FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Labels
Labels
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think in a way as a society they help people to feel part of something. They help us to identify common factors with others and connects us to something bigger. There are people who strive to be individuals and refuse labels which is understandable but also puts them in the "people who refuse to be labeled" category. Our brains like familiarity and order. Breaking things down into nice manageable boxes keeps our brains content. " That's very true, it's impossible to not 'be something' in this (dare I say it) postmodern age, where everything about us signifies something. I'd say though that labels are crucial social signifiers and are essential for us navigating and interacting with others. | |||
"They can be convenient, but they can also be restricting if we define ourselves too much by them" Not to point you out in a negative way but it was yourself that used the statement "labels aren't important" on the other thread. Are you saying that this isn't the case? | |||
"I don't think labels matter if you can, and do, define your point clearly in words.. I can say I like a, b, c but dislike d without it equalling anything.. it just is what it is." I see your point but not just limiting the thought to fab (although fab is very relevant), we don't always get the opportunity to clearly define ourselves in a contextual sense and rarely in detail. | |||
"Yes they are certainly helpful." Why do you think so? | |||
"Not sure about important but in the context of Fab they can certainly be "useful" - the obvious example being sexuality, especially male sexuality, if guys don't label themselves as bisexual (if they are of course) they're effectively ruling themselves out of the search parameters of anyone looking for just that. Likewise, although possibly to a lesser extent, any other label we may apply." Yes, the sexuality label on fab is always a bit of a hot topic for guys isn't it? | |||
| |||
"I don't think labels matter if you can, and do, define your point clearly in words.. I can say I like a, b, c but dislike d without it equalling anything.. it just is what it is. I see your point but not just limiting the thought to fab (although fab is very relevant), we don't always get the opportunity to clearly define ourselves in a contextual sense and rarely in detail. " I'm trying to think of an example outside fab where aside from ticking boxes this would happen.. brains not working today! | |||
"Not sure about important but in the context of Fab they can certainly be "useful" - the obvious example being sexuality, especially male sexuality, if guys don't label themselves as bisexual (if they are of course) they're effectively ruling themselves out of the search parameters of anyone looking for just that. Likewise, although possibly to a lesser extent, any other label we may apply. Yes, the sexuality label on fab is always a bit of a hot topic for guys isn't it? " It's the thorniest and hoariest of debates in Fab's existence | |||
"Not sure about important but in the context of Fab they can certainly be "useful" - the obvious example being sexuality, especially male sexuality, if guys don't label themselves as bisexual (if they are of course) they're effectively ruling themselves out of the search parameters of anyone looking for just that. Likewise, although possibly to a lesser extent, any other label we may apply. Yes, the sexuality label on fab is always a bit of a hot topic for guys isn't it? It's the thorniest and hoariest of debates in Fab's existence "Think we are overdue a thread | |||
"I don't think labels matter if you can, and do, define your point clearly in words.. I can say I like a, b, c but dislike d without it equalling anything.. it just is what it is. I see your point but not just limiting the thought to fab (although fab is very relevant), we don't always get the opportunity to clearly define ourselves in a contextual sense and rarely in detail. I'm trying to think of an example outside fab where aside from ticking boxes this would happen.. brains not working today!" I think it's far more prevalent than you'd even think; wear a football top; you're a fan, wear a suit to work; office worker, holding hands with your boyfriend in public; heterosexual (likely), girlfriend... These are just basic ones that popped into my head, others are far more complex, yet just as prevalent. | |||
"Not sure about important but in the context of Fab they can certainly be "useful" - the obvious example being sexuality, especially male sexuality, if guys don't label themselves as bisexual (if they are of course) they're effectively ruling themselves out of the search parameters of anyone looking for just that. Likewise, although possibly to a lesser extent, any other label we may apply. Yes, the sexuality label on fab is always a bit of a hot topic for guys isn't it? It's the thorniest and hoariest of debates in Fab's existence
Think we are overdue a thread "Not it! | |||
