Defining "Vanilla"

[ownedsubgal]

kinky sex is just another term that has about a million and one different definitions and perceptions. i tend to think of it as sexual activities which in some way differ from the "norm"...whatever that is...that is mutually consenting and fun. a little spank, slap and tickle because it's what gets everyone's rocks off. i don't identify with the kink label just because of the fun/light-hearted implication of it. also the majority of the sex in my life is pretty "normal" activity-wise, i think...it's more the context that makes it kinda diff.

 

[Stella_Omega]

but...but...but then by your definition, my sex life is kinky. kinky! how DARE you?! *swoons gracefully*

your non-orgasmic, drop on demand, utterly about the master, handed to his friends, sex life?

naw. Nothing kinky there.

i tend to think of it as sexual activities which in some way differ from the "norm"...whatever that is...that is mutually consenting and fun. a little spank, slap and tickle because it's what gets everyone's rocks off. i don't identify with the kink label just because of the fun/light-hearted implication of it

Not all kink is about consensuality. it isn't always light hearted. The parameters are up to the individuals involved.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Hush, you're new here.



( your handle, gave me an earworm, BTW. Now I have to dig out my Who's Next CD.)

My apologies At least it didn't give you ear mites?

 

[YourCaptor]

Vanilla is like going back to windows 95, or VHS.

It's like omg what did we ever do before ____.

 

[Netzach]

Generally I interpret this as people getting out of shitty relationships and sowing wild oats and blaming the sexuality stylings for the relationship disaster while about to repeat most of the same things again.

Just my observations in the kink world. Relationships without power exchange or me fucking someone's holes aren't boring or inferior, it's just kind of sad that they leave this void for me.

 

[Keroin]

A label is a tool.

It helps us educate ourselves, it helps us find a sense of community. It shouldn't matter what labels we use, so long as it helps us get the job done to our satisfaction.

Jeez, it's not that hard, guise.

I get that. I understand the general use of labels.

What I don't understand is why anyone would feel frustrated simply because someone else, newbie or otherwise, presents themselves as D/s when, according to the general label, they are not.

What I've seen here is that a new person will post a very general question and then be asked for more and more specific information as the conversation evolves. This way we discover exactly what they are asking, framed in the context of their behaviour, and we advise accordingly. Often times, these people are brand new to BDSM and have no clue what any of the various labels mean (in any detail), so how could they possibly ask the proper question? ("Proper" as defined by us, I supposed).

Yes, there are some idiots and assholes but that's just a given on any forum.

I've actually felt more frustration (though admittedly I very seldom get frustrated to any degree here) dealing with some of the more experienced and well-defined posters than with any new and/or inexperienced folks.

 

[teknight]

I've actually felt more frustration (though admittedly I very seldom get frustrated to any degree here) dealing with some of the more experienced and well-defined posters than with any new and/or inexperienced folks.

Hey! No need to pick on the old people, the ones whose ways are set in stone.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Okay, I am not on Fetlife but I am guilty of saying "I'd never go back to being vanilla". It is just a lazy shorthand way of saying I will never go back to being in relationship that is not based in an overt exchange of power.

This.


But I also sort of understand CM's wondering about people who say that they struggle to reconcile their two worlds. It's something I've been thinking a lot about lately.

In an effort to overcome my anxiety and depression issues, I've been going to see a psychologist. We talk a lot about personal needs, the ones that all people have, for connection, meaning, integrity, peace, and how one feels when these needs are not being met.

Which got me to thinking. I'm happy within my personal relationship. Taking care of his needs, and submitting to him the way I do, takes care of my needs, and I'm happy.

Obviously, I can't do that with just anyone, in the so-called 'vanilla' world, so I need to adjust myself within that environment, to either ensure those needs are met, or be a little more content with the fact that they're not.

It's not so much about reconciling the two worlds, I am who I am no matter where I am, it's about reconciling different aspects of oneself.

I don't even know if that makes sense really.

 

[teknight]

This.


