How do heteroromantic aces feel about being called 'straight'?

[Rhyn Corinn]

I myself don't identify as 'straight' because it makes me feel like my asexuality is being brushed off and I'm seen as 'basically just like everyone else'. But I was wondering, how do other heteroromantic aces feel about being called straight? What are some reasons a hetero-ace might find 'straight' a useful label, as well as other reasons why some don't like it? And, is it the same as a homoromantic ace using labels like gay, lesbian, etc., or not? I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this.

[Guest]

I dont have issues, I call myself straight period. Even if people know Im ace I still call myself straight. 

[Philip027]

It's honestly still how I typically refer to myself.

 

To me all "straight" means is that you look toward the opposite sex for relationship partners, which I definitely still do.  (Not so much actively anymore though, as I'm married, but I still have an overall inclination toward the opposite sex for any sort of interaction, not simply for relationship prospects.)  And for me at least, the romantic orientation matters more in my associations with people than the sexual orientation does.

 

I'll only correct people if they start calling me "heterosexual", because that would definitely be inaccurate.

[michaeld]

I mostly lean aromantic since around 2011 or so, but when I came to AVEN in 2009 I identified as a heteroromantic asexual. I was fine with being called a "straight asexual". I always took straight to mean heterosexual and/or heteroromantic. Others may use the term differently though so it's best not to apply the label "straight" to someone who identifies as heteroromantic unless you know they're ok with it.

[Guest]

I used to describe myself as straight before I knew better, but I would prefer not to be called that now because straight males are often thought of as wanting to do the no-pants dance more than anything else, and as soon as possible. As far as I know, that's what the term "crush" usually implies although it's something totally different for me, and that assumption will send 'em running. In fact it seems that just being male is enough to cause the females to keep their distance.

[Eutierria]

As a hetero-romantic ace, I'm fine with being called "straight". The people who use this term, usually mean hetero-sexual or hetero-romantic. 

 

However, if want to go by the LGBTQIA+ terms then any label represented can be taken to be synonymous with "Not Straight". So...could get rather confusing for me depending who's asking & what the word means for them.

 

If an ace asks if I'm straight, I'll probably clarify by self-labelling as hetero-romantic. If an allo asks if I'm straight, I might get into a discussion about asexuality. 

[LionRoar]

I don't call myself straight, but I enjoy the ability to pass.

[Guest]

To throw a spanner in the works:

 

I know many straight (and gay) sexual people actually don't like it when asexuals identify as straight or gay within the context of dating.

 

Outside of dating, you can call yourself whatever you want. But the labels 'straight' and 'gay' (and 'bi') refer to SEXUAL orientation, not solely romantic, unless you specifically clarify the 'asexual' part at the end.  So like, 'I'm a straight asexual' is a good example.

 

It is misleading for an ace who is dating to identify as gay or straight though. It would be like if a gay man was dating, but was identifying as 'straight' solely because he was actually seeking a sexless relationship with a woman. Even if he said 'well, I'll give you sex if you want it' most sexual people are still actually very unhappy with that kind of sex. They want it to be mutually desired sex, not sex that's only given.

 

I have seen aces say stuff like 'well I'm happy to give sex, so if I call myself 'straight' then that's pretty accurate' but yeah to sexual people, it's not really accurate because the ace knows full well they personally prefer not to have sex so it's misleading to use a label that means 'under the right circumstances I will actively desire sex with people of this or that gender'

 

1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

To me all "straight" means is that you look toward the opposite sex for relationship partners, which I definitely still do.

Yeah but if you went on a dating site identifying as a straight man, all hetero women would assume that means you're seeking a hetero-sexual relationship. That's what 'straight' means for sexual people. So it's really, really important to clarify within the context of dating that you are a straight asexual if you must use a label that already has a recognized and accepted meaning for the vast majority of the population.

[Philip027]

I would never in a million years use a dating site or enter any sort of dating scene really, so I'm fine there.  I do agree that in those environments, it would be misleading and probably just result in trouble

[SallyBlackwater]

Eh, it depends. I don't really have a problem with being labelled as "straight" (I would define myself as "straight ace" if I were asked by someone who is really not that informed about LGBTQ matters), as long as the term is not used to invalidate the ace part of me.

