Friday, April 06, 2012

Further analogy for why "demisexual" is problematic

I blogged before about why I dislike the term "demisexual". The analogy I made in that post (what if parents of only one child were described as semi-parents?) is likely effective for communicating why the term is problematic to people to whom the term doesn't apply, but today in the shower I realize it isn't quite apt for those of us to whom the term does apply, because of its focus on the idea of having fewer partners than average. The number of partners is less important (to the analogy and to the concept) than the nature of the relationship.

So here's another analogy that reflects that:

Some people really like to have home-made, sit-down meals. They like to choose fresh, organic, high-quality ingredients, prepare multiple dishes from scratch, set the table, sit down, and savour.

Not everyone does that. It takes work and it takes time. You aren't going to get your dinner as quickly or multi-taskably as someone who is content to scarf down whatever's handy while catching up on Twitter. For those of us who are happy to scarf down whatever's handy, it sounds downright tedious and rather old-fashioned, and we bristle if anyone suggests we should change our perfectly contented lifestyle and start preparing full sit-down dinners when prepared foods and pre-made salads and take-out are readily available.

But no one would ever suggest that the people who like to prepare full sit-down meals have any less interest, enthusiasm, or passion for food.

5 comments:

laura k said...

"But no one would ever suggest that the people who like to prepare full sit-down meals have any less interest, enthusiasm, or passion for food."

In fact it's just the opposite.

This analogy makes it a quality vs quantity issue, as if having more sexual partners over the course of one's lifetime means having less satisfying relationships and less satisfying sex - the romantic/sexual equivalent of fast food. That's not the case.

Now I'm really wondering why this is a concept that needs a name.

impudent strumpet said...

It isn't quality vs. quantity, it's more the level of quality that makes something worth doing/interesting/better than staying home alone with a book, and how much prep work you're willing to put into achieving that quality.

Quantity isn't a direct factor, it's just a general correlation. If you have stricter standards of quality, your available pool tends to be smaller than the available pool of people with more generous standards. If you're following the 100 mile diet, you have fewer foods to choose from than someone who's willing to eat anything. Of course, it's possible that the 100-mile diet person eats absolutely every kind of food available to them, while the willing-to-eat-anything person ends up having Kraft Dinner every day.

as if having more sexual partners over the course of one's lifetime means having less satisfying relationships and less satisfying sex

This is backwards. The way it works is that having stricter standards for what constitutes satisfying tends to correlate with having fewer partners.

Now I'm really wondering why this is a concept that needs a name.

It's useful for it to have a name because it basically functions as a sexual orientation. As a person to whom it applies, I dislike the name it's been given, but I find it useful for it to have a name.

laura k said...

It's useful for it to have a name because it basically functions as a sexual orientation.

I'll take your word for that, but it seems more situational to me. At various times in my life, those strict standards of quality have been very important, and at other times, much less so. Many people I know have followed similar arcs, depending on their age, priorities, headspace, etc.

But then, sexual orientation can be fluid over the course of one's lifetime, as mine has been.

impudent strumpet said...

Mine has been fluid, but it has flowed only in the direction of becoming more and more monogamous, in a way that makes me more and more certain that it's innate in me.

laura k said...

And - agreeing with you here - a lot of those situational changes are down to finding your true place in the spectrum, trying on different selves until you find the one that fits best. So the fluidity is not incompatible with being innate.

I suspect if I was growing up now rather than in the 1960s and 70s, my orientation would have taken a more direct route.