How do societal assumptions about asexuality and aromanticism illuminate cultural constructions of desire, intimacy, and relational hierarchy, and what theoretical challenges do these assumptions pose?
Asexuality is defined as the lack of sexual attraction to any gender or individuals, while aromanticism refers to the absence of romantic attraction towards anyone. Both are considered minority orientations, which can be perceived as atypical or even deviant by the majority population.
Their prevalence has been increasing in recent years due to increased awareness and visibility of alternative forms of identity expression. Nevertheless, asexuals and aromantics continue to face stigma and discrimination from society that challenges them to justify their orientation. This paper will examine how such societal assumptions shape cultural perceptions of desire, intimacy, and relational hierarchies and present theoretical difficulties they create for researchers in this area.
In many cultures, sexuality is considered essential to human relationships, including both interpersonal bonds and institutional structures like marriage and family life. As such, people who cannot participate in sexual practices may be seen as incomplete or abnormal.
Some heterosexuals view asexuality as a failure to meet the 'norm' of being heterosexually active, leading them to question a person's identity.
Asexuals often encounter stereotypes that assume they are repressed or unfulfilled sexually, needing to be 'fixed' through therapy or medication. Asexuality also conflicts with the concept of romance as an inherent aspect of human existence, challenging its central role in modern culture. Asexuals are frequently accused of failing to understand love or express it properly, undermining the importance of intimate connections. These societal assumptions suggest that desire and eroticism define personal fulfillment, while intimacy must include physical closeness and sexual pleasure. As such, those outside these norms may feel alienated from mainstream social institutions and expectations.
Theorizing around sexual minorities has been problematic due to the difficulty in defining what is normal versus atypical behavior. Sociologist Michel Foucault argued that sexuality is not innate but constructed by society; thus, any deviation from its normative script can be labeled pathological.
Cultural constructions of normalcy are not static, but evolving over time and across cultures. This perspective implies that asexuality may have existed throughout history but only recently emerged as visible due to changing attitudes towards sexuality. The concept of 'orientation' itself is debatable, as it assumes that sexuality is a fixed trait rather than fluid or context-dependent. Some argue for a spectrum model of sexuality, where individuals vary in their preferences and desires, instead of being categorized into distinct groups. These theoretical difficulties pose significant obstacles for understanding how sexual orientation fits into broader cultural structures and experiences.
Asexuality and aromanticism challenge dominant cultural scripts of desire, intimacy, and relational hierarchies based on heterosexuality and romance. These assumptions create theoretical problems when attempting to categorize or label non-normative orientations and their relationship with society. Further research is needed to explore the complex interplay between identity, culture, and individual experience in this area.