[Alawyn-Aebt]

I don't have a problem with it. Personally I find it easier to simply been seen as straight. After all the vast majority of people in one's life don't care and don't need to know one's sexual orientation. Since being a heteromantic asexual means I am straight-minus-sex being seen as straight is not far off. Personally I don't care if asexuality is brushed off by society at large or if it simplifies the actual scenario. But the label is not a part of my identity and I would be perfectly happy not using any labels, although since that is impractical I  continue to use them.

 

In a situation where I was actively dating someone or looking for someone to date I would make my lack of feelings towards sex apparent however.

[everywhere and nowhere]

3 hours ago, Eutierria said:

The people who use this term, usually mean hetero-sexual or hetero-romantic.

Sorry to disappoint you, but most people who use this term don't even know that there is "such a thing" as "heteroromantic but not heterosexual"...

[R_1]

3 hours ago, Not Pan Ficto. said:

 if you must use a label that already has a recognized and accepted meaning for the vast majority of the population.

Sure to many straight means heterosexual, but also there's quite a good amount of people that would be more than happy to expand it to mean hetero-orientated or already do redefine it to hetero-orientated.That even includes sexual people.  I don't think words like this ever mean to be that rigid to the point where one definition is correct. I think this would also depend on context.

[AceMissBehaving]

I wouldn’t describe myself as straight, and don’t appreciate it if someone refers to me as straight. I feel it erases my asexual identity, and I don’t find it to feel particularly accurate. 

 

What a heterosexual person wants and needs out of a relationship, and what I want and need out of a relationship are vastly different things.

[Duke Memphis]

It doesn't irk me much when people mistake me for straight, but I'm not straight. If people intentionally say I'm not ace, though... That irritates me.

[Firefly8]

This would make an interesting poll in the census forum..... 🙂

[Rhyn Corinn]

42 minutes ago, Firefly8 said:

This would make an interesting poll in the census forum..... 🙂

Ooo, good idea. I'll get right on that! 

[Eutierria]

12 hours ago, United Pizza 149 said:

What are some reasons a hetero-ace might find 'straight' a useful label,

@United Pizza 149, perhaps @Nowhere Girl's comment answers that question somewhat. 

7 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

Sorry to disappoint you, but most people who use this term don't even know that there is "such a thing" as "heteroromantic but not heterosexual"...

 

[michaeld]

Yes I found straight a useful label when I identified that way because it was a well known term and seemed to be accurate for me (romantically at least). I'd always use it as part of "straight asexual" or "straight ace" (unless the context made the asexuality part obvious), rather than just straight by itself, which I agree would be misleading.

 

Another reason some ace-spectrum folks may have for using straight rather than heteroromanic (or gay rather than homoromantic) is that they might not find the split orientation model works for them. For example I've heard some grey-A people say that they experience attraction rarely but, when it happens, the sexual and romantic attraction come together (or there is no way of distinguishing them), so straight makes more sense as a label than heteroromantic, if their attraction is to the opposite gender.

 

13 hours ago, Eutierria said:

However, if want to go by the LGBTQIA+ terms then any label represented can be taken to be synonymous with "Not Straight". So...could get rather confusing for me depending who's asking & what the word means for them.

Yes that's a good point, as some take straight to mean "not queer". However not everyone does. For example a trans person might well call themselves straight, but that certainly doesn't preclude them being queer or part of LGBTQ+. I think the same should apply to straight asexuals. But again it's up to the individual which labels they identify with.

[Marmalade]

I'm good with being called straight, as long as it's made clear that i'm only talking about it in a romantic sense. I label myself as a "straight ace" because it's far easier than saying "heteroromantic ace". However, I am not and will never be "one of the straights", nor will I ever just label myself as straight, bc thats just lies. 

[BeakLove]

I think "straight asexual" or "straight but asexual" is the most clear term to people outside of this community. Communicates gender preference and lack of desire for sex relatively cleanly. As to whether it's a "lie" to say you're straight, personally I don't think it is. To take the example of the gay man offered by @Not Pan Ficto., seeking a "sexless relationship" with a woman: okay, clearly he isn't straight, and such an arrangement would not be ideal for most of the dating pool. But if he's genuinely capable of having romantic feelings for a woman (and it isn't just a sham arrangement for show), but simply doesn't wish for the sexual element, is that really any different than an asexual person in the same boat (except their sexual indifference extends to both sexes). He's certainly bi, in any case.

 

I think if you're solely attracted to the opposite sex; if that is the sole sex with whom you are capable of developing intimate relationships, then "straight" is fair game.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, BeakLove said:

okay, clearly he isn't straight, and such an arrangement would not be ideal for most of the dating pool. But if he's genuinely capable of having romantic feelings for a woman (and it isn't just a sham arrangement for show), but simply doesn't wish for the sexual element, is that really any different than an asexual person in the same boat

 

No, he's lying if he's only seeking romance because the term STRAIGHT (to sexual people) very much includes sex. For some reason many asexuals seem almost incapable of understanding this and I just don't know why, but sex is an INTEGRAL aspect of romance for sexual people. To many sexual people, it's not even romantic love if the sex isn't there (yes, we know that's not correct. But that's just how most sexual people feel when it comes to romantic love).

 

So yes you'd be literally flat out lying if you were gay, but said you were straight solely in the hopes of snaring a hetero person for romance but not sex.

 

2 hours ago, BeakLove said:

I think if you're solely attracted to the opposite sex; if that is the sole sex with whom you are capable of developing intimate relationships, then "straight" is fair game.

 

Only if you actually want sex with them though.

 

I will never be able to fathom the way the asexual community goes after words that have established meanings and tries to change them to mean something totally different. 

 

Straight = I desire sexually intimate relationships with people of a different gender than myself, that may or may not include romance. That's all that it means. End of.

[Philip027]

Quote

Only if you actually want sex with them though.

 

I will never be able to fathom the way the asexual community goes after words that have established meanings and tries to change them to mean something totally different. 

 

Straight = I desire sexually intimate relationships with people of a different gender than myself, that may or may not include romance. That's all that it means. End of.

I imagine we'll stop doing that when other people stop assuming that just because someone's asexual it must also mean they must be cold or otherwise disinterested in relationships altogether.

 

But because people must insist on conflating sexual and romantic attraction, this is the sort of thing that inevitably results.

[sierraa]

( I know im biromantic so I don't quite fit the criteria for this forum, but if I was heteromantic I'd still use the same.)

If I feel like explaining my asexuality to that person, or if it's someone online or a very close friend I identify as biromantic asexual. If not, mostly if an allosexual asks I just say i'm bisexual and if it's someone not close at all I just say I'm straight. I'm not scared of being lgbt, it's very supported here but I also don't like the privacy invasion by randoms. I live in a small town and any talk of gay or bisexual relationships usually spreads like wildfire in the teenage community.

[BeakLove]

10 hours ago, Not Pan Ficto. said:

No, he's lying if he's only seeking romance because the term STRAIGHT (to sexual people) very much includes sex. For some reason many asexuals seem almost incapable of understanding this and I just don't know why, but sex is an INTEGRAL aspect of romance for sexual people. To many sexual people, it's not even romantic love if the sex isn't there (yes, we know that's not correct. But that's just how most sexual people feel when it comes to romantic love).

Well I think romance and sex are linked and I don't think you can cleave them apart cleanly. A sex preference ultimately has sexual predicates.

 

Quote

 

So yes you'd be literally flat out lying if you were gay, but said you were straight solely in the hopes of snaring a hetero person for romance but not sex.

 

Well, I don't disagree if he's doing it for show/social points. I just don't think a man who can feel genuinely romantically attracted to women is gay, either. 

 

Quote

I will never be able to fathom the way the asexual community goes after words that have established meanings and tries to change them to mean something totally different. 

That isn't a unique phenomenon to here:

Quote

Straight = I desire sexually intimate relationships with people of a different gender than myself, that may or may not include romance. That's all that it means. End of.

Even this definition of "straight" is itself a new re-definition that doesn't jive with most people. "Of a different gender than myself"???. Straight means I'm exclusively attracted to the opposite sex. It's a fairly binary and simple distinction.

 

My argument is simply if the domain of that attraction doesn't ever include having sex, I still think it's fair game to call yourself straight (as long as you're upfront, as anyone should be). It's as valid as someone being upfront that romance won't be part of the equation for them. 

[SithLord]

If the person is aware that I'm asexual and therefore understands it's a description of my romantic orientation, I don't mind going by straight. If I'm generally closeted to the person and/or couldn't be bothered coming out and explaining why I'm still with my fiance, then I don't care because it's half-right. But generally I describe myself as asexual and prefer it to straight. Saying I'm straight is still misleading, so if there's no reason to hide it from them then I don't care about being out. To me, "straight" is the adjective to my "asexual" noun; it's more important that I'm called "ace" than to be called "straight". 

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Philip027 said:

But because people must insist on conflating sexual and romantic attraction, this is the sort of thing that inevitably results.

It's not that people 'insist' on it, that's just how it works for sexual people.

 

But the term straight refers to who you desire sex with, because you get life-long bachelors or people who just hate romantic relationships or whatever who are still very 'straight' or gay or whatever. The romantic aspect is just tied into that for romantic sexual people.

 

A straight person might never have a romantic feeling in their life but still be straight because of who they desire sex with.

 

Asexuals can try to twist it or get upset about it or whatever, and sure they can use the term if not actually dating (just like a gay person might use it), but the term itself just doesn't mean what many aces seem to think it means. It doesn't refer to ROMANTIC orientation but sexual orientation. It's just that for many (most) romantic sexuals their romantic orientation coincides with their sexual orientation. There are still plenty sexuals who are straight(gay etc) who are not romantic but are still straight (or gay etc) based on who they desire sex with.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, BeakLove said:

Even this definition of "straight" is itself a new re-definition that doesn't jive with most people. "Of a different gender than myself"???. Straight means I'm exclusively attracted to the opposite sex. It's a fairly binary and simple distinction.

I only said that becaus on AVEN certain people get upset if you say "opposite gender" because it implies only two genders. I'm very conservative in my view of gender but have had warnings over it in the past so try to accommodate by saying "different" gender when discussing straight people, otherwise I get accused of agender and other gender erasure.

 

7 hours ago, BeakLove said:

Well I think romance and sex are linked and I don't think you can cleave them apart cleanly. A sex preference ultimately has sexual predicates.

Well there are many sexual people who are not interested in romance, don't experience romantic feelings, but are still straight (or gay or whatever) based on who they desire sex with. For romantic sexual people, their romantic orientation almost always coincides with their sexual orientation is all. But not all sexual people are romantic (a lot less than people assume actually. The romantic ones are just often the most vocal)

 

7 hours ago, BeakLove said:

Well, I don't disagree if he's doing it for show/social points. I just don't think a man who can feel genuinely romantically attracted to women is gay, either. 

He'd be biromantic homosexual. Straight refers primarily to sexual orientation. If he said he was straight and didn't feel romantic attraction for anyone, the woman would still accept him as straight. If he said he was straight because he felt romantic love for her, but had no interest in her or any other woman sexually, the vast majority of sexual people wouldn't see that as 'straight' and would feel they'd been lied to. Especially if he actively wanted sex with men.

 

7 hours ago, BeakLove said:

My argument is simply if the domain of that attraction doesn't ever include having sex, I still think it's fair game to call yourself straight

Yes that's what many people in the ace community seem to believe, I'm just trying to explain that they're misinterpreting the term 'straight' as referring more to feelings than to whom you desire sex with. Whereas 'straight' first and foremost defines who you desire sex with (regardless of other factors) and that's how the vast majority of sexual people use the term. There's like 1% of the population (ie many asexuals) insisting it means something else when the rest of the world automatically interprets it as meaning something very specific (who you desire sex with, regardless of whether you also desire romantic relationships with those people).

[Philip027]

Quote

It's not that people 'insist' on it, that's just how it works for sexual people.

