ComplianceIsFutile(switch male){Not collar}
|
9 months ago •
May 7, 2025
Semantic Corruption: How My Professional Vocabulary Got Kinked
I used to write risk memos and insurance policy briefs for a living.
I still technically do. But somewhere along the way, the words stopped meaning what they used to. “Tight spreads” now makes me shift in my seat. “Binding agreement” sounds less legal, more leather. “Stress testing under extreme conditions” might as well be a protocol scene. Even “discovery phase” feels like a consent-driven expedition now. I’m not sure when this semantic corruption started—but I suspect kink didn’t just invade my vocabulary. It quietly repurposed it. The deeper I explored kink, the more I realized how much of my professional training had already primed me for it. In insurance, we talk about underwriting discipline, exclusions and riders, loss adjustment—all of which are just negotiation, boundaries, and power redistribution under pressure. In legal contexts, we swear by binding contracts, due process, and enforcement mechanisms—terms that wouldn’t sound out of place in a D/s manual if you just... changed the font. And in finance? Let’s just say someone once said “yield curve inversion” in a meeting and I had to consciously *not* giggle. The overlap isn’t accidental. It’s a language built to structure consent, assign control, and quantify uncertainty. Which, ironically, makes it deeply compatible with kink. Maybe even designed for it. So now I’m wondering—how many of us came into kink already half-trained by our jobs, our academic vocabularies, or the systems we once thought were neutral? Have you ever had a moment when your professional language slipped into scene-space? Are we all just using Excel sheets and policy docs to practice delayed gratification? If your job includes terms like “flexible enforcement,” “exposure limits,” or “discipline matrix”— you might already be halfway into a kink dynamic. Whether you negotiated it or not. Let’s talk. |
|
|