What-if questions are the introvert’s Schrödinger’s cat. At once educational and unworkable, they can provide insight into your current mental state or process, whatever that may be. More interesting than simply performing the thought-experiment once is performing it several times, posing the question to yourself again after a significant amount of time has elapsed since the last time you thought about it.
The ever-prolific Richard Evans Lee has been posting questions for bloggers on his new site, FetishMeme.com and Dev picked one up that I found interesting. It reads:
If you could remove your kinky sexuality, become ‘vanilla,’ conventionally sexualized, would you? Would you rather have normal erotic needs than face the challenges and frustrations of being unlike the majority? Could being like most people be a sufficient repayment for knowing exactly what you need even though it is specialized and not easily realized? Would you rather be normal?
I commented on that post, saying something like, to me, it seems to be a matter of satisfaction. Put simply, when I am feeling satisfied with what I have, then I don’t feel like changing it because what I have is wonderful and makes me happy. However, in times of distress when I am not feeling fulfilled due to a lack of that Thing I Want, then yes, I would exchange my differences for normalcy in the hopes that such normalcy would elevate my chances of fulfillment simply thanks to the probability of that Thing I Want being more available, less stigmatized, or hopefully both.
Here’s the thing: we all want whatever it is we want. You can’t escape your own desires, no matter how “abnormal” (though I prefer to use the word atypical) they are, no matter how likely or how well you can fulfill them, how difficult that process will be specifically for you, or what other people might think of you for wanting it in the first place. You just can’t. More people than I’d like to imagine try to do just that every day, with universally similar and depressing results—failure, every time.
For many people with atypical desires, especially sexual ones, actually experiencing fulfillment is a pipe dream, and (sadly) they accept it as such. Thankfully, the human psyche is an amazingly resilient thing. These people may feel bad about themselves or their state of affairs, but they’ll ultimately be okay, and the vast majority of them will blend into the everyday populous as completely normal, fully-functional people that are (for all intents and purposes) just like you and me.
What’s even more depressing, in fact, is that personal fulfillment of any kind, not just sexual, is so often regarded as being a pipe dream that it is actually considered “normal” to long for it and not to have it. Millions of employees work endless 9–5′s in jobs they don’t like for decades (that’s longer than I’ve been alive!), most of them for less money than I used to make last year when I was 22, and that’s if they’re lucky. What is it about these people that makes them so able, no, willing, to do that? And what makes me so unable, if not unwilling, to follow suit?
I’m reminded often of an anecdote my father once told me when I was very little about elephants in the circus. He said that elephants are often kept in their tents with a single iron cuff closed around one of their ankles that is then chained to a stake driven into the ground. Soon after birth, a baby elephant will find itself with such a shackle and, being a baby (small and weak), will also find that it is unable to pull itself away from this stake or escape. As it grows older, it stops trying to escape from the shackle and before long it considers the restraint to be irremovable except by its handlers. However, as a much stronger grown elephant, it would have no problem whatsoever removing the stake from the ground and yet it never attempts to do this.
I have no idea if that anecdote about elephants in the circus is true or not, but I think that most people, who are imbued so strongly with other people’s values from birth, values that reinforce their own importance while simultaneously suppressing or dismissing questions about them, end up like the elephant in my father’s anecdote. Most people—parents, teachers, older children—thoughtlessly tell kids, “you can do anything you want” while in the same breath berating them for doing the most mundane, natural of things. “Stop crying! Sit still! Don’t play with that!”
Little wonder most people start to think of things in terms of “don’t”s and “can’t”s by the time they’ve reached elementary school. At which point, of course, it’s the same thing all over again. Then when they reach adulthood, it’s once again more of the same only this time it’s in the shiny, brand-new packaging of A Job. Most people’s single significant reprieve, if it can even be called that, is college. If you want to know why college is what most people call the time of their lives, it’s because it’s usually the only time they can remember when the hope of possibility ever permeated their environment in amounts big enough to make a difference.
