News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media
Home » Forums » Everything Else » Society » affectional or sexual orientation?

affectional or sexual orientation?

Disclaimer: LilyJadeRose is not the original poster nor are the following thoughts of her own creation.  Credit is given where required.

I came across an interesting Wikipedia entry about this term called "affectional orientation".

 

"Affectional orientation (or romantic orientation) is an alternative term for sexual orientation. It is based on the perspective that sexual attraction/desire is but a single component of a larger dynamic. To holders of this view, one's orientation is defined by whom one is predisposed to fall in love with, whether or not one desires that person sexually. Lately, the predominant use of the term "sexual orientation" is considered to reduce a whole category of desires and emotions, as well as power and connection, to sex.


The term affectional orientation is also used by those who consider themselves asexual and only feel emotional and/or physical (aesthetic) attraction. The terms used for different affectional orientations are usually the same as those for sexual orientations; though "homoromantic", "biromantic," "heteroromantic," and "aromantic" have gained some popularity. Asexuals sometimes incorporate colloquial terms to describe both the romantic and sexual components of their orientation (e.g. gay-asexual, bi-asexual, and straight-asexual).


There are also those who hold the view that one's orientation is defined by whom one has affection for and that their sexual attraction (or "drive", perhaps more appropriately) is dependent upon affection for another human being's personal qualities, regardless of their sex, gender or even outward appearance altogether. This use of the term does not require falling in love but is still based on a personal affection. One might now consider the phrase "conditional sexual attraction" to describe the experience of those who are otherwise asexual, as opposed to "primary sexual attraction" used to describe people who are "sexual"."

So what do you guys think? Do you think that the term "sexual orientation" defines our relationships purely on sexual terms and negates the whole aspect that Queer relationships are based on love, sex, financial stability, family, etc. Should we be using the term "affectional orientation" as opposed to "sexual orientation" or are both legitimate in different settings? Thoughts? Comments?

http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/05/open-forum-affectional-orientation.html 

 

‹ teachers comment about "thats so gay" in my high school Student attacked because of her orientation, video posted online ›
Submitted by
LilyJadeRose (212 posts)
on May 30, 2008 - 2:15am.
TAGS :: 

LilyJadeRose's picture

i do have a thought though

Submitted by
LilyJadeRose (212 posts)
on May 30, 2008 - 2:17am.

where do you think the term bisexual fits into this argument? (okay so it's not so much a thought as it is a question)

~~Come With Me If You Want To Live: the forum

http://www.afterellen.com/node/31891

LadyElla's picture

Affectional Orientation...

Submitted by
LadyElla (67 posts)
on May 30, 2008 - 3:44am.

Wow! I am totally Gay-Asexual! It seems so weird because I am totally asexual (which is I suppose weird in itself) but I have the strongest romantic crushes on some women! I know we're not supposed to like labels and all, but I find it oddly comforting.

On bisexuality, I've heard many say that they have romantic attraction for one gender and sexual attraction for the other (which can't be easy!). But this concept may be able to help others understand how someone can be able to fall in love with and/or be attracted to both men and women.

Well I think that if the expression takes off in pop-culture then I will be ecstatic! It will also help out all those that are afraid of gay people because they think that all that's on their minds is sex so that while we're fighting hard for civil rights and partner benefits, it may be harder for them to feel empathetic if they do not understand our romantic relationships.

 

Evchen's picture

Wow!

Submitted by
Blauermontag (53 posts)
on May 30, 2008 - 5:50am.

Never heard of this term but I like it a lot.

I tend to think that in the really impossible case that my relationship with my girlfriend failed I could probably have a rebound affair with a man but another serious relationship only with a woman - while I can find a man occasionally desirable I only fall in love with women ... whom I desire very much :) And there has been the rare case that I had more than a friend crush on a woman but not really desired her.

Does that make me a tad bit bi-sexual but totally gay-affectional? I think it makes sense a lot to put it this way and so I would not necessarily replace "sexual orientation" with "affectional orientation" or "affectional attraction" but will eagerly use it as an additional explanation from now on.

 

 

K.c SrÖd's picture

A3

Submitted by
K.c SrÖd (2 posts)
on May 30, 2008 - 9:09am.
Well, what I can say about that is, sometimes, it's useless to try to describe yourself, sometimes, it's not necessary to put words on you.

Because, if you already know who you are deep inside, if you already can feel the "real you", I think , it's not really important if you're unable to express it orally.

