What questions arise when society confronts asexuality and aromanticism: how do these identities interrogate the universals of desire, attachment and relational normativity?
Asexuality is defined as the absence of sexual attraction towards anyone or anything. It is a term that describes people who experience little to no sexual feelings or desires. This can manifest itself through a variety of ways such as never feeling sexual attraction, rarely experiencing it, having an extremely low level of sexual attraction or experiencing sexual attraction but not wanting to act upon it. On the other hand, aromantics are people who don't experience romantic attraction, which means they may feel close connections to their partners without needing them to be romantic. Both identities have been gaining increasing visibility and acceptance within the LGBTQIA+ community, yet there remain many misunderstandings about what they entail.
When faced with the concept of asexuality, some people might question if someone can really exist without sexual feelings at all.
This stems from a lack of understanding of what sexual attraction actually means. Sexual attraction refers to more than just physical arousal; it encompasses emotional, cognitive, and social elements as well.
A person can find someone attractive because of their intelligence, sense of humor, or kindness rather than their appearance. While asexuals still experience this type of attraction, they simply don't feel sexual desire for anyone.
Society often equates sexual attraction with relationships, intimacy, and love. Therefore, asexuals may struggle to navigate the cultural narrative around these concepts. They also face questions regarding whether their identity prevents them from fully engaging in life experiences like sex and marriage, leading to negative stereotypes that label them as repressed or abnormal.
When confronted with aromantics, society tends to conflate romantic attraction with love. In reality, romantic love is only one form of love, and not everyone feels it. Aromantics may experience affection, care, and deep attachment towards their partner, but not in a romantic way. This is why aromantics emphasize the importance of platonic love, which is often overlooked or dismissed by society. Another misconception is that aromantics are devoid of emotion entirely, which is false since they do have feelings and can develop strong bonds with others. The challenge lies in finding ways to express these sentiments without using traditional relationship structures such as dating and marriage.
Both identities interrogate the universals of desire, attachment, and relational normativity by challenging common assumptions about what these things mean.
They question if sexual attraction is essential for an individual to lead a fulfilling life or establish meaningful connections. They also point out how culture has shaped our understanding of love and relationships through the lens of heteronormativity, cisheteropatriarchy, and capitalism, which prioritizes traditional gender roles and monogamous relationships. By rejecting these ideas, asexuals and aromantics open up new possibilities for how we think about intimacy, relationships, and self-expression outside of conventional norms.
Asexuality and aromanticism are valid identities that defy societal expectations around sexuality and relationships. While they face stigmas and misunderstandings, both communities are working to educate others on their experiences and build community support networks. Their existence questions universal ideologies about desire, attachment, and relational normativity, expanding our understanding of what it means to be human and encouraging us to reconsider our own perspectives.
What questions arise when society confronts asexuality and aromanticism: how do these identities interrogate the universals of desire, attachment and relational normativity?
The concepts of asexuality and aromanticism are relatively new to human discourse and have been slowly gaining traction within the last few decades. Both terms describe individuals who do not experience sexual or romantic attraction respectively, but it is important to note that both groups may still be able to form meaningful relationships with others. These two identities raise interesting questions about universal desires, attachments, and societal expectations for romance and intimacy.