Orientation, or Lack Thereof?

[The Vampire Queen]

Personally, I think of myself as having no sexual orientation. However, when I came out to a close friend I described asexuality as an orientation in order to help her understand (she had never heard of asexuality before). This made me wonder about the general consensus of the ace community. Do you think asexuality should be treated as an orientation, or are you of the mind that since ace=no sexual attraction it also means no sexual orientation?

[Nameless123]

*

[Majnun]

I usually describe asexuality as a reverse of bisexuality/pansexuality. Instead of being sexually attracted to all genders, you're attracted to none. Even though there's no sexual attraction involved, I consider that to be a sexual orientation.

[SayRah]

I consider it a lack of sexual orientation but I can totally understand if someone would consider it a different kind of orientation.

[Harkins]

And Kappie launches into a grammatical rant in 3...2...1...

As for regard asexuality as an orientation, in terms of labels (despite my complete and utter hatred toward labels), it does provide a quick and easy way to identify myself to others who may or may not understand who or what I exactly am.

In terms of calling asexuality a sexual orientation, I'm hesitant to say the least. While it's not a perfect comparison, it would be like calling atheism a religion. I'm under the impression that most atheists don't seem themselves as lacking religion, but rather they just don't have one. While asexuality isn't a choice like atheism, a similar relationship can be seen. I'm most certainly not lacking a sexual orientation, but at the same time, I don't have one. I don't relate myself in a sexual way to others, so I don't see myself as personally having a sexual orientation.

[Guest]

To Kappie: you made a thoughtful comparison with atheism. I'm an atheist myself and I don't consider atheism to be my religion. Although if someone were to ask me what my religious orientation was, then I'd say it's atheism. I might be just complicating things here, but I consider religion and religious orientation two slightly different things.

Comparing that one difference with asexuality: if someone asked me whom I would like to have sex with, then I'd answer "none" since I lack sexual attraction. But sexual attraction isn't the same as sexual orientation. I do consider asexuality to be my sexual orientation, because choosing not to have sex is still a choice, thus requiring the individual's intervention. (I don't mean it's a rational choice; I mean it's a choice guided by your own lack of sexual attraction, so more like seconding what you feel like doing.)

[Beyourownspotlight]

I honestly don't know, but I voted for asexuality is an orientation, because if someone asked me my sexual orientation I'd then say I'm asexual.

[Patrick]

Logic dictates that it is a lack of a sexual orientation, that's what the "a-" stands for, just - as others have mentioned - as in atheism ("not theism").

Also I find it misleading to say it's an orientation. Look at the "Aven Triangle":

Sexual Orientations scales from "100% homo" to "100% hetero and has a lot of grey scale "bi" in-between. Asexuality does not fit on this linear chart. It's a new dimension. Rather than the sexual "direction", this new dimension shows the intensity of the attraction. And it basically goes to "no intensity at all" (ie asexuality) to "sexaholic" with a whole lot of "demi" and "grey" in-between. So it's not a "sexual orientation" so much as an extension on the linear scale that was already recognized for a long time now.

And just like when you extend a linear distance graph by a time dimension to form "velocity", sexual orientation plus this new "intensity dimension" form (what I would call) "sexual identity".

[henshin]

To Kappie: you made a thoughtful comparison with atheism. I'm an atheist myself and I don't consider atheism to be my religion. Although if someone were to ask me what my religious orientation was, then I'd say it's atheism. I might be just complicating things here, but I consider religion and religious orientation two slightly different things.

Comparing that one difference with asexuality: if someone asked me whom I would like to have sex with, then I'd answer "none" since I lack sexual attraction. But sexual attraction isn't the same as sexual orientation. I do consider asexuality to be my sexual orientation, because choosing not to have sex is still a choice, thus requiring the individual's intervention. (I don't mean it's a rational choice; I mean it's a choice guided by your own lack of sexual attraction, so more like seconding what you feel like doing.)

Personally I think sexual attraction is sexual oreintation. I am asexual because I'm not sexually attracted to anyone, a heterosexual person is heterosexual because they are sexually attracted to opposite sex....etc. etc.

If its not about sexual attraction then what is it?

I find this a difficult question because if someone asked me my sexual orientation I would say I was a lesbian because I am romantically attracted to other women and generally this answer will explain my behaviour more to someone than saying asexual. For the majority of people, their romantic and sexual oreintations line up so to start differentiating the two in everyday talk is going to require a lot of explanation.

Anyway, I voted lack of orientation because it is an absence, you are not orientated towards anyone when it comes to sexual attraction.

[Siggy]

If asexuality is a lack of orientation, is gray-A half an orientation?

[Nameless123]

*

[Guest]

Personally I think sexual attraction is sexual oreintation. I am asexual because I'm not sexually attracted to anyone, a heterosexual person is heterosexual because they are sexually attracted to opposite sex....etc. etc.

If its not about sexual attraction then what is it?

I find this a difficult question because if someone asked me my sexual orientation I would say I was a lesbian because I am romantically attracted to other women and generally this answer will explain my behaviour more to someone than saying asexual. For the majority of people, their romantic and sexual oreintations line up so to start differentiating the two in everyday talk is going to require a lot of explanation.

Anyway, I voted lack of orientation because it is an absence, you are not orientated towards anyone when it comes to sexual attraction.

Hmm. Let's see if I can make my point a bit clearer in this way...

Sexual attraction -> Who you are attracted to

Sexual orientation -> Who you choose to have sex with

Some people may find other people sexually attractive and still choose not to have sex with them. That's the gray-A area.

My point here is that sexual attraction is completely subconscious. It does determine sexual orientation, but the latter is still influenced by your own decisions in the end, when it comes to actually having or not having sex... I hope it's a bit clearer now.

[Sally]

"Orientation" to me is a description, and asexuals need a descriptive term as much as others. It could be numerical:

0 = asexual

1 = heterosexual

2 = homosexual

3 = bisexual

(etc. until you've covered all the bases)

0 is a number, ergo, asexuality is an orientation.

[Patrick]

"Orientation" to me is a description, and asexuals need a descriptive term as much as others. It could be numerical:

0 = asexual

1 = heterosexual

2 = homosexual

3 = bisexual

(etc. until you've covered all the bases)

0 is a number, ergo, asexuality is an orientation.

That literally made no sense. What's the point of the numbers? Also, while - as a programmer - I can appreciate starting counting at 0 instead of 1, I cannot see that catching on with anybody else. Also Orientation is not a "description", it's an assumption. If somebody asks you about your sexual orientation he already expects you to have one and doesn't consider not being sexually attracted as an option even.

[Salmaesk]

"Orientation" to me is a description, and asexuals need a descriptive term as much as others. It could be numerical:

0 = asexual

1 = heterosexual

2 = homosexual

3 = bisexual

(etc. until you've covered all the bases)

0 is a number, ergo, asexuality is an orientation.

Not all people agree that zero is a number.

Just as a comment, I think it would make better sense if homosexuality was "one", because homo in this context refers to homogenous, whereas heterosexual refers to heterogenous. If you want to be poignant, bisexuality would make a natural two.

Because I'm selfish, I'll just say I have no idea what my orientation is. I have never seen anything that would fit me :/ atleast not for long.

[Member33070]

I consider it an orientation, but it's sort of like, I'm not "oriented" towards anyone, but I am oriented "away" from people...I'm still oriented somewhere.

I get the argument that atheism can be considered a lack of religion and asexuality a lack of orientation, but if someone asks "what's your religion?" you would probably say, "well, I'm an atheist actually (if you were)". Same with orientation, you're not going to say "well, I don't have an orientation" - to me that makes it sound like you're unsure about it (I believe someone up there said that).

It is a lack of sexual orientation, but we're sort of outside of the orientation "box". See the "scale"/"triangle" thing above. Defining ourselves using the orientation box that we're not a part of requires stretching the terms a bit to include ourselves.

[Sally]

Not all people agree that zero is a number.

What would you call the "0" in "20" then?

[Sweet and Tender Hooligan]

I haven't really thought about it. I don't see why it matters that much. It just seems like worrying over specific terminology to me. Does it really matter if asexuality is considered an orientation or not?

I know that I identify as ace, but I haven't thought about whether or not I consider it to be my "orientation." I guess I just don't get hung up on such tiny details.

[CameronWM]

Not all people agree that zero is a number.

What would you call the "0" in "20" then?

I won't delve deep into in or derail the topic beyond this, but since I am an aspiring math major I feel I should clarify. A lot of mathematicians (and myself) consider 0 not a number, but a spacer (which is one of the reasons why trailing 0's are often not significant figures in Scientific notation.)

[Sally]

Not all people agree that zero is a number.

What would you call the "0" in "20" then?

I won't delve deep into in or derail the topic beyond this, but since I am an aspiring math major I feel I should clarify. A lot of mathematicians (and myself) consider 0 not a number, but a spacer (which is one of the reasons why trailing 0's are often not significant figures in Scientific notation.)

OK -- I'm definitely not a mathematician, and withdraw my analogy.

As far as asexuality being or not being an orientation, though, there was a time not too long ago when homosexuality was not considered an orientation. Instead, it was considered a sickness, an abnormality. Not only do a lot of asexuals on AVEN (as demonstrated in previous threads) consider themselves to be part of an orientation, there are those of us who have never experienced anything else in fairly long lives. It seems strange to consider what we've felt for years to be a "non"-something.

[Elonalina]

"Orientation" to me is a description, and asexuals need a descriptive term as much as others. It could be numerical:

0 = asexual

1 = heterosexual

2 = homosexual

3 = bisexual

(etc. until you've covered all the bases)

0 is a number, ergo, asexuality is an orientation.

Not all people agree that zero is a number.

Just as a comment, I think it would make better sense if homosexuality was "one", because homo in this context refers to homogenous, whereas heterosexual refers to heterogenous. If you want to be poignant, bisexuality would make a natural two.

Because I'm selfish, I'll just say I have no idea what my orientation is. I have never seen anything that would fit me :/ atleast not for long.

I'd think of it more like

-1 heterosexual

0 bisexual

1 homosexual

because hetero and homo are opposites, and bi is somewhere in between the two. There isn't any place for asexuality unless you add another dimension to the scale. I voted 'lack of orientation' on the poll, but I kind of had to force myself to pick one or the other because they seem like two sides of the same coin to me. But really, the biggest factor in whether it's a sexual orientation or the lack of one is how you define sexual orientation.

[CameronWM]

I'd think of it more like

-1 heterosexual

0 bisexual

1 homosexual

because hetero and homo are opposites, and bi is somewhere in between the two. There isn't any place for asexuality unless you add another dimension to the scale. I voted 'lack of orientation' on the poll, but I kind of had to force myself to pick one or the other because they seem like two sides of the same coin to me. But really, the biggest factor in whether it's a sexual orientation or the lack of one is how you define sexual orientation.

A scale just seems useless and, to me, makes sexual orientation seem binary (replace 'bi' with a prefix representing how many orientations would be on said scale.) It seems incredibly counter-intuitive to the queer cause.

[Member33070]

I think if we were looking at it mathematically, it would be more useful to look at "amount of sexual attraction" versus which gender one was attracted to. *Note: By "amount of sexual attraction" I do not mean libido. Please see example terms below. I mean "how often one is sexually attracted to someone else", libido is the desire for sex. Some asexuals have very high libidos, so this scale wouldn't work right. Libido is independent of orientation.

It would be something like...

0 - asexual

1 - gray-a

2 - average sexual person

3 - sex-obsessed

(numbers not necessarily to scale)

Another axis for "number of genders one is attracted to"?

0 - asexual

0.5ish - gray-a

1 - heterosexual/homosexual

2 - bisexual

3+ - pansexual

But then there is no distinction between people who are heterosexual and people who are homosexual. Now you need to add genders in again...I am thinking that eventually one would end up with a three-dimensional graph.

This part is making my brain hurt.

The point is, "orientation" is commonly seen as "which gender(s) you are attracted to", and we are in a total other dimension. We bring up the idea of awareness of more descriptive orientations.

For example, I have a friend who is a heteroromantic bisexual. She often has to describe herself as "straight" because she's only willing to have a romantic and sexual combination relationship with men, even though that doesn't really fit her.

The very definition is flawed at the moment, even Wikipedia recognizes that:

Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to males, females, both, or neither. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation is enduring[1] and also refers to a person's sense of "personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."[2] The current consensus among scholars is that sexual orientation is not a choice.[3][4][5] No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[6] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[7]

Though people may use other labels or none at all, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality (asexuality is increasingly recognized as a fourth).[1] The three exist along a continuum that ranges from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual, including various forms of bisexuality in between. This continuum does not suit everyone, however, as some people identify as asexual.[8] This linear scale is a simplification of the much more nuanced nature of sexual orientation and sexual identity; many sexologists believe it to be oversimplified.[9]

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation)

Edit: Added italicized bits.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Birdwing

[Guest]

Hmm. Let's see if I can make my point a bit clearer in this way...

Sexual attraction -> Who you are attracted to

Sexual orientation -> Who you choose to have sex with

Some people may find other people sexually attractive and still choose not to have sex with them. That's the gray-A area.

My point here is that sexual attraction is completely subconscious. It does determine sexual orientation, but the latter is still influenced by your own decisions in the end, when it comes to actually having or not having sex... I hope it's a bit clearer now.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. Your definition of sexual orientation is wrong, and your definition of gray-asexual is not how the word is generally defined on AVEN (and to my knowledge it's not really used anywhere else). Sexual orientation is who you are attracted to, not who you choose to have sex with. A nun or monk who abstains from sex is typically heterosexual, even if they never have sex, it doesn't make them asexual. Plenty of gay people choose to have heterosexual sex to fit in. They're still gay, not straight. Sexual orientation is not a choice.

Gray asexuals are generally people who feel sexual attraction very rarely, or only under certain conditions, and they may have sex with the people they are attracted to. What you defined as gray-asexual is actually celibacy.

As for whether it's an orientation or a lack of an orientation, I really think that's just semantics. Sometimes people who don't believe in asexuality like to use "asexuality isn't an orientation, it's lack of an orientation!" as a way to deny asexuality. But what difference does that make? I think that calling it an "orientation of being attracted to no one" is simply a more positive spin than calling it "lack of an orientation". Like how disabled people have started using the term "differently abled".

[Turunah]

Definition of asexuality (is not that of AVEN, and is used exclusively in this post):

- Asexual is one that does not use the libido to interpret the world - that is by having not enough libido, either is by choose to sublimate the libido (and opt by the use of another criterion for assessing the existence.

- The causes are numerous and can appear and disappear at any stage of life

- The interpretation of the world from another language than the libido can only be recognized when it is manifested (behavior).

[Member33070]

^ I'm a bit confused by your post.

I think you're saying that we don't worry too much about libido?

Well, yeah, I suppose, but it is worth mentioning again that libido is sex drive and is independent of sexual attraction.

To use an analogy, libido is like "how hungry you are". The sexual attraction is like "what you want to eat".

[Turunah]

^ I'm a bit confused by your post.

I think you're saying that we don't worry too much about libido?

Well, yeah, I suppose, but it is worth mentioning again that libido is sex drive and is independent of sexual attraction.

To use an analogy, libido is like "how hungry you are". The sexual attraction is like "what you want to eat".

When we try to use an analogy for sex, we can appeal to the hungry. This is because the language we speak (sexual) also takes care to match the hunger and taking food, with sex (two-way street). When a person is unable to associate the urge to eat, whatever, with the urge to have sex (no matter with whom), it is being asexual. A child without libido also has many wants and desires, but has not yet been "oriented" to measure these wishes and desires according to the protocol that puts the sexual desire and sexual will as the emperors of his subjectivity.

[Sally]

Definition of asexuality (is not that of AVEN, and is used exclusively in this post):

- Asexual is one that does not use the libido to interpret the world - that is by having not enough libido, either is by choose to sublimate the libido (and opt by the use of another criterion for assessing the existence.

- The causes are numerous and can appear and disappear at any stage of life

- The interpretation of the world from another language than the libido can only be recognized when it is manifested (behavior).

You really don't know what you're talking about on any of those points. But you are certainly free to say whatever you want, ill-informed though it may be.

[michaeld]

Definition of asexuality (is not that of AVEN, and is used exclusively in this post):

- Asexual is one that does not use the libido to interpret the world - that is by having not enough libido, either is by choose to sublimate the libido (and opt by the use of another criterion for assessing the existence.

You're right. This has no relation to the definition used on AVEN or, for that matter, by any other asexuals I know of.

- The causes are numerous and can appear and disappear at any stage of life

I think it's fairly likely there are numerous causes of asexuality. I think it's possible for some asexuals to switch to being sexual and vice versa, but they appear to be a minority within a minority; most people's orientation seems to be fixed.

- The interpretation of the world from another language than the libido can only be recognized when it is manifested (behavior).

And this I can't make heads nor tails of, so I'm not sure if I agree with it...

[Turunah]

But you are certainly free to say whatever you want,

Every time I open my mouth comes a Lieutenant placing a conical hat on my head and a sign on my chest. No need for so much policing. Are you afraid of?