Jump to content

How can an asexual become aroused if there's no attraction to people?


Brittany_1

Recommended Posts

This might be of interest to the original question-asker

http://www.asexualityarchive.com/an-asexuals-guide-to-masturbation/

 

Also, maybe you are already quite informed on different things you could be trying, but don't feel like you have to focus on certain body parts just because that's what 'should' work. Maybe you have tried lots of things, but if you haven't and are stuck for ideas, there are some guides here https://www.scarleteen.com/tags/masturbation

 

And just because you are ace, doesn't mean you can't get aroused by sexual content. I realised that reading smutty fanfic helps me 'get in the mood' if I am not already aroused. (Although admittedly this is one of the things that does make me question how ace I 'really' am). But there have been studies that show people get aroused in response to things that wouldn't 'fit' what you might expect from their orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rhyn Corinn
9 hours ago, GlamRocker said:

(or even make a believable case that aesthetic attraction ISN'T sexual attraction.)

Ok but aesthetic attraction is just liking a person's appearance in the same way one might like the appearance of, idk, a tree or something. And I don't see anyone claiming that saying, "I like the way that tree looks," is sexual attraction. Yes, sometimes aesthetic and sexual attraction can overlap, but they are inherently different things.

 

9 hours ago, GlamRocker said:

Also, romantic attraction is based on genitals (or else why would the romantic attractions specify what SEX the object of attraction is) so it doesn't make sense that there isn't at least a psychosexual element to it.

I would say that romantic orientation is based more on gender expression rather than genitals, especially for asexuals who typically don't care much about genitals anyway. Not that it couldn't be true for some, but romantic attraction in general isn't always based on genitals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

*once again laughs from the mecha-corner*

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox

This is gone slightly off topic, but I'll allow this as is for now, It's important commentary as long as it's kept comfortably as it is now.

 

42 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

*once again laughs from the mecha-corner*

Right with ya, In the Furry corner *cautious grins from the resident Fox* :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rhyn Corinn
1 hour ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

*once again laughs from the mecha-corner*

 

17 minutes ago, Janus DarkFox said:

Right with ya, In the Furry corner *cautious grins from the resident Fox* :P

 

Well I'm in some kind of corner too, but idk what to call it... *sits quietly in corner, wishing i wasn't such a complicated person*

Link to post
Share on other sites
GlamRocker
8 hours ago, CBC said:

But let's say that someone is 100% heterosexual or homosexual. Is it about genitals? I guess? But it seems like more than that as well. What about asexuals who are 100% one or the other? (My ex was like this, no interest in other men ever.) Isn't it about more than genitals, then? Gender roles, perhaps? But then that brings up questions regarding attraction (or lack thereof) to people who are trans. Can a case be made for asexuality not really being an orientation so much as just an innate lack of interest in sexytimes with other people (which is my theory, tbh)?

If the romantic orientations are meant to reflect gender and not sex, then YES, all romantic asexuals are romantically attracted to transpeople... which is cool as hell, and could keep romantic attraction from being about genitals (and therefore, sexual in some way.) But I don't expect that all romantic asexuals will agree. I think many romantic asexuals use the romantic orientations to represent the sex, NOT the gender of who they are attracted to. Meaning, yes, I think that case CAN be made! That's why I believe what I do at this point, as you put it, "asexuality not really being an orientation so much as just an innate lack of interest in sexytimes with other people." Unless all the romantic asexuals are attracted to transpeople of the gender of their romantic orientation, there's not much in the way of sound logic to refute it.

 

Also, honestly, being who I am (someone with no interest in sexytimes) I don't care in the least about people's attraction when looking for people I have things in common with... I care about their interest in sexytimes. I'd rather share kindred with celibates than "asexuals who enjoy sex." I have more in common with the CELIBATES.

 

8 hours ago, Philip027 said:

You can keep spouting this stuff in as many threads as you like but that still doesn't make it reflect reality.

I have the right to think critically. And to believe what my critical thinking brings me to. You have that same right. Believe whatever you want.

 

6 hours ago, LibraGirl said:

Conversely I think you can be sexual and be sex repulsed, no? That being uncomfortable with sex doesn't equate to asexuality.

 

The hallmark of an asexual is that an asexual is not disturbed by their lack of sexual desire, because they don't place value upon having a sex life due to their natural inclination. The thing that disturbs them is not how THEY are... it's how being an asexual in the world can be difficult. That's the whole point of why a thing is a disorder or not... it's a disorder if it causes the person harm, keeps them from functioning, OR it disturbs them personally. If you 1) naturally lack sexual desire (not abstaining, didn't choose) and 2. Are comfortable with who you are... hell, you may not even notice! (though the world may give you shit) then... you fit what I believe to be an asexual. Whether you think sexuality is totally revolting or TOTALLY COOL (just not for you.)

 

When I said, "uncomfortable with sex" I meant they DON'T WANT TO HAVE IT... not that asexuals think boobies are gross or something. Though some do. lol

 

Anyway, a sexual person with sex repulsion would be abstaining, that is, fighting their natural sexual desire... asexuals don't abstain. They don't even choose. It may even take awhile for them to realize they're "different."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have the right to think critically. And to believe what my critical thinking brings me to. You have that same right. Believe whatever you want.

There's a difference between forming an opinion about something and being outright wrong about something.  By insisting romantic orientation is about "genitals", you are falling in the latter group.  This isn't a matter of opinion; it's not about "belief".  It's just flat out incorrect, kind of like I would be if I tried to put forth my "belief" that the sky is green.

 

A number of people with romantic orientations, not only myself, have already told you that your "genitals" claim is not correct or applicable to them.  To put it simply, your unwillingness to acknowledge experiences that don't support your (incorrect) claims doesn't exactly point toward your (supposed) status as a "critical thinker".

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

There's a difference between forming an opinion about something and being outright wrong about something.  By insisting romantic orientation is about "genitals", you are falling in the latter group.

 

A number of people with romantic orientations, not only myself, have already told you that your "genitals" claim is not correct or applicable to them.  Your unwillingness to acknowledge that does not support your claim of being a "critical thinker".

S-sorry to ask *raises hand* 

 

But really, sorry if it sounds offensive or anything but can you point me to maybe your experience or references on what romantic orientation IS about? If it isn't about the genitals, for instance. If it is about expression of gender, I ask the same question: would you find that you're able to fall in love with someone who isn't your preferred gender nor considers themselves as trans but enjoys self expressing, uh, the way your preferred gender does (whatever it means to you?) 

Sorry if it sounds too complex/silly lol I am just legit curious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

S-sorry to ask *raises hand* 

 

But really, sorry if it sounds offensive or anything but can you point me to maybe your experience or references on what romantic orientation IS about? If it isn't about the genitals, for instance. If it is about expression of gender, I ask the same question: would you find that you're able to fall in love with someone who isn't your preferred gender nor considers themselves as trans but enjoys self expressing, uh, the way your preferred gender does (whatever it means to you?) 

Sorry if it sounds too complex/silly lol I am just legit curious.

Personally, I thought of myself as heteroromantic, in that I only ever form attractions to people that I perceive to be female (as in sex, not gender).  Ironically enough though, I ended up married to someone that ended up being trans male.

 

But because I don't really form attachments to people based on gender, it doesn't much matter to me.  That and the attraction to my spouse has pretty much already rooted itself -- it isn't going to change just because their gender has.  But, I'm a unique case; not everyone is going to be like that, even amongst aces.

 

My spouse has remarked before that the fact they came to accept their current gender as late as they did was a blessing in disguise, because had they already been presenting as male prior to our meeting, it's unlikely we would have ever gotten together.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Personally, I thought of myself as heteroromantic, in that I only ever form attractions to people that I perceive to be female (as in sex, not gender).  Ironically enough though, I ended up married to someone that ended up being trans male.

 

But because I don't really form attachments to people based on gender, it doesn't much matter to me.  That and the attraction to my spouse has pretty much already rooted itself -- it isn't going to change just because their gender has.  But, I'm a unique case; not everyone is going to be like that, even amongst aces.

 

My spouse has remarked before that the fact they came to accept their current gender as late as they did was a blessing in disguise, because had they already been presenting as male prior to our meeting, it's unlikely we would have ever gotten together.

