Asexuality is defined as "a lack of sexual attraction to others," whereas aromanticism is defined as "a lack of romantic attraction to others." These identities are often conflated with celibacy, abstinence, or prudery, but they have distinct meanings and experiences that challenge traditional understandings of sexuality and romance. Socially, people who identify as asexual or aromantic may experience prejudice, misconceptions, and misunderstandings from both LGBTQ+ communities and heteronormative culture at large. These assumptions about desire, intimacy, and relational hierarchies reveal deeper cultural imperatives about gender norms, power dynamics, and social expectations that can be challenged through critical engagement with theory. In this essay, I will examine how these social assumptions pose theoretical challenges for understanding identity formation, relationships, and community building among asexual and aromantic individuals.
Social Assumptions About Desire
One common assumption made about asexuals and aromantics is that they must not be fully human or experience love in the same way as their peers. This assumption reinforces the idea that sex and romance are central to being human, which creates a hierarchy whereby those without sexual or romantic desires are considered less than other humans. It also implies that sexual and romantic feelings are intrinsic and universal, when in reality, they are constructed by society and vary widely across cultures. Asexual and aromantic individuals have different experiences of desire, but their identities do not invalidate them as full humans.
Theories of Identity Formation
Theorists such as Michel Foucault and Judith Butler have argued that identity is socially constructed and subject to various discourses that shape our self-perception and behavior.
The medicalization of sexuality has led to pathologizing asexuality and aromanticism as abnormal, creating stigma around non-normative identities.
Some scholars like Joan W. Scott question whether identity itself is an objective concept, suggesting that it may be more fluid and contextual than fixed and essential. Asexual and aromantic individuals can challenge these theories by refusing to conform to traditional expectations and forging their own identities based on their unique experiences.
Relational Hierarchies
Another cultural imperative surrounding desire, intimacy, and relational hierarchies is the belief that there is a "right" way to form relationships. Heteronormative culture often presents monogamy and marriage as the ideal relationship structure, while polyamory, open relationships, and casual encounters are seen as alternative or deviant. This hierarchy reinforces power dynamics whereby men are seen as dominant partners and women are subordinate. Asexuals and aromantics may challenge this hierarchy by rejecting traditional definitions of relationship structures, opening up new possibilities for love and connection.
Social assumptions about asexuality and aromanticism reveal deeper cultural imperatives surrounding desire, intimacy, and relational hierarchies. These assumptions pose theoretical challenges for understanding identity formation, relationships, and community building among asexual and aromantic individuals. By critically engaging with theory, we can expand our understanding of these identities beyond rigid categories and create space for diverse forms of expression and connection.