Andalusite
Posts: 2492
Joined: 1/25/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jeptha I agree that "vanilla" does sound condescending with it's connotation of blandness (and conversely, thereby, the "interestingness" of the speaker who uses the term...) But I still think it's useful to be able to differentiate between those who share whatever your particular predilection is and those who aren't interested in it. Are you asserting that such distinctions aren't useful - or that they are inevitably condescending because the whole "us/them" mindset is pretentious? I think it gets used two ways here - usefully toward people who aren't interested in kink at all, and as an insult toward other people who they don't view as kinky enough. I think it's absurd when someone who's into D/s insists on calling people who get caned, singletailed, hogtied, etc. "vanilla." In my book, if someone is into spanking and bondage, they aren't vanilla, even if they don't choose to apply any specific BDSM orientation labels to themselves. Lilly, I've had several "egalitarian kinky" relationships, leaning slightly Dominant, but without any formal or extensive D/s interaction. I've had a submissive for 5 years, a Dominant for 3 years, and have been a slave for 3 months now. I interact with people very differently when we have a power exchange dynamic than just being a little bit bossy or whatever. Most people I meet, who I'm not in a relationship with, are pretty much dead-on neutral in terms of power, even if they identify as dominant or submissive toward other people.
< Message edited by Andalusite -- 9/1/2009 8:37:52 AM >
|