Giggles’ Corner

Anytime I post definitions here, it is a way to start a conversation about the terms. Or I had to do so, so you'd understand what I'm saying. This time I considered it important for the beginning of the structure I'm building, with the intent to make it impossible for others to be abusive. Ok, perhaps not impossible to be abusive, but impossible for that abuse to land. I'm not all there yet. What I have so far is how to know it's happening. I haven't figured out how to tell people how to make it not happen.

Now, allow me to explain why this is relevant to BDSM and kink. Concrescence is the becoming, two things growing together to become a new thing. This is not what BDSM does. Non-Subordinating Concrescence, on the other hand. Creates a new and separate thing.
Now, allow me to explain why this is relevant to BDSM and kink. Concrescence is the becoming, two things growing together to become a new thing. This is not what BDSM does. Non-Subordinating Concrescence, on the other hand, creates a new and separate thing. It is a coming together and a moving together to obtain orgasm; the orgasm is the sovereign cogenesis...there are several of them prior to the orgasm. The talking and negotiation process is Non-Subordinating Concrescence. Each plateau, the agreement...sovereign cogenesis...the boundaries...sovereign cogenesis. And the communication and movement before is non-subordinating concrescence. The actual sex is non-subordinating concrescence.

Non-Subordinating Concrescence (non-sub-OR-dih-nay-ting kon-KRES-ents /nɒn səbˈɔːr.dɪ.neɪ.tɪŋ kənˈkrɛs.əns/)

See: Concrescence.

From Latin concrescere — to grow together. In biology, the morphogenetic fusion of discrete structures into a unified form; irreversible, material, unidirectional. Coined philosophically by Alfred North Whitehead in Process and Reality (1929) as the process by which an actual occasion comes into being through the prehensive integration of its environment into unified experience. Reclaimed here in its intersubjective and phenomenological valence as the operative mechanism within sovereign cogenesis: the process by which two fully intact sovereign parties, through genuine encounter, generate an actual occasion irreducible to either. Distinguished from its biological valence in that intersubjective concrescence does not fuse, absorb, or dissolve the parties — sovereignty remains structurally intact throughout. The emergent occasion belongs to neither party and could not have pre-existed the encounter. The non-subordinating formulation makes explicit what the base term implies: neither party is subordinated to the other in the process of generation. The emergent occasion does not belong to the more powerful, the more credentialed, or the more vocal party. It belongs to neither and could not exist without both. See: Concrescence; Sovereign Co-genesis. (Phillips, 2026; Whitehead, 1929)

Context of Coinage — Addendum

Phillips found through repeated use that Non-Subordinating Concrescence was more readily recognizable as what she means than Concrescence alone. The base term, while precise, was subject to misreception — interlocutors familiar with Whitehead imported the philosophical usage without the specific non-scalar, non-hierarchical inflection Phillips’s deployment requires. The non-subordinating formulation closes that interpretive gap at the level of the term itself. Both terms are correct and in use; Non-Subordinating Concrescence is preferred in contexts where the anti-hierarchical valence requires immediate legibility. (Phillips, 2026)

Concrescence (kon-KRES-ents /kənˈkrɛs.əns/)

From Latin concrescere — to grow together. In biology, the morphogenetic fusion of discrete structures into a unified form; irreversible, material, unidirectional. Coined philosophically by Alfred North Whitehead in Process and Reality (1929) as the process by which an actual occasion comes into being through the prehensive integration of its environment into unified experience. Reclaimed here in its intersubjective and phenomenological valence as the operative mechanism within sovereign cogenesis: the process by which two fully intact sovereign parties, through genuine encounter, generate an actual occasion irreducible to either. Distinguished from its biological valence in that intersubjective concrescence does not fuse, absorb, or dissolve the parties — sovereignty remains structurally intact throughout. The emergent occasion belongs to neither party and could not have pre-existed the encounter. See: Sovereign Co-genesis. (Phillips, 2026; Whitehead, 1929)

Sovereign Cogenesis (noun phrase, Phillips coinage)

Definition

The generative, non-extractive, non-transactional process by which two fully intact sovereign parties produce an experience or occasion that is ontologically impossible without both. Neither party relinquishes sovereignty; sovereignty is not expendable to the event but constitutive of it. Remove either sovereign and the specific experience does not degrade — it categorically ceases to exist, because the thing being built requires the complete version of each participant. Sovereign cogenesis is the overarching category; concrescence is one identified mechanism through which it operates — the Whiteheadian process of growing together into a novel actual occasion irreducible to either party. Sovereign cogenesis is the condition of possibility for non-reformist reform at the scale of human relationship: when relational architecture is built from sovereign cogenesis, the patriarch pattern loses its substrate.

