What is nilla sex?

[Kajira Callista]

Dolly, why are you so hung up on what it is or isn't?

I mean really, the only definition that matters is your own.

yes?

Personally, and I've said this numerous times on numerous threads, we all spend way too much time trying to figure out WHAT we are and not enough time enjoying WHO we are.

But again, that's just my opinion.

Its kinda weird. I never actually though about the term before. Im just trying to form my own idea of what it is... and the opinion i am forming is sex is sex and i can see a lot of things getting added to sex to make it different but all of it is still pleasurable.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Its kinda weird. I never actually though about the term before. Im just trying to form my own idea of what it is... and the opinion i am forming is sex is sex and i can see a lot of things getting added to sex to make it different but all of it is still pleasurable.

Well, here's what I think...

I like your definition - almost as well as mine. aaaaaahahahaha.

Seriously, I do.

To me, if it walks like a duck and quacks like one then it's vanilla sex. (I think that's a mixed metaphor, yes?) And if it hurts like I like it to, then it's not. ;-)

And damn, I'm missing it lots right now.

 

[FurryFury]

What this thread has shown us, IMO, is that definitions of vanilla sex and likely many other things, are very relative and POV based.

Fury

 

[O'Mac]

Originally Posted by A Desert Rose

Dolly, why are you so hung up on what it is or isn't?

I mean really, the only definition that matters is your own.

yes?

Personally, and I've said this numerous times on numerous threads, we all spend way too much time trying to figure out WHAT we are and not enough time enjoying WHO we are.

But again, that's just my opinion.

And I think that's always good advice, Rose

 

[Pure]

Hi Olivia,

you said,

Ok, I'll take a shot at a plain description of vanilla sex. After a few dates with someone new, it is clear we're very attracted to each other. End up back at someone's place to "listen to music and have a glass of wine". Lots of deep kissing, nothing that could vaguely be construed as rough. Gradual removal of clothes, touching each other with hands, mouths. Might say some things like "that feels good" or "I love your ass", but no dirty talk. Sucking, fucking, enjoying each other's bodies without any overt roles. Any show of physical power is subtle, as is any pleasure in submission. It may be present without any awareness. There is a focus on the sensations of the experience. Emotions may be infatuation and excitement, but aggression is only present in the most subtle ways. If this is heterosex, and he's any good, he'll make sure she cums at least once before he does, or he'll take time to give her a great orgasm orally after his. No props.

I'd say this is gentle, tender sex involving one of those 'sensitive males' that have sprung up since the advent of the new feminism. It's so very 'proper' and 'PC' that she doesn't even say 'fuck me,' let alone 'fuck me hard.' He says, "I want to make love to you," and she says, "Hold me tight."

Now you might want to define 'vanilla' like this in your talk, but notice it means rather few folks are that way (maybe 10%?), and the vast majority are 'non vanilla'--which is usually rendered as 'kinky [deviate]--in an SM way-- to some degree'. And, having reduced to 'other' to a small rump, you then fit in the larger portion.

I see this as a kind of rhetorical strategy common in argument. Let's say you're a liberal, arguing with a conservative. You say, "I define a conservative as one who doesn't want any change and cant see the merits of even the most reasonable improvements in how society works."
You continue, "Liberals on the other hand favor reasonable changes, improvements that the vast majority want and benefit from." And guess where you fit.

Now, going along with your approach, I suppose we could say, "Olivia has defined the absolute 'pure' vanilla, and most people are somewhat that way with an admixture of kinks, which they keep in control and refuse to indulge very much. These are the 'mostly vanilla' folks who are the great majority (say 70%)." These 'mostly vanilla' folks do say 'fuck' a bit, and this man occasionally interrupts his muff-diving to show some aggression or dominance.

With this approach, pure vanilla and mostly vanilla, combined, account for the vast majority, say 80%.

Then you're free to define the 'little vanilla' or 'mostly kinky' person' in a way that highlights their prominent use of the the things you toned down to nothing, in your description, e.g., one controlling the other in the sack.
---

Anyway, that's my opinion, and your posting was well written and caused me to think, so I thank you!

J.

