sub has its own definition or is an abbreviation for submissive...?

[Homburg]

*turns off the computer*

*unplugs the cable modem*

*resolves to never send Bibunny any photos*

 

[DeservingBitch]

Where is Netzach when we need her? She could add such a great humiliation tone to the whole scene.

 

[DeservingBitch]

*turns off the computer*

*unplugs the cable modem*

*resolves to never send Bibunny any photos*

FemTops=1
Scary Male Dom=0

 

[BiBunny]

FemTops=1
Scary Male Dom=0

Thank God his latent flamer subbie is a good sport.

 

[chauderlos]

She understood "sub" to have a seprate definition.

Hence the thread...

And those are only the simplest definitions...

Noone mentioned the sub rosa and the sub tegmine fagi variations...

Have you read this book: The sub-way - a new path for submissives?

Something along the lines of shibari, but Korean style: the Sub-aru.

A submissive with a bass voice, is he/she called a sub-woofer?

I've heard of people having fun in caves, basements, etc... they are called the sub-terranean.

For the comp-freaks that like things planned well in advance: the sub-routine (advanced level: the editing sub-routine).

A more affectionate term for a sub: a sub-let

A sub with writing skills: a sub-scribe

A sub that waits tables: a sub-serve

A sub's hand writing: sub-script

(not sure if this one works in English too) The PC correct way to address an African sub is: sub-saharian.
The same works for other parts of the world, like sub-arctic, sub-polar, etc..

And so on, ad libitum...

 

[Netzach]

It's funny, the left one (done professionally, today) barely hurts at all. The right one (done by myself, last night) hurts a lot. I think it's because I had to wrench the jewelry in pretty hard. The piercer I saw today said that my self-piercing was actually pretty good and she didn't see any need to change it.

And you seriously think a sado like me isn't going to want to tightly hug?

 

[Netzach]

*throw Homburg a soap on a rope* lifeline.

 

[madetotakeit]

Okay, here is the other half. I feel the need to clarify since this has evolved into something way out of control.

Here's the background of the statement. When I was first started feeling the urges about this lifestyle I found a local chat room for submissive women. Pretty much every sub-genre (no pun intended) was represented. I spent countless hours asking questions and listening to stories. Had it not been for them, I would never have had the courage to step it up into the real world.

These were not internet wannabes, these were actual people. They met for tea once a month and leaned on each other for support since a large majority were military wives dealing with their husbands half a world away with no guarantee of returning. I was never able to attend a tea because it was always held on the weekend I worked. I was however fortunate enough to have coffee with a few of them and found them informative, welcoming, and willing to pass on advice. I was hearing terms I had never heard of before and people explaining what it meant to them. I didn't really know where I fell. I knew what I wasn't. I wasn't a slave, I wasn't a pain slut, I was not interested in TPE. Several women said they referred to themselves as "subs" and to them it was not simply the abbreviation for submissive. What they said resonated with me. I do not fall under all categories of submissive.

I tried to explain that to some it is not just the abbreviation. This came far into the conversation. I felt the need to try to explain when a statement was made too broadly to which my correction received a "same thing." It was a conversation. It was not an argument. It was too different mindsets attempting to find an understanding. I had no negative feelings about the difficulty we were having as I believe neither did she. The term "rarity of submission" was not used. the only rarity would be in reference to the fact that some people use that term differently and that should be recognized. I consider myself to have a healthy ego however I am not so egotistical as to believe something that implies one type of submissive is more special compared to another.

I may be incorrect on this, but I believe in her original thread she was wanting to know if anyone else had heard of anyone identifying it as meaning more than just the abbreviation. Of course it is an abbreviation. However people have the right to take it upon themselves to identify them as best suits them. What resulted from a sincere attempt to seek other outlooks took some nasty turns along the way. Even if the thread had been started to win an argument, so what? If it was, I personally believe it was not a conscious decision to do so. There is nothing wrong with fiesty as long as there is no ill will. The only person who should have taken offense if that was the case is me. There are answers on both sides of the fence in this thread. Some believe "absolutely not" it is an abbreviation and that is all there is too it. Others believe to each their own and in this lifestyle, you will find as many definitions of a label as you will find people answering that question. You will be drawn to whichever post mirrors your own views.

I read somewhere that "there is no one true form of BDSM." I wish I could remember who said it so I could give credit because I believe it is probably the only absolute truth.

