Because yes, it is now time.It exists, you know. And no, it is not as pressing or obvious as male privilege, het privilege, white privilege, class privilege, or other privileges out there, but it is there. And you may have not ever noticed it if you are a Vanilla Person, because well, it doesn’t affect you. And this is not a knock on Vanilla People, Vanilla People are okay in my book, but, if we’re examining and all, especially examining privilege, well, Vanilla’s time has come.
There have been some very interesting posts and threads here as of late which have caused me to come back to something I once mentioned half jokingly, the whole idea of Vanilla Privilege, but the tone of those posts as threads have me looking at it far more seriously now. I do, in fact, think it’s a very real thing, and like most other “privileges”, I think, while it can and does impact men, it impacts women to a more negative degree. After all, we still live in a society where many people honestly think that women cannot or should not enjoy sex, and if they dare to, they better only do it in certain contexts, for certain reasons, and with their husbands. Ah yes, the old virgin/whore dichotomy, alive and well and at work…and at lending it’s efforts to V.P.
So what is V.P. anyway? Well, simply put, it is the thought or assumption that those who engage in vanilla sex are somehow better than those who do not. And if you think that people who are not vanilla are not treated differently, please, do look at some of the links I’ve provided, and then, why yes, examine. What do you think of a woman sitting next to you on the subway at night if she is wearing a collar? What do you think of the guy in the locker room with heavily pierced genitals? What do you think of the woman who does gangbangs on the weekend? What do you think of the man who pays a dominatrix? What do you think of people who get off on pain, giving or receiving? The woman who likes to be choked, the man who likes to be flogged? The kinky people and the rough sex people and the non-vanilla people? If you are a vanilla person…don’t you other them, just a little bit? Well, if you don’t, good for you. You are among the few.
In a less seriously impacting way, V.P. rears its head in life, in discussion, in assumption. Vanilla is the default setting for sex in our society. Two straight people, various positions, maybe a little light bondage, a little rough play, a little slap and tickle…no one really bats an eye at that. But if you’re into knife play, forced fantasy, speculums, use and or be used, serious power dynamic, hardcore heavy duty anal/bondage/humiliation- degradation/ sensory dep/ 24-7 lifestyle/throat fucking/multiple simultaneous penetration/large objects/ extreme acts/swinging/fisting, ect…well then…you’re weird. Off. Different and alien and strange…and V.P. opens the door for anyone and everyone who isn’t odd like you to ask you all sorts of personal questions with no respect for boundaries, make all kinds of assumptions about you, your past, “what made you that way”, your relationships out of the bedroom, your sanity, and why yes, even your criminal status or potential to earn such a thing!
And that’s the less malicious aspects! You want concrete examples of V.P.?
Look at rape trials. If it is learned that the victim was into BDSM, rough sex, or was “overly promiscuous” or dressed "slutty" there is the assumption that she/he consented, or, in some cases, due to her/his proclivities, cannot be raped.
Look at employment. People have been fired/ passed over for being kinky even if it had no bearing on their jobs or ability to do them. They also face strife in places of higher education.
Look at parenthood. People have lost custody of their children or fear that for being not vanilla, even when there is no evidence whatsoever that anything the parents might do impacted their children at all.
People have been dragged into court for obscene conduct in their own homes.
“Safe Spaces” for kinky people, such as BDSM clubs, private residences, and swinger clubs are often subject to harassment from legal authorities and civil groups.
Very rarely do Vanilla People have to deal with this sort of thing due to their sex lives. Hell, a great deal of non-vanilla hetero sex is still considered both a sin & mental illness by a whole lot of folk.
And non-vanilla people can point this out, over and over, and still get told to examine, that they are the bad for other people people, that they are wrong, are oppressive, are “normalized”…
Yeah, right.
So go forth, and examine your privilege….

89 comments:
STANDING. FUCKING. OVATION.
another example of this sort of thing:
getting very angry at sadomasochists, fetishists, kinksters, etc. for calling you "vanilla."
asserting that this is an insult, rather than an attempt to describe those we are not as something other than "normal," "okay," "unmarked."
it's like saying "why you gotta say able-bodied? YOU'RE disabled and that's all there is to it."
okay, yeah, "vanilla" IS a little snarky. And I get why people don't like that. But the upsetness is out of proportion, honestly.
The names for US are names for mental illnesses. "Fetish." "Sadomasochism." The people who coined that shit weren't being nice.
Why do we have to be?
::bows:: I am but a humble pervert.
Ren, thanks for this. Really.
Of course, you could write something about the divisiveness WITHIN the non-vanilla community, about which we probably all have some stories to tell...
"I think, while it can and does impact men, it impacts women to a more negative degree. "
It affects women and men differently but worse for women? Is that really necessary?
Is everything in history worse for women?
Oh, absolutely. Seriously Ren, you are the queen of all awesome.
I was thinking just the other night, after a day of extremely vanilla sex, that its amusing how people lump queers in with non-vanilla people, and how non-vanilla people are lumped in with 'sexual deviants' and how its all just a great big bull shit cycle.
