Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 06-15-2013, 04:08 PM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

There are different kinds of not being into kink though. I very rarely meet a guy who doesn't enjoy kinky sex on some level. And some of the most kinky guys I know basically think people in M/s relationships are deluded and often dangerous. They are vanilla. They have vanilla relationships. They are just perverted and dominant in the bedroom. I also know some guys who identify as Dominant but aren't very kinky at all in the bedroom. They aren't vanilla though.

My point is that saying "he's not into kink"doesn't cover it. If I say to a friend that I meet a vanilla guy, they know it's going to be a blokey bloke who is dominant in the bedroom but they might not know if he identifies as a Dominant, which would give an indication as to what sort of relationship, I might develop with him. If I said "he isn't kinky", they'd ask how we are sexually compatible because they'd assume I mean he doesn't power play at all. Vanilla just sums it up quickly.

My comparison to monogamy was more about how some people in alternative lifestyles claim that their choice to go against the grain shows some sort of superior enlightenment.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-15-2013, 04:19 PM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Haltom City, TX
Posts: 1,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
And some of the most kinky guys I know basically think people in M/s relationships are deluded and often dangerous. They are vanilla.
I can't tell if you are intentionally dodging the conversation or if we are just not connecting at all.

Let me put it plainly, maybe we can get there: In the situation you described, what *exactly* do you mean by "vanilla".

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
My comparison to monogamy was more about how some people in alternative lifestyles claim that their choice to go against the grain shows some sort of superior enlightenment.
Which is sort of what we were talking about, but when it comes to the actual language being used. Like, we were talking about the term "vanilla" specifically... right? "Monogamy" isn't a term which inherently comes with a value judgment.
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-15-2013, 04:24 PM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Haltom City, TX
Posts: 1,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
Let me put it plainly, maybe we can get there: In the situation you described, what *exactly* do you mean by "vanilla"
Yunno, don't even answer that, it doesn't affect the nature of this conversation anyway. Instead of getting entangled in the minutia of what you mean when you say vanilla I'll try and stick to my original point:

Vanilla comes with a value assessment. If you are, in fact, not trying to make a value assessment then say what you actually mean.

The English language is rich.
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-15-2013, 06:51 PM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Haltom City, TX
Posts: 1,287
Default

And actually, this confusion is another good example of why one might use precise language instead of judgy pseudo language. You apparently mean something very particular when you say vanilla, which as long as you are having a conversation only including people who know the exact definition you are using (and are presumably not offended by the loaded term) then I suppose any shorthand would work.

I used this example for a similar discussion previously but I still like it so I'm going to use it again - the story that keeps on giving:

I was at dinner with a swinger couple recently, it was a big meetup of their swinger crew (about 30 people). Since I was new there was a bit of hub-bub about me in which there was discussion about "are you vanilla?" Now, this question is completely meaningless to me because I have no idea which vanilla you might be talking about? These guys were into BDSM kink stuff, they were into casual sex, they were into open relationships, they were covering quite a bit of ground. So to me, this question meant "are you exactly like me?" ... to which I say... "I have no idea... what are you asking me?"

Perhaps a more direct question would have prompted a more worthwhile conversation
Q: Are you in to casual sex
A: Not these days. When I was a bit younger I certainly enjoyed some casual flings.

Q: Do you practice any BDSM type activities?
A: I like it a little rough in the sack but nothing formal like you guys are talking about.

Q: Are you monogamous or do you practice an open relationship?
A: I'm not monogamous. You would probably classify me as polyamorous.

Q: Are you vanilla?
A: You would have to be using a very specific definition for me to qualify as vanilla. A specific enough definition that you could probably just use THAT word instead of hiding it behind a polarizing catch word.
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-15-2013, 11:48 PM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

Vanilla can mean that someone doesn't indulge in kinky sex or it can mean they do not identify with a kink label. In my extensive experience, i've met one guy who totally excluded kink from his sex life, most guys I meet are kinky, they just don't identify with a kink label. Simple. This makes them vanilla. The vast majority of the time, the guy has kinky sex, he just doesn't agree or wish to partake in a relationship with a power exchange outside the bedroom. I pretty much exclusively date vanilla guys now. Just the way the cookie has crumbled.

Last edited by london; 06-15-2013 at 11:50 PM. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-15-2013, 11:53 PM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

It's only a value statement if you subscribe to the belief that link is better than vanilla. If you believe that a kinky relationship with a power exchange is inherently superior to a relationship without any such dynamic. I don't believe that at all, so when I describe a relationship or person as vanilla, i'm just describing the nature of the relationship. Only someone who is actively seeking for one relationship style to be declared better than the other would read into that.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-16-2013, 12:41 AM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Haltom City, TX
Posts: 1,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
It's only a value statement if you subscribe to the belief that link is better than vanilla.
Ah, so you are using the rationalized offensive purpose of the concept of "no one can 'make' you feel anything" to justify using a word which polarizes two camps of people needlessly?
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-16-2013, 05:45 AM
BoringGuy BoringGuy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 1,647
Default

Ooh ooh is "are you vanilla" sort of like "do you party"? I like to do like i do on here:

"huh? What do you mean PARTY? You mean like cake and ice cream, and balloons, and clown and jugglers and pin the tail on the donkey? Is it someone's birthday?"

Because let's face it. You KNOW they want either sex, or drugs, or cake. Or at least two of those things. And i give you three guesses as to which one they DON'T mean.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-16-2013, 06:43 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

It's not needless. As I said before, my relationship with a Dom will always be different to that with someone vanilla. It's a helpful label. If you aren't like me where you have two different types of relationships with people, probably not, but for me, the word vanilla is extremely beneficial in quickly summarising my relationship with someone. But most of the vanilla guys I associate with are comfortable with being vanilla. Maybe that's the difference. If you're uncomfortable with being vanilla, you probably would see it as an insult regardless of how it was said.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-16-2013, 10:52 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
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.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 06-16-2013 at 01:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bias, family structure, semantics

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26 AM.