"They are helpful as long as the person being labelled is OK with said lable. If it's one you have given yourself or accepted that's fine but for example If I choose to discibe my body type or sexually in a certain way its not for anyone else to say I'm wrong. " I'm not 100% in agreement with you on that, labels work by having an objectively agreed set of definitions, someone defining themselves as athletic if the only thing they've ever run was a tap, is clearly not. | |||
"They are helpful as long as the person being labelled is OK with said lable. If it's one you have given yourself or accepted that's fine but for example If I choose to discibe my body type or sexually in a certain way its not for anyone else to say I'm wrong. I'm not 100% in agreement with you on that, labels work by having an objectively agreed set of definitions, someone defining themselves as athletic if the only thing they've ever run was a tap, is clearly not. " When did the body label athletic mean you had to actively partake in athletic sports? | |||
"They are helpful as long as the person being labelled is OK with said lable. If it's one you have given yourself or accepted that's fine but for example If I choose to discibe my body type or sexually in a certain way its not for anyone else to say I'm wrong. I'm not 100% in agreement with you on that, labels work by having an objectively agreed set of definitions, someone defining themselves as athletic if the only thing they've ever run was a tap, is clearly not. When did the body label athletic mean you had to actively partake in athletic sports? " It doesn't, it's generally quantifiable through a very efficient cardio vascular system and low body fat %, usually associated with high levels of physical activity. I was using the term 'run' as that was the first that sprang to mind. | |||
"They are helpful as long as the person being labelled is OK with said lable. If it's one you have given yourself or accepted that's fine but for example If I choose to discibe my body type or sexually in a certain way its not for anyone else to say I'm wrong. I'm not 100% in agreement with you on that, labels work by having an objectively agreed set of definitions, someone defining themselves as athletic if the only thing they've ever run was a tap, is clearly not. When did the body label athletic mean you had to actively partake in athletic sports? It doesn't, it's generally quantifiable through a very efficient cardio vascular system and low body fat %, usually associated with high levels of physical activity. I was using the term 'run' as that was the first that sprang to mind. " What’s wrong if someone does self identify as athletic but doesn’t meet your definition of it? Just wondering. I don’t think all labels actually always have an objectively agreed definition by the way. For example, there’s no clearly accepted definition of homeless, and I don’t think there is one for the body term athletic either. Shrugs. | |||
| |||
"They are helpful as long as the person being labelled is OK with said lable. If it's one you have given yourself or accepted that's fine but for example If I choose to discibe my body type or sexually in a certain way its not for anyone else to say I'm wrong. I'm not 100% in agreement with you on that, labels work by having an objectively agreed set of definitions, someone defining themselves as athletic if the only thing they've ever run was a tap, is clearly not. When did the body label athletic mean you had to actively partake in athletic sports? It doesn't, it's generally quantifiable through a very efficient cardio vascular system and low body fat %, usually associated with high levels of physical activity. I was using the term 'run' as that was the first that sprang to mind. What’s wrong if someone does self identify as athletic but doesn’t meet your definition of it? Just wondering. I don’t think all labels actually always have an objectively agreed definition by the way. For example, there’s no clearly accepted definition of homeless, and I don’t think there is one for the body term athletic either. Shrugs." Apologies, not clearly accepted - I mean universally accepted and applied in all cases. | |||
| |||
"They are helpful as long as the person being labelled is OK with said lable. If it's one you have given yourself or accepted that's fine but for example If I choose to discibe my body type or sexually in a certain way its not for anyone else to say I'm wrong. I'm not 100% in agreement with you on that, labels work by having an objectively agreed set of definitions, someone defining themselves as athletic if the only thing they've ever run was a tap, is clearly not. When did the body label athletic mean you had to actively partake in athletic sports? It doesn't, it's generally quantifiable through a very efficient cardio vascular system and low body fat %, usually associated with high levels of physical activity. I was using the term 'run' as that was the first that sprang to mind. What’s wrong if someone does self identify as athletic but doesn’t meet your definition of it? Just wondering. I don’t think all labels actually always have an objectively agreed definition by the way. For example, there’s no clearly accepted definition of homeless, and I don’t think there is one for the body term athletic either. Shrugs." I'll defer to your professional knowledge regarding homeless, however I disagree with you regarding athletic. However, semantics aside and answering my OP, you think that labels are important? | |||
