April 14th, 2005

Puppy

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.
  • Current Music
    Chris Isaak - Wicked Game