When they refuse to acknowledge that not everyone else is necessarily like them, it's insistence.

 

Quote

I only said that becaus on AVEN certain people get upset if you say "opposite gender" because it implies only two genders. I'm very conservative in my view of gender but have had warnings over it in the past so try to accommodate by saying "different" gender when discussing straight people, otherwise I get accused of agender and other gender erasure.

The point is that typically "straight" has referred to attraction to the opposite sex, not gender.  Modern times have already seen trying to modify the term to be more inclusive of gender (which some people recognize, and others might not).

 

Subsequent point being, "straight" already doesn't strictly mean what it has traditionally meant anymore (neither does "gay" or "lesbian" for that matter; many aces still use those terms to indicate their romantic orientations), so I don't see the point of being a hardass about it.

 

I'm only a hardass about not labeling myself "heterosexual" or allowing myself to be labeled that way, because it is very explicit in what it refers to, and I am not that.  "Straight" simply does not have that same level of explicitness.  If it used to, it doesn't anymore.

[BeakLove]

3 hours ago, Not Pan Ficto. said:

I only said that becaus on AVEN certain people get upset if you say "opposite gender" because it implies only two genders. I'm very conservative in my view of gender but have had warnings over it in the past so try to accommodate by saying "different" gender when discussing straight people, otherwise I get accused of agender and other gender erasure.

Quote

Yes that's what many people in the ace community seem to believe, I'm just trying to explain that they're misinterpreting the term 'straight' as referring more to feelings than to whom you desire sex with. Whereas 'straight' first and foremost defines who you desire sex with (regardless of other factors) and that's how the vast majority of sexual people use the term. There's like 1% of the population (ie many asexuals) insisting it means something else when the rest of the world automatically interprets it as meaning something very specific (who you desire sex with, regardless of whether you also desire romantic relationships with those people).

Well re:gender, we won't open a can of worms. I think the only relevant point to this discussion is: even if you accept the existence of a multiplicity of genders, the idea of gender identity, etc. ultimately orientation comes down to sex class. I've thought for quite a while that sexual orientation might be better labelled sex orientation. It is an orientation, predicated on sex class membership, towards having intimate relations with members of one or both sex classes. You might be attracted to various "gender expressions" (masculine genders, etc.), but if they span only one sex you're hetero/homo, and if both sexes, you're bi.

 

Quote

Well there are many sexual people who are not interested in romance, don't experience romantic feelings, but are still straight (or gay or whatever) based on who they desire sex with. For romantic sexual people, their romantic orientation almost always coincides with their sexual orientation is all.

I agree. But personally I don't see that "romantic orientation" exists as an independent variable. It is another sex-based orientation, and what can a sex-based orientation be responding to other than sexual characteristics? Both sexual and romantic orientation are responding to the same underlying force. 

 

3 hours ago, Not Pan Ficto. said:

He'd be biromantic homosexual. Straight refers primarily to sexual orientation.

Well I don't think this particular guy can call himself "straight", so I do agree there. Having said that, as a general comment, I just don't believe in the real world you get this sort of combination. Not often anyway. I do think you're far more likely to get so-called "bisexual hetero-romantics" - for example men who enjoy sex with both men and women - but who would say things like "I could never date a guy" and probably (for social reasons) identify as straight. Nothing wrong with preferring an opposite sex relationship, but I'd treat their claim of "could never" with some scepticism. I just think they have a hang up. After all, once the sexual attraction  boundary is crossed, what is the fundamental, ingrained, blocking force stopping them from falling for a guy?

 

I think if you're attracted to the opposite sex, exclusively, in all the usual ways people are, sans the literal act of having sex, it's still fair game to call yourself straight. From the outside point of view, any relationship will resemble any typical straight couple (we don't tend to directly see each other's sex lives!) It's still a sex-based distinction. And it's still a response, on some level, to the sexual characteristics of potential partners. A straight asexual male may find the thought of sex unappealing generally, but enjoy cuddling up and kissing with a woman. But the thought of doing that with a male is probably very unattractive. To suggest that's based on some completely separate "romantic orientation", and thus mandates a totally separate taxonomy, seems disingenuous to me.