| |||
"Do we rigidly hold onto definitions of labels we use to self identify with?" Do you? | |||
| |||
"Do we rigidly hold onto definitions of labels we use to self identify with? Do you? " I’m thinking what labels I use of myself and if I do. I don’t know, I think it’s an area of blind spot for people perhaps. | |||
| |||
"Do we rigidly hold onto definitions of labels we use to self identify with? Do you? I’m thinking what labels I use of myself and if I do. I don’t know, I think it’s an area of blind spot for people perhaps." Potentially, I think that some definitions change over time, circumstance and usage, being rigid in certain definitions can lead to confusion further down the line. | |||
"I don't know if I think they are important or not but I think sometimes are very unhelpful and can actually be damaging. " I think that they can be, especially if it's a label that's placed upon people by society. | |||
"Moving away from fab, my grown up Son is autistic and having that label initially was a gateway to getting him support but I have brought him up to know he's a unique wonderful individual, not the 'label'. Having said that and back to fab, I have gilf on my profile so I guess that's how I label myself x" I think that labels have the ability to be both positive and negative, to my mind its the difference between 'using' and 'defined by' | |||
"Moving away from fab, my grown up Son is autistic and having that label initially was a gateway to getting him support but I have brought him up to know he's a unique wonderful individual, not the 'label'. Having said that and back to fab, I have gilf on my profile so I guess that's how I label myself x I think that labels have the ability to be both positive and negative, to my mind its the difference between 'using' and 'defined by' " It depends on the lable and why it's given. | |||
"Do we rigidly hold onto definitions of labels we use to self identify with? Do you? I’m thinking what labels I use of myself and if I do. I don’t know, I think it’s an area of blind spot for people perhaps. Potentially, I think that some definitions change over time, circumstance and usage, being rigid in certain definitions can lead to confusion further down the line. " Agreed, I think I’m also wondering about the labels where how it manifests per person can still be very varied. For example; some health/diagnosis labels but also with the body shape one still, I’ve seen athletic bodies that look wildly different but I would still label themselves athletic and I wonder who gets to say which ones are wrong. I’m just musing, and I certainly wouldn’t label myself athletic. But what about some of those yoga girls who are (label) fat and incredibly (label) athletic - they don’t necessarily fit your definition but I think they’re as athletic as they’re fat and who am I to say how they should label themselves? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Moving away from fab, my grown up Son is autistic and having that label initially was a gateway to getting him support but I have brought him up to know he's a unique wonderful individual, not the 'label'. Having said that and back to fab, I have gilf on my profile so I guess that's how I label myself x I think that labels have the ability to be both positive and negative, to my mind its the difference between 'using' and 'defined by' It depends on the lable and why it's given. " Very true, I think that labels are unavoidable though. An unwanted label can be lost though and a person doesn't have to be defined by it. | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? " I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful." Why do you not think that they're important? | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. Why do you not think that they're important? " Sexuality is irrelevant. 'Looking for' is all that matters. Body type is useless as everyone has different opinions on what the labels mean. Photos or meeting in person works better. | |||
"I don't think labels matter if you can, and do, define your point clearly in words.. I can say I like a, b, c but dislike d without it equalling anything.. it just is what it is." It is innit  | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. Why do you not think that they're important? Sexuality is irrelevant. 'Looking for' is all that matters. Body type is useless as everyone has different opinions on what the labels mean. Photos or meeting in person works better. " I would argue that that's not down to labels, that's down to their misuse | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. Why do you not think that they're important? Sexuality is irrelevant. 'Looking for' is all that matters. Body type is useless as everyone has different opinions on what the labels mean. Photos or meeting in person works better. I would argue that that's not down to labels, that's down to their misuse" Interpretation, not misuse? | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. Why do you not think that they're important? Sexuality is irrelevant. 'Looking for' is all that matters. Body type is useless as everyone has different opinions on what the labels mean. Photos or meeting in person works better. I would argue that that's not down to labels, that's down to their misuse Interpretation, not misuse?" I agree with SH here. If there’s a definitive definition for each of the body type labels, can you write it out here? | |||
