Biases, and Semantics

I don't feel like shit over a word someone uses. And no one "makes me" feel anything. :confused: I simply point out why the word "vanilla" is irksome if someone uses it.

I will also point out how ridiculous it is to say "asshat" instead of "asshole." I will never understand why people started saying that. The fact that it became part of the lexicon perplexes and bugs me to no end, and I would like to ban its use from now on. I can see why someone would be acting like an asshole, but why the fuck would someone be a hat for an ass?


I think "asshat" means you wear your ass as a hat... meaning you're a "shithead". Sort of like "foot in mouth". I think, I don't know. Just guessing at a possible meaning of "asshat".
 
I think "asshat" means you wear your ass as a hat... meaning you're a "shithead". Sort of like "foot in mouth". I think, I don't know. Just guessing at a possible meaning of "asshat".

Hmm, hadn't thought of that. The word makes me picture someone laying face down, sticking their ass way up in the air, while someone else places a hat on it. I was imagining a sort of straw hat with a brim.

I guess that's why it doesn't make sense to me.
 
Hmm, hadn't thought of that. The word makes me picture someone laying face down, sticking their ass way up in the air, while someone else places a hat on it. I was imagining a sort of straw hat with a brim.

I guess that's why it doesn't make sense to me.

Just like any time people take a word that already has a common definition and use and assign it to a different definition that already has a commonly used word associated with it.

For the people who insist on "provenance of data", I cannot be arsed to go find examples for you right this moment. But, I will keep my eyes open for examples as they come forth, and if I remember, and am getting a strong enough wifi signal, I will post them here retroactively for consideration and posterity.
 
What's wrong with the word is exactly this. It's makes you feel like shit, and it makes kinky people seem like asshats.
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 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.

>Shrug<

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.
 
I am a breeder, and so was your mother.

Great post skeptic, as usual. This last phrase made me laugh though so I wanted to say thanks.

Hehe... still laughing
 
My interpretation of asshat:

A hat for asses would be frivolous and of little use. I picture one of those cheeky (snort!) little hats that need an elastic band to keep on your head only its resting on someone's ass.
Above your ass is the rest of your body including and most importantly, your brain. If you are vapid, pointless and irritating, one might be suggesting that what sits above your ass is of little importance or use.

For the purposes of staying on topic....
Wouldn't coming up with some word that describes the people the OP is talking about be about the same as the term vanilla making such a word snide and petty? Its like willingly getting into a childish slap fest over who's dad is bigger.
 
Last edited:
I do understand the other point of view on vanilla and I have been amongst kinksters who kind of allude to being vanilla as lesser. I feel the same amongst poly people sometimes too, though, when discussing monogamy. It's more about the way things are said than what's being said. You can express a preference without demeaning people who choose differently.
 
Its like willingly getting into a childish slap fest over who's dad is bigger.

*slaps you* MINE IS! ... dangit I fell for it.

london said:
I do understand the other point of view on vanilla and I have been amongst kinksters who kind of allude to being vanilla as lesser. I feel the same amongst poly people sometimes too, though, when discussing monogamy. It's more about the way things are said than what's being said. You can express a preference without demeaning people who choose differently.

Not exactly, because one term is describing a relationship status or worldview while the other is describing the absence of a quality by those who have the quality.

Monogamy is just a relationship status. I can say it with disdain, or I can describe its flaws, but it is still a word which is describing a relationship status or worldview. It wasn't created by poly folk as a way to describe people who "just don't get it" and that's not what it means on any level.

Vanilla is a word used to describe someone who "isn't whatever"; someone who is plain by the standards of the person who is saying it. While some will argue that it isn't demeaning in nature; I say that is creative rationalization. It doesn't HAVE to be mean spirited, but really if you're just describing someone who isn't into kink I'd just assume say "he's not into kink" instead of "he's vanilla"... one is making an assessment of reality while the other is arguably making a value judgment.
 
I always thought of vanilla as meaning someone with less pages to their sexual menu than others. It never implied to me a judgement of the quality of what was on the menu. I've had "vanilla" lovers with the best damn missionary in town and "kinky" lovers with missionary that should have been sent back to the kitchen.
 
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.
 
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".

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.
 
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.
 
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.​
 
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:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top