[Theory Thursday #1, part 2]

[sythyry]

Mirrored from Sythyry.

Thanks, truly, for everyone who answered my last post. I am trying to thrash this out, and I don’t have very many people around that I can safely talk to about it. I appreciate the discussion — I appreciate the direct challenge to some of my basic principles, even. I do not promise to agree with anything you say, but I will try to be an intellectually honest little lizard, and try to understand them at least.

I am not sure quite how to go about this, though.

There are at least two sensible approaches.

First, I might have mis-classified myself in my current (and correct) classification system. I had somewhat assumed that in my previous post, but many of you have challenged me on it, so I am willing to consider the possibility that this is the wrong question altogether.

Or Second, my current classification system might be incorrect, in a lesser or greater degree. (Example ‘lesser’: modify the definition of ‘traff’ to allow some same-species interest. Example ‘greater’: toss the whole thing out, and simply rank a person’s possible interest in each of the eight prime species on a scale from 1-12.)

But I can’t see all the way to picking a new classification system right now. Before that, I should at least try to think of what makes a good classification system. Here are a few thoughts from a distinctly dazed dragonet:

1. Conciseness: it has as few categories as possible.
2. Simplicity: Each category is well-described by a simple phrase.
3. Accuracy: it describes people well; in particular, nobody is in two categories.
4. Ethnocentricity: it makes sense in terms of prime people and culture
5. Canonicality: it is, in a sense that I cannot currently define, defined sensibly. (E.g., a system with “likes mammals” and “likes non-mammals” is more canonical than “likes Cani and Rassimel” and “likes the other six species”.)
6. Usefulness: it is useful, e.g., for telling who I should admit to Castle Wrong on the basis of romantic preferences.

Bearing in mind that my current system scores well on all of these save, perhaps, accuracy. [Bard adds 'and canonicality' for reasons of its own. -bb]

Addendum: Tarfnie

(Tarfnie’s situation was rather more complicated than it might have seemed from my brief description. The Considerable Drama part of it include a number of regrettable incidents from nearly everyone involved, and I might have expelled Tarfnie — or Yowdon — on the basis of violence. The observation that Tarfnie was not traff and Yowdon was did help my decision. One or both of them had to go, though. I grant that several aspects of the situation continue to trouble me, and that I did not behave particularly well myself: but it was not so simple or wicked as discovering that Tarfnie was cissy and immediately tossing him out.)

Comments

[nekomavin.livejournal.com]

I think this variation captures the essence of the problem. I feel that you are defining Transaffection too rigidly, Sythyry.

Transaffection in your use of it is attempting to be everything and exactly that which Cisaffection is not. This is both too strong and too specific. Too strong, in that some primes can be attracted to both their own species and others (and thus bridge the categories). Too specific in that not all non-cis primes are necessarily attracted to *all* other species. You appear to fall into both these 'exceptions' to your definition.

If you define Transaffection as above, as capable of attraction/love for those not of one's species, it encompasses all those cases. And encompasses the cases that society seems to frown on.

Individuals, in all their complexity, will have varying degrees of affinity for other prime species. Draw a wheel with 8 spokes, label each spoke with a species name, and put a prime's attraction to each species as a mark on that spoke.

Cisaffectionate: strongly attracted to own species, not at all attracted to any other. (Most of the population.)
Weakly Cisaffectionate: most strongly attracted to own species, attracted to other species. (Might consider a traff relationship if they found the right prime, one whose personality was a better match than others of their own species.)
Transaffectionate: more attracted to other species than your own. (Given your affinity for Orren, I'd put you here. Most of the wrongfolk fit here, too.)
Universal Transaffectionate: attracted to all other species. (I suspect that this is extraordinarily rare, or possibly an empty set. Those who profess to it may be deluding themselves or caught up in an archaic definition of traffness.)
Strong Transaffectionate: very much more attracted to another prime species rather than one's own. (Mynthe, among others.)

Libertine is something else entirely - incapable of forming emotional connections, using bodyplay indiscriminately for momentary pleasure.

So still two essential categories, with a few shadings of meaning to distinguish edge cases.

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the vote of confidence! :)

[alex-muridae.livejournal.com]

I must agree with this description, and the five broad catagories suggested atop Gavin's notion. I actually thought well of Sythyry's half-joking suggestion of a scale of attraction of 1 to 12 for each prime species, except that may be a little restrictive. For those Terrestrial beings, or analogs of, or those on analog-worlds of, etc, etc, you may remember the Kinsey Scale. These days, modern psychology looks at said scale as being entirely inadequacy in describing the variation among people, albeit a step in the right direction from black & white. For those with no idea what I'm talking about, shades of gray would indeed be the right way to look at it, but there are likely more factors still then how attracted one is to this species vs. that. We're neglecting fetishes, for example.

Now, as a secondary, I must also suggest that a Libertine is not one who is incapable of forming emotional connections, but one who is very much more at ease in stepping outside the bounds of their preferences and attractions so long as they get to copulate. To be blunt, I would categorize Libertine as a sub-category of slut. Mostly, my support for this is the suggestion that Libertines may well be capable of forming lasting relationships; names escape me, but Dustweed's lover a century ago was caring, correct?