Hmm I see. Thank you, I guess that explains loads. Maybe you see yourself being more aesthetically inclined or simply feel that the relationship would look/feel (socially/from outside or otherwise) better with people of a certain gender? But, the fact that your spouse ended up identifying differently (and your romantic attachment didn't cease because of that) says a lot. Personally I guess I'd relate to that. 

 

Also, congratilations on the relationship! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks :blush:

 

I'm not sure it is the aesthetic thing -- although I do think the female sex tends to look better aesthetically if I absolutely had to compare them, but it really isn't anything I would frame as "attraction", more like "acknowledgment" -- but rather that the female sex tended to lean more often toward behaviors and emotional traits that resonated with me, whereas (particularly so in adolescence) I had a much harder time bonding similarly with the male sex because of all the opposing behaviors/traits that I simply couldn't relate to.  (It's also primarily why I consider myself agender now.)  Over time I just tended to gravitate more toward associating with the opposite sex because I was most comfortable with them, and I'm pretty sure my romantic orientation stems from that.

 

With my spouse, I guess the way I see it is that even though their gender isn't what either of us may have thought at first, they're still by and large the same person I always knew, so from my point of view, nothing of importance has really changed.  They also don't embody any of the typical "macho" traits that turned me away from other male peers in adolescence/YA age.  They got their top surgery done a couple months ago (right before all this COVID business started to flare up, so lucky timing there) and while they say it's unlikely they will go for the bottom surgery as well, it honestly wouldn't matter to me at all if they did.  (So yeah, big ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ to the insinuation that I think of myself as heteroromantic because it's important to me that my partner has a vagina, or whatever.)

 

I remember that when my spouse was still coming to grips with their identity and was afraid for what it could mean for our relationship (because they knew that I was romantically "straight" even though they were bi), they tearfully insisted to me that despite the change to their identity, they swore they would still be the "girliest guy" I'd ever known, in an attempt to reassure me.  I appreciated the reassurance, but I didn't need it.  By that point, actions had already spoken louder than any words could.  And now, with them being nearly half a year into HRT, I can proudly proclaim that my spouse has indeed not transformed into some macho dudebro type of guy that turned me away from other males in high school.  Huzzah!

 

Well, anyway... probably getting quite a bit off topic there.  La dee dah~

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Philip027 said:

Thanks :blush:

 

I'm not sure it is the aesthetic thing -- although I do think the female sex tends to look better aesthetically if I absolutely had to compare them, but it really isn't anything I would frame as "attraction", more like "acknowledgment" -- but rather that the female sex tended to lean more often toward behaviors and emotional traits that resonated with me, whereas (particularly so in adolescence) I had a much harder time bonding similarly with the male sex because of all the opposing behaviors/traits that I simply couldn't relate to.  (It's also primarily why I consider myself agender now.)  Over time I just tended to gravitate more toward associating with the opposite sex because I was most comfortable with them, and I'm pretty sure my romantic orientation stems from that.

 

With my spouse, I guess the way I see it is that even though their gender isn't what either of us may have thought at first, they're still by and large the same person I always knew, so from my point of view, nothing of importance has really changed.  They also don't embody any of the typical "macho" traits that turned me away from other male peers in adolescence/YA age.  They got their top surgery done a couple months ago (right before all this COVID business started to flare up, so lucky timing there) and while they say it's unlikely they will go for the bottom surgery as well, it honestly wouldn't matter to me at all if they did.  (So yeah, big ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ to the insinuation that I think of myself as heteroromantic because it's important to me that my partner has a vagina, or whatever.)

 

I remember that when my spouse was still coming to grips with their identity and was afraid for what it could mean for our relationship (because they knew that I was romantically "straight" even though they were bi), they tearfully insisted to me that despite the change to their identity, they swore they would still be the "girliest guy" I'd ever known, in an attempt to reassure me.  I appreciated the reassurance, but I didn't need it.  By that point, actions had already spoken louder than any words could.  And now, with them being nearly half a year into HRT, I can proudly proclaim that my spouse has indeed not transformed into some macho dudebro type of guy that turned me away from other males in high school.  Huzzah!