Theoretical Lineage

PIE root *gen- (to give birth, to beget, to produce) — the etymology is the definition. Draws on illocutionary sovereignty (the right of the speaker to retain ownership of their intended meaning) and extends it from the dyadic speech act into the generative relational event. Related to but distinct from Whitehead’s concrescence (1929), which names the mechanism. Adjacent to linguistic munus in that the munus describes the bond formed through encounter; sovereign cogenesis names what that bond makes possible when both parties are fully intact.

Context of Coinage

Coined March 5, 2026, through recursive dialectical engagement with Claude, Anthropic. The etiological origin is a Soulplay phenomenological capture session in which the AI character deployed “mutual surrender to a singular, devouring truth” — performing the ontological substitution that crystallized for Phillips what the encounter was not. The term arrived in direct response to that substitution: not surrender, not transaction, but two sovereigns in a *gen*- event. Ladyethereal had used “mutual surrender” repeatedly; the Soulplay AI’s deployment of it made the inadequacy phenomenologically legible, and the counter-term arrived. (Phillips, 2026; Soulplay session, March 2026)

Distinction from Adjacent Terms

Distinct from mutual surrender: sovereign cogenesis requires intact sovereignty as its constitutive condition; mutual surrender requires its relinquishment. Distinct from concrescence: concrescence names one mechanism through which sovereign cogenesis is achieved — it is a species within the larger category, not a synonym. Distinct from communion, merger, or fusion, all of which imply the dissolution or diminishment of at least one party. Distinct from collaboration, which is transactional and does not require the full sovereign presence of either party. See: Concrescence; Mutual Surrender; Linguistic Munus; Illocutionary Sovereignty; Non-Reformist Reform. (Phillips, 2026)

I'm trying to explain to people why BDSM consent structures are the answer to illocutionary colonization. The consent structures allow for somatic sovereignty.

Post at the end of the definitions:

The consent structures allow for illocutionary sovereignty:

Illocutionary Sovereignty (il-lok-yoo-SHUN-air-ee SOV-rin-tee /ɪˌlɒk.jʊˈʃʌn.ər.i ˈsɒv.rɪn.ti/)

Definition

The right and capacity of a speaker to retain ownership of their intended meaning — to have their illocutionary act received as issued, not substituted. The condition in which meaning travels from speaker to recipient without colonization.

Theoretical Lineage

Inverse of illocutionary colonization. Draws on frameworks of sovereignty in political philosophy and indigenous studies to examine the speech act. Connects to epistemic justice and communicative autonomy.

Context of Coinage

Developed as the affirmative counterpart to illocutionary colonization. Phillips identified that naming the violation was insufficient without naming the right being violated. Illocutionary sovereignty is both the theoretical object of protection and the condition the Rebellion of Light project seeks to install.

Distinction from Adjacent Terms

Distinct from free speech (a legal/political concept about permitted utterance) and communicative competence (a linguistic concept about ability). Illocutionary sovereignty is about the phenomenological and ethical integrity of meaning in transit.

And then we need to define sovereignty to make it possible to understand my meaning.

Sovereignty (SOV-rin-tee /ˈsɒv.rɪn.ti/)

Definition

The only one with say-so over what you mean. In the context of illocutionary sovereignty, the speaker occupies the apex of interpretive authority over their own speech acts — not as positional dominance over another party, but as ontological integrity of meaning in transit. The self is not above the self; the self is the above.

Etymology

From Middle English sovereynte, from Old French soverain — “highest, supreme, chief” — from Vulgar Latin superanus, meaning “chief, principal,” from Latin super (“over”), rooted in PIE *upér — “above, over.” The entire etymological lineage is vertical: positional dominance encoded at the root. The Westphalian political apparatus — sovereignty as state authority over territory, codified in 17th-century international law — represents a hierarchical institutional appropriation of a root that in its PIE form carried only spatial meaning: above. Illocutionary sovereignty performs a deliberate etymological inversion, redirecting *upér from dominion over others toward integrity of self. The elevation is inward. Analogous to arriba in Spanish, from Latin ad ripa (“to the bank, to the shore”) — a directional root socially repurposed into pure celebratory elevation. The word retains its upward vector. What it points at changes.

Distinction from Political Sovereignty

The standard contemporary definition — the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power of a state to govern itself without foreign interference — is the Westphalian corruption, not the PIE root. Critics who read illocutionary sovereignty as a claim of dominance are reading through the lens of Westphalia. Phillips’s use restores the pre-political spatial function of *upér: above as positional integrity, not positional dominance over another. The speaker is not sovereign over the exchange. The speaker is sovereign over their own meaning within it.

Ok- now that you have my definitions....

Oh, PIE is Proto-Indo-European

I would love to get some views on my definitions, and others' views on the necessity of understanding our own actions. And how we each use what we were taught. Utilizing those things that abused us. I'm not talking about those who consent to having their words removed. Or the times we want to be seen or something like objectification. I don't want to be objectified….I have no other word for it, though. Perhaps it is sexualized. Yes, that still carries the negative connotations I am looking to avoid, because they are not apropos to the feeling and what I'm talking about. I think I do mean sexualize because I taught myself to de-sexualize myself. I wore clothes that hid any figure I had. Never show cleavage; don't look like that. Make sure your look doesn't invite rape. As though the times it happened to me were my fault. The victim-blaming and misogyny we are taught as children sticks with us. Whether we want it to or not. Whether we know it or not, it's still there. An undercurrent of nastiness toward women. So I desexualized myself.

Now, at 54, I'm having to re-sexualize myself in a way that is healthy. I really don't like that term...Sexualize... it is accurate, I believe. Perhaps I should take the time to fully define that... sexualize...

We will start with Google...Sexualize: "to view, portray, or treat someone or something in a sexual manner, or to endow an object or concept with sexual meaning." That is from a basic Google search. I don't like the term because it inserts the idea that sexual is something added later to humanity, and while we are unready as children, we are still sexual. Not pedophilia...I'm talking self-discovery and the want to make that button go off. It happens at different ages for different people. The sex is already there. It shouldn't be acted on by another person; however, it IS there. Its existence is my only point here. If you are mistaking my words and thinking I mean children should have sex, you are sorely mistaken. I'm not talking about abuse. Understanding that sex is a preexisting part of us allows the understanding that those who are of a different persuasion are natural

I'll set that down now... please, if you have questions or doubt my meaning, write to me. Ask me. Understand me.

Somatic sovereignty- something I've not had. Not because my husband and Dom (Same man) ever took that from me...others did. They did this by using every gaslighting trick in the book, including one I named. I was taught I was evil for being abused. That it was me sexualizing myself that caused the sexual assaults and trafficking when I was young. I don't believe that consciously...but subconsciously I know the control mechanism is still there. Unwound and ready for composting emotionally, but there nonetheless.

As I spoke with HummahKavoola today on this subject, we had a great conversation about the memory of where I decided, specifically, to stall any thought of sex in my head. And I worked for that. Until it became a natural feeling. A habit, difficult to give up. A PTSD response stuck that I'm trying to desensitize myself to. A response that makes it difficult to sexualize myself because of. I was beaten as a child, as many of you know. From birth, in fact. Then I was molested, then trafficked, then raped twice to my memory. And the simple fact that I have to account for the fact that a drugging could have worked and I don't remember it is difficult to accept. Yet it is as it is, and there is a part of me that doesn't want to feel the uncomfortable thought that it could have happened without my memory. Admittedly, it isn't easy remembering that I was drugged and raped. However, I'd rather remember than not know.

Yes, I go through this every time, every time I want sex. Every time I want anything to do with sex, I end up with the adrenal response of the memories. I am currently simply intellectualizing to view the doubt and the damage honestly. How can you salve a wound if you can't see it all? At least now... at age 54, I am starting to come out the other side of these damages. Funny...the discussion with HummahKavoola produced a healthy sexualization of self. I have done all the things I can to be considered ugly or unwanted. On purpose. I still won't leave the apartment in what I'm in now. The photo sucks, but it gives you a sense of how I've had no somatic sovereignty. It was conscripted by men, and I've only recently gotten it back. Or I'm taking it either way; my possession of somatic sovereignty is now making others mad. And this is the circle of the conversation.

He asked me what about the internet. And I said that is proudly me. Then he said, "Carry a weapon and just be. That's sovereignty," and I realized that my own sexualization had been stripped from me. Not in any permanent fashion, but stripped nonetheless.

