Philosophy Sexual Orientation Doesn't Exist

[The Name of Love]

Sexual orientation does not exist. It's a social construct. Allow me to explain.

But first, what is a "sexual orientation"? Well, it has to do something with the stable object of one's sexual desires. Someone who is only ever sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex is said to have a heterosexual orientation, and someone who is only ever sexually attracted to people of the same sex is said to have a homosexual orientation. So far so good. But sexual orientation is also said to constitute a kind of identity, as if having same-sex desires is constitutive of one's nature. This flies in the face of the teleological and marital tradition found in Christian cultures up until the nineteenth century.

As the father of queer theory Michel Foucault once pointed out in his book History of Sexuality, the term "homosexual" was invented in the nineteenth century to describe the psychological makeup of one who commits same-sex sex acts. Rather than the "perpetrator" of sodomitical acts being "nothing more than the juridical subject of them," an identity was created to label those with same-sex attraction.

Foucault describes this state of affairs coming about after the decline of classical Christianity and the rise of secular science. Elites wanted to defend their conservative moral values without appeals to God. So they invented the homosexual, a perverted psychiatric identity, a mutant "life form." Foucault describes this process as being especially insidious because "nothing that went into [the homosexual's] total composition was unaffected by his sexuality. It was everywhere present in him: at the root of all his actions because it was their insidious and indefinitely active principle." A social straightjacket that bound him with pseudoscience.

There's good reason to doubt that the sexual orientation as an identity is even coherent as a concept. From a purely biological point of view, sexual organs exist to allow us to copulate with someone of the opposite sex, and sexual arousal prods us to copulate with someone of the opposite sex. Same-sex attraction was not favored by evolution per se; rather, evolution favored some other trait causally correlated with same-sex attraction. Same-sex attraction is an alteration of normal sexual attraction that prods us to copulate.

Now, the underlying claim among those who claim that there are there are these things called "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" is that (1) Everyone has a sexual orientation, and for heterosexuals it matches the biological function of their sexual faculties, and (2) Homosexuals have a sexual orientation that doesn’t match the biological function of their sexual faculties.

If sexual orientation is supposed to be an identity, then (2) is not true for all so-called homosexuals. There are some people with same-sex desires that reject the very idea of a gay or lesbian identity. In order to make (2) come out true, one could adopt a looser notion of sexual orientation as simply having a stable sexual attraction of a certain kind. But there are also some people with opposite-sex desires who don't have much in the way of sexual desire at all. These people are generally indifferent to sex, but if you were to put them in a sexual situation, they'd be down for opposite-sex activity, but not same-sex activity. They are "heterosexuals" that lack a "sexual orientation."

So it appears that this entire concept, to me at least, is on shoddy grounds conceptually, and, in fact, is a complete fabrication of nineteenth century psychiatry that nobody really believes in anymore. Even the consensus on the Left, the bleeding edge of queer theory, thinks that sexual orientation is a myth. It was simply politically useful in the struggle for gay civil rights.

The idea of sexual orientation is not only false, it is intellectually, morally, and spiritually destructive. Intellectually, it makes ethical philosophy in the realm of sex all but impossible by replacing the old marital-procreative principles of chastity with a reference to a conditioned and unprincipled gag reflex. Morally, it shifts our everyday attention to subjective passions and away from objective purposes, leading to obsessive self-searching among young "homosexuals." Spiritually, it is at odds with the idea that Christ sets us free. As Fr. Hugh Barbour wrote in his paper "Do Homosexuals Exist? Or, Where Do We Go from Here?", traditional moral theology "evaluated acts, and did not generalize so unsatisfyingly about the tendencies that lead to these acts. That was left to the casuistry of occasions of sin, and to spiritual direction. If the sin is theft, then is the standard of evaluation kleptomania? If drunkenness, alcoholism? If sloth, clinical depression?" Take any sin, and you could point to some "condition" that supposedly underlies it and, with it, the person, binding the sinner to their sin.