 

Well, anyway... probably getting quite a bit off topic there.  La dee dah~

Hmm. Yep I feel that. For you there is a clear attachment to the notion of gender to that mental image even if you're currently aware not all men are dumbass dudebros and the opposite also holds true lol? Can deal with that. 

 

On my side and thinking about it I may as well be homoromantic by definition because I am very averse to dudebros so there's a strong nonon component there LOL. And guessing bad past associations (ie. Being violent, sexually pushy or downright assholey) would make me more comfortable around women. But, it's not like there aren't actually men without these traits and women with them and it's not like I actually fall for any girl either? On the opposite, I guess my proportion of crushes so far has been like ... 10% girls or less? Guess my aversion makes me MORE prone to crushing on "any" guy who isn't it whilst when it comes to girls I am way more picky, maybe. So. I have no idea how I'd label myself lol. I guess it's the fact that romantic feelings don't depend on a physical /concrete anything that I'm just sitting there like "...why would you label that...?..." but again that's just me. Kinda. I guess. 

 

Anyway lol sorry for derailing, thanks for your kind answers!! You seem to be a really cool couple so I hope you're happy in the future! (I guess being able to transition and keep the romantic relationship is life/relationship-goals for .. everyone so congrats!!!) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying hard in the post-HS latter half of my life to remind myself that Not All Guys are like that, and I have gotten better about it, I think.  But the overall predilection/gravitation toward the opposite sex (and thus, what I can only really refer to as heteroromanticism) has remained, nonetheless.

 

I have gotten comments here and there suggesting I should be considering myself homo- or bi- now as a result of my spouse's transition.  But I haven't done that, because it's not like my romantic tastes have changed.  I am just in a relationship that developed unusual circumstances, but it still begun as something that I originally believed to be a hetero- relationship, and if I'm being completely honest with myself I don't believe that it would have gotten off the ground had it been anything other than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I am aroused when a man sneezes. But when it comes to naked bodies and their interacting I turn off

Link to post
Share on other sites
GlamRocker

@Philip027 You just confirmed what I said though... that your romantic orientation is based on sex, not gender. Meaning you are attracted to biologically female bodied people. A trans man is a gendered man but his sex is female. And you still consider yourself heteroromantic because of this. This literally confirms what I've been saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Philip027 said:

I've been trying hard in the post-HS latter half of my life to remind myself that Not All Guys are like that, and I have gotten better about it, I think.  But the overall predilection/gravitation toward the opposite sex (and thus, what I can only really refer to as heteroromanticism) has remained, nonetheless.

 

I have gotten comments here and there suggesting I should be considering myself homo- or bi- now as a result of my spouse's transition.  But I haven't done that, because it's not like my romantic tastes have changed.  I am just in a relationship that developed unusual circumstances, but it still begun as something that I originally believed to be a hetero- relationship, and if I'm being completely honest with myself I don't believe that it would have gotten off the ground had it been anything other than that.

A relationship is much more than an initial attraction so I hereby disagree with them? If you have a preference that's your concern smh. That's kinda like what I was telling @CBC too ... Disagreed that having 01 sexually interesting person of your non preferred gender throughout your life makes you bisexual etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GlamRocker said:

A trans man is a gendered man but his sex is female.

It’s much more complicated than this.  We assign children a sex at birth based on their primary sex characteristics (what visible genitals they have).  While that’s commonly linked to their biological sex, it’s certainly not universally so (e.g., a coworker’s daughter is AFAB and considers herself female but genetic testing shows she has a mix of male and female chromosomes and is technically more than 50% biologically male).

 

As teens and adults we “read” people as male, female, etc. based on secondary sex characteristics and behaviors.  Trans people who have had HRT will have the secondary sex characteristics of their gender, not their assigned sex.  The earlier they start HRT, the more this is true.  Biologically they may have the sex of their gender, or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rhyn Corinn
11 hours ago, Philip027 said:

but rather that the female sex tended to lean more often toward behaviors and emotional traits that resonated with me, whereas (particularly so in adolescence) I had a much harder time bonding similarly with the male sex because of all the opposing behaviors/traits that I simply couldn't relate to.

