Interlude

[fuzzyred]

So, I need to do a proper weekly post, as I'm already a day late, but first, this small note to myself.

I have realized I need to start asking dudes if it's a booty call. I don't want to sound vain, and I hate assuming everything is about sex, because to me it's not, but the evidence keeps stacking up to say that it is for the vast majority of everybody else. I always get asked if I want to hang out, but 90% of the time, they want some kind of sex thing. And I don't mind this sometimes, but I'd like to know up front if that's what they're after. So. Next time a male friend/friendly acquaintance asks me to hang out, I'm going to polite ask if they actually mean hanging out, or if they want sexyfuntimes, and I can apologize for making assumptions if I need to.

*headdesk* Has anyone written a manual for dealing with and reading people yet? And if so, can I pretty please buy it, or at least rent it? I can pay in cash, fiber crafts, or editing. *joking but not really*

Comments

Wise to be wary

[ng_moonmoth]

In my experience with men, "hang out" or similar is far too often manspeak for some form of romantic or sexual intent to not be suspicious of. Just from our interactions to date, I'm reading your position on both axes as fairly strongly demi. As a demi person myself, here are a few filtering tips I've found that helped me.

The men who actually are interested in being companions are much more likely to center the activity: "Would you like to go here/do this"/etc. The ones who are really worth getting to know are likely to have the "here" or the "this" be public, or at an absolute minimum a place providing an open and discreet exit route. These approaches can be used both ways, and may make it so you don't need to drag sex into it to winnow the field. So, if someone wants to "hang out", something like "How about we meet up at the Saturday farmers' market?" has a good chance to reveal their true colors.

Sympathize with you on the difficulty of dealing with people and interpreting their subtext. (I don't like saying "reading", due to the hazards of extrapolating from something that isn't actually subtext.) Never mind the additional challenge of subtext languages with interpretations that diverge more widely than identifying whether "bonnet" and "boot" refer to items of clothing or auto parts. That's probably why there isn't a book like that; the variation is too wide. Genderqueer includes my hitting things like that all the time.

Re: Wise to be wary

[fuzzyred]

I'm still trying to figure out what words describe me best. Some days, demi seems to fit, and other days I wonder if ace works better. I definitely have an easier time being intimate (in any way) with people I know better, and a higher desire to explore things like that with someone I know rather than a stranger. I can take or leave the sex bits though; they can be really good with the right partner, but I can go for months at a time and never miss sexual interaction with another person. I will miss cuddles and kink before I miss partner-induced orgasms.

Those are fabulous tips! It helps a lot, and it is something I can keep in mind for next time. It is also easier to redirect/suggest an activity than coming right out and asking if they were angling for x-rated activites.

You are probably right about there being too much variation to write a book; it is part of what makes deciphering things so tricky. One person can mean X, one can mean Y, and one can mean Banana, yet they can all sound so similar as to be identical. I sympathsize with you hitting these kinds of challenges regularly as a genderqueer individual.

Re: Wise to be wary

[ng_moonmoth]

No hurry with the words, and no real need to settle on one "best" set. General consensus is that it's quite OK to use as many descriptions as you need. For myself, understanding that you range between ace and low-intensity demi, and that cuddles and kink are what holds a relationship together for you, is a perfectly adequate description, thanks.

Glad you appreciated the tips. My own issues with how getting into relationships with people was typically framed kept me from trying it for a long time -- and working out a framing that worked for me was a big help.

Learning subtext dialects and inferring which ones might be in play from whatever overt clues are present is much more challenging for some folks than others -- and introverts more than others. It shouldn't say anything about someone's worth as a person if they don't do it well, but too many people seem to think otherwise.

I was once comfortable enough not being in a relationship, but decided to try it out to see whether I liked it better. Here's hoping you can work out something that might work better for you and try it out, and, if it works, can tell anyone who decides they're uncomfortable with that to go pound sand.

Re: Wise to be wary

[fuzzyred]

>>General consensus is that it's quite OK to use as many descriptions as you need.<<

It is good to have confirmation that it is largely okay to use more than one term if it fits. I seem to be on some sliding scale intersection between those terms, with an unknown romantic orientation floating around just to confuse things further, so multiple terms can be very useful.

>>For myself, understanding that you range between ace and low-intensity demi, and that cuddles and kink are what holds a relationship together for you, is a perfectly adequate description, thanks.<<

I'm glad it was a sufficient description, and I may keep your phrasing in mind for later, because you seem to have summed it up very succinctly.

>>Learning subtext dialects and inferring which ones might be in play from whatever overt clues are present is much more challenging for some folks than others -- and introverts more than others<<

For me, I think it's a combination of being an introvert, never having really been taught how to actually recognize and use subtext, and being just far enough from neurotypical to have a hard time with social things. Although I don't think I realized before that being an introvert could be part of my difficulty with picking up subtext and other such cues.

>>Here's hoping you can work out something that might work better for you and try it out, and, if it works, can tell anyone who decides they're uncomfortable with that to go pound sand.<<

Thank you. :) I was in a relationship before and found it satisfying, but we definitely had our difficulties. And now I've had a lot more time to really start to learn myself and who I am, and how that might affect what I want. I don't know yet if that will be a conventional relationship or something else, but I'm going to keep an open mind and see how things go.

Re: Wise to be wary

[ng_moonmoth]

Yes, even though gender and sexuality labels can help other people understand you, they only help to the extent that they describe you and convey that description. So the labels that work for you are the ones you really want.

As far as romantic orientation goes, it looks from what I've seen here that you're closer to demiromantic than aro, and probably more intensely demi on that axis than sexuality.

Thanks for liking my phrasing of your position in gender space, but credit primarily to you for laying it out well enough for me to do it.

Socialized introvert here (and just saw recently that's common enough to be an actual thing!), and likewise enough at odds with neurotypical behavior to complicate social things. And the subtext dialect I was indoctrinated into was never a good enough fit for it to be better than a struggle for me. Sounds like we share many of the same obstacles.

For me, it was more about dissatisfaction with the default template that presumed I was supposed to find the reflexive cishet ideology my parents and folks of their generation espoused desirable and fulfilling, and figuring out how I might build a relationship in that context, that freed me up enough to explore. Love that you have an open mind, and have found a way to free yourself. Good luck!