That’s what I was trying to say. I think my meaning may have gotten lost in the rewrite I had to do when my computer burped on me. :)

Removing it, or asking them to remove theirs in order to talk to you, is asking an impossible thing.

I’ve never asked people to do that. Instead, I’m acknowledging the fact that people don’t do that, and, to put it simply, they can’t.

And at the same time, my understanding of what that word means is rounded out, has more meaning added (not less!). And the more meaning I have, the less assumption I make about what the next person who uses that word means.

I can understand this point of view, but I have to politely disagree completely. You’re not adding new meaning to a single word, you’re creating a lookup table of one “meaning” indexed by the person you’re being spoken to. The fact that you are also gaining an awareness that a single word can have multiple meanings actually puts your practice more in line with my theory.

I think it’s similar to an age-old creative writing problem: the writer decides he needs to write a great book that everybody will understand and relate to, so he tries writing about something that everyone has experienced, and using words in a way that is as un-subjective as possible.

On the contrary, every creative writer who wants people to relate to their writing tends to use the most subjective form of communication possible, not the most objective. That’s the job of technical writers, like myself. It’s just that the bad creative writers don’t know this and are thus, as you say, not very interesting.

Sorry this is terse, but I am stressed for time at the moment. Thanks for the lovely comment, though!

I’m fascinated by this idea and, while I think what you’re trying to do is great, I question your ability to do it by attempting to remove added meaning from words. I don’t think there’s such a thing as a word without added meaning. Any word comes with meaning. And the meaning comes from other times the person has heard that word (including, but not limited to, reading it in the dictionary — and there’s the issue of which dictionary we’re using, of course. There are lots, and the relative number of words you use and have looked up is tiny). Removing it, or asking them to remove theirs in order to talk to you, is asking an impossible thing.

What I learned from the comments on this post is that, when each person explains what they mean by the word they use for their sexuality, then I understand what they mean, and not before. And at the same time, my understanding of what that word means is rounded out, has more meaning added (not less!). And the more meaning I have, the less assumption I make about what the next person who uses that word means.

I think it’s similar to an age-old creative writing problem: the writer decides he needs to write a great book that everybody will understand and relate to, so he tries writing about something that everyone has experienced, and using words in a way that is as un-subjective as possible. (“The person walked the dog on the roadway.”) And it’s awful (from an enjoyment point of view). And also he gives nothing that we can relate to except the words he uses. So people with ferrets or who walk in fields look at it and say, “there’s nothing there that I relate to.” If he instead goes as subjective as possible, tells us that Tim-Bit the recalcitrant corgy tugs the leash just as Norman steps off the curb and he steps in a puddle that’s rainbow-sheened with oil and thinks “well, sod a dog, that’s going to stain my new Reebox”), then a) it’s more likely people will keep reading, and thus he can get his message across, and b) he gets the message across more accurately than if he’d used only what everyone has experienced (no added meaning).

God, sorry this is so long. That’s the problem with my theory: it takes longer to be subjective. But it works, which I feel is a plus.

oh my, maymay, you’ve got an awful lot of words coming out of your mouth.“

Oh my, Marcus, you don’t seem to have a lot of words coming out of yours.

oh my, maymay, you’ve got an awful lot of words coming out of your mouth.

Bitchy, I f’ing love you.

Of course, that’s exactly what this whole entry is about. The words were fine from the start, but people’s own filters, their inability to understand the distinctions between their own added meaning and the message they’ve been given from someone else, always fucks communication right up right well. The sooner people get a handle on that the better this world will be.

But Eileen is in a very different situation to you. She’d already queered by having a kinky sexuality. A woman in a kinky space is assumed to be bisexual (believe me!) She doesn’t need to be so clear, because the assumptions of the wider world will have already pegged her as fucking women.

Whereas you, even though you are queered by being submissive you are assumed to be straight. If you pick out a label like ‘pansexual’ you are in danger of it sounding like a trendy pose (a la metrosexual) rather than a clear message that you suck more than one kind of cock. Especially as your primary relationship is straight. (Submissive men even get to indulge in an awful lot of homosexual and homosexuallish acts and still be ‘straight’.)

So you *need* to use bisexual. Eileen doesn’t. Not because the words mean different things, but because your assumed defaults are different and these kind of labels are almost always about expressing how you deviate from the default.

I think that’s right. I’m sorry my answer embodies a binary thinginess of gender.