The first time I heard the term "Vanilla", it was used by someone in the BDSM community to describe people who were not a part of that particular lifestyle... which would have meant me, and probably most of the people reading this. Swingers tend to do the same thing; we traditionally categorize people who are not a part of our lifestyle as Vanillas. Clearly the term needs further clarification.

Our government has developed an abstinence education standard, which (among other things) suggests that people abstain from sex until after they are married, and then have sex with only that person until death do them part. They are quite a hoot, those government folks. Even though most people are not able to adhere to such a strict doctrine (certainly those who wrote it can't) still it sets the benchmark that we are supposed to achieve during marriage. When I use the term "Vanilla" in reference to a person, it is usually in direct proportion to the regard in which a person holds that standard. Certainly there are people who are in monogamous relationships but who are liberated and open minded enough to acknowledge other people's lifestyles.

Intentionally entering into a Vanilla marriage where the couple stands about the same chance of lasting as a beer in my fridge, is the very definition of pathological.

However those who do hold that standard in high regard will often sit in moral judgment of people whose lifestyles vary from it. The true Vanilla is one who feels that his or her morality must be unilaterally applied to everyone. There are very few things as frustrating as having to endure the hypocrisy of those whose goal in life is to make others suffer their self-righteous indignation. It's even more vexing to feel that you have to remain silent and travail the duplicitousness inherent in the Vanilla world. How much longer can we not acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes?

For years those of us who negotiate non-monogamy have been social outcasts in deference to a Vanilla marital standard that yields atrocious results. The social justification for people in secular lifestyles being ostracized stems from the faulty premise that a person's morality is directly associated with the nature, the manner, and the frequency in which they have sex. The reality is that a persons "morality" is defined through their deeds and actions, and how they treat their fellow human beings, and has nothing to do with their sexual proclivity.

It is interesting to note that there is often a different moral standard applied to couples who DO NOT practice negotiated non-monogamy, yet stray outside the confines of their relationship both physically and emotionally. It would seem that marital indiscretion is more tolerated provided that one makes an attempt at a pretense of monogamy. Couples who mediate their extra marital copulation rarely experience the same level of altruism, rather they must often suffer the inequity of those who perceive themselves as being the bearers of a moral standard that is actually the result of years of Vanilla conditioning.

Even more amazing is how sanctimonious piety has caused so many Vanillas to turn a blind eye to the reality of what is in front of them. Rather than shatter the illusion that monogamy is the only standard by which a marriage can happily endure, or hold the bigoted self –help industry accountable for their irresponsible diagnosis of people in secular lifestyles (and swingers in particular) as pathological... Vanillas continually refuse to acknowledge the truth. The reality is that most people need to seek their sexual expression beyond the restrictive limits of the Vanilla mainstream. Intentionally entering into a Vanilla marriage where the couple stands about the same chance of lasting as a beer in my fridge, is the very definition of pathological.

As a result, Vanillas are running around behind each other's backs in record numbers. Here are a few hilarious examples of the cheating epidemic blitzkrieging its way through Vanilla marriage:

... But my favorite Vanilla cheater's website is without a doubt the sensational AshleyMadison.com, which boasts somewhere between 2 and 3 million members who all pony up big bucks for the privilege of having the opportunity to bang someone other than their spouse. Their motto kind of sums up what it means to be Vanilla... "Life is short. Have an affair!" If I gave a damn about these dogmatic dolts, I would actually have pity for them.

I will maintain that in many ways, Swingers are often MUCH more monogamous than our Vanilla counterparts.

These sites represent a growing industry that is simply addressing a need within the Vanilla community. It isn't just that millions of people are signing up and sending each other clandestine E-mail's... it's that these are the multitudes who are so desperate for sexual and emotional gratification that they are braving the prospect of leaving a paper trail that will undoubtedly show up on their credit card receipts. It makes you wonder how many more would do this if it were free?

It also makes me wonder where the moral outrage is when Vanillas are the ones doing the extra marital fornication. Where are the cries from the holier-than-thou's about the sanctity of marriage? Is it perhaps that the very one's who march under the banner of family values fear the potential backlash should their own lies be exposed? It is amazing how when the subject of swingers is raised people react as if the communists are back in Eastern Europe. Yet should these very same people who are spanking it in online chat rooms behind the backs of their spouses discover that there is a local club whose members engage in CONSENTUAL non-monogamy, that Vanilla ire gets raised at married people who AREN'T lying to one another. The fundamental disingenuousness of Vanillas is vomit inducing.

Recently my wife and I had the pleasure of attending my 11 year-old nephew's little league game out in suburban New Jersey. Very few things will bring out the nature of Vanilla marriage (not to mention bad parenting skills) quite like youth sports. We got to see first hand what the rigors of forced monogamy actually do to married people. The frustration was evident in the way the parents all interacted with one another, as the behemoth sized house frau's spent the afternoon pounding down ice cream bars and bickering with their beaten down and bewildered husbands. Weighing in at about the same as a small to mid-sized sedan, the posteriors on these women were truly awe-inspiring. If cellulite could be converted to oil, the energy crisis could have been solved on this ball field. Granted, their husbands were not exactly GQ cover models either; as most of these pot-bellied oafs would have probably exchanged that moment in time when they muttered the words "I do" in favor of the starring role in a snuff film. There was no joy in Mudville.

What astounds me is that THIS is what Vanillas aspire to be; yet they have the audacity to make those who wish to lead other lifestyles suffer their judgmental self-righteousness. The sad reality is that after not too much time, most who hope to maintain physical monogamy become sexless, loveless co-habitants. I will maintain that in many ways, and moreover, in the ways that are truly important, Swingers are often MUCH more monogamous than our Vanilla counterparts. Certainly I believe this to be true where it involves honesty, emotional communication or a soul-to-soul connection.

Granted, I am speaking in a macro-sense, and I would be irresponsible if I didn't acknowledge that there are some Vanillas who do manage to stay happily married. But when it comes down to it, anyone with the ability to discern would have to also acknowledge that Swingers should never have to apologize for who we are, or what we do, especially when you compare the nature of our relationships with our Vanilla counterparts.

It may be about time to proudly stand our ground, and say out loud that the Emperor has no clothes.

Share this!

---