Is asexuality a sexual orientation?

[Josephine97]

Hello, everbody!

I am new here and I was reading about sexual orientation on AVENwiki. They consider asexuality as a sexual orientation, however I watched a video about asexuality (it is a brazilian video with no English subtitles, so I won't mention the link but if somebody wants it, please just ask!) and the person in the video said that some people don't consider asexuality as a sexual orientation. The reason is that sexuality and asexuality would be "bigger" than sexual orientation and you can be either sexual or asexual and homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual/etc. It makes sense, in my opinion, but I am quite confused.

I would like to know your opinion about it. What do you think?

[WinterWanderer]

I prefer to think of it as a sexual orientation, because even though I'm not hetero, homo, bi, etc., I still feel like I need a label. If there is an option to desire men, women, or both, then there should also be an option for those who don't desire anyone.

But I have heard the other side of the argument. Many people would say that asexuality is more like a lack of an orientation, rather than its own orientation.

[Sapphire Rose]

I mean, logically speaking you're asking this on a forum devoted to the support of asexual people where on our wiki it directly says it's a sexual orientation. I think you could assume that we would say yes.

Regardless, welcome to AVEN! Enjoy your stay and make yourself at home!

[Anthracite_Impreza]

I've thought about this before and I think it could be right. I think there are different axes to the whole thing and asexuality is both an orientation and not at the same time.

Orientation: Who or what you're attracted to (Homo, hetero, no one...)

Attraction: How you're attracted (sexual, romantic, platonic...)

Circumstance: When and how you're attracted (demi, lith, grey...)

Desire level: Your intrinsic desire to engage in things (asexual-hypersexual, aromantic-hyperromantic...)

That said, because by the very nature of having no sexual or romantic desire you also don't have an orientation, asexual/aromantic becomes your orientation by default (you can't really be androsexual with no desire for sex, so you're asexual and andro-whatever). However you could also say that "no-one" is your orientation so...

Did that make any sense at all?

[Baam]

I think it may be mixing up sexual and romantic orientations. For example I'm a pan asexual. That is, you can be asexual and homoromantic, heteroromantic, biromantic, etc.. Welcome, by the way!

[Telecaster68]

Josephine

It sounds like they just use the word differently. There's no Supreme Council Of Asexual Terminology (despite some people's best efforts) so there's a lot of that.

The AVEN version (for once) does make more sense though, at least semantically, if you look a the Greek derivations:

• heterosexual: attracted to a different gender
• homosexual: attracted to the same gender
• asexual: attracted to no gender

For instance, I think where they say you can be asexual, and heterosexual, AVEN would call that asexual and heteroromantic - same sense of coupledom involving two people of different genders, exclusivity, commitment, etc. as heterosexuality, just no sex.

[Iyck]

Well it's both kind of a lack of allo/zsexual orientation and it's own orientation in itself. I often have a problem with people reducing asexuality to the lack of orientation aspect, because it tends to be used to invalidate asexual identities and that's where it gets really problematic.

[Jeena]

I prefer to think of it as a sexual orientation, because even though I'm not hetero, homo, bi, etc., I still feel like I need a label. If there is an option to desire men, women, or both, then there should also be an option for those who don't desire anyone.

But I have heard the other side of the argument. Many people would say that asexuality is more like a lack of an orientation, rather than its own orientation.

Yes, I totally agree with the sentence in bold. Asexuality (to me) is not a sexual orientation, but the opposite of a sexual orientation.

To me, a sexual orientation is describing a person/gender/whatever that the person would want to have an intimate sexual relationship with, and asexuality is the opposite of that. It describes the fact that the asexual person does not want to have sex, or seldom have sex with anyone.

[moonnymph]

A resounding YES. It is a sexual orientation, albeit a misunderstood/mostly unknown one to the general populous.

[Rising Sun]

But I have heard the other side of the argument. Many people would say that asexuality is more like a lack of an orientation, rather than its own orientation.

Yes, I totally agree with the sentence in bold. Asexuality (to me) is not a sexual orientation, but the opposite of a sexual orientation.

So if I follow your logic, bisexuals have two sexual orientations.

[Blue Phoenix Ace]

There's custard filled donuts and jelly filled ones. Some people like the custard, some like the jelly, some like both. Some don't like either kind. Their donut preference is none.

Asexuality is an orientation.

[Guest]

It's really a semantic question more than a question of what asexuality is.

The advantage of seeing asexuality as an orientation is that it works well within an existing concept of human sexuality. Homosexuals are oriented toward the same gender, bisexual are oriented toward two(or more) genders, and asexuals are oriented toward no genders.

The advantage of seeing asexuality as not an orientation but rather the lack of an orientation is that it serves to highlight the differences between asexual's experience and sexual's experience. While homo, bi, etc. -sexuals all have an orientation to some gender, and attraction to some kind of person, asexuals lack that experience (although there's of course a spectrum and romantic identities at play)

In this case, I really dont believe there is one right answer. I personally prefer the concept of asexuality as an orientation because I feel that seeing asexuality as the opposite of sexuality could be exclusive of the more ambiguous cases of the gray area & where asexuals have romantic attraction or libido but not sexual attraction. I believe sexuality is larger than orientation, and in that sense, asexuality is better aligned with orientation due to its complexity.

[Sally]

Yes. It makes no more sense to say asexuality is not an orientation than it does to say that white is not a color.

[Starlit Sky]

I do not believe that a person can be asexual and heterosexual at the same time. When Telecaster said that most of us would say that that would be asexual and heteromantic, he was definitely right.

I would also like to point out to some people who are acting like this should have an obvious answer . . . that there are still many asexuals, as well as in this community, who say that asexuality is a lack of a sexuality, which does *suggest* that asexuality is, you know, not a sexuality, which would in turn make many people link it to a lack of an orientation.

"What's your sexual orientation?"

"I don't have one."

Personally, OP, I consider asexuality to be a sexual orientation, and most asexuals do as well. Since most do, the safe (and most polite, haha) option would be to call it an orientation yourself. Unfortunately, I don't think your question has a direct answer. ^_^

[loomborn]

The AVEN version (for once) does make more sense though, at least semantically, if you look a the Greek derivations:

• heterosexual: attracted to a different gender
• homosexual: attracted to the same gender
• asexual: attracted to no gender

the greek derivations don't mean that at all. literally, -sexual, means relative to sex, and sex can be both the organs and the action. in this way, a bisexual can be a person attracted sexually [that is, desires to engage sexual intercourse] to two (or more) genders.... or a hermaphrodite, depending on the context. so no, in the strict sense of the word, you can't be asexual and bisexual at the same time (unless you are hermaphrodite or sexless, of course).

[Éadweard]

Yes it is.

[Muledeer]

If I was born with little or no desire for sex, that makes it an orientation.

[moonnymph]

Yes! It is a very misunderstood and for many unknown sexual orientation that needs LOTS of awareness. There are lots of Aces out there who do not yet have a word to put to how they view sex and relationships.

[Guest]

Yes. It makes no more sense to say asexuality is not an orientation than it does to say that white is not a color.

While I'd personally agree to that, I can't help but point out that a lot of people will indeed insist that white (and/or black, for that matter) isn't a color. Click me.

[Qiri]

I, personally, view asexuality as a sexual orientation.

 

If heterosexuality is a lack of sexual attraction to same-sex people and homosexuality is a lack of sexual attraction to opposite-sex people, why can't asexuality be lack of sexual attraction to most/all people? 

[Guest]

I've sometimes wondered whether framing asexuality as a sexual orientation might end up hurting some aces, mostly based on my own experience. I still think it's a bit silly to assume that anyone could struggle with the same things I do, but your post is making me think about that again.

 

On 3/19/2025 at 7:07 PM, Top said:

I feel like this sentiment, which seems to be pretty pervasive, is why I have to take so much effort avoiding being written off as hateful when I try to express myself earnestly. And I truly understand why because I searched for articles and then googled around trying to find people arguing or studying the idea that asexuality is not an orientation. I couldn't find any relevant studies but I ended up seeing a lot of utterly idiotic and fallacious statements from people that I have to assume do not have any experience with asexuality and are dismissive of it at best. I guess I'd just feel better if I could find some compassionate, intelligent and good faith dissenting arguments. Is it that none exist? I know I'm not hateful, except perhaps to myself.  It's just in my case I seem to find the whole "meta" difficult to navigate on top of everything else.

For what it's worth, I don't see you as hateful. I understand having trouble understanding things that the ace community takes for granted, since I'm in the same boat when it comes to other things.

 

I guess I do have some "good faith" answers, if I count. I don't see asexuality as either "a sexual orientation" or "not a sexual orientation." I have my reasons, which is that the concept of sexual orientation has given me the wrong idea about many things and so I don't particularly like it. If someone considers asexuality to be their sexual orientation, then it is, and if they don't, then it isn't. It's on a case-by-case basis for me.