Besides the harmful effects this idea of sexual orientation has on "homosexuals," it also has a harmful effect on "heterosexuals" as well; this system of sexual orientation seems to exempt "heterosexuals" from conservative moral evaluation. As a general rule, self-identification as a "heterosexual" is self-identification with the "normal group" that is defined against all the "deviants." The model norm for evaluation of sexual deviancy is not "heterosexuality" but Jesus Christ, the perfect God-man. Heterosexual identification fills men with an unholy pride, something far worse than the lust and despair that fills those who identify as homosexuals.

Heterosexual identification also inhibits our ability to form genuine interpersonal relationships with members of the same sex. Thanks to Sigmund Freud, we all associate any physical attraction and affection with genital erotic desire. As a result, intimate same-sex friendship and a chaste appreciation for the beauty of one’s own sex have become all but impossible to achieve. "Heterosexuals" must avoid getting too close to a friend of the same sex, lest they be mistaken for gay, so they settle for superficial associations with their mates. Sexual orientation robs "heterosexuals" of the deep friendships that characterized past societies.

Lastly, I must mention the recent push for pedophilia, marked by all those articles coming out in favor of that garbage film "Cuties." Part of what's behind this the labeling of pedophilia as a mental illness and a sexual orientation. If this is correct, then discrimination against so-called "minor-attracted persons" is bigotry, simple as. There doesn't seem to be any way to escape this logic unless one rejects the idea that sexual orientation constitutes some kind of concept. Then, we can just say "bad thing is bad, and we have the right to discriminate against people who want to do that bad thing." No sweat.

In conclusion, there's really no reason anyone left, right, or center ought to support the existence of sexual orientation. So let's just stop and embrace sane human relationships rather than this kind of taxonomical nonsense!

 

[Senor Hortler]

Pretty gay ngl.

 

[The Name of Love]

Pretty gay ngl.

"Gay" doesn't exist. It's literally a social construct.

 

[Aldarion]

"Gay" doesn't exist. It's literally a social construct.

"Gay" really means "happy". But it got appropriated by sodomites in order to promote their agenda.

 

[ShieldWife]

Well, in the very simple sense that most people likely imagine when they say sexual orientation, it does kinda exist. That is to say, you can lump people into broad categories like being attracted to the same sex, being attracted to the opposite sex, being attracted to both sexes, and then onto the numerous other possibilities. It can be accurately said that certain people have sexual preferences that can be categorized in those ways.

When we go a little bit deeper, then it becomes more questionable. Is this “sexual orientation” to the degree that it exists genetic and immutable? No, studies show that environment plays a large role in determining sexual preferences, including what sex we’re attracted to. The left stridently rejects that evidence and insists that gay people are born that way - which is strangely the only trait that they seem to think that people are born with. These are people who think that women are shorter than men because we are malnourished as infants by sexist parents. Can a “homosexual” be “cured?” I don’t know that answer to that, maybe so.

Then there is the idea of an all encompassing sexual orientation based identity. Meaning that your same or opposite sex attraction defines your entire identity in some profound way. On the surface, the idea seems silly to me, but upon greater reflection, only entering into romantic relationships with people of the same sex could make you life different in very profound ways from someone who would enter into a relationship with someone of the opposite sex.

As for myself, being a wife and mother are very central parts of who I am, those things define the nature of my life in very fundamental ways and if I weren’t interested in men, I know that I would be a very different person leading a very different life than I am now.

I don’t see the issue in calling pedophilia a mental illness. It is entirely natural and even necessary at times to discriminate against mentally ill people. In fact, discrimination is an entirely acceptable part of life that we all do frequently in thousands of different ways - the idea that it’s some kind of terrible sin is both a recent and extremely bizarre belief.

 

[The Name of Love]

Well, in the very simple sense that most people likely imagine when they say sexual orientation, it does kinda exist. That is to say, you can lump people into broad categories like being attracted to the same sex, being attracted to the opposite sex, being attracted to both sexes, and then onto the numerous other possibilities. It can be accurately said that certain people have sexual preferences that can be categorized in those ways.

