Swallow the dictionary
Posted by Aphra Behn on April 5, 2007
I once told a friend that I was having sex there isn’t a term for. Spent him mad with prurient speculation for a week.
Hah!
Serves him right, the dirty-minded bastard.
I quite like being in a minority so obscure it’s nameless. It makes me feel special, unique and ever so slightly smug. Not attractive attributes, I’ll admit.
I was of course told that I was a SOFFA. Significant-Other, Friends and FAmily. It’s a term I dislike because it’s too generic. It implies that it’s ok for trans-men and women to have social networks or be in emotional or domestic relationships but that no-one would actually want to get down and dirty with them. There’s no suggestion at all of body fluids or pulled muscles. It looks like a typo, an’ I don’ wanna be no fuckin’ typo.
Someone suggested pansexual. This sounds unnecessarily goatish to me. Urbandictionary.com gives:
2. Noun: A person who is sexually interested in other people regardless of gender including males, females, transsexuals, transvestites, gender benders, hermaphrodites, intersexuals, androgynous people, and those with sex-chromosome anomaly such as klinefelter syndrome or turner syndrome.
Ye-es. But I don’t wander around like a bitch in heat. As his gynaecologist told me, “…. you look so straight”. Mind you, he’d had a couple to drink or he wouldn’t have said it. Bless. But the thing is, he’s right, I am pretty straight. I’m just not heterosexual. Or not just heterosexual.
Pansexual 3. Noun: … a person who associates with people of all sexual orientations but is not necessarily interested in sex with people of all sexes or genders ….
That’s for fag-hags who want to graduate.
Then there’s polysexual. Which sounds like parrots to me. Psittacosis should not be a sexually transmitted disease. Urbandictionary.com describes polysexuality thus:
to be attracted to or sexually aroused by a variety of different objects, lifestyles or activities, for example, learning, reading, gardening, massage etc.
Now, I’ll admit that a good pun can make me whimper and I made inappropriate noises at work the first time I saw visual thesaurus , but I’m not actually polysexual. I’m not even that into toys.
Finally, I’ve come across the term Anthrosexual, which urbandictionary.com defines like this:
Anthrosexuality … means being attracted to humans. The word ‘anthro’ comes from the Greek ‘anthropos’ which means ‘man’ or ‘human’.
Anthrosexuality is … like bisexuality, except that it refers to all genders and ‘in-betweens’. It is the blindness to another’s gender or sex. The personality of a person is what attracts an anthosexual person and the connection that is shared between two people.
Anthrosexuals don’t have a list of acceptable genders and lifestyles. Instead, they have no list and see people for what they really are: Human Beings. (My italics).
I can recognise myself in that definition. But I do wish, firstly, that it wasn’t obviously going to be the pose de jour for skinny little gothettes with more sincerity than sense, and secondly that it didn’t sound like sex with a biological weapon.
The one I go to bed with has an unusual back story, but it doesn’t feature Porton Down.


not 
April 5, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Omnisexual. See, Doctor Who is useful for *everything*.
Anthrosexual sounds like a disease to me.
April 5, 2007 at 3:03 pm
But we are back to my objection to polysexual and pansexual.
Omnisexual sounds indiscriminate to me, and I’m very picky, It’s just that gender isn’t a factor. That my partners should be human is.
Mind you, I’m glad it isn’t just me who’d expect to find “anthrosexual” in a medical dictionary.
AB
April 5, 2007 at 7:57 pm
über-sexual?
April 5, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Funny, I once wrote a lengthy post about this on another blog of mine (which is long lost in the annals of cyberspace). I never liked the term SOFFA either. It makes us sound like we are simply a comfy refuge to sit on. And pansexual implies we are the labyrinth of sexual mischief. (By the way, sex-chromosome syndromes are NOT a gender…but what do you expect from Urban Dictionary.) The polysexual definition is even more absurd and the anthrosexual meaning, while probably written by a fellow SOFFA, reminds me too much of ancient necrophilia.
How about the term prosexual, as opposed to asexual? It seems more positive and politicians are always throwing out the pro-s to make something sound more acceptable. But then again, they might liken it to prostitution. I think I’ll stick with my mostly-straight or sometimes-crooked labels
April 5, 2007 at 9:11 pm
These days I’m postsexual, alas!
April 7, 2007 at 9:50 am
über-sexual’s an interesting thought River.
Hi folkrockgirl - VERY good to see you here. I quite like the idea of being a labyrinth of sexual mischief! I liked the phrase “the personality of a person is what attracts an anthosexual person” so I don’t really see necrophilia in it.
To be honest, I prefer the term sexual, which takes away all labling, and really is the opposite of asexual, but I do identify with the meaning of anthrosexual, which you are right probably was written by another comfy chair for two.
Anticant - very good to see you here as well. I’ve been mildly surprised you’ve not had any analysis for us on the current Modernising Medical Careers debacle.
Did you know the Bura language in India has a word meaning “to love for the last time”?
Thanks, all, for reading and commenting.
Aphra.
April 12, 2007 at 11:54 am
Ah, well, if you want ‘em strictly human then omnisexual’s no good to you
April 14, 2008 at 9:36 pm
[...] other hand, who am I to complain about it? For those who say I’m being trans-phobic then: Hey! No. I’m not: I could have been in the position of Beatie’s wife if my particular trans-man hadn’t [...]