[Theory Thursday #3]

Mirrored from Sythyry.

[Theory Thursday #3]

Let me try a simple definition, and see how it works. beetiger more or less proposed this one first, I believe.

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.

1. I am traff according to this definition — even if I have a substantial involvement with Saza.
2. 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.

[Theory Thursday #3]

Mirrored from Sythyry.

[Theory Thursday #3]

Let me try a simple definition, and see how it works. beetiger more or less proposed this one first, I believe.

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.

1. I am traff according to this definition — even if I have a substantial involvement with Saza.
2. 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.