Is this a display of some herpes pus or what?

[KillerMuffin]

Actually cym, I'd like to change that.

You didn't make me angry. You hurt my feelings and I felt the need to get defensive.

 

[cymbidia]

I can orgasm without pain. Can you?

Yes. I can. And you fucking well know it.

And i told you: I wasn't talking to you.

I was talking to people that do not have the depth of understanding about this issue that you do, people who do not yet understand the subtleties of gradations involved in the idea of pain and pleasure being so closely entwined that for some of us, there's no difference sometimes. I was trying to make it all make some kinda sense to people for whom this stuff is a new idea - not to people who already understand it.

You know this kinda thing is hideously complex to try to explain, even for people who have a clear understanding of how and why it's important to them.

I wasn't talking down to you at all.
I don't do that.
I chose my words carefully, so that they would have the greatest chance to be meaningful to those i most wanted to hear them - and that group didn't include you. You're past this.

I don't know why you took such umbrage.
However, my friend, i'd repeat every single one of my words if i felt them necessary to help someone else begin to understand this foreign-to-them concept of pain and pleasure being to entwined, just as i used words like these to help you once begin along a path toward an understanding of this idea, too.

 

[cymbidia]

Muff, i didn't see your last post before i posted that up there.
Gods i gotta start checking that beofre i post something that took me some time to think through and word carefully!


I am sorry i hurt your feelings.
I hate that i hurt your feelings.

I knew the "nillas scared of sensation" thing had the possibility to be offensive but i put it in there deliberately because i wanted something in there to be a 'sit up straight and mutterwhat the fuck...?' kinda statement.

Look.
I post long boring diatribes that almost no one ever reads.
We all know that.

This subject is close to my heart.
This subject is important to me.

I wanted some of it... dare i hope, much if it... to get read by those who most needed to read it. If that meant i had to poke them a bit to get their attention, then so be it.

However, i really didn't mean to hurt *your* feelings, most of all. I do not think you or any nilla is "terrified, afraid, or repressed" simply because they like what they like sexually and it's different than what i like. I know we all like different stuff. I embrace that idea. I think people are "terrified, afraid, or repressed" on an individual basis, as individual peoplel, not (never, ever, ever) as whole groups of people.

And Muff? You're right. Physiologically, there is no such thing as "good" pain, no such thing as "pleasurable" pain. But what you might feel as "pain" is a thing i might not feel in that way, hence it is not "pain" to me and my body does not respond to it as such.

Additionally, i don't think i've said that pain and pleasure are flip sides to each other physiologically. Personally, for me, to me, in some situations, they are one and the same so why would i say otherwise to you?

I understand you, too, Muff. Really. Everyone like me has to understand you in order to be able to survive in a world that persists in thinking we're dangerous freaks and would decide that we're not fit to teach science to thier children, should the truth of our sexuality be known.

 

[Never]

Cymbidia:
"Why?
Cuz she likes the look.
Cuz someone dared her.
Cuz her Dom/me wanted her to do it.
Cuz she got started and just sorta kept going.
Cuz she got hooked on the rush of the thing.
There are as many reasons “why” as there are people who have piercings and tats. "

Cuz she got drunk, smoked a little joy stick and popped some X then thought, "You know what wouldl be really cool?"

 

[Guest]

The blanket statements about all "nillas" annoy me, cym. You've done it several times before. I don't try to define all people that differ from me in a simple sentence, and I don't see why you feel the need to make sweeping statements about others when describing your own reactions and sensations. Just like people in the BDSM lifestyle cover a spectrum, so do people that choose a different path from yours.

I think we've clearly established that I'm one of the "nillas" (a term I still abhor for its dominant meaning - bland, plain - but one that I will use because of the context it provides and its accepted use on Lit). I had an adverse reaction as well to the picture, but I was in no way shocked or disgusted by the display. My reaction boiled down to "high maintenance." My first thought was how difficult hair removal would be. She would either have to bathe in Magic to get that smooth, or she's invested tens of hours and hundreds of dollars in permanent hair removal. Plus the amount and the proximity of the piercings would make movement difficult (I kept imagining reinforced undies - kinda like a guy's sports cup). If this is a temporary display, then she has to spend considerable time in a sterile environment inserting and removing the piercings.

This simply isn't my cup of tea because the time, effort, and money would outweigh the benefits of the artwork and derived sensations. For the woman in the picture, obviously she reached the opposite conclusion. But this does not mean that I'm "scared of sensations" because I choose not to do this. There are as many reasons not to do something as there as to do it.

 

[Mischka]

Doh! That was me.

 

[GeorgiaPeach69]

Look.
I post long boring diatribes that almost no one ever reads.
We all know that.

Not true, cymbidia.

We've never communicated here, but I feel I know at least a fraction of your inner self through your posts. I feel the same about many of the other members here.

I don't find them to be long boring diatribes at all. I find them enlightening.

 

[BlondGirl]

Temporary piercings are rare. Most people do not go for this. If they are going to be pierced, they are not going to waste the pain of that. (Most piercings are painful--just not much getting around that. )

The top two rings there are in fully healed holes. The tissue is very demonstrative of that. Some of the lower ones may be fresh--her lower labia are swollen in a way that is indicative of trauma. (Where is the blood though? Perhaps it is days old.)

Cym, I would never ever assume that someone removes genital piercing just to get through the metal detectors. Remember that rule of not removing any unhealed piercing due to its tendency to close up quickly? The rule applies for all piercings. Besides, it is tricky enough for me to change either of my rings, I can't imagine trying to do that in any public restroom.
As far as leaving them out for any length of time, my piercer told me to remove my rings at the biggining of hard labor and put them back in immediately after the placenta is delivered. No more than a few hours or getting them back in would be impossible and it would take a repiercing at a later date. If I had them for several years, it might be different. I did remove my labial ring after a year for some rough SM play and it was hell getting the thing back in--this was maybe a hour of no ring in place. Bleeding did occur at the site when putting the ring back in. This same thing occurred with a cartilage ear piercing for me too. After a year, I decided to change the thing and was unsuccessful at getting another in. I elected not to repierce it.

The cleanliness issue is certainly a valid one. No amount of soap and water would help in the public bathroom with the sink near the door and the toilet stall 20 feet away or on a camping trip or stranded in an airport overnight to clean off after each time she pisses or changes her maxipad. Perhaps if the woman has regular access to a bidet it would be different. Who knows.

Hhhmmm...I was just wondering if she could wear a thong or if it would get hung up on the rings. Of course, a thong would probably just irritate that whole monster herpes site though, right?

 

[KillerMuffin]

I'm sorry, cym.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

I hesitate to post on this thread because, as a rule, I try to avoid posting my opinions on threads debating topics of which I'm less than adequately informed. But as you can see, I do make an exception occasionally.

I'll preface my comments by saying that I don't know all that much about the BDSM lifestyle compared to most who post here seriously on the topic (however, just by virtue of spending so much time here on this board, I expect I know far more about BDSM than the average person).

That having been said, here are a few observations/considerations about this debate.

Like Mischka and KM, I'm a bit put off by some BDSMers attitudes toward those of us who don't participate in BDSM. The argument over the word "nilla" is emblematic. As Mischka pointed out well, "nilla" is short for "vanilla" which connotes plainness. Perhaps those within the BDSM community who use "nilla" mean it as a cute little title, but it comes off as something of a pejorative.

Within the larger community, I'm sure that Cym is right. BDSM is very misunderstood and considered a deviant and immoral lifestyle if not a frank mental illness. Within Literotica, however, BDSM enjoys a sexy-chic status. Although not as well-regarded as female bisexuality perhaps (there's nothing hotter than a woman who loves women here), BDSM is not only "mainstream" here, but it's hip. As such, terms like 'nilla come off as pejoratives to those of us who aren't into BDSM. At literotica being called a deviant is far less of a put-down than being called plain and ordinary (again, the connotation of "nilla"). After all, this is a place designed to celebrate deviance (either that or to destroy the idea of deviance. but that's an argument for another diatribe. )

The ultimate put-down here is to be called sexually unliberated. (Consider that the last thing a guy wants to be known as here is a "once-a-week, with lights outs, missionary position man". For a woman it's a frigid sex-hater who grudgingly submits weekly to the missionary man). The term "nilla" implies not only that its referrent doesn't do BDSM, but that he/she is unliberated, sexually unsophisticated, a sexual rube. I have no doubt that this condescension is unintentional. Cym obviously has no ill will for us, but I can't get past the sense from some of what she posts that she regards herself as a step above us on the ladder of sexual evolution.

If I'm wrong please correct me.