Those people's subjective experiences are wrong because they are formed by a heavily propagandized social order. Human sexual preference is incredibly fluid, and there's no reason to believe that the nineteenth century taxonomy of "sexual orientation" (which, again, is based on junk science nobody believes in anymore) is correct.

When we go a little bit deeper, then it becomes more questionable. Is this “sexual orientation” to the degree that it exists genetic and immutable? No, studies show that environment plays a large role in determining sexual preferences, including what sex we’re attracted to. The left stridently rejects that evidence and insists that gay people are born that way - which is strangely the only trait that they seem to think that people are born with. These are people who think that women are shorter than men because we are malnourished as infants by sexist parents. Can a “homosexual” be “cured?” I don’t know that answer to that, maybe so.

No, homosexuality cannot be cured because there's no such thing as a condition called homosexuality. It's quite literally pseudoscience.

Then there is the idea of an all encompassing sexual orientation based identity. Meaning that your same or opposite sex attraction defines your entire identity in some profound way. On the surface, the idea seems silly to me, but upon greater reflection, only entering into romantic relationships with people of the same sex could make you life different in very profound ways from someone who would enter into a relationship with someone of the opposite sex.

Oh yes, my entire identity is shaped by who my id wants me to stick my dong into. Genius.

That's sarcasm, by the way.

You have to ask yourself, again, if this sexual orientation identity did actually exist, then why was it never a concept before the medicalization of sodomy in the nineteenth century?

I don’t see the issue in calling pedophilia a mental illness. It is entirely natural and even necessary at times to discriminate against mentally ill people. In fact, discrimination is an entirely acceptable part of life that we all do frequently in thousands of different ways - the idea that it’s some kind of terrible sin is both a recent and extremely bizarre belief.

Labeling a sin a mental illness is the first step in excusing it. That's been the trajectory of modern ethics for the past hundred years or so, in case you haven't noticed.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

"Gay" doesn't exist. It's literally a social construct.

Only if mental illness caused by abuse is a "social construct" which while technically accurate stretches the definition somewhat.

 

[ShieldWife]

Those people's subjective experiences are wrong because they are formed by a heavily propagandized social order. Human sexual preference is incredibly fluid, and there's no reason to believe that the nineteenth century taxonomy of "sexual orientation" (which, again, is based on junk science nobody believes in anymore) is correct.

How can someone saying that they are attracted to men, women, or both be wrong? If somebody says that they feel sexual desire and romantic interest in women, but not men, assuming that the person isn't lying then that would indeed be a factual statement, would it not? That doesn't mean that the factual statement is some eternal and unalterable truth, but it would still be an accurate description of that person's desires.

Outside of dishonesty, can subjective experiences be wrong? I can say that I like spaghetti and that it's good for me, and you may well be able to debate whether or not it's good for me, but unless I'm lying you can't say that my subjective experience of enjoying spaghetti is wrong.

No, homosexuality cannot be cured because there's no such thing as a condition called homosexuality. It's quite literally pseudoscience.

There aren't people who feel sexual or romantic desire for people of the same sex but not the opposite sex? That isn't accurate. We could debate how much those feelings are determined by biology, environment, or socialization and how possible it might be to change those feelings; but we can still (if we find it helpful) categorize people in this way.

A person's sexual feeling are so strong that a homosexual may well risk severe punishment or even death to act upon their desires in places where homosexual acts are outlawed. A homosexual might likewise reject a traditional heterosexual relationship and all of the benefits that it brings.

Maybe saying "cure" isn't a good way of thinking of it, modern gay rights activists would object to the idea that homosexuality can or should be cured. But the state of same sex attraction to the exclusion of opposite sex attraction is something that some people experience, experience to the degree that it has a major effect on their lives and can't be voluntarily altered.

Oh yes, my entire identity is shaped by who my id wants me to stick my dong into. Genius.

That's sarcasm, by the way.

Your entire identity? I don't know about your entire identity, I'm not sure what that necessarily means outside of some kind of political jargon. Identity in the sense of different Social Justice demographics that are favored or unfavored is a social construct, at least the significance that they believe such categories have is, even if they are based on real differences.

But, who you want to stick your dong into, or who you don't, may well have a very profound and significant effect on nearly every other aspect of your life. If someone is a monk and faithfully follows the monastic lifestyle, then it may not be so important who he‘s attracted to but not having sex with. For most of us, who do act on our sexual and romantic desires, they can be one of the most important aspects of our lives.

You have to ask yourself, again, if this sexual orientation identity did actually exist, then why was it never a concept before the medicalization of sodomy in the nineteenth century?

I don't know, there are plenty of true things about reality that people didn't realize until the 19th century. Then again, it could be that the 19th century lead to a different way of thinking about and categorizing the world that made such a categories desirable. That doesn't necessarily mean that the basic concept that people in the 19th century believed in didn't exist previously. An ancient person, if pressed on the topic, might admit to being attracted to both sexes or only one and might likewise say that others felt similarly. If you said to people before the 19th century (or outside of the West for that matter) that some men lust only for women, some men lust only for other men, and some lust for both - would they all think that such an idea was preposterous or would some say that it was an accurate statement?

How important those categories are is more debatable, but I think that the difference can be pretty important.

Labeling a sin a mental illness is the first step in excusing it. That's been the trajectory of modern ethics for the past hundred years or so, in case you haven't noticed.

What is “sin” in this context, the desire to act or the action itself. In moral philosophy, that is usually a pretty important distinction. It may be appropriate to label a desire to do something which is harmful a mental illness, while at the same time labeling actions based on that desire as immoral. There are plenty of actions that are motivated by mental illness which are thoroughly condemned, even if the punishment for the perpetrator may be different than comparable acts from the supposed mentally well.

What would be an example of labeling a sin a mental illness before excusing it?

I suppose that one could make a case that there is too much subjectivity in drawing a distinction between mentally ill and mentally well, that compulsions which are uncommon or unacceptable by society are seen as mental illness while other compulsions are not even if they can inspire destructive behavior.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

No, homosexuality cannot be cured because there's no such thing as a condition called homosexuality. It's quite literally pseudoscience.



Labeling a sin a mental illness is the first step in excusing it. That's been the trajectory of modern ethics for the past hundred years or so, in case you haven't noticed.

This is to say that there is no such thing as a mental illness, and that to identify a pattern of aberrant behavior is to bring it closer to being accepted.

 

[The Name of Love]

Only if mental illness caused by abuse is a "social construct" which while technically accurate stretches the definition somewhat.

Run that by me again, chief?

How can someone saying that they are attracted to men, women, or both be wrong? If somebody says that they feel sexual desire and romantic interest in women, but not men, assuming that the person isn't lying then that would indeed be a factual statement, would it not? That doesn't mean that the factual statement is some eternal and unalterable truth, but it would still be an accurate description of that person's desires.

Outside of dishonesty, can subjective experiences be wrong? I can say that I like spaghetti and that it's good for me, and you may well be able to debate whether or not it's good for me, but unless I'm lying you can't say that my subjective experience of enjoying spaghetti is wrong.

I addressed this point in the OP when I deconstructed the idea of sexual orientation.

There aren't people who feel sexual or romantic desire for people of the same sex but not the opposite sex? That isn't accurate. We could debate how much those feelings are determined by biology, environment, or socialization and how possible it might be to change those feelings; but we can still (if we find it helpful) categorize people in this way.

A person's sexual feeling are so strong that a homosexual may well risk severe punishment or even death to act upon their desires in places where homosexual acts are outlawed. A homosexual might likewise reject a traditional heterosexual relationship and all of the benefits that it brings.

Maybe saying "cure" isn't a good way of thinking of it, modern gay rights activists would object to the idea that homosexuality can or should be cured. But the state of same sex attraction to the exclusion of opposite sex attraction is something that some people experience, experience to the degree that it has a major effect on their lives and can't be voluntarily altered.

I'm not denying the feelings. I'm denying the label "homosexuality" for the reasons I gave.

