Jump to content

Can you help me with the Lingo?


Recommended Posts

Can you help me with the Lingo?

Since my feelings are anomalous, the language is not suited for me.

Perhaps you can help me with them: Which of these words apply to my "crushes", the discription of which relative to the word is described in parentheses after the word in question: heterosexual (strictly of the opposite gender, but non sexual); romantic (very deep, sentimental, and emotional, but not sexual), platonic (non sexual, but extremely emotional, very warm, close, and caring), intimate (very close and personal, but not sexual).

Thank you,

Zylon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm...I'm confused. I'd say all of them...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amcan answered me by saying "Erm...I'm confused. I'd say all of them"

So, let me get this straight. According to Amcam, I could describe my ideal partner relationship as platonic, heterosexual, asexual, intimate, and romantic all at the same time?

Zylon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say... sure, use as many labels as are applicable, if you want to.

That or you could just make up your own word. So like, maybe I'd be looking for Alesro relationship: an asexual, lesbian romantic. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was suggested here that I can use the any of the words

"heterosexual", "intimate", or "romantic") even if the feelings are not sexual. However, society does seem to associate these words with sex For example, what would you think to use the words "romantic" or "platonic" for a mother's feeling for her baby? As far as I know, the former would definitely seem too sexual for the maternal bond, and the latter would seem too distant and cold. But the mother-baby bond is very emotional, deep, and important. I do think that "intimate" is appropriate lingo for the mother-baby bond, but I am not sure. But between adults, I think that "intimate" does inply sexual in most people's minds. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Remember that, unlike many posts here, I am refering to true asexuality, i.e. deeply emotional sexless person to person bonds, so there should be no flinch at the mention of the maternal bond here, which is very much an deeply emotional bond. Please never add assumptions to anything I write here.

But for myself, I am not writing about bonds with babies, but I still fear that words like "romantic", "intimate", and especially "heterosexual" will cause misunderstanding by linking to sex in people's minds, and the word "platonic" would cause misunderstanding by being too cold.

What do you think?

Zylon

Link to post
Share on other sites
platonic, heterosexual, asexual, intimate, and romantic all at the same time?

Yes. Well you could go for hetero-romantic or hetero-asexual.

It's just words.

But you can have intimate romantic relationships without sex with members of the opposite gender, yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amcan said to me "But you can have intimate romantic relationships without sex with members of the opposite gender, yes."

There is no doubt that I can and do, but my problem is with communicating this to someone without giving them the wrong idea. Of course, even what Amcan said above has communication problems. For example, many people equate the word "intimate" with sex, as in the question "do you want to be intimate with me?" If I said yes, what would that person think? Same with the word "romantic". For example, what would be added to what you think about a father's bond with his daughter if he added that it was "romantic", given that you knew that absolutely nothing sexual was being implied?

Remember, in my posts here, I am not refering to normal sexual attraction where the sex is being repressed, but to true asexuality.

Zylon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there seems to be no one way to sum up what you want to. You would need to explain it, apparently in great detail.

In terms of communication issues I don't know what you are asking.

I am going to move this to asexual Q & A. You might get the responses you want then.

Amcan

admin

Link to post
Share on other sites
Amcan answered me by saying "Erm...I'm confused. I'd say all of them"

So, let me get this straight. According to Amcam, I could describe my ideal partner relationship as platonic, heterosexual, asexual, intimate, and romantic all at the same time?

Zylon

Well, if you don't want sex to have anything to do with it, calling it heterosexual might be a stretch. Homoromantic would be more accurate. But honestly, you aren't really giving us much to go on except non-sexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely understand what you mean about the word association thing. All I can say is it's not something that can be helped. There will always be someone who is going to interpret a word differently than you meant it to be implied. There is always going to be someone with whom there is miscommunication. The best you can do is pick a close way to describe your asexual-ness and then be ready to explain what it means to people. I would have to agree with an earlier comment that you sound quite like a hetero-romantic asexual. This implies that you are inclined to the opposite sex but only in a romantic, nonsexual way, which implies a close but nonsexual bond. Some people won't understand how you can be "inclined" to a certain gender if you don't do anything deeply physical with them, but that's their problem, not yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CopyFox said "Some people won't understand how you can be "inclined" to a certain gender if you don't do anything deeply physical with them, but that's their problem, not yours."

It certainly becomes my problem when their "problem" causes them to keep me away from the person who is important to me. The girl "Angela" I refered to earlier took over a year for me to be able to be with her, because of their "problem". Often, it is the important one herself who keeps away from me because of her "problem".

My "inclination" toward one gender is total, and was part of me before I was six years old. The relationship I want with them is actually undefined; I just want to be with them, that's all. Sometimes I may confuse the intensity of the need with the intensity of the relatonship, but really no intensity of relationship is necessary; I just want to be with them, that's all. All of the caring friendship, the warmth and love, is just part of me in general; I naturally care for all sentient beings, I was born that way. However, being unable to be with those who I need to be with, I guess I unconsciously resent anyone who is not of that type, even though I know it is not their fault, and it makes showing them love painful to me. So, the result is for me to only be able to show love to those I need to be with, who I am not able to be with.

But unfortunate psychodynamics aside (i.e. if I was always able to be with the people I am "attracted" to), the relationship would be casual and undefined, as a sibling or coworker. But they would find me a very caring person, and if they ever should need a friend or helper or kidney, I would be there for them. But yes, it is completely gender specific...and age specific...and...well, you can almost think of it as a specific person, as if I lost someone in some former life who I cannot live without, especially since the specifications have not changed one iota since I before was 6 years old...perhaps since before I was born.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if you could just use "loving relationship". Love is the word that's perfectly appropriate to a mother-baby bond and to partners. You might just have to prefix it with "non-sexual" to stop people presuming that loving means sexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...