Jakkal (jakkal) wrote,

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Endless Battles

I find myself, once again, defending the core definition of contherianthropy by those would try to change it so they can fit themselves under the blanket term. I don't understand why it's such a big deal, but I've noticed that these people regard contherianthropy as if it's the 'more realistic' or 'more sane' version of therianthropy. I see in their definitions that they describe it as a "balance", and I believe that is a misnomer. I used to regard contherianthropy as a 'balance' in the past, but then I got to thinking, in order for something to be balanced, it has to have sides. Contherians are singular, they don't have sides, if you don't have sides, you can't be a balance, there's nothing to balance out. A true balance as far as therianthropy is concerned would be between a dichotomistic therian (more than one side to themselves). But I think a lot of people see dichotomistic therianthropy as being like bipolar disorder.

Connotations and misperceptions shouldn't be ruling these people or what label they slap on themselves. I know a lot of people don't like a lot of terms in the community, but they do much more good than harm. I so often hear "Thank you for describing this type of therianthropy, I Thought I was alone" or similar comments. But the terms become useless when people's misconceptions get in the way.

I've suggested on TO that we start to create a new term for people who are consistantly putting themselves under the contherian label, but still experience shifts. A lot of people say it's not necessary, but given the gross misuse of the term, and the confusion surrounding it, I think some changes need to be made, and some foots to come down.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.