Your entire identity? I don't know about your entire identity, I'm not sure what that necessarily means outside of some kind of political jargon. Identity in the sense of different Social Justice demographics that are favored or unfavored is a social construct, at least the significance that they believe such categories have is, even if they are based on real differences.

But, who you want to stick your dong into, or who you don't, may well have a very profound and significant effect on nearly every other aspect of your life. If someone is a monk and faithfully follows the monastic lifestyle, then it may not be so important who he‘s attracted to but not having sex with. For most of us, who do act on our sexual and romantic desires, they can be one of the most important aspects of our lives.

I find intelligent women with long hair sexy. Is this such an important aspect of my life that it constitutes who I am as a person?

I don't know, there are plenty of true things about reality that people didn't realize until the 19th century. Then again, it could be that the 19th century lead to a different way of thinking about and categorizing the world that made such a categories desirable. That doesn't necessarily mean that the basic concept that people in the 19th century believed in didn't exist previously. An ancient person, if pressed on the topic, might admit to being attracted to both sexes or only one and might likewise say that others felt similarly. If you said to people before the 19th century (or outside of the West for that matter) that some men lust only for women, some men lust only for other men, and some lust for both - would they all think that such an idea was preposterous or would some say that it was an accurate statement?

How important those categories are is more debatable, but I think that the difference can be pretty important.

I explained how the identities were formed - based on science nobody believes in anymore in order to find a secular alternative to Christianity that justifies traditional sexual ethics.

What is “sin” in this context, the desire to act or the action itself. In moral philosophy, that is usually a pretty important distinction. It may be appropriate to label a desire to do something which is harmful a mental illness, while at the same time labeling actions based on that desire as immoral. There are plenty of actions that are motivated by mental illness which are thoroughly condemned, even if the punishment for the perpetrator may be different than comparable acts from the supposed mentally well.

What would be an example of labeling a sin a mental illness before excusing it?

I suppose that one could make a case that there is too much subjectivity in drawing a distinction between mentally ill and mentally well, that compulsions which are uncommon or unacceptable by society are seen as mental illness while other compulsions are not even if they can inspire destructive behavior.

Most of the time, sinful desire, the desire to sin, does not make the desirer morally culpability, but there are instances in which it does (as seen in Exodus 20:17 and Matthew 5:28).

I gave examples of sins being excused because they are mental illnesses - alcoholism, homosexuality, etc. We even saw it as recently as a few years ago, when Harvey Weinstein claimed to have a "sex disorder."

This is to say that there is no such thing as a mental illness, and that to identify a pattern of aberrant behavior is to bring it closer to being accepted.

There are people who make such arguments, but while I do think it can be taken too far, I do believe that there is some truth to that insofar as there seems to have been a tendency since the nineteenth century to classify every aberrant behavior as a "mental illness" or a "brain disease," and this is inherently destructive to our discourse.

 

[ShieldWife]

I find intelligent women with long hair sexy. Is this such an important aspect of my life that it constitutes who I am as a person?

Do you also find men with long hair to be sexy?

You may be thinking that is a silly thing to ask, and my guess would be that your answer is a fairly strong “no.” But would it be such a strange question if I asked if you also found women with short or medium hair to be attractive? The answer would probably be yes, but not as much. If you have a wife with long hair and some day she decided to cut it short, how big of a deal would that be? You wouldn’t like how it looks but it’s not the end of the world. What if your wife decided to get a sex change and become a biological male, or at least a facsimile of one? That would be a much bigger deal.

I don’t know if you’re single or attached, but I bet if you’re single and a nice girl came around with short hair, who shared many of your values and who you got along with, that you’d date or potentially marry her. Not so with a long haired man.

If you marry a girl with long or short hair, it’s unlikely to have that much of an impact on the life you will lead with her. If you were to marry either a long haired woman or a long haired man, the differences it would mean to your life would be huge.

So I think that there is a good justification for drawing distinctions between people who are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. The differences are so much greater and more life impacting, and likely have higher correlations with other factors than hair type.

As for intelligence, that could be pretty important, and intelligence is another trait that we started measuring and categorizing in the 19th century but that has fallen out of favor with the left.