 

[RJMasters]

Dolly, why are you so hung up on what it is or isn't?

I mean really, the only definition that matters is your own.

yes?

Personally, and I've said this numerous times on numerous threads, we all spend way too much time trying to figure out WHAT we are and not enough time enjoying WHO we are.

But again, that's just my opinion.

Pulls the camel up and let's it fill its hump in this oasis of common sense.

 

[A Desert Rose]

And I think that's always good advice, Rose

Pulls the camel up and let's it fill its hump in this oasis of common sense.

You Fellas are too nice. ;-)

But I do think one can write a post as long as one's arm and still say nothing more than I just said in a couple of sentences.

Some folks do like to hear (or read) themselves... that's all. LOL The more words you can put in a post, the more important some folks think you are. I worked and wrote for a newspaper for some years. I learned how to be brief and concise. And it's a lot less confusing to the reader, too... unless it's the writer's goal to confuse the reader. ;-)

 

[FurryFury]

You Fellas are too nice. ;-)

But I do think one can write a post as long as one's arm and still say nothing more than I just said in a couple of sentences.

Some folks do like to hear (or read) themselves... that's all. LOL The more words you can put in a post, the more important some folks think you are.

Word.

Fury

 

[Olivia_Yearns]

small point: I wasn't attempting a broad definition of Vanilla. It seemed that Kajira was asking what it meant to people in their own experience, and this was some concrete description based in experience. I don't, myself, think it is a very useful term. Sex is a volcanic force that never feels like vanilla to me.

 

[Pure]

volvanic force--nice phrase olivia! i was just saying that, in drawing the map, leave the other guy some space!

 

[WindWarrior]

This was an interesting question, one that I hadn't really thought about myself. I don't often like to stick things into neat little definitions ... after all, much of life overlaps and flows. In this case, though, if I think about it, personally for me, vanilla sex is when technically I have been satisfied, i.e. I reach orgasm, but I'm left with wanting more. I'm left with feeling that I just need "something more." And that whatever I had was not enough because it didn't cover enough of the spectrum. For instance, there was lots of pleasure, but only gained through one end of the spectrum. The whole other spectrum was ignored - no demand for complete submission, no pain, no whips, chains, nipple clamps, etc.

I need the full spectrum in life to be fulfilled, just as I need it in sex. So, when I think "vanilla" ... I think of needing something more, beyond that one side of the spectrum.

 

[Pure]

a note to Netzach

Hi Netzach,

you said,
The only thing that makes me a Dominant is I got smacked with the Dominant stick when they were handing out sexualities and other people got smacked with the submissive ones. It makes me thrill to experience helplessness, frustration, tease, discomfort, overt displays of submission, overt displays of sexually *conquored* fervor etc. in my sex partners and it makes me unable to get excited about sex and relationships in which I can't periodically and regularly get in touch with my sense of control over the whole thing. If I go long enough without that control, I go crazy and I'm unhappy overall.

Well put. May I ask about one small point. IMO, you aren't just "a Dominant" anymore than someone is just "A New Yorker" or "a dog lover." Some dog lovers hate cats, some do not; some love small dogs and others think the teacups are hardly dogs at all.

Several points of your above statement point to something more and/or other than simply "Dom." For instance, frustration and discomfort. Well you merely a 'controlling' person, like a drill sergeant, you wouldn't care about 'discomfort', just getting your orders carried out. So if you are primarily "Dom", it seems to me that you are also S, as in S/M. Would you agree with that?

 

[alice_underneath]

small point: I wasn't attempting a broad definition of Vanilla. It seemed that Kajira was asking what it meant to people in their own experience, and this was some concrete description based in experience.

That's similar to the way I interpret her recent comments on the thread too. I think she is curious, and asking: what are people actually doing when they have vanilla sex?

KC -

I'll try to answer the question - "What is it?" - with a concrete example of physical intimacy.

One night, Jane is putting photos in an album. They remind her of a wonderful vacation she spent with John, and all of a sudden she is filled with the desire to show him how much she loves and appreciates him.

She gets up, walks to the den where John is reading the paper, kneels between his legs, removes John's manhood from his pants, and gives him oral pleasure with her mouth. Maybe it's even loooooooooong, sloooooooooow, quasi-obsequious attention that bears a remarkable resemblance to oral servitude (as Mr. R. defines that phrase at the beginning of his thread).

If John never grabs her head to control her movement, never growls instructions, never does anything other than lean back and moan & gasp in delight........ I would say that is an excellent example of vanilla sex.

However.....

As several people have noted on this thread, if John and Jane are a couple who normally engage in powerplay (in and/or out of the bedroom), then I would say that what's going on in their heads would most likely negate the 'vanilla' aspect of the scene.

Alice

 

[Evil_Geoff]

I will have to confess that the idea of wading through 6 pages of messages to see/determine what other people are calling "vanilla sex" seems like sheer madness at the moment. So I won't.

So, FWIW, my definition of "Vanilla Sex" - A sexual act that would be considered by the vast majority of mainstream society to be a "normal" sexual activity. Something that has NOT been classified as a paraphilia or fetish, or deviant or pathologized by mainstream psychiatry.

Most positions (missionary, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl, doggy, etc) you can use without the aid of special equipment would be vanilla. Oral and anal are, for the most part, vanilla. In order to take the _sex_ out of the realm of vanilla there must be an overt, _conscious_, consentual exchange of power, or the addition of elements of bondage, or the inflicting of pain, or the adoption of a role that is clearly not part of one's normal life, or the addition of some other element that mainstream society would consider "not normal".

So fucking is normal... using a feather is erotic... using a feather duster is kinky... using the whole freaking bird is sick and perverted. *grin*

And yes, swinging and poly are "not normal" in the mainstream, and are therefore "not vanilla". And for the most part, gay and lesbian sexuality is still not considered to be "normal" (though it IS becoming more widely accepted as such by more and more people, give it another generation or two) so that isn't "vanilla" in my book either.

For most BDSM practitioners, a LOT of our sex is vanilla. Insert Tab A into slot B, C, or D, repeat until finished. A little hair pulling or a swat on the ass does not make your sex "not vanilla". And there isn't anything wrong with that at all. Nilla sex is pretty dadgum frosty. What sets us kinky folk apart from the rest of the herd is the nature of the sprinkles and toppings we _add_ to the ice cream. We put things in the dish that most 'nillas would go "EEeeeeewwwww! Yuck!" about. Their loss, more toppings for me!

Just remember, even with 32 flavors, vanilla is still about the most popular flavor at Baskin-Robbins. *weg*

 

[FurryFury]

I will have to confess that the idea of wading through 6 pages of messages to see/determine what other people are calling "vanilla sex" seems like sheer madness at the moment. So I won't.

So, FWIW, my definition of "Vanilla Sex" - A sexual act that would be considered by the vast majority of mainstream society to be a "normal" sexual activity. Something that has NOT been classified as a paraphilia or fetish, or deviant or pathologized by mainstream psychiatry.

Most positions (missionary, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl, doggy, etc) you can use without the aid of special equipment would be vanilla. Oral and anal are, for the most part, vanilla. In order to take the _sex_ out of the realm of vanilla there must be an overt, _conscious_, consentual exchange of power, or the addition of elements of bondage, or the inflicting of pain, or the adoption of a role that is clearly not part of one's normal life, or the addition of some other element that mainstream society would consider "not normal".

So fucking is normal... using a feather is erotic... using a feather duster is kinky... using the whole freaking bird is sick and perverted. *grin*

And yes, swinging and poly are "not normal" in the mainstream, and are therefore "not vanilla". And for the most part, gay and lesbian sexuality is still not considered to be "normal" (though it IS becoming more widely accepted as such by more and more people, give it another generation or two) so that isn't "vanilla" in my book either.

For most BDSM practitioners, a LOT of our sex is vanilla. Insert Tab A into slot B, C, or D, repeat until finished. A little hair pulling or a swat on the ass does not make your sex "not vanilla". And there isn't anything wrong with that at all. Nilla sex is pretty dadgum frosty. What sets us kinky folk apart from the rest of the herd is the nature of the sprinkles and toppings we _add_ to the ice cream. We put things in the dish that most 'nillas would go "EEeeeeewwwww! Yuck!" about. Their loss, more toppings for me!