| |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful." I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. | |||
"I saw a meme the other day about labels (on a Facebook page for autism). Some say a diagnosis is just a label, but I see it as a lens. Without that lens you may look at me and make judgements based on what you see but with that lens of my diagnosis you can look at me with greater understanding of what you are really seeing’. Actually made perfect sense to me in a way, having two sons on the spectrum I hated the word label but at the same time when they got that ‘tag’ and the reason why they were a little different it was like a weight had been lifted that there was actually a reason for it. " Yes, I use lens when discussing a number of work related labels - the lens of trauma for example. It’s a great way to discuss how things might be for someone in actuality stemming from a potential label, that really allows for the different shades within a label. | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. " Agreed, height is definitely one that can be objectively labelled if determined in measurement, but not if we are saying tall/short etc... | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. Why do you not think that they're important? Sexuality is irrelevant. 'Looking for' is all that matters. Body type is useless as everyone has different opinions on what the labels mean. Photos or meeting in person works better. I would argue that that's not down to labels, that's down to their misuse Interpretation, not misuse?" You don't think that an overweight person describing themselves as athletic is misuse? | |||
| |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. Agreed, height is definitely one that can be objectively labelled if determined in measurement, but not if we are saying tall/short etc..." Agreed. Just like weight would be objective, but body shape isn't. | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. Agreed, height is definitely one that can be objectively labelled if determined in measurement, but not if we are saying tall/short etc..." I think that you're straying into semantics again here, subjective labels in relevance to others can't be defined. | |||
" Sexuality is irrelevant. 'Looking for' is all that matters. " We've been round this loop before but in some instances it's very relevant - how does the single man looking for a couple for a Bi MMF know whether the couple he is approaching is "looking for" a man for both of them or just one of them for example? I can just hear Outraged Of Ongar now at the fact a single guy had contacted them offering to suck Fred's dick when all they wanted was someone to assist Ethel with her DP fantasy!! | |||
| |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. Agreed, height is definitely one that can be objectively labelled if determined in measurement, but not if we are saying tall/short etc... I think that you're straying into semantics again here, subjective labels in relevance to others can't be defined. " Labels is semantics though. You’re saying athletic is objective as a definition, I disagree. | |||
"In a broader context we are a tribal animal and labels help us identify and belong to a tribe (or tribes). We like belonging. We will often mislabel ourselves to fit into a tribe we aspire to. When meeting as individuals you can label yourself however you wish but it really just a start point as the person you meet will come to their own conclusion of how they want to label you. Labels really are only valid from the point of view of the observer. " I disagree with your last sentence, labels are important to anyone that thinks they are. Self labelling is incredibly important to some and nothing to do with the observer. | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. Agreed, height is definitely one that can be objectively labelled if determined in measurement, but not if we are saying tall/short etc... I think that you're straying into semantics again here, subjective labels in relevance to others can't be defined. Labels is semantics though. You’re saying athletic is objective as a definition, I disagree. " Disagreeing with me is your prerogative, you don't have to agree with me. However, it's the least vague of the body types available on fab and in the real world carries a direct definition. | |||
" Sexuality is irrelevant. 'Looking for' is all that matters. We've been round this loop before but in some instances it's very relevant - how does the single man looking for a couple for a Bi MMF know whether the couple he is approaching is "looking for" a man for both of them or just one of them for example? I can just hear Outraged Of Ongar now at the fact a single guy had contacted them offering to suck Fred's dick when all they wanted was someone to assist Ethel with her DP fantasy!! " Aha yes that's the perfect example! Nice one. 
