Relationships and Orientation

[Pramana]

After spending time on Acebook, I've realized that with asexuality – because of the split attraction model and because of the gray-area – orientation incompatibility is more of an issue than it would be for other communities. For example, with LGBTQ communities while two lesbians may be incompatible for all manner of personal reasons, at least in terms of orientation they are compatible as being women who are looking for sexual romantic relationships with other women. But with asexuality, a heteroromantic asexual may be incompatible with a homoromantic asexual or an aromantic asexual or a demisexual, simply on account of differing orientations.

This has led me to think that perhaps there's something to be said for moving from an individualistic focus to a relational focus, whereby orientations are defined in terms of the types of relationships that people want to have (or alternatively, where the definitions of orientations remain the same but the emphasis is moved from the orientation to what one wants for a relationship). So for example, by this account emphasis would be moved from "not experiencing sexual attraction" to "not wanting a sexual relationship".

My thoughts are that this move may better facilitate communicating one's actual wants to other people, and may also defuse the constant definition debates within the community, because the question would be what people want rather than whether people meet an abstract definition.

On that account, an example to consider to test people's intuitions on this matter concerns the (in)compatibilities between a sex-repulsed asexual who is ideologically sex-positive, and a sexual person who is ideologically sex-negative (I'm told that this type of antisexuality that blurred the lines between asexuality and celibacy was more common in the early 2000s, and was actively opposed by AVEN). In any case, we'll assume that both of these individuals want a nonsexual romantic relationship, but for very different reasons.

It'd be great to hear other people's thoughts?

[⚸ Hughesation ⚸]

This certainly is a topic which requires further thought, discussion and consideration; we seem to focus heavily on our differences, rather than what we have in common - but common ground is how we connect to others and understand our experiences through the lens of others. Yet, also our difference offer an important insight; an object is, after all, defined by what sets it apart from other things.

 

Right now, I don't have much opportunity to really consider this topic, but I think it important to reply; I will be returning later, though, to express my view when I have had chance to give it more thought.

[Guest]

On 19/11/2017 at 2:21 AM, Pramana said:

So for example, by this account emphasis would be moved from "not experiencing sexual attraction" to "not wanting a sexual relationship".

I don't think this works since some asexuals might be ok with sex, just not feel attraction

 

For me it never worked this way anyway, I never seeked a relationship or someone to have a relationship with, I just happened to develop romantic feelings for people I met and wanted relationships with them. Whether they were asexual or not didn't matter in reality. I can identify as homoromantic because I like girls and the people I want relationships with are always female, people have romantic orientations this way and that can't just be erased.

[Rhyme]

I can definitely see the appeal, as it would make some things a little easier. I'm ace and aro; what does that tell you about what kind of relationship I'd like, if any? Very little. I'd love to have a word that means 'not interested in sex and romance, but I want to be your best friend and cuddle you to death'. 

 

One problem is that a lot of sex positive ace people would lose that sense of community with other ace people. If you are defined by 'I'd be fine with a sexual relationship', then it would be harder for the ace babies to find their way to our community.

 

Those are my only thoughts right now, it's way too late in the evening to give a proper response.

[Pramana]

To address the points raised above regarding sex-favourable asexuals, from the stories I've read I gather that sex-favourable asexuals may be okay with – or even want – a sexual relationship, but their experience of sexual intimacy is quite different because they don't experience sexual attraction (so they're not mentally aroused/turned on by their partner, and in that sense may find it more challenging to have sex with their partner). For that reason, I'm leaning towards the view that orientations should remain defined as they are now (since they're useful for explaining experiences), but perhaps more emphasis should be placed on one's choice of preferred relationships, since that matters more to compatibility issues between people in interactions.

With identity politics in asexual communities, an issue that arises again and again through the constant arguments over terminology concerns what I've started to think of as the "alienating heterogeneity" produced by the gray-area and the different attitudes towards sex and romance. For example, I think that for some people not wanting sex and belonging to a close knit community of people who don't want sex is what's important to their asexual identity, and so they might have a hard time with the more abstract sense of connection required to relate to a sex-favourable asexual or a gray/demi-sexual. People in the gray-area may be considered asexual spectrum people because understanding asexuality (as a lack of sexual attraction) is relevant to understanding their experiences, while there is a fair amount of diversity in terms of their preferences for sexual/romantic relationships.

In addition, wth asexual identity politics, some people relate to asexuality as a way of justifying their lack of interest in sex, whereby the label functions as a shield against compulsory sexuality. They want "I'm asexual" to be accepted unequivocally as "I don't want sex", rather than being met with the response that "some asexuals enjoy sex so you should still have sex with me". 

I have observed that the above two issues are central to the constant terminological debates, so I've been hoping to find a way to address these issues. Regarding the second issue, queer theorists are probably going say that the focus should be on challenging compulsory sexuality, which may harm both asexual and sexual people. If it's only okay to not want sex if you're asexual, then what about sexual people who might not want sex in the same circumstances? On that point, I'm inclined to agree with the queer theory critique of compulsory sexuality. As for the second issue, I think maybe a clearer delineation between one's orientation and the relationships one wants to pursue might paradoxically facilitate a stronger sense of community through a more explicit recognition of differences.