Defining "Vanilla"

[CutieMouse]

I see a lot of conversations at Fetlife about "OMG I could never go back to vanilla!" or "Would you date a vanilla?" or "I'm struggling so much maintaining my submissiveness when I have to be vanilla [at work/school/the grocery store/etc]..." and to be honest it just confuses the hell out of me.

I don't get the division of it all. When people talk about being submissive, but they have to do XYZ (you know... function as a person in society... with a job/family/etc) and what a struggle it is to reconcile those two worlds [vanilla/BDSM], it's like speaking Martian to me.

What is this "vanilla" stuff and why is it such a problem?

 

[midwestyankee]

This is a very good question. I've seen some of the same kinds of posts and they are pretty baffling.

One thing I know for sure: when you define yourself by how you differ from some other group, you end up with indefensibly fuzzy thinking about who you actually are. Those who see themselves as being "not vanilla" may not have a very good handle on who they are in total.

 

[rekane]

I can see having a hard time reconciling bdsm with a "vanilla" family, community, world that is not so open to it.
When I first discovered my bdsm side, it was hard to think something sans kink. I thought I could live it 24/7 if given the opportunity. I thought I would prefer it.
But it's like a shiny new toy, and I have to find a balance with my kinks and my "normal", "vanilla" life which was already firmly established. Not so easy at times.

 

[KoPilot]

I'm curious about responses to this, too. I've noticed lots of discrimination as well: lots of "Kinksters are smarter/more enlightened/more progressive/more self-aware/etc." coming from everywhere. So, even though, within the community you're allowed to be whoever you're wired to be, vanilla people aren't allowed to be wired vanilla. They've got to be "prudish", "uncreative", "conformist" or other negative things, and associating with them is seen as a chore.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think the two big draws are;

a guarantee of personal attention, and

limited and well-defined relationship roles.

Life is simpler. Or it seems to be.

eta and also, the sense of self-righteousness that comes from being part of an embattled minority-- great fun, for someone who wasn't born into one.

 

[eastern sun]

If you've repressed your sexuality, a lot of energy is released when you finally find the courage, key, partner, (whatever), to express it. (At least that's how I interpret sub frenzy.)

I think a lot of those conversations are driven by that previously repressed energy when either a) it's just been discovered, i.e. "I'm never going back" or b) the speaker has cut themselves off from previous activities because they have decided not to reconcile this new energy with old patterns i.e. "I'm different/better/freer/more aware").

 

[ownedsubgal]

i define vanilla basically as "socially acceptable within the mainstream culture," and i don't get why so many seem to look down upon it...it is my dream to be "vanilla"...for my personality, relationship and way of life to just be accepted by society at large. for it to be no biggie. that would be frickin awesome!

unfortunately, i'm not vanilla (although i do hold out hope that our society may someday evolve in such a way that this may change).

as for people who go on about the division between their "vanilla" life and their bdsm or D/s life, it confuses me too. for some folks obviously these are roles they step into and out of...they are not set personality traits or ways of being. therefore, they are always making a mental shift between their "normal" self and their "kinky" self, and trying to balance the two worlds. sounds like a heck of a lot of stress and confusion. i can't relate to the feeling of living in two worlds, or of having these separate "faces" as sb put it the other day. i don't understand the concept of suddenly no longer being submissive or dominant because you are at work, or the grocery store, or hanging out with friends, or taking out the trash or whatever.

 

[rekane]

So, if I am understanding this correctly, people are presenting themselves as better than vanilla on fetlife?
Isn't it just different?
When I recognized some of this inner stuff, it was seriously all I could think about. I just assumed that's what the chatter was referring to.
It is hard to transition. Hasn't anyone else found that? I mean, I would love to fully embrace what I have discovered about myself, but I have a deeply established life that is based on who I was 20 years ago.
Yeah, straddling two worlds is difficult. But folding kink into something that is more traditional takes some time to figure out, doesn't it?

 

[KoPilot]

i define vanilla basically as "socially acceptable within the mainstream culture," and i don't get why so many seem to look down upon it...it is my dream to be "vanilla"...for my personality, relationship and way of life to just be accepted by society at large. for it to be no biggie. that would be frickin awesome!

unfortunately, i'm not vanilla (although i do hold out hope that our society may someday evolve in such a way that this may change).

I think the problem for you is that society generally tries to encourage people to be autonomous to an extent. Which, tbh, I think is for the best.

 

[seela]

I'm curious about responses to this, too. I've noticed lots of discrimination as well: lots of "Kinksters are smarter/more enlightened/more progressive/more self-aware/etc." coming from everywhere. So, even though, within the community you're allowed to be whoever you're wired to be, vanilla people aren't allowed to be wired vanilla. They've got to be "prudish", "uncreative", "conformist" or other negative things, and associating with them is seen as a chore.

I have often run into this as well. I find it really common for the D/s'ers to think their relationship requires more trust and more communication and therefore is somehow better and deeper than "plain ol' vanilla". I think in many cases the reason for it is that they're new to this all and are overly enthusiastic about everything. I've also talked with somebody, who said he categorically frowns upon vanilla people because they frown upon kinky folk. I found it a bit silly and a waste of time, but whatever, at least he had the decency to be upfront about the reasons.

I haven't had any problems with vanilla v. BDSM in my life. My personality with its submissive traits is there no matter what I do, the intensity of my submissiveness fluctuates, but it's still there. If someone has a problem with the way I conduct my relationship, I do not really care. They're not part of it, so why should they be bothered as long as I don't get my ass spanked in a broad daylight in front of dozens shocked people.

I can't really come up with many examples of "vanilla" norms being a problem in a normal day to day life. Hetero v. non-hetero and mono v. poly come to mind. A lot of D/s stuff can be done under the premise of one being a caring husband/wife/partner/whatever. It may not be the norm, but I really don't think it's something many people would have to explain to a great extent either. A lot of pain and reprimand stuff can be done discretely even in public, so no one else has to know.

I think a part of the problem some people have with "vanilla world" is that they feel like they should be able to say they're [add a label here] without anyone batting an eye. And if/when they tell people their chosen label, they get raised eyebrows. But things are changing, maybe the day will come, when telling you're someone's sadistic pet is just as normal as telling you're someone's wife.

And when people say that they can't imagine going back to vanilla, I've found they often actually mean they just don't want to give up the kinky sex.

 

[ownedsubgal]

And when people say that they can't imagine going back to vanilla, I've found they often actually mean they just don't want to give up the kinky sex.

yep, i think you're spot on there. it's always a privately embarrassing "duh" lightbulb moment for me when i finally realize that those discussions and debates are not about some deep internal conflict, or lifestyle philosophy, or self-awareness and acceptance...nope, they just mean the sex. does it make me weird and frigid that i like never assume they mean the sex? LOL

 

[midwestyankee]

yep, i think you're spot on there. it's always a privately embarrassing "duh" lightbulb moment for me when i finally realize that those discussions and debates are not about some deep internal conflict, or lifestyle philosophy, or self-awareness and acceptance...nope, they just mean the sex. does it make me weird and frigid that i like never assume they mean the sex? LOL

I don't think it's unusual. This may well not be your reason for failing to see the simplest solution to the "why are they saying these things" problem but I think that one possibility is the general desire to make of this thing that we do something that is complex and worthy and admirable. But most of all, complex and deep.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I see a lot of conversations at Fetlife about "OMG I could never go back to vanilla!" or "Would you date a vanilla?" or "I'm struggling so much maintaining my submissiveness when I have to be vanilla [at work/school/the grocery store/etc]..." and to be honest it just confuses the hell out of me.

I don't get the division of it all. When people talk about being submissive, but they have to do XYZ (you know... function as a person in society... with a job/family/etc) and what a struggle it is to reconcile those two worlds [vanilla/BDSM], it's like speaking Martian to me.

What is this "vanilla" stuff and why is it such a problem?

I take a leaf from Daniel Patrick Moynihan's book and call this phenomenon "defining vanilla down".

These people ARE vanillas, and BDSM is starting to become shorthand for "traditional sex roles".

 

[SimonBrooke]

I see a lot of conversations at Fetlife about "OMG I could never go back to vanilla!" or "Would you date a vanilla?" or "I'm struggling so much maintaining my submissiveness when I have to be vanilla [at work/school/the grocery store/etc]..." and to be honest it just confuses the hell out of me.

I don't get the division of it all. When people talk about being submissive, but they have to do XYZ (you know... function as a person in society... with a job/family/etc) and what a struggle it is to reconcile those two worlds [vanilla/BDSM], it's like speaking Martian to me.

What is this "vanilla" stuff and why is it such a problem?

OK, I'll bite.

Back last winter, I was at a ceilidh and danced with a lesbian friend a couple of times - someone I know and like, but didn't see as 'available' to me. Let's call her 'S'. She's a good friend, I like her very much - but I've always treated her in the way I treat my male friends. About a month ago, we were both at the same wee festival. Because I don't like crowds I'd set up my tent a good way from the main camp, in a nice wee spot. Because I know she doesn't like crowds either, I suggested she pitched hers down by mine. Apparently she saw that as making a move; apparently she had been thinking of me as interesting since the ceilidh.

A couple of days after the festival we met, and talked about mutual attraction. I said to her 'you need to know that I'm a sadist'. She thought about that and a few days later invited herself over for a meal, promising me a whole body massage and saying she might stay the night but wasn't sure. In the end, she gave me a lovely massage but decided not to stay, and in the next week she told me she'd definitely decided not to have sex with me because she couldn't cope with dark sex.

As I was at that point deep into the planning of the 'rape' I did ten days ago, I was honestly a bit relieved, because explaining that wasn't going to be easy!. I did the 'rape', and that has raised quite complicated emotional things for me. My 'victim' attracts me very much - but she is poly, and lives a very long way away. Let's call her 'B'. She's open to the idea we might play again, but it can at best be infrequently. She's said clearly that she'd prefer for me to have another relationship.

On Saturday, S and I went for a bike ride together. When we got back, she kissed me - not platonicly. So I said, 'OK, you need to know that I fucked a woman last weekend, and I'm not going to give her up'. S thought about that for maybe five minutes, then kissed me again, so I said 'let's go to bed', and we did. She stayed the night. I've since told B about S, and she approves. S is planning to stay the night again next Saturday.

B is happy to play very dark games - in fact, if I wasn't prepared to frighten her a lot and hurt her a bit, I definitely would not be able to keep her (don't know if I can anyway, but we'll see). S, on the other hand, will not even look in my toy-box when left in the room alone with it; she won't discuss what dark sex actually means, doesn't want to hear about it. She's honestly repelled, and says she doesn't understand how I (she knows I am a gentle person) can have this 'other side' to me. I've tried to explain that it isn't 'another side', it's integrally who I am; that it's the same me she knows well.

So, OK, what does all this say? Two women, both of whom I very much like, one here and available and keen but not kinked, one not here and only rarely available but very kinked. I can, it seems, have both. Each knows about the other, and accepts. But... B matters far more to me at this moment. And she matters far more precisely because with her I can express my whole self, whereas with S I must always hold back.

I'm asking myself whether, in fairness to S, I ought to tell her that I can't do the fuck-buddy thing with her. Because she is second-best. Because if I could have B as my full time live in lover I would jump at the chance, whereas I'd rather be celibate than have an exclusive relationship with S as she now is. Not because I don't like her - I like her immensely, and think we're compatible in every way except sexually. Of course, it's possible that over time I could introduce her gradually to the things she's so confident she wouldn't like; it's possible that if introduced gently and sensitively, she might find that she does like it.

But, I really, honestly feel that I would rather be celibate than be vanilla.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I don't think it's unusual. This may well not be your reason for failing to see the simplest solution to the "why are they saying these things" problem but I think that one possibility is the general desire to make of this thing that we do something that is complex and worthy and admirable. But most of all, complex and deep.

yeah, i'm definitely not one of those. life itself is complex and deep...being Dominant or submissive doesn't make it any more so. i think i get lost with those discussions because for me it's just not about "kinky sex." i wouldn't even define my sex life as kinky, but more than that, my way of life and personality do not revolve around sexuality. if someone does not actually identify as submissive or dominant in general, and these things are only kinks or expressions of sexuality for them, then i really don't see what the great struggle is. if anything those folks are lucky, it's cut and dry for them.

 

[Stella_Omega]

yep, i think you're spot on there. it's always a privately embarrassing "duh" lightbulb moment for me when i finally realize that those discussions and debates are not about some deep internal conflict, or lifestyle philosophy, or self-awareness and acceptance...nope, they just mean the sex. does it make me weird and frigid that i like never assume they mean the sex? LOL

In the eyes of some people who are all about the sex, yeah...

When most people talk about d/s...

It's sex.


Simobn, another reason why you might want to think twice about your lesbian fuck buddy is because she's a lesbian-- possibly good for fuck-buddying, but maybe not for a relationship. Learn when to say no, young man.

 

[Stella_Omega]

yeah, i'm definitely not one of those. life itself is complex and deep...being Dominant or submissive doesn't make it any more so. i think i get lost with those discussions because for me it's just not about "kinky sex." i wouldn't even define my sex life as kinky, but more than that, my way of life and personality do not revolve around sexuality. if someone does not actually identify as submissive or dominant in general, and these things are only kinks or expressions of sexuality for them, then i really don't see what the great struggle is. if anything those folks are lucky, it's cut and dry for them.

I agree. But I do have some notion of where this idea comes from, that one's sexual preferences have to be emblematic of something bigger and better than other people's.

I mean, I know that I was obsessed with sex and the varieties of sexual expression (doesn't that sound good?) as a teen and I've never really changed that. But I KNOW it's limiting. I do. Obsessions usually are, especially in a society that has little room for certain forms thereof-- if I'd obsessed about finance for instance, wow, I'd be hobnobbing with the great and wealthy right now.

I know that I, personally, get a bit defensive about it. I would love to live in a fantasy world where my sexuality was celebrated and accounted for part of my status. Public BDSM, with its munches and demos and play parties, fills that need for me and I am sure for a lot of other people like me.