Anonymous- I can think of two things, right off the top of my head, that are generally worse for men...prostrate cancer and war...I'm sure there are plenty more, but it's 6:23 in the morning.
However, in the case of this topic, I do think it is generally worse for women because men do not suffer from the virgin/whore divide like women do, which spins anything and everything sexual for women in a different light.
getting very angry at sadomasochists, fetishists, kinksters, etc. for calling you "vanilla."
asserting that this is an insult, rather than an attempt to describe those we are not as something other than "normal," "okay," "unmarked."
also see: "'cis' is a terrible terrible insult and means I Am No Longer Female, p.s. I'm going to sit blandly by and say nothing while assholes on my blog say the most outrageously hateful bigoted crap about -you-"
and "'gay' used to be a perfectly lovely word, and you people took it and RUINED it! And, I forgot and called someone "colored" instead of "person of color" and they GAVE ME A DIRTY LOOK. This is the WORST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO ANYONE. My pain! Feel my pain!..."
I agree that it's not a competition, and I don't love the way men tend to hairshirt about this (see male feminist etc. business below): look, we -all- get sex-negative crap.
That said, since Renegade is specifically responding to arguments within the feminist blogosphere, it makes sense for her to note that the whole "butbut suchandso kind of sexuality reinforces the Patriarchy/male hegemony/the status quo/what have you," because that really is a no-win argument especially wrt a woman: it is ALSO reinforcing the Patriarchy to take on the message of "sexual release is not a worthwhile goal in and of itself, for me, and I don't really know what I want and I need someone else to tell me I'm doing it wrong" (and yes, having other women be the reinforcers/enforcers of sexuality and gender policing is -absolutely- a part of Klassic Pat).
so, you know, might as well enjoy yourself.
"also see: "'cis' is a terrible terrible insult and means I Am No Longer Female, p.s. I'm going to sit blandly by and say nothing while assholes on my blog say the most outrageously hateful bigoted crap about -you-""
Yes, THAT.
"Someone called me 'cisgendered' and 'vanilla' today! I NEVER APPROVED OF THESE TERMS BEING APPLIED TO ME! *huff huff*"
"Someone called me an unfit parent today, and backed it up with the power of the courts."
seriously. you are awesome.
and so right on what you said before, that women into kink tend to be much more comfortable with their own sexuality and desires.
so. much love.
wait, people actually get upset at being called vanilla? that's... that just broke my brain.
back when i heard some folks get upset at being called "cissexual", i thought that was being ridiculously oversensitive and prissy, but THIS... ferchrissakes, wasn't "vanilla" picked specifically so as to be a bland and unoffensive description, just like the ice cream flavor? do these people really not have anything more significant to take offense at?
I'm not even sure that war is so much worse for men, considering all the civilian deaths, war rapes and general postwar devastation.
Living in a country that has a general draft for men and none for women, I'd say military is worse for men, but even that doesn't apply in the US, Israel or any other country that has women in the military.
And really, why can't people in the privileged position just acknowlege that and take it from there?
Everything IS harder for women, queers, people of color,what have you. Of course straight, white, vanilla, able bodied middle and upper class men with US or EU papers have problems too, but they're just not the same.
Hallelujah, Sister Ren! Also, it doesn't help us, the other 30 flavors, that our sexual habits have mostly been made popular by shows like CSI or SVU. Love the shows though I do, that is the average person's example and reference to 'extreme kink'.
I agree with unfit mostly as well. Belledame too.
Anony: yes, yes they do.
Here's Audre Lorde (an absolutely awesome person otherwise; I quote her not to sour people on her but just because she's so famous in feminist circles): http://www.mediawatch.com/wordpress/?p=18
Audre: The s/m concept of “vanilla” sex is sex, devoid of passion. They are saying that there can be no passion without unequal power. That feels very sad and lonely to me, and destructive. The linkage of passion to dominance/subordination is the prototype of the heterosexual image of male-female relationships, one which justifies pornography. Women are supposed to “love” being brutalized. This is also the prototypical justification of all relationships of oppression-that the subordinate one who is “different” “enjoys” the inferior position.
anony: also this from the feministe thread:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/06/10/feministe-feedback-sex-from-a-feminist-perspective/#comment-180790
"I know that I have sometimes felt, in the subcultures I move in, that my being non-kinky was regarded with a sort of amused contempt, as if to imply that I can’t really be enjoying sex or experiencing my sexuality to its fullest. I think the term ‘vanilla’ is part of this (no offense to the ice cream flavor, but I think we all know the cultural connotations.) I think there’s a conflation of the absence of kink with repression, in sexually liberal circles. It can be a little aggravating, and it can also make people less willing to talk about their sexuality and their views on sex. There may even be some of that going on here, which may be part of the reason the discussion moved so quickly to kink."
Yes, really great post, Ren. You've outdone yourself.
So you have examined exactly how bad it is for men and exactly how bad it is for women and quantified it in a rational and logical way?
Or is it just subjective opinion that its worse for women?
