CreativeDominant
Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BonesFromAsh quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote:
ORIGINAL: BonesFromAsh I see those words posted all over CM...."vanilla sex". What is it? What makes sex "vanilla" for you? For the folks that say they can't/won't do "vanilla" sex...what's missing? Does "vanilla" mean no kink or power play? To what degree? This thread isn't meant to be wankish or trollish, I don't want the details of your sexual proclivities, I seriously want to understand how people make the distinction. To me, sex is sex. I can make love or I can fuck...it can be hard and wild or it can be tender and loving...it can include kink or it can be straight-forward...it can be boring or I could want it to last forever. Regardless, I don't really see a difference...sex is sex. Am I missing a point? To tease a bit, yeah...you are missing a point. If you think sex is just sex, I can point you to a lot of men and women who will stare at you quite pointedly and tell you that you are wrong. Doesn't mean you are, it just means that some people think of sex in differing ways. I happen to agree with the statement except that in my case, I would use the word "sometimes"...as in "even with a partner of long-standing and with whom you are romantically AND D/s-entwined, SOMETIMES sex is just sex". Thanks CreativeDominant...I don't mind the teasing when it's followed up with a sensible explaination. Thank you for yours. The bolded part is what I was acknowledging when I said quote:
To me, sex is sex. I can make love or I can fuck...it can be hard and wild or it can be tender and loving...it can include kink or it can be straight-forward...it can be boring or I could want it to last forever. Regardless, I don't really see a difference...sex is sex. Sex is just a physical act until you bring meaning and purpose into it, imo. I'm just trying to understand how "vanilla" fits...or if it matters how you label it. See...the thread that Whiplashsmile4 started about labels http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3286624 really got the ball rolling with all this "how do you define it" stuff for me lately. Vanilla is just one more label, imo. Thanks for your kind words. Yes, the "labeling" can get pesky but it IS useful...as long as you have some sort of logical definition that works within the label. To get to that definition requires some learning and some thought...something I like to do. As a matter of fact, if you listen to SOME people, it is something I like to do too much of...but there again, I've met some people on these boards and in real life who either didn't put enough thought into the "whys" of the "all" of what they were doing or who thought that they could put their own---entirely different---definition on something. They usually wound up getting shot down or, worse yet, hurting someone else.
|