Just remember, even with 32 flavors, vanilla is still about the most popular flavor at Baskin-Robbins. *weg*

*fantasizes about Baskin-robbins and sighs*

Well said as always Evil_Geoff!

(This has been a surprisingly interesting thread for me at least.)

Fury

 

[DVS]

I will have to confess that the idea of wading through 6 pages of messages to see/determine what other people are calling "vanilla sex" seems like sheer madness at the moment. So I won't.

So, FWIW, my definition of "Vanilla Sex" - A sexual act that would be considered by the vast majority of mainstream society to be a "normal" sexual activity. Something that has NOT been classified as a paraphilia or fetish, or deviant or pathologized by mainstream psychiatry.

Most positions (missionary, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl, doggy, etc) you can use without the aid of special equipment would be vanilla. Oral and anal are, for the most part, vanilla. In order to take the _sex_ out of the realm of vanilla there must be an overt, _conscious_, consentual exchange of power, or the addition of elements of bondage, or the inflicting of pain, or the adoption of a role that is clearly not part of one's normal life, or the addition of some other element that mainstream society would consider "not normal".

So fucking is normal... using a feather is erotic... using a feather duster is kinky... using the whole freaking bird is sick and perverted. *grin*

And yes, swinging and poly are "not normal" in the mainstream, and are therefore "not vanilla". And for the most part, gay and lesbian sexuality is still not considered to be "normal" (though it IS becoming more widely accepted as such by more and more people, give it another generation or two) so that isn't "vanilla" in my book either.

For most BDSM practitioners, a LOT of our sex is vanilla. Insert Tab A into slot B, C, or D, repeat until finished. A little hair pulling or a swat on the ass does not make your sex "not vanilla". And there isn't anything wrong with that at all. Nilla sex is pretty dadgum frosty. What sets us kinky folk apart from the rest of the herd is the nature of the sprinkles and toppings we _add_ to the ice cream. We put things in the dish that most 'nillas would go "EEeeeeewwwww! Yuck!" about. Their loss, more toppings for me!

Just remember, even with 32 flavors, vanilla is still about the most popular flavor at Baskin-Robbins. *weg*

I disagree about anal being vanilla, but that is just my opinion. And, of course, that's all that matters. That's one of the things I've learned from reading this thread.

I'm basing my statement on my experience. I grew up in a small mid-western, town, and trust me...you were considered kinky or down right strange, if you wanted anal sex. You must understand this was in the late 60s-early 70s, and times have surely changed. But, my version of vanilla is based on the last time I experienced vanilla, which would be in that timeframe.

 

[FurryFury]

I disagree about anal being vanilla, but that is just my opinion. And, of course, that's all that matters. That's one of the things I've learned from reading this thread.

I'm basing my statement on my experience. I grew up in a small mid-western, town, and trust me...you were considered kinky or down right strange, if you wanted anal sex. You must understand this was in the late 60s-early 70s, and times have surely changed. But, my version of vanilla is based on the last time I experienced vanilla, which would be in that timeframe.

Yep, yep, it's all POV based Baybee! I'm getting that now.

Fury

 

[Pure]

Another point of view-- to Alice and RJ

Hi Alice,
you said,

Alice: I'll try to answer the question - "What is it?" - with a concrete example of physical intimacy.

One night, Jane is putting photos in an album. They remind her of a wonderful vacation she spent with John, and all of a sudden she is filled with the desire to show him how much she loves and appreciates him.

She gets up, walks to the den where John is reading the paper, kneels between his legs, removes John's manhood from his pants, and gives him oral pleasure with her mouth. Maybe it's even loooooooooong, sloooooooooow, quasi-obsequious attention that bears a remarkable resemblance to oral servitude (as Mr. R. defines that phrase at the beginning of his thread).

If John never grabs her head to control her movement, never growls instructions, never does anything other than lean back and moan & gasp in delight........ I would say that is an excellent example of vanilla sex.

However.....