Its the whole looking at the problems of women through a microscope and looking at the problems of men with a telescope backwards with the lens cap on.
How do you calculate worseness that always has it worse for women?
Is it a scientific objective calculation or are you simply weighting the things that happen to women greater because you are a woman and you have experience with those things?
Anonymous: I will have no further conversation with you on this matter until you answer the following: When it comes to sex and sexual conduct, do you think there is a double standard for men and women, the "stud vs. slut" trope?
I dunno if you've ever read Gayle Rubin's 'Thinking Sex', but you might enjoy it. This post reminded me of it & had me re-reading. I love reading your blog because it frequently leaves me looking for more resources. You're passion gets me motivated. Thanks!
Well, even if I'm in the minority here, it's true that I am not a big fan of the term "vanilla."
BUT amen to everything else you wrote, Ren!
However, in the case of this topic, I do think it is generally worse for women because men do not suffer from the virgin/whore divide like women do, which spins anything and everything sexual for women in a different light.
Women are not viewed as potential molesters and rapists the way men are, which spins anything and everything sexual for men in a different light.
This, of course, doesn't negate your point about the virgin/whore divide. Nevertheless, it is a counterpoint to your claim that "it impacts women to a more negative degree".
Daran- You know how many times I've been called a rapist? A rape enabler? A rape cheerleader?
You know what? Maybe THAT part of the post isn't for you or anonymous, because guess what? The Virgin Whore/ Slut Stud thing is a HUGE thing for most women. It DOES impact us. It does fuck with us, and we can explain it until the oceans turn to dust, but if every single time we try to, y'all come back with BUT...but, what about the MEN? It means something:
You're not fucking listening, at all. After all, very few men walking down the street get rapist or molester shouted at them. Please see the entry on Running & Sexism for a taste.
I'll second "you're not listening."
As to: "Women are not viewed as potential molesters and rapists the way men are, which spins anything and everything sexual for men in a different light."
Anything and everything? Don't bother getting out the violins. It's RARE that a man with a moderate amount of sensitivity is viewed as a potential rapist. Pretty much ALL women have been pilloried by one or the other end of the madonna/whore sword.
Also, the urge to jump out and proclaim an equal and opposite grievance on the part of various men gets old real fast. And, how productive is it, hmmm?
Pretty much ALL men have been pilloried by one or the other end of the rapist/loser sword.
Also, the urge to jump out and proclaim an equal and opposite grievance on the part of various women gets old real fast. And, how productive is it, hmmm?
"Pretty much ALL men have been pilloried by one or the other end of the rapist/loser sword."
That is complete bullshit.
I will say its hilarious that feminists criticize others when they try to get sympathy.
Listen, asshole, there is a difference between pointing out reality and looking for sympathy. You never answered my question, why is that? I plainly stated two areas where I think men have it worse. I'm sure I could come up with more, yet you cannot even answer a simple and very direct question? And, btw, how is, in a rather extensive post on kink, taking ONE LINE of it and whining "WHAT ABOUT THE MEN?" Anything other than seeking sympathy? You DID note that I used she/he in the rape argument, "parents" rather than mothers in the parenting argument, and LINKED to cases involving kinky men, right?
Or were you so tripped up on ONE LINE that you FAILED to notice that???
Now, answer questions put to you, or be gone.
Objective reality?
or your own personal opinion?
How have you objectively measured this?
This is reality if you don't agree you are an asshole right?
Aww, Nony, it's okay, I too am an asshole.
You gonna answer the question or not?
oh, and please, sure, go with reality on the slut/stud virgin/whore thing. Amaze me with your rationale!
Ha. My partner is super-vanilla... I am in practice but I strongly desire not to be. Not complaining, I have weighed it up and stayed with the man I love. But it's hard sometimes and when I was spending a lot of time researching kinks I may be interested in he got VERY sensitive about the word "vanilla".
And you are othered. Somewhat like sitting at a table with a female friend spouting the usual "I wish I was bisexual, the playing field is so much bigger" and thinking "no, being bisexual means feeling embarrassed sitting here and saying nothing while you other me". Same thing.
People talk about anything outside the realm of say tying wrists with satin like it's completely freakish and WHY would anyone want to do that and I stand there and try and make counterpoints whilst wanting to yell "because I do! I don't ask you why you just want to do the same few things your entire life or brand you a freak because you don't enjoy pain! Why do you assume I'm like you???"
I feel like such a tosser because I'm a bisexual woman who's mostly attracted to men, and a potential switch who's mostly interested in subbing. And I'd love to be polyamorous but understand that very few people (possibly not even me) have the honesty and maturity to live with that. All these things sound like "look at me boys" if I try and discuss it but I'm not asking you to be attracted to me, it's just who I am and something I struggle with.
Nice post, as usual Ren
oh, how have I objectively measured this?
I have eyes and a brain...
man is dominant in sex? it's natural.
man has lots of sexual partners? he's a stud.
man goes out, parties all night, has a good time? it's okay and expected.
man has a threesome with two women, WOW, what a lucky guy!
man is open about liking sex, talking sex, having sex...it's all good.
a woman does any of these things? She's a slut.
