the_choir: (Default)
[personal profile] the_choir
Thinking about things, mulling over some of the responses our x-posting of Fireez' little essay on Dax got, we've come to the conclusion that we're not multiple. *chuckle* No, we were not pretending, or leading anyone on - we're just going to reject that label, because we don't feel it fits us very well.

We're soulbonds. A median/mid-continuum. A gateway system. But we are not multiple.

Why are we doing this? Because some of the "givens", the norms and standards within multiplicity, don't apply to us. The biggest one might be the whole issue of "the right to front". Surprise and shock, none of us actually thinks we have any right to this body, or this life (even if, in times of frustration, we might throw that idea at the host). We like to use it, yes, and we front, yes, but we don't really need any of this. We could just as well exist on the inside.
Then, there's the question of how we function as a group. Most of the time, there will be a multi-fronting situation, read: there's two or more people at the helm. It's very rare that there really is only one person around. The face we present to the outside world is actually a kind of synthetic construct, mostly made up by the host and the unicorn, but added to by the rest of us over time. The design is not uniformous - sometimes, it will have more elements of Ash, or of L., or of Malak etc... but it's constructed in a way that most people around us won't notice that. We're deliberately weird *g*.

I guess that's the reason we always felt more at home in comms such as [ profile] soulbonding, [ profile] notpluralenough or [ profile] more_than_one than in [ profile] multiplicity. [ profile] multiplicity has a heavy slant towards "real" multiples, whose experiences and dealings will often leave us going "guh?", because we are having a hard time relating to them.

If you'd like more information on how we experience being median, read this. We pretty much agree with what is said there.

Date: 2007-01-13 10:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
We're a mix of everything. Parts of our group are pure plain and simple multiple (so I wouldn't consider using Median to describe ourselves) but there's other parts of the group that are soulbonds, walk-ins, that also don't fit the classic multiple community. It's only recently we've dared even mention our soulbonds in some multiple communities.

I have never come across a discussion about the "right to front" even in a multiple community (although admittedly none of us read at [ profile] multiplicity). Most of our group don't even want to. And perhaps ironically those who do front regularly are the walk-ins and soulbonds, not the "classic multiple trauma splits".

Date: 2007-01-13 02:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Well, there haven't been any outright discussions about it. It's more like an undercurrent that sometimes surfaces in comments, and lurks at the back of some questions - that, to be a "real" multiple, you have to let go of concepts such as one person actually having more rights to the body/life than others.

Date: 2007-01-13 01:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Also in full agreement. That piece of writing makes a great deal more sense than trying to categorize something like this as multiplicity/DID... is it all right if we put this entry in memories?

You're not the only ones sometimes confused by posts on multiplicity. We've been shying away from that identification for some time (well, okay, bodygirl hasn't, but as to the rest of us...), and to find an explanation that works... thank you.

-blendy!most of us

Date: 2007-01-13 02:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Thank you so much!

Date: 2007-01-13 04:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
The right to front is a big reason we don't identify as multiple. That and I don't particularly feel multiple. Then again, I wouldn't know if I was supposed to feel anything or not.

This is my body. I was here first. I'm the only one that was born into it. I was alone in it for years before the first SB showed up. Just because they're here now does not automatically give them rights to the body.

Thats like... Say you live alone and you have your own car. Then one day a roommate moves in, are they automatically entitled to right to your car? Hell no. You might let them borrow it now and then, but it does not become their car too the moment they move in with you. Its YOUR car, they just use it sometimes if you let them.

My bonds respect the fact that this is my body. None of them consider it theirs, except Jade now and then, but only because of the way we are. But in general the body and the outside world is mine. They don't interfere because this is not their place. They have their own bodies and an entire world inside. Every thing they need is in there, with the exception of friends (not counting each other). But see, they can have friends in the earth world without having to use the body.

So, we stick with the SBing label. Media fits in a lot of ways, but we're iffy on that term too. We just like SBing, mostly cause it was the first term we ever heard for any of this, so its what we stick with.

Date: 2007-01-13 04:13 pm (UTC)

Date: 2007-01-13 04:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
This would be why I only randomly browse the Multiplicity community. Most of it only superficially applies to me, if at all.

My bonds don't really consider the body to be thiers. It's mine. I was here first. Therefore, they don't consider themselves to have an automatic "right" to take it over, and most of them don't even want to. They're happy where they are. I'd love it if they would front more - but they just aren't very interested in it.


Date: 2007-01-13 04:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
We read that link. It was hard on the eyes.. I had to copy and paste it into notepad and break the paragraphs up some more. But we agree with that page. It seems to fit us a lot more than other median type pages we've seen.