 

On 3/19/2025 at 7:07 PM, Top said:

On a more personal note...And then that nice little advice at the end that you should basically avoid voicing any doubts because you're gonna "erase the importance" for individuals and in public discourse. As if the personal experiences of people who would otherwise be called asexual but struggle to buy into all this and what they might contribute to discourse are not important. And maybe they aren't. But I hope one could appreciate how alienating and discouraging it feels to read something like that in an "asexuality handbook" when you're trying to cope with the idea of being "asexual" yourself. I feel like this sentiment, which seems to be pretty pervasive, is why I have to take so much effort avoiding being written off as hateful when I try to express myself earnestly.

Honestly, I don't disagree with the "don't say asexuality is not a sexual orientation unless you're talking about your personal experience" piece of advice because that's 100% true. I just wish these people followed their own advice and then assumed asexuality should not be considered a sexual orientation by default until proven otherwise since they're, y'know, imposing their personal experience on other people. (Though I get why they don't.)

 

This sentiment is pretty pervasive but I also know where it comes from, so while I'm just as annoyed about it as you are, I understand why people may want to preemptively assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation and that there's no room for doubts.

 

Before explaining that though, I feel like I need to separate three distinct beliefs:

 

1. Asexuality isn't a sexual orientation because it's about not being sexually oriented anywhere, meaning that it's the lack of a sexual orientation

2. Asexuality isn't a sexual orientation because it isn't real at all

3. Asexuality isn't a sexual orientation because sexual orientation is about (romantic/sexual) attraction in general, not just sexual attraction

 

I'm mostly agnostic on the first one. I've seen one bi person argue that sexual orientation as a concept doesn't serve bi folks. And at the time I really liked this post because, there you have it, a bi person casually saying "hey maybe bisexuality isn't an orientation." Because I know you could not have this conversation in most ace communities. Because I've seen convos where asexual people say "hey I had never considered the possibility that asexuality might not be an orientation, could be neat" being shut down immediately by other asexuals.

 

As for the second one, people saying it's not an orientation has led some people (me included) to think that it meant it wasn't real. So I get why people insist on it being one, though I think it just shows how insidious it all is—since when do things need to be orientations to be real?

 

The third one mostly happens in discussions of LGBT+ inclusion. This post (CW: anti-ace) and the discussion that follows it is a good example of aces shutting down conversations about considering-asexuality-as-not-an-orientation as well as justifying why they do that—which mostly boils down to asexuality being taken seriously and being considered to be important. So yeah, I'm glad to read stuff like what you wrote:

 

On 3/19/2025 at 7:07 PM, Top said:

If I understand correctly (and I have read this in many other posts and articles) people consider it a sexual orientation MOSTLY because of discourse, awareness and activism reasons rather than purely scientific ones.

because yes! What you're saying is true! But while reading this part of your post I was also smiling a little. Because I feel like you were implying that this was only true for asexuality, and not straight sexuality or gay sexuality. Except it is true for those too.

 

When you ask:

 

On 3/19/2025 at 7:07 PM, Top said:

It says that asexuality is an orientation because it's a lifelong condition, has bio-markers, is evident in early life, and consistent and stable over time. Aren't those criteria incredibly vague? Or am I just not understanding the scientific meaning of "sexual" and "orientation"? How are those criteria not just as indicative of a lack of sexual orientation?

you have to understand that the criteria the asexuality handbook is giving are 1) probably coming from these studies which 2) to my knowledge seem to be about "classifying" asexuality rather than "proving" asexuality is "scientifically a sexual orientation," 3) the latter being nonsensical since sexual orientation is a social construct.

 

There's no "scientific meaning" of "sexual orientation" because it's a primarily social concept.

 

Here's an interesting excerpt from the anti-ace post I linked to earlier:

 

Quote

why the fuck do you even want your idiosyncratic relationship with desire to be categorized as a sexual orientation? you understand that the notion of “sexual orientation” was created to pathologize, institutionalize, and hurt people who acted on their same-gender attraction, right?

I mean, think about it. What is sexual orientation? The person above mentioned something about "same-gender attraction," which points to gender being a relevant feature of the concept. People have been discriminated against & oppressed purely due to the gender of their (potential) partner in relation to their own. "Sexual orientation" only exists because we live in a society that enforces the gender binary and mandates people pair up in heterosexual couples. We would be talking about sexuality in a completely different manner had it not been the case. We would not be having this conversation right now. We wouldn't care about measuring people's fingers to determine bio-markers or whatever those studies were about—or maybe we would, but the stakes wouldn't be the same. In such a society, your partner's gender could possibly be seen as relevant as their hair color—the people around you wouldn't discriminate you for it.

 

Some will define sexual orientation as the type of gender categories (sexual) you're drawn toward (orientation) sexually and romantically. They'll would shorten that to "who you're into." Now, is asexuality related to that? Well, not quite. Asexual people can want to have romantic partners, and said partners can be of any gender. Meaning that for this particular understanding of sexual orientation, asexuality would not be a sexual orientation, because it wouldn't specify "what genders you're into." Or more precisely, it would only be a sexual orientation if the person was also not interested in having a romantic partner (= was oriented nowhere). That's what I meant by "sexual orientation is about (romantic/sexual) attraction in general, not just sexual attraction." This is what some people believe, and this is why they will say asexuality isn't a sexual orientation. That since, to them, "gay" means being attracted to the same gender, and "straight" means attracted to the other binary gender, then "asexual" would mean "attracted to no one." Except that doesn't fit all asexual people—some do experience romantic attraction.

 

This is what I meant more or less at the beginning, when I said framing asexuality as a sexual orientation might not benefit some aces. While there is an element of people simply not thinking romantic love without sex exists, there's also the fact that when you say asexuality is a sexual orientation they're going to compare it to other orientations and are going to think "so you don't want to date." Two people in my life have asked me if I were asexual and it was purely based on the fact I didn't want to date. Yet that's the result we get when we insist asexuality is a sexual orientation.

 

Another result we get is lesbian/gay/bi people getting angry at aces reducing their orientation to "just sex" (by saying it's about sexual attraction to the same gender) because "it's what conservatives already do" and "gayness isn't just about your feelings on sex while asexuality is." Which is why you get the anti-ace post I linked to earlier—coming out as gay isn't "oversharing" in the same way coming out as ace is, to some people, because being gay "isn't just about sex."

 

On 3/19/2025 at 7:07 PM, Top said:

It says that asexuality is an orientation because it's a lifelong condition, has bio-markers, is evident in early life, and consistent and stable over time. Aren't those criteria incredibly vague?

Yeah those criteria are vague. And weird too. "Evident in early life" okay but most children don't really have sexual feelings for their peers, what does that even mean.

 

Are there possibly biological roots to sexuality? Maybe, probably, sure. Does that matter? No, not really. Because ultimately, a person should not be discriminated for dating someone of their own gender. It's that simple. Same as not wanting to have sex, or not wanting to go by the pronouns & name people have been using for you your entire life. Those things are harmless. They don't hurt other people.

 

This is why focusing on "we should accept people because they were born this way" is misguided. We don't say women who don't want to wear dresses should be accepted because they were born this way. We say women shouldn't have to adhere to any gender norm they don't want to follow. Those gender norms include "wanting to date men" and "having sex with men." This is why there's the T in LGBT+. A lot of people keep being confused about it because they think "gender has nothing to do with sexuality" when the truth is that sexuality has everything to do with gender. Sexuality was packaged with gender. Gay people were considered to be some form of "third sex " alongside trans people. Lesbians were seen as women trying to be men, or "trapped in the wrong body," and you'll hear these exact things about trans people! Because back then there was no distinction between gender and sexuality.

 

That distinction only occurred when cis gay people saw an opportunity to be more easily accepted by others and assimilate into straight society by dividing gender further into sexuality and gender identity. Because it was easier for cis straight people to accept "gender-conforming woman who is unfortunately attracted to women because she was born this way" than "someone who is neither a 'proper' man or a 'proper' woman."

 

So I see sexual orientation & sexuality in general as heavily related and shaped by gender norms. This is why your comparisons to lacking certain senses or being disabled do not make sense to me. Or at least, make as much sense to me as asking me "but what about the cis men for whom wanting to wear a dress hurts them independently of the society they live in?" or "what if a cis woman doesn't want to wear dresses only because of trauma?" Granted they're not on the same level but that's still part of the greater category of gender-related things to me.

 

On 3/19/2025 at 7:07 PM, Top said:

We have the ADA and other policies and can change our world to make their lives existing in society easier and strive for equity in that way. But we also have physical therapy at the same time and people don't see that as "phobic" and "erasure."

I've seen some disabled people not feeling right about certain cures being available. That's certainly not a universal belief.

 

On 3/19/2025 at 7:07 PM, Top said:

But isn't that also dismissing important differences and distinctions that make it NOT the same as other sexual orientations?