 

[pabloback]

there does seem to be a little bit of paranoia creeping into this thread , although i may not be actually turned on by bdsm and multiple piercings i am intrigued and fascinated by the debate , there is however , more to my life than just my sexuality . it does appear that some people allow their sexuality to go way beyond the obsessional and become the be all and end all of their lives . those that have never experienced such things dont understand the fascination to those that do. those that have dont seem to understand that others may not be the slightest bit interested , like many fetishes there is a proportion of exhibitionism involved , if there wasnt why was the photo in question taken in the first place. we are all different and want or need different things from life . there is no need for people to feel so hostile /defensive /aggressive about this subject on this board
ps i dont like vanilla , i prefer chocolate

 

[SilverVeil]

OHMYGOD

I take back the question that was here ... I was just rather shocked at first.

And I think the thing in the ass is also a piercing ?

 

[RisiaSkye]

There is choice involved in pain and things that people do to disfigure themselves. However, the fact is that it won't be accepted or understood in mainstream because a liking for pain is abberrant behavior. It's simpy physiology why it is. Pain is the signal that something is physically wrong. It requires that the person's body chemically react and psychologically react to change so that whatever is causing the pain is removed. That is the purpose of pain. Whatever else pain is used for is abberrant behavior because it is counterproductive to a person's physiological well being. This is not lifestyle or choice. This is a fact of existence.

I accept that you are a masochist and that you choose to be so. I also do not judge you as a freak because you are a masochist. However, because I love you and because you are my friend does not mean that I will consider masochism to be something that's in the normal range of human behavior because, quite simply, it's not. In my view masochism is not "normal" behavior because of physiology, not psychology.

While the vanilla-intellectual crew is complaining about being called *gasp* vanilla, take a look at this statement, above. Then imagine being consistently marked as dangerously deviant...and then having the very same people get irritated at you for calling them, well, vanilla.

KillerMuffin is generally a very accepting and open minded person, but her response to BDSM sensation play is typical of even the most educated: those who enjoy "pain" are aberrant, strange, deviant, wrong. Many even call it mentally ill. While you're getting hot under the collar about maybe being called sexually dull by someone who's not into your trip, take a second to consider that many of us continually hear much worse about our own sexuality, even from those of you who are SO offended at being called vanilla.

I rarely get pulled into these kinds of debates, because they go nowhere. We all (should) know that we aren't going to change each other's sexuality. But the kind of blindness I see here is really disheartening.

News flash: physiology is a poor gauge of human sexuality. Anal sex is physiologically aberrant. Oral sex is scientifically questionable, and according to the science of psychology, indicative of stunted emotional development. Incest is physiologically responsible for a host of mental deficiencies and physical mutations, but is the single most popular fantasy.

Sex isn't a science.

If you want to have a semantic debate about the use of vanilla, consider it a vestige of protection from those who would come after lifestylers with science, law, and their own prejudices to lock us up, marginalize us from society, and keep us away from them. All because of how we like our sex. "Vanilla" is a widely-used term used to connote sexualities of a socially accepted type. It is also, (emphatically NOT coincidentally) the most popular ice cream in the store. Get the point?

If you feel judged for being called popular but not unusual, I hope you'll forgive me for not bursting into tears over your plight.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Er, Risia, hate to break it to you, but pain is a physiological occurrance, not a sexual one.

Sex isn't science.

Pain is physiology.

I'm not seeing the problem.

I'm not discussing the psychology of pain because the psychology of pain isn't about the sensation itself, it's about the reaction to it.

I'm discussing the physiology of pain because the physiology of pain is what the sensation actually is.

Pain is not psychological. Pain is physiological. It's nothing more than a neurochemical. It's like calling adrenaline or seratonin psychological.

You're confusing sex with pain. Pain is a sensation, what you do with it is where sex comes in. Pain is a purely physical, hence purely physiological thing. Your reaction to it is purely psychological.

Why am I the only one who seems to understand this because I know I'm not wrong about it.

 

[RisiaSkye]

KM, you're not breaking anything to me; you're just not getting my point. Physiology is a poor gauge of the appropriateness of sexual behavior; scientific marginalization is also a common hiding place for the more garden-varieties of intolerance. (Think eugenics--hey, that was science, right?) The science of pain is not nearly as cut an dried as you make it sound, either, but that's a rant for another thread.

On topic: I'll try to stick to debating the validity of using physiology as a barometer of appropriate sexual response.
Rather than retype my examples, I've posted them below.

News flash: physiology is a poor gauge of human sexuality. Anal sex is physiologically aberrant. Oral sex is scientifically questionable, and according to the science of psychology, indicative of stunted emotional development. Incest is physiologically responsible for a host of mental deficiencies and physical mutations, but is the single most popular fantasy.

Sex isn't a science.

I think I see where the confusion comes in: because I made fun of the psyche community's response to oral sex. If you prefer, we can discuss the medical complications of oral-genital contact, thus sticking to physiology.

BTW, nothing personal, Muff. You're speaking, it seems, for many. You just do it more coherently, and so you're easier to respond to than some others.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

If you feel judged for being called popular but not unusual, I hope you'll forgive me for not bursting into tears over your plight.

Cheerfully forgiven.

There's no reason to get into a tiff about this Risia. This is a discussion, not a tearful appeal for people to "understand me". If I ever get seriously upset by anything anyone says to me here, it's my responsibility to adjust my attitude rather than their responsibility to mend their words. Nevertheless, I'm puzzled by what seems to me to be a peeved reaction from you.

To begin with, you're absolutely right about the "big picture". Within the large world we all operate, I'm mainstream - relatively ordinary - and by most conventional standards a model man. I feel society owes me very little I haven't been given.

I find it interesting that you're so dismissive of my argument, though. Generally, humanists like yourself bend over backwards to accomodate other people's sensitivities. For example, American descendents from Africa have chosen to emphasize their continent of origin rather than their skin color and polite society has accomodated them. We usually refer to them as "African-American" rather than "black" (and before this it was "black" replacing "negro").

People on this board are generally even more sensitive to others' sensitivies. Furthermore, since I've known you, I've found you to be among the most reasonable, good-natured, and compassionate of what is generally an above-average group of folks. In light of this, why are you so persistent in referring to us as "vanilla" when we've provided good reason why we find the term offensive?

Is it because people in the mainstream shouldn't be afforded the extra measure of sensitivity given to persecuted minorities. Do our large numbers and cultural hegemony raise the threshold for sensitivity? (I'm not being rhetorical here. I'm asking a legit question.) More to your post, must I prove some sort of harm from persecution before I'm worthy of your sympathy or consideration? From your post it would seem so.

Even without your tears or sympathy, I'm quite alright of course. No one is trying to marginalize me and yes, I agree with you that that makes a difference. However, I do ask something of you. I ask that you apply to me the same standard of consideration that you would have all of us give you.

This, of course, is just another way of phrasing the golden rule. Another way to express this same idea is (to paraphrase Kant): "Act as if your every action were to become a universal law".

In light of that principle I ask you - is stubbornly refusing to stop using a term that knowingly offends another human being a principle that you would have us all live by?

 

[KillerMuffin]

I think we're not connecting at all on this masochism thing. It's sexual to you because you use it in sex. It's physiological to me because it's destructive to the organsim. You're talking psychology. Pain is not sexual. Reaction to pain is sexual. In some instances, physiology is the best barometer for abnormal behavior because psychology is subjective.

About the vanilla thing where I, once again, overreacted to cymbidia, I'll just put it bluntly.

Being called vanilla or 'nilla or even obliquely referred to as 'nilla is offensive as hell. Not because it refers to popular or mainstream but because it's highly insulting. Vanilla is plain. Vanilla is unimaginative. Vanilla is boring. I'm sure you can see the connection. I hate it now and I've always hated it. I'd rather be call a fucking wetback bitch than vanilla.

Jargon use within a community is fine, but it should stay there.

 

[cellis]

Well, now I feel I must put my 2 cents worth in... LOL and may have done so earlier if I had know about how exciting this thread was...

I am 47 years old... way too soon to be 48 and for my birthday I am getting a hood piercing... this is something I have been thinking about for months and months... something I really want... I have often admired others genital piercings... but would I do something like shown in the picture... no... I really don't think so, but do I understand it? YES... and the tat is fantastic... but I would not do that either... although I would be more inclined do have the tat done than all those piercings.... having a couple already and thinking maybe about having a third done... (I was 32 when I got my first tat).... afterall piercing and tatooing to me are a lot less painful than waxing the genital area...

And about the pain... I won't debate pschology versus physiology... having a major in one and a minor in the other... I feel that I am know what I am talking about... People, being who they are, are all different, with very different needs... and BDSM is not just about pain and sex... many of us crave the sensations... need the sensations that take us to a different level beyond the "norm" (and I cringe when I use that word) or that which is socially acceptable... some like soft and gentle and some like it rough and wild... there are all kinds of people in the BDSM community as well... there are those who seek the sensual sensations and find that a slap or two on the ass heightens that sensation and their sexuality, to those who seek and need extreme pain...

More than anyone who has ever felt the need for those heightened sensations can understand is the whole process of coming to terms with a personal acceptance that there is not something "sick", "abnormal" or "broken" within oneself.... How can I possible expect someone who does not have these needs to understand them, when coming to terms with oneself and accepting ones needs is such a painful, personal process... And I won't even mention that long walk through shame and feelings that there is something so inadequate about you as a person...

What I will say is that whatever the costs to me personally, the journey has been worth it... do I want or need acceptance from others... no... do I expect understanding... not in the least... I am simply who I am... I have found a degree of freedom in my sexuality that I cannot describe...

And to the person who asked... yes I can have regular sex... yes I can orgasm without pain... sometimes more than once... the question should be... why would I want to...

 

[pabloback]

this all boils down to my argument that anything can be construed as an insult ,it is not the word itself it is the empaphasis put on it and the context in which it is used , i very much doubt there are many "pure" vanilla people here at lit and as a whole it is a very diverse community. but teh way in which it has been used on this thread has come over as such in the minds of some people. many people are also missing the argument here and the argument has been more about what people beleive others are saying rather than the actual point , km and cym seem to have misinterpreted what each other has been saying for most of the thread [in my eyes] this has been happening a lot recently and discussions have become heated because of this

 

[Problem Child]

I knew this thread was going to go this way. You guys should have asked me about it yesterday and I would have clued everyone in.

*smirk*

 

[RisiaSkye]

Pabloback makes a good point: there's way too much over-interpretation going on here, and once again, it's lead to a pointless and unresolvable argument.

KM, I've never said pain is sexual. I've said that physiological definitions of pain are inappropriate gauges for "normalcy." Also, pain reception is extremely variable, and the response is not nearly as universal as you suggest. The "science" of it is a hugely debatable thing, not a given.

I disagree about the meaning of vanilla, but let me ask a hypothetical question nonetheless: Why is it appropriate to call one person a deviant (and worse), but inappropriate for that person to repond by calling the other one dull? One might use science to justify themselves, but that doesn't make it right. The other might use flavor metaphors, but that doesn't make them right either. You can't have it both ways: either BDSMers are aberrations, and others are 'nillas, or we're all just different and nobody gets to kick around their self-justifying language and pretend that it's fair.

I'm perfectly willing to let go of vanilla, just as soon as I stop reading and hearing that I'm an aberration, a mistake, a deviant, a freak. That's a deal I'm completely willing to strike. Are you?

Originally posted by Oliver Clozoff

I find it interesting though that you're so dismissive of my argument, though. Generally, humanists like yourself bend over backwards to accomodate other people's sensitivities. For example, American descendents from Africa have chosen to emphasize their continent of origin rather than their skin color and polite society has accomodated them. We usually refer to them as "African-American" rather than "black" (and before this it was "black" replacing "negro").
/

Oliver, I understand your point. You weren't the only one I was reponding to, and my statements were rather strongly worded and defensive. You might notice, though, that some others used significantly more loaded terms in their posts, and I was responding to all. Also, I had just finished speaking with a personal friend who was quite hurt by the anti-BDSM judgements she saw here, and I was angry. I am still angry, but it has now mellowed to a more resigned anger--the kind I'm used to feeling when it comes to sex and acceptance.

You'll notice, however, that I use "black" when others refer to "whites." I believe that fairness includes the use of equivalent terms. Under that rubric, "vanilla" seems rather easy-going to me. Perhaps terming such sexuality "dominant" would be more appropriate, but misleading under the circumstances of debate, don't you think? "Normative" is too accepting of the stereotypes that mark BDSM as "deviant," so I don't use it.

People on this board are generally even more sensitive to others' sensitivies. Furthermore, since I've known you, I've found you to be among the most reasonable, good-natured, and compassionate of what is generally an above-average group of folks. In light of this, why are you so persistent in referring to us as "vanilla" when we've provided good reason why we find the term offensive?

We disagree about the "good reason" angle. What I've attempted to do is clarify the purposes of the word "vanilla," in order to eliminate any misunderstandings. I do attempt to be sensitive to the plights of others. However, I think that being "Othered" is pretty difficult from within the dominant majority. More on this below...

Is it because people in the mainstream shouldn't be afforded the extra measure of sensitivity given to persecuted minorities. Do our large numbers and cultural hegemony raise the threshold for sensitivity? (I'm not being rhetorical here. I'm asking a legit question.) More to your post, must I prove some sort of harm from persecution before I'm worthy of your sympathy or consideration? From your post it would seem so.

Yes, and yes. What you label "persecution," I would term self-protection from the dominant majority which would (and does) persecute those of us on the sexual fringe, in very real and non-semantic ways. To me, it's rather like a dark skinned person who's heard the six-letter N word too many times responding by calling their tormenter "cracker." In fact, it's a much more gentle blanket term, in my opinion.

Out here in real life, the very same people who dismiss scientific arguments condemning homosexuality use science as a way to incarcerate, criminalize, and institutionalize BDSMers. I take umbrage at that same community getting defensive over their own perceived open-mindedness and sexual liberation. That's my prejudice, and I own up to it.

Even without your tears or sympathy, I'm quite alright of course. No one is trying to marginalize me and yes, I agree with you that that makes a difference. However, I do ask something of you. I ask that you apply to me the same standard of consideration that you would have all of us give you.

I make every attempt to do so. If you perceive it otherwise, I apologize for giving offense. My intent is not to offend, but to defend.

btw Oliver, nice to see you again. We haven't had good cause for a debate in a while, eh?

 

[Laurel]

You know what never ceases to amaze me? Our need as human beings to always be right - even on topics as obviously subjective as art and sexuality.

I know this may seem strange, but I don't happen to believe that any particular sexuality is more "right" than others - any more than I believe any particular belief or non-belief is more "right" than another. I know what's right for me, and that's all I need to know. Whatever others want to do is fine by me - if it makes them happy, and if they aren't interfering with other people's happiness, then I wish them all the best.

I simply cannot understand the need - on both sides - to refer derisively to others who do not like the same things we do. Why is it not enough that we enjoy what we do? Why do we need to go a step further and act as though those who do otherwise are misguided, sick, scared, prudish, perverted, or just plain wrong?

Is it really that important to us that we be morally, physically, and even sexually "superior" to others? Are we really that insecure?

I think the world would be a much happier place if people could actually "live and let live". Just MHO. Flame away!

 

[KillerMuffin]

I have to be right, Laurel. It's my greatest character flaw. Just ask anyone.

Anyway, as far as pain~masochism~sexuality goes, I concede that RS is right in her way and I am right in mine and the two notions work along side by side in a happy state of hunky-doriality.

Why? Because they're two different things! I finally figured that out.

Amazing how you can feel so dumb sometimes.

 

[pabloback]

Pabloback makes a good point: there's way too much over-interpretation going on here, and once again, it's lead to a pointless and unresolvable argument.
)

wow even i get it right once in a while

 

[Never]

I resent the fact that you people are making me side with pabloback.

I can safely say that I have never called anyone interested in BDSM or any other type of sexual practice ‘abnormal’ or ‘deviant’. I can also say that I know what it is to fall on the defensive because someone feels the need to judge me by one part of who I am.

Now, cymbidia has stated that she was looking for a 'sit up straight and mutterwhat the [deleted]...?' reaction. It is unfortunate that she succeeded all too well.

The word Vanilla is a label. I once had an odd friendship with a lady who called me the “World’s Best Vanilla” (That’s a B&J ice cream reference) and as such I’m rather fond of the label myself and it doesn’t bother me one wit. Still, the word Vanilla is a label, if you look it up in the dictionary it means ‘bland and dull’ (Which is unfortunate because I’ve had some homemade vanilla that was to -die- for and soo much better than any of the stuff they have in the stores and.. Oh, tangent. Sorry.) Vanilla is also the most popular and common flavor of ice cream. Vanilla can mean ‘common’ or it can mean ‘dull’.

Sure, I’ve talked about straights in less then flattering tones. I’ve let off steam with a good (and gay) friend of mine. Does this mean that I’d walk up to Mischka and say, “Hey, all you breeders are bigots and nasty and smell bad!” ?

Nope, cause Mischka is a foot taller than me and kickboxes and would whoop my ass so hard my rear end would become my front end. More importantly I’d be wrong and I’d be hurting her feelings.

A label is a label is a label. You don’t need a ‘good’ reason not to call someone something they don’t wish to be called or to not make blanket statements that you know aren’t true because there are no good reasons to do so.