Originally Posted by london
It just means sex or a description of a person who doesn't involve fetishes or a power exchange in their romantic and/or sexual relationships. If someone says they never want to have a relationship that doesn't include fetish or power exchange again, I don't see how people who prefer this type of sexual intimacy would feel offended. I don't see why there is a problem with having a term which describes that type of relationship.
It seems to me typical, though, for people who engage in or identify with practices the broader culture would deem marginal or deviant to invent a derogatory term for that which they reject.
I don't know how current it is, but I have heard that some gay men would refer to straight people as "breeders", with the obviously demeaning implication that we are livestock.
There's a kind of defensiveness in that and, given the kinds of abuse gay folk have suffered at the hands of straight folk over the centuries, it's understandable.
It is plausible, at least, to suppose the term "vanilla" serves something like the same purpose, with the demeaning implication that we are flavorless, bland, boring.
So, I'm a vanilla breeder.
My response to labels like that also follows the lead of gay men, some of whom adopted the derogatory term, "queer", as a badge of honor and, eventually, a straightforward description of an identity.
I am vanilla, and it's a damned fine flavor.
I am a breeder, and so was your mother.