Religion, Media, Society, pop culture? They all back me on this.
Hence, the words "stud" and "slut", which are generally pretty gender specific.
man cant find any sexual partners? he's a loser.
man isn't dominant in sex he is a fag or some loser.
Please magically call something inherently worse for women by not actually measuring both sides of an argument but by simply declaring it. women have it worse. There fore women have it worse.
loser was one edge on your sword, nony...the other was rapist. woman doesn't have sex, she's a prude...or yeah, a loser too. Or called all sorts of other names like fat, dyke, ugly, so on...like men in the same situation, I'd wager. Sure, it is easier for women to go out and get randomly laid...if a guy does this, its applauded, if a gal does it...she's a slut.
Now, answer the question.
oh yeah, and being a slut? That can and will be used against a woman in a court of law. A man being a virgin? Never seen that dragged out in a trial.
Rapist or loser, Nony? Well, easy answer to that one. A guy who feels like he constantly is being accused of being one or the other? Probably is.
I'm not even sure that war is so much worse for men, considering all the civilian deaths, war rapes and general postwar devastation.
I'm not sure either, because I don't have much of a handle upon the gendered ways that war impacts upon men and women, other than the direct casualties, which is only a small part of that impact. I have, however, never seen any credible argument that the indirect impact is worse for women than for men. (Bland assertions that this is so unsupported by evidence are ten a penny.) A good non-partisan summary of the state of knowledge can be found in the section entitled "Men as Victims, Women as warriors" in Human Security Report 2005 Part 3. Unfortunately the promised followup (See footnote 52) has not been forthcoming.
However in the case of direct casualties, the evidence is unequivocal: 90% or thereabouts of all casualties of war are adult men. This is a finding that is replicated over many different conflicts. Civilian deaths and injuries caused by weapons also appear to be about 90% male.
There's no credible dispute that women bear the brunt of war-related sexual violence. However men suffer far more than is generally recognised. Moreover, the worst forms of genocidal rape, such as was and is seen in Bosnia, Ruwanda, Darfur, and the Congo always take place against the backdrop of massive slaughter of adult men. They are two sides of the same coin.
Living in a country that has a general draft for men and none for women, I'd say military is worse for men, but even that doesn't apply in the US, Israel or any other country that has women in the military.
I don't agree that the presence of women in the military means that it isn't worse for men.
And really, why can't people in the privileged position just acknowlege that and take it from there?
Everything IS harder for women, queers, people of color,what have you. Of course straight, white, vanilla, able bodied middle and upper class men with US or EU papers have problems too, but they're just not the same.
I agree that everything is harder for queers, people of colour, etc, every characteristic you identified except men. Gender operates in a multidimentional way. For those already at or near the top of the social heap, men do enjoy considerable privileges over women. But for those of us at the bottom, the dynamic is reversed. The cultural norm that "women should be served and protected" creates a huge relative privilege for low-status women over low-status men, whose needs are ignored, dismissed, and denied.
I've got to agree with Daran, here, actually – I think its very easy form men to have their sexuality perceived as dangerous by default, or at least creepy, and I don't agree with Octo that this misperception is a rarity. (In fact, I think its this idea that gives everything from radical feminism to more traditional moral puritanism such traction.) If a man is perceived by the wrong people to be kinky or overly interested in sex, that makes that perception worse.
I don't mean that as a pissing contest statement as to which gender has it worse, though. If anything, I think the bar where male behavior is thought to cross the line into dangerous or creepy is a lot higher than where women are considered to cross the line into slutty. But the consequence of being misperceived as predatory can be pretty serious nevertheless.
Anonymous-
Ren is a hell of a lot more patient with Anonymous Trolls than most people, that or she really just likes fighting, I haven’t figured out which yet, and yes, she’s an asshole, but you’re really just being an ass.
You take one line out of a post which otherwise is very inclusive of kinky men, very equal in male and female examples, very gender inclusive, and go ballistic over it. And Ren herself has reason to think and feel that way and include that line; as she has the distinct honor of being called a whore, a slut, a cunt, a bitch, a rapist, a rape enabler, a scumbag, a man, vile, and evil due to both her profession and her personal preferences in sex. So you see, she gets all the bullshit thrown at women, plus all the bullshit thrown at men. I suspect she’s a lot more sympathetic to “the men” than many other women are, yet I also suspect she, rather than you, has a better grasp on the slut/stud and virgin/whore dichotomies.
Now, there is a lot to talk about wrt to this post. Yet, you exhibit typical MRA troll traits by coming in, hijacking the thread, focusing on one line of the overall post, refusing to answer the questions Ren as asked you, and moving goal posts. Bad form all around.
daran- I realize you are responding to a direct statement from Unfit wrt to war...
i'd ask that if the two of you wish to continue it, you do so on one of the numerous related threads at FC.
IACB: ahh, and I get THE BEST of both worlds...as a creepy, predatory slut and all.
Amber - You're not alone. I not only don't care for "vanilla," I think it's insulting.
I also don't think it's like "cis," at all - there is no value judgement in "cis." "Vanilla" pretty clearly means "boring."
Not that I can come up with anything better on short notice, but I would at least prefer "strawberry" or something.
oops - the second part of my comment should have been directed to Belle and Trin...
pF: how about "more conventional modes of sexual expression & behavior"
I've used that before, but is A LOT longer to type...
henceforth: MCMSEB
Well - it's all part of recognizing the privilege, right, because once you've done that, you can actually name yourself. Otherwise, you blunder about thinking your name is "normal."
I suppose, if I had my choice, in place of "vanilla" I'd substitute "lazy." But that's just speaking for myself.
PF: I don't think we can say there's no assumption-making going on in cis either. I mean, Witchy's noise about it had a germ of a point somewhere in it: radical feminists (and many others) don't really see themselves as conventionally gendered. Which is not exactly what "cis" means, but people can and do hear that in it.
And yeah, vanilla means boring. And okay, a better word might be good. But I've tried to find one many times, and nothing has ever worked for me. So if (sorry) vanilla people want to come up with something and say "call me a swozzle" sure. But... sorry, not losing sleep over it.
I'll start when I see people getting as upset at things like "straight" -- which *also* carries the connotation of "uninteresting" pretty strongly to me. When I see people going "oh my Gods, stop calling me that, the word is *hetero*" I'll start caring more.
IACB: I do think that what you're saying is true. But is that really about *male* sexuality being threatening or is it just about sexuality being threatening? I weakly suspect that the idea that male sexuality is especially threatening is a relatively new meme, started by the radical feminists who began to notice and call out IPV and connect its existence to male domination.
IACB, the actual quote from me was:
"It's RARE that a man with a moderate amount of sensitivity is viewed as a potential rapist."
NOT
"[it's rare] for men to have their sexuality perceived as dangerous by default, or at least creepy."
If you're going to disagree, which you have every right to do, please disagree with the right quote -- many thanks.
I do think it's rare for men to be perceived as rapists. I don't think it's rare for anyone, men or women, to be perceived as sexually creepy.
Kind of with Amber and PF on the term "vanilla," but it doesn't bother me much because of what you said, Ren, about "vanilla" privilege. Those of us who are either vanilla or vanilla + additions that are considered "acceptable" don't come in for much negative scrutiny, so the term isn't really a big deal.
The minor issue I do have with it is that many people, eg moi, who are grouped as "vanilla" are in fact chocolate chip, or at least vanilla + strawberrry swirl. As in, there's creativity, but it's not considered hardcore enough to be called "kinky," but "vanilla" misstates where we're at. That said, since it's not that important for me for anyone (except those directly involved) to have details, it's not bothersome on any serious level.
Trin- and see, straight doesn't offend me at all, but me being straight sure seems to shock the hell outta people.
Daran- You know how many times I've been called a rapist? A rape enabler? A rape cheerleader?
I don't know. I know the radfems excoriate you, but do you get it much from other feminists? From non-feminists?
You know what? Maybe THAT part of the post isn't for you or anonymous, because guess what? The Virgin Whore/ Slut Stud thing is a HUGE thing for most women. It DOES impact us. It does fuck with us, and we can explain it until the oceans turn to dust, but if every single time we try to, y'all come back with BUT...but, what about the MEN? It means something:
Hold on a moment. you said "I do think it is generally worse for women [than] men".
See that last word there? It wasn't Anonymous or me that just came in saying "what about the men". YOU BROUGHT UP THE SUBJECT. I think it pretty arrogant for you to opine on men's experiences, then complain when men want to have a say on the subject.
And you know, this is a huge thing for me. My whole life has been one of people telling my that the things that FUCKED ME UP were trivial, and insignificant. and I should just shut up about them.
You're not fucking listening, at all. After all, very few men walking down the street get rapist or molester shouted at them. Please see the entry on Running & Sexism for a taste.
Ya think? A few years ago my home town was plastered with posters denouncing "male violence against women". They were everywhere - on billboards, in magazines, on the sides of busses, on noticeboards in community centres and local government offices, in doctors surgeries, At that time I was just out of a relationship with an abusive and occasionally violent girlfriend, still in grief over the loss, and suicidal. Those posters did indeed shout "rapist" and "molester" at me, and, given the state I was in at the time, the negative effect upon me was considerable, indeed potentially lethal
And the point of this? It's not to play oppression olympics with you. It's not to dismiss or minimise your experiences or other women's experiences as described in this thread or your "running, sexism" post. It's a response to your statement that "very few men walking down the street get rapist or molester shouted at them." It's a response to your dismissing and minimising of mine. That you didn't intend to dismiss or minimise them is not the point.
None of this takes away or takes over from the things you want to talk about - slut-shaming, virgin/whore and their intersection with vanilla/deviancy. Those are HUGE things which effect women and there's no problem with you discussion them.
But please, please, when you do discuss them, show a little sensitivity to the huge issues of damaged men before comparing them with women's.
