Labels Are Awesome and They Suck

Cross-posted with FetLife, (although this one's a bit more visually-friendly this time around, in my opinion...)

When we first learn a term for something that we didn't know had its own word or its own phrase, when we first find out something has a label at all, it's awesome, amazing, "Wait, there's enough people that share my experience that there's a word for this thing?!"  As you read through the rest of this post, don't forget this, labels are powerful for those who need them.

When we're first getting to know each other, whether it be things that identify us, or turn ons, or limits, or just any general info about ourselves, labels are useful in directing conversation, in providing quick bullet points to touch on later.  Any label is a branch of conversation waiting to be tapped.

Labels are a great communication tool... but they are the beginning of a conversation, nothing more!  Many people make the mistake of assuming that they automatically understand someone because they know what they believe that label to mean.  People function well in categorizing things into boxes, and labels are what get put on those boxes, but it also prevents people from seeing the individuals in those boxes as individuals sometimes.

Disclaimer

This can also relate to vanilla dating, gaming, politics of all kinds, nerd culture, and so on.  This is a general human thing, and while I may briefly touch on a couple of things that are not kink-specific, I will mainly stick with labels one will commonly see/hear regularly in the kink community, both online (i.e. FetLife) and in-person.

This isn't for any one person or one group, I've constantly saying "Man, I really want to write on that some day" for probably a year straight, at least, so here it is.

Gender Identity

Getting this one out of the way quickly as I'm not even gonna try to get into gender identity labels, I will offend someone without meaning to, forget something, or some crappy thing because, while I pay attention to messages and information sent my way, I don't hunt down more like someone who is still trying to figure themselves out.  I mention gender identity here, because those who're nonbinary and those that are transgender will often feel more openly accepted by the kink community, and thus will more openly identify with those various gender identity labels in kink than you'll generally come across in that vanilla financial sector job or whatnot.

Thankfully, people try to define the various terms quite specifically, but they definitely will get misinterpretted, and assumptions will happen.  As a hetereosexual cis-male, I have to assume people will be angry with me regarding gender anything because "cishet man," at least until I openly say "I know that I know nothing, I'm just listening" and actually show that I mean that by keeping my trap shut aside from asking non-leading questions.

Sexual Orientations

I'd say I'll get this outta the way quickly here, but with multiple people who're friends and former play partners who label themselves as some of the most misunderstood labels, I kinda wanna say a couple things here.  Touching on it here because of how commonly sexual identity has to come up in kink.

Bisexuals and pansexuals get assumed to be wanting to fuck everyone, because "attracted to gender type" means "attracted to all of that gender"... you know just like how a heterosexual man wants to fuck every single living female, no matter their attitude, look, age, intelligence, etc., I mean obviously.  OH, oh, then bisexuals and pansexuals are believed to be lying when they are only fucking one person that particular day who happens to only be a single gender, because that means they "finally picked one" and are no longer attracted to other genders, right?  (tongue-in-cheek nothing, tongue is practically poking through the cheek here)

The labels one chooses matters to them.
Bisexual Resource Center... interestingly could not find this graphic on their site, but c'est la vie

A person using the word "asexual" in their label gets assumed to never get aroused or never get pleasure out of sex with an intimate partner.  Sometimes there miiiiight be a touch more to it.  Then again, sometimes there isn't, I appreciated seeing someone label themselves as "sex-averse asexual" to clarify that point from the getgo.  They also get assumed to not be interested in kink or not fitting into a kink space... but kink does not equal sex, and sometimes, it takes more than 1-2 words to describe what fulfilling a kink does for you, limiting it to "sexual" and "gets me off" is limiting people too much to have a real conversation with you.  And regardless of any of the above, it is a full conversation if you both want to be intimately close in any capacity, or want to play together, or anything else of that nature.  And, btw, I do not consider "intimacy" to automatically mean "sex."

  

I've heard a couple people scoff when "gray asexual" was used a few times.  If they're using a term like that, they're probably putting more thought into it than you, so ask what that means for them, maybe?

I've definitely heard sapiosexual used interchangeably with demisexual by a few people... and I can see why, but again, more conversation makes their interests clear.  There is a fine line between "How can I be attracted to someone when we've never had an intelligent conversation?" and "How can I be attracted to them, I hardly even know them?" and frankly, someone can be both (GASP!), so... ya know... conversation just waiting to happen.

We'll not even touch on how transgender and nonconforming gender identities come into play with the various labels here, because this post will get long enough without doing more than recognizing there's conversations to be had there.

