![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sep. 20th, 2007
Muggles.
Vanilla.
Mundanes.
Mainstream.
Normals.
Ordinary.
I see these words used a lot, with varying degrees of meaning. These terms are often used to differentiate members of a particular subculture from those that are not members of the culture. Often, the idea is that there is this large body of people that are "normal" and that the members of the subculture are strange, special, or just different. Frequently, members of one subculture will not describe members of another subculture as "normal," but the term is sometimes used.
Let's look at a term in particular. "Vanilla" is often used to describe non-kinky sex. The other terms are used more broadly. But even these terms are murky... "Vanilla," for example, can mean so many things. It can mean just missionary PIV sex. It can mean just PIV sex. It include mean sensual touch and genital stimulation through manual manipulation or oral stimulation. It can be used to refer to heterosexual sex only. It can be used to refer to monogamous sex. Etc. etc. etc. To be honest, there doesn't seem to be a clear distinction between "vanilla" sex and "spicy" sex. Certainly, there is a difference between a heterosexual couple that only engages in PIV sex with one another and a polyamorous bisexual MMF triad that regularly goes to the dungeon to beat each other. But when you're not dealing in extremes, the distinction becomes less clear.
But the terms can be useful, though. "Freaking out the mundanes" is a phrase I often hear when a group of queer people display their queer-ness to the world. For example, if me and two female lovers are being intimate in public. It is the case that some people are not familiar or not comfortable seeing such behavior, and thus we are freaking out those people... But who are these mundanes? Can we reasonably call them the "mundanes?" Is there a better way to reference them?
Also... many of these terms carry with them implications that may not be true. The words "mundane" and "vanilla" are particularly perjorative, implying that the individual has no "flavor" and is completely boring. This is highly unlikely. Everyone has interesting characteristics. Everyone has an interesting story. You just have to take the time to listen to it. So the idea of referring to them as "mundane" because they're a heterosexual monogamous non-kinky christian (for example) seems... odd.
We try to classify ourselves and those that are not part of our subculture in an attempt to define ourselves and retain our identity. But are these real distinctions or are we simply creating convenient fabrications to protect our fragile sense of who we are? There certainly are forces at work within this society to stifle many such identities. Queer, kinky, pagan, etc. type people have to fight to be recognized as valid identities. Take the fight for same-sex marriage. Take the fight to get pagan funerals for military personnel. If we weren't loud about our identities, we couldn't fight for this. If we didn't *HAVE* definable identities, we couldn't fight for this.
There are some interesting issues at work here, and I'd love to hear what you all have to say on the matter. :)
Vanilla.
Mundanes.
Mainstream.
Normals.
Ordinary.
I see these words used a lot, with varying degrees of meaning. These terms are often used to differentiate members of a particular subculture from those that are not members of the culture. Often, the idea is that there is this large body of people that are "normal" and that the members of the subculture are strange, special, or just different. Frequently, members of one subculture will not describe members of another subculture as "normal," but the term is sometimes used.
Let's look at a term in particular. "Vanilla" is often used to describe non-kinky sex. The other terms are used more broadly. But even these terms are murky... "Vanilla," for example, can mean so many things. It can mean just missionary PIV sex. It can mean just PIV sex. It include mean sensual touch and genital stimulation through manual manipulation or oral stimulation. It can be used to refer to heterosexual sex only. It can be used to refer to monogamous sex. Etc. etc. etc. To be honest, there doesn't seem to be a clear distinction between "vanilla" sex and "spicy" sex. Certainly, there is a difference between a heterosexual couple that only engages in PIV sex with one another and a polyamorous bisexual MMF triad that regularly goes to the dungeon to beat each other. But when you're not dealing in extremes, the distinction becomes less clear.
But the terms can be useful, though. "Freaking out the mundanes" is a phrase I often hear when a group of queer people display their queer-ness to the world. For example, if me and two female lovers are being intimate in public. It is the case that some people are not familiar or not comfortable seeing such behavior, and thus we are freaking out those people... But who are these mundanes? Can we reasonably call them the "mundanes?" Is there a better way to reference them?
Also... many of these terms carry with them implications that may not be true. The words "mundane" and "vanilla" are particularly perjorative, implying that the individual has no "flavor" and is completely boring. This is highly unlikely. Everyone has interesting characteristics. Everyone has an interesting story. You just have to take the time to listen to it. So the idea of referring to them as "mundane" because they're a heterosexual monogamous non-kinky christian (for example) seems... odd.
We try to classify ourselves and those that are not part of our subculture in an attempt to define ourselves and retain our identity. But are these real distinctions or are we simply creating convenient fabrications to protect our fragile sense of who we are? There certainly are forces at work within this society to stifle many such identities. Queer, kinky, pagan, etc. type people have to fight to be recognized as valid identities. Take the fight for same-sex marriage. Take the fight to get pagan funerals for military personnel. If we weren't loud about our identities, we couldn't fight for this. If we didn't *HAVE* definable identities, we couldn't fight for this.
There are some interesting issues at work here, and I'd love to hear what you all have to say on the matter. :)