I'm so sorry to come back to Natter and find that Sass is still lost. Crossing my fingers as hard as I can!

Vanilla privilege. Part of it I get, part of it is judgy and assumptive itself.

Oh, lord. I understand, really I do. People want to get their freak on and not have it be problematic. But seriously? This is a world where a woman who has "vanilla" missionary-position, woman-on-the-bottom sex with the lights off will still be slut-shamed. So I'm not really on the "no one understands the perverts' pain!" bandwagon. It's just...there doesn't seem to be anything simple about sexuality.

■Vanilla is not used as a pejorative.

This half way down the list made me laugh out loud.

Right? I kind of want to e-mail her the definition of "irony."

A vanilla person can assume their sexual partner will have approximately the same sexual desires they will

That's just willful ignorance.

A vanilla person will not have their sexual orientation called into question due to their sexual practices.

I assume she's never, EVER, met a straight man who likes being on the bottom for anal sex.

A vanilla person does not have to worry about outsiders perceiving their relationship as abusive or pathological.

Wait, seriously? Is she being deliberately obtuse, or is she just stupid?

A vanilla person will not fear their sexual practices counting against them in a divorce.

See above, re: slut-shaming and re: deliberately obtuse/stupid.

I assume she's never, EVER, met a straight man who likes being on the bottom for anal sex.

I'm sure she doesn't count straight men and anal sex as vanilla, especially if he's on the receiving end.

eta: I read more of her tumblr, and she seems to be a smug lesbian submissive who's a professional top, so I figure she figure she's untouchable when she talks about sex.

The question is how do you define vanilla? Is this some 1950s idea of under-the-covers, nightgown-pulled-up, lights-off missionary (and of course heterosexual) sex only? Where does the line get drawn?

...I couldn't get past Peacock Angel. Really?

I'm sure she doesn't count straight men and anal sex as vanilla, especially if he's on the receiving end.

The question is how do you define vanilla? Is this some 1950s idea of under-the-covers, nightgown-pulled-up, lights-off missionary (and of course heterosexual) sex only? Where does the line get drawn?

I think she must be defining it *very* narrowly.

I think she must be defining it *very* narrowly.

I'm sure it's sex where nothing cool happens.

I don't think of anything anal being particularly "vanilla".

I'm sure it's sex where nothing cool happens.

Lie back and think of quadratic equations.

Unless you dig quadratic equations. In which case, keep your kinky freaky math to yourself.

I don't think of anything anal being particularly "vanilla".

I think "vanilla" is increasingly hard to define. Because I was assuming she meant "vanilla" as "not incorporating one of the components of BDSM," where "BDSM" = (1) bondage/discipline; (2) dominance/submission; (3) sadism/masochism; and (4) fetishy stuff that doesn't quite fall under any of those umbrellas, like dudes into feet, or human ponies, etc.

Since I was reading "vanilla" in that light, I think it's entirely possible for a man to take it up the Khyber Pass without it ever falling under any of those categories.

I understand that a man receiving anal sex isn't *common* (AFAIK), but I'm not really willing to define "vanilla" as "common."