What I think is important is the way in which men and women are placed into diametrically opposed positions of masculine and feminine roles. A man is an emotionally vacant fighting and fucking machine, a woman is a asexual goddess of nurture and love.
So the slut/stud comparison isn't really fair. The stud is playing the role assigned, so obviously he's going to be favoured.
Now there's nothing wrong with men being studs or women nurturing. The problem is that not all men want to be studs, and not all women want to nurture. At least not all the time. People are complex, don't fit into boxes, etc.
I think arguing about who has it worse just ignores the systemic problem. Feminism seems to go ok at seeing the problem, but then over-reacts and freaks out if people are happy with the standard roles. Fail.
Aside from that, vanilla is clearly and unambiguously the best flavour.
PF: Heh. I'd much rather have sex with a vanilla person than a lazy one.
Whenever I see people saying "I'm too lazy to do SM" -- well, part of me gets what they mean, SM does take setup and work
but part of me's like "wow, you must be a screaming riot in bed..."
machina- " A man is an emotionally vacant fighting and fucking machine, a woman is a asexual goddess of nurture and love."
Goddamnit, I was born the wrong sex! Smirk.
"Aside from that, vanilla is clearly and unambiguously the best flavour."
Of ice cream.
:)
Daran-
You know what minimizes shit? When an Anonymous Troll comes onto a thread, IGNORES EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE POST and hijacks the thread over ONE LINE, without noticing that OTHER than that one line, the post and the cited examples were VERY gender inclusive.
And I'm not trying to minimize anyones experiences. I think you know for a fact I've addressed that female on male and female on female abuse occurs, and it sucks that that abuse is largely ignored. I do not deny for a second that seeing those posters everywhere did not mess with you. However, I am well aware of the fact that I could get raped and murdered and there would be a whole lot of people out there who would say I deserved it...so yes, i do think it's different for men and women in this case. i do think, in the realm of sex and sexual conduct, women do have it worse. This is not to say individual men, or groups of men, do not suffer or have it bad, but on a mass, generalized scale, my opinion on this is not likely to change any time soon.
ATTENTION!!
All comments regarding men/women facing strife? One post up from now on, please.
trinity said:
"IACB: I do think that what you're saying is true. But is that really about *male* sexuality being threatening or is it just about sexuality being threatening? I weakly suspect that the idea that male sexuality is especially threatening is a relatively new meme, started by the radical feminists who began to notice and call out IPV and connect its existence to male domination."
I think the idea of male sexuality as something rapacious and devastating if not kept within tight bounds is actually a very old one. Take this from "the more things change..." files. I can't picture a poster like that with female hands, really. With radical feminism, you have that old idea of the fear of men out of control tragically joined at the hip with more modern ideas of gender equality.
The idea of controlling female sexuality comes from a different place, really – ideas of women's "virtue" and "honor" that have to do with the old pater familias notions of women as property, and less valuable as common property. Insofar as fear of out-of-control female sexuality, there's some history of that, but its typically more of a fear of the corrupting influence on men (film noir got lots of mileage out of this) than what unbridled female sexuality could do directly.
An ex of mine used to refer to herself as "Vanilla with sprinkles". I liked that.
Anonymous commenters... they're all the same. Line 'em up, knock 'em down.
I'm not hugely offended by "vanilla," and I've used it myself plenty of times for want of a better term. But it's starting to peeve me to see such snarky, angry dismissals of people mentioning that they don't like it for various reasons.
Basically I just don't think it's right to do back to others what your oppressor is doing to you. Tempting, sure, and I can understand it (done it myself plenty of times). But it's not *right*.
Don't mean to derail though. Again, standing ovation and chorus of "amens" to everything else here.
On this whole "vanilla = boring" thing: I like cooking, and baking especially, so I use vanilla extract as a flavouring and am familiar with its characteristics. One thing it isn't, is "boring". It is a powerful flavour, sweet and tantalising (even, I could say, sensuous) - it's GOOD stuff, that's why it's so popular!
I recall one person (was it Amber?) saying that her reaction to SM/fetish sex is along the lines of "*yawn* when do we get to the actual *fucking* part?" - for that person, clearly, boredom is not related to BDSM/fetish/"kink" level. But for those of us who like those things, sex *without* them is boring.
So, yeah - in the same way as snooker is a boring sport for those who don't like snooker, and football (whichever sport you mean by that term) is boring for those who don't follow the sport, vanilla means "boring" when used by non-vanilla folks, because to us, vanilla *is* boring. Doesn't mean it's boring for *everyone* though, and I don't think the term is synonymous with boring (any more than "snooker" is!)
(NB "vanilla-flavour" ice-cream tends to be only very faintly flavoured with vanilla, and usually doesn't use real vanilla extract, so maybe in terms purely of *icecream*, it might be considered as synonymous with "bland")
The Virgin Whore/ Slut Stud thing is a HUGE thing for most women. It DOES impact us.
That affects Men too.
Being a male virgin is hugely shameful and deeply emasculating. See 40-YO Virgin. It is seen as the ultimate FAILURE of a Man by women.
All Men are sexually-measured by their ability to live up to their "vacant fucking machine" roles. A woman can lay back and fake it. A Man can't fake a hard-on (well ok, he can now with Viagra).
But all in all, there is far more pressure for Men to perform and measure up sexually. He has to take all the initiatives from approaching the girl to guiding the whole interaction into sex. Whereas all a woman has to do is basically open and receive.
Maybe you're not the one listening here?
And let's not even debate that women don't have it so much easier in the military - even in the US. Which is still overwhelmingly male and the few women tend to carry lighter loads farther behind the frontlines.
Byrd- Please move all discussion of men vs women wrt to sex, double standards, so on, to the new thread I made for it.
And I said nothing about female soldiers, nor really did anyone else.
Snowdrop:
Yeah, that.
Personally, I'd still be more inclined to reach for a different word if there were some united effort toward renaming.
The whole making up other ice cream flavors is cute, but I wish there were a bit more of universality to it -- does "strawberry" mean "clever" or "silk scarves" or "high libido?" Does "sherbet" mean "likes to try things" or what?
Because it seems like an attempt to make the kinky people acknowledge "I'm unique!" when I have trouble seeing where we've said anyone isn't.
It seems like that same "hey, you called me unhip!" reaction that some radfems have to some sex positives... and, well, maybe I'm not the greatest person but I have trouble losing sleep over that.
I spent a few months scrupulously saying "non-SM" and it always felt fake and weird and like it didn't really respect anyone any more or any less than I was before.
Plus, "non-SM" is too specific.
SnowdropExplodes said:
"On this whole "vanilla = boring" thing: I like cooking, and baking especially, so I use vanilla extract as a flavouring and am familiar with its characteristics. One thing it isn't, is "boring". It is a powerful flavour, sweet and tantalising (even, I could say, sensuous) - it's GOOD stuff, that's why it's so popular!"
As somebody who likes to cook and bake myself, my sentiments exactly.
"I recall one person (was it Amber?) saying that her reaction to SM/fetish sex is along the lines of "*yawn* when do we get to the actual *fucking* part?" - for that person, clearly, boredom is not related to BDSM/fetish/"kink" level."
I don't know about Amber, but those are definitely my sentiments.
"I recall one person (was it Amber?) saying that her reaction to SM/fetish sex is along the lines of "*yawn* when do we get to the actual *fucking* part?" - for that person, clearly, boredom is not related to BDSM/fetish/"kink" level."
I've expressed similar sentiments.
"I recall one person (was it Amber?) saying that her reaction to SM/fetish sex is along the lines of "*yawn* when do we get to the actual *fucking* part?"
Yep, it was me who said that. I believe I commented on a thread at SM-Feminists to that effect, and I also mentioned it in a post on my blog about the definition of "kink."
trinity said:
"It seems like that same "hey, you called me unhip!" reaction that some radfems have to some sex positives..."
Yeah, that meme. Often with the comeback "you're a bunch of gender conformists, we're the ultimate sexual revolutionaries! (neener, neener, neener)" – witness Ginmar and the like going on about how Renegade Evolution is misnamed, etc.
I mean, if you want to claim its the ultimate in "hip" to be part of a movement that, in some cases at least, openly draws its inspiration from Victorian social purity movements (eg, Sheila Jeffreys) or who's leaders, in some cases at least, are more or less openly allies with godbags in the Bush Administration (eg, Donna Hughes and Melissa Farley), be my guest. "More hip than thou" is a such a bullshit game to begin with that they can have it.
Reminds me more than a little of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party types I used to come across when I was younger, always going on about how they were "the real revolutionaries", how anarchists were pseudo-revolutionaries, and how you really had to join them if you wanted to do something about the system. --gag--
Look at rape trials
Hey Ren. I just thought you might want to tell jim over at my place just how wrong he is. I already did.
Heh, yeah, IACB. I think we're all pretty much boring one another. :)
Also Snowdrop: I don't find vanilla ice cream unflavorful at all...
iacb, i have no hips, only hip bones...
-steadfastly ignoring male-angst clusterfuck-
Back to the original topic:
wrt vanilla+strawberry swirl or chocolate chip, agree that sure, it's not always an exactly ideal term, and by all means, you know, name your own sexuality.
I think that by "privilege," though...it's, well, again, I always go back to the frame I'm most familiar with, queer vs heteronorm, although, yes, a same sex couple that's otherwise conventional in most respects will probably have priv over someone who's been caught in a tearoom or leather party raid, or, well. particularly a queer kinky person.
Sadly, when it comes to such things as getting one's kids taken away or getting fired, well, it depends where you are, but in general, even "vanilla" queer folk are still pretty damn vulnerable, specifically, in -this- case (the gender transgression is inseparable but is also a distinct thread) for -what they do sexually.- (If you recall, the remaining U.S. sodomy laws were only struck down by the Supreme COurt a few years ago).
