Can someone please explain what this means? And its supposed opposite, 'non-lifeforbidden'?

Wiki and Google (and dictionaries) are for once completely unhelpful.

*scratches head*

Perhaps some context would help us in defining it for you, CD?

I personally have not encountered the term - perhaps it is someone's way of defining something that makes sense to them (in the context in which they use it) and the rest of us can take it on board or not, as the case may be.

It almost smacks of a shorthanded way of saying that a particular action or behavior is deemed unacceptable for life (of themselves presumably...)

>2

Sorry, I assumed everyone had read the rubric for the Alternative Sexuality group.

It states:

'It's for all forms: bondage, discipline, domination, submission, sadism, masochism, role play, Leather, kink, fetishes of every type imaginable, lifeforbidden, non-lifeforbidden... you name it, we've got it here.'

I just felt that, in this context, it might be helpful to have some clarification. I am reassured, australwind, that you're having the same problem.

.

I wonder if it means something like, "This has been forbidden (forever) (for the first part of your life), etc, stuff that you NEVER thought you would do, or stuff that society at large is VERY uncomfortable with you doing?

And why is this group so quiet?

I think they're all hanging out over at Fetlife.

Alternative sexuality? Alternative to what?

Alternate to boring.

@ Clifford - I did read the introduction to the group quite some time ago... must have skimmed over the "lifeforbidden" bit on the basis, that I too "hang out over at Fetlife" and am quite used to people dredging up their own ways of defining themselves, their actions and their desires....

It seems that when you step outside the bounds of what is considered normal, it gives you 'carte blanche' to play havoc with the language.

The 'net seems to be on of those places where new language constructs are proposed, exercised and eventually weasel their way into the vernacular.

Solved! (Not because of me - apparently I am an idiot...)

CD raised the question in Site Talk here:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/72187

Turns out it is a resurgence of the old "style/forbidden bug" - which automagically replced "style" with "forbidden" to prevent unauthorized html scripts. I'll repeat my apology for not recognizing it. Sorry!

>PortiaLong - that thread over on Site Talk became quite amusing towards the end....

Thank you for solving one of life's great conundrums!

Thanks - yes, the explanation is there at the location PortiaLong (#8) so thoughtfully provides. Well, I've learned a lot! Not least being how difficult it is to distinguish between a bug and a feature, of course. Does this look like a bug to an NHB (that's a Normal Human Being, for those who don't live in my head!)?

I've also provided, I think a good example of how it is possible, by trying to tread on no-one's toes, one can tread on many!

It makes me wonder a) how much of the stuff we read on line might be actually written by software; and b) how many people actually read things, things like the header to Alternative Sexuality, for example. LoL.

.

hmmm..

I suspect the answers to your questions might be:

a.) quite a lot, more than you would expect, a frightening amount

and

b.) hardly any at all, a negligible number, Vous et nul autre

Message edited by its author, Sep 2, 2009, 10:23am.