Sexual and romantic identity

[Tet the Listener]

I have had a certain issue on my mind—and how delighted I am to be questioning myself in a way that urges me to ask others—but it’s reached a point that I can do little “armchair” deduction on the matter. So, firstly, allow me to send my esteemed thanks to those of you who chose to explore this topic. My question is not one that has never been asked before; in fact, it’s a very prevalent issue in our present (and some ways, our past) society.

But that is enough introduction. My issue is concerning the definition of sexuality and how that differs from romance, if at all. What I mean by this is through this concept of homo/bi/straight/etc-romantic asexual. It in no way is that trivial, though. Here is what I’m thinking:

In light of my belief that sexuality and romantic identity being of two different definitions, I set out to articulate the difference.

Sexuality, to me, appears to correlate to one’s sexual tendencies/desires/practices, whatever it should be termed. This makes sense to me, because by that definition, I am quite bisexual. I know many others who are heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, pansexual, and, of course, asexual. I am sure there are many degrees and derivatives of these distinctions, and I do not presume to know of them all. This particular identity is directly related to the topic of sex, and I think that’s why this culture finds it so imperative that we label ourselves accordingly. We all have our own drastic opinions of sex, thus can identify with another who has an opinion on it as well, whether the same or different. Myself, I’m bisexual, as I said, but I am also celibate.

Romantic identity is more to do with one’s romantic tendencies/desires/practices, again whatever it should be termed. I think this hugely different than just sexual identity, because I’m sure many people have been with others who may or may not have drawn their sexual eye for the sheer reason of emotional attraction. It’s surprising to me that our culture does not place greater emphasis on this portion of identity, because we seem to be a very relationship-happy culture. There are many people who live their lives from relationship to relationship, whereas others do not (myself included). Much like sexual identity, though, we all have an opinion about romance, yet that need of a label does not seem to do much for us. This is possibly because sexual identity has evolved to take on romantic feelings as well; I just happen not to like that trend.

Here’s an interesting observation: When I say that I’m a “celibate bisexual,” people assume that what I’m trying to say is that I am a bi-romantic asexual. This seems like an arbitrary distinction, because both labels seem to exhibit similar meanings. How different they truly are! It’s crucial though, because as bizarre as it is, I’m bisexual but homo-romantic. And I certainly do not suppose that a bi-romantic asexual would want such thoughts put into his or her head.

I completely understand why society would not need to see a distinction between sexual and romantic identity. But doesn’t it seem wholly different? Doesn’t this difference seem like an important one to make? Sex and romance often correlate, and I grant that, but it’s because of those instances of contradiction that makes the characteristic so fascinating to me.

I’m curious to know if this spurs anyone’s interest as well. Do you agree with me? Have I taken this too far (if you think so, please do say why)? Either way, thank you for indulging my little thought.

Be well.

[Hallucigenia]

Aaaargh!

When last I was visiting my boyfriend in St. Catharine's, he showed me an excellent academic paper on this subject, which I meant to take home with me and read all the way through and summarize on AVEN, but what with one thing and another, it got accidentally left behind. Now I'm really regretting that oversight.

In short: Yes. And yes. And also yes.

You're not the only one in the world whose romantic identity doesn't match their sexual preferences; in particular, I remember Rabger, a member here who's contributed a lot to AVEN's muddled morass of theories about sexuality, knows more than one person who are bisexual but homo- or hetero-romantic; or the opposite, homo- or hetero-sexual but biromantic. And yep, I get how being a celibate bisexual is different from being an asexual biromantic. You're sexually attracted to two genders, but you've chosen not to follow through on that attraction, right?

The difference between romance and sex gets more pronounced once you go to a different century from ours and observe heterosexual men and women having same-sex-oriented "romantic friendships". Some commentators (such as those in my Women's Studies textbook, grr, argh) try to explain these away as relationships that were secretly homosexual, or that would have been homosexual if everybody hadn't been so darn sexually repressed in those days, but here at AVEN we naturally see things a little differently.

What kills me, personally, is that while I can write any number of paragraphs distinguishing romance and sexuality from each other, I can't always tell them apart when they occur to me personally. Sure, you can point to a hypothetical one-night stand and explain that it's sexual but not romantic; likewise, you can point to a happy asexual couple and explain that their feelings are romantic but not sexual. But my own sex drive is so low that a lot of the time all I get is a vague feeling of wanting to snuggle someone to death - well, what's that? Sexuality with the "mute" button on? Repressed romanticism expressing itself physically? Aesthetically motivated sensuality (i.e. neither one)? A feeling that would progress into actual sexual attraction if I followed through on it in some way? Whatever, man. Sometimes I just want to give up and call everything "attraction" with no qualifiers. Just like "Man, you know what, I'm interested in that person in some way, and I don't care to explain further right now. Lemme enjoy the freaking moment."

...okay, so that was off topic. :shock:

So anyway, yeah, this sort of topic does spur my interest. :oops:

[ghosts]

Sometimes I just want to give up and call everything "attraction" with no qualifiers. Just like "Man, you know what, I'm interested in that person in some way, and I don't care to explain further right now. Lemme enjoy the freaking moment."

I hear ya.

As you know, I don't use the term "romantic attraction" 'cause it doesn't make much sense to me. Actually, when I think of myself as being attracted to someone- I can tell if I'm attracted to how they look, and I can tell if I'm attracted to their personality. That's enough for me! If I'm attracted to someone in some way, then I will try to get to know them better. If that works out, then we'll have some sort of relationship which we'll figure out/discuss as we go along.

So, I understand what Tet is saying- it's just perhaps difficult for me to talk about since I don't really use "romantic" when talking about my own relationships. Either way, there are some types of intimacy/affection that I'm more comfortable expressing with one gender than the other, so I know what you mean.

[Placebo]

"Man, you know what, I'm interested in that person in some way, and I don't care to explain further right now. Lemme enjoy the freaking moment."

I love it!

[feef]

Yup. Different things that are traditionally linked together.

Yup. All I got.

[M51]

Oh yeah, I totally agree.

In fact I separate it even more to romantic attraction, sexual attraction, and physical attraction. Each can run from noe experience at all to hyper-experience, and each can have its own gender preference.

I really struggled with my identity for a long time because I was mildly physically attracted to females AND males, but only ever felt the urge to pursue romantic relationships with males (a strong urge, when it happened), but didn't want sex with anyone (no urge). Was I bisexual? Asexual? Heterosexual? I tried each label on for size, and asexual was the only one that fit, but asexual did not explain my confusing attraction to both men and women or my distinct preference for male romantic partners. Then I realized that I was trying to define non-sexual intimacy with sexual terms. Now I define myself as a-sexual, but hetero-romantic, and bi-attractual.

There are tons of sexuals who just want sex with no desire to form romantic bonds with the people they have sex with - aromantic sexuals.

There are tons of people who find both genders attractive but only want sex with one gender or the other - biattractual homo or hetero sexuals. Etc.

So I believe there are probably people with every combination of these basic preferences.

In fact I don't even like to use the term "human sexuality" anymore for things like romantic and physical attraction because I have totally separated these things from sexuality in my head. I prefer "human intimacy". I try to only use "sexuality" when specifically referring to sexual attraction or function.

By the way, "attractual" is a really horrible made up word so if someone could suggest a better one to describe physical attraction I am all for it.

[Tet the Listener]

Thanks to all of you who have responded.

I agree with you, Hallucigenia, in regards to your qualm with the necessity for a label. It's an entirely different issue, as you said, but I think it's worth noting here that I am going off of the presumption that it is necessary to use labels for better, more diverse sense of understanding. However, while I may agree that as social as we humans are, I do not think we should stress labels as much as we do--or at least, not to the degree we do. It's my belief that when labels first started forming their sole purpose was to help others in the oral community understand how one was. Why it has evolved into this all-encompassing categorical phenomena, I have no idea.

Ghosts, I can understand your worry about the word "attraction." That is why I was so careful not to use it. What I mean by identity is one's natural tendency one way, or another, or another, ad finitum. While you may not be romantically attracted to anyone (which I assume you mean that you meet someone and think, "Wow, he/she would make a great partner..."), others may. For others, it takes time, and for some, no amount of time would matter. But I cannot understand why you are getting hung up on the term "romantic." I understand that when I say "romantic," images of flowers, moonlit strolls, and candlelight flash through many's minds. This is not what I mean. I mean that emotional draw to romance with another. I should have clarified. Thank you.

Ah, M51, I'm glad you thought to bring this up. I completely neglected this aspect, and I'm wholly sorry for that. I've heard it termed "aesthetic." Such as, me for example, would be: bi-aesthetic homo-romantic bisexual. I think the problem of sexual identity swallowing the other forms of all relationship-identities is even greater between physical and sexual than romantic and sexual. I have to admit, having thought about this to some degree now, I do find aesthetics in some people and no sexual draw, and of course, vice versa (but that must be more rare...borderlining with the fetishes category).

Human relationships are quite complex to label, which is why I want to explore this topic so openly. So many overlaying aspects make up a relationship, varying in degrees of every component so that no two people are likely to be identical. This unique trait of ours is probably the only essential quality that can be empirically measured--maybe even tested. Either way, I'd love to discuss this more.

[Hallucigenia]

Hmm. On the topic of labels, then:

I think that the reason we have so many labels is because we think (possibly correctly) that everybody will assume that we're the same as them unless we use labels to differentiate. If Person Y says "I love Person X," sexuals will assume that Person Y wants to have sex with Person X. So Person Y will say something like "I love Person X emotionally but not sexually." Then you get into quibbles about what's emotional and what's sexual and so Person Y has to clarify further into "I love Person X emotionally and aesthetically and sensually but not sexually." But, once you have enough qualifiers to really differentiate people from each other, two things have happened: First of all, your qualifiers have gotten convoluted enough that when a newcomer comes along - say, Person Z - they won't really understand what you're talking about. Second of all, Person X and Person Y have gotten so used to differentiating things from each other that they can't stop. After all, how do we know that Person X and Person Y mean the same thing when they say they love someone emotionally? Most likely they don't! So you're going to get an endlessly descending tree of different categories of love until you get to the breaking point, where Person X and Y mutually throw up their hands and says "I don't understand what we're talking about anymore!"

Of course, it's silly to move for dissolution of a system without proposing a replacement system of some sort. And... I have a vague idea of what sort of a system I'd prefer, but not a clear enough one to trust myself to articulate it well.

Let's say this: Suppose that we start with "I love Person X." For most people, that will be enough information. So generally, you stay with just the one word. Now, in the minority of cases where differentiating information is needed, what would happen if, instead of starting to put hirself in ever-increasing categories, Person Y started to tell a story?

Something like "I love Person X. I really enjoy Person X's presence, having conversations with hir, playing Parcheesi with hir, building model airplanes with hir. Person X and I have an agreement to continue spending time with each other and to be there for each other when one of us needs it, even if that means changing plans or making sacrifices of some sort, and I'm really happy with that. Sexual activity isn't something either of us enjoy doing, but I do think that Person X is really pretty and I really like the way sie gives back rubs."

Of course, the story would be different for every person or group of people who try to tell the story, but that's the whole point.

I'm not 100% anti-label, strangely enough. They do have their uses. They're a good shorthand for people who are not immediately familiar with the concept, as well as for people who are conducting scientific study. But they're not a substitute for actual understanding of the people in question. Not by a long shot.

Whoo-ee, now that I've completely hijacked the thread... *signs off*

[ghosts]

Ghosts, I can understand your worry about the word "attraction." That is why I was so careful not to use it. What I mean by identity is one's natural tendency one way, or another, or another, ad finitum. While you may not be romantically attracted to anyone (which I assume you mean that you meet someone and think, "Wow, he/she would make a great partner..."), others may. For others, it takes time, and for some, no amount of time would matter. But I cannot understand why you are getting hung up on the term "romantic." I understand that when I say "romantic," images of flowers, moonlit strolls, and candlelight flash through many's minds. This is not what I mean. I mean that emotional draw to romance with another. I should have clarified. Thank you.

Alrighty, let's see if I can clarify a bit. :)

When I meet someone I really like, I don't think "Wow, he/she would make a great partner." I don't think anything about dating. Instead, I usually think "Wow, I would really like to get to know this person and find out what we like to do together. I wonder what our relationship will be like?" So, I tend to think about possibilities for the relationship- could I be really close to this person? What kinds of things can we do together? Does any sort of nonsexual touch sound appealing with this person? Will I want to discuss my hopes & dreams with him/her? And so on and so forth.

So, it's never quite made sense to me to try to label my relationships as being romantic or nonromantic because of the way I think about things. Add that to the fact that I don't have one relationship that I really focus on, but rather a number of relationships, and maybe that can sort of help you see why using "romance" in my vocab doesn't work. I have a lot of undefined relationships, something I just mentioned in another thread today. To give you an example- one is with a male friend of mine who does have a girlfriend. He & I have a very close bond and love each other. Perhaps some would call our relationship "romantic", but I'd rather work outside of that system- and actually, Hallu described what I like to do rather well. :)

[BunnyGH]

Dear Tet the Listener,

I would like to share some of my thoughts, which, although not directly related to your posting, do bear some relation.

Greetings, as stated in my profile, I am a bisexual female and a significant other of a member who posts frequently. I am looking to find out more about members of this community and how this can help inter-personal relationships.

Until I was first encouraged to visit this website and read the statements posted here by my friend, I was unaware of this type of sexual orientation. This was prior to the Montel Williams episode that has given the group more visibility. Now I have to redefine my thinking. Previously I had interpreted sexuality on a scale between heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality. Now I have to add asexuality to this scale. Where one falls on the scale depends on temperament, upbringing, opportunity and preference.

In any case, it is refreshing to join a network where many male members probably do not fall under the category of the “average male who thinks about sex once every 4 minutes”, but who are engaged in intellectual and other types of discourse.

I think that it this nurturing network is a positive thing for those who prefer inter-personal relationships in this manner. It should not be surprising that such individuals should seek such a network in this society where sexual imagery is so pervasive. It can be overwhelming and offensive to those who engage in consensual sexual activity, it must be more so to those who chose not to.

A couple of examples:

On 2-3-2007 I was watching a PBS program that was discussing infidelity and divorce and the author of _Pornified_, Pamela Paul, called in to speak to the moderator and the guest who was a divorce attorney, Mark A. Barondess, author of _What Were You Thinking?_. Ms. Paul was making the point that the average age that youngsters are exposed to pornography is 8 or 9 years of age and that this is too young. I agree with this point.

Another television interview that gave me pause was one with a woman who was conducting pole dancing classes for young adult women and classes in this type of dance for teenaged females in order to let them express their sexuality. I think this creates too much pressure on teenagers to become sexual beings before they are mentally prepared to do so. An adult can make an informed choice to take such a class, I am not certain if a teenager has the same discretion.

Well, I think I have said enough to start out. I am not certain how frequently I will be logging in to join the discussion, but I look forward to making new friends in a new community.

Best to all,

Bunny GH

[Sook]

I completely understand why society would not need to see a distinction between sexual and romantic identity. But doesn’t it seem wholly different? Doesn’t this difference seem like an important one to make? Sex and romance often correlate, and I grant that, but it’s because of those instances of contradiction that makes the characteristic so fascinating to me.

I believe society, on perhaps a subconscious level, sense a distinction between sexual and romantic connections. It becomes visible when a partner in a monogamous relationship is accused of being emotional or mentally unfaithfull or a partner becomes involved in a non-sexual connection which makes him/her *feel* emotionally unfaithfull. In a monogamous relationship, twosomeness is part of what creates the feeling of intimacy and to let another part take part in this intimacy whether it being in a sexual, emotional or mental way will make the connection the monogamous couple have feel less intimate.