Further to Ken's comment and my response I did want to say something about labels. I do understand the dangers of labelling and stigmatisation and am aware of the work of Hoffman and various social studies, but I do think there's a time and place for some sort of labels/categories to allow us to communicate. I can see that pointing out gender, class, dis/ability, colour, etc is often inappropriate. If we are to we have the dialogue about harmony, understanding, disadvantage, prejudice, bias, fear, misunderstanding, inequality, assumptions, commonality, empathy and so much more then I think we need some form of labels or categories.

This by no means negates claims to glorious individuality - I see it as simply a communication tool. And while I would reject the label 'politically correct' I would always try to avoid labels that offend, but would not want that sensitivity to cloud any debate.

There is a rather nice Americanism that is simply TTTWD - this thing that we do - that I rather like.

Among those of us that practice TTTWD the term 'vanilla' is used for those that don't do TTTWD. I quite like it but many really dislike it and find it insulting or patronising, sometimes depending on how they think of vanilla itself and sometimes objecting to the labelling concept.

Personally I love the taste and smell of vanilla and have a soft spot for Bird's custard, madeira cake and good vanilla icecream. To me vanilla is an alternative flavour rather than a non-flavour or something bland.

I also agree with something that as I once heard - vanilla represents a sort of default position - something most people like.

I don't actually see myself as non-vanilla, but as someone who is sometimes vanilla and sometimes not, depending on what is happening in my head, emotions and on my body.

Of course whichever side of whichever fence is under discussion people are free to object to and refuse labels. I do understand and appreciate this.

Suzee
Lover of sundaes and vanilla
xxx