As several people have noted on this thread, if John and Jane are a couple who normally engage in powerplay (in and/or out of the bedroom), then I would say that what's going on in their heads would most likely negate the 'vanilla' aspect of the scene.
------

P: With respect, I must disagree, though you make some good points. Basically you're saying it's vanilla if the two think so. Were they engaged in 'powerply', something else --power related-- would likely be on their minds, and that would make it Dominance/Submission. Is this a fair summary.

Myself I prefer an objective definition of either 'vanilla' (straight, conventional) or bent/deviate/DS/SM. If the fellow ties her--consensually--to the bedpost and whips her till she writhes and rubs off on the post, it does not matter if both are thinking of Jesus; it's still deviate or SM.

Your thinking is along the lines of RJ, below.

RJ, you said,

RJ: //A major aspect of D/s type relationships are about control and the feeling of being owned, hence the name Dominant/Submissive. This is not part of a normal vanilla marraige where the partners make love to each other for the sake of love and pleasure. Part of what makes D/s sex IS the element of control or to say it another way...power exchange.

//For two people to experience fully what power exchange is...it first requires that both are in the know. That means that both partners with full knowledge of what is happening give their consent. When both partners or one partner is not in on it, then there cannot be a full expereince that is the same or equal to the power excahnge which does occur between two people who know what it is theiy are consenting to.

//Is there power exchange in those relationships which only one partner is in the know and the other is not? Yes there is. Is it the same? IMO no. In such instances, the power exchange, is only coming from one half of the relationship. the other person in the relationship has no idea what is going on, but does what they can because they love their spouse. Notice I said they do what they do because they love their spouse not because they want to control them or because they want to feel owned. It is for that reason they cannot fulfill their part of the power exchange back, because its not about control or surrendure for them. Their attitude and motivation is vanilla. A person can be as dominating as they wish to a vanilla wife or a wife can be as submiissive as they want to her vanilla husband...or Wife can be as dominanting to her vanilla husband or a husband can be submissive to his vanilla Wife...in all these cases, what is missing? two things are missing. 1. Knowing that the other person doesn't truly understand what you are giving to them of your self. 2. Never recieiving back from them what you truly need.

//So yes it matters alot that both people fully know that they are in a D/s relationship and consenting to the power exchange. It directly effects the attitude and the intent of what's taking place in the mind heart and body of the two people involved.//
-----

P: I read the above as similar, only RJ is asserting that 'full' or genuine power exchange requires both persons' awareness. He's willing to say there is some sort of attenuated power exchange, in the onesided case, but not the full monty. RJ makes his points clearly, here.

I trust my reading is correct, RJ?

With respect, I must disagree. The vanilla wife who acts for love, in carrying out her role in the dominant hubby scene, is involved in kinky sex of the DS or SM kind.

I maintain her thoughts of love, just as, in Alice's example, thoughts of pleasure and love, do not detract from the nature of the scene. On her knees, sucking cock in conformity to his desires, is submitting. Analogously, my control of my dog is objective; his 'love' for me, possibly a motivation, is neither here nor there (in the sense, I will assume, that he would obey, apart from loving).

All of this gets back to power, which has been dissected a bit earlier in the thread. So without getting too far into that, just let me say that IMO, objective is the way to go. Power involves the will and desires of one party are pre-eminently determining the course of things, through for example, that party's commanding and controlling. It's clear to an informed and perceptive outsider*, as for instance when your neighbor yells at his dog to get out of the street and come home. One needn't probe the doggy mind, and try to figure if he's 'exchanging' or simply thinking of obeying, or just thinking 'I better get my butt back', or indeed not thinking anything at all.

---
*P: There are certain qualifications I don't want to get into, such as levels: If I set up a scene in which I am bottom and being disciplined and controlled, that would look--if an observer had a narrow view--like I am being controlled by the other. However were this observer to have seen more, such as that I 'ordered' (specified) the scene, and that I handed the intended 'top' $200 to carry things out accordingly, he (observer) would clearly see the true or underlying direction of control.

====
P speculating about RJ's argement: Now, RJ might want to say, _leave aside the power issue, how can there be unthinking 'exchange'--any more than there can be unthinking purchase of a new car?_ (i.e. handing the money over, getting the car).