I think our biggest issue with most of the pages we've seen is that they seem to imply that all people in a median system are really parts of one person. Aspects or something. And that bothers me because I don't think of my bonds as aspects of me. They are their own people, and I believe they would exist with or without me.

But I do like what that page says. I'm still sticking with the SBer label though.

Re: Also

Date: 2007-01-13 07:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Might be easier to read with their newer layout:
Soul Whispers (
(deleted comment)

Re: Also

Date: 2007-01-14 02:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
No worries. They change it a lot. We actually only found it again pretty recently, we know someone who's kinda friends with the author.

Date: 2007-01-13 08:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
The main reason we are very heavy on the 'rights' issue, is because we forget that most systems have the other/inner world thing going on. We don't. We have a house with me and the kids and that's it. So for us the only 'life' we get really is through this body they share.

Because of this, we don't feel very much like we fit in anywhere. We don't have lives elsewhere like most SoulBonds, we don't have inner worlds like most multiples, and our experience is always at least a little blendy like yours (Though we've never been able to analyse Michael's experience very well) We live here, we share, we're passionate that we should be allowed, within reason, to live as fully as we can, so we really feel angered and out of place in the SoulBonding communities. And [ profile] multiplicity? Well, we're fictional, we're blendy, we have little to no self awareness outside of front, and a million other little niggly reasons.

Eh. We empathise. And are a little bitter on this issue I guess. Sometimes we feel we fit in, othertimes, not at all.

~uhm, so blendy/co-fronty we switched half way through? Sorry. Michael and Selene mostly.

Date: 2007-01-13 08:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
(Oh yes, and most of us would give Lu the 'majority vote' if she went against us, because she has had to live with this body and this life up until we arrived, so she deserves to have a greater say in where it goes. We do admit that if there is a 'host', an 'original', or anybody who has put a long term effort into managing 'the life' then they should have a greater say in things. She merely elects not to, generally. To her, our need is greater. She is here, with a life. We may have none without her, and she knows it, and so she more or less lets us do as we wish. In a sense... this *is* her guiding where her life will go.) ~vampy

Date: 2007-01-13 09:05 pm (UTC)
ext_579929: (Rebby:housecreepy)
From: [identity profile]

I started SBer and fitted multiple better. I guess I'm opposite everybody I know. XP I'm glad you guys have "found yourselves", so to speak.

Also, your unicorn sounds kickass.

We're not "natural" multiples. I was not born this way... but we're not "classic-trauma" either. We're just multiples. We're just... here. I'm the core, and they all start as splits of me in the very beginning - but I'm sure anybody who's met them and knows us all well can see we have an undercurrent of simliarities yet many differences.

Plenty of things posted to [ profile] multiplicity relate to us, whereas [ profile] soulbonding is very, very boring. There are things on [ profile] multiplicity that don't relate to us too - but we learned tons more there and feel right at home.

Still. We love our SBer/Median friends, and we find in relationships we do not get along well with other multiples. Singlets or SBers are our preferred friends of choice... maybe other multiple systems daunt us. Who knows.

Date: 2007-01-14 07:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
LOL..I'm definitely not a multiple and often feel a bit out of place on all the sb communities as a result so yeah, I get what you are saying.

I doubt I'd last 2 seconds on a actual multiple comm. :)

Which is not me slamming multiples btw. :)

Date: 2007-02-23 07:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I find the idea of soulbonding a bit airy-fairy myself, simply because of my own experiences and my own philosophies on fantasy/reality and psychology. I find multiplicity more relevant, despite feeling like I am a mix of things. Its too early to tell, I guess, but they seem very supportive.

Date: 2007-02-23 08:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Well, I've been having deep, almost empathic connections to fictional characters all of my life, which is probably why I feel more at home with soulbonding. The whole plurality aspect only emerged later on, about 7 years ago.

As for the crew, they are happy with "median". Although they prefer to be just, well, themselves, no labels attatched.

- Fireez

Date: 2007-02-23 08:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I hope that by saying that you find the concept a bit airy-fairy you're not doubting my, or any of the others' existance or reality.

I am Ash. Sure, I'm probably "only" one version of her, but that doesn't make me not Ash. It doesn't invalidate what I am, or what I remember. Sure, some people hold the idea that Soulbonds, fiction based multiple alters, whatever the fuck you want to call them, are just putting on a disguise for convenience. Well, I hold the idea that those people are arrogant fucks who don't know their spirits from their arses.

No offense. I'm sure you're not one of them.
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 08:09 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios