What is vanilla? (67)

It's only a weblog

- I do not much care for the term 'vanilla' as it is, IMO, far too vague, too all encompassing, too diluted and wildly unspecific in its current usage (esp, it would seem, in this particular community - no offence meant here, btw). I prefer not to use it myself - but then, I'm not a great lover of 'labeling' anyway (as I have also discussed elsewhere). However, I don't take massive issue with the many others here who like to use the term, and very loosely it would seem.

However: to use the term as some kind of badge of elitism or judgmentally of others (in or out of our own community) or even as some kind of excuse for a form of insult (mild or less mild) - esp if this is as means of attempting to goad others or a potential partner into doing what you happen to want: this has got to be wrong, IMO.

The IC definition is a useful one, but still does not persuade me that the term is particularly useful itself - not to me, anyway. I note that many on this site themselves talk of also having a 'vanilla' life - but all they seem to mean by this in most cases (if I understand them aright?) is, basically, everything else they do - apart from BDSM type activities. This could, in theory, include almost every activity of daily human existence, could it not? Would, then, for example: going to work, driving a car, pursuing some everyday and inoccuous hobby, watching television or listening to the radio, activities with friends outside this community, running a home, cooking a meal, raising, or even spending time with, one's own family, studying, googling, facebook networking, reading the news or a novel or short story, gardening, enjoying music, cinema, the theatre or sports of any kind - mental or physical or both (whether as participant or spectator), or exercising, even taking a walk in the park (with or without a dog), going to the pub ..... the list is endless ..... would all these, then, be 'vanilla' activities? If so; we are ALL 'vanilla' then, surely, most of the time, are we not?

One can see, can one not, why I say the term appears to have become far too 'diluted' in its usage ... perhaps even as to be rather meaningless? By that token, then, we would all of us here be 70% to 80% 'vanilla' in our daily life activities, wouldn't we?

What is 'normal'?:-

I have also discussed this quite a bit elsewhere (see, for example, one of my posts on the thread 'Is It Normal?'):- I think you will there see why I tend to argue that there is really no such thing as 'normal' - even including, and in fact most especially, in matters sexual (see specifically the anecdotes from my post on the thread 'Is It Normal?').

As to the 'ice cream' analogy (on which, I note, several have commented here - including humourously, in some cases, which is fine!): I have commented on this elsewhere too - see, again, one of my posts on the thread 'Why Do People Have Fetishes?':- - where I argue that the reality probably is, there being really no such thing as 'normal' anyway (as distinct from actually ILLEGAL - for the law, in most countries, recognises certain kinds of activities, even some within a sexual context, as illegal (cf my own thread 'What's In A Name? (Or BDSM by any other name?)') - the reality probably is that everyone (even those outside this community) is actually a little bit 'flavoured' (to use the ice cream metaphor again) - as I note some other posters here have implied. There is, as I have also argued elsewhere , really no such person as 'average Joe' or 'average Josephine' anyway (esp when it comes to matters sexual); merely the myth of that, the 'cloak of "respectability" ' which goes with that - and I have also argued elsewhere that we probably all (even here on IC in certain companies, if we are being honest about this) find it useful to 'wear' that 'vanilla' 'cloak of respectability' sometimes. True?

I would suggest that the only real or substantial difference between us and any supposed 'vanilla' world or 'vanilla' community (though I would hardly call "vanilla" an organised community) is really just that: that we have created a community here - and one in which it is, hopefully, nearly always safe to 'come out' about our particular 'kinks'. Others out there in the so-called 'vanilla' world have 'kinks' too; I am in no doubt whatever about that. They just don't talk about these, as a rule; that's all. Often they dare not. We do! ... here, anyway.

I have mentioned Freud elsewhere (see in particular the anecdote about Freud from my post on the thread 'Is It Normal?'). The point being, of course - whether we agree or not with Freud's work and teachings specifically or even generally - that in nineteenth century Europe (where and when Freud first became active and, in his time, so highly controversial, to say the least!) people simply didn't talk about such things as private sexual fantasies, masturbation (which was, of course, every bit as common, esp among men, in Freud's day as it is now), sexual fetishes (yes, these existed in the nineteenth century too, for sure!) or even sexual intercourse itself or the concept of an orgasm. Absolute 'no, no'!