 

[The Name of Love]

Do you also find men with long hair to be sexy?

You may be thinking that is a silly thing to ask, and my guess would be that your answer is a fairly strong “no.” But would it be such a strange question if I asked if you also found women with short or medium hair to be attractive? The answer would probably be yes, but not as much. If you have a wife with long hair and some day she decided to cut it short, how big of a deal would that be? You wouldn’t like how it looks but it’s not the end of the world. What if your wife decided to get a sex change and become a biological male, or at least a facsimile of one? That would be a much bigger deal.

I don’t know if you’re single or attached, but I bet if you’re single and a nice girl came around with short hair, who shared many of your values and who you got along with, that you’d date or potentially marry her. Not so with a long haired man.

If you marry a girl with long or short hair, it’s unlikely to have that much of an impact on the life you will lead with her. If you were to marry either a long haired woman or a long haired man, the differences it would mean to your life would be huge.

So I think that there is a good justification for drawing distinctions between people who are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. The differences are so much greater and more life impacting, and likely have higher correlations with other factors than hair type.

As for intelligence, that could be pretty important, and intelligence is another trait that we started measuring and categorizing in the 19th century but that has fallen out of favor with the left.

Missing the point, once again. I demonstrated in the OP why the labels don't make any sense.

Now, the underlying claim among those who claim that there are there are these things called "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" is that (1) Everyone has a sexual orientation, and for heterosexuals it matches the biological function of their sexual faculties, and (2) Homosexuals have a sexual orientation that doesn’t match the biological function of their sexual faculties.

If sexual orientation is supposed to be an identity, then (2) is not true for all so-called homosexuals. There are some people with same-sex desires that reject the very idea of a gay or lesbian identity. In order to make (2) come out true, one could adopt a looser notion of sexual orientation as simply having a stable sexual attraction of a certain kind. But there are also some people with opposite-sex desires who don't have much in the way of sexual desire at all. These people are generally indifferent to sex, but if you were to put them in a sexual situation, they'd be down for opposite-sex activity, but not same-sex activity. They are "heterosexuals" that lack a "sexual orientation."

So it appears that this entire concept, to me at least, is on shoddy grounds conceptually, and, in fact, is a complete fabrication of nineteenth century psychiatry that nobody really believes in anymore.

Also, if you are going to make desires identities because they impact your life, why not make an identity for every possible desire out there? We could classify people by what kind of food they eat in the same way we classify what kind of person they're sexually attracted to. What kind of food a person eats affects their life greatly, no? We can have spicy-likers, sour-likers, sweet-likers, etc.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Also, if you are going to make desires identities because they impact your life, why not make an identity for every possible desire out there? We could classify people by what kind of food they eat in the same way we classify what kind of person they're sexually attracted to. What kind of food a person eats affects their life greatly, no? We can have spicy-likers, sour-likers, sweet-likers, etc.

Are differences of taste not factors of ones identity?

 

[The Name of Love]

Are differences of taste not factors of ones identity?

They could be, but classifying homosexuality as an identity is basically making your preferences into the identity itself rather than simply a factor of it.

 

[ShieldWife]

Missing the point, once again. I demonstrated in the OP why the labels don't make any sense.



Also, if you are going to make desires identities because they impact your life, why not make an identity for every possible desire out there? We could classify people by what kind of food they eat in the same way we classify what kind of person they're sexually attracted to. What kind of food a person eats affects their life greatly, no? We can have spicy-likers, sour-likers, sweet-likers, etc.

Maybe the way you’re using “identity” is a straw man. You can recognize sexual orientation as an important trait a person possesses without that being the person’s core defining trait. Sexual orientation need not be an affiliation that a person has loyalty towards.

 

[The Name of Love]

Maybe the way you’re using “identity” is a straw man. You can recognize sexual orientation as an important trait a person possesses without that being the person’s core defining trait. Sexual orientation need not be an affiliation that a person has loyalty towards.

I showed how sexual orientation is an incoherent concept whether you define it as