▸ attractions

One day in one Spanish class a handful of years ago i was asked the following question somewhat verbatim by a good friend: "¿Te gusta chicas o chicos?" I hadn't given an exact answer. So... this article is dedicated to answering this question.

the short answer, part I

I'm fond of both. The proper term would be "bisexual" or "pansexual"; it really is up to interpretation, though the terms are distinct. In fact, I lean towards "pan" more since gender isn't really a deciding factor when it comes to what I am attracted to. But the whole story is a tad bit more complicated.

the long answer

Ever heard of "romance"? You probably have, and I hate dislike the concept of it (no offense to the romance enjoyers — you can do you!). You're telling me that (in western society) in order to attain a romantic partner I must go through a handful of arbitrary "talking stages" and "dates"? I hate it. I have absolutely no interest in having a romantic partner too — I've seen high-school romance occur in front of my face and I think it's cringe. It feels too forced — that's my main problem (not saying that it inherently is). And I know exactly why. It's (often) the societal pressure to "talk to a girl". I've overheard other people "peer pressuring" their friends to try to talk to a girl and when they cave, it always (well, in cases that I observe) feels like that guy is just pushing rocks up a hill, a means to an end (again, is not to be taken as a generalization, but as an anecdote).

Perhaps this is just introverted teenage years me being avoidant, shy, whatever you want to call it. But I feel little-to-no attraction based on romantic factors (in formal terms, "aromantic"). I have honestly never looked at a person or talked to a person and said to myself, "I would date them." or "I want to be really close to that person." etc. Nor have I ever had a real, actually serious "crush". Nor do I want to go through the effort of doing so, nor would I want to force myself to.

But that puts me in an... awkward position. Naturally, (but not always) romance would lead, over time, and with effort, to a more sexual relationship. Do I just want to get freaky with people without going through the romantic prerequisites? Am I just a lustful person seeing people as sexual objects only? Short answer: no. I must note that the term "sexual attraction" is... just that. An "attraction", much like how two magnets yearn for each other. It feels innate to my personal human experience as an inherently sexual being that I do have such attraction (aside: does not mean that sexual attraction is felt by all people, nor does romantic attraction).

I feel the need to address the following point: what I have mentioned are my personal reactions, personal experiences, and personal discernments. However, they do not serve as a predictor of how I'll act. Just because I don't fancy romance but do fancy some freak doesn't necessarily mean that I would engage in actions that push for a solely sexual partnership. I respect people's dignities above all! And I wish to continue that trend.

I do believe there are ways to express sexual attraction both without having romantic attraction be a prerequisite and without being a creep. It happens more often than you'd think these days too: think "queer-platonic relationships" and/or "friends with benefits".

I will also note that there are much more things that have influenced this discernment that were omitted from this article for personal reasons.

the short answer, part II

There is, in fact, a term for what I have described: "aromantic allosexual". Putting that together, you get a label that covers the bases:

Aromantic, allosexual [and] pansexual.

So there you have it, the answer to that question has finally been resolved. Got it?

Subject to change.