Even to talk about being pregnant was, in the nineteenth century, not encouraged. It was considered rude to look at a lady's ankles; or even, in extreme cases, to look at the carved legs of a piano, or the feet of a lady's stockings even when not on her legs (cf the play 'A Doll's House' (Act II) by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906))! A woman was said to be (popular euphemism) 'with child' or 'great/big with child' (if she was heavily pregnant) or, even more euphemistically, 'eating for two'. Many more decades still would pass before homosexuality or lesbianism could be openly talked about in most companies (it still is taboo, shocking and horrible, it would seem, for some, even today). And a few generations more still would pass before the idea of being 'bisexual' or even 'bicurious' would be recognised as even existing (I myself am neither gay, bisexual nor 'bicurious', btw - but have no issues with those that are any of these things).

How long will it be, I wonder, before BDSM will become openly talked about in most companies when the subject naturally arises - in the same way that all the above things, so very taboo a hundred years or so ago or less, can now be talked about within polite conversation in most situations? Surely, it is only a matter of time before attitudes on this must also, of necessity, change. When that happens, I suggest, the word 'vanilla' will lose much of its widespread usage within the BDSM community - just as the term 'straight', though still used in the homosexual and lesbian community, has now largely lost its once widespread and 'diluted' usage, as it was once there used (rather like 'vanilla' is here?) to describe virtually everything outside the once 'besieged', or perceived from within to be 'besieged', gay community.

Do others agree?

- bluemagic

"When the bottom falls out of your world - Take 'Andrew's' (liver salts) and, instead ... Let the world fall out of your bottom. "

Oh god I'm doubly disadvantaged - I'm a kinky tranny lol

For me, there is no such thing as Vanilla - other than as a flavouring.

In all relationships, at any moment in time, there is a more dominant hand. It may swap between the partners, but it is still a matter of Control. "Your turn to make coffee", "Oooh... Can we do it again? Like we did last night?", "No. You know I'm never going to do anal". In some cases, even the phrase "I love you" is used as a method to exact control.

It is how the human being functions.

Someone is always in control.

I do use the term, because it does delineate between 'our' world and that which we consider to be not 'our' world. We have friends who do not know of our activities, so we call them our 'Vanilla friends'. It just means we don't know enough about them to say whether they are us or not, but they are human.

Activities in which there is no evident kink, such as going to the cinema, shopping or work, are just things we do, that we always did. I do not see that 'we' are different creatures when we execute such actions. I expect that we are merely discreet and respectful of others, in not showing them who or what we are, as they may be unknowing of our kind or our practices.

Shorthand is shorthand.

Vanilla is not something to really get stirred up about.

The term BDSM has come to replace that which was always known as 'Polite Society'. D/s has come to represent the definition of specific types of relationship, but may be an accepted misnoma for relationships in which there is not a Dominant and a submissive.

When we tell our unknowing parents of our activities, do we corrupt them from vanilla or do we learn that they too... Well... that's another matter entirely.

As long as we do not use a term such as Vanilla in a derogatory or judgemental manner, we should be comfortable with it. Many years ago, I had two very good friends. A Mistress and her slave. To my dismay, another friend described their withdrawal from the public eye as 'Going vanilla'. I doubt that could ever happen and... would it truly matter? There are some people that I do feel would be better back in Vanillaland, as they really could do with discovering themselves first, then evaluating what kink means to them.

For me, there is no such thing as Vanilla - other than as a flavouring.

In all relationships, at any moment in time, there is a more dominant hand. It may swap between the partners, but it is still a matter of Control. "Your turn to make coffee", "Oooh... Can we do it again? Like we did last night?", "No. You know I'm never going to do anal". In some cases, even the phrase "I love you" is used as a method to exact control.

It is how the human being functions.

Someone is always in control.