In fact it's logical: How short words could embrace our intricacy? 

 

I always knew that I preferred girls, that's why my first C.O was so easy to do. 

But few years after that, I felt embarrassed with this new label (which didn't exist for me before, even if it was just a kind of continuation of myself) I had the impression that it created boundaries all around of me; it was impossible to be "me" anymore cause I had to respect the limits of its "definition".

So I started look for other words instead of look for me.

 I stopped the day when I said to my Mah: 

"I'm just "too much" to enter into a box. I'm neither gay, nor straight,  bi, homoromantic ..., I'm an A3 {A cubed = Agender/Asexual/Aromantic}"

 

I don't think I'm a real A3, I just wanted to symbolize this idea: 

"Being the negation of everything means I'm nothing, I'm the void. This void which existed before the creation of every things. "

 <=>

"I was me before these words appear in my language and I still exist without them, so if you want to know who I am don't try to find me in a dictionary:  I'm here, in front of you, discover me!"

 

 

 In a nutshell, words are just boxes which contain powerful ideas.

Unchain them, throw the cover, take the essential; accept to forget theories for a moment,  live your life the way it is... even if you think you've got no landmarks.

 

And ...Express yourself only with your own conception of Love... and see what happens. 

 

Fortunately, we don't need words for that, just bravery and a smidgeon of audacity.

 

 

For people who don't know the asexual community...

www.asexuality.org

jazz.june's picture

I have a hard time agreeing

Submitted by
jazz.june (21 posts)
on June 23, 2008 - 8:47pm.

I have a hard time agreeing with this.

I think that until we can name what we are feeling or thinking, those thoughts have no true shape or form. Our ideas, our emotions... they're all just huge bundles of confusion until we can define them with communicative symbols. This isn't only so that other people can attempt to understand us, but more impotantly, it's so that at we can reach a better understanding of ourselves. Even you have only reached your sense of identity--one which you desciribe as a defiance of any sexual or romantic label-- by giving that identity a name which means someting to you.

Am I making sense at all?

InLoveWithLove's picture

I think that I have to agree

Submitted by
InLoveWithLove (3 posts)
on June 24, 2008 - 6:35pm.
I think that I have to agree more so with k c scrod. I understand the need to categorize and dissect everything we come across in life, and the desire to put a label or name it, esp. our emotions and feelings. But at the end of the day, you can describe yourself as being fifty million things and still not understand who you trully are. I think that scientifically it makes sense, but spititually and emotionally, it us useless and unnecessary. I think that its a nice idea in the sense that because of the prior limitation of words to describe those such feelings and desires, it forced people, (as stated in her response) to feel as if there were restrictions on who you could be because then you wouldn't be anything due to the lack of a name for it. On the other hand, we can start creating names for every single aspect of sexuality and the mixes inbetween and there will still be some who will feel left out because none of them fit EXACTLY what they're feeling. SO....my advice to everyone whether homosexual, hetero, asexual, (the list could go on) the focus need not be on "does this word define who I am?" But instead ask yourself "Is this word only who I am?" "Isnt my whole existence and every fiber of myself so phenomenally intricate that there can never be just one word, thought, idea, emotion, concept, theory, etc. to describe the essence of me." Words are cool, but thinking that you can understand in full capacity who you are by labeling youself as one of them is not.
butterface's picture

Oh, wow, I think if one

Submitted by
bitsandpieces (21 posts)
on June 30, 2008 - 2:24pm.

Oh, wow, I think if one feels no sexual attraction towards the same sex, but has affectional feelings, but only sexually desires a person of the opposite sex, then it's not being gay exactly (unless the person is asexual and has no sexual feelngs whatsoever). Because SEXual orientation is more to describe that you can sexually be attracted by this person, not just hug or chitchat with her (hence the word sex in it). I've had affectional 'crushes' on people, whose presence has excited me, but these ended up being just a tight friendship, because I  just wanted to impress them or be their friends or thought it was love, when it wasnt.  it's human nature to crave something more than just hugging and kissing and if I can't imagine doing it with that particular person, then it means im not physically attracted to that person (like duh)

Although, the people Im affectionately attracted to usually end up being the people I wouldnt have sex with and vice versa aswell. I know a lot of women who dont get excited about the idea of having sex with a woman, but claim 'they are so soft'  etc and could fall for them. 


Home » Forums » Everything Else » Society » affectional or sexual orientation?

User login

Recent comments
After Ellen home page on logo online