But I also sort of understand CM's wondering about people who say that they struggle to reconcile their two worlds. It's something I've been thinking a lot about lately.

In an effort to overcome my anxiety and depression issues, I've been going to see a psychologist. We talk a lot about personal needs, the ones that all people have, for connection, meaning, integrity, peace, and how one feels when these needs are not being met.

Which got me to thinking. I'm happy within my personal relationship. Taking care of his needs, and submitting to him the way I do, takes care of my needs, and I'm happy.

Obviously, I can't do that with just anyone, in the so-called 'vanilla' world, so I need to adjust myself within that environment, to either ensure those needs are met, or be a little more content with the fact that they're not.

It's not so much about reconciling the two worlds, I am who I am no matter where I am, it's about reconciling different aspects of oneself.

I don't even know if that makes sense really.

I'm sorry, but, I don't get this, and here's why: I know couples just like this, who are vanilla. They aren't even aware of D/s, collars and whatever other form of overtness, it's just how they are, how they interact.
I just can't relate to the notion, hence I don't get it. Do the labels change the relationship?

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

I'm sorry, but, I don't get this, and here's why: I know couples just like this, who are vanilla. They aren't even aware of D/s, collars and whatever other form of overtness, it's just how they are, how they interact.

Ummm, what?

 

[callinectes2]

I'm sorry, but, I don't get this, and here's why: I know couples just like this, who are vanilla. They aren't even aware of D/s, collars and whatever other form of overtness, it's just how they are, how they interact.
I just can't relate to the notion, hence I don't get it. Do the labels change the relationship?

You know, I started thinking about couples I know as I read Lizzie's post...my own parents came to mind first.

IMHO, this proves the notion that universal labels are BS. I use labels as a way to sort or arrange ideas and people in my mind but those definitions are meaningless to someone else.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Ummm, what?

lol, i didn't get the connection either. guess we missed something.

as far as people living with power dynamics without the D/s label...well duh, of course they do. i would describe most intimate relationships between two people as having some sort of D/s dynamic. the labels don't make you who you are, they are just descriptors. if i had been fortunate enough to have been born in a different sort of culture or perhaps a slightly different time period, then my Master and i could have much the same sort of relationship we have now, except it would be called "Husband and wife."

 

[Stella_Omega]

lol, i didn't get the connection either. guess we missed something.

as far as people living with power dynamics without the D/s label...well duh, of course they do. i would describe most intimate relationships between two people as having some sort of D/s dynamic. the labels don't make you who you are, they are just descriptors. if i had been fortunate enough to have been born in a different sort of culture or perhaps a slightly different time period, then my Master and i could have much the same sort of relationship we have now, except it would be called "Husband and wife."

You mean those days when the man owned his wife and everything she came with, had the right of life and death over her for no other reason than that he was born with a cock.

I'd have been dead in childbirth, most likely. Come to think of it, you probably would be too, or beaten to death in an effort to cure you of your "Melancholy," as depression and other mental disorders were known.

If I had lived, it would have been a lifetime of puzzled uncomprehending misery, hating myself for my unwomanly inward self, placed in the tender care of whatever Church official was around to perform exorcisms, or just relegated to some scullery or barn to fend for myself.

Here you are, living the life you want. You are fortunate, in that you had the freedom to choose it. Thank these times for birth control, too.

 

[where]

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.

I'm confused as to whether you are talking about vanilla here or some form of BDSM.

Ummm, what?

I think what Tek is saying, is that for a lot of people that would self identify as vanilla (if they knew the term even) they do a lot of the things that you mentioned. and some of them even have sex in positions other than the missionary. My suspicion is that the main difference is that in BDSM there is perhaps a self-awareness that allows for the understanding of the power dynamics, which vanilla relationships don't have because we have been socialised into our roles so completely we don't even see them as anything other than just us being 'us'.