Pure responding: Well, I'd make the same argument as I did above. Many view relationships as involving 'quid pro quo,' as for example the rich guy has the 'trophy' and has the credit cards and his model wife gets the money and social status. Arguably every relationship has quid pro quo, and, upon considering the matter, it needn't be agreed--or articulated or even thought of. She just uses the credit cards, and shows up draped on his arm at parties, making him look like a powerful and successful man.

Again, observers can see these things: We say, to take another example, "She has traded independence for security:" IOW the relationship is apparently giving her security; so what is the 'quid pro quo'? further inspection would determine that he gets, 'in exchange' (quid pro quo), perhaps getting laid regularly and enthusiastically.

Anyway folks, those are my views. Vanilla or 'kinky' or 'dominating'(controlling) or acting sadistically-- are in the *doing*, at the root, not necessarily in the thinking. Not every self said (thinking that way) 'vanilla' is really such, just as a self said dom may in fact be PW'd.

I thank both of you for fine statements of your views, and for reading this response, if you've gotten this far.

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I disagree about anal being vanilla, but that is just my opinion. And, of course, that's all that matters. That's one of the things I've learned from reading this thread.

I'm basing my statement on my experience. I grew up in a small mid-western, town, and trust me...you were considered kinky or down right strange, if you wanted anal sex. You must understand this was in the late 60s-early 70s, and times have surely changed. But, my version of vanilla is based on the last time I experienced vanilla, which would be in that timeframe.

LOL, have to go with Geoff on this one. Geography does not determine what is vanilla or kinky, acts do and in my experience, I was enjoying both oral and anal with 100% vanilla guys in my teens, which was also 70's. Granted some of them were more adventurous in that they were happy to try something other than straight missionary, but they were far from kinky or even suportive of such ideals, and those I know still, are still in the vanilla camp.

Catalina

 

[pomocourtesan]

-----

 

[FurryFury]

-----

Why the erase? I thought you had a good point.

Fury

 

[RJMasters]

RJ, you said,

RJ: //A major aspect of D/s type relationships are about control and the feeling of being owned, hence the name Dominant/Submissive. This is not part of a normal vanilla marraige where the partners make love to each other for the sake of love and pleasure. Part of what makes D/s sex IS the element of control or to say it another way...power exchange.

//For two people to experience fully what power exchange is...it first requires that both are in the know. That means that both partners with full knowledge of what is happening give their consent. When both partners or one partner is not in on it, then there cannot be a full expereince that is the same or equal to the power excahnge which does occur between two people who know what it is theiy are consenting to.

//Is there power exchange in those relationships which only one partner is in the know and the other is not? Yes there is. Is it the same? IMO no. In such instances, the power exchange, is only coming from one half of the relationship. the other person in the relationship has no idea what is going on, but does what they can because they love their spouse. Notice I said they do what they do because they love their spouse not because they want to control them or because they want to feel owned. It is for that reason they cannot fulfill their part of the power exchange back, because its not about control or surrendure for them. Their attitude and motivation is vanilla. A person can be as dominating as they wish to a vanilla wife or a wife can be as submiissive as they want to her vanilla husband...or Wife can be as dominanting to her vanilla husband or a husband can be submissive to his vanilla Wife...in all these cases, what is missing? two things are missing. 1. Knowing that the other person doesn't truly understand what you are giving to them of your self. 2. Never recieiving back from them what you truly need.

//So yes it matters alot that both people fully know that they are in a D/s relationship and consenting to the power exchange. It directly effects the attitude and the intent of what's taking place in the mind heart and body of the two people involved.//
-----

P: I read the above as similar, only RJ is asserting that 'full' or genuine power exchange requires both persons' awareness. He's willing to say there is some sort of attenuated power exchange, in the onesided case, but not the full monty. RJ makes his points clearly, here.

I trust my reading is correct, RJ?

With respect, I must disagree. The vanilla wife who acts for love, in carrying out her role in the dominant hubby scene, is involved in kinky sex of the DS or SM kind.

