[Theory Thursday #3]
Let me try a simple definition, and see how it works.
One is cisaffectionate if one is successful at ignoring or at least concealing any romantic interest one has in members of other species. One is transaffectionate otherwise.
- I am traff according to this definition — even if I have a substantial involvement with Saza.
- Traff-folk, by this definition, will tend to experience the social consequences of their orientation, and will thus need Castle Wrong or the equivalent.
Other concerns certainly arise. One may be a libertine, perhaps defined as one who seeks pleasure rather than deep relationship.
As an interesting other scale, consider Romantic Breadth. Let us divide adult primes into categories based on species, gender, coloration, social status, and so forth — the exact categorization does not matter, so long as it is detailed. One’s romantic breadth is the fraction of categories that one is romantically interested in.
So — a pure transaffectionate person, interested in anyone of another species, such as Inconnu claims to be, has a romantic breadth of 7/8. A pure cisaffectionate would have one of 1/8. One who was fussier about gender, coloration, and the like would have a smaller one — down to “vanishingly small” as the degree of specificity increased. A pure homo- or heterosexual would have a romantic breadth of 1/2. And so forth. I don’t know what to do with this concept, but I am amused by a theoretical scale — and one with a fundamentally natural definition, and, indeed, more measurable than most — that doesn’t have “cissy” and “traff” as the endpoints. [And Bard is equally amused by one that doesn't distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual. -bb]
Incidentally, I don’t know that I really get to define transaffection myself. I do get to decide who I want in Castle Wrong. Society at large gets to decide who they punish for romantics complexities.
I admit to getting a bit bored with the theory of transaffection. I would like to either get some more practice at it, or do an exercise in the theory of magic, fairly soon. Not that the two are interchangeable.
Category: 
| 
Subscribe to Sythyry
Dearest Blue Lizard Wizard Sythry,
In my dimension romantic options are a bit different from yours, but there is something akin to transaffection and cisaffection. I am cisaffectionate, and found myself in a relationship with someone normally transaffectionate. (That is to say for clarity, she was bending her usual practices for me)
This was cause for much consternation and soul-searching on her part, of course, and it is that process that reminded me of your wrestling with your issue. Perhaps the conclusion we came to may be helpful to you.
We decided that the part of the mind that develops into cis- or trans- affection is separate and independent of the mind that tells us to enjoy sex.
Because they’re separate, it is possible for them to not align entirely. A person could be attracted in a trans- way, but still enjoy cis- physical affection, even though they wouldn’t imagine themselves in a cis- relationship.
In short, the gods are either incompetent or have a cruel sense of humor. Still, we’re stuck with what we’ve got. In any event, I agree on a broad level that these sorts of experiences of conflicting feelings in regards to attraction seem to make a pretty solid point that two categories is too simple a scheme to represent whatever preferences are at work.
Thank you! I would certainly like to hear from more cis/trans (or the equivalent) couples.