Is a homoromantic asexual, a homoromantic homosexual?!

[Linda_jj]

Since homoromanticism can also be used to describe any person who typically feels romantic feelings to persons of the same gender, but feels sexual feelings towards a different gender i think it means that sexual orientation and romantic orientation are two different things.

And since asexuality is a sexual orientation just like other sexual orientations one can only be defined by one of the sexual orientations not two of them at the same time!

I mean does it make sense if i say I'm pansexual/gay ?!

then how does saying I'm asexual/gay makes sense?!

(keeping in mind that sexual orientation and romantic orientation are two different things)

If we assume that homoromantic asexual is gay then asexuaily won't be in different sexual orientations category but it could be subset of all sexual orientations!

And in that case what's the use of asexuaily?! 

I mean a biromantic asexual can simply call himself/herself a biromantic bisexual/homosexual/pansexual !

 

What i think is that a homoromantic asexual is not a homosexual. Because a homosexual is someone who experiences sexual attraction towards same sex while a homoromantic asexual doesn't experience sexual attraction.

Yet it's not how Wikipedia defines homosexuality "Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" to people of the same sex" 

which makes it confusing.

 

[SithLord]

Having separate labels for romantic and sexual orientations doesn't make everyone a subset under asexuality. Being a heteroromantic asexual means I experience some things heterosexuals do, but my experience is very different from heterosexuals. I experience romantic and aesthetic attraction towards members of the "opposite" (for lack of a better word) gender/sex and do not experience sexual attraction at all. Therefore, I am not heterosexual.

[firewallflower]

I'm not sure if I entirely understand everything you're saying here, so forgive me if I mistake something.

 

The thing to keep in mind is that, as you said, "sexual orientation and romantic orientation are two different things" (albeit ones that, for many people—but not all—do correlate, so that a heterosexual person is also very likely to be heteroromantic, a homosexual person to be homoromantic, etc.). Someone who is homoromantic asexual may identify as gay (because that can be a bit ambiguous, used to refer to both sexual and romantic orientation), but if they are homoromantic asexual then they are inherently not homosexual. Same goes for other sexual orientations; it wouldn't make much sense to say that someone is both asexual and pansexual (because asexuality is the absence of sexual attraction, whereas pansexuality is sexual attraction regardless of gender), but one could certainly be asexual and panromantic. And the majority of orientations are not subsets of asexuality.

 

Similarly, although the terminology isn't as commonly used, following the split attraction model (that is, the idea of sexual and romantic attraction as separate things) someone could potentially be, say, homosexual (sexually attracted to their own gender) but also biromantic (romantically attracted to either gender); heterosexual (sexually attracted to the opposite sex) and aromantic (not romantically attracted to anyone); and so on.

 

My point is just that when thinking this through that differentiation is key to keep in mind. Asexuality and another sexual orientation would seem mutually exclusive, yes, but asexuality and a romantic orientation aren't contradictory at all. Does this make sense?  🙂

[MacAran]

The problem you run into with the statement like "asexual/gay" in that you are combining a specific term (asexual) with a general term (gay).  Gay by itself is generally understood to mean homosexual & homoromantic (as you correctly pointed out, sexual and romantic orientations are separate thing).  Of course, in a large portion of our population those two align and you don't need to make a distinction between them, you can just say "I'm gay" and people understand that you are both homosexual and homoromantic.  On the flip side, to say I am asexual and heteroromantic means I do not experience sexual attraction, but am romantically attracted to the the opposite gender.  (Edit: and if someone were to say something like "I'm a gay asexual" the more specific term modifies the more general one.  It's just language short hand, because the word "gay" automatically invokes a same sex relationship of some sort)

So, the problem is not an inconsistency in ideas but an inconsistency in applied terminology.  In many cases, there is no need to differentiate romantic and sexual orientation because they often align with each other to the extent that many people are unaware that there even is a distinction between them.  Meanwhile, within the ace/aro community, it becomes much more relevant because many asexuals experience romantic attraction, and need language to express that, and aros (aromantics) also need language to distinguish their lived experience from other aces (asexuals) who do experience romantic attraction.  Since this distinction between romantic and sexual orientation becomes much more relevant in these spaces, the language tends to be more specific to reflect that.  

[Linda_jj]

26 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

Having separate labels for romantic and sexual orientations doesn't make everyone a subset under asexuality. Being a heteroromantic asexual means I experience some things heterosexuals do, but my experience is very different from heterosexuals. I experience romantic and aesthetic attraction towards members of the "opposite" (for lack of a better word) gender/sex and do not experience sexual attraction at all. Therefore, I am not heterosexual.

Well that's what I'm talking about.

A hetroromantic asexual is not a hetrosexual .

So a homoromantic asexual is not a homosexual as well, right?

[Linda_jj]

13 minutes ago, firewallflower said:

I'm not sure if I entirely understand everything you're saying here, so forgive me if I mistake something.

 

The thing to keep in mind is that, as you said, "sexual orientation and romantic orientation are two different things" (albeit ones that, for many people—but not all—do correlate, so that a heterosexual person is also very likely to be heteroromantic, a homosexual person to be homoromantic, etc.). Someone who is homoromantic asexual may identify as gay (because that can be used to refer to both sexual and romantic orientation), but if they are homoromantic asexual then they are inherently not homosexual. Same goes for other sexual orientations; it wouldn't make much sense to say that someone is both asexual and pansexual (because asexuality is the absence of sexual attraction, whereas pansexuality is sexual attraction regardless of gender), but one could certainly be asexual and panromantic. And the majority of orientations are not subsets of asexuality.

 

Similarly, although the terminology isn't as commonly used, following the split attraction model (that is, the idea of sexual and romantic attraction as separate things) someone could potentially be, say, homosexual (sexually attracted to their own gender) but also biromantic (romantically attracted to either gender); heterosexual (sexually attracted to the opposite sex) and aromantic (not romantically attracted to anyone); and so on.

 

My point is just that when thinking this through that differentiation is key to keep in mind. Asexuality and another sexual orientation would seem mutually exclusive, yes, but asexuality and a romantic orientation aren't contradictory at all. Does this make sense?  🙂

thank you so much for the answer i kinda agree with you. I just edited and added what my thoughts are about this topic can you take a look at that and tell me what do you think please?:)

[Linda_jj]

29 minutes ago, MacAran said:

The problem you run into with the statement like "asexual/gay" in that you are combining a specific term (asexual) with a general term (gay).  Gay by itself is generally understood to mean homosexual & homoromantic (as you correctly pointed out, sexual and romantic orientations are separate thing).  Of course, in a large portion of our population those two align and you don't need to make a distinction between them, you can just say "I'm gay" and people understand that you are both homosexual and homoromantic.  On the flip side, to say I am asexual and heteroromantic means I do not experience sexual attraction, but am romantically attracted to the the opposite gender.  (Edit: and if someone were to say something like "I'm a gay asexual" the more specific term modifies the more general one.  It's just language short hand, because the word "gay" automatically invokes a same sex relationship of some sort)

So, the problem is not an inconsistency in ideas but an inconsistency in applied terminology.  In many cases, there is no need to differentiate romantic and sexual orientation because they often align with each other to the extent that many people are unaware that there even is a distinction between them.  Meanwhile, within the ace/aro community, it becomes much more relevant because many asexuals experience romantic attraction, and need language to express that, and aros (aromantics) also need language to distinguish their lived experience from other aces (asexuals) who do experience romantic attraction.  Since this distinction between romantic and sexual orientation becomes much more relevant in these spaces, the language tends to be more specific to reflect that.  

Thanks for the answer.i agree but 

What confuses me about this is that Wikipedia has defined homosexuality as a " romantic attraction 'or' sexual attraction between members of same sex " so it means that it can be a romantic attraction without experiencing sexual attraction which sounds like a homoromantic asexual to me!

What i expected was only an explanation about sexual attraction since it's a sexual orientation and romantic orientation is sth different. 

I understand that a homoromantic homosexual is a correct term but the term "asexual" as a different sexual orientation no longer makes sense.maybe we could say that asexuaily is subset of all sexual orientations !

[Slice of Ace]

What you need to remember, @Linda_jj, is that Wikipedia is far from an infallible source of information. I imagine that was written by someone unfamiliar with the ace community. For most people, it isn't necessary to distinguish between romantic and sexual orientation because they usually align. However, since a lot of people in the ace community (myself included) have mismatching sexual and romantic orientations, it's useful to have a different word for both. Hence we refined the definitions:

Homosexual: sexual attraction to the same gender.

Homoromantic: romantic attraction to the same gender.

[SithLord]

2 hours ago, Linda_jj said:

If we assume that homoromantic asexual is gay then asexuaily won't be in different sexual orientations category but it could be subset of all sexual orientations!

And in that case what's the use of asexuaily?! 

I mean a biromantic asexual can simply call himself/herself a biromantic bisexual/homosexual/pansexual !

 

1 hour ago, Linda_jj said:

Well that's what I'm talking about.

A hetroromantic asexual is not a hetrosexual .

So a homoromantic asexual is not a homosexual as well, right?

These two things are contradictory, so I guess maybe I'm a bit confused by what you meant by your original post. You say homosexual is not homoromantic asexual, but you also said a biromantic asexual can just call themselves bisexual, which doesn't make sense to me.

 

Also, I wouldn't use Wikipedia's definition. There's a reason teachers won't let you quote Wikipedia in a research paper. It would serve you better to find multiple definitions from different dictionaries or sources. Here, I disagree with the definition used by Wikipedia since they clearly use the term "homosexual" here as an inaccurate umbrella term encompassing anyone who experiences any form of attraction towards someone of the "same" gender/sex. 

[LeChat]

3 hours ago, Linda_jj said:

...maybe we could say that asexuaily is subset of all sexual orientations !

Hi. I don't believe that'd work because there are aromantic asexuals, who aren't romantically nor sexually attracted to anyone of any sexual orientation.

 

It's true, though, that some homoromantic asexuals prefer to call themselves a "gay asexual," "lesbian asexual," etc., rather than "homoromantic asexual."

[firewallflower]

7 hours ago, Linda_jj said:

thank you so much for the answer i kinda agree with you. I just edited and added what my thoughts are about this topic can you take a look at that and tell me what do you think please?:)

Sure, and you're welcome!

 

8 hours ago, Linda_jj said:

Yet it's not how Wikipedia defines homosexuality "Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" to people of the same sex" 

which makes it confusing.

As others have said, Wikipedia (while a great tool for what it is!) is hardly the most rigorous/reliable source out there, and depending on it for specific definitions can be risky for exactly reasons such as this. Consulting dictionaries/other sources is not a bad suggestion— of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex.

 

The Cambridge Dictionary, for example, defines "homosexuality" as:

Quote

 the quality or fact of being sexually attracted to people of the same sex as you

And Merriam-Webster provides this definition:

Quote

1: sexual attraction or the tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex: the quality or state of being homosexual

2: sexual activity with another of the same sex

So in this case, looking to other sources that actually deal specifically in the business of definitions (i.e., dictionaries), can help clarify some of the confusion.

 

However, bear in mind also that the split-attraction model is still a relatively new concept, and has not yet been fully integrated into the broad academic world (or the understanding of society in general). Because for many/most people, sexual and romantic attractions are part of a (so to speak) package deal, when a -sexual label is used without a -romantic label, it's typically assumed that the sexual and romantic orientation of this person correspond; that someone who is bisexual is also biromantic, that someone is heterosexual is also heteroromantic, etc. So chances are you'll see a lot of content out there that doesn't recognize the split-attraction model, because it's still relatively obscure (but ever less so! Maybe someone will come along and edit that Wikipedia entry; technically anyone could. ).

 

Hope this helps/makes sense!

[Nirnroot]

Wiki is wrong, and luckily it can be edited. 

Homosexuality is sexual attraction. 

If you are pansexual homoromantic, you can call yourself pan, gay, or both. 

What you call yourself is up to you. 

I call myself gay even though I'm ace. 

[Nirnroot]

I suggested the edit on wiki and these were the responses I got. 

Wish I knew how to reply to these replies because I disagree. 

It does not matter if the term "homoromantic" is primarily used by asexuals. It doesn't matter that most people experience romantic and sexual attraction simultaneously. That does not change the fact that some people experience romantic attraction without sexual attraction, and I cannot bring myself to call romantic attraction sexuallity, it feels inaccurate. 

[Sally]

On 4/4/2019 at 10:21 PM, firewallflower said:

but if they are homoromantic asexual then they are inherently not homosexual.

Exactly.   You're not asexual and sexual at the same time.  

[Linda_jj]

On 4/5/2019 at 11:20 AM, Slice of Ace said:

What you need to remember, @Linda_jj, is that Wikipedia is far from an infallible source of information. I imagine that was written by someone unfamiliar with the ace community. For most people, it isn't necessary to distinguish between romantic and sexual orientation because they usually align. However, since a lot of people in the ace community (myself included) have mismatching sexual and romantic orientations, it's useful to have a different word for both. Hence we refined the definitions:

Homosexual: sexual attraction to the same gender.

Homoromantic: romantic attraction to the same gender.

I couldn't agree more! That's exactly what I'm talking about.

They totally have ignored asexuality because if homosexuality can be romantic attraction alone (and not necessarily sexual attraction) then what is asexuality?! Are they claiming that there is no such thing as asexuality and you could be only romantically attracted to others regardless of what your sexual orientation is?! 

Anyway do you know any reliable source or article about it?

[Linda_jj]

On 4/5/2019 at 11:25 AM, sithgirlix said:

 

These two things are contradictory, so I guess maybe I'm a bit confused by what you meant by your original post. You say homosexual is not homoromantic asexual, but you also said a biromantic asexual can just call themselves bisexual, which doesn't make sense to me.

 

Also, I wouldn't use Wikipedia's definition. There's a reason teachers won't let you quote Wikipedia in a research paper. It would serve you better to find multiple definitions from different dictionaries or sources. Here, I disagree with the definition used by Wikipedia since they clearly use the term "homosexual" here as an inaccurate umbrella term encompassing anyone who experiences any form of attraction towards someone of the "same" gender/sex. 

I said if we assume that a homosexual/hetrosexual/bisexual can be only romantically attracted to someone( and not necessarily sexually attracted as Wikipedia claims) then we have totally ignored asexuality and we are assuming that people with any sexual orientation may don't experience sexual attraction at all!

So yeah i agree.Wikipedia's definition doesn't make sense.but do you have any reliable source or article about it? I need to prove it .my homoromantic asexual friend thinks he's homosexual since Wikipedia has defined it that way:)))

[Linda_jj]

On 4/6/2019 at 8:32 AM, Mewtwo said:

I suggested the edit on wiki and these were the responses I got. 

Wish I knew how to reply to these replies because I disagree. 

It does not matter if the term "homoromantic" is primarily used by asexuals. It doesn't matter that most people experience romantic and sexual attraction simultaneously. That does not change the fact that some people experience romantic attraction without sexual attraction, and I cannot bring myself to call romantic attraction sexuallity, it feels inaccurate. 

I agree.. That's totally inaccurate and it's kind of ignoring asexuality .claiming that you may don't experience sexual attraction at all regardless of what your sexual orientation is which is not right!

 

[Linda_jj]

On 4/5/2019 at 5:13 PM, firewallflower said:

Maybe someone will come along and edit that Wikipedia entry; technically anyone could

Unfortunately that page is protected.you can't edit it

[Linda_jj]

On 4/5/2019 at 9:12 AM, Linda_jj said:

Since homoromanticism can also be used to describe any person who typically feels romantic feelings to persons of the same gender, but feels sexual feelings towards a different gender i think it means that sexual orientation and romantic orientation are two different things.

And since asexuality is a sexual orientation just like other sexual orientations one can only be defined by one of the sexual orientations not two of them at the same time!

I mean does it make sense if i say I'm pansexual/gay ?!

then how does saying I'm asexual/gay makes sense?!

(keeping in mind that sexual orientation and romantic orientation are two different things)

If we assume that homoromantic asexual is gay then asexuaily won't be in different sexual orientations category but it could be subset of all sexual orientations!

And in that case what's the use of asexuaily?! 

I mean a biromantic asexual can simply call himself/herself a biromantic bisexual/homosexual/pansexual !

 

What i think is that a homoromantic asexual is not a homosexual. Because a homosexual is someone who experiences sexual attraction towards same sex while a homoromantic asexual doesn't experience sexual attraction.

Yet it's not how Wikipedia defines homosexuality "Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" to people of the same sex" 

which makes it confusing.

 

Okay guys I'm not surprised at all i checked the references and this is what i found.

1980s

• Adam, Barry (1987). The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement, G. K. Hall & Co. ISBN 0-8057-9714-9
• Boswell, John (1980), Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-06711-7, archived from the original on 28 September 2006
• they haven't even tried to update it!

[Slice of Ace]

5 hours ago, Linda_jj said:

I couldn't agree more! That's exactly what I'm talking about.

They totally have ignored asexuality because if homosexuality can be romantic attraction alone (and not necessarily sexual attraction) then what is asexuality?! Are they claiming that there is no such thing as asexuality and you could be only romantically attracted to others regardless of what your sexual orientation is?! 

Anyway do you know any reliable source or article about it?

I think it's just an oversight from an out-of-date wiki page. Asexuality has only recently come into the public eye and there's still lots more representation needed, so we can't expect every single source of information on the internet to change straight away. 

 

As for a reliable source, you're probably sitting in the best one. AVEN is a great source - either through the main page or wikis - of anything asexual or aromantic.

[Sugar Clouds]

It is kind of a bit tricky. I think when it comes to romantic orientations, you can be more than one depending on what you identify as. Most people do not separate sexual attraction & romantic attraction into different orientations (some don't know romantic orientations even exist). I know some people even say that asexual isn't a sexual orientation since having no sexual attraction & desire doesn't make any sense to label it under sexual orientation. Which I find odd because where do we put asexual then? But if someone is asexual & homoromantic, it just means that person doesn't have sexual attraction/desire but feels romantic attraction towards the same sex. Same can be said for the biromantic asexual, they're only romantically attracted to both sexes, but no sexual desire. There's even people that don't feel romantic attraction ( aromantics), but will identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or whatever to show that they have a sexual attraction to someone. Everything is very complex and I think as more people learn there's more orientations besides sexual, then we can help clear the distinction between all of them. But for now, we just wait and educate those we come in contact with when we're asked about our attraction.