"vanilla"

So, there's sex. There's kinky sex, and vanilla sex. Two kinds, right?

Well, wrong (power dynamics are always going on, many people use all kinds of props and roles and scenes, etc. etc.), but that's beside the point. There's a way that kinky people and kinky communities use the word "vanilla" that really bugs me, like it's some dirty, other-caste, somehow unenlightened. And so I want to talk about that. Harrrrr.

This maybe isn't really going to be very long, because that's basically what it is. Kinky people and/or groups and/or the internet use "vanilla," to mean "less than." Not all the time, not by a long shot all the time, but sometimes. Like, when people talk about their partners, or ex-partners, as "just vanilla," or "I think she's pretty vanilla," etc. I understand that, in some cases, what they might be saying is "she's not kinky," but in some other cases, it really starts to sound like they're saying "he's an up-tight, non sex-positive, distant and removed partner." And all those things are crappy. But all those things have nothing to do with whether or not you're kinky.

It's similar to mono/poly conundrum, and resonates a little with The Pervocracy Geek Social Fallacies (I swear, there's going to be a post where I don't link back to there. Maybe). Members of the "out" or "fringe" sexual identity, whatever that may be, look back at the more mainstream sexual identity and talk about it as if it were less than, as if the people still participating in that identity either hadn't gotten around to being deviant yet, or they just weren't smart enough/adventurous enough/whatever enough to figure it out. And then there's this elitist sex attitude, which is... sort of bullshit. No sex is inherently better than any other sex, as long as said sex is: a) consensual, and b) pleasurable for the parties involved.*

*(... and yes, I mean, "bad" sex can be bad because... well, bad sex happens. And I'd say that sex is sort of... worse than good sex. Bad sex = worse than good sex. Oh, tautology).

So I tried to imagine good vanilla sex, and to be honest, it took a little while (I think that's partly because when I imagine sex, I immediately imagine myself as involved somehow, and that... doesn't really work with vanilla sex. Or rather, I couldn't stop the me-vanilla-sex from just morphing into kinky sex somehow†. I eventually had to imagine other people. Anyway). And that was mostly because what I imagined, off the bat, was silent, stilted, non-communicative, non-negotiated, in-the-dark missionary. And that's what I associate with vanilla sex a lot of time. That or over-the-top, fake orgasm, bro-dude/cheerleader sex. It is, evidently, also always hetero-normative.

† I know that there's not really a line, hard and fast in the sand, like this. I know almost everybody plays with power dynamics, etc. But my sweet vanilla scenes kept turning into school-girl-short-skirt-caning sex, or choked-by-the-throat-rapey sex. Anyway.

So then I started thinking about people having really sweet, communicative, quiet sex. Or sex that was really hot and steamy with roof-busting orgasms, but no pain/power/etc. I imagined ladies and I imagined guys. I imagined multiple partners set-ups. This, too is all vanilla sex.

And while it didn't turn me on, it seemed like a pretty awesome sex life. Certainly no sex life that the participants therein should be pitied for, or condescended to about. (How's that for dangling prepositional daisy chains?) º

º I'M SORRY WINSTON!

Like the poly/mono argument, I think there's a reason why we (and I'm just go to go ahead and say "we," without caveatting who I mean. The people who do this sometimes. I've included myself) associate sort of... shitty sex with non-kinky sex, and the reason why poly folks sometimes get a little... proselytizing about how amazing poly is, and how maybe, just maybe, monogamy isn't the right choice, even if you haven't figured it out yet.

Deviant choices, by definition as deviant, must be chosen. Must be talked about and negotiated, because there is no pre-understood framework for them to happen in. More mainstream choices (like "vanilla" sex and/or monogamy) don't have this (basically required) negotiatory step. Which means that nobody has to talk about it. Which means that nobody *communicates* about it. Which means... well, in partnered activities, lack of communication usually yields a less than excellent time for both partners. In other words: crappy sex.

But I don't think all non-kinky relationships are like this. I might posit that more non-kinky relationships are like this than kinky ones, but even then, who knows.

What I do know is that non-kinky sex doesn't automatically mean bad, unenlightened sex. It can mean great sex. And while I completely understand kinksters going to the internet, full of angst, and asking for advice about their "hopelessly vanilla," partners (I've been there, and felt that frustration), I don't think the implied power dynamic there is a fair one. You don't have "the one true way," while your partner is just "not sexually savvy enough too enjoy it." You're both making choices, you both have preferences, and bummer for you, looks like they don't line up.

And that's an honest bummer, but it doesn't make anyone's sexual preferences or expression any better than anybody else's.

So, I'm going to try and avoid using the word "vanilla," from now on, I think. I'm going to stick with "non-kinky," until I come up with something better (and really, non-kinky isn't even very good, with it's definition relying on deviance, and being a lack-thereof-definition and everything). Because vanilla, while delicious as a flavor (yup, I really like vanilla. Like, a lot), isn't so much working for me in a connotative vocabulary kind of way.