If this is all sounding a little dramatic, then you’re actually getting the point: most people feel exactly that sort of overwhelming hopelessness in regards to their sexual satisfaction. Furthermore, the more “abnormal,” the more “perverse,” the more stigmatized and discriminated against your sexuality is, the more overwhelmed you are by just such a feeling of hopelessness.
I am very lucky. I have counted my blessings. I have acknowledged the good and caring people around me, though perhaps not enough. (Can anyone ever do that enough when the disparity between the “lucky” and the “unlucky” is so vast?) Despite all of that, even I feel overwhelmed too often by sadness born from a lack of fulfillment in my social and sexual life, not to mention my professional life, my education (or lack thereof—I am a middle- and high-school drop out), and my own private sense of self-worth and self-image.
So you ask me if I would rather be vanilla, rather be more like everyone else, as though being that would make me happier. Unfortunately, the question is moot: I’m not like everyone else, and as all the evidence to the contrary has made abundantly clear, simply wishing it and waiting will not make it so. But if I could change? Be something or someone I’m not?
Well, yeah, I’d turn vanilla. Sure, I’d turn into a guy who wants the straight-forward 9–5, the house, the wife, the two-point-four kids, the family pet, and could be happy with that. And even though most other people are saying they wouldn’t, that they’d never give up who they are or what they have, I bet if you asked them at the right moment, maybe tomorrow or next year, or maybe last year, I bet at one point or another, they’d say yes, too.
Yes. I’d do it. I’d be someone else.
This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!








by Rona
16 Dec 2007 at 01:57
I don’t think that turning vanilla would have any effect at all on my happiness or unhappiness. The issues I have in my life have, by and large, nothing to do with my sexuality. The other point you bring up though… I have often wondered what it would be like to be someone who was content with the ordinary. To be happy with the things that seem to make other people happy. To be able to live an average life, and go to sleep at night and rest peacefully. I suck at content. I always have to do the next thing, reach for the next goal, try and leap over the next hurdle, even if most often I end up falling on my face. Which means I’m often horribly depressed, disappointed, and discouraged while still having a life that I am utterly honored to have a chance to live. It must be so nice to be able to get up, go to the 9-5 job, come home to the family, eat dinner, watch some TV, and go to bed, and get up to do it again the next day happy for the nights out with the girls or the weekend trips to the country. I just wouldn’t be me.
by maymay
16 Dec 2007 at 02:05
Rona, I have to second all of that. Although, I didn’t mean to imply that vanilla sexuality would make me happier—it wouldn’t because, well, it wouldn’t be me, and it doesn’t necessarily mean I’ll be any happier, though it does seem like the chances I’ll have at happiness would be greater. Sometimes that’s temptation enough.
Many of my personal issues do have a lot to do with sexuality, though, which is of course linked inexorably to a lot of other parts of my life, such as my gender role (my evident uncomfortableness in some parts of the traditional male role expected of me, even in kinky social spaces), the way I want my romantic relationship to feel, and numerous other ways in which I interact with the world. Not everyone’s issues are sex, and that’s actually great because the world needs help elsewhere, too.
by Mirehn
16 Dec 2007 at 05:24
I have a feeling those people getting up and going to their nine-to-five jobs and dull lives are not happy with it, merely resigned to their fate. In which case, I would NEVER change myself so that I would become resigned to such tedium. If we just look at my kinks; why would I want to change them? I am in the position to be able to act on them to a lesser or greater extent, so why would I take that source of happiness away from myself?
To speak about what you said in your comment Maymay, I understand your problem with male gender roles in this society. But remember, you have been FREED from them. You are capable (especially within your group of accepting peers) of casting those roles aside, and living how you want. Most people do not have the strength of will to throw down the mental shackles of society. You are not an abnormality, you are a freed individual. Or at least that is how I think of it personally…
by maymay
16 Dec 2007 at 05:33
Mirehn, I know, I know, “there is no spoon.” It’s still a lot easier said than done. Sometimes plugging myself back into the Matrix seems the more amenable route than remaining a “freed” individual.
by Tom Allen
16 Dec 2007 at 11:43
Sure, I’d turn into a guy who wants the straight-forward 9–5, the house, the wife, the two-point-four kids, the family pet, and could be happy with that.
*sighs*
Unfortunately, some of us are that middle-class suburban guy, and aren’t happy with that. Sometimes it’s because we’ve been told all of our lives that despite all those other things that we did as youngsters, it’s only in being the MCSG that we will find contentment. Sometimes I think that it’s even worse to have worked very hard to become a MCSG because we are in less of a position to explore and experiment when the realization hits that, no, this really isn’t it, either.
There’s an expression that goes “It’s not getting what you want that makes you happy, it’s wanting what you get.”
by Chris
16 Dec 2007 at 13:16
The first question the popped into my mind on reading this post was “who are these ostensibly happy and fulfilled vanilla people?” I’m not so sure that they exist… and I highly doubt that they are getting exactly what they want. I am inclined to think that most peoples sexual desires undergo significant change (especially once they get a reasonably steady supply of whatever they wanted initially). So, when I think of this hypothetical “middle-class suburban (presumably non-kinky) guy,” I just see someone who is secretly cranky because of their unmet needs. So it seems like having more vanilla tastes as a starting point might just give you a larger pool of disgruntled sex partners.
Now, I suppose that for the sake of argument one could posit a general society that actually has a basic set of desires that could be met reliably to produce the “happiness outcome,” but such a world seems so foreign to me that we would be entering a debate akin to asking whether we are happier than aardvarks.
That being said, there is way in which I can imagine being happy in such a situation without my above assumption of secret wells of disgruntled deprivation. If one were to assume vanilla desires and be located towards the lower extreme of the sexual desire scale (i.e. asexual to hypersexual), it seems like ones needs could be fairly effectively taken care of in perpetuity through infrequent vanilla sex.
by SJ
16 Dec 2007 at 14:09
The elephant thing may or may not be apocryphal, I don’t know. I *do* know that I used that same metaphor in discussion with my shrink about ‘learned helplessness’. He talked about several studies that were done in dogs, before the ethicists put a stop to it.
The one he specifically referenced involved putting dogs in cages with floors that could be electrified. If you shock the dog by electrifying half of the cage floor, they will run to the other half. As long as there’s an un-electrified half to escape to, the dogs show stress but otherwise continue to behave normally.
However, if you electrified the entire floor of the cage, such that the dog couldn’t escape, the dog quickly becomes conditioned to not even move when the current is turned on. Other behavior patterns also quickly emerge: they bite themselves, they become lethargic, eating behaviors change, and they will urinate on themselves and lay in it. They basically give up on living.
What’s very interesting to me is that you don’t have to electrify the whole floor of the cage all that often. I think he said they found this effect even with the shock being inescapable as little as one in 10 times.
Feeling powerless to get what we want takes a toll on us. The main way I can think of to make that better involves both unconditioning ourselves, and changing the external conditions of our lives so that we can have what we want.
Most Americans are not content with what they have, they are resigned to it, because they don’t see better options, or because they have been whacked on the nose too often, or because they have been conditioned by culture to want more than is possible or available. I want that to no longer be true of me. I’m working on it.
by Sue
18 Dec 2007 at 12:44
When I first figured out I was kinky, I was submissive, I was into bondage… YES. I would have changed it. It was painful, it made me different than all my friends, it forced me to do scary things on my own (go to Paddles for the first time, play in public for the first time), and confront the scary things in my head (kidnap fantasies, getting off on being slapped, transitioning from monogomy to polyamory). I wanted to be “normal.” I wanted to date, and have someone in my life who could be both a life partner (meet my family, go to the movies, share our taxes) and my dominant and play partner. I didn’t know whether I should look for dates on a kinky website and deal with all the awful come-ons, bad grammar, couples, and penis photos, or on a vanilla site and then have to out myself at some unknown point in the dating. It felt like it was hard enough to find a relationship in this world, and I’d just doubled my requirements. It sucked. I hated it. I wished I could force it back down deep in me to wherever it came from.
