Musirants on sexual/romantic orientation labels

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Cross-posted from my LJ.

Edited after some other people on this site brought up some very good points.
there’s a rant on sexual and romantic orientation labels I’ve been wanting to write, so I figure I’ll do it now. Disclaimer: I like labels. They are very useful to me when it comes to understanding myself and others, and here’s a novel idea: if they don’t fit anymore, they can be peeled off. I’m aware some people don’t like labels and refuse to use them. I’m not trying to push my own ideas on others; I’m just rambling about them.


It pisses me off that being “homosexual” or “heterosexual” relies on one’s own gender in order to identify who one is attracted to, or at least it used to. I feel like that sort of thing just perpetuates the idea that one’s sexual orientation is dependent on one’s gender identity. Plenty of asexuals—myself included—have encountered people who are confused when we say we don’t identify as androgynous or neutrois. So for a while, I just thought, “why don’t we use ‘gynosexual’ for attracted to women and ‘androsexual’ for attracted to men? That eliminates the dependency on one’s own gender”. Unfortunately, “gynosexual” technically means “attracted to biofemales” and “androsexual” technically means “attracted to biomales”. So that doesn’t really work for attraction to genders; it works for attraction to sexes. Although I guess...language changes, and "gynosexual" and "androsexual" could easily mean "attracted to women" and "attracted to men", respectively, without distinguishing between sex and gender. It does seem like people are attracted more to gender presentation more than biological sex, and I'm very much biased because I still feel a little uncomfortable calling myself "homoromantic" because I don't see myself falling for a transwoman. I see transwomen as women, certainly, but I don't see myself ever falling for one of them. Also, I realize there's a problem with saying either "gynosexual" or "androsexual" deals with biology rather than gender, because then someone could say they're androsexual and be technically talking about an MtF transwoman...and that is not cool, because it's like denying that person's gender identity. So...I still think "androsexual" should mean "attracted to men" and "gynosexual" should mean "attracted to women", and that would be a hell of a lot easier to understand, and it wouldn't rely on a person's own gender identity to describe who they're attracted to. It certainly makes shit easier for those who don't fit into the gender binary. I guess I'll just call myself "gynoromantic" and in my own little screwed-up head that will mean that I'm romantically attracted to women, but not transwomen.

So why don’t we use all the words? (ALL the words? ALL the words!!!) But let’s start using them for what they really are. For example, if you’re genderqueer, you can identify as “homosexual” in order to signify that you’re attracted to other genderqueers (I think at this point, we should be saying “gender” instead of “sex”). Also, “heterosexual” shouldn’t mean “attracted to the opposite gender”. “Hetero” means “different” or “other.” So “heterosexual”, in sophronia_chaos’s perfect world, should mean “attracted to people of different genders than your own.” (“Straight”, however, would still make sense to mean “attracted to the opposite gender” and would just be a word that isn’t useful to those outside of the gender binary.)

Also, “bisexual” means “attracted to two sexes”, not “both” sexes. If we’re going to stick with [prefix]-sexual meaning attracted to sexes as opposed to genders, then “bisexual” still kind works, because that might mean a bi person is attracted to biomales and biofemales, but technically it would also mean attracted to biofemales and intersex individuals, or biomales and intersex individuals. So “ambisexual” might be more appropriate, because that would mean “attracted to both sexes”, but it’d still ignore intersex individuals. Anyway, as I mentioned before, in sophronia_chaos’s perfect world, “bisexual” would mean “attracted to two genders” and could still work for male and female, and there’d still have to be the assumption that the two genders are male and female as opposed to any other genders…but with sex there’s male, female and intersex, and with gender there’s male, female, and a spectrum (not a list) in between. “Both genders” wouldn’t make sense, as, like I said, gender is a spectrum.

Speaking of gender being a spectrum, let me say that I really like the term “pansexual.” I think it makes a lot of sense for someone to be attracted to anybody on the gender spectrum. (And the use of “pansexual” to mean “regardless of gender” provides fuel for the let’s-use-[prefix]-sexual-to-mean-attracted-to-gender-not-sex.) I also wish I could talk to some people who are not on speaking terms with the gender binary or are only attracted to people who don’t fit into the gender binary. If you’re only attracted to, say, cismales, transmen, and neutrois people (but not femaleish people), then you’re not really pan, right? So would a person like that simply call him/her/zirself queer and then have to explain more? Just something I’d like to learn more about.

