Reddit reviews The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Love, Courtship, and Sexuality through History [6 volumes] (v. 1-6)
We found 1 Reddit comments about The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Love, Courtship, and Sexuality through History [6 volumes] (v. 1-6). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
![The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Love, Courtship, and Sexuality through History [6 volumes] (v. 1-6)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51GXF97S8GL.jpg)
>It's a problem because it's not backed by any real research
It doesn't need to be backed by research. It's a bunch of people reporting their own behaviors. If you don't need to file for a scientific study when you tell someone your favorite color, or that you like steak with potatoes. People don't need 3rd parties researching them to know their own sexualities.
>People on blogs and internet forums made all of this up.
This isn't a problem.
>It's completely an issue that the language is not as reputable as the language used by scientists, because people treat it as such.
Again, I haven't seen this.
> Language used in science refers to specific things, used to clear up ambiguity. Language in the internet queer community creates more ambiguity every time it defines something new.
This is subjective.
>It's a continuum and trying to define everyone individually by it not only oversimplifies each individual's sexuality, but overcomplicates the terminology used, and overcomplicating language greatly reduces understanding.
As long as you can communicate effectively to the person you wish to convey a message to, there's no problem with using complicated language. All of the definitions that I've seen so far-- demisexual, homoromantic, etc. are extremely easy for me to wrap my head around.
I can understand someone not getting it, but that doesn't mean that a system that makes sense to so many people and gives comfort to so many people and is helpful to so many people should be tossed out because some people don't understand it.
I don't think the words are trying to describe everyone on the spectrum, because the definitions are so general. It's implied that there are going to be individual differences between people.
>By the current terminology used by this community, I would identify as a cisgendered bisexual heteroromantic gray-a queer. But my sexuality is much more multidimensional than that, so this oversimplifies it. Yet it puts me into a bunch of categories when I could just say "my sexuality is something like 60% traditional and 40% out of the norm", so it overcomplicates it at the same time.
No one can force you to use these terms to describe yourself. If you don't like it, don't do it. 9/10 the people talking about this stuff are strangers on the internet so it's not like they can force you to do what they do and it's probably not productive to look down on them for doing their own thing either.
>And if you could link me to some scholarly articles which actually acknowledge things like demisexuality, I would actually be interested in seeing them, because I can find nothing but blog posts.
Like people say, it's a new concept so you're going to be hard pressed to find academic research about it. 1. It's a new concept that only became popular in the past 5 years or so. 2. There's no money in researching it. It's esoteric. I had a history class where I had to do research on a bunch of different artists. Their works were hanging in museums, but there was nothing online about them. Doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means they aren't popular.
Nevertheless, I was still able to find some textbooks that go over this stuff. Part of me is glad to go and bring this stuff to you, but another part of me is kind of annoyed because whether or not it appears in a text-book, especially in light of what I mentioned in the previous paragraph, has no bearing on whether it is a real thing. The requirement for it to be mentioned in studies is even more confusing considering that so much sociological research on sexual-orientation is based on self-reporting. There are no academic reports about /u/MissInkFTW. Should I assume you don't exist? Another part of me is annoyed because it's pretty easy for me to find these papers. It's unfair to be dismissive when it appears that you're not doing any serious work to find research that supports or dismisses your opinion. :/
In paging through these, I've found that most academic books actually go a lot further than common internet activist lingo does, ie. not only homoromantic, but homoemotional, homoaffectional, etc. These aren't all used to describe sexual orientation though.
There's a limit to what I can personally find and share since I don't have a subscription to any academic journals/sites. :/
Asexuality as a Spectrum
For Homoromanticism
other
Maybe this list will be longer one day. These articles are interesting but there's too much stuff that's just behind paywalls and I'm bored and I'm done.