Although.... a bi man might still only want to fuck the woman and not have any contact with the man.
But yes my idea in your example is very flawed.  | |||
"In a broader context we are a tribal animal and labels help us identify and belong to a tribe (or tribes). We like belonging. We will often mislabel ourselves to fit into a tribe we aspire to. When meeting as individuals you can label yourself however you wish but it really just a start point as the person you meet will come to their own conclusion of how they want to label you. Labels really are only valid from the point of view of the observer. I disagree with your last sentence, labels are important to anyone that thinks they are. Self labelling is incredibly important to some and nothing to do with the observer." You are right and I agree self labelling can be very important but others may well completely disagree and they will label you how they find you. You can't control that which is what I was trying to say. | |||
"In a broader context we are a tribal animal and labels help us identify and belong to a tribe (or tribes). We like belonging. We will often mislabel ourselves to fit into a tribe we aspire to. When meeting as individuals you can label yourself however you wish but it really just a start point as the person you meet will come to their own conclusion of how they want to label you. Labels really are only valid from the point of view of the observer. I disagree with your last sentence, labels are important to anyone that thinks they are. Self labelling is incredibly important to some and nothing to do with the observer. You are right and I agree self labelling can be very important but others may well completely disagree and they will label you how they find you. You can't control that which is what I was trying to say." To clarify I mean they may well completely disagree with the self label you have given yourself and will label you how they wish. | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. Agreed, height is definitely one that can be objectively labelled if determined in measurement, but not if we are saying tall/short etc... I think that you're straying into semantics again here, subjective labels in relevance to others can't be defined. Labels is semantics though. You’re saying athletic is objective as a definition, I disagree. Disagreeing with me is your prerogative, you don't have to agree with me. However, it's the least vague of the body types available on fab and in the real world carries a direct definition. " No, you’re interpreting it to refer to mesomorph but athletic bodies in the real world aren’t solely mesomorphs. | |||
| |||
"In a broader context we are a tribal animal and labels help us identify and belong to a tribe (or tribes). We like belonging. We will often mislabel ourselves to fit into a tribe we aspire to. When meeting as individuals you can label yourself however you wish but it really just a start point as the person you meet will come to their own conclusion of how they want to label you. Labels really are only valid from the point of view of the observer. I disagree with your last sentence, labels are important to anyone that thinks they are. Self labelling is incredibly important to some and nothing to do with the observer. You are right and I agree self labelling can be very important but others may well completely disagree and they will label you how they find you. You can't control that which is what I was trying to say. To clarify I mean they may well completely disagree with the self label you have given yourself and will label you how they wish." Yes, I agree with that.  | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. Why do you not think that they're important? Sexuality is irrelevant. 'Looking for' is all that matters. Body type is useless as everyone has different opinions on what the labels mean. Photos or meeting in person works better. I would argue that that's not down to labels, that's down to their misuse Interpretation, not misuse? You don't think that an overweight person describing themselves as athletic is misuse? " Maybe that overweight person goes running 10 miles every day. Probably misuse *and* interpretation. If I was standing next to Kylie Minogue I'm large. If I was standing next to Dwayne Johnson I'd be small. | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. Why do you not think that they're important? Sexuality is irrelevant. 'Looking for' is all that matters. Body type is useless as everyone has different opinions on what the labels mean. Photos or meeting in person works better. I would argue that that's not down to labels, that's down to their misuse Interpretation, not misuse? You don't think that an overweight person describing themselves as athletic is misuse? Maybe that overweight person goes running 10 miles every day. Probably misuse *and* interpretation. If I was standing next to Kylie Minogue I'm large. If I was standing next to Dwayne Johnson I'd be small." Exactly; there’s a whole heap of interpretation that causes difference of opinion before we get to misuse. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Is cunt a label? " Yes. All my favourite people can have that label V x | |||