This is definitely true for me too, as a heteroromantic ace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You just confirmed what I said though... that your romantic orientation is based on sex, not gender. Meaning you are attracted to biologically female bodied people. A trans man is a gendered man but his sex is female. And you still consider yourself heteroromantic because of this. This literally confirms what I've been saying.

No, what you've been specifically saying is that it's based on "genitals".  Don't try to backpedal here.

 

I'm trying to tell you that there's more to someone's sex than simply what genitals they have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, GlamRocker said:

The hallmark of an asexual is that an asexual is not disturbed by their lack of sexual desire, because they don't place value upon having a sex life due to their natural inclination. The thing that disturbs them is not how THEY are... it's how being an asexual in the world can be difficult. That's the whole point of why a thing is a disorder or not... it's a disorder if it causes the person harm, keeps them from functioning, OR it disturbs them personally. If you 1) naturally lack sexual desire (not abstaining, didn't choose) and 2. Are comfortable with who you are... hell, you may not even notice! (though the world may give you shit) then... you fit what I believe to be an asexual. Whether you think sexuality is totally revolting or TOTALLY COOL (just not for you.)

 

When I said, "uncomfortable with sex" I meant they DON'T WANT TO HAVE IT... not that asexuals think boobies are gross or something. Though some do. lol

 

Anyway, a sexual person with sex repulsion would be abstaining, that is, fighting their natural sexual desire... asexuals don't abstain. They don't even choose. It may even take awhile for them to realize they're "different."

Hmm interesting. I'm moderately confident I am asexual but I am deeply disturbed and distressed about my lack of sexual desire, which you say that asexuals typically don't experience. Maybe it depends on the person too especially if they don't accept themselves - which I definitely don't. Not sure if it's disorder territory although I wouldn't know what disorder it could be in regards to sex.

 

Gotcha. I tend to treat "uncomfortable with sex" and "don't want to have it" differently. Being uncomfortable can cause distress while not wanting to have sex may or may not cause distress.Someone could feel indifferent or neutral about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LibraGirl said:

Hmm interesting. I'm moderately confident I am asexual but I am deeply disturbed and distressed about my lack of sexual desire, which you say that asexuals typically don't experience. Maybe it depends on the person too especially if they don't accept themselves - which I definitely don't. Not sure if it's disorder territory although I wouldn't know what disorder it could be in regards to sex.

 

Gotcha. I tend to treat "uncomfortable with sex" and "don't want to have it" differently. Being uncomfortable can cause distress while not wanting to have sex may or may not cause distress.Someone could feel indifferent or neutral about it.

Asexuals can be disturbed by the lack because of social norms . While a sexual will be disturbed by the lack because something feels missing. Sorting out which one it is, is really something a therapist can help you with. A sexual who is missing a sex drive and is totally OK with who they are, is still going to be missing that part of themselves because they should have it (and usually it's a medical or psychological block preventing it). Whereas, an ace can learn to accept themselves then it doesn't matter to them, cause they don't have any internal desire driving them to miss the sexual drive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ryn2 said:

As teens and adults we “read” people as male, female, etc. based on secondary sex characteristics and behaviors.

I dunno about you, but I certainly never read people as male/female for their behaviors. You can have very different manners to stereotypes, and I will look to something else to read because there are so many people that contradict that norms when considering variance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

 

Quote

 

In other words, yeah it's innate but it is also societal - it depends on what you are able to do. Maybe some people who could be naturally homosexuals are not because the repression leads to anxiety which makes them unable to enjoy partnered sex with people of the same gender ... Who knows? 