 

[teknight]

I think what Tek is saying, is that for a lot of people that would self identify as vanilla (if they knew the term even) they do a lot of the things that you mentioned. and some of them even have sex in positions other than the missionary. My suspicion is that the main difference is that in BDSM there is perhaps a self-awareness that allows for the understanding of the power dynamics, which vanilla relationships don't have because we have been socialised into our roles so completely we don't even see them as anything other than just us being 'us'.

Sex positions beyond missionary?! You're making stuff up!
I dunno about this self awareness....what if it's just trying to live up to the labels?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm confused as to whether you are talking about vanilla here or some form of BDSM.

I'm talking about the people who proclaim their membership in the exalted company of BDSM.

I dunno about this self awareness....what if it's just trying to live up to the labels?

Um, sometimes. I've expressed curmudgeonly veiws about men who call themselves Doms when they are merely typically self-involved men.

I'm sure some people can be satisfied with wearing a label and never ever engaging in bondage... But BDSM is an active pursuit for most of us...

 

[ownedsubgal]

You mean those days when the man owned his wife and everything she came with, had the right of life and death over her for no other reason than that he was born with a cock.

yes, that sounds awesome to me, but it wouldn't even have to go quite that far. being black, it's kind of difficult to pinpoint some period in america's past which would have been ideal for both me and my Master as a black man. but this is fantasy we're talking about, right? but here in 2010 i would seriously love to live in the certain parts of the middle east...say saudi arabia or even uber-modern and snobbish qatar. it would be nice to "fit in." i really do have a pathetically passionate desire to be considered "vanilla" as opposed to this weird, pervy freak.

don't you ever fantasize about a different place and time? just imagine if you were born in 2090...imagine how accepted you would be from day one, and the opportunities which would be open to you as a given. yes, both you and i can get by and find our peace or happiness or whatever we're after here and now...but wouldn't it be nice if it weren't so flippin' hard?

 

[Stella_Omega]

yes, that sounds awesome to me, but it wouldn't even have to go quite that far. being black, it's kind of difficult to pinpoint some period in america's past which would have been ideal for both me and my Master as a black man. but this is fantasy we're talking about, right?

Boy oh boy, I'll say it's fantasy!

You would have to go further back, to pre-1700's, when the Moors ruled the middle East (or whenever that was, my dates are fuzzy) Then your Master could have been a Calif or a warlord or something, and you could be his tribute slave, traded to him by the King of France.

but here in 2010 i would seriously love to live in the certain parts of the middle east...say saudi arabia or even uber-modern and snobbish qatar. it would be nice to "fit in." i really do have a pathetically passionate desire to be considered "vanilla" as opposed to this weird, pervy freak.

I know. So do I in some ways. But I have to say I never ever even considered the possibility of being widely accepted as an out queer. I feel lucky to be able to accept myself, and be accepted by a smallish group of people.

don't you ever fantasize about a different place and time? just imagine if you were born in 2090...imagine how accepted you would be from day one, and the opportunities which would be open to you as a given. yes, both you and i can get by and find our peace or happiness or whatever we're after here and now...but wouldn't it be nice if it weren't so flippin' hard?

yeah, I fantasize about meeting Doctor Frankenfurter and taking a turn on the slab.

I do hope that genderfluid folk will have better opportunities for self fulfilment in 2090.

 

[where]

Sex positions beyond missionary?! You're making stuff up!
I dunno about this self awareness....what if it's just trying to live up to the labels?

seriously, dude! it was on jeremy kyle!

yes, that sounds awesome to me, but it wouldn't even have to go quite that far. being black, it's kind of difficult to pinpoint some period in america's past which would have been ideal for both me and my Master as a black man. but this is fantasy we're talking about, right? but here in 2010 i would seriously love to live in the certain parts of the middle east...say saudi arabia or even uber-modern and snobbish qatar. it would be nice to "fit in." i really do have a pathetically passionate desire to be considered "vanilla" as opposed to this weird, pervy freak.

don't you ever fantasize about a different place and time? just imagine if you were born in 2090...imagine how accepted you would be from day one, and the opportunities which would be open to you as a given. yes, both you and i can get by and find our peace or happiness or whatever we're after here and now...but wouldn't it be nice if it weren't so flippin' hard?