"They can be convenient, but they can also be restricting if we define ourselves too much by them Not to point you out in a negative way but it was yourself that used the statement "labels aren't important" on the other thread. Are you saying that this isn't the case? " I was trying to make the same point, probably badly. They shouldn't be important to ourselves and how we feel about ourselves. That can be damaging. But they are convenient and save us faffing about with 3 paragraphs when all we need to know might be "this person is a twat" | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. Agreed, height is definitely one that can be objectively labelled if determined in measurement, but not if we are saying tall/short etc... I think that you're straying into semantics again here, subjective labels in relevance to others can't be defined. Labels is semantics though. You’re saying athletic is objective as a definition, I disagree. Disagreeing with me is your prerogative, you don't have to agree with me. However, it's the least vague of the body types available on fab and in the real world carries a direct definition. No, you’re interpreting it to refer to mesomorph but athletic bodies in the real world aren’t solely mesomorphs. " You're making assumptions about what I'm interpreting it as, I never made reference to a body shape that it actually is. | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. Agreed, height is definitely one that can be objectively labelled if determined in measurement, but not if we are saying tall/short etc... I think that you're straying into semantics again here, subjective labels in relevance to others can't be defined. Labels is semantics though. You’re saying athletic is objective as a definition, I disagree. Disagreeing with me is your prerogative, you don't have to agree with me. However, it's the least vague of the body types available on fab and in the real world carries a direct definition. No, you’re interpreting it to refer to mesomorph but athletic bodies in the real world aren’t solely mesomorphs. You're making assumptions about what I'm interpreting it as, I never made reference to a body shape that it actually is. " Ah apologies, please direct me to the real world direct definition then? | |||
"They can be convenient, but they can also be restricting if we define ourselves too much by them Not to point you out in a negative way but it was yourself that used the statement "labels aren't important" on the other thread. Are you saying that this isn't the case? I was trying to make the same point, probably badly. They shouldn't be important to ourselves and how we feel about ourselves. That can be damaging. But they are convenient and save us faffing about with 3 paragraphs when all we need to know might be "this person is a twat" "They can be negative, I think that they can also be a very positive thing. Just saying labels = bad is perhaps a bit broad. | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. Agreed, height is definitely one that can be objectively labelled if determined in measurement, but not if we are saying tall/short etc... I think that you're straying into semantics again here, subjective labels in relevance to others can't be defined. Labels is semantics though. You’re saying athletic is objective as a definition, I disagree. Disagreeing with me is your prerogative, you don't have to agree with me. However, it's the least vague of the body types available on fab and in the real world carries a direct definition. No, you’re interpreting it to refer to mesomorph but athletic bodies in the real world aren’t solely mesomorphs. You're making assumptions about what I'm interpreting it as, I never made reference to a body shape that it actually is. Ah apologies, please direct me to the real world direct definition then?" Nah, I'll let you Google it. | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. Agreed, height is definitely one that can be objectively labelled if determined in measurement, but not if we are saying tall/short etc... I think that you're straying into semantics again here, subjective labels in relevance to others can't be defined. Labels is semantics though. You’re saying athletic is objective as a definition, I disagree. Disagreeing with me is your prerogative, you don't have to agree with me. However, it's the least vague of the body types available on fab and in the real world carries a direct definition. No, you’re interpreting it to refer to mesomorph but athletic bodies in the real world aren’t solely mesomorphs. You're making assumptions about what I'm interpreting it as, I never made reference to a body shape that it actually is. Ah apologies, please direct me to the real world direct definition then? Nah, I'll let you Google it. " I did, but there isn’t one. As I said, I think people hold rigidly to challenges on definitions that are important as their own self identifiers. | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. Agreed, height is definitely one that can be objectively labelled if determined in measurement, but not