Is attraction the only true sexual orientation?
Gender-fluidity has become a characteristic aspect of sexuality as we know it. Retrospective views and principles on gender roles and sexuality are slowly phasing out. “Boys don’t cry” and “Girls like princesses” are statements that can garner a lot of backlash today.
Sexuality is a spectrum. Disagreeing with this statement simply means you don’t live in the real world. Disagreeing with this statement is stereotypical and closed minded. Sexual identity and classification is as complex and unique as personal identity itself. Classifying and categorizing sexuality is as big of an ask as classifying people into 1 word categories that embellish the wholeness of a person. It’s seemingly impossible to achieve such. The classical sexual identities include heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality but the complexities of sexuality and sexual orientation have resisted these limiting categories.
The number of now existing sexualities is practically endless. From asexuality to cupiosexuality, all the way to sapiosexuality. Explaining all of these orientations is not the purpose of this article, so I am not even going to try. However, all sexual orientations have one thing in common. A sense of attraction. The emergence of asexuality destroys the rigid boundaries of the roles each of the classical sexualities hold. Asexuality focuses mainly emotional connections and bonds than on the presence of a penis or vagina on a prospective partner. The emotional connections forged become the basis of attraction. The sense of attraction in sapiosexuality is rooted in the intellect of a prospective mate rather than in sex or gender. An interesting sexual orientation I came across is skolio-sexuality.
Here attraction is based on the non-binary nature of the prospective partner. This is very interesting to me because here, attraction is based on a prospective mate identifying as neither male nor female. Now the prevalence of this identity is exemplified by how many transgender people are in happy and conducive relationships. Omnisexuality and Pansexuality are also very interesting. They consider people and not genders. Sexual intercourse and not sexual organs. The basis of attraction here is based on standards that most heterosexuals would thoroughly fail to comprehend because of how foreign they seem. I guess the most comprehendible sexuality is monosexuality. This is the orientation that most people claim and believe to be a part of. This orientation is made up of people who consider themselves to be strictly straight or strictly gay with no room for fluidity whatsoever.
The above paragraph alone is enough to illustrate the varied nature of sexuality as a whole. The mentioned orientations only scratch the surface of the ocean that is sexuality and sexual orientation, but one thing is clear, orientation is the basis of attraction. Doesthat not beg the question that attraction is the only orientation and that asexuality and heterosexuality and etc. are all just subheadings to the headline of attraction being the only orientation. Attraction, in this context, refers to the power of evoking interest in a person. Sexual orientation can be considered the starting point of evoking interest but attraction doesn’t see penises and Vaginas but instead see people. Orientation however, sees gender, considersit and decides based on it.
Related articles:
