What's your flavor?

In some circles there has been a slight uptick in the discourse of sexual terminology.  This is mainly between the BDSM community and, essentially, “everyone else” in the world. What is the cause of this debate? Is it trying to make nipple claps the newest fashion trend in high school? Is it a fictional petition to replace the national anthem with Rihanna’s song S&M? That would be hilarious but, no. Then what is the issue?

According to the bitchmedia post Thinking Kink: Is vanilla sex boring? Who gets to decide? It relates to the use of the term “vanilla” in regards to non- kinky sex. The author of the post, Catherine Scott, wrote,” Vanilla was a term intended to simply differentiate between sexual preferences, but it was not necessarily meant to put down or diminish the value of non-kinky lifestyles.”

Is vanilla bad? If you think the answer to this is “yes” then you really should go back and read my post on Sexual Landscapes. Vanilla is not bad. In fact it is the furthest thing from it. That which is termed “vanilla” is as crucial to our overall sexual experience as genetic variation is to the survival of the species.

Over-dramatic? Not really. There are certain details that most people forget when they use the term negatively.

Everything starts with vanilla. It is highly unlikely that most kinksters actually had the first ever sexual experience decked out in latex and studded collars. Fetishes need to be discovered and nurtured.  They do not just spontaneously evolve.

Everything is just a variation.  For the most part the mechanics are the same. Pleasurable stimulation is applied to areas of the body. The only thing that changes is how the stimulation is administered.

Even vanilla has variations. Any one that bakes knows that there are different types of vanilla.  Just like in sex there are acts that are classified in the vanilla category that can bring about different sensations.

Vanilla is arbitrary. Since there is no actual definition for “vanilla” as it pertains to sexuality its meaning is dependent on the tastes of the person using it.

If vanilla has no meaning why write about it? Well, even the kinkiest people like a little vanilla ice cream on the side.

Types vs "Chasing"

Metros. Jocks and bears Oh my… It is a tacky way to start but here I go. Sexuality is a complex and dynamic concept. If you disagree then perhaps revisiting my Sexual Landscape post. I base this conclusion on the existence of “types”. No two people have exactly the same type. For those of you that are unclear what I mean by type I will clarify…

A type refers to a set of physical and personality characteristics that are found desirable by a person. This is a basis for the “Tall, dark and handsome” icon.  In order for someone to be categorized as someone else’s “type” they need to possess some, or all, of the characteristics. The ideas of types, and what they are, tend to be very dynamic.  Having a “type” is not to be confused with being a “chaser” or taking “-izer” on the end of a word.

A “chaser” is someone that fetishizes a group of people based on a set of characteristics. There are chasers for almost every group out there. I actually found out one of my exes was a chubby chaser. Needless to say that relationship, and my self-esteem, did not last long after that.

Being an “izer”, sometimes considered users, is similar to being a chaser. “Izers”, such as modelizers and womanizers, will fetishize a population and use members of that population as a status symbol. Both “izers” and chasers can end up doing emotional damage to the people they date.

If you should "look before you leap" then learning before you date is just as wise.

Inter-Racial Dating

Relationships are a lot of work not matter what the after-school specials make them look like. Often it can feel like a prolonged negotiation. These negotiations get even more difficult when those involved come from vastly different backgrounds. Through my random readings I have found race to be more of a relationship issue that I ever thought it was.

 This may sound a little odd and probably make me seem more “out there” than usual but here it goes. Growing up in the “Middle of Nowhere” Midwest the idea of “race” was never something that crossed my mind. Living in my neck of the woods there is a diverse population of people from all over the cultural spectrum. Now I am not sure if it I was “sheltered” or just oblivious but, I never looked at a person and saw them as being different from me.

When I was a kid, my family moved one city over from a diverse area to Indiana’s equivalent of Mayberry. I went from being around people of all shapes, sizes, and shades of brown (there is no such thing as a “white” person unless they are considered Albino and that is another story) to a lot of kids that looked like me. It was very, very boring.

It was not until high school that I had actually been told there were different races. I didn’t start to get a feel for what “race” was until college. Yes, I am kind of slow at times. Oddly enough, I didn’t start taking classes that studied race until after I had broken up with my second non-Caucasian boyfriend.  I went off on a research bender to try and understand inter-racial relationships. I was stunned at some of the, for lack of a better word, crap that is in circulation. 

Old racial stereotypes are still being used to define groups and determine their “date-ability”. Let us think about this for a minute… If these stereotypes were not true when they were in common use why would they be any truer now? The answer… There is no validity to any of it.

A few years ago I found a YouTube posting about inter-racial dating called The Other White Meat. This was the first time I had heard a perspective like this. While I, personally, do not like being lumped into the same category as Porky Pig and Foghorn Leghorn It was interesting.

Dating is a voluntary act. Choosing a person to date is up to the individual but having all the facts first, and deciding based on the individual rather that the characteristic, makes you more date-able.

Mapping the terrain

image credit: hchalkley

When picturing human sexuality, it is difficult to separate sexuality from sex. This is where some people find themselves overwhelmed with pornographic images that are too focused for such a general term. Sexuality is all about nuance and variation. So many similar systems of practice and fantasies that are not always easy to distinguish from one another. These differences can be obvious like hand cuffs and whips to very subtle like the difference between balloons and bubble wrap. Everything is so different but, it is all under the banner of sexuality.

The landscape of human sexuality, much like the landscape above, is full of varying shades of similar colors. Where a practice bears more importance to a person that area of their sexual landscape is more pronounced. The area associated with an unused practice may be more concave. A region that pertains to a specific fetish may be a different shade than that of an area that relates to a fantasy. This creates a patchwork of complexity that can be mind boggling. The above image is a breathtaking example of how there is so much variation between to areas in close proximity. Even neighboring plots have distinct differences.

No two people have the exact same sexual landscapes. They can only hope that they have enough similarity for a complementary relationship. Over time the landscapes may change. It may be eroded by the winds of peer pressure or the changing weather of curiosity.