Tomato, tomahto...a good example here. By some definitions a tomato is a fruit. By other definitions it is a vegetable. But, if you asked the tomato, it would probably say, "Let me grow, let me ripen, just don't trample me."

 

[Etoile]

And you seriously think a sado like me isn't going to want to tightly hug?

*swoons*

 

[ecstaticsub]

Okay, here is the other half. I feel the need to clarify since this has evolved into something way out of control.

Here's the background of the statement. When I was first started feeling the urges about this lifestyle I found a local chat room for submissive women. Pretty much every sub-genre (no pun intended) was represented. I spent countless hours asking questions and listening to stories. Had it not been for them, I would never have had the courage to step it up into the real world.

These were not internet wannabes, these were actual people. They met for tea once a month and leaned on each other for support since a large majority were military wives dealing with their husbands half a world away with no guarantee of returning. I was never able to attend a tea because it was always held on the weekend I worked. I was however fortunate enough to have coffee with a few of them and found them informative, welcoming, and willing to pass on advice. I was hearing terms I had never heard of before and people explaining what it meant to them. I didn't really know where I fell. I knew what I wasn't. I wasn't a slave, I wasn't a pain slut, I was not interested in TPE. Several women said they referred to themselves as "subs" and to them it was not simply the abbreviation for submissive. What they said resonated with me. I do not fall under all categories of submissive.

I tried to explain that to some it is not just the abbreviation. This came far into the conversation. I felt the need to try to explain when a statement was made too broadly to which my correction received a "same thing." It was a conversation. It was not an argument. It was too different mindsets attempting to find an understanding. I had no negative feelings about the difficulty we were having as I believe neither did she. The term "rarity of submission" was not used. the only rarity would be in reference to the fact that some people use that term differently and that should be recognized. I consider myself to have a healthy ego however I am not so egotistical as to believe something that implies one type of submissive is more special compared to another.

I may be incorrect on this, but I believe in her original thread she was wanting to know if anyone else had heard of anyone identifying it as meaning more than just the abbreviation. Of course it is an abbreviation. However people have the right to take it upon themselves to identify them as best suits them. What resulted from a sincere attempt to seek other outlooks took some nasty turns along the way. Even if the thread had been started to win an argument, so what? If it was, I personally believe it was not a conscious decision to do so. There is nothing wrong with fiesty as long as there is no ill will. The only person who should have taken offense if that was the case is me. There are answers on both sides of the fence in this thread. Some believe "absolutely not" it is an abbreviation and that is all there is too it. Others believe to each their own and in this lifestyle, you will find as many definitions of a label as you will find people answering that question. You will be drawn to whichever post mirrors your own views.

I read somewhere that "there is no one true form of BDSM." I wish I could remember who said it so I could give credit because I believe it is probably the only absolute truth.

Tomato, tomahto...a good example here. By some definitions a tomato is a fruit. By other definitions it is a vegetable. But, if you asked the tomato, it would probably say, "Let me grow, let me ripen, just don't trample me."

Thanks for coming on and clarifying. Though I wonder a couple of things--first what exactly does "sub" mean to someone who does NOT think of it as just an abbreviation? I'm not passing judgement, I am just curious since I hadn't heard of it used that way before.

Second, there is a group of submissive military wives who get together for tea in SWFL ? Why didn't anyone tell me when we were stationed down that way? LOL

 

[Netzach]

Okay, here is the other half. I feel the need to clarify since this has evolved into something way out of control.

Here's the background of the statement. When I was first started feeling the urges about this lifestyle I found a local chat room for submissive women. Pretty much every sub-genre (no pun intended) was represented. I spent countless hours asking questions and listening to stories. Had it not been for them, I would never have had the courage to step it up into the real world.

These were not internet wannabes, these were actual people. They met for tea once a month and leaned on each other for support since a large majority were military wives dealing with their husbands half a world away with no guarantee of returning. I was never able to attend a tea because it was always held on the weekend I worked. I was however fortunate enough to have coffee with a few of them and found them informative, welcoming, and willing to pass on advice. I was hearing terms I had never heard of before and people explaining what it meant to them. I didn't really know where I fell. I knew what I wasn't. I wasn't a slave, I wasn't a pain slut, I was not interested in TPE. Several women said they referred to themselves as "subs" and to them it was not simply the abbreviation for submissive. What they said resonated with me. I do not fall under all categories of submissive.

