Reductionism: The Ever Increasing Label

Introduction

One thing the asexual/aromantic community is known for is our remarkably long and intricate labels. Unlike many minorities, where labels are usually one or two words, it is quite common for our community to have half a dozen words or more, detailing every detail of our nature.

Why is this, though? Why do we have so many words for what is so simple for most others?

Well, to put it simply, to understand what you aren't, you must first understand both what you are, and what you lack. Especially when the are also differences between people in the community, there easily emerge multiple levels of these differences.

An Allegory

Let's consider color-blindness for a minute. The typical human eye has cone cells for three colors: red, green, and blue. For simplicity, let's consider each person to have one, two, or three of these cells.

If you are missing one of these three types of cells, you won't be able to see the color green (instead seeing in a gradient from either blue-to-yellow or blue-to-red, depending on the specific cell missing). If you're missing two cells, you won't be able to perceive any color differences, seeing only one color at different brightnesses (probably in a grey-scale).

How, then, does one know if they are color-blind? If you hold up a picture and ask, "What color is this?" they may even be able to answer, because their experience tells them that something this bright is probably this color. Further, some people with color-blindness can pass tests that are impossible for people with a different sort of the same condition, and both would still generally perceive themselves to see color until challenged by those who have a fuller range of color vision.

For the average person, trying to explain color would be impossible. They simply know that they can see it, they can talk about it using their shared perspective, and it can be an important part of their lives. Even those who can't see all colors know they can see some, but what they're missing will be equally difficult to understand as color itself.

Even for those who see no color, they may think that color is just a redundant way of talking about brightness or texture, and indeed, they might notice aspects of texture, such as degree of reflectivity, that aren't usually noticed by those who can rely on seeing color.

Bringing this back to asexuality, we have concepts that the majority of people take for granted, with a minority that doesn't perceive them. One of the biggest questions asked by an asexual or aromantic that has started questioning is usually, "What is sexual/romantic attraction?" Like the person who mistakes color for texture, many aros and aces begin with a misunderstanding of what these things are.

And this includes myself: I didn't so much learn that I was asexual so much as that the world wasn't. In the beginning, I believed I was a romantic grey-ace, but as my understanding of sexuality grew, I realized that I had mistaken libido for sexuality, and closeness for romance. 

To be fair, these are things that the average person probably conflates, too, much like how 'shiny' something is is often considered part of it's color, despite that someone with color-blindness will see this shininess but not the base hue. For someone with only one type of cone cells, for example, gold and silver could look the same, but be easily distinguished from a dull rock.

For me, my full label is probably something like: aromantic hetero-sensual hetero-aesthetic non-repulsed asexual libidoist. This may seem like a significant laundry list, but each part of it represents some point in my similarity, or lack thereof, with the average person.

The Big Divide

The first split is between romance and sexuality. For most people this is the same, and so they rarely think about it. A heterosexual is usually also heteroromantic; they are interested in both a romantic relationship, involving kissing and obsessive thoughts and such, and also a sexual relationship, wanting to do sexual things (regardless of whether they do so), with the opposite sex. Most homosexuals are similarly homoromantic, experiencing both romantic and sexual attraction to the opposite sex. 

Although rare, there are some people for whom these categories are not aligned, however. Someone can be homoromantic but heterosexual, for example, where they only get crushes on the same sex, and only want to kiss or otherwise form a romantic connection with the same sex, but are only interested in having sex with someone of the opposite sex. This can be very confusing for such individuals, because most of society doesn't even recognize that romantic and sexual attraction are different.

The asexual/aromantic community is a far more common example, however. Many people are asexual, not wanting to have sex with others, but do get crushes or have interest in romance (often called "alloromantic", incorporating hetero-, homo-, and bi-romantic, etc.). The reverse is also true, with people who are allosexual (want to have sex) but aromantic, and so don't get crushes or have any interest in romance. 

A small set of the community is aligned in being both aromantic and asexual, such as myself, but generally this division of romantic attraction and sexual attraction is very important, as an alloromantic asexual may not understand why the majority of people say that being interested in dating boys should mean that they should also be interested in having sex with boys. This leads to a lot of confusion with the false dilemma of "am I interested in boys/girls or not?". 

In truth, there are many ways one can be "interested" in boys or girls. It's not a simple yes/no question, and any given individual can check or not check many different boxes on the topic, even if the majority would simply check all boxes for one or both sexes.

Sexual Reduction

The next step, is to define what "asexual" is. The typical definition is someone "who doesn't experience sexual attraction". Well, that's good and all, but that then begs the question of "What is sexual attraction?" Is sexual attraction finding someone attractive? Is sexual attraction the ability to get aroused by someone? Is sexual attraction the biological urge towards having sex? Is sexual attraction the desire to have sex? Is sexual attraction defined by the result of having sex?

For allosexuals, this may or may not be obvious. For questioning asexuals, however, it is a very difficult conundrum. How many of those questions can you answer "yes" to and still be asexual? None of them? One? Two? All? 

There are some that say "just identify with whatever you want" (which is a horrible approach, but that's a rant for another time), but many asexuals don't want to pick a name out of a hat, they want to understand themselves, and for that, a proper definition is required.

So let's start with an obvious asexual: let's use a sentient, inorganic robot. Although an unflattering comparison to asexuals, I don't think most people would disagree that something without hormones, genitalia, animal instincts, or any capacity for sexual reproduction at all would have no interest in such activities. (Though some Hollywood folks who mistakenly conflate love and sex might disagree, though that's yet another rant for another time.)

Now, let's go to the opposite extreme. Let's choose a sexual predator, an equally unflattering extreme archetype on the other side. Someone who would go to great lengths to manipulate and coerce others in order to have sex with them is pretty inarguably sexual. Clearly, the predator checks the boxes for every question we asked at the beginning. So we have "all yes" as a limit case on the upper side.