I do use the term, because it does delineate between 'our' world and that which we consider to be not 'our' world. We have friends who do not know of our activities, so we call them our 'Vanilla friends'. It just means we don't know enough about them to say whether they are us or not, but they are human.

Activities in which there is no evident kink, such as going to the cinema, shopping or work, are just things we do, that we always did. I do not see that 'we' are different creatures when we execute such actions. I expect that we are merely discreet and respectful of others, in not showing them who or what we are, as they may be unknowing of our kind or our practices.

Shorthand is shorthand.

Vanilla is not something to really get stirred up about.

The term BDSM has come to replace that which was always known as 'Polite Society'. D/s has come to represent the definition of specific types of relationship, but may be an accepted misnoma for relationships in which there is not a Dominant and a submissive.

When we tell our unknowing parents of our activities, do we corrupt them from vanilla or do we learn that they too... Well... that's another matter entirely.

As long as we do not use a term such as Vanilla in a derogatory or judgemental manner, we should be comfortable with it. Many years ago, I had two very good friends. A Mistress and her slave. To my dismay, another friend described their withdrawal from the public eye as 'Going vanilla'. I doubt that could ever happen and... would it truly matter? There are some people that I do feel would be better back in Vanillaland, as they really could do with discovering themselves first, then evaluating what kink means to them.

I use it to describe the things I do outside BDSM. I use it when talking about everyone who's in the building where a munch is being held. Who are not actually there for the munch. I don't use it in a disparaging way about other people's sexuality, I'm not concerned about what they get up to in the bedroom.

I will continue to use it, until something better comes along. And when I do, everyone on these boards understands what I mean, like it or not.

Owner of The Croppery Dungeon and Breakfast. Organises The St Leonards munch.

Edited 30 Jan 12, 8:37 AM by Muzzlehatch

I use 'vanilla' to mean 'devoid of acknowledged kink'. I am kinky: I acknowledge my kink to partners and friends, also to some of my family, and generally where I contribute on the interwebs, therefore I am not 'vanilla'.

I also use 'vanilla' when referring to one of my favourite flavourings to use in baking, or cooking in general.

Not a single thing. It is different, nothing more. As @mia said earlier, I do not attach a positive or negative connotation to the term.

For me I think I see it as a state of mind. An acceptance of what are considered 'normal sexual activities' as being the only way to do the sex thing. Or, a reluctance to embrace or explore 'the different', a atate of contentment with the status quo, whereas I feel the need to challenge and push myself in sexual terms.

Someone who does not understand or want BDSM is 'vanilla'.

No. My motto is becoming "If you feel it - do it". I happen to love lots of 'vanilla' things. I love cuddles, they don't even have to involve kink (oh the shame!). I love kissing, kinky kissing is great, but just a long, slow, tender, loving snog rings bells for me.

I'm greedy, probably nothing more than a sensation whore. For me it is much more about doing and having everything I possibly can. Variety is the spice for me.

"Love is the longing for the half of ourselves we have lost." — Milan Kundera

How do you know they are "unknowing"? May be they do know and just choose not to indulge in BDSM because it doesn't interest/excite/arouse them. Calling them unknowing with the suggestion that they'd cross over to BDSM if they did is a tad arrogant because of the implied superiority of kinksters.

Aut disce aut discede. Manet sors tertia caedi

It would be better for clear communication if we used terms like non-kinky (nk, for short, for those who are keen on less key strokes) as this would be simple and factual. It doesn't involve any kind of potential value judgement creeping in via the backdoor, just a straight and clear term or abbreviation for people who do not engage in kink or activities which are not kinky.

We have this discussion about what 'vanilla' means time and time again. Maybe it shows we are not as good at adapting and evolving as we would like to think. It doesn't seem a good indication of our level of high level functioning that we choose and continue to cling to using words which do not perform the function we want them to do.

If it was a good word, we wouldn't be constantly debating hat it means. We would all know and we could just use it and be 100% clear that everyone else understood.

Dominant partner in an FLR with @paulss

Edited 30 Jan 12, 9:27 AM by Ms_Valentine