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

[Frac]

Kind of conflicted about this. I mean, I'm mostly closeted and use it all the time, and it's fine as long as no one wants to discuss allo-specific feelings. Yet, it will quickly get awkward after people open that can of worms.

 

I mean, can any of you wrap your mind around the idea of feeling bad if your SO switched from construction to some cozy office work, and their body type started to reflect this fact? This is the kind of situation where I can't say I really understand "straight" feelings.

[GlamRocker]

I agree with many of the things BOTH @BeakLove and @Not Pan Ficto. have been saying... seems crazy, I know, but... yes, orientation is about who you will have sex with (Pan Ficto), but YES, the romantic orientations are still based on people's genitals (Beak Love) so how do they NOT have at LEAST a psychologically sexual element?

 

I no longer believe that asexuality is an orientation. I believe that your orientation is really your romantic orientation and that asexuality is some other separate part of a person's natural psychology that causes them to lack sexual desire. It kind of has to be, because the romantic orientations are based on people's genitals.

 

You could take this to mean that only aromantics are asexuals... but that seems unlikely given how many of them watch porn.

 

So, as far as I'm concerned, heteroromantic aces ARE straight, but ALSO asexual.

 

However, @Not Pan Ficto. is right, orientation has always referred STRICTLY to who you will have sex with. I just no longer think that calling asexuality an orientation is honest.

 

Consider this... I have enjoyed making out with both men and women in my life. I have been SEEN enjoying this. And even though (I just made a thread on this in the Hot Box called, "The reason a prostitute won't kiss you!!!") kissing is experienced primarily as affection... WHO IS GOING TO THINK I'M NOT A LITTLE GAY? No matter how aware they are of asexuality. (I won't say "my asexuality" anymore, as asexual has been a meaningless word for some time now.)

[Philip027]

Quote

but YES, the romantic orientations are still based on people's genitals

Uhh, no.  I'm a romantic ace and I assure you that isn't how it works (maybe it does for some but it is definitely not universal).

 

You do realize that there's more differences between the sexes than just genitals, right?

[GlamRocker]

22 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Uhh, no.  I'm a romantic ace and I assure you that isn't how it works (maybe it does for some but it is definitely not universal).

 

You do realize that there's more differences between the sexes than just genitals, right?

No there aren't. Sex is biological/genital, GENDER is identity. I assume you mean transpeople here. A transwoman is a gendered woman, but is biologically male, a transman is a gendered man but biologically female... if this weren't true, they wouldn't even be trans.

[GlamRocker]

And if the romantic orientations weren't based on genitals, they wouldn't even exist. You'd have no reason, as an asexual, to even specify a preference.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, GlamRocker said:

So, as far as I'm concerned, heteroromantic aces ARE straight, but ALSO asexual.

Yeah they can either specify they're "straight asexual" "hetero-asexual" or "hetero-romantic asexual". All are accurate because that clarifies that innate desire for partnered sex is NOT a component.

 

It's just when an ace literally says "I'm straight because I like men" (or whatever) that I take issue with because the label 'straight' used on its own like that already has an established meaning (which defines who you desire sex with regardless of whether or not you're a romantic person).

 

44 minutes ago, GlamRocker said:

I just no longer think that calling asexuality an orientation is honest.

I just think it's easier for some people to say "my orientation is asexual that means I don't want to bang anyone of any gender" haha! But it could just as easily be defined as a lack of orientation. However that's when people start getting confused with pansexuality, in which someone often has no specific preference for any gender. That's when you get people saying "I'm asexual because I love sex but don't care who I have it with!! I'll bang anyone!!!" (Sigh). So yeah it's definitely a foggy area heh.

[Philip027]

Quote

No there aren't. Sex is biological/genital, GENDER is identity. I assume you mean transpeople here. A transwoman is a gendered woman, but is biologically male, a transman is a gendered man but biologically female... if this weren't true, they wouldn't even be trans.

Yes, there are.  You not being able to see them does not mean they don't exist.

 

Also, I was not talking about trans in any sort of capacity; not sure why you're bringing that up.

 

Quote

And if the romantic orientations weren't based on genitals, they wouldn't even exist. You'd have no reason, as an asexual, to even specify a preference.

Also, not correct, because again there are more differences between the sexes than just genitals.  If what you suggest was true, all it would take to completely cure a trans person of any sort of dysphoria would just be to just slap some new genitals on them.  Trust me, that isn't the case for everyone.