But what about the robot? Does it get aroused? No. Does it have a biological urge to have sex? No. Does it have the desire to have sex? No. Is it capable of finding someone attractive, though? Potentially, yes. It could enjoy the appearance of someone in the same way as enjoying a piece of art. What about the act of having sex? Well, a robot could have sex, theoretically. Strap a fleshlight or dildo to the thing, and one could potentially have sex with it. Does this make the robot sexual? Clearly not, it's the same robot as before. So behavior can be ruled out as a definition, as can aesthetic tastes.

So where does the actual line lie? Well, the difference seems to come down to whether you want to have sex with people. Definitions of "sexual attraction" tend to be inconsistent between individuals. Personally, I would define it as feeling the desire to have sex with someone.

For me, I have never wanted to have sex with anyone. I've never had any desire to "get into someone's pants", nor wanted to "get laid". It's not like I was waiting for the right time to have sex; it's just never been something I've felt worth pursuing.

So is sexual attraction a matter of arousal? No. I can get aroused, but being aroused doesn't cause me to want to have sex. Some asexuals, however, don't get aroused.

So is sexual attraction mean having a sex drive (aka, libido)? No. I have a sex drive (though I'd happily get rid of it if I could), but I have no desire to act on it with someone else. (When it gets distracting, I prefer to just "feed the hunger" myself to make it go away.) Other asexuals, though, have no sex drive.

And do you have to be disgusted by sex to be asexual? No. I'm not disgusted by sex; I'm just not particularly interested. I'm ambivalent towards it. Looks kind of boring, really. That said, there are asexuals who are completely disgusted by sex, and want to part of it, ever.

All of these, however, are points that a questioning asexual will likely cling to, sifting through them, trying to figure out where they fall. Several of the labels used in the ace community are reflected in these. I could be considered "hetero-aesthetic" because I like the look of girls, and can get aroused by them. I'm also a "libidoist" because I have a sex drive. And being neutral towards sex, rather than disgusted, is where my "non-repulsed" comes from. All of this comes from my own search to understand whether I was asexual or not.


Romantic Reduction
So then we have romance. This one is arguably both easier and harder than sexuality. Sexuality is at least focused on a single act, while romance is a vague set of feelings that are generally experienced differently, even by different alloromantics. On the other hand, though, there seem to be far fewer individual components of it.

The first difficulty is defining "love". There is the love of friends, the love of families, the love or romantic partners, the love of a possession, etc. So rather than "love", it may be better to use the term "closeness". Almost everyone wants some kind of closeness, though how much, and from whom, varies greatly from person to person.

As such, probably the biggest difference to start understanding (a)romantic feelings is to look at the three major forms of closeness: platonic, sensual, and romantic. Sensual closeness is physical closeness, the desire to touch or be in contact with another. Some people feel comfortable combining platonic and sensual closeness, while many people prefer to keep sensual closeness reserved for romantic situations. Depending on the person, platonic and romantic closeness may or may not be combined.

Because romance dominates the expression of closeness in much of the mainstream (even platonic closeness can be overtaken by "romantic tension", such as the term "bromance"), however, separating romantic closeness from sensual closeness becomes very important to a questioning aromantic. Where is the line between the three forms of closeness?

Long walks on the beach? Probably more platonic. You could do the same thing with a friend without any romance. I know I would often walk with friends to this place or that place, or just around, in order to have extra time to chat.

Cuddling? Probably more sensual. Many people cuddle with family (especially as or with children), pets, etc. Some people are fine cuddling with their platonic friends. I, for example, am very cuddly (even if I might not seem that way at first). I'm always trying to befriend cats for some extra cuddles (and would adopt one or two personally if my apartment allowed it).

So what is romantic closeness? Well, being aromantic, that's hard for me to tell, exactly. It's like a deaf man trying to describe music. You can read about it, observe people playing or listening, but that doesn't mean you'll really understand it, even if you probably recognize more overt examples of it.

But kissing seems to be generally romantic, rather than sensual. Friends don't kiss friends (at least not on the lips), and even more so for "making out". This seems to be more romantic than sensual, given the greater weight attached to it than holding hands or cuddling. It doesn't help, either, that I have no interest in kissing, and am grossed out by the idea of making out. (I don't want someone's tongue in my mouth, thank you.)

Also, obsessive thoughts seem to be part of it. Crushes usually involve being "unable to stop thinking about a person" or being "kept up at night by thoughts of them", or at least so I've heard. This doesn't seem to be present (or at least isn't nearly as strong) in the case of platonic or sensual desires, even in the cases of "squishes" (the platonic equivalent of a crush).

There also seems to be an aspect of pairing off. Although poly-amorous situations exist, it seems that romantic feelings tend to come with thoughts of marriage, or otherwise moving in together and creating a life together. Although this can happen for practical or platonic reasons, it seems that it is most common with romantic feelings.

Breaking down individual pieces and examples makes it easier to understand, or at least helps to fill in the pieces somewhat. Without breaking down the pieces, I wouldn't have realized that the type of closeness I want isn't the same as the romantic closeness others want. I still might not understand it perfectly, but separating the sensual from the romantic at least helps outline what I don't know.

Conclusion
And so, this is where the various sub-labels of the aro/ace community come from. When a community is made of people who experience some of one thing, and some of another, and no one has the complete picture, it's important to keep analyzing the pieces until some line can be determined.

It's not a way to divide ourselves (as I've seen the community accused of by allosexuals), it's a way to understand ourselves, and to better understand each other. Ignorance has never helped people co-exist. Understanding does, and that's what asexual reductionism provides.