I maintain her thoughts of love, just as, in Alice's example, thoughts of pleasure and love, do not detract from the nature of the scene. On her knees, sucking cock in conformity to his desires, is submitting. Analogously, my control of my dog is objective; his 'love' for me, possibly a motivation, is neither here nor there (in the sense, I will assume, that he would obey, apart from loving).

All of this gets back to power, which has been dissected a bit earlier in the thread. So without getting too far into that, just let me say that IMO, objective is the way to go. Power involves the will and desires of one party are pre-eminently determining the course of things, through for example, that party's commanding and controlling. It's clear to an informed and perceptive outsider*, as for instance when your neighbor yells at his dog to get out of the street and come home. One needn't probe the doggy mind, and try to figure if he's 'exchanging' or simply thinking of obeying, or just thinking 'I better get my butt back', or indeed not thinking anything at all.

---
*P: There are certain qualifications I don't want to get into, such as levels: If I set up a scene in which I am bottom and being disciplined and controlled, that would look--if an observer had a narrow view--like I am being controlled by the other. However were this observer to have seen more, such as that I 'ordered' (specified) the scene, and that I handed the intended 'top' $200 to carry things out accordingly, he (observer) would clearly see the true or underlying direction of control.

====
P speculating about RJ's argement: Now, RJ might want to say, _leave aside the power issue, how can there be unthinking 'exchange'--any more than there can be unthinking purchase of a new car?_ (i.e. handing the money over, getting the car).

Pure responding: Well, I'd make the same argument as I did above. Many view relationships as involving 'quid pro quo,' as for example the rich guy has the 'trophy' and has the credit cards and his model wife gets the money and social status. Arguably every relationship has quid pro quo, and, upon considering the matter, it needn't be agreed--or articulated or even thought of. She just uses the credit cards, and shows up draped on his arm at parties, making him look like a powerful and successful man.

Again, observers can see these things: We say, to take another example, "She has traded independence for security:" IOW the relationship is apparently giving her security; so what is the 'quid pro quo'? further inspection would determine that he gets, 'in exchange' (quid pro quo), perhaps getting laid regularly and enthusiastically.

Anyway folks, those are my views. Vanilla or 'kinky' or 'dominating'(controlling) or acting sadistically-- are in the *doing*, at the root, not necessarily in the thinking. Not every self said (thinking that way) 'vanilla' is really such, just as a self said dom may in fact be PW'd.

I thank both of you for fine statements of your views, and for reading this response, if you've gotten this far.

J.

Pure,

I would love to carry on a discussion about this particular subject with you in PM if you ever feel inclined or interested or perhaps a different thread so as to not hyjack this one. In response to your above...

P: "RJ is asserting that 'full' or genuine power exchange requires both persons' awareness. He's willing to say there is some sort of attenuated power exchange, in the onesided case, but not the full monty. RJ makes his points clearly, here.

I trust my reading is correct, RJ?"

RJ: Yes your reading is correct.

I don't really disagree with anything you posted as I know some do treat relationships on a "quid pro quo" basis. I would only add, there are many who don't, or that the "quid pro quo" basis, is not enough to satisfy. I am not saying better or worse nor am I saying "genuine" or "false", I am saying there is difference and distinction.

A president of a company can make a decsion about a company poilcy, and he/she may not care a lick weather the employees agree or even understand the decision, she/he only expects compliance. And this kind of executive power is, and can rightly be, a form of dominant expression. One could even go so far as to say that employee compliance(in order to continue recieveing a paycheck) in its own way would constitute completing the circuit as far as power exchange goes on a quid pro quo basis.


A distinction I would like to make is, one has to do with finding satisfaction through the expression of ones own dominance via executive decsion where the other finds satisfaction in the effects of their dominance on the other person's thoughts, emotions and behavior.

The former is as you say....it requires nothing more than yelling at a dog to get out of the street and it has its own kind of satisfaction when the dog obeys. But this analogy falls short in explaining the other types of satisfaction which comes from the distinction I am making, because a dog is not a human being and therefore "incapable of those kinds of exchanges". Since you used the dog as a representative of a person that I claimed as being one who is un-knowingly particpating in a relationship of power exchange, I will also say its true a person who unkonowingly particpates is incapable of these kinds of exchanges.