I tried to explain that to some it is not just the abbreviation. This came far into the conversation. I felt the need to try to explain when a statement was made too broadly to which my correction received a "same thing." It was a conversation. It was not an argument. It was too different mindsets attempting to find an understanding. I had no negative feelings about the difficulty we were having as I believe neither did she. The term "rarity of submission" was not used. the only rarity would be in reference to the fact that some people use that term differently and that should be recognized. I consider myself to have a healthy ego however I am not so egotistical as to believe something that implies one type of submissive is more special compared to another.

I may be incorrect on this, but I believe in her original thread she was wanting to know if anyone else had heard of anyone identifying it as meaning more than just the abbreviation. Of course it is an abbreviation. However people have the right to take it upon themselves to identify them as best suits them. What resulted from a sincere attempt to seek other outlooks took some nasty turns along the way. Even if the thread had been started to win an argument, so what? If it was, I personally believe it was not a conscious decision to do so. There is nothing wrong with fiesty as long as there is no ill will. The only person who should have taken offense if that was the case is me. There are answers on both sides of the fence in this thread. Some believe "absolutely not" it is an abbreviation and that is all there is too it. Others believe to each their own and in this lifestyle, you will find as many definitions of a label as you will find people answering that question. You will be drawn to whichever post mirrors your own views.

I read somewhere that "there is no one true form of BDSM." I wish I could remember who said it so I could give credit because I believe it is probably the only absolute truth.

Tomato, tomahto...a good example here. By some definitions a tomato is a fruit. By other definitions it is a vegetable. But, if you asked the tomato, it would probably say, "Let me grow, let me ripen, just don't trample me."

Why?

Why does "I'm submissive to one person but not socially submissive" *need* an official label or jargon? (I'm sub but not submissive?)

Why can no one stand to use more than one word in english to articulate anything? The "ease of identification and common ground" argument in favor of labelling goes flying out the window peeps. I mean look how much longer it takes to speculate and argue about a label than it does to understand "I'm only submissive to HIM, so buzz off, Jack."

Additionally, I think people who *are* socially submissive are made to feel freakshow enough as it is. What is WRONG with enjoying serving your loved ones, taking care of the people around you, taking direction well when it's well offered, and generally being helpful? Do people really need a label to convey "I'm submissive but it's not what you think?"

Take responsibility for your difference and enough pride in it to articulate it, FFS.

Just my opinion.

(is more relived than ever not to ID as anything other than Domme, no matter what she's doing in bed with her switch)

 

[Homburg]

*throw Homburg a soap on a rope* lifeline.

*nods to Netzach*

Much *ahem* appreciated.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Why can no one stand to use more than one word in english to articulate anything? The "ease of identification and common ground" argument in favor of labelling goes flying out the window peeps. I mean look how much longer it takes to speculate and argue about a label than it does to understand "I'm only submissive to HIM, so buzz off, Jack."

Take responsibility for your difference and enough pride in it to articulate it, FFS.

And why the need to have a term that apply all the time, no matter what the context or the audience?

I identify as queer because this term better describe my sexuality/gender identification. But in some circles, it makes more sense to identify as dyke, and in other as bi -- mostly because queer is not as commonly used and doesn't resonate with everyone. In some cases, I'll make a point of using queer and explaining why I identify as such. But in other cases, i just could care less and if going as dyke is going to get the main point across, ie that i'm not het, i'm happy with that. And in other cases, saying that I'd fuck everyone but bio-men is easier than using a label.

 

[Rosie_Riveter]

Is there any other group of people that worries so much about defining selves and others?

I don't mean this as a snarky question at all. Since I'm monogamous with a fairly vanilla husband, I don't worry much about finding a label for me. Or for anyone else for that matter. I love reading about people's lives but it doesn't matter much to me what they call themselves.

Just curious as to what sparks the conflict.
But not curious enough if discussing conflict causes more conflict.

 

[Netzach]

And why the need to have a term that apply all the time, no matter what the context or the audience?

I identify as queer because this term better describe my sexuality/gender identification. But in some circles, it makes more sense to identify as dyke, and in other as bi -- mostly because queer is not as commonly used and doesn't resonate with everyone. In some cases, I'll make a point of using queer and explaining why I identify as such. But in other cases, i just could care less and if going as dyke is going to get the main point across, ie that i'm not het, i'm happy with that. And in other cases, saying that I'd fuck everyone but bio-men is easier than using a label.