if we are saying tall/short etc... I think that you're straying into semantics again here, subjective labels in relevance to others can't be defined. Labels is semantics though. You’re saying athletic is objective as a definition, I disagree. Disagreeing with me is your prerogative, you don't have to agree with me. However, it's the least vague of the body types available on fab and in the real world carries a direct definition. No, you’re interpreting it to refer to mesomorph but athletic bodies in the real world aren’t solely mesomorphs. You're making assumptions about what I'm interpreting it as, I never made reference to a body shape that it actually is. Ah apologies, please direct me to the real world direct definition then? Nah, I'll let you Google it. I did, but there isn’t one. As I said, I think people hold rigidly to challenges on definitions that are important as their own self identifiers. " What do you mean by a real world direct definition? | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. Agreed, height is definitely one that can be objectively labelled if determined in measurement, but not if we are saying tall/short etc... I think that you're straying into semantics again here, subjective labels in relevance to others can't be defined. Labels is semantics though. You’re saying athletic is objective as a definition, I disagree. Disagreeing with me is your prerogative, you don't have to agree with me. However, it's the least vague of the body types available on fab and in the real world carries a direct definition. No, you’re interpreting it to refer to mesomorph but athletic bodies in the real world aren’t solely mesomorphs. You're making assumptions about what I'm interpreting it as, I never made reference to a body shape that it actually is. Ah apologies, please direct me to the real world direct definition then? Nah, I'll let you Google it. I did, but there isn’t one. As I said, I think people hold rigidly to challenges on definitions that are important as their own self identifiers. What do you mean by a real world direct definition? " I’ve no idea I’m quoting Tea Monkey’s own words back to him. | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. Agreed, height is definitely one that can be objectively labelled if determined in measurement, but not if we are saying tall/short etc... I think that you're straying into semantics again here, subjective labels in relevance to others can't be defined. Labels is semantics though. You’re saying athletic is objective as a definition, I disagree. Disagreeing with me is your prerogative, you don't have to agree with me. However, it's the least vague of the body types available on fab and in the real world carries a direct definition. No, you’re interpreting it to refer to mesomorph but athletic bodies in the real world aren’t solely mesomorphs. You're making assumptions about what I'm interpreting it as, I never made reference to a body shape that it actually is. Ah apologies, please direct me to the real world direct definition then? Nah, I'll let you Google it. I did, but there isn’t one. As I said, I think people hold rigidly to challenges on definitions that are important as their own self identifiers. " A very long winded way of making a point at my expense don't you think? We all have blind spots and areas that were more sensitive about regarding our identity and personal pride. Congratulations, that's one of mine, as you well know. Let's leave it there shall we? | |||
| |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. Why do you not think that they're important? Sexuality is irrelevant. 'Looking for' is all that matters. Body type is useless as everyone has different opinions on what the labels mean. Photos or meeting in person works better. I would argue that that's not down to labels, that's down to their misuse Interpretation, not misuse? You don't think that an overweight person describing themselves as athletic is misuse? " They could be an amazing darts player, sumo wrestler or a genius at scrabble. | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. Why do you not think that they're important? Sexuality is irrelevant. 'Looking for' is all that matters. Body type is useless as everyone has different opinions on what the labels mean. Photos or meeting in person works better. I would argue that that's not down to labels, that's down to their misuse Interpretation, not misuse? You don't think that an overweight person describing themselves as athletic is misuse? They could be an amazing darts player, sumo wrestler or a genius at scrabble. " That's very true | |||