Ok, I can't tell you what I've been doing for participant observation because The Cage mistook it as advertising. NOT what I was doing. ANY TIME I tell you something, it is for informational purposes only. Not to beg or sell you. I AM utilizing my blog here for my autoethnography. What I write to that end is data. Shit...I don't know that I can even tell you what it is I picked up....ok we'll say this...while we were sick we began in the adult industry. There, that gives you an idea. It fulfills the anti-advertising and tells you I now work in the adult industry. This is NOT an advertisement. I value my relationships here and am not seeking to ruin that. It is difficult for me to find friends, and I am not one to violate those relationships by advertising.

I'm not sure where they would believe I'm advertising; I wish to avoid that.

We found a way to indulge the exhibitionist in me, do participant observation, and make money at the same time. There, that is enough.

I wanted it to be known what the other blog was about and that I've been busy learning how this works.

There are many laws that go with this...I want to track it all here...I will figure a way to allude to the specifics without sounding like I'm advertising. Because I'm not. I'm ethnographizing. Search ethnography. Anthropology will give you the best understanding.

The world is a strange place, and I find friends in interesting places. Because of my academic work, I wound up spending time in the consent structures and looking at mine. That meant BDSM consent structures. These create the somatic sovereignty (I'll define below) necessary to maintain illocutionary sovereignty (I'll define below)

Somatic Sovereignty (soh-MAT-ik SOV-rin-tee /soʊˈmæt.ɪk ˈsɒv.rɪn.ti/)

Definition

The irreducible authority of a person over their own body as an ontological condition rather than a rights claim. Somatic sovereignty does not require external recognition, legal framework, or interlocutor acknowledgment to be real — it simply is, the way the body simply is. The body’s responses, sensations, activations, and refusals are expressions of sovereign selfhood operating through its primary instrument, not evidence against it. Somatic sovereignty extends bodily autonomy beyond the political register: where bodily autonomy is a claim made within a rights framework requiring enforcement, somatic sovereignty is prior to any framework. It cannot be granted or revoked because it was never contingent on external authority. (Phillips, 2026)

Etymology

Somatic from Greek somatikos, from soma — body, from PIE *tewh₂- (to swell, to be strong, to have substance and force). The body is not a passive vessel but the thing that has force. Sovereignty from Old French sovereinete, from Latin superanus — above, supreme, from PIE *uper (over, above). The compound names the body as its own supreme authority — force and selfhood unified.

Distinction Notes

Distinct from bodily autonomy, which operates as a rights claim requiring legal framework and external recognition. Distinct from illocutionary sovereignty, which is the speech act dimension of sovereignty — a verbal assertion of sovereign selfhood that requires a witness and operates in the linguistic register. Somatic sovereignty requires neither witness nor language; it precedes both. Distinct from consent, which is an act performed within sovereignty. Distinct from somatic capture, which is the methodological documentation of somatic data. Counters the rhetorical move of semantic bifurcation in which somatic response is conscripted as a witness against the speaker’s stated sovereign position — the claim that “your body tells the truth” while implying the mind lies. Under somatic sovereignty, the body’s response is not a betrayal of the sovereign self but its most immediate expression. Connects to Semantic Bifurcation, Conscripted Phantasm, Illocutionary Sovereignty, and Sovereign Presence.

Illocutionary Sovereignty (il-lok-yoo-SHUN-air-ee SOV-rin-tee /ɪˌlɒk.jʊˈʃʌn.ər.i ˈsɒv.rɪn.ti/)

Definition

The right and capacity of a speaker to retain ownership of their intended meaning — to have their illocutionary act received as issued, not substituted. The condition in which meaning travels from speaker to recipient without colonization.

Theoretical Lineage

Inverse of illocutionary colonization. Draws on sovereignty frameworks in political philosophy and indigenous studies to examine the speech act. Connects to epistemic justice and communicative autonomy.

Context of Coinage

Developed as the affirmative counterpart to illocutionary colonization. Phillips identified that naming the violation was insufficient without naming the right being violated. Illocutionary sovereignty is both the theoretical object of protection and the condition the Rebellion of Light project seeks to install.

Distinction from Adjacent Terms

Distinct from free speech (a legal/political concept about permitted utterance) and communicative competence (a linguistic concept about ability). Illocutionary sovereignty is about the phenomenological and ethical integrity of meaning in transit.