[cut for asexuality stuff pretty much everybody here knows]

So you know what other label is rarely used but very useful to those who use it? Demiromantic: a sub-term of gray-romantic, on the nebulous border between full romantic and aromantic. Demiromantics don’t fall in love easily at all, or have to get very emotionally close to a person before they’ll really feel like it’s love, etc. A bunch of aces use “demiromantic.” (Some hyphenate it to, say, demi-hetero-romantic if they want to.) But seriously, it probably applies to a bunch of sexuals; I know a sexual person who identifies as demiromantic. But this all comes back to my soapbox that romantic and sexual orientation can be mismatched, are probably mismatched in a lot more people than most realize, and it would probably be helpful to many if people knew this.


So let’s go over the labels in sophronia_chaos’s label utopia:

Heterosexual: sexually attracted to those of genders other than your own
Homosexual: sexually attracted to those of the same gender
Gynosexual: sexually attracted to females
Androsexual: sexually attracted to males
Pansexual: sexually attracted to people regardless of gender
Bisexual: sexually attracted to females and males
Demisexual: sexually attracted only to those with whom a strong emotional/romantic connection preexists
Asexual: not sexually attracted to anyone
Gray-asexual: on the asexual spectrum, but not fully sexual
Straight: sexually or romantically attracted to those of the “opposite” gender
Gay: sexually or romantically attracted to those of the same gender
Queer: not straight
Heteroromantic: romantically attracted to those of genders other than your own
Homoromantic: romantically attracted to those of the same gender
Gynoromantic: romantically attracted to biofemales
Androromantic: romantically attracted to biomales
Panromantic: romantically attracted to people regardless of gender
Biromantic: romantically attracted to males and females
Demiromantic: romantically attracted only to those with whom a strong emotional connection built up over much time exists/experiencing romantic attraction very rarely
Aromantic: not romantically attracted to anyone

I've been identifying as a homoromantic asexual. I’m not sexually attracted to anyone, and am a woman romantically attracted to other women. I could also identify as gynoromantic, because should I ever fall for somebody other than my partner (hahahaha…when pigs fly to Saturn on sugar-spun wings), I guess I might be able to fall for a transwoman if I saw her as female. Maybe. There probably couldn’t be sex, though, because I have major dick squick. I’m perfectly okay with making love to a ciswoman I love, but with any male-bodied thing…*shuddering ew.*

WHEEEEEEEEEEE isn’t shit complicated???

Thank you for reading. I will help with the picking up of the pieces of brain.

[siggy]

Are you sure that gynosexual specifically means refers to attraction to biofemales? I think in most usage, people simply don't make any distinction between gender and sex.

I think it's sort of an open question whether sexual orientations refer to attraction to sex or gender. I'm gay, but does that mean I'm attracted towards men, or to people with male-typical bodies? Well, how should I know? I've never personally met anyone who fit in one category but not the other, and I don't experience much noticeable attraction anyways.

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Feb 19, 2011 15:28:34 GMT -5 siggy said:

Are you sure that gynosexual specifically means refers to attraction to biofemales?

I am. The Wellness Education Director and faculty adviser for ACE Club at my college is a sexpert with a degree in human sexuality, and she says "gynosexual" technically means "attracted to someone with a female reproductive system."

[sciatrix]

Even if that's the common usage of the word (which I'm not sure it is--as with Siggy, I think most people simply don't differentiate between gender and sex in common speech), there's no reason it can't be repurposed to denote attraction to female-gendered people. Languages change. Words change. And given that I've just run across yet another example of a self-proclaimed "sexologist" totally failing to comprehend an aspect of human sexuality, I'm really not all that interested in saying "well, this is what sexperts say, so it must technically be so." I've run across several sexperts who say that "asexual" means "a person with no external genitalia," and I'm certainly not going to start calling myself analloerotic just because they've Decreed that's what the word means.

Unless there's a ton of people who use the term in the sense of "attracted to cervix-owning persons" rather than "attracted to persons who are female?" Even then, I think that the word is rare enough in usage that broadening it to refer to gender rather than sex would be quite easy. The roots for "gyn" and "andro" mean "woman" and "man," after all; it's not like the literal roots of the word derive from vaginas and penises.

I'm really not thrilled by the "attracted only to people with vaginas/people with penises regardless of actual gender" thing, because people don't seem to actually think that way. People seem to be attracted by the gender presentation first, and then if the other person's genitalia don't match their assumptions (as with a transgender person) they may react badly or not. But actually being attracted to someone based on their plumbing? The fact that people don't have access to others' plumbing until after attraction has had a chance to happen or not happen tells me that that's probably not what's going on. I'm also not thrilled by that kind of terminology because it's pretty reductive about gender and sex and leaves transgender people out in the cold.

Re: "demiromantic"--have you been paying attention to some of the discussions going on in the blogosphere about the grey area between romantic and aromantic people, or the discussions about aromantic sexuals on a couple of blogs? I don't care for demiromantic as a term myself--for one thing, it makes very little sense when compared to demisexual--but I've also seen people using things like "greyromantic" or "WTFromantic" or "my romantic orientation is divide by cucumber" lately. Mostly, the discussions have been less on what occupying that place feels like and more about blurring the lines between friendship and romanticism. If anyone wants, I can go dig up links on that. There's also a "pandemic club" on the yadaforum (short for pan-demi-romantics) and there's been some discussion about the intersection of aromanticsm and polyamory in the blogosphere.

Actually, if you want to talk to people who aren't on speaking terms with the gender binary, go to the yadaforum. That's pretty much what it's for, and you can find a whole ton of gender discussion from people who are also very familiar with asexuality, mismatched romantic orientation theory, and assorted other interesting gender/sexuality things.

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Feb 19, 2011 17:03:36 GMT -5 sciatrix said:

Even if that's the common usage of the word (which I'm not sure it is--as with Siggy, I think most people simply don't differentiate between gender and sex in common speech), there's no reason it can't be repurposed to denote attraction to female-gendered people. Languages change. Words change. And given that I've just run across yet another example of a self-proclaimed "sexologist" totally failing to comprehend an aspect of human sexuality, I'm really not all that interested in saying "well, this is what sexperts say, so it must technically be so." I've run across several sexperts who say that "asexual" means "a person with no external genitalia," and I'm certainly not going to start calling myself analloerotic just because they've Decreed that's what the word means.

Unless there's a ton of people who use the term in the sense of "attracted to cervix-owning persons" rather than "attracted to persons who are female?" Even then, I think that the word is rare enough in usage that broadening it to refer to gender rather than sex would be quite easy. The roots for "gyn" and "andro" mean "woman" and "man," after all; it's not like the literal roots of the word derive from vaginas and penises.

I'm really not thrilled by the "attracted only to people with vaginas/people with penises regardless of actual gender" thing, because people don't seem to actually think that way. People seem to be attracted by the gender presentation first, and then if the other person's genitalia don't match their assumptions (as with a transgender person) they may react badly or not. But actually being attracted to someone based on their plumbing? The fact that people don't have access to others' plumbing until after attraction has had a chance to happen or not happen tells me that that's probably not what's going on. I'm also not thrilled by that kind of terminology because it's pretty reductive about gender and sex and leaves transgender people out in the cold.

I sure as hell don't trust random sexologists, particularly those who confuse asexuality with intersex. However, I trust the person I picked to be the faculty adviser ACE Club. Also, I actually like the use of "gyno-" and "andro-" to mean attracted to cis men and women because that's how I think, and it's how my partner thinks, so I had that in mind. Sometimes I don't really feel comfortable saying I'm homoromantic because I don't see myself falling for a transwoman, despite the fact I've never had a problem thinking of transwomen as being female. However, you're absolutely right that words change and that "androsexual" could mean "attracted to men" and same for "gynosexual" could mean "attracted to women" without a distinction being made between sex or gender. You're right that that would make more sense, but of course my mind is fogged by the weird ways my partner and I think. *sigh* I didn't mean to imply that either or those words would be used to combat any transperson's identity.

Feb 19, 2011 17:03:36 GMT -5 sciatrix said:

Re: "demiromantic"--have you been paying attention to some of the discussions going on in the blogosphere about the grey area between romantic and aromantic people, or the discussions about aromantic sexuals on a couple of blogs? I don't care for demiromantic as a term myself--for one thing, it makes very little sense when compared to demisexual--but I've also seen people using things like "greyromantic" or "WTFromantic" or "my romantic orientation is divide by cucumber" lately. Mostly, the discussions have been less on what occupying that place feels like and more about blurring the lines between friendship and romanticism. If anyone wants, I can go dig up links on that. There's also a "pandemic club" on the yadaforum (short for pan-demi-romantics) and there's been some discussion about the intersection of aromanticsm and polyamory in the blogosphere.

I thought the conversations on AVEN on demiromanticism (this was about a year ago) that were aimed at blurring the lines between friendship and romantic love were incredibly stupid, which is why I rolled my eyes at the idea of being demiromantic until very recently. The way people were explaining it at that time was really not well articulated at all, and seemed really fluffy and didn't make much sense. I think "demiromantic" makes a lot more sense to mean "does not fall in love easily at all" or "has only been in love with one person" as opposed to "my romantic orientation is divide by cucumber." What's wrong with "gray-romantic" if "demiromantic" is too specific?

[sciatrix]

Frankly I haven't been having conversations on AVEN, so I can't speak for them--although your going "thought conversations on the topic were incredibly stupid but I'm totally going to insist on this word as the right one for an identity I don't have and this other phrase is just ridiculous" response is seriously putting my hackles up. Especially since, as you just pointed out, you haven't been paying attention.

The discussions I've been seeing in the blogosphere have been centering around more grey definitions and trying to define romantic attraction/relationships as concepts, and then trying to consider other types of relationships that might serve people outside of the romantic/friendship binary--that is, is it possible to have something that doesn't necessarily mean either a friendship or a romantic relationship? If you're supposed to "just know" what romantic feelings are, but you don't, are you failing to experience a kind of feeling or is there something else going on?

Demiromantic makes no sense for me because demisexuality refers to not experiencing sexual attraction until one is already in a romantic relationship. Most people don't get into romantic relationships until they've already experienced romantic attraction to another person (assuming this is how it works--as I said, having conversation about this). So demi strikes me as a silly prefix; I'd use something different, and when I'm pointing out that romantic orientation is something that confuses me all to hell, I usually do.

The divide by cucumber thing is/was a joke (and not my joke at that), but one with some seriousness to it, denoting that the entire thing is confusing to those of us who don't experience feelings that can easily be categorized as either romantic or nonromantic. It's not a matter of "I very very very occasionally fall in love." It's a matter of "I am very close to this person but I can't categorize my feelings to them and I'm really confused about how this entire romantic orientation works" or "my attachment patterns show some kind of gendered sway but I don't think romantic is the right word for reasons XYZ" or any of several other reasons to feel in the grey space. (That's another reason the demi prefix sucks, by the way--demisexual denotes a specific kind of grey-asexuality, and in the same way demiromantic brings to mind a very specific way to be in the grey space between aromantic and romantic. There are a lot of ways to be not quite fit one or the other in this theory, and if you're not going to throw it out entirely as Siggy has done you need to acknowledge that there are a lot of ways to be in the grey space.)

There's a reason I tend to use WTFromantic when I'm not shorthanding to aromantic for convenience, and it's not only because I think it's funny. It's because the entire distinction confuses the hell out of me, and WTF is generally my reaction to the way other people seem sure. You seem to really know where the lines are--I, and actually most of the people I've been discussing this with lately, don't. Blurring them seems like the safest way to fit.

[siggy]

I'm not a huge fan of the demi- prefix because I think more attention should be given to the entire gray region of orientation rather than just demis. Orientation is not really a one- or even two-dimensional spectrum, it's just this splatter of different experiences. Demisexual is just one spot in that splatter, which we highlighted because it encompasses a lot of people. I'd rather not highlight the same spot in romantic orientation until we have a better feel for the broader set of gray-romantic experiences.

A note on trans people: Many transwomen have undergone some degree of transition and have bodies that look just like any typical woman's. That doesn't necessarily mean they've undergone bottom surgery, but you probably wouldn't see that in the initial stages of attraction anyway.

Also, if a transwoman has a male-typical body, chances are she wouldn't appreciate when people are attracted to that aspect. It's sort of like being attracted to the part she hates most about herself.

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Feb 19, 2011 18:14:26 GMT -5 sciatrix said:

Frankly I haven't been having conversations on AVEN, so I can't speak for them--although your going "thought conversations on the topic were incredibly stupid but I'm totally going to insist on this word as the right one for an identity I don't have and this other phrase is just ridiculous" response is seriously putting my hackles up. Especially since, as you just pointed out, you haven't been paying attention.

The discussions I've been seeing in the blogosphere have been centering around more grey definitions and trying to define romantic attraction/relationships as concepts, and then trying to consider other types of relationships that might serve people outside of the romantic/friendship binary--that is, is it possible to have something that doesn't necessarily mean either a friendship or a romantic relationship? If you're supposed to "just know" what romantic feelings are, but you don't, are you failing to experience a kind of feeling or is there something else going on?

Demiromantic makes no sense for me because demisexuality refers to not experiencing sexual attraction until one is already in a romantic relationship. Most people don't get into romantic relationships until they've already experienced romantic attraction to another person (assuming this is how it works--as I said, having conversation about this). So demi strikes me as a silly prefix; I'd use something different, and when I'm pointing out that romantic orientation is something that confuses me all to hell, I usually do.

The divide by cucumber thing is/was a joke (and not my joke at that), but one with some seriousness to it, denoting that the entire thing is confusing to those of us who don't experience feelings that can easily be categorized as either romantic or nonromantic. It's not a matter of "I very very very occasionally fall in love." It's a matter of "I am very close to this person but I can't categorize my feelings to them and I'm really confused about how this entire romantic orientation works" or "my attachment patterns show some kind of gendered sway but I don't think romantic is the right word for reasons XYZ" or any of several other reasons to feel in the grey space. (That's another reason the demi prefix sucks, by the way--demisexual denotes a specific kind of grey-asexuality, and in the same way demiromantic brings to mind a very specific way to be in the grey space between aromantic and romantic. There are a lot of ways to be not quite fit one or the other in this theory, and if you're not going to throw it out entirely as Siggy has done you need to acknowledge that there are a lot of ways to be in the grey space.)

There's a reason I tend to use WTFromantic when I'm not shorthanding to aromantic for convenience, and it's not only because I think it's funny. It's because the entire distinction confuses the hell out of me, and WTF is generally my reaction to the way other people seem sure. You seem to really know where the lines are--I, and actually most of the people I've been discussing this with lately, don't. Blurring them seems like the safest way to fit.

Ah; I misunderstood you. I thought you were actually scoffing at those who use labels like "WTFromantic" and I was trying to agree with you because I'm aware I upset you with my OP. Note to self: don't lie about what you think in order to please people. (I know for some people it's hard to find the boundary between friendship and love, which is why when I was raising one eyebrow at AVEN convos on demiromanticism about a year ago I didn't actually do anything but ask "but what does demiromantic MEAN???" a billion times without getting an answer I understood. That was when I was seeing a lot of stuff about blurring the lines between friendship and love that I found inane, but I haven't seen the conversations you've been participating in lately and I'd like to see those links.) I personally wouldn't talk about "WTFromantic" as a label when doing visibility work, because it doesn't seem formal enough, but I guess if it works for you, who the hell am I to stop you?

Maybe "gray-romantic" would be a better idea than "demiromantic", it's just that I personally like "demiromantic." *shrug* It makes more sense to me, particularly because the way my partner defines "demiromantic" is that she doesn't fall in love without already spending a lot of time with somebody and having a pretty strong emotional connection (but not one she calls love), which I feel is analogous to demis not being sexually attracted to people without a preexisting romantic connection. "Gray-romantic" also makes sense for other people to use, I just think "demiromantic" could maybe be a subset of gray-romantic, like demisexuality being a subset of gray-A. I didn't put gray-romanticism in my rant because it's so different from the way my brain works and I don't think I could define it properly.

I guess romantic love and love for friends are just SO different for me, the idea of me personally using a label that blurs the line between them sends me running away in panic going "NO, NO, I GET THIS, THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS, DON'T CONFUSE ME."

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to stomp all over your labels.

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Feb 19, 2011 19:35:05 GMT -5 siggy said:

A note on trans people: Many transwomen have undergone some degree of transition and have bodies that look just like any typical woman's. That doesn't necessarily mean they've undergone bottom surgery, but you probably wouldn't see that in the initial stages of attraction anyway.

Um...I'm completely aware of that. I'm friends with several transwomen and I participate in my college's trans organization (Transcending Gender). I can't really explain why I'm into ciswomen but not transwomen, but I can say it has nothing to do with the fact that some MtFs still look masculine sometimes.

Feb 19, 2011 19:35:05 GMT -5 siggy said:

Also, if a transwoman has a male-typical body, chances are she wouldn't appreciate when people are attracted to that aspect. It's sort of like being attracted to the part she hates most about herself.

I'm also completely aware of that. I recanted my idea about using "andro/gyno-sexual" meaning bio-only because I realized that might lead to, for example, somebody who identified as "androsexual" using that in the context of being attracted to an MtF, which as I said would be inappropriate. To quote my edited original post, which I changed at 6:07 PM today:

Feb 19, 2011 3:22:25 GMT -5 you*hear*but*do*you*listen said:

So for a while, I just thought, “why don’t we use ‘gynosexual’ for attracted to women and ‘androsexual’ for attracted to men? That eliminates the dependency on one’s own gender”. Unfortunately, “gynosexual” technically means “attracted to biofemales” and “androsexual” technically means “attracted to biomales”. So that doesn’t really work for attraction to genders; it works for attraction to sexes. Although I guess...language changes, and "gynosexual" and "androsexual" could easily mean "attracted to women" and "attracted to men", respectively, without distinguishing between sex and gender. It does seem like people are attracted more to gender presentation more than biological sex, and I'm very much biased because I still feel a little uncomfortable calling myself "homoromantic" because I don't see myself falling for a transwoman. I see transwomen as women, certainly, but I don't see myself ever falling for one of them. Also, I realize there's a problem with saying either "gynosexual" or "androsexual" deals with biology rather than gender, because then someone could say they're androsexual and be technically talking about an MtF transwoman...and that is not cool, because it's like denying that person's gender identity.

Maybe I should have disclaimed that my OP was written at 3 AM. Or I should have just written it at a different time of day; then maybe I'd not have fucked it up.

[sciatrix]

Feb 19, 2011 20:32:54 GMT -5 you*hear*but*do*you*listen said:

(I know for some people it's hard to find the boundary between friendship and love, which is why when I was raising one eyebrow at AVEN convos on demiromanticism about a year ago I didn't actually do anything but ask "but what does demiromantic MEAN???" a billion times without getting an answer I understood. That was when I was seeing a lot of stuff about blurring the lines between friendship and love that I found inane, but I haven't seen the conversations you've been participating in lately and I'd like to see those links.)

Whereas I've been spending a ton of time doing the opposite--asking "but what does romantic attraction FEEL LIKE?" without getting a single answer I understood. Heh. The thing is, because romantic relationships are so very privileged in terms of societal support, if you don't fit into the traditional romantic/friendship paradigm and you're not willing to lie and say "yes, I totally understand about the difference," it makes the most sense to try to blur the lines. Because otherwise, you'll be playing second-best to romantic relationships forever, and that's a pretty shitty place to be in.

Anyway, links to some of the discussions I can think of:

A/romanticism
Touch, and the Portkey Zucchini
Planning for the Long Term
The Crisis of Intimacy

Feb 19, 2011 20:32:54 GMT -5 you*hear*but*do*you*listen said:

I personally wouldn't talk about "WTFromantic" as a label when doing visibility work, because it doesn't seem formal enough, but I guess if it works for you, who the hell am I to stop you?

I usually save it for when I'm talking about lines-blurring things, to be honest. I tend to still use aromantic as a shorthand and a convenience, particularly since there's a large part of me who thinks that I'm probably not experiencing romantic attraction per se (or if I was that I'd notice) and that would still make me aromantic if we're discussing romantic orientation as a model that has analogies to attraction.

Feb 19, 2011 20:32:54 GMT -5 you*hear*but*do*you*listen said:

I guess romantic love and love for friends are just SO different for me, the idea of me personally using a label that blurs the line between them sends me running away in panic going "NO, NO, I GET THIS, THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS, DON'T CONFUSE ME."

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to stomp all over your labels.

Whereas my entire existence feels like living in the blurred lines. Which is actually not a great place to be in, to be honest, because

And, you know. Apology accepted.

[siggy]

Sorry, you*hear, if I was lecturing you. Didn't mean to.

Feb 19, 2011 20:32:54 GMT -5 you*hear*but*do*you*listen said:

I guess romantic love and love for friends are just SO different for me, the idea of me personally using a label that blurs the line between them sends me running away in panic going "NO, NO, I GET THIS, THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS, DON'T CONFUSE ME."

I totally get this, because romantic love and friendship seem very distinct in my experience too. Therefore, much of the conversation seems irrelevant to me (though I still look on with interest).

I've had a sexless romantic relationship and a friendship with sex, but the difference still seems clear-cut. The way I've felt about these people can be... confusing, but what I want is clearly different. In a romantic relationship, I want dates, long-term commitment, a much higher amount of time spent together, some degree of exclusivity, and fairly good compatibility. In a friendship, I don't want commitment, I don't want exclusivity, I don't need much compatibility, and I expect to spend less time together. Talk all you want about how none of these properties clearly define the difference between friendships and romantic relationships, but when they all get grouped together like that, it makes sense to go with it.

One thing I do not really understand from the WTFromantic discussion is when people talk about overturning the hierarchy of romantic relationships above friendships. I think that one of my favorite things about friends is precisely that there is very little commitment involved, allowing you to have a great number of friends without the volatility of romantic relationships. It's pretty clear that these people think of friends quite differently than I do. Which, you know, is completely valid and good for them.

[ocelotofdoom]

I like WTFromantic. I think I will use it until things become clearer. And Sciatrix, I agree with you - being between lines and without labels isn't fun.

I have a pretty close overlap between friendship and what I think is romantic attraction. Like, I see it as a Venn diagram with a 75%+ overlap. My friendships are very generally very close, and with relationships, I'm of the mind that "All romance should involve friendship, but not all friendship need involve romance" with regards to my own. However, I have difficulty defining easily what I feel romantically that differs from friendship it's an "I know it when I see it" thing. Which, of course, frustrates me to no end.

On the gynosexual vs. androsexual thing - I'm personally in favor of including transwomen and transmen respectively into those definitions. Either way, someone may need to clarify that they do or do not find transpeople of a given gender attractive, and I think more symbolic harm is done to transpeople by excluding them from the gender categories they identify as part of in language.

I hope I'm making sense with all this...

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Feb 21, 2011 21:18:00 GMT -5 ocelotofdoom said:

I have a pretty close overlap between friendship and what I think is romantic attraction. Like, I see it as a Venn diagram with a 75%+ overlap. My friendships are very generally very close, and with relationships, I'm of the mind that "All romance should involve friendship, but not all friendship need involve romance" with regards to my own. However, I have difficulty defining easily what I feel romantically that differs from friendship it's an "I know it when I see it" thing. Which, of course, frustrates me to no end.

The Venn diagram idea actually makes a lot of sense to me because it's so visual, and because I only fall in love with people I'm already friends with so there's a definite overlap between friendship and romance for me. My romantic attraction is best described by the following equation: friendship + strong need for physical contact + additional happiness resulting from company = romance.

Feb 21, 2011 21:18:00 GMT -5 ocelotofdoom said:

On the gynosexual vs. androsexual thing - I'm personally in favor of including transwomen and transmen respectively into those definitions. Either way, someone may need to clarify that they do or do not find transpeople of a given gender attractive, and I think more symbolic harm is done to transpeople by excluding them from the gender categories they identify as part of in language.

Very true, of course. Too bad it'll never catch on...