand what you mean and I agree with your statement .
I liked your post :rose:
 
Netzach said:
I don't see being considerate of other levels of interest and other kinds of play than the ones I'm into as self-censorship. If they were I'd be in a much much smaller inner sanctum of Femdoms who think PVC is cheesy and don't eat wheat. I'm glad to admire the skill of "man who likes to stick very large things up his ass" as much as I do my own. And "woman who sutures partner's dick into his dick-cavity" has a thing or two to show me, even though she's no Domme. Likewise one of the most sexually exploratory, fearless, and savvy women I know still gets a glazed and confused look when I talk about powerplay.

Because of things like ....oh, the sociopolitical climate...I don't think we can afford to dismiss vanilla sexuality when sexuality of any non babymaking kind is under attack by people who are going to affect us MUCH more than the people we may meet when we talk about sex.

I know where I've had this discussion before....

it was in the lesbian community. I was bringing up the fact that if you keep trashing men and trashing anyone who fucks them you will alienate bisexuals and women leaving married relationships - if you pile every evil of the world onto the nuclear family just because some assholes want to mandate it, you are going to alienate women who do have kids or women who have supportive families.

Now, it's true you can say "well they should not feel so sensitive - we think they are critical to the movement, as long as they shut up and don't assert their validity."

But that's not going to get them to cover your back or give a crap about anything. Which is what killed Feminism, if you ask me.



But what you are missing here Netzach is it is you making this differentiation and pronouncing that others are saying vanilla is bad when they are saying, like I am, that they do not find anything wrong with it, but nor do they find it appealing for them. That is a choice and doesn't mean it is wrong, just wrong for the person who doesn't find it worth bothering with anymore. What others do is their choice based on their tastes, but don't expect me to pretend I want to be the same as after 25 years of vanilla, I feel have earned the right to now make the choice to not be vanilla.

Your earlier example of how you think it appropriate and sensitive to express vanilla is not for a particular person actually was reversed for me. That is what is the problem with things subjective. Whenever anyone says something along the lines of 'it's not my thing' or 'whatever floats your boat' etc., I look deeper to see if there is more behind the words because very often that is how it is meant, so while for you it is a sensitive way to express a choice, to me it is often confrontational and a strong possibility it is judgemental against me.

Once again I will say it as have others, I have no problem with people being vanilla, it just is not my choice and I will not pretend it is just as I don't expect vanilla people to pretend they are into BDSM to try and make me happy. What makes me happy is open honesty and people who feel comfortable enough to say who and what they are without expecting or looking for judgements or put downs, or wanting everyone else to reflect their choices. Diversity is what makes the world go round for me, not trying to appear agreeable and into anything and everything my neighbour might be out of fear they might be offended if I am not.

Catalina :rose:
 
RJMasters said:
...
This is a BDSM forum and though it is open to all to come, those who are of the more vanilla persuaion need to be a bit more thick skinned. ...
I haven't been here long, but so far, I have only had good experiences reading/posting in this forum. I found the GB much harsher.

Great post. I also feel like a vanilla/chocolate swirl.
 
Olivia_Yearns said:
I haven't been here long, but so far, I have only had good experiences reading/posting in this forum. I found the GB much harsher.

Great post. I also feel like a vanilla/chocolate swirl.

It IS harsher.
 
Kajira Callista said:
What is nilla sex?
This is such a good question. :) :rose: I am grateful to you for asking it, because the responses have been quite illuminating.

The only place I have ever heard the word 'vanilla' (in a non-food context) is here at Lit. But - as with so many labels discussed on this Board - there does not appear to be a consensus over what the word really means.

In response to your question, various people have offered (or endorsed) pejorative definitions of the term 'vanilla sex'. With the exception of self-directed commentary, the utility of these definitions is extremely limited..... since the sole purpose for which they could be used (as applied to others) would be to insult.

So far, I've read three cogent, non-pejorative definitions of the term vanilla sex on this thread, as follows.

RJMasters said:
The elements which are therefore necessary and make it no longer vanilla sex are clear power exchange and or BDSM activities like SM type play.

chris9 said:
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.

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

Though I don't agree with it, I would like to add a fourth possibility to the list. The implication of the thread with the title "Vanilla D/s" is that vanilla means: not involving sadomasochistic play.

For the record, I'm casting my vote with Netzach on this one. Her definition makes the most sense to me.

Alice
 
Saying 'vanilla' or BDSM is boring, even thinking of it like that, seems very stupid to me. I can say that for me the one or the other does or does not 'do it'. But feeling *we* are better (whoever that *we* may be) is idiotic.
I won't even think of saying that prefering men is better, that liking to have sex with women is boring, though I don't see the attraction to it. I don't get many fetishes (recent example around here is breath play), but that doesn't mean I think people enjoying it have a boring sex life. It might be boring to me, not as arousing as other stuff. And probably there are things that get me going which others don't get.
 
RJMasters said:
I define vanilla sex as:

In Motivation:
Sex that is not based upon an exchange of power but its focus is on the exchange of pleasure and love only.

In Activity:
Sex that does not include SM type activities, though rough sex such as scratching, pulling of hair can happen as the result of the throws of orgasmic passion.

My definition comes from the reverse definition of what isn't Vanilla sex. Sex which requires certain elements to be a part of it for it to meet the needs of those involved. Meaning simply if regular sex was enough to meet those need, then these other elements would not be necessary. The elements which are therefore necessary and make it no longer vanilla sex are clear power exchange and or BDSM activities like SM type play.
RJ,

I have a question about one aspect of your definition.

What is your personal understanding of the phrase "clear power exchange" (in this context)?

What type of power has to be exchanged, and what makes the transfer "clear," in your opinion?
 
my def. of vanilla sex: sex where there is absolutely no element of perversion, no element of kink and where nothing is done that would be considered socially unacceptable by the masses. also, imo only vanilla people can engage in vanilla sex. being Dominant or submissive or even a foot fetishist or whatever other thing outside the norm, makes any sexual activity one engages in, "different", and therefore not vanilla.
 
The word vanilla may not be intended to be used by many here as derogatory yet when we step back at its core it creates a certain image. Putting sex aside for a second the word has an image of being ordinary, bland, unimaginative. Make it a sexual label and it can be veiwed as offensive.

Maybe it is time for a new label but i for one have no idea what that could be and i am not a great lover of labels anyway.

People go by their own experiences and prefer what they prefer, as shown so well in this thread many people have their own opinions on what defines Vanilla, part of the problem with labels is this confusion.

Personally if you take some of the definitions here then true vanillas seem to be a dying breed, in fact they are now the minority, to the extent i have never meet one. BDSM is becoming more mainstream and everyone has their own kinks and fetishes, in fact pure vanilla can even be seen as being kinky just because of it being such a rare and unusal practice today.

Which leaves me thinking maybe those who really get off on the idea of being different and kinky should try being pure vanilla LOL.

Whatever type of sex people are having i hope they are satisfied.
 
Back
Top