One of my main issues with labels is quite nicely summarised in the first minute or so of the following video (totally different theme, but makes the same general point):
The point about picking up all the cultural baggage that a label entails is actually a very insidious thing. And not just because it makes other people make assumptions about you, but also because you can start boxing yourself too far into the identity yourself.
For example: when I first learned about demisexuality and identified with it, I ran with it quite eagerly and started attributing all sorts of things to it. Most of these were probably related, but some possibly not. But when I look back now, I definitely feel I was too eager to use this newly found label as a blanket explanation for all sorts of things about my sexuality and how I seem to process attraction subtly differently than the norm.
Point
The real point of labels is to explain outlier attraction processes to others. If everybody in the world was romantic and heterosexual, then we simply wouldn't need any words to describe sexual and romantic orientations at all. Everybody would be attracted to the opposite gender, and in more or less the same way. Romantic and sexual attractions would be in sync in everyone, and none of this label drama would be necessary. We would never need labels to communicate what we desire, in whom, and in what ways.
Of course, the world isn't so neat and tidy. Apart from obviously different orientations from the heteronorm (such as being gay, bi or outright asexual), there are those for whom romantic and sexual orientations aren't quite in sync, or work as generally expected. These can actually be particularly difficult to deal with because their effect is relatively subtle. The human brain loves certainty - neat and tidy black and white categories (ie. "You're straight therefore you're into the opposite sex, and you see good looking specimens of them as sexually appealing on sight, period!") - so these things can be quite confusing and scary, not only to ourselves but also to others. Especially those who get involved with us while we're still figuring ourselves out.
This is the value in identifying with one of these "subtle" labels - such as demisexuality or grey-asexuality. As long as it's done after an honest and thorough self-evaluation, it can give a good idea to others that what they can expect from you probably won't run to the usual heteronormative dating script. It doesn't even necessarily matter if the outcome looks similar to how many people who don't identify with the label end up in their relationships - the point is that it was useful and potentially avoided misunderstandings and pain.
Once again: as long as we haven't tied ourselves up in knots by over-attributing all sorts of stuff to the label that wasn't necessary - and was potentially misleading.
Counterpoint
The other side of the coin is that there is a Postmodern "relationship anarchist" in me - one who would like to do away with labels altogether. One who basically says People Are People, and how any two of us relate to one another should be entirely individual and not be labelled or pre-packaged in any way at all. Under this model, even the likes of "friend" versus "partner" would be rejected as labels for how we connect, and each relationship would be totally unique and run its course on its own terms.
By definition, this kind of outlook completely eliminates all the subtle labels - since it has even done away with the obvious unsubtle ones! If it no longer matters who you are attracted to and in what ways generally - because you're approaching each relationship on its own terms and not as part of some set of pre-packaged expectations - then your underlying "orientation" really doesn't matter that much. You'll get to know each person and mutually find the unique boundaries that make sense for the two of you, without deferring to any external definitions at all.
Of course, this is probably impractical when taken to the extremes. eg. If someone is staunchly gay, it certainly makes sense not to lead people of the opposite sex on. Or if someone is an outright repulsed asexual, it doesn't make sense to lead highly sexual people on, expecting that dating you might eventually lead to a sexual relationship, etc. But for the more subtle cases, it does make a lot of sense I think.
Conclusion
On the whole, I think labels can be useful so long as they are used to describe things that are identifiable patterns which would occur even without them being there. As soon as they become a thing-in-themselves, some kind of badge of identity that starts carrying socio-cultural baggage, things can start to get corrupted and murky. Then it's no longer a case of looking back and thinking: "Ahh, I did such and such because I'm demisexual...." but "I'm going to do such and such in the future because I'm demisexual...", and this has a way of limiting us, in potentially harmful and unnecessary ways.
Still, in my version of Utopia, labels wouldn't matter at all. Every relationship would be unique and wouldn't have to be limited by any pre-set expectations of what it should be, and how it's defined by any labels outside the two people who are having it.
No comments:
Post a Comment