 

[4bidnfruit]

I’m a bit confused as to why when someone says “vanilla,” people assume that it means this we all fit in this nice little box, but if you are “kinky,” than you can fit under any umbrella that you choose. There are people that believe giving a blowjob is kinky but I doubt giving one will put you into the “kinky” world.

I identify as a vanilla because that is my psychological state. It doesn’t mean that I don’t have my kinks as well. I just don’t believe that I am as sexually free as I once was. I could never role play rape, even with my husband, because at that moment of doubt, someone will get hurt. I don’t believe I’d do well in prison, especially in mourning. Perhaps, I still live in a world of denial but to me vanilla just means a safety net because at any moment, I can change my mind. I know that is the same for many in the BDSM world as well, but with all my ignorance about BDSM, I also believe there are certain expectations that go along with it and I don’t have the ability to play that way, but I don’t fit in that “vanilla” box.

I choose to live in my vanilla world but it doesn’t mean I am going to give up my Sprotsheets gear or anything else that we decide to play with. I trust my husband with my life and there are things that I would like to try but he won’t even consider because he doesn’t trust me to stay in the moment (that sounds terrible but it’s not as bad as it sounds). We identify as vanilla because that is where I feel safe, and it doesn’t come with expectations that I believe comes with BDSM.

Damn~ look at me, Judging the kinky world as they judge me. I should be ashamed.

 

[Keroin]

Weirdest analogy ever, perhaps…

Back in the day, when L and I used to jetski, everything we did was extreme. There was a small group of us that rode together and we would never think to invite a “normal” jetskiier along (OK, we did once and he lasted 5 minutes and ended up puking on the shore). What other people saw as crazy, we saw as normal. On many of our surf rides, it was common for every member of the group to have to be rescued at least once.

Eventually, looking at “normal” people riding was like, “What’s the point?” BORING.

Yeah, it was arrogant but it was also true. Without a high element of risk involved, the sport held no interest for us. And that also carried over to the rest of our lives. The desire to live harder, faster and more dangerously spilled out everywhere – it could be hard to contain at times.

I’ll get to the vanilla vs BDSM part, I promise.

I believe evolutionary selection has favoured risk takers to a certain degree. Sadly, we now live in a world where we are taught to fear just about everything. So we have this desire for risk that has been stifled. Most of us get our risk fixes in “safe” ways, such as rollercoasters and video games. Enter BDSM.

It’s dark, it’s dangerous, it’s attractive. And for those who are wired for it, once you get started you wonder how you lived without it. However, the level of risk can be moderated (as agreed to between partners) so it can still be safe. Win-win.

Suddenly you’re looking at the “vanilla” world as a total bore. Suddenly that part of your life wants to invade the rest of your life and it feels wrong to hold it back.

It didn’t happen to me. I don’t see life in terms of vanilla vs BDSM. But I get it. I still think – like my old jetskiing bias – that the “us vs them” mentality and the inability to reconcile the various factions of your life is a sign of immaturity. But for those awash in the new glow of something risky and exciting, it’s all but impossible to explain that.

And I could be talking completely out of my ass but it's kind of a theory I've developed over two years of observing various Litsters here.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I choose to live in my vanilla world but it doesn’t mean I am going to give up my Sprotsheets gear or anything else that we decide to play with.

just curious, what's "Sprotsheets gear?"

 

[ownedsubgal]

I know that I, personally, get a bit defensive about it. I would love to live in a fantasy world where my sexuality was celebrated and accounted for part of my status. Public BDSM, with its munches and demos and play parties, fills that need for me and I am sure for a lot of other people like me.

this makes sense, and i do think it's a wonderful thing that for so many people there is finally a safe and welcoming environment in which they can express their sexuality.

 

[BiBunny]

In the eyes of some people who are all about the sex, yeah...

When most people talk about d/s...

It's sex.

That confuses the hell out of me. If people mean kinky sex, then I wish they'd just SAY kinky sex. I don't even mean that in the "ooh, D/s is so pure and fantastic that we have to keep it up above all that dirty sex stuff" way that some folks you run across do. I just wish people would say what they mean and mean what they say!

 

[4bidnfruit]

just curious, what's "Sprotsheets gear?"

Just the name on our velcro cuffs and a few other things.

only they spell it sportsheets

 

[ownedsubgal]

That confuses the hell out of me. If people mean kinky sex, then I wish they'd just SAY kinky sex. I don't even mean that in the "ooh, D/s is so pure and fantastic that we have to keep it up above all that dirty sex stuff" way that some folks you run across do. I just wish people would say what they mean and mean what they say!

you and me both, but t'aint never gonna happen chickadee! even worse, these people assume that you don't say what you mean or mean what you say either. oy vey!

 

[ownedsubgal]

Just the name on our velcro cuffs and a few other things.

oh! thanks, just didn't want to be ignorant.