Yes.

The moment anyone who didn't pop out of Zeus's head has children they illustrate this paradigm. Mom? Kid?

 

[DeservingBitch]

Is there any other group of people that worries so much about defining selves and others?

I don't mean this as a snarky question at all. Since I'm monogamous with a fairly vanilla husband, I don't worry much about finding a label for me. Or for anyone else for that matter. I love reading about people's lives but it doesn't matter much to me what they call themselves.

Just curious as to what sparks the conflict.
But not curious enough if discussing conflict causes more conflict.

Self-identification and labels tend to matter more to anyone or any groups that do not fit the 'norm'. Just because, well, they're not the norm.

It's not surprising that as a het monogamous fairly vanilla couple, you don't worry much about label: the labels that apply to you are what is considered the 'default' by most people and society in general. So, no need to worry about it.

But for people who don't fit into the 'default' option, labels do matter. On a personal and on a societal level.

 

[Rosie_Riveter]

Self-identification and labels tend to matter more to anyone or any groups that do not fit the 'norm'. Just because, well, they're not the norm.

It's not surprising that as a het monogamous fairly vanilla couple, you don't worry much about label: the labels that apply to you are what is considered the 'default' by most people and society in general. So, no need to worry about it.

But for people who don't fit into the 'default' option, labels do matter. On a personal and on a societal level.

I'm not so vanilla. That's the spouse.
I would call me sub.

And yes, I do understand the non-normative aspect. But I hang out with lots of lesbians and it doesn't seem to be a lesbian thing. Now anyway--there was a good deal more discussion of categories and sub-categories in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

[unfoundiamond]

And those are only the simplest definitions...

Noone mentioned the sub rosa and the sub tegmine fagi variations...

Have you read this book: The sub-way - a new path for submissives?

Something along the lines of shibari, but Korean style: the Sub-aru.

A submissive with a bass voice, is he/she called a sub-woofer?

I've heard of people having fun in caves, basements, etc... they are called the sub-terranean.

For the comp-freaks that like things planned well in advance: the sub-routine (advanced level: the editing sub-routine).

A more affectionate term for a sub: a sub-let

A sub with writing skills: a sub-scribe

A sub that waits tables: a sub-serve

A sub's hand writing: sub-script

(not sure if this one works in English too) The PC correct way to address an African sub is: sub-saharian.
The same works for other parts of the world, like sub-arctic, sub-polar, etc..

And so on, ad libitum...

Gee, golly you is purdy smart I reckon.

 

[unfoundiamond]

Okay, here is the other half. I feel the need to clarify since this has evolved into something way out of control.

Here's the background of the statement. When I was first started feeling the urges about this lifestyle I found a local chat room for submissive women. Pretty much every sub-genre (no pun intended) was represented. I spent countless hours asking questions and listening to stories. Had it not been for them, I would never have had the courage to step it up into the real world.

These were not internet wannabes, these were actual people. They met for tea once a month and leaned on each other for support since a large majority were military wives dealing with their husbands half a world away with no guarantee of returning. I was never able to attend a tea because it was always held on the weekend I worked. I was however fortunate enough to have coffee with a few of them and found them informative, welcoming, and willing to pass on advice. I was hearing terms I had never heard of before and people explaining what it meant to them. I didn't really know where I fell. I knew what I wasn't. I wasn't a slave, I wasn't a pain slut, I was not interested in TPE. Several women said they referred to themselves as "subs" and to them it was not simply the abbreviation for submissive. What they said resonated with me. I do not fall under all categories of submissive.

I tried to explain that to some it is not just the abbreviation. This came far into the conversation. I felt the need to try to explain when a statement was made too broadly to which my correction received a "same thing." It was a conversation. It was not an argument. It was too different mindsets attempting to find an understanding. I had no negative feelings about the difficulty we were having as I believe neither did she. The term "rarity of submission" was not used. the only rarity would be in reference to the fact that some people use that term differently and that should be recognized. I consider myself to have a healthy ego however I am not so egotistical as to believe something that implies one type of submissive is more special compared to another.

