Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS)

Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

unusualite -> Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (8/26/2013 3:50:08 PM)
Does this sound like you? Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (originally posted in the Urban Dictionary) This describes a person with a fetish or kink as their only existing sexuality. People like this are unable to engage in standard (vanilla) sexual intercourse with anyone else of either gender and can only be aroused by the said fetish. Many people enjoy non-vanilla sexual practices from time to time such as bondage, rubber or ropes as a secondary sexual pleasure but a person with an ENTIRE non-vanilla sexuality can only respond to their secretly desired interest being the primary and sole sexual urge. Most of the time a non-vanilla sexuality is an incompatible one and a person with this are rarely married or ever in a long term relationship. It could explain the number of bachelors and spinsters, many known celebrities, who are acknowledged NOT to be homosexual yet are never seen with lasting partners. It is well known that British war hero Lawrence of Arabia was heavily into sexual masochism but had no active sex life without this. His former and only known lover Vyvyan Richards expressed a suspicion that he was ‘sexless’. Also, very little is really known about the true sexuality of wartime dictator Adolf Hitler but there was rumour he was secretly into coprophilia- a sexual arousal for human excrement. Could this be significant to his previous failed relationships with women where two were said to have committed suicide? Was coprophilia his only existing sexuality and the reason lurking behind the suspicion that his relationship with Eva Braun was sexless and why they never procreated? Non conventional and incompatible sexualities such as fetishes could be the largely unanswered dark area for lonely and seemingly incompatible people today and throughout history.

lizi -> RE: Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (8/26/2013 3:54:48 PM)
Hell no this doesn't sound like me, but I've run into people on this site that seem to fit this definition. Interesting bit of information. Seems kind of sad actually that there are some people that can't connect with another without their fetish - that is truly the meaning of being a fetish delivery system for the partner of such a person.

evesgrden -> RE: Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (8/26/2013 5:51:19 PM)
If I'm not mistaken, this is exactly what a fetish is all about; someone with a fetish can only be aroused in the presence of that fetish. But.. the language continues to be bastardized over time. Now the word just means kinky pleasure.

littlewonder -> RE: Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (8/26/2013 6:05:42 PM)
doesn't sound like me at all thankfully.

tommonymous -> RE: Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (8/26/2013 6:38:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unusualite Most of the time a non-vanilla sexuality is an incompatible one and a person with this are rarely married or ever in a long term relationship. It could explain the number of bachelors and spinsters, many known celebrities, who are acknowledged NOT to be homosexual yet are never seen with lasting partners. This part is pretty awful. I really doubt that something which I'd bet is fairly rare (the inability to function at all without engagement in specific practices) is the reason why certain people don't form lasting relationships. Also, I think it's pretty damn stupid to imply that homosexuals are not interested in forming lasting relationships. And what the fuck does celebrity have to do with anything?

Darkfeather -> RE: Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (8/27/2013 9:16:29 AM)
This is what happens when people with too big of brain (usually with several letters after their name), try to describe something they know nothing personally about. That is why there is a big difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence would be the analytical reasoning to formulate these ideas into a coherent statement, and be able to express said ideas clearly and succinctly. Wisdom on the other hand, would have been the sense to keep these stupid ideas to yourself

NuevaVida -> RE: Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (8/27/2013 9:24:12 AM)
Nope, not me. I can be aroused by non kinky stuff. He'll, I've bought SHOES that arouse me!

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (8/27/2013 9:24:30 AM)
Nope, doesn't sound at all like me. In fact it's completely off base entirely. I'm 100% kinky when it comes to my sexuality. You want to get me off, restraints of some form or another are going to have to be involved. Vanilla sex does exactly nothing whatsoever to turn me on, or give me any sort of sexual gratification. Physically, I compare vanilla sex more to a massage than to sex. That being said... I happen to enjoy massages, and the occasional vanilla sex... I've never had trouble maintaining long term relationships. Why would I? After all I haven't dated anybody not kinky since I've been 17 or so.

DesFIP -> RE: Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (8/27/2013 5:50:08 PM)
It sounds sad. I love being tied up. But I love him, not just his ropes. And when you get to the point where it's about the thing and not the person, there goes any chance of a happy relationship.

Charles6682 -> RE: Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (8/27/2013 7:34:13 PM)
I like what you said. I think the theory that those who only get off on kinky sex can't have lasting relationship's is bogus to me. I like to do a lot of "vanilla" thing's but yes,sexually, I am all submissive there. Beside's, that's why I would prefer to seek a kinky Female. No, it's not the only thing for me but I couldn't just ignore my submission altogether either. I've been in vanilla relationship where I basically had to hide my submissive nature all alone. I won't do that again.Having part of that in a relationship would just be a plus. I have plenty of non-kinky friend's as it is. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Nope, doesn't sound at all like me. In fact it's completely off base entirely. I'm 100% kinky when it comes to my sexuality. You want to get me off, restraints of some form or another are going to have to be involved. Vanilla sex does exactly nothing whatsoever to turn me on, or give me any sort of sexual gratification. Physically, I compare vanilla sex more to a massage than to sex. That being said... I happen to enjoy massages, and the occasional vanilla sex... I've never had trouble maintaining long term relationships. Why would I? After all I haven't dated anybody not kinky since I've been 17 or so.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (8/27/2013 7:38:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP And when you get to the point where it's about the thing and not the person, there goes any chance of a happy relationship. For me, and other people I know who are exclusively kinky in their sexuality, it's not about the thing instead of being about the person any more than it is in a vanilla relationship. It's just different actions that are the trigger to sexual arousal. For most people things like hugging, kissing, cuddling and touching with somebody you feel intimate with is what causes arousal, for me those things don't cause arousal any more than doing those things would cause arousal for a straight person doing them with a member of their own sex. That doesn't means that it's the action instead of the person that's the trigger. It's a combination of both (just like with 'normal' people when they get aroused from 'vanilla' touches), it's just that my triggers are different actions than they are for most people. Performing those actions with somebody I don't feel intimate with those nothing for me. Just like performing those actions with another woman does nothing for me. Which is why the write up in the OP is so entirely off base. It makes it sound as if somebody being incapable of getting aroused from vanilla actions would be incapable of forming a lasting relationship with somebody, which is as absurd as saying that a gay guy can't form a lasting relationship because he doesn't get aroused from having sex with women.

metamorfosis -> RE: Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (8/29/2013 5:14:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darkfeather Wisdom on the other hand, would have been the sense to keep these stupid ideas to yourself Grace would have been not interrupting a perfectly good discussion because you don't like the subject matter.

metamorfosis -> RE: Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) (8/29/2013 5:39:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unusualite Entirely Non-Vanilla Sexuality (ENVS) This describes a person with a fetish or kink as their only existing sexuality. People like this are unable to engage in standard (vanilla) sexual intercourse with anyone else of either gender and can only be aroused by the said fetish. It raises the question: The term "sexual orientation" currently applies only to gender preference (in other words, people who can only be aroused by the said gender). If there are people who can only be aroused by a said fetish, does that mean the term "sexual orientation" needs to be broadened to include things besides gender (such as fetish)?

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875