What do you mean by that? In the past, I've definitely felt like asexuality was different from other sexual orientations because it was a complete absence. And I've seen people admit that ace issues aren't always the same as LGBT+ issues, despite similarities:

 

Quote

And this is what I mean when I say "built out of the "same stuff" as the queer movement;" yes, all of the above. The people were the same, the concepts were the same, the activism was the same, the goals were the same, yes yes all of it yes. And that's why I have that feeling of "for better or worse" about this fact; because in some cases, our concerns are actually different and our single-minded focus on following in the footsteps laid out for us can sometimes impede a nuanced understanding of the underlying issues and/or how those issues have changed in intervening decades.

Some people have said that being ace more often than not has a "cause" while being gay or bi or straight doesn't. Even if it were true, I don't really care all that much about that personally.

 

On 3/19/2025 at 7:07 PM, Top said:

Is there such a thing as no sexual orientation? Why not? And if there were how would it be distinguishable from asexuality?

There are people who don't identify with orientation terms, or don't apply the concept of orientation to themselves. Outside of that though, no. There isn't a gene or some singular biological characteristic for sexual orientation, where asexual people have the "no sexual attraction" gene and those without sexual orientations have no gene altogether.

 

On 3/19/2025 at 7:07 PM, Top said:

Would you also argue there's nothing wrong with you if you were born without the ability to taste things? That is what I can't reconcile and the kind of thing I feel like I keep reading when seeing justifications about how asexuality should be thought of the same as being homosexual, for instance.

If you're born without the ability to taste things well... you're born without the ability to taste things. Whether that's "wrong" or not is dependent on who you ask. A lot of things in life sucks or can make you feel distressed even though they're not wrong.

 

I have to wear glasses, otherwise my eyes hurt because they require effort. Does that mean there's something wrong with my eyes? I don't know, but what I do know is that I'm certainly not spending the rest of my life feeling bad about it. I like having glasses a lot actually, and being a part of the "people who have glasses" group (even if I always forget about it). I'd look pretty different without those. I'm used to being like that. If that's wrong then I'd choose to be wrong every time.

 

There's not a human being template where the default model is cis, abled, neurotypical, straight, allosexual, etc. and everything else is just aberrations. Most things exist on a continuum. We were not meant to be anything. We just are. "Wrong" implies that I could've been something else, should've been something else—a person who doesn't need glasses—but that instead I became what I am now. I'm all for believing in past lives and feeling wrong in one's body, if that's one's experience. But I don't believe in a predestined version of myself that I failed to be.

 

On 3/19/2025 at 7:07 PM, Top said:

But what if there is a physical cause that could be pinpointed and explained? And a way to change it could be found? But if the only considered "valid" opinion is that it is fundamentally the same as heterosexuality or homosexuality and just a normal preference, then isn't that potentially hurting people for who this condition is really hurting them and whose lives could be improved by potential treatment?

People have already tried to find & make a potential ""treatment."" Regulating sexual desire doesn't work. There is no treatment that can make you want sex that you don't want.

 

I'd also like to know how asexuality, or something like it, can hurt people. There have been people who used to consider themselves asexual, and then their experience of sexuality changed. Some are resentful of the ace community because they feel that IDing as ace has hurt them and made them avoid potential things that could've inhibited their "true" desires. But I don't see that as asexuality itself hurting those people, but more ignorance instead.

 

 

TL;DR: When people argue that asexuality is not a sexual orientation, it's either a matter of adherence to non-ace conceptualizations of sexual orientation, of thinking it's not real, or thinking that being sexually oriented nowhere is a lack of orientation. The reason why asexuality is considered to be a sexual orientation may be a product of "discourse, awareness and activism reasons rather than purely scientific ones," but that's no different from any other sexual orientation. Gender and sexuality were one and the same at one point—cis gay/bi people & trans people were considered to be "the same thing." Sexual orientation is therefore made relevant due to gender norms that expect men and women to be together, which is why I don't think asexuality is quite comparable to disabilities. I don't ask myself what "causes" gender nonconformity, or if there's a "treatment" for it, because I accept it and see it as completely harmless, and so I treat sexual orientation in much the same way, as it can be considered a form of gender nonconformity.

[Frameshift07]

On 3/19/2025 at 7:07 PM, Top said:

I know that is true for some, maybe even most of asexual people but it's just... It's like, people who have trouble getting around, walking or whatever.

I'm curious, if you can compare "I have no sense of taste" asexuality to a condition as pervasive as being unable to walk, would you compare "I simply don't like ice cream" asexuality to someone who has the ability to walk choosing to spend their life in a wheelchair?

[TormentDubz]

This thread has been locked for necromancy.

 

TormentDubz 

M&R Moderator