"Following on from another thread which touched on this; do you feel that labels are necessary and important? I've often seen the phrase "labels aren't important", thrown around the forums in response to many different questions about body shape, sexuality, etc, etc. Is that really the case and if you agree, then why? Conversely, do you think that they are important? I don't think they're important for any of those examples. I'd prefer the sexuality and body type tick boxes to be removed from profiles. I can't think of any labels that would be useful apart from perhaps gender. Not sure if height and age are considered labels but if so, I think both of those are useful. I understand what you're saying but there's a difference between height and body type. The latter is subjective, the former is not. Agreed, height is definitely one that can be objectively labelled if determined in measurement, but not if we are saying tall/short etc... I think that you're straying into semantics again here, subjective labels in relevance to others can't be defined. Labels is semantics though. You’re saying athletic is objective as a definition, I disagree. Disagreeing with me is your prerogative, you don't have to agree with me. However, it's the least vague of the body types available on fab and in the real world carries a direct definition. No, you’re interpreting it to refer to mesomorph but athletic bodies in the real world aren’t solely mesomorphs. You're making assumptions about what I'm interpreting it as, I never made reference to a body shape that it actually is. Ah apologies, please direct me to the real world direct definition then? Nah, I'll let you Google it. I did, but there isn’t one. As I said, I think people hold rigidly to challenges on definitions that are important as their own self identifiers. A very long winded way of making a point at my expense don't you think? We all have blind spots and areas that were more sensitive about regarding our identity and personal pride. Congratulations, that's one of mine, as you well know. Let's leave it there shall we? " Actually I wasn’t. I genuinely was challenging your comment that athletic body shapes has an objective definition. I’ve been open to hearing the entire time and musing and thinking, you’ve been adamant I’m wrong (I might be, I don’t know) and I’ve now just commented that maybe this is what’s happening - is it? You sound defensive and yet I’m not attacking you. I’m sorry if I’ve upset you somehow, that was not my intent. I genuinely didn’t follow your reasoning or understand why you were so clear I was incorrect, and I have to say was a bit put out that you gave me the dismissive “nah google it” line when I’m asking and interested in hearing. Anyway, I’m sorry you’re upset. X | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
Stay inquisitive! | |||
"Handy for objects and washing cycles etc. But humans are too fluid for labels imho. Self lebelling is fine, but, for example, what do you think of me and how would you label me? - none of you with the exception of one person in the forum know anything at all about me, so by labelling you just set prejudice and miss out on finding out for yourself, innit....
Stay inquisitive! "Saffron’s chap. | |||
"Handy for objects and washing cycles etc. But humans are too fluid for labels imho. Self lebelling is fine, but, for example, what do you think of me and how would you label me? - none of you with the exception of one person in the forum know anything at all about me, so by labelling you just set prejudice and miss out on finding out for yourself, innit....
Stay inquisitive!
Saffron’s chap. "Indeed, hope it's OK | |||
"Handy for objects and washing cycles etc. But humans are too fluid for labels imho. Self lebelling is fine, but, for example, what do you think of me and how would you label me? - none of you with the exception of one person in the forum know anything at all about me, so by labelling you just set prejudice and miss out on finding out for yourself, innit....
Stay inquisitive!
Saffron’s chap.
Indeed, hope it's OK "Proper tickled me.. unlucky | |||
"Handy for objects and washing cycles etc. But humans are too fluid for labels imho. Self lebelling is fine, but, for example, what do you think of me and how would you label me? - none of you with the exception of one person in the forum know anything at all about me, so by labelling you just set prejudice and miss out on finding out for yourself, innit....
Stay inquisitive!
Saffron’s chap.
Indeed, hope it's OK
Proper tickled me.. unlucky "Un fucking lucky????  | |||
 | |||
"Handy for objects and washing cycles etc. But humans are too fluid for labels imho. Self lebelling is fine, but, for example, what do you think of me and how would you label me? - none of you with the exception of one person in the forum know anything at all about me, so by labelling you just set prejudice and miss out on finding out for yourself, innit....
Stay inquisitive!
Saffron’s chap.
Indeed, hope it's OK
Proper tickled me.. unlucky
Un fucking lucky???? "Lucky obvs.. aside from losing your identity | |||
"Handy for objects and washing cycles etc. But humans are too fluid for labels imho. Self lebelling is fine, but, for example, what do you think of me and how would you label me? - none of you with the exception of one person in the forum know anything at all about me, so by labelling you just set prejudice and miss out on finding out for yourself, innit....
Stay inquisitive!
Saffron’s chap.
Indeed, hope it's OK
Proper tickled me.. unlucky
Un fucking lucky????
Lucky obvs.. aside from losing your identity "I'll have to try reassert it with a subliminal label via the verification process.... | |||