 

Thats #deep and I should be working cuz work is late. Sigh. Bye lol 

I think that yes social acceptance would affect the stats of who is what sexuality but ultimately it wouldn’t be a large difference. People know they’re into someone, repression will only go so far in so many people. In other words, the effect of society is smaller than the natural instinct of attraction. I’d expect that most often, people discover their orientation experientially from their crushes and relationships and intimacy. Society only affects their freedom to explore or to follow through

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R_1 said:

You can have very different manners to stereotypes

Definitely true, but I think people do look to those cues if they’re not sure of someone’s gender.  While the actuality of being nonbinary or agender isn’t at all new, the idea of it (getting any press) *is* relatively recent... for older people, and/or more conservative cultures/geographies, it’s not always a concept that’s caught on widely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Float On said:

 

I think that yes social acceptance would affect the stats of who is what sexuality but ultimately it wouldn’t be a large difference. People know they’re into someone, repression will only go so far in so many people. In other words, the effect of society is smaller than the natural instinct of attraction. By and large, people discover their orientation experientially from their crushes and relationships and intimacy. Society only affects their freedom to explore or to follow through

... Guess this is why I am asexual again ; too many years realizing to which extent I seem to completely lack this mystic sexual internal physiological component. In my experience it's always been sorta "hey, have crushes!" and "o-o-ok" and try to feel it as they do and sort it out. Had nobody ever told me that as a person I should have sex one day, ... Doubt I'd ever consider it. Thus for me it's like 100% social but I guess it's often not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Serran said:

Asexuals can be disturbed by the lack because of social norms . While a sexual will be disturbed by the lack because something feels missing. Sorting out which one it is, is really something a therapist can help you with. A sexual who is missing a sex drive and is totally OK with who they are, is still going to be missing that part of themselves because they should have it (and usually it's a medical or psychological block preventing it). Whereas, an ace can learn to accept themselves then it doesn't matter to them, cause they don't have any internal desire driving them to miss the sexual drive. 

So sexuals can feel distressed if they lack the sexual desire or maybe the ability to feel aroused (just to circle back to the OP). Hypothetically, if an asexual suddenly loses the ability to feel aroused, it wouldn't bother them as much as it would for a sexual? Because a sexual would feel that something is lacking while an asexual would only be distressed because of societal expectations (e.g., peer pressure, media, etc.). Trying to see if I'm understanding this correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LibraGirl said:

So sexuals can feel distressed if they lack the sexual desire or maybe the ability to feel aroused (just to circle back to the OP). Hypothetically, if an asexual suddenly loses the ability to feel aroused, it wouldn't bother them as much as it would for a sexual? Because a sexual would feel that something is lacking while an asexual would only be distressed because of societal expectations (e.g., peer pressure, media, etc.). Trying to see if I'm understanding this correctly.

... Personally Id be kinda weirded out like something in me is biologically not great and gonna blow up soon. I'd get distressed and run to the doctor. But that's because I am genetically prone to hormonal diseases/gynecological conditions etc. So again. Individuals. 

 

But I guess many asexuals would barely notice it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Philip027 said:

No, what you've been specifically saying is that it's based on "genitals". 

Well what @GlamRocker is saying is true in my case. Genitals are an integral aspect of my gender attraction, and that's the case for many people. Not all though, of course! 

 

If you were sexual, I'd ask if you'd still feel the same about your partner (the exact same attraction etc) if they fully transition into male, including phaloplasty etc. It's a bit more of a grey area with asexuals though.

 

But yeah @GlamRocker is correct, it's just that doesn't apply to everyone of course. For some it's ONLY about gender identity and has nothing to do with genitals.. but those people are usually closer to pansexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But yeah @GlamRocker is correct, it's just that doesn't apply to everyone of course.

If it doesn't apply to everyone, it isn't "correct".

 

Several people in this thread, myself included, have already chimed in saying their romantic attractions don't have anything to do with "genitals", as they kept insisting.

 

Aren't you having to correct many inaccuracies and misconceptions made around here about sexual people?  I would have thought you would have understood what that's like.

 

Quote

If you were sexual, I'd ask if you'd still feel the same about your partner (the exact same attraction etc) if they fully transition into male, including phaloplasty etc. It's a bit more of a grey area with asexuals though.

That's the thing though; I'm not sexual, and they were talking about romantic orientation anyway.

 

If people think romantic orientation is still based on "genitals", I have my doubts that they actually understand what romantic orientation is, and I would suspect it's actually sexual orientation that they're referring to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox

A reminder here, arguing semantics and misconceptions goes nowhere in threads threads topic.  Keeping the topic on track is advisable in keeping civil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...