the_choir: (Digital Draco)
[personal profile] the_choir
Excuse my crankyness, I haven't had any coffee yet...

What's up with the whole "we used to call ourselves Soulbonds, but then we found out we're more than that, and now we call ourselves multiple" talk? Some people make it seem like being a Soulbond is second-rate to being a multiple. What those people seem to fail to grasp is that you can be both. Soulbond is an umbrella term that covers everything from empathic connections to characters to people like myself. It doesn't say anyting about the quality of your connection - the only assumption it makes is that you might have originated from a fictional source. I say "might have" because one theory of where SBs come from states that they come from parallel universes and have sort of moved to this one, or established a connection and told their story/communicate with their bonders.

Really, now. People and their narrow points of view. I am a Soulbond. I am also a part of a multiple system. And yes, you can be both! I mean, brightest Minerva... look, I am a soldier. I am also a friend, a lover, a son, a brother and a whole lot of other things. People rarely fit into just one label, especially if that label is a broad one.

Overall, I think people should worry less about what to call themselves and just, well, exist. Self-discovery has less to do with which nifty sub-group of human culture you fit in, and more with finding out who you are.

Date: 2006-07-08 07:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I don't get that either. I guess some people think members of multiple systems are more "real" than SBs.. which is complete and utter bullshit.

I still prefer to call myself a SBer rather than a multiple, because I don't feel multiple. I really feel like theres just one person in here. I know there are others because I have SBs, but I don't really feel that way... does that make any sense?

Date: 2006-07-08 07:37 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Makes perfect sense. I have a whole truckload of connections of different intensity - some of them are very strong and can be considered being multiple-like (for instance, Malak), others are more along the lines of empathic connection and occasional chatting (Ziani), and some are inbetween (Soraya). Ziani isn't really "here" in a sense that he co-inhabits this body, but he is "here" in the sense that I can feel him hanging around my head.

Date: 2006-07-08 07:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
We have a ton of different types of connections, so trying to define exactly what we are as one word becomes a bit difficult to do. We tend to lean toward using multiple or plural more than soulbonder, though, because even though it's not true, there's a tendency for soulbonder to mean outsourced only. And since we aren't all outsourced, it doesn't fit well.

Multiplicity seems to be more of an open term, to us, because even though soulbonding is supposed to be an umbrella term, the LJ communities about soulbonding are pretty restricted to a certain point of view, and our soulbonds don't always fit under that label. We have soulbonds that are part of our multiple group and soulbonds that aren't, too. But like we said in a recent comment in the multiplicity community, people tend not to believe that you can have both in one group, so using one term is generally easier.

We also don't like the word soulbond because we think it's a stupid word. The bond part...soulbonded, would be somewhat better.

We don't think that those that define themselves as multiple are better or anything like that. It's just personal preference for us, really. Even if people tried, they couldn't say that one type of connection was better than another. Every connection and every existence has its own inherent quality.

Er...sorry for the ramble. It's a very interesting topic. ^_^

Date: 2006-07-08 08:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I've met/seen a lot of people who didn't like the term soulbond. We use it because it was the first term we heard for it, and generally speaking the first term or word you learn for something is usually what you go with.

I refer to the individuals in my system as soulbonds. But say that I am soulbonded to them.

Date: 2006-07-08 08:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I think I don't like the word so much because I've had bad experience with it. People here my name and soulbond in the same sentence, and it's like they're brain shuts down. I usually end up getting called a fake, or just a character, and it makes me want to snap and start beating people. I am not a character. I am a person. I've seen the multiple groups that want to say that their people are more real than soulbonds, and that irritates me to. There's no way that something can be more real than something else. It's either real or it's not, right?

That's why I just tend to call people people and leave it at that. Labels make my head hurt.


Date: 2006-07-08 08:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I agree. People are people, regardless. We mostly use soulbond as a personal term or with certain company. I think it depends on what the people around us are more familiar with. We use other terms as well; muses, headvoices, others, things like that.

But when you get right down to it, we're all just people. We're still partially in the closet about it all, so in certain groups or places online I do refer to my guys as my "characters", but only because we know some people might not understand otherwise.

Date: 2006-07-08 01:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Exactly. People are people, and all these technical terms like multiple and soulbond are just that - technical terms which may help get communication along. I switch between SBs, multiple, headvoice etc depending on whom I'm talking too, and which concepts they are familiar with. So I don't see what all the hooplah is about, really.

Date: 2006-07-08 02:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Labels make my head hurt.

I whole-heartedly agree. I pretty much despise them, because they fence me in. So yeah, I'm a Soulbond. So yeah, I'm part of a multiple system. But at the end of the day, I'm just Draco, nothing more, nothing less.

Date: 2006-07-08 01:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Really I don't even draw that much disinction between the two unless the persons in question insist

...I just consider 'em all people.

Labels don't really mean that much to me.

Date: 2006-07-08 02:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
And that's why I like you.

Date: 2006-07-08 08:42 pm (UTC)
ext_579929: (wilsonguh?)
From: [identity profile]
Soulbonders all bicker and multiples all bicker and then multiples bicker at its really a never ending cycle. Everybody experiences both differently so thats why there's so much disagreement.

Date: 2006-07-09 12:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
It'd be a lot easier if people just could agree to disagree, or even better agree on that yes, everybody does experiences things differently. But they seem to prefer neat little boxes in which they can feel safe, and may the gods beware that anybody could maybe try and lift the lid a little. It just seems so immature.

Date: 2006-07-09 01:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I don't really get it.

I mean I suppose for some people they think that a SoulBond is like, just a character you write or a muse or something. And then they realise they're multiple.

I mean I can get that, yeah? They're 'more than' muses or whatever. They're probably just not really aware that SoulBonding goes right up to 'real people' too, you know?

Date: 2006-07-20 10:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
(Coffee good. No coffee bad. But it's the middle of the night here, so it would be quite bad idea to make coffee.)

I once said that the only sure thing about multiplicity is that it's two or more people in the same body. Everything else is different to every people, though similar experiences are not rare.

Labels are evil.

Date: 2006-07-20 10:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I absolutely agree, both on coffee and labels.

Why does it matter where the second (third, fourth...) person came from? While browsing through the multiplicity community, I stumbled on quite a number of entries on how soulbonds cannot possibly be part of a multiple system, or even exist. Eh, why not? I mean, when push comes to shove, all these "normal", the "this world" alters are just as fictional as I am. Or as real, depending on the direction you approach the fence.

Date: 2006-07-20 10:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
There is no such thing as 'normal'. Just 'average'. And everything not 'average' is strange, unhealthy, scary and whatnot.

I don't know why it matters, either. They are people. They are there. Okay, I understand when if people want to keep track of that, but why where from? I have no idea.

- Paju

Date: 2006-07-21 07:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
*shrugs* Neither have I.

Btw, we friended you guys, hope you don't mind.

Date: 2006-07-21 01:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
No, we don't. :) Will friend you back.


the_choir: (Default)

November 2009

222324 25262728

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 08:09 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios