Title: The Innocence of Touch
Author: astrobean
Summary: A few thoughts on how the meaning of touch changes with sexual maturity, and how asexuals can be left behind.
Word Count: 700
*~*
PART 1: Love Languages
My brain whirrs at a mile a minute, and it never settles down. As a writer, I am constantly narrating the lives of my characters (or dramatizing my own experiences, or imagining interviews with famous people). The best way for me to fall asleep at night is to take whatever character I’m narrating, send them some place quiet, and let them fall asleep. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, that character is snuggled with someone who makes them feel safe. My love language is touch.
In Gary Chapman’s book “The Five Love Languages,” he puts forth a theory that people express love in one of five ways: touch, gift-giving, encouraging words, quality time, and acts of service. I can see how this is true when I watch my sister and her husband. Her love language is acts of service and his is quality time. She feels loved when he randomly finishes some of her chores; he feels loved when she hangs the chores and just sits with him and talks for awhile. In general, we use them all the languages, but there are certain times when we are stressed or in need, and it becomes important that the other person use our own language, because we will not interpret anything else as love.
I have a propensity for writing characters whose love languages are touch. I have studied people and their love languages and learned that not everyone is as comforted by a hug as I am. Touch means different things to different people. It doesn’t carry a universally standard weight.
*~*
PART 2: Childlike Innocence
As asexuals, we are often forced to define what kind of touching we are comfortable with. For many of us, this line is not drawn from preference, but from fear. I love being held, hugged, and cuddled, but I find that it is not safe. Somewhere along the way, those around me abandoned the innocence of touch, and I have been left behind.
When you’re a child, touch is important. Holding someone’s hand, sitting on someone’s lap, resting your head on someone’s shoulder--all of these are natural expressions of love and trust. None of these actions have sexual overtones.
As people mature, touch loses its innocence. You can’t snuggle up to your best friend anymore and rest your head on his shoulder without your intentions being questioned. As an asexaul, I never lost that innocence, and I crossed boundaries by accident. I was forced to retreat and draw lines to protect myself. Because I lacked understanding of the changes other people were going through, I couldn’t predict simple responses, and consequently I could not fulfill my basic needs.
*~*
PART 3: Plenty of Fish in the Friend Zone
The current lingo criticizes the “friend zone” as a land of rejected, horny men. They say that once you’re in the friend zone, you can’t get out (except perhaps by divine intervention). When I still believed myself heterosexual, I always assumed that I would pull a mate from this friend zone, because that was where I’d find the guy that I trusted enough to let near me. I never understood how people could parse their friends from their dating partners so quickly, because I never felt sexual attraction. I always assumed the distinction came from getting to know the person.
In college, I learned to fear kisses because no man I was with was satisfied to stop at kissing. I wouldn’t even allow a platonic kiss on the cheek. By grad school, I learned to fear hugs too. I can’t touch someone until I am sure of their intentions toward me, and until I am reassured that they will not misread my intentions toward them. For someone whose love language is touch, it is cruel irony. I want nothing more than to be safe and to be held, but it is not safe to let someone hold me.
This is the dilemma I face going forward. Now that I’m out to myself as asexual, I have defined and given context to my boundaries and my desire for physical contact. My fear is that I can’t fulfil my desire, so long as I am surrounded by people who don’t understand or appreciate my innocence.
*~*
Source: http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?/topic/78764-innocence-of-touch/page__p__2237107#entry2237107
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Romance vs Romantic Identities
Title: Romance vs Romantic Identities
Author: Skullery Maid
Summary: A description of the differences between different romantic identities
Word Count: 1000
---
Here on my thoughts in the subject. I'm sure some of you will disagree, so please, have at it! Let's see how we all differentiate these concepts.
Romance: Romance is cultural. Romance is a concept that varies from society to society and roughly implies some sort of courtship behavior. An act is considered romantic if it fits the culturally prescribed criteria for eliciting a feeling of romantic affection in another person. A person is considered romantic if they tend toward behavior that fits the culturally prescribed criteria for wooing. As an example, in heteronormative United States culture, it is considered romantic to surprise your partner with a candlelit dinner. Whether or not the recipient actually likes candlelit dinners is more or less beside the point, because romance is determined on a macro level. It is certainly possible, but unlikely, that a person would be held out as a "hopeless romantic" if they didn't subscribe to the cultural trappings of romance.
Romance can also occur on a micro level. Let's say Patty and John are anarchist punks who just started dating. Patty has been angry with Taco Bell for some time because they misrepresent where their produce comes from, and Patty prefers local food. So, in an effort to be romantic, John vandalizes Taco Bell in Patty's name. This makes Patty swoon. Now, in one sense we'd call John romantic because he did something specifically intended to elicit romantic feelings from Patty. In another sense, however, John is not romantic, because vandalizing a restaurant does not fit into our culturally identified concept of love and wooing. So while on a micro level, John may be romantic, on a macro level, John is not going to be held out to the public as a "hopeless romantic".
Romantic Identity: Romantic Identity refers to the emotional connection you forge with others. There are so many different ways to look at this, and I think there's a fairly wide divergence in people's definitions of what actually constitutes romantic identities. Some people say that if you fall "in love", you are romantic. I'd agree with that (with a caveat that I will explore more fully below). Some say it has to do with the type of relationship you want. I'd agree with that as well. If you want an emotionally monogamous partnership, you love them and feel they are a part of you, your family, or your identity, I'd say you're in a romantic relationship. Let's all keep in mind that physical affection is but one (very common) manifestation of romantic feelings, but it is not the same thing as romantic feelings. The mere fact that you don't want to cuddle or have sex with your partner doesn't tell me whether or not you are aromantic, but it does tell me something about your preferences in regard to physical touch.
So, if you fall in love, you are romantic. If you want a primary relationship with someone where extreme mutual affection is demonstrated (either verbally, physically, or thru other behaviors), then I'd say you are romantic. I know many people who have romantic friendships... the fact that they aren't in a romantic relationship doesn't mean that the people are aromantic, but rather that they'd prefer not to have a romantic relationship. If you are capable of romantic love but prefer not to participate in it, you are not aromantic. You just don't want a relationship, and that's totally fine.
As I said above, the "in love" definition of romantic identity is troublesome because it raises a whole other problem, which is... what the hell is "in love"?! I'm the wrong person to ask, because I don't think "in love" is a real thing. I do identify as romantic, but I do not identify with the concept of "in love". I'm honestly not even sure if I can say that I love my partner differently from the way I love my best friends. The major difference between the two is that I feel a desire to be near my partner, and I feel a desire to share my life with her.
There are many different ways to express a romantic identity. You can hate candy, flowers, candlelit dinners, greeting cards, rose petals, poetry, love notes, cuddling, hand holding, etc, and still be a romantic. Why? Because you have the ability to fall in love, or you have the ability to feel the desire to share your life with someone. Personally, I'm romantic. I think romance is stupid. I HATE when people cook for me because I find it intolerably awkward, I hate pithy gifts, I don't respond well to surprises, holding hands makes me feel like my hand is burning off... in other words, I loathe nearly every cultural signifier of romance. And yet I do love my partner, and I do want to share my life with her. Not in a "hey, it'd be cheaper if we split the bills" kinda way, or in a "hey, it'd be nice to avoid the cats eating me after I die, so maybe we should live together" kinda way, but in a "you are a very special person to me and I want to see you and be near you, and when I experience things in my life I want to share them with you, and I want you to share your experiences with me" kinda way. It is a genuine desire to merge and share our thoughts and experiences in a meaningful way. I want her to feel, think, and learn all the things I feel, think, and learn, and she wants the same. That is a romantic relationship. It doesn't matter if you have sex, or hold hands, or give each other flowers. It doesn't matter if you hate the word love or would rather burn down Hallmark than buy a card. Those are all cultural trappings and are not the same as the innate desire to partner up.
Romance: Romance is cultural. Romance is a concept that varies from society to society and roughly implies some sort of courtship behavior. An act is considered romantic if it fits the culturally prescribed criteria for eliciting a feeling of romantic affection in another person. A person is considered romantic if they tend toward behavior that fits the culturally prescribed criteria for wooing. As an example, in heteronormative United States culture, it is considered romantic to surprise your partner with a candlelit dinner. Whether or not the recipient actually likes candlelit dinners is more or less beside the point, because romance is determined on a macro level. It is certainly possible, but unlikely, that a person would be held out as a "hopeless romantic" if they didn't subscribe to the cultural trappings of romance.
Romance can also occur on a micro level. Let's say Patty and John are anarchist punks who just started dating. Patty has been angry with Taco Bell for some time because they misrepresent where their produce comes from, and Patty prefers local food. So, in an effort to be romantic, John vandalizes Taco Bell in Patty's name. This makes Patty swoon. Now, in one sense we'd call John romantic because he did something specifically intended to elicit romantic feelings from Patty. In another sense, however, John is not romantic, because vandalizing a restaurant does not fit into our culturally identified concept of love and wooing. So while on a micro level, John may be romantic, on a macro level, John is not going to be held out to the public as a "hopeless romantic".
Romantic Identity: Romantic Identity refers to the emotional connection you forge with others. There are so many different ways to look at this, and I think there's a fairly wide divergence in people's definitions of what actually constitutes romantic identities. Some people say that if you fall "in love", you are romantic. I'd agree with that (with a caveat that I will explore more fully below). Some say it has to do with the type of relationship you want. I'd agree with that as well. If you want an emotionally monogamous partnership, you love them and feel they are a part of you, your family, or your identity, I'd say you're in a romantic relationship. Let's all keep in mind that physical affection is but one (very common) manifestation of romantic feelings, but it is not the same thing as romantic feelings. The mere fact that you don't want to cuddle or have sex with your partner doesn't tell me whether or not you are aromantic, but it does tell me something about your preferences in regard to physical touch.
So, if you fall in love, you are romantic. If you want a primary relationship with someone where extreme mutual affection is demonstrated (either verbally, physically, or thru other behaviors), then I'd say you are romantic. I know many people who have romantic friendships... the fact that they aren't in a romantic relationship doesn't mean that the people are aromantic, but rather that they'd prefer not to have a romantic relationship. If you are capable of romantic love but prefer not to participate in it, you are not aromantic. You just don't want a relationship, and that's totally fine.
As I said above, the "in love" definition of romantic identity is troublesome because it raises a whole other problem, which is... what the hell is "in love"?! I'm the wrong person to ask, because I don't think "in love" is a real thing. I do identify as romantic, but I do not identify with the concept of "in love". I'm honestly not even sure if I can say that I love my partner differently from the way I love my best friends. The major difference between the two is that I feel a desire to be near my partner, and I feel a desire to share my life with her.
There are many different ways to express a romantic identity. You can hate candy, flowers, candlelit dinners, greeting cards, rose petals, poetry, love notes, cuddling, hand holding, etc, and still be a romantic. Why? Because you have the ability to fall in love, or you have the ability to feel the desire to share your life with someone. Personally, I'm romantic. I think romance is stupid. I HATE when people cook for me because I find it intolerably awkward, I hate pithy gifts, I don't respond well to surprises, holding hands makes me feel like my hand is burning off... in other words, I loathe nearly every cultural signifier of romance. And yet I do love my partner, and I do want to share my life with her. Not in a "hey, it'd be cheaper if we split the bills" kinda way, or in a "hey, it'd be nice to avoid the cats eating me after I die, so maybe we should live together" kinda way, but in a "you are a very special person to me and I want to see you and be near you, and when I experience things in my life I want to share them with you, and I want you to share your experiences with me" kinda way. It is a genuine desire to merge and share our thoughts and experiences in a meaningful way. I want her to feel, think, and learn all the things I feel, think, and learn, and she wants the same. That is a romantic relationship. It doesn't matter if you have sex, or hold hands, or give each other flowers. It doesn't matter if you hate the word love or would rather burn down Hallmark than buy a card. Those are all cultural trappings and are not the same as the innate desire to partner up.
---
Parts of Identity
Identity is something that everyone thinks they understand, and most people don't give a second thought to. Male, female, gay, straight, these words are recognized as parts of a person's identity. However, there are many other possible identifications that these words cannot portray. What do you call someone who has female parts, but expresses herself as a man? Or someone who doesn't want sex, but still wants a relationship? Plus, all these various parts can be scrambled each and every way until four words has absolutely no chance at describing it.
There are four main parts of a person's identity: Gender Identity, Gender Expression, Biological Sex, and Attraction. One of the best images I've found to show these parts of identity is the Genderbread Person. Unfortunately, this image does not explain what the various scales mean.
There are four main parts of a person's identity: Gender Identity, Gender Expression, Biological Sex, and Attraction. One of the best images I've found to show these parts of identity is the Genderbread Person. Unfortunately, this image does not explain what the various scales mean.
Gender Identity is a person's inner identification of being a certain gender. To explain this better, think of two maps that the brain has of your body: there is the "physical" map, which is what your eyes see when you look down at your body, and your "mental" map, your brain's idea of what should and shouldn't be a part of the body, and where everything should be. For example, your mental map shows you should have two arms, two legs, and so on, and your physical map matches. Gender Identity is part of the mental map of your body, telling you what gendered body you should have.
For example, here is a person named Tim. Tim was born male, so his physical map is a male body. However, his mental map shows him as a woman.
Gender Expression is what gender a person represents with their words and actions. This identification is heavily dependent on current social gender stereotypes, such as "only girls can wear skirts." For example, a physically female person who goes by a male name and wishes to be referred to by male pronouns has a "masculine" gender expression, despite the fact that the person still has female genitalia.
Tim, accepting that he does not feel male, takes up the female name Tina, and starts representing herself as a female.
Tim, accepting that he does not feel male, takes up the female name Tina, and starts representing herself as a female.Biological Sex is a person's physical body and its construction in terms of gender representation. This is not as simple as "male" and "female," however; someone can have a female chest with male genitalia, a male chest with female genitalia, or no genitalia at all.
Tina later gets surgery to get breasts to better represent herself as a female, but does not yet change her male genitals.
Attraction is the only part of the original Genderbread person I had a problem with. While the poster shows only one scale, there are actually two. Every person has four types of relationships with the people around them: familial (family), platonic (friends), romantic (SO), and sexual (sexual partner). Notice how "romantic" and "sexual" are not the same thing. This is what confuses people most about attraction. The difference is described as such:
Romantic Attraction is a feeling of emotional attraction towards other individuals. This is not a sexual desire for that person, but an emotional one; a desire to get to know that person better, to spend time with them, to deeply understand them and make them happy.
Sexual Attraction is a feeling of physical attraction towards other individuals. This is separate from romantic desire because it is very focused on the body and its form, creating desire to be close to the body, to feel skin on skin, see it, taste it, and so on.
Another potentially confusing part of attraction is libido, or sex drive. A person's sex drive does not affect their romantic or sexual attraction; someone may be very attracted to people and have a low sex drive, or not attracted to anyone and have a high sex drive.
Most people have a matching set of romantic and sexual attractions. For example, a traditional straight person is, in long terms, a heteroromantic heterosexual. There are some cases where they do not match, however. For example, a homoromantic bisexual desires romantic relations with the same sex, but feels sexual desire for both sexes.
Most people have a matching set of romantic and sexual attractions. For example, a traditional straight person is, in long terms, a heteroromantic heterosexual. There are some cases where they do not match, however. For example, a homoromantic bisexual desires romantic relations with the same sex, but feels sexual desire for both sexes.Break the Binary Start Post
This blog is a compilation of writings written by and/or about the many facets of gender and sexual identity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)