Is it better to light a single lewdly-shaped candle than curse the darkeness?

[noahgibbs]

One thing I hear bemoaned occasionally (though less often these days) is a lack of good sex-related vocabulary. Too much of it is heavily stigmatized, too much of it is "dirty", too much of it can't be used in serious company, even in the rare instances where the concept is basically acceptable.

So, LJ-cut for your pleasure and work-safety, a simple replacement system for the word "dating". It seems to work decently.


The basic idea is that you'd declare somebody to be an animal of a particular color. For instance, a red tiger. You can also skip the color.

The color's an intensity, and the animal is what they are relative to you. Casual fuck-buddies would be bonobos. Those of you that know a little about bonobos understand why. A just-sex relationship (colloquially a "booty call") would be a tiger. If you'd like to have sex with soembody but fear the consequences, that's a porcupine.

So a red tiger would be a hot new lover that you pretty much just have sex with. A purple porcupine would be somebody you're kinda hot for but you *know* it's a bad idea. A blue bonobo would be a friend with occasional sex for old times' sake.

You'll note that all of these animals describe sexual relationships, whether present or absent. I have yet to come up with good emotional description animals and it's important to standardize. Doves for emotional but nonsexual lovers? And it's hard to have a good one for a "normal" committed partnership plus sex (which would be poly or otherwise -- polyfolk certainly do this frequently, even if they have other lovers). Many animals mate for life, and you'd want one of them as the symbol.

If people find the whole thing amusing, go ahead and use the vocabulary. If you come up with another animal you like well for a descriptor (try to go for stereotypes here -- they're easier to remember), post a comment here and other people can use it.

Or ignore me. This certainly won't be the first top-down vocabulary standard that gets broadly ignored. But I like it a lot as an answer to the question, "so are you two...?"


And I've got one ex out there in LJ-land who used a system to describe sex that I was very impressed by. I don't want to share it without permission. You know who you are -- you used to own that Neon, not a vehicle I usually think of as having "intercourse" written all over it :-) E-mail me and tell me whether you'd let me describe that system in this forum.

Comments

[merchanta.livejournal.com]

I like that sex-partner naming standard. I think "swan" is an elegant term for a "normal" committed relationship plus sex. Wow... don't I know a few porcupines...

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

I like that. "Swans" works.

[griffjon.livejournal.com]

At a party, small talking...
Dude: "so are you two...?"
Guy: Red bonobos!
Girl: Green swa...
Guy: Green?
Girl: Bonobo!?!?
Dude: Alright, then, I'll see y'all later.

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

Hm. I was using red<->blue as an intensity slider, with purple in the middle. I'm not sure what green would be.

But I suppose you could do spectrum colors with red as high intensity and violet as low intensity. That'd be more complicated and less intuitive, at least to me.

But see how quickly that example clears up what they think they are to each other? How long would that have taken to communicate with the usual words? :-)

[griffjon.livejournal.com]

Ah, leave it to me to make it unintuitive but more exactly defined :)

I think people's perceptions on animals might vary too much, though, for this to be a much better tool than current terms.

foo: "We're red cats"
bar: "Maybe purple sometimes."
baz: "oh, so you're into reverse-angled barbs on the penis?"
foo: "um, no -- we just scream a lot and purr afterwards"
baz: "oh, my mistake"

Or:

bar: "You know, I think we're blue dogs."
foo: "Oh, so we're into acrylic and Southern weirdnesses, like our close relatives?"
bar: "No, not those blue dogs, silly. I mean, we have some dominance and like doggy style"
foo: "Actually, I prefer missionary. Maybe praying mantises?"
bar: "I don't usually eat your head afterward"
foo: "details."

Of course, it makes up in bizarreness and surrealism in what it lacks in accuracy...

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

Yeah. You really need canonical animals for it to work. Luckily, we've got four already pretty figured out :-)

[kraydon.livejournal.com]

Completely off topic, but I am so glad you posted that link! I've been trying to describe the blue dog to a friend for weeks now!

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

hmm, I think people who have lots of kinky sex should be either otters or ferrets. They just seem kinda appropriately mischievous and playful. Don't think this works for a full-on master/slave relationship... I'm still working on what kind of animals that would be.

Master-Slave

[misternihil.livejournal.com]

Ants, perhaps?

Re: Master-Slave

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

good thought but - ew! how 'bout something less disgusting like bees?

Re: Master-Slave

[rehana.livejournal.com]

Praying mantis?

[r-transpose-p.livejournal.com]

fine, but just realize i'll never know what you're talking about when you say "She and I are like bright blue electric eels", and I'll always use the wrong animal, leaving you thinking that my reference to "furry groundhogs" meant that I entered my partner analy, and not "We like being cute and cuddly in our nest".

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

Works for me. I'll just look at you askance every time you mention animals for any reason.