What it boils down to, ultimately, is--it's not just what you do "in the privacy of your own home," although yes in fact, people can get their lives turned upside down even if they've never been "out" and never take their kink outside the house (but happened to trust in the wrong person, someone with a vindictive streak, say). What it has to do with is: to what degree does your kink interact with the public square, and how quickly can you be jumped on?
Because, like, let's take silk scarves, okay, the classic "I'm not -really- kinky but hey these are innocent fun, never mind that they're more likely to slip and cut off one's circulation than specially designed leather or metal bondage gear." It's not so much a question of, people will look at you benignly if you "only" use silk scarves in bed, assuming you ever -tell- anyone. It's: you probably didn't go to the special bondage store, okay, you weren't seen going in or coming out by a neighbor buying organic groceries in the neighborhood; you don't have an incriminating receipt on your credit card; and when the person who came over to sit your pets or water your plants or whatever else is poking about, they're not going to look in your scarf drawer and go "aha! I know what THIS person does with THESE! ohoho"
...and that's without even taking in such things as y'know, bars, clubs, dating services, "private" parties that often aren't when it comes to the law, chat logs, intercepted IM's, books on your shelf, inplicating photos that somehow make it onto the Internets...
and yes exactly iacb. while I can see why it wouldn't be pleasant to be called "vanilla", I also think it's rather silly nonsense to go "oh look, those people over there lose custody of their kids, are still de facto judged mentally ill, get raided, get their lives ruined by shit like the Spanner case... BUT THEY CALLED ME BORING! I WANT A COOL NAME FOR MY FUCKING TOO!!
It's difficult for me not to respond to that with "go jump in the lake." Particularly when it tends to be vanilla people who think that SM people are saying they are "devoid of passion." MOST of us are saying no such thing.
per "unhip" as this supposed terrible terrible insult: oh FUCK yes. for fuck's sake: everyone who's ever been marginalized themselves ought to know good and fucking well that "trendy" is the consolation prize for having been royally screwed. The fact that the Black Panthers were the Beautiful Peoples' darlings for fifteen seconds does not mean that suddenly black people are at an advantage over the poor, downtrodden white working schmoe. The fact that there are "celesbians" does not mean that straight women have it worse, or that homophobia magically somehow no longer exists or is even really substantially much lighter. And so on.
"Heh, yeah, IACB. I think we're all pretty much boring one another. :)"
Can I safe-word out if it gets too boring? :)
Obviously, "vanilla" won't work.... How about "green tea"?
"per "unhip" as this supposed terrible terrible insult: oh FUCK yes. for fuck's sake: everyone who's ever been marginalized themselves ought to know good and fucking well that "trendy" is the consolation prize for having been royally screwed."
yeah. THAT is it. "Getting" to be seen as an airhead who doesn't get feminism but at least likes to fuck really isn't "getting" much. It's "getting" the left-handed compliment of a system that hates both us AND "the feminists."
there is nothing boring, however, about being naked and covered in vanilla ice cream...
i thought the term vanilla was used not because vanilla is bland, but because it is popular. majority. (although personally i've always observed more people ordering chocolate and what THAT refers to i have no idea...)
that being said i'd be curious to know if there have been any studies that can give a reliable sense of what portions of the population engage in what categories of sexual activity. in other words, if vanilla really is still the most popular.
Well I can see why people get offended by the word vanilla because it's very easy to use a word like that in a dismissive or derogatory manner.
But it's a bit of a pity really because I think vanilla's a pretty nice piece of imagery myself. And "vanilla with sprinkles" is a pretty awesome way of putting it :D
chani,
As Kinsey said: “I’ve learned that the gap between what we assume people do sexually and what they actually do is enormous.”
I can see people getting offended by it, but no more or less so than being sneered at as "square," daddy-O. A response along the lines of, "yeah, well, fuck you, Pretentious Emo Wannabe Trendster Jerkoff:" could be perfectly appropriate. A response like "oh NOEZ you said that about me!! you said that you said that you said that!! how very DARE you presume to label Me! I'm not the weirdo, YOU'RE the weirdo, weirdo! and furthermore I am going to sit here and make a spectacular ass of myself over it..." deserves derisive mocking, and I stand by this.
"Can I safe-word out if it gets too boring? :)"
HAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHA
You win the Internet.
:)
Awesome.
I just want to add to the chorus of "thank you"s. I really appreciated this post & I think you're dead on.
great post, so renegade, did you coin the term "vanilla privilege"? I want to write a paper or article, and include discussions on this issue - and I would prefer to attribute the term to its originator.
please let me know!
fr- yep
Generally true.
However, your suggestion that "like most other “privileges”, I think, while it can and does impact men, it impacts women to a more negative degree" is , IMO, just a kneejerk application of outdated feminist theory. (No offence; we all do it sometimes).
Whilst it was certainly true 30 years ago, I think the opposite is now the case (in my demographic - Western/30s/urban - at least).
Women are celebrated for their free-spiritedness (if it's even an issue at all), whilst even mild kinkiness in men is often seen (by Ms & Fs) as... kinda faggy.
Anyway, from a guy's perpective, that's how I see it.
-V.
Post a Comment