[BeakLove]

1 hour ago, GlamRocker said:

I agree with many of the things BOTH @BeakLove and @Not Pan Ficto. have been saying... seems crazy, I know, but... yes, orientation is about who you will have sex with (Pan Ficto), but YES, the romantic orientations are still based on people's genitals (Beak Love) so how do they NOT have at LEAST a psychologically sexual element?

 

I no longer believe that asexuality is an orientation. I believe that your orientation is really your romantic orientation and that asexuality is some other separate part of a person's natural psychology that causes them to lack sexual desire. It kind of has to be, because the romantic orientations are based on people's genitals.

 

You could take this to mean that only aromantics are asexuals... but that seems unlikely given how many of them watch porn.

Genitals is a bit reductive (since @Philip027 is right, genitals are only one of the differences between the sexes) but that's the essence of the point. 

 

Orientation is a sex-based distinction. What distinguishes the sexes? Their sexual characteristics. Of course there are personality traits which align more heavily with one sex than another, but it would be incorrect to call a male "straight" were he to find himself in an intimate relationship with another male, no matter how "feminine" in character they may be. For a genuinely hetero- male, there will always be that block. An asexual male having that block reaction, is still responding to the same characteristics that a sexual male is, be it genitals, body shape, bone structure, voice, etc. If none of those are a deal breaker issue for you then you're probably bi.

 

38 minutes ago, Not Pan Ficto. said:

I just think it's easier for some people to say "my orientation is asexual that means I don't want to bang anyone of any gender" haha! But it could just as easily be defined as a lack of orientation. However that's when people start getting confused with pansexuality, in which someone often has no specific preference for any gender. That's when you get people saying "I'm asexual because I love sex but don't care who I have it with!! I'll bang anyone!!!" (Sigh). So yeah it's definitely a foggy area heh.

I think even many asexual people would concede that's a very unnatural use of the term though. Unlike many of the newer terms that have been coined in recent years, most people can grasp the basic connotation of "asexual" without it needing further explanation. 

[Philip027]

Quote

Orientation is a sex-based distinction. What distinguishes the sexes? Their sexual characteristics. Of course there are personality traits which align more heavily with one sex than another, but it would be incorrect to call a male "straight" were he to find himself in an intimate relationship with another male, no matter how "feminine" in character they may be. For a genuinely hetero- male, there will always be that block. An asexual male having that block reaction, is still responding to the same characteristics that a sexual male is, be it genitals, body shape, bone structure, voice, etc. If none of those are a deal breaker issue for you then you're probably bi.

Yep, this.

 

This is why I don't agree with gender being used as the one and only basis for sexual orientation.  Gender simply does not extend to most people's sexual preferences.  As you basically hinted at here, a typical heterosexual male is usually going to desire sexual relationships with people who have female-bodied equipment -- not someone who's got male-bodied equipment, no matter how "female" they might identify as.

 

Trying to use gender as the only basis for sexual orientation implies that the aforementioned heterosexual male ought to be just as willing to be in a sexual relationship with each person, and that simply isn't usually the case in practice.

[GlamRocker]

@BeakLove I'm on your side on a lot of things, though not all. Romantic orientations HAVE to be about genitals, unless they are about GENDER (to recap, SEX is about genitals/biology, GENDER is social identity/persona/appearance.) Now if the romantic orientations are about GENDER and not SEX (genitals) that means that all romantic asexuals are capable of being attracted to transpeople, as long as their GENDER matches the asexual's preferred gender.

 

Now, I think this would be GREAT! But is it true? I don't think so.

 

How many heteroromantic asexuals include transpeople in who they are attracted to, compared to how many of them only mean CIS PEOPLE? I've got a feeling most of them mean ONLY CIS PEOPLE. It's the panromantics or biromantics that include transpeople in their dating pool in general (I'm sure there are exceptions, going on the the trend here.) Meaning, the trend is that romantic orientations are about genitals.

 

3 minutes ago, BeakLove said:

I think even many asexual people would concede that's a very unnatural use of the term though. Unlike many of the newer terms that have been coined in recent years, most people can grasp the basic connotation of "asexual" without it needing further explanation. 

Sad to report this isn't so. The word ASEXUAL needs like a Bible of explanations now. NO ONE knows what it's supposed to even BE anymore.

[GlamRocker]

8 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Yep, this.

 

This is why I don't agree with gender being used as the one and only basis for sexual orientation.  Gender simply does not extend to most people's sexual preferences.  As you basically hinted at here, a typical heterosexual male is usually going to desire sexual relationships with people who have female-bodied equipment -- not someone who's got male-bodied equipment, no matter how "female" they might identify as.

 

Trying to use gender as the only basis for sexual orientation implies that the aforementioned heterosexual male ought to be just as willing to be in a sexual relationship with each person, and that simply isn't usually the case in practice.

I'm not using gender, that's my whole point. I'm using SEX...GENITALS...ROMANTIC ATTRACTION IS ABOUT GENITALS, NOT GENDER... that is literally my whole point you are repeating here.

[Philip027]

Quote

I'm not using gender, that's my whole point. I'm using SEX...GENITALS...ROMANTIC ATTRACTION IS ABOUT GENITALS, NOT SEX... that is literally my whole point you are repeating here.

Yeah, and your point is wrong.  A person's sex isn't just about "genitals".  Sex determines other things than just that.  Ergo, by extension, romantic orientation is also not inherently about "genitals" either.

[GlamRocker]

@Philip027 just read, here's one:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363

[GlamRocker]

So here it is as clear as it can be made:

 

Romantic attraction is either about SEX (genitals/biology...aka A PERSON'S SEXUAL BODY) or it is about GENDER (identity/persona/role/appearance... aka A PERSON'S SPIRIT.)

 

Now, if romantic attraction is about GENDER, that means that heteroromantic males are ATTRACTED TO TRANSWOMEN as well as cis women, as they are attracted to WOMAN IN SPIRIT.

 

But if romantic attraction is about SEX, that means heteroromantic males are only attracted to CIS WOMEN, meaning ONLY ATTRACTED TO PEOPLE WITH FEMALE BIOLOGY. This seems to be how people are actually identifying, hence... the romantic orientations are about people's genitals (biological sex) and, therefore, have at least a psychologically sexual component.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

*giggles in mecha, hides back under rock*

[Rynn]

4 hours ago, GlamRocker said:

Now, if romantic attraction is about GENDER, that means that heteroromantic males are ATTRACTED TO TRANSWOMEN as well as cis women, as they are attracted to WOMAN IN SPIRIT.

It does actually tend to be heterosexual men who are attracted to trans women. Of course not all heterosexual men will be attracted to trans women, but gay men mostly aren't.

 

You're forgetting about gender expression. That is what tends to attract people. Not identity, not genitals. People are generally attracted to someone before they get to see their genitals. Just saying, you never know what you're gonna find   (imagine a Forrest Gump accent here)

 

Also let's remember that there are people who are heteroromantic homosexual and vice versa.

 

 

On a modly note to everyone, please be careful not to determine what people's labels can and cannot be. You can disagree with people's usage of words like straight and gay, as long as you make it clear it is your personal opinion. See this announcement for more information.

Laurann, moderator

[Missing]

3 hours ago, Laurann said:

It does actually tend to be heterosexual men who are attracted to trans women. Of course not all heterosexual men will be attracted to trans women, but gay men mostly aren't.

 

You're forgetting about gender expression. That is what tends to attract people. Not identity, not genitals. People are generally attracted to someone before they get to see their genitals.

This lines up with my experience as a trans woman, FWIW.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, BeakLove said:

I think even many asexual people would concede that's a very unnatural use of the term though. Unlike many of the newer terms that have been coined in recent years, most people can grasp the basic connotation of "asexual" without it needing further explanation. 

That would be amazing, but sadly the total opposite is true.

 

Outside of AVEN, other ace communities are HUGE on the whole "aces can love sex, they just don't care who they have it with" idea, and these are the people who represent asexuality in the media for the most part.

 

Many media articles you come across now say things like "aces are just like everyone else in that they can love sex and have a healthy, happy sex life, they just don't feel attraction so they desire partnered sex for other reasons like respect, love, or just because it feels amazing" (ie the exact reasons most SEXUAL people have sex. 'Atrraction' isn't some magical thing, it's just whatever trigger draws you to desire sex with other people, ugh).

 

So you get 'aces' in the media saying things like "I'm an asexual demisexual slut which means I love sex but only with people I respect" and you get partners getting angry at asexuals who don't want sex because "asexuality is a spectrum and some aces love sex. You can't just say you don't desire sex unless you've actually tried it with me to see where on the spectrum you fall" (these are all real examples that have been shared by AVEN members on AVEN).

 

The vast majority of the asexual community outside of AVEN (ie Twitter, Facebook, Fetlife, Tumblr, YouTube and the media in general) supports this "sex loving asexual" model, not realising that they're confusing PANsexuality (having no gender preference) for A-sexuality (having NO desire to connect sexually with people of any gender).

 

It's a mess, and it's harming actual asexuality visibility and education while also forcing aces back into the same place they were originally: having to try to defend the fact that they don't desire partnered sex but now it's because they have identified as asexual.

 

It's a mess T_T

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Laurann said:

It does actually tend to be heterosexual men who are attracted to trans women. Of course not all heterosexual men will be attracted to trans women, but gay men mostly aren't.

4 hours ago, Laurann said:

You're forgetting about gender expression. That is what tends to attract people. Not identity, not genitals. People are generally attracted to someone before they get to see their genitals. Just saying, you never know what you're gonna find   (imagine a Forrest Gump accent here

 

You have to be so careful though because on the flip-side heterosexual men are the most likely to beat a transwoman to death if she 'deceived' him initially by not revealing she was trans 😕 (edit I mean he will feel deceived, while she may have felt it wasn't 'relevant' due to the attitude many transpeople seem to have that 'gender doesn't matter they're attracted to how you express that, not what you have between your legs')

 

While some hetero men are indeed attracted to transwomen (let's face it, they often look more womanly and beautiful than AFAB cis women), others (and this is true for many people, not just hetero men) are attracted specifically to the.. well, the 'equipment' that comes with the gender they are innately drawn to and the things you can do with that equipment.

 

It's just a fact that genitals and how you can interact with them, for many people of any orientation, are an integral aspect of what attracts them to a specific gender. And the moment you find out they don't have what you're personally into then.. You just lose that feeling that would otherwise exist (it existed because of how attracted you are to other aspects of them). If you're kind, you'll let them down softly by explaining your feelings, but if you're innately very homophobic and feel like you've been 'tricked .. Well, we hear about what happens in those situations literally all the time in the news :c

 

I know this is off topic but I think it's a very important point to make because many in the ace community and the trans community just don't seem to understand how important biology is for many people when it comes to sexual preference. For example many lesbian women really DON'T enjoy penetrative sex with a penis, but love the taste and feel of a vulva under their mouth and the different things they can do with a vulva. They can't help that they feel that way and it's not bigotry, it's just part of what makes up the gender they are attracted to (even if their female partner actually looks and behaves very masculine in many other ways!!!).

 

It's just important to remember that biology/sex characteristics etc are very important for many people when it comes to who they desire sexually, so it can't just be dismissed as "people are attracted to gender expression, not equipment" (if that was true no lesbian woman would have a very masculine female partner. And no straight woman would be interested in a very effeminate man who wears makeup etc - but both are very common types of attraction!)

[Missing]

1 hour ago, Not Pan Ficto. said:

It's just important to remember that biology/sex characteristics etc are very important for many people when it comes to who they desire sexually, so it can't just be dismissed as "people are attracted to gender expression, not equipment"

In my experience, a lot of trans folks are painfully aware of the fact that most people have genital preferences and that those preferences will affect their overall interest in a partner. There are always exceptions, but I don't think most people who talk about gender expression being the most significant factor of attraction try to dismiss that. The point is more that in our lived experience, most people who are attracted to women would rather be with a trans woman than a trans man and vice versa for people who are attracted to men. Most people are not open to interacting with genital configurations outside of what they prefer, that's true, but just having that genital configuration on its own won't be enough to attract someone either. People's sexual preferences are made up of a combination of these factors, but in my experience, the factor that tends to have the greatest effect on whether someone will be attracted to you or not is gender expression, though the other factors are relevant as well.

[Nylocke]

I actually just recently found out I was grey romantic so I identify myself as asexual grey romantic for the most part. Since I am genderqueer I did claim "androromantic" but then I tend to go for alot of androgynous type looks(like visual kei dudes who often look feminine) so that's a thing but then I don't go out of my way to pursue relationships so androromantic didn't fit either xD

[-Oli-]

Although I am currently questioning my romantic orientation, I used to go by heteroromantic and I honestly did NOT like being called straight. There has always been such a disconnect with me and the concept of heterosexuality (or homosexuality, it confuses me a bit how people can really just choose one). I suppose this is why I am questioning now, but really, I just don't like to be lumped with straight orientation because I feel I miss the biggest part of the word heterosexual - sexual

[maybeimamazed]

On 4/27/2020 at 2:24 PM, GlamRocker said:

Now, if romantic attraction is about GENDER, that means that heteroromantic males are ATTRACTED TO TRANSWOMEN as well as cis women, as they are attracted to WOMAN IN SPIRIT.

Uh... yeah. They are. The fact that many transphobes are straight men doesn't change this.

 

Google Jamie Clayton, Sophia Burset, Gigi Gorgeous. Who's supposed to desire romantic relationships with these women? Gay men, because these women have dicks? I'm confused.

[GlamRocker]

42 minutes ago, maybeimamazed said:

Google Jamie Clayton, Sophia Burset, Gigi Gorgeous. Who's supposed to desire romantic relationships with these women? Gay men, because these women have dicks? I'm confused.

I'm just observing. Yeah, it seems that it's romantically important to many people whether someone has a dick or not.

 

51 minutes ago, maybeimamazed said:

Now, if romantic attraction is about GENDER, that means that heteroromantic males are ATTRACTED TO TRANSWOMEN as well as cis women, as they are attracted to WOMAN IN SPIRIT.

 

Uh... yeah. They are. The fact that many transphobes are straight men doesn't change this.

No. Many really are not. Also, it isn't right to expect them to be. Even if it would be a lot cooler if it were true.

 

If we take sexual people into account, too, it's even LESS right to expect them to be. I mean, do you think a lesbian is a transphobe because she doesn't want to have sex with someone who has a penis?

[maybeimamazed]

49 minutes ago, GlamRocker said:

I'm just observing. Yeah, it seems that it's romantically important to many people whether someone has a dick or not.

 

No. Many really are not. Also, it isn't right to expect them to be. Even if it would be a lot cooler if it were true.

 

If we take sexual people into account, too, it's even LESS right to expect them to be. I mean, do you think a lesbian is a transphobe because she doesn't want to have sex with someone who has a penis?

Ok so you ARE saying that gay men are likely to desire romantic relationships with the women I mentioned because they have a dick.

 

I just... I don’t even know where to begin with this.

 

No, lesbians aren’t transphobes because they don’t want contact with a penis. But there are many other ways to have sex. Her trans partner can go down on her, she can wear a strap-on, etc.

 

It’s also possible for a lesbian to not be repulsed by the penis, as long as the person looks like and presents as a woman. A gay friend of mine is dating a trans men and they have penetrative PiV sex. His boyfriend has muscles, chest and facial hair. He’s a manly man. Is my friend not gay because his boyfriend has a vagina?

[GlamRocker]

@maybeimamazed Sexual people generally have genital preferences. This is just a thing.

 

1 hour ago, maybeimamazed said:

It’s also possible for a lesbian to not be repulsed by the penis, as long as the person looks like and presents as a woman.

Well, she's not a lesbian then. Lesbians don't want to have sex with penises, that's literally part of what being lesbian means. They are people with vaginas that desire to have sex with other vagina bearers. If a woman who likes to have sex with vaginas also finds penises good for the sex... she is a bi or pansexual.

 

You should know there are some lesbians who feel they are being erased and/or expected to have sex with penises because of the kind of things you are saying here.

 

1 hour ago, maybeimamazed said:

A gay friend of mine is dating a trans men and they have penetrative PiV sex. His boyfriend has muscles, chest and facial hair. He’s a manly man. Is my friend not gay because his boyfriend has a vagina?

Well, PIV sex isn't gay sex, that's for sure. So, yeah, he's bi or pan.

 

This reminds me of how a guy at work was once bragging about how he "turned" this lesbian because she agreed to have sex with him and enjoyed it. I was just like, "Dude. She just found out she's bi is all. It's not like she suddenly stopped liking women." It's not bad to discover that one is actually... bi/pan.

 

I mean, if people's sexualities were determined by GENDER and not SEX (which, yeah, would be cool... of course, I WOULD say that, I've always been of the PAN variety) then this would work... but too many people have genital preferences.

 

I mean, some people DON'T have a genital preference, and that's why they are bi/pan... sure some people won't identify that way due to having a GENDER preference (like the example with your friend here.) There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not the way sexualities are technically determined. I mean if a person with a penis has sex with another person with a penis, and then says, "It's not gay, though." That person is factually wrong. I get why someone with a gender preference, but not a genital one would identify by their gender preference, though. I'm just saying this is not the common situation, and most people not only DON'T identify that way (by a gender preference) they CAN'T (because they have a genital preference.)

