Examining Vanilla

[fierceawakening]

To the vast majority of this post I can only say "Exactly! YEAH, THAT!"

I don't agree with the universalizing ("Vanilla sex has none of this." Whose vanilla sex? What kind of sex ed have the people had? Are we talking about thoughtful people or blockheads, kind people or selfish ones? It's not sexual preferences that are the problem, but the way the

Comments

[pharaoh_katt]

wrt "Vanilla sex has none of this" - That was me being pissed off at rad-fems saying that BDSM sex has no trust or intimacy. Sort of like me saying "See? I can say that too! Doesn't make it any less wrong."

The post in general was a combination of actual examination and me being pissed off.

[fierceawakening]

Yeah, I figured, but I didn't want to quote it as it was and see a sudden influx of angry rads with ljs or something.

[pharaoh_katt]

True enough. Though it would show them the stupidity of making such sweeping statements ;)

[fierceawakening]

Indeed.

just a random thought

[kawakiisakazuki]

This reminds me of a discussion I had once, the gist of it being that sex is supposed to happen "spontaneously" and if it's not then it's somehow not "real". The justification was something along the lines of "women are made to feel guilty for being sexual, so they should be allowed to maintain the illusion that the sex was something that 'just happened' and not really their idea, so women shouldn't be expected to give explicit consent to anything (and men should telepathically know what she wants or something)"

Now I think that's immature, but I suspect it's not uncommon, and I wonder if the distinction between "vanilla" and "kink" is perhaps another way of saying there is a kind of sex that requires no discussion or negotiation...

Re: just a random thought

[fierceawakening]

Yeah. I think there's a lot of that meme floating around, though -- this idea that someone who's *really* in tune with someone else's desires will just know what to do. I've fallen prey to that one on both the do-er and do-ee sides of things, thankfully with no major fallout.

But I do agree that the kink community's emphasis on negotiation mitigates that a LOT.

Roll on real sex-ed!

[ext_101344]

I could point (again!) to Al Turtle's explanations of the problems in vanilla, and his explanation of why D/s seems to avoid these problems (if anyone's curious, you can find the link at A Femanist View.

But instead - wouldn't it be great if there was real, comprehensive, sex education, that covered all the ways in which people's bodies and preferences can be different, and made informed, negotiated, consent to be the standard? So teenagers grow up with a real chance to understand that not everyone likes the same things?

Re: Roll on real sex-ed!

[pharaoh_katt]

Real sex-ed? Surely you ask too much!
At the high school I went to it was pretty much assumed you were having sex. When I suggested that abstinence (I used to practice abstinence) was a good way to avoid pregnancy and STDs they looked at me like I was nuts.

There seems to be an all-or-nothing approach. Either it's abstinence only or... Whatever you call the alternative. What we need is balance. And, yeah, teaching kids that different people have different desires. Though I doubt they'll be teaching anyone about gay sex any time soon.

Re: Roll on real sex-ed!

[fierceawakening]

Though I doubt they'll be teaching anyone about gay sex any time soon.

Which "they"? I was taught about that.

Re: Roll on real sex-ed!

[pharaoh_katt]

Really? Wow. Your school must have been more progressive than mine. My school just ignored the issue and my parents told me it's a sin.

Real sex-ed starts at home.

[shidoikarji26]

I always view Vanilla sex as "straight-up" (pardon the pun). Just missonary with nothing else, unless you counted making out as a prelude.

Sec needs to be more than that. It needs to involve consent, trust, mutual goals.
Ditto, that's why start with dating then relationships first

[impgrrl]

I'm...torn.

While I know that this echoes many (many!) people's experiences with "vanilla" sex, I don't think that's *because* it's "vanilla". I think it's because they, and/or their partner(s), were ill-informed and afraid (or otherwise hesitant) to speak up and/or communicate.

I think this is a *communication* problem, not a "vanilla-vs-kink" problem. And I think it happens as often in kink sex/relationships.

I am *not* devaluing these experiences - just thinking that it may be mis-attributed to "vanilla" when it is a basic communication thing.

[fierceawakening]

"I don't agree with the universalizing ("Vanilla sex has none of this." Whose vanilla sex? What kind of sex ed have the people had? Are we talking about thoughtful people or blockheads, kind people or selfish ones? It's not sexual preferences that are the problem, but the way the cultural default is constructed.)"

Maybe I should bold that bit?

And link to this?

"wrt "Vanilla sex has none of this" - That was me being pissed off at rad-fems saying that BDSM sex has no trust or intimacy. Sort of like me saying "See? I can say that too! Doesn't make it any less wrong."

The post in general was a combination of actual examination and me being pissed off."

I thought I did a pretty good job of making sure to say that it's not lack of kink that's the problem. Any recommendations for making it more obvious for those who miss that bit?

[impgrrl]

I think you did OK - I think my reaction was also a combination - with a big heaping serving of seeing all sorts of "BDSM relationships are better than vanilla" in the BDSM community, all the time.

:)

[pharaoh_katt]

I wanted it to sound as much like 9-2's post as possible. I don't actually think vanilla relationships are any worse or better than BDSM ones.
I'll change the original post to reflect that.