I may be incorrect on this, but I believe in her original thread she was wanting to know if anyone else had heard of anyone identifying it as meaning more than just the abbreviation. Of course it is an abbreviation. However people have the right to take it upon themselves to identify them as best suits them. What resulted from a sincere attempt to seek other outlooks took some nasty turns along the way. Even if the thread had been started to win an argument, so what? If it was, I personally believe it was not a conscious decision to do so. There is nothing wrong with fiesty as long as there is no ill will. The only person who should have taken offense if that was the case is me. There are answers on both sides of the fence in this thread. Some believe "absolutely not" it is an abbreviation and that is all there is too it. Others believe to each their own and in this lifestyle, you will find as many definitions of a label as you will find people answering that question. You will be drawn to whichever post mirrors your own views.

I read somewhere that "there is no one true form of BDSM." I wish I could remember who said it so I could give credit because I believe it is probably the only absolute truth.

Tomato, tomahto...a good example here. By some definitions a tomato is a fruit. By other definitions it is a vegetable. But, if you asked the tomato, it would probably say, "Let me grow, let me ripen, just don't trample me."

Now, Had you have said that, I wouldn't be confused and wouldn't have needed to ask anyone... you didn't tell me where you got the definition... So I wondered if it was some jargon thing, or some term OTHER people use.

You prolly would have gotten to post the thread too...

You are dead right on not wanting to offend, but really wanting to see what others think, I like to learn from others...like you and the "coffee talk" Ladies...

BTW- rarity to submission means like how you where saying you are socially dominant, and are rarely submissive...

I am glad I have my answers...

Thx

 

[VelvetDarkness]

**That's the problem**

And the convo was online, but I am saying if someone uses it in front of me, than I am to assume its a abbreviation for submissive, right?

Because when she said she was a "sub" and I assumed she ment like submissive, and basically didn't like "submissive" because she wasn't submissive all the time

She considers herself "His sub" like meaning she was his equal most the time and was socially dominant and strong willed... and she insisted that's what "sub" ment... I can't tell her "no, that's not right" since I enjoy being submissive, but am also a confused bisexual switch (what can ya do, LOL*doesn't think she's confused*)

So I am not the authority on "subs"

I came here to ask if this was some like common jargon thing...

I didn't know if this was some thing I hadn't heard of...

(Or this is what I understood, K, If I got something wrong I am sorry in advance)

I see what you mean. People often use the word sub to differentiate from slave. (sorry if I'm repeating stuff, I haven't read everything through) That generally means that they are not submissive 24/7, just in the bedroom.

I've been a member here for a while now and I am most certainly not an authority on subs. I am an authority on picky people who are petty about their labels though. I'd quit while you're behind, like I did, and just identify people's kink on an individual basis.

"So... you're a bi/curious, trassexual, lesbian switch in a poly, as a slave, except on thursdays when you switch around and flog everyone's ass? That's just great."

*Riffles through bag for the bi/trans/lesbian/switch/poly/slave label*

Honestly. I really wouldn't worry about it.

 

[DeservingBitch]

I'm not so vanilla. That's the spouse.
I would call me sub.

Oops! Didn't catch that the first time I read your post.

And yes, I do understand the non-normative aspect. But I hang out with lots of lesbians and it doesn't seem to be a lesbian thing. Now anyway--there was a good deal more discussion of categories and sub-categories in the 1970s and 1980s.

I guess it depends a lot on the context. When I'm with my group of mostly queer non-vanilla friends, nobody really cares about who identifies as what. But when I'm in a larger more heterogenous group like a fetish party, I often feel more compelled to clearly identify myself as a queer Top. But that's probably in large part to reduce undesired and unwanted attention from het male Tops, especially those annoying ones who seem to assume that every pussy in the room is het and submissive and waiting for their favors.

 

[Rosie_Riveter]

Oops! Didn't catch that the first time I read your post.


I guess it depends a lot on the context. When I'm with my group of mostly queer non-vanilla friends, nobody really cares about who identifies as what. But when I'm in a larger more heterogenous group like a fetish party, I often feel more compelled to clearly identify myself as a queer Top. But that's probably in large part to reduce undesired and unwanted attention from het male Tops, especially those annoying ones who seem to assume that every pussy in the room is het and submissive and waiting for their favors.

Yes, I can see the need to identify oneself in that kind of context!

And of course context more generally matters. I had a good many more conversations about sexuality and gender in the 1970s and 1980s than I do now. Talking about the various antics of one's children seldom leads to the parsing of sexuality terms.

Although now that I have a teenager, that could change.

