So a couple days ago, while suffering one of my more insecure moments, asked someone I happen to like a whole lot if I was too vanilla for them. Because it's true, you know: I'm very vanilla when it comes to intimacy. Sometimes, I don't have the creativity or the drive to be able to fulfil some of the more esoteric tastes of some of my friends. And her response touched my heart, it really moved me.

"I thought so, at first. But then I realised that was only because you were so loving and caring."

So this post is dedicated to the people who can't always fulfil kinks, even minor ones, or common ones. It's to the people who worry if their 'mundane' taste in sex might be upsetting their partner. It's to the people who worry if they're adequate, who worry if they're not large enough or small enough, to the people who worry about their waistlines being rejected--for being too slender, or too large. In fact, this post might well be to everyone. I dedicate this post to people, furs and non-furs, fans and nonfans and Donphans alike, who wonder if they're 'right'.

What's the baseline for normalcy when it comes to sex? Some people claim it's between a man and a woman, and some people claim it's what is genetically programmed, but I'm talking about something beyond those fundamentals. What's *normal* for people, during sex? Well, that's quite a question. Orgasm? No, there are orgasm denial fetishists. Let's delve into that word, 'fetish'--on a fundamental level, it suggests a deviation of some kind that's needed to enjoy sex. Consider this, however: The case of a heterosexual male and female, young adults in their twenties, who can't imagine sex as anything beyond missionary position with the male on top.

Are they fetishists? Since they can't enjoy sex in any other capacity, my answer would probably have to be 'Yes'. And that's the most mundane position, the most widely acknowledge position I know of. So, if missionary position can be a fetish, what about, say, doggy style? Or furniture play, or pony-play? These are all existant variations. Let's extend that. What about non-sexual play? Dominance and Submission, when referred to as a lifestyle, could be considered a fetish--even when it's only a matter of comfort, not sexual behaviour. So what can we draw from this?

Every conceivable sexual or possibly even NON-sexual desire can be fetishised. Which suggests, to me, that 'normal' sex doesn't exist--which leaves us with sex. Just sex; between two parties or more, willing or not (unfortunately), delightful or disastrous. Sex with you--be you over or underweight, horned or tailed or mutated or plain, is for you to interpret. So you can *have* normal sex--for you, and it won't be normal for anyone else.

Me, I like vanilla. I like love. I like affection. And while those are hardly restricted to vanilla sexual relations, I find they leak into ANY play I make. Slowly. Continually. I can't be uncaring about my partner... but some can. And they have their own Flavour to be.

So chin up. Smile! You're normal or bizzare, it's up to what you want to see!