But now? No. I love my life. I’m open to most of my vanilla friends. I have a great sex life that’s enhanced by D/s, and a community of intelligent, fun, open friends who enjoy bdsm. I have friendships that include touch and pain and intimacy as much as they include going out to dinner and talking. I get out of town to go to conventions and stay in hotels and be exhausted, but I have a great time. And I have the relationship I dreamed of but didn’t think was possible. I can’t imagine being happier with a house in the suburbs, 2.5 kids, and missionary position sex once a week. Perhaps a few years ago, sure – that was the fantasy. But now? No. It may be a cliche, but it IS part of who I am, and I wouldn’t want to remove it. I don’t regret the journey I took to get here, or the emotional pain along the way, either. It was necessary to get me where I am and to who I am.
Pingback
by Maybe Maimed but Never Harmed › On Youth, Sexuality, Education, and Your Fears
01 Nov 2009 at 02:41
[...] When I was an adolescent, it would have changed my life for the better to be able to be in a public, safe place where people discussed sexuality freely, where I didn’t need to hide behind the glow of my computer screen in a dark room to get information about sex, bisexuality, and everything else that sexuality touches. I was a closeted teenager. Today, most teens and younger people are similarly closeted. Indeed, most adults still are, too! [...]
by hmh
18 Nov 2009 at 12:43
“Millions of employees work endless 9–5’s in jobs they don’t like for decades (that’s longer than I’ve been alive!), most of them for less money than I used to make last year when I was 22, and that’s if they’re lucky. What is it about these people that makes them so able, no, willing, to do that? And what makes me so unable, if not unwilling, to follow suit?”
That was so rude. Why are people willing to work in shitty jobs for that many hours a day? Why on earth do they agree with being employed in sweatshops? The answer isn’t, that they are too stupid to imagine a more fulfilling life, but that they can’t acces it.
there is a limited offer of enjoyable jobs, and one needs a lot of priviledge to be able to get one. It’s not your fault, either.
Ok, there is also the solution of leaving the system, but freegainsm is hard, and there are less and less places to just retreat and get a non-capitalistic life. And buying land there costs money, too.
Cheers from a looser, who had once worked as an architecture student for less, than 4 dollars a hour (2.5 euro). Did I do it because a mental inefficiency, because I was too stupid to understand the elegance and freedom of being paid well? Hell no.
(I like your site otherwise, and I didn’t want to offend you.)
by maymay
18 Nov 2009 at 13:08
@hmh:
I’m pretty sure I didn’t imply stupidity, merely acquiescence, to which I still object; I object to the idea that just because I can’t access something, I should be willing to settle for something less than what I want. I object to the idea that other people are complacent in getting what they want, too. Do you think my success in finding the kind of work and compensation I wanted came easily? Sure, I have privileges others do not but I also have disadvantages that others do not.
It’s not my responsibility to give other people a better life, it’s their responsibility to get it for themselves. My only responsibility is not to hinder their accessibility of it. And I object to the fact that so many people put their own responsibility to improve their own lives off due either to misguided institutionalism or personal complacency. Even smart people do that, and I object just as much when they do it as when stupid people do it.
Don’t worry; no offense was taken. :) Thanks for sharing your point of view.
by IsaacSapphire
18 Nov 2009 at 21:59
“there is a limited offer of enjoyable jobs, and one needs a lot of priviledge to be able to get one.”
That’s assuming that all jobs are equally enjoyable to all people, which is not true. Some people like working in groups, others like working alone. Some people like deadlines, others get nervous breakdowns from them. Some people are energized by working with the public, others detest customer service.
You are also assuming that all enjoyable jobs are white-collar, which strikes me as a rather elitist sentiment. Some people find working with their hands to be very rewarding and love their jobs as mechanics or woodworkers, for example.
by Sunshine Love
28 Mar 2011 at 14:03
“Millions of employees work endless 9–5’s in jobs they don’t like for decades (that’s longer than I’ve been alive!), most of them for less money than I used to make last year when I was 22, and that’s if they’re lucky. What is it about these people that makes them so able, no, willing, to do that? And what makes me so unable, if not unwilling, to follow suit?”
Mortgages and kids. Apparently having one or both makes a difference. Not that I necessarily buy that argument, but it does make a compelling case against acquiring either.