 

[madetotakeit]

I see what you mean. People often use the word sub to differentiate from slave. (sorry if I'm repeating stuff, I haven't read everything through) That generally means that they are not submissive 24/7, just in the bedroom.-VelvetDarkness

I included that concept in the discussion in reference to not always being submissive to the partner. And that was really the crux of my end of the discussion. Before the semantics kicked in.

"So... you're a bi/curious, trassexual, lesbian switch in a poly, as a slave, except on thursdays when you switch around and flog everyone's ass? That's just great."-Velvetdarkness

I love it! Thanks for bringing some humor into the post!

Now, Had you have said that, I wouldn't be confused and wouldn't have needed to ask anyone... you didn't tell me where you got the definition... So I wondered if it was some jargon thing, or some term OTHER people use...You prolly would have gotten to post the thread too...-Unfoundiamond

I did say "to some" and "to others" multiple times. I was so busy banging my head against the keyboard trying to find a way to make the concept clear to you that I assumed those clarifiers would suffice. (The imprint of the keys did at least fade before my dog woke me up to go out at 5:30 in the morning... ) This was not the area of the conversation I would have posted on, but I knew one of us would start a thread based on the conversation...two strong willed people, neither willing to back down on what they think. The differing views on this thread are as much of an answer as I need for what I would have brought up.

Is there any other group of people that worries so much about defining selves and others? -Rosie_Riveter

I have sat in gay bars with my head spinning between room mate and his friends/not friends listening to their version of this. This thread pales in comparison.

Self-identification and labels tend to matter more to anyone or any groups that do not fit the 'norm'. Just because, well, they're not the norm.-DeservingBitch

Good point. Most people who see themselves as different from the norm want to be understood not misunderstood.

Why does "I'm submissive to one person but not socially submissive" *need* an official label or jargon? (I'm sub but not submissive?)...Why can no one stand to use more than one word in english to articulate anything?-Netzach

In the context of the entire section of the conversation it needed a label and I passed on the one I am familiar with. Being sub without submissiveness was neither stated nor implied. I have always felt very comfortable expressing myself. I like to consider myself to be articulate.

Second, there is a group of submissive military wives who get together for tea in SWFL ? Why didn't anyone tell me when we were stationed down that way? LOL-ecstaticsub

I wish! Alas, this was in another state. I wish there was one here. I would love to be able to have that wonderful opportunity again now that I am not so timid in discussing this . As beneficial as it was, it would be so much more so now that I have a better understanding of who/what I am...what to ask. There are a multitude of things I would value their input on now that I am somewhat more educated and aware. Last I checked most of them had spread to the wind due to retirements and post transfers. This was a user created chat room on Yahoo so it went the way of the Dodo.

*sigh* Can we return to playing well with others now?

 

[unfoundiamond]

Thanks, Velvet...

I see what you mean. People often use the word sub to differentiate from slave. (sorry if I'm repeating stuff, I haven't read everything through) That generally means that they are not submissive 24/7, just in the bedroom.***

I've been a member here for a while now and I am most certainly not an authority on subs. I am an authority on picky people who are petty about their labels though. I'd quit while you're behind, like I did, and just identify people's kink on an individual basis.

"So... you're a bi/curious, trassexual, lesbian switch in a poly, as a slave, except on thursdays when you switch around and flog everyone's ass? That's just great."

*Riffles through bag for the bi/trans/lesbian/switch/poly/slave label*

Honestly. I really wouldn't worry about it.

I think you're right... and yes, I think she did mean to differentiate from slave, and didn't know how to ask the question propery, since I didn't understand what she was saying in the first place...

You are one of the few people who actually read and tried to understand what I was asking... and had no idea people would turn this question into me telling people anything...

GENERAL QUESTION~

I thought the whole point of a label is to classify ourselves(for ourselves or others), find people like us or compatible mates... and if we wanted, diffrentiate us from the cookie cutter masses that shun diffrence and allows us to find each other in the sea of faces...

Then if a label is ment to classify of explain us, then it should have a universal meaning for the most part, so it can actually do that...

If we have a million people, and each have a label for themself, and those million labels all have diffrent meanings (even those that use the same word) What's the point in using labels?

I don't like labels... and I am thinking this kind of thing is part of the reason.

 

[Homburg]

A million different labels would just be short descriptions. Labels are short descriptions that can be meaningfully shared by a given demographic.

Still, labels are akin to shrinking down your existence to fit on a business card. Ick.