 

I have just observed that the romantic orientations seem to work in the same way... most asexuals seem to be using it to distinguish the SEX that they are romantically interested in, not the gender. As, no, asexuals do NOT across the board all consider trans as romantic partners.

[R_1]

On 4/27/2020 at 11:57 AM, PanFicto. said:

Yeah they can either specify they're "straight asexual" "hetero-asexual" or "hetero-romantic asexual". All are accurate because that clarifies that innate desire for partnered sex is NOT a component.

 

It's just when an ace literally says "I'm straight because I like men" (or whatever) that I take issue with because the label 'straight' used on its own like that already has an established meaning (which defines who you desire sex with regardless of whether or not you're a romantic person).

Not to be picky, but even established words change over time. Who does it hurt if an asexual wants to think of oneself as straight? No one except language purists. If someone is confused, all they can do is clarify and that's it.

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, R_1 said:

Not to be picky, but even established words change over time

Sure words change over time, a hundred years ago gay meant happy and the F word was used solely for dry bits of wood. But that doesn't change what words mean for people right now.

 

Quote

Who does it hurt if an asexual wants to think of oneself as straight? No one except language purists. If someone is confused, all they can do is clarify and that's it.

 

I'm pretty sure most people in this community would have a problem with a straight (heterosexual) person calling themselves ace. They could go around saying they're ace, but that won't make them ace. Because ace has a specific meaning. So does the word straight. (It literally means heterosexual)

 

Ace (asexual) means: I don't desire sex with anyone. Straight (heterosexual) means: I desire sex with people of the opposite gender. 

 

I'm not sure why some people in this community take so much issue with the idea that words have meanings. Like.. why even bother with language if a word can mean anything you want it to mean?

[R_1]

4 minutes ago, PanFicto. said:

Sure words change over time, a hundred years ago gay meant happy and the F word was used solely for dry bits of wood. But that doesn't change what words mean for people right now.

 

And I'm pretty sure most people in this community would have a problem with a straight person calling themselves ace. They could go around saying they're ace, but that won't make them ace. Because ace has a specific meaning. So does the word straight.

 

Ace means: I don't desire sex with anyone. Straight means: I desire sex with people of the opposite gender. 

 

I'm not sure why some people in this community take so much issue with the idea that words have meanings. Like.. why even bother with language if a word can mean anything you want it to mean?

And a good amount of people supports the idea that straight could also mean being attracted to the opposite sex in general rather than just sexually. My point is that no one has an authority on words like straight which tends to be more loose. And they don't take issues with words having meaning, they take more issues with the idea that they have to be the correct and only meaning. That being said, I see no harms out of people who are asexual, but thinks of themselves as straight using the hetero-orientated meaning of straight. They can always clarify.

 

That being said, if straight means wanting sex with the opposite sex. So, if I am a homoromantic man but heterosexual, you expect me to use straight when everybody thinks of me as bi or gay? Don't make me laugh.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, R_1 said:

And a good amount of people supports the idea that straight could also mean being attracted to the opposite sex in general rather than just sexually.

But if someone was going around saying "im a man and I'd never have sex with with a woman, I have no interest in that, but I do want a romantic relationship with a woman, so I'm straight" people would say that person is being disingenuous because without the sex part, that person is effectively, well, asexual. Which is exactly why the asexual label exists at all.

 

We all agree that asexuals can have other kinds of attraction to people, just not sexual. So why do those other forms of attraction suddenly equate to defining factors in other people's orientations? A straight person may feel them or not feel them, but as long as they experience sexual attraction (the desire for partnered sexual contact) with people of the opposite gender, they're straight.

 

14 minutes ago, R_1 said:

My point is that no one has an authority on words like straight which tends to be more loose.

Yeah but it isn't more loose. Just like being a gay male doesn't mean "I think men are hot but I only desire sex with women".

 

Or should we loosen up 'ace' to mean people who only desire sex on Fridays??

 

Straight is no different in it's 'looseness' than gay or ace. Those words all have specific meanings for a reason.

 

14 minutes ago, R_1 said:

That being said, I see no harms out of people who are asexual, but thinks of themselves as straight using the hetero-orientated meaning of straight.

Okay well I guess you also have no issue with heterosexual people calling themselves ace too then. Because if straight doesn't mean anything specific to you then neither does ace.

 

We will have to agree to disagree though because as well all know I am massively against average straight heterosexual people calling themselves ace, as are many others in this community.