However, when it comes to SI, the method really doesn;t hold the same relevance. While a person may have several methods for self harming, the reason that any method is chosen is likely to be the same for them. For example, I SI in order to focus on the physical pain and not have to focus on being emotionally in pain, and the method that I use to inflict this pain is really not relevant because it is the pain itself and the emotional reasons behind this which are the point. I don't know if that makes any sense to you?
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. I know that a person with anorexia and a person with bulimia engage in different behaviors for different reasons. That said, I'm pretty sure about 60% of individuals diagnosed with eating disorders in the United States fall into the "EDNOS" category because their disorder does not perfectly fit into one or both of those categories. In some cases, all the behavior is towards the same end of control. I definitely can see how it would be somewhat different than general self-injury. At the same time, when I was dealing with disordered eating, pretty much everything I did had the same goal and rationale in mind. When I choose to perform my more "traditional" self-injurious acts, the reasoning is very different than when I choose to sexually self-injure, for example. I think whether or not different acts hold different relevance kind of depends on the person doing it. For example, if a person was abused in a specific way, self-injuring in a way that replicates the abuse would mean something different than self-injuring in a way that hurts the body but does not directly correlate to an experience.
I've found that, oftentimes, even when posters are trying not to say what they specifically did, it isn't difficult to discern. For example, there are posts saying things like "how do you cover your scars up?" Not all forms of self-injury leave marks that would be referred to as "scars" and so this word unto itself can narrow it down a bit. The question then becomes, what counts as "graphic" and what counts as a method? I definitely agree 100% though that there shouldn't be posts where people list numbers of wounds, exactly what tools they used, detailed descriptions of what they did, etc, since it can lead to comparing and minimizing. Those types of things can be common on less regulated communities like non-survivor-oriented blog sites. At the same time, the problem I see with many of those "neutral" communities is not that people use words that narrow down what they did, but the fact that the discussion is often comparison-based and not healing-based. There will be accounts of how long they spent doing something, how many injuries they created, how much bodily damage was caused, etc. In some cases, there will even be photos (which can be quite unsettling). That kind of an environment is unhealthy (in my opinion) more due to the comparisons than due to the mention of a method.
That's just my opinion primarily.