As long as the top-brutish-tyrannosaurus rex is satisfied and the other person continues to blindly concede, then I don't see a problem(and to this point I agree with what you wrote). However if a larger spectrum of dominance and submission is desired to be explored and experienced, I say it requires the knowing and willing particpation of both people involved.

 

[alice_underneath]

If John never grabs her head to control her movement, never growls instructions, never does anything other than lean back and moan & gasp in delight........ I would say that is an excellent example of vanilla sex.

However.....

As several people have noted on this thread, if John and Jane are a couple who normally engage in powerplay (in and/or out of the bedroom), then I would say that what's going on in their heads would most likely negate the 'vanilla' aspect of the scene.

Basically you're saying it's vanilla if the two think so. Were they engaged in 'powerply', something else --power related-- would likely be on their minds, and that would make it Dominance/Submission. Is this a fair summary.

Not exactly, no.

The concrete example was intended to show intimacy with no overt control or sadomasochistic play of any kind. The point of my caveat at the end was to take into account scenarios such as the following.

He has previously provided explicit instructions (e.g.: oral pleasure must include a, b, or c and must never include x, y, or z). If she fails to follow the instructions, there will be negative consequences for her failure to do so.

That's just one example of a mental aspect that would negate the 'vanilla' nature of what's going on (in my opinion).

Myself I prefer an objective definition of either 'vanilla' (straight, conventional) or bent/deviate/DS/SM. If the fellow ties her--consensually--to the bedpost and whips her till she writhes and rubs off on the post, it does not matter if both are thinking of Jesus; it's still deviate or SM.

Your thinking is along the lines of RJ, below.

Perhaps I should clarify my point of view.

Consider the following possibilities:

a) no D/s, no SM

b) D/s but no SM

c) SM but no D/s

d) D/s and SM

In my opinion, only (a) is vanilla sex.

Many view relationships as involving 'quid pro quo'

I believe the law of the quid pro quo applies to relationships as well as individual sexual encounters.

This law can get you physical participation, but it may not be enough to get the mental/emotional reaction you crave.

Let's take your tying to the bedpost & whipping example. A guy might be able to get me to consent to this (either with an enormous amount of cash or affection and appreciation for my sacrifice in the context of a long-term and deeply loving relationship).

But he can't make me enjoy the whipping if I am not a masochist.

So - if his particular need is to be with a woman who takes it and likes it, the quid pro quo won't be enough to get him what he wants (in my particular case).

Whether he's getting everything he wants or not, though, I'd agree with you that the encounter is not vanilla.

Alice

 

[Pure]

hi alice,

you said,

Perhaps I should clarify my point of view.

Consider the following possibilities:

a) no D/s, no SM

b) D/s but no SM

c) SM but no D/s

d) D/s and SM

In my opinion, only (a) is vanilla sex.

I have no problem with the above; as I read it, youre saying that 'vanilla' implies a (relative) absence of deviation or perversity.

My point was a little different. These practices associated with the capital letters have objective definitions. Taking "S" (in DS) --if you're subjugated, you're under someone's command and control, and even an observer can often see it. If you want to think of Jesus or wildflowers the whole time, as opposed to "I'm bottoming," that's not a crucial consideration


AU: Let's take your tying to the bedpost & whipping example. A guy might be able to get me to consent to this (either with an enormous amount of cash or affection and appreciation for my sacrifice in the context of a long-term and deeply loving relationship).

But he can't make me enjoy the whipping if I am not a masochist.

So - if his particular need is to be with a woman who takes it and likes it, the quid pro quo won't be enough to get him what he wants (in my particular case).

This is the old chestnut, does a sadist *really want* a masochist?
It sounds a bit silly to say, "a sadist is one who needs to be with a women who takes pain and likes it." How about *doesn't like it*?

You're a masochist if the whipping makes you wet. Your thoughts are not the primary issue.

He's a sadist if the effects of the whipping--your indications of pain; writhing, protest-- make him hot.

Those are my opinions.