I fantasize about being born in a different time, but I figure that I'd still fit no better (or worse) than I do now. maybe square pegs are born and not made.

and ya know, as someone who I suppose would be considered vanilla by most on here, it really isn't that much easier or better when you get down to the day to day living of it. in fact with your choice to live within a clearly defined role you perhaps have it easier than your vanilla counterparts who have to negotiate the conflicts of the socialization of traditional gender roles and (post?) feminism.

 

[teknight]

seriously, dude! it was on jeremy kyle!

NOwai!

I fantasize about being born in a different time, but I figure that I'd still fit no better (or worse) than I do now. maybe square pegs are born and not made.

and ya know, as someone who I suppose would be considered vanilla by most on here, it really isn't that much easier or better when you get down to the day to day living of it. in fact with your choice to live within a clearly defined role you perhaps have it easier than your vanilla counterparts who have to negotiate the conflicts of the socialization of traditional gender roles and (post?) feminism.

Wouldn't that same stuff still apply under kink- gender roles and whatnots? Wouldn't post feminism just mean there are more labels out there for those uncomfortable with the old ones?

 

[where]

NOwai!

Wouldn't that same stuff still apply under kink- gender roles and whatnots? Wouldn't post feminism just mean there are more labels out there for those uncomfortable with the old ones?

yeahwai!


well I figure that if you are happy with the old stereotypes then you can discount the feminist imperative, but for nilla women they have to reject the socialisation AND try to conform with the feminist ideal. except it's way more complicated.

 

[teknight]

yeahwai!


well I figure that if you are happy with the old stereotypes then you can discount the feminist imperative, but for nilla women they have to reject the socialisation AND try to conform with the feminist ideal. except it's way more complicated.

I admit I'm in over my head. Care to say that in English, please?

 

[where]

I admit I'm in over my head. Care to say that in English, please?

women are socialized into roles which are basically built around nurturing. think the kind of madmen 1950s housewife stereotype. but since the 1960s women also have also been told that this previous role was a result of them being oppressed by men and so they need to work on a footing which puts them as equal to men and that includes them doing stuff men do and conversely men should also do stuff women traditionally did like housework, childrearing, cooking etc.

so a vanilla woman is raised into the old role but also told she has to conform to the new role of 'equal' which creates conflict. The non-vanilla woman can just ignore the later feminist ideals... actually, I think I've talked myself up my arse and lost my thread.

 

[teknight]

women are socialized into roles which are basically built around nurturing. think the kind of madmen 1950s housewife stereotype. but since the 1960s women also have also been told that this previous role was a result of them being oppressed by men and so they need to work on a footing which puts them as equal to men and that includes them doing stuff men do and conversely men should also do stuff women traditionally did like housework, childrearing, cooking etc.

so a vanilla woman is raised into the old role but also told she has to conform to the new role of 'equal' which creates conflict. The non-vanilla woman can just ignore the later feminist ideals... actually, I think I've talked myself up my arse and lost my thread.

So, non-vanilla=old school (ha! Old Guard )?
Thanks for explaining...as for the confusion...I've been known to have that effect on women...

 

[Stella_Omega]

women are socialized into roles which are basically built around nurturing. think the kind of madmen 1950s housewife stereotype. but since the 1960s women also have also been told that this previous role was a result of them being oppressed by men and so they need to work on a footing which puts them as equal to men and that includes them doing stuff men do and conversely men should also do stuff women traditionally did like housework, childrearing, cooking etc.

so a vanilla woman is raised into the old role but also told she has to conform to the new role of 'equal' which creates conflict. The non-vanilla woman can just ignore the later feminist ideals... actually, I think I've talked myself up my arse and lost my thread.

Or just ignore the old ideal nurturing role.

Or combine a few aspects of each.

Whatever way it works for her.