Originally Posted by london
If you're uncomfortable with being vanilla, you probably would see it as an insult regardless of how it was said.
That statement is a passive-aggressive put-down right there. You're saying that whoever objects to the term is probably uncomfortable with being who they are? What crap. Jeez, how tedious.
It's not that anyone who balks at the term "vanilla" is uncomfortable with their own non-kinky (or less kinky) sex life. Not at all. It's more accurate to say that any discomfort is about the kinkster categorizing the non-kinkster with a term that obviously denotes "plain" or "bland" - and that is clearly making a value judgment, as Marcus said.
A non-kinkster can be completely and utterly happy with their own exciting, multi-hued, wonderful non-kinky sex life, and yet not like being called "vanilla," nor appreciate people categorizing who we are or what we do based on what they do.
Furthermore, some people just don't see any reason to adopt an identity and present themselves to the world based on what they do in the bedroom. I went to a party once and a guy introduced himself to me first as a "switch" and then told me his name. That indicated to me what was most important to him and it was a total turn-off.