Is asexuality an orientation or a LACK of sexual orientation? Make your arguments.

[TwiceAsNice]

But to say we lack a sexual orientation can be entirely fictitious.

Lots of us have romantic orientations and grey aces still have orientations...

The trouble is we need to have a better way of graphing these things...

Maybe demi-sexuals and grey aces are like bisexuals in the sense that they experience two orientations existing inside them, side by side.

I think romantic orientation is something else entirely separate from sexual orientation. For example, its possible for a man to be 100% homosexual, and still fall in love with a woman in a purely romantic way. In this way, people who are asexual may be romantically attached to certain kinds of people, and not others. Or in the case of aromantics, not romantically attracted to anyone at all.

but then who are you and I to judge when orientation stops and non orientation begins?

Well I'm not, that's why I'm asking the community. I do think it helps to differentiate things like gender, paraphillias and sexual orientation from each other though. Cross dressers are a good case study in this.

Some are legitimately transgendered, many are not. Some are gay, others prefer women sexually. Autogynephilia (loving the image of yourself as a woman) is a paraphilia, distinct from gender and sexual orientation. Even though on the surface it may be tempting to assume all cross dresser cross dress for the same reasons, this is an enormous fallacy. Transgendered people cross dress because it feels more natural and comfortable for them to wear women's clothing, audogynephiles do it because it gets them hot. In both instances their cross dressing says nothing about their sexual orientation at all.

I think we need a paradigm shift when it comes to talking about these issues. Sexual orientation, gender, and paraphillias all exist on different planes, almost like the skin of an onion. The layers matter a lot when talking about identity, because in real life many people can't tell the difference between sexual behaviors and what is really going on inside the person.

[TwiceAsNice]

But to say we lack a sexual orientation can be entirely fictitious.

Lots of us have romantic orientations and grey aces still have orientations...

The trouble is we need to have a better way of graphing these things...

If grey aces have orientations, why aren't they called straight people?

[TwiceAsNice]

Maybe demi-sexuals and grey aces are like bisexuals in the sense that they experience two orientations existing inside them, side by side.

I think romantic orientation is something else entirely separate from sexual orientation. For example, its possible for a man to be 100% homosexual, and still fall in love with a woman in a purely romantic way. In this way, people who are asexual may be romantically attached to certain kinds of people, and not others. Or in the case of aromantics, not romantically attracted to anyone at all.

Actually, this is one of the common annoying myths about bisexuality (one not unlike 'all asexuals have low hormone levels'...). I still have a photo of myself in a pride parade somwhere carrying a sign that says '100% bisexual' -- as in we're not 50% gay and 50% staight...

The fact, that we have both 'men', and 'women', and sometimes 'other' in the group of people we're attracted to, doesn't mean we have two orientations side by side -- we have one orientation, that happens to differentiate people on other lines than gender. I can't speak for demis and greys, but it seems to me that to say they are 'sometimes asexuals and sometimes not' kind of dismisses it as a valid sexuality.

[/rant]

Regarding whether asexuality is a sexual orientation -- it's probably not, but it still is a component of a larger sexual identity, together with libido, gender identity, romantic orientation, aesthetic orientation, relationship orientation and others.

How is your description of bisexual different from pansexual? "bi" literally means "two," not choosing potential mates "on other lines besides gender." There are more than two genders you know, bisexual means you like two of them.

[TwiceAsNice]

Hello, I have some questions for the asexual community.

Wikipedia description of asexuality: "Asexuality [..]may be considered the lack of a sexual orientation, or one of the four types thereof, alongside heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality.^[7][8][9]

So which is it? A sexual orientation, or a lack of a sexual orientation?

It matters.

As an orentation we get more attention and publicity, and in New York we get to be a protected group, but by saying we are a LACK of an orentation it seems to imply we HAVE a sexuality, but it isn't oriented towards males or females. And from my experience on AVEN this seems to be more accurate.

What do you think?Make your arguments. Consider the implications.

Sexual orientations can be thought of as a directional headings on a compass. If North represents sexual, let's have South represent asexual. If we divide the compass into two halves horizontally - a "North Half" and a "South Half" - we can then express a particular sexuality.

We can have deviations along our path - we can be going Northeast or Northwest, and likewise we can be sexual toward our own biological sex, toward the opposite, or toward both. There are an infinite number of degrees to which one expresses it, just as there are infinite (well, technically 178) degrees along that path that can still be considered "North."

Likewise, if we look at our "South" half - the asexual half - we have a full continuum including demisexuality, gray-a, full blown asexy aro... all the options we see here on a daily basis. There are an infinite number of degrees to which one can express asexuality, and again a full 178 degrees a person can travel in that are still technically southbound.

What about agendered people, or autosexuals?

[TwiceAsNice]

I really think we should promote the term "sexual disorienatation" as opposed to "lack of sexual orientation."

Honestly, I think it's limiting to view sexual orientation as something that can be broken down into so few categories. If we limit orientations to "homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual" we are also assuming a (mental and physical) gender binary. Is pansexuality not considered a sexuality?

If we truly are going to oversimplify the matter of sexual orientation, I suggest we hang a lantern on our own ignorance and have a little fun with it. Asexuality is a sexual disorientation. :)

I agree with you about the current way we look at sexual orientation being frustrating and limiting. I never liked the compass diagram, it's too black and white. I prefer my onion analogy where different aspects of our gender and sexuality exist on separate layers, and perhaps some people don't have the same layers as everyone else.

[mayve]

I think of it as more of an orientation.

Should be more emphasis on "orientation".

[Alex H]

The whole "lack of an orientation" thing is kind of a paradox in and of itself, if you think about it. Your orientation is your lack of an orientation? You understand why that doesn't make sense, right?

I don't like any sort of melon. I just don't. I never have, and I can probably say I never will. But would anyone say I don't have a preference in my melon choices? I do, really. I prefer no melon. Thank you for offering. This is still a preference involving melon even if my preference is to have none of the choices offered to me.

Win.

[qwair]

How is your description of bisexual different from pansexual? "bi" literally means "two," not choosing potential mates "on other lines besides gender." There are more than two genders you know, bisexual means you like two of them.

I know this is off-topic, but just for general knowledge: 'bi' does mean two, but in the actual definition accepted by the bisexual community the two are 1. your own gender and 2. other genders. People invented the term 'pansexuality' to emphasise their attraction to others outside the gender binary, but in practice bisexuality and pansexuality often overlap, and some people (myself included) use both labels according to social context.

The definition of 'bi' as meaning 'just men and women' is simply a straw man, used to blame the bisexual community for being transphobic. As a bisexual activist, I have never met such a bisexual, that is, someone who is attracted strictly to people with are either male or female but not anything else. Even if such a person existed, the people who they are attracted to are not differentiated by gender, because their attraction spans multiple genders, and therefore differentiates people on other lines than gender (in that case it's gender-normativity, but still).

[Sally]

Think of it this way.

Heterosexual

Homosexual

Bisexual

Asexual

Why doesn't asexual fit in that group? I can't see any reason.

Ooh, let me:

Because every other group listed feels sexual attraction. Asexuals don't.

It isn't that we feel sexual attraction, just towards nobody at all, it is that we don't feel sexual attraction.

Every other group is oriented toward someone; we are oriented toward no one. That's an orientation. What else would you call it?

[astrobean]

I've always wondered... if you are intersex, how would one determine if you are hetero or homosexual? If you are intersex and identify as agender and you're attracted to women, you pretty much defy the conventional definitions of sexuality. There is no mathematically elegant way to put you on a compass. It's all subjective. It depends on what the person being labeled *wants* to be labeled.

Your sexual orientation is a label that you feel describes you. It is not for others to quantify, qualify, or limit. We are amazingly elaborate beings, and the three labels that match up to 97% of the population begin to lose meaning when we try to figure out labels for the other 3%. Eventually, we'll just have to put a box called "other" and let people check that.

[TwiceAsNice]

I've always wondered... if you are intersex, how would one determine if you are hetero or homosexual? If you are intersex and identify as agender and you're attracted to women, you pretty much defy the conventional definitions of sexuality. There is no mathematically elegant way to put you on a compass. It's all subjective. It depends on what the person being labeled *wants* to be labeled.

Your sexual orientation is a label that you feel describes you. It is not for others to quantify, qualify, or limit. We are amazingly elaborate beings, and the three labels that match up to 97% of the population begin to lose meaning when we try to figure out labels for the other 3%. Eventually, we'll just have to put a box called "other" and let people check that.

woah....loophole!

I think having a precise definition for what you are is helpful, but it may be near impossible to be able to quantify it given our current understanding of sexuality. I honestly think we need a paradigm revamp in this particular area, because it seems like a lot of people struggle to understand things like sexuality, gender and orientation.