Communicating Demisexuality

The theme for this month's Carnival of Aces is Language and Communication.

I've decided to focus on demisexuality because it's such a controversial orientation/inclination/thing, and really brings the subtleties of the language describing sexual and romantic orientations into focus. Much of this post will be personal - and talk about my own journey with finding words to describe how I tick - so please don't expect too much academic rigour here.

As I've explained in the past - a big part of what being on the asexual spectrum is about (for many people anyway) is some form of disconnect between sexual and affectional ("romantic") orientations. What does this mean, exactly? Ahhhh, let's take a look at the following picture...

When I first saw this picture - I must have stared at it for a good half hour. And then eventually it hit me: I've never been directly sexually attracted to anyone!

Language: Affectional vs Sexual Orientations

It's probably very hard to relate to if you're a reasonably mainstream sexual person who is oriented towards a certain gender, but affectional and sexual orientations can actually be completely separate things. Certain rare people even have separate sexual and affectional orientations for different genders, while for most people on the ace spectrum - it's usually more just a case of them having an affectional orientation - while their sexual orientation is weak, missing, or highly abstract (as is the case with demisexuals).

What affectional orientation sans sexual orientation means is, essentially, that you might find people of a certain gender cute and attractive and you develop crushes on them and "fall in love" with them, but it's not a sexual thing for you. For most people the two aspects of attraction run together so closely that there isn't any need to think of them as separate things - while for some of us they're distinct enough that they require separate attention.

Language Difficulty 1: "Romantic"

I don't particularly like the term "romantic" when talking about affectional orientations. The problem is that it tends to conjure up the mainstream image of what "romance" means to most people - which is almost always a sexual pair-bonding thing. I like the term "affectional orientation" because it's slightly more exotic, and people who are new to the terminology of asexuality usually need to look it up and check up on what it's about - while "romantic" causes confusion because it comes with a lot more cultural baggage.

Indeed, in my case "affectional" feels particularly poignant, because really this is all that my upfront attraction to any new girl can be about - desire for intellectual, emotional, and later sensual affection. Nothing beyond affectionate contact such as cuddling, in the physical realm of things. Not for a long time anyway.

Language Difficulty 2: "Demi-"

The word demi means "half". Some people think it's misleading because it implies that demisexuals have an "incomplete" sexuality, but I actually don't mind the term too much. 

Although it doesn't quite describe the dynamic of how demisexuality works, it does sort of embody the point that demisexuals can be either asexual or sexual, depending on the relationship context that they're in at any given time.

For me personally, this is exactly how it is: between relationships I'm as good as asexual. Right now, there is literally not a single person on the face of this entire planet who I'm realistically interested in having sex with. But when I'm in the right emotional headspace with someone in a relationship, I can become essentially no different to anyone else in a standard sexual relationship. So it's like my "sex life" is potentially dominated by either asexuality or sexuality, half-half.

In Defence of Demisexuality

Finally, I'll address the controversy: is demisexuality really a necessary label? Or is it overkill? And are we heteroromantic demisexuals just "normal" - albeit somewhat sexually conservative, heterosexuals - and being special snowflakes demanding attention with this label?

To some degree, I can actually see both sides of this. And as I've explained in previous posts regarding my "label fatigue", I do sometimes wish it was all unnecessary. 

But then again, this is what language is all about. Different groups have different specific words for highly specific nitpicky things that have meaning for them (eg. Apparently some Australian Aboriginal languages have dozens of words for different types of tree bark, because it was such an important material for them). There is nothing wrong with words sometimes seeming too specific out of the context of a given in-group, as long as they are useful within the in-group. Or to get a certain point across to outsiders, or to the world at large.

So is demisexuality a unique orientation? Or "just" an inclination? It doesn't really matter to me. I'm happy to just say it's a thing - and as long as it's ever useful to communicate something and avoid potential misunderstandings in relationships, it was a useful piece of language.

Driving - why context is Everything

I got asked a couple of weeks ago why it is that I'm trying to get into a driving-based job, considering that I've been quite vocal in the past about how much I "hate driving" - back when I was living in a suburban sprawl-based situation and having to drive everywhere. It's a reasonable question I suppose...

The answer is: Context.

The problem with driving for me was never the driving itself. It was the overall context of the situation. I disliked the idea of being in the Middle Of Nowhere in suburban sprawl, and having to waste heaps of time each day driving to uni/work to another Middle Of Nowhere in suburban sprawl. The act of driving acted as a time waster, one that always seemed irrational and pointless. ie. Why not live more sensibly? Somewhere where my "daily life routine destinations" are more conveniently close by? "And why are Australian cities built so stupidly and suburban sprawly dammit!"

Of course, life can't always be set up so neatly, and there isn't much point getting angry at things you can't change. There are logical factors which might make long commutes necessary at some stages of life, for whatever reason. But the general point stands - it wasn't "driving" in itself that was ever the problem for me. It was the context in which I had to waste a lot of time on it. Time which was essentially my own private time, which I would rather have spent doing something else.

The truth is, I actually enjoy driving, when it's done in a recreational context - or else a professional one. And doing it as a job, where all that time is paid for by the hour, is a totally different experience that way - compared to being "forced" by circumstance to drive everywhere every day and waste a lot of my own time and money on it. I guess it could be said that commuting is part of the job - but when I was younger, I guess I was less patient, and it was harder to think of it that way, but now even that bothers me a lot less - though I would still try to avoid it if at all possible - which is a big part of why I live in the inner city.

So yes, it seems like a contradiction at face value - "hating driving but wanting a driving-based job". But it's not really. The "hate" was never for the driving. It was for the context of time wasting, and for the irrationality of low-density suburban sprawl, which is what leads to so much car-dependency (and easily being "forced" into life situations where you have to routinely drive a lot) in the first place.

Unemployed again

I quit my casual hospitality job yesterday. Going in tonight for the last shift, and that'll be it...

It's been an interesting experience, especially the Kosher shifts. Watching a rabbi cleansing a kitchen with fire (blowtorches) is one of those experiences you tend to only read about, unless life somehow finds you in the weird position of being able to witness it for real.

Other than this, it was generally a regular casual hospitality job. I stayed in it longer than most do. Most of the other kitchenhands of my time passed through within 1-3 months or so. I was one of the main guys for nearly 7 months, until recently when the roster became a bit saturated with casuals (who were taken on for the end of year "function season") and then business dropped off for the summer break.

I thought hard about this - whether to stay on or leave. But after getting no shifts for three weeks, I realised it wasn't working any more. I was holding back from making plans (especially weekend plans) and living life because of the possibility of being called in at the last moment at any time. It's just the nature of the business of a function centre - they can only really know how many staff they'll need when the numbers are finalised and exact meal configurations organised. If it was only going to be the odd shift per fortnight or so, living with this uncertainty wasn't worth the little bit of extra income any more, so I decided to cut loose.

Being fully unemployed is a great motivator for getting serious about the job hunt. There's that nervousness watching your savings falling when absolutely nothing is coming in. At least now I know exactly what I want to do. When looking for work last time, I was literally looking at anything I could get. Now I know that I want a driving-based job. And pretty much any will do for a start, because any experience in this area counts for moving up.