Relationships

Types of relationships, in terms of polyamory, monogamous, non-monogamous, monogamish, it tells you enough to know if you want to even poke your head into delving deeper.  And again, while it's not specifically kinky, the gray areas will be more openly discussed in the kink community than by the water cooler at the standard 8-5 job - hell, my coworkers think my wife and I just go hang out with friends on a regular basis and that's it - so it's a very kink-adjacent topic.

Want to date someone, but you know they're in what they call a "monogamous relationship"?  Man, that sucks, should probably stop there and just expect to be friends.  Then ya find out that they have regular "play partners" that the other partner is fully aware of and cool with... but didn't they say "monogamous"?  Sure, and guess what, it still fits.  Especially if you realize that you have no idea what they mean by "play partner," and there's all sorts of gray areas one can get complicated with there.  And the play partner(s) probably have both of those peoples' trust to not step too far in any particular capacity, so don't just assume you can simply step in... but asking if they do any form of play with others, if that's what you're honestly interested in?  Well, again, it's the start of a conversation, isn't it?

Then ya have people describing themselves as non-monogamous... why say that and not polyamorous?  They probably have a good reason, so ask!

Speaking of polyamory... they love multiple people!  I mean, it's in the label, right?  But there's nothing else you can assume from that at all, as there are several different ways of structuring and handling polyamory, and I've met plenty of serial-monogamists that are far less picky than most polyamorous people I know, so don't be stupid enough to assume it'd be easy to become intimate with someone who's polyamorous solely because they use that label.

I've recently heard someone say that you can't call yourself poly if you're single.  Fuck that, you know what way you lean and what you're interested in or are open to.  Sure, ya never know what can happen when someone somehow consistently hits all of your good buttons, but ya know the conversations ya wanna have with someone as ya get together, don't ya?

My girl and I have used the term "monogamish" before to indicate we're a gray area that needs describing to prevent limits getting crossed... and I've basically stopped using that term because people still have regularly assumed I'm 100% monogamous and won't ask more if I say "monogamish."  So I started saying we are sexually monogamous, but that it's specifically with interacting with our genitals and all other kinds of play are on the table... to which someone recently assumed that I was "anti-intimacy" despite the fact that without even moderate intimacy (non-sexual being considered here), kink play is almost meaningless to me... so frankly, I want to just give up on labels here.  Figuring I wanna go with "non-monogamous" with a couple specific relationship limitations so the conversation happens... because "why do they call themselves non-monogamous?  Ask!"

Relationship descriptors are complicated.

Try putting any of this into a 1-2 word label, I can point mine out here, but I'll leave it for conversation. How about you?
The Types of Non-Monogamy by Franklin Veaux

Kink Roles

Ahhh... now we get into kink specifically, not simply "kink-adjacent"!

Alright, so what's the difference between a submissive and a slave?  Everyone knows!  Oh, and everyone's answer is completely different, too, often contradicting everyone else's answer.
Okay, fine then, let's simplify the question, right?  What is a slave?  Aside from a word with a very charged history behind it, again, no one has a single answer.  "Simplify the question," riiiight...

Oh, and Master... I use the label as considering myself a specific someone's Master, but I'd not personally use it the same as a Leather Master would, which is a Master of a craft and someone who's paid their dues and to be respected in the Leather scene.  A Leather Master is not automatically calling themselves your Master.  But it is an interesting discussion of what their term means to them, isn't it?

Only "True Dominants" Need Apply?  Okay, I know the definition of that one, and oddly enough, it's the exact same as if they said "True Submissives": (1) tongue-in-cheek humor or satire, or (2) turn around and walk the other way, that's what it means.  Sometimes, ya can talk more and find out what they mean... but I've been disappointed enough by what people seriously mean by those two phrases enough to care... and they often mean various different things... but when all those different things are offensive and presumptive, does it matter?  Okay, this is an assumption, sure... but it's an assumption about a person based on what they're willing to assume about others.  They brought an end to the conversation before it ever started, learn when to walk away early.

I've seen people use the terms "Top" and "bottom" to indicate power exchange.  I'd say the terms are being used incorrectly there, because my definition is just "person doing action" and "person receiving action."  I'd also say the dictionary is wrong to say that the 2nd definition for "literally" is "figuratively"... but here we are.  If it matters to the conversation, then just ask about details regarding power exchange dynamics, because ya just never know, and maybe it matters to them... and it should matter to you, at least if you're in the middle of negotiating a scene.

And just never, ever assume a sadist to be a Dominant or a masochist to be a submissive.  Enjoyment of pain and enjoyment of power dynamics are completely separate spectrums.  Pain is pain, and authority is authority.  And man can they play out in a variety of interesting ways.

Kinks and Negotiation

People want, and don't want, a variety of different things, such a large variety that there aren't enough words to differentiate with quick labels without delving in head-first once there's something that cues you in.  And the second you assume, is the second before someone else or you yourself have a bad time.

"Impact" you say?  Great... so we don't need to talk about anything else, right?  OH, ok, stingy or thuddy?  Bruising or no?  Sensual or mean or somewhere in between?  Here's all my toys, what looks good to- wait, you said you want stingy but you just said "no" to all my stingy toys... (always remember, a negotiation ending with an agreement not to play is still a successful negotiation)

Alright, "rope"!  Let's just do some rope dance and... wait, you wanted to actually be tied up?  Sure, alright... wait, that's too tight?  I thought you'd want to be restricted?  Ohh, you just wanted to enjoy feeling held by the rope, okay, we can work with that.  Hmm, you want to be suspended but you also are too scared to?  How about partial suspension, let's lift your leg while the rest of you stays on the ground.  The conversation doesn't just end at "rope," and all kinks have some way you can be creative to handle and take care of concerns and worries.

We agreed on "hypnosis," so it's probably really relaxing, right?  Tell that to the person who was (consensually) guided through the experience of having molten metal poured into their veins, not physically obviously, but walked through every excruciating detail to experience it, solely mentally.  Not the most relaxing thing in the world.  On a different hand, I suppose feeling encased in a thick prison of wax might be really relaxing to one person and terrifying to another...
Then we get into the label of "limit": Ask yourself, all those limits you have based on someone physically doing those things (touching between your legs, for example)...

• ...but what if it was solely in your head, but not physically done to you?
• Are those limits identical?
• Limit still there but looser (is okay, but "I only want to imagine my spouse or myself touching there")?
• Limit still there and even more stringent ("you're getting in my head, let's pull back a bit")?
• Limit not there at all if no physicality of that limit is involved ("touch between the legs?  Pft, more like fuck my brains out if it's only in my head, please!")?

It's all just the start of a conversation, or bullet points to expand more upon and clarify.

No sex... okay, but can my fingers touch your genitals?  Whattya mean "of course"?  How am I supposed to know that when you just said no sex?  Alright, cool, so I can play between your- oh, oral sex is an option too?  Aaaaaand scene!

You know what?  Just stop saying "no sex," say what you mean.  I know it feels like it'll take longer, but trust me, this roundabout stuff won't (unless you're playing in a location where the rules are very explicit, because negotiations generally should not need to include "I don't want to get banned from this venue").  And if you mean "no" to anything touching anything near your genitals... even then, ya gotta say what you mean, because ya know my joking commentary above where someone didn't consider "oral sex" to be sex?  Yea.  That.  It's happened.  Both as "please do it" situations and as "consent violation" situations.

A recent pet peeve of mine?  The label of "edge play."  What does it mean for you?  I've heard kinks labelled as "edge play" when I feel that there's a ton of safe, easy, basic things one can do without knowing much, and I've seen kinks that people just do as a matter of course without thought that I regularly considered "edge play."  In my opinion, "edge play" both stifles and starts a conversation at the same time.  It's like saying a TV show is "edgy," it feels like it means nothing more than to say "It's not for everyone," and frankly, I don't need the label of "edgy" on it to figure that shit out.

Can I tell you my number one pet peeve when it comes to negotiating play with someone, though?  When they list "humiliation" without saying more than that it's a turn on or a limit.  Everyone finds different things to be humiliating, and some people may only find certain contexts of humiliating terminology to be hot, like calling someone a dirty fucking slut privately in the bedroom vs. in front of a crowd of kinksters could get very different reactions.  One person means being degraded, another person means being embarrassed.  It is one of the most ambiguous terms ever, and it is constantly used in the kink scene as though it means a singular thing!  It is always an entire conversation to just find out what they do or don't enjoy when that terms comes up.  I don't mean not to say it, but you better be ready to define what it does and does not mean.

Conclusion

A good presentation using slides or a good outline for discussion don't have every single detail written out.  They have bullet points, topics, cues.  This is what labels are, a cue.  "That's a thing that exists" and "generic meaning to expand upon."  The moment you assume you know everything because of a single word is the moment you're no longer communicating.

So to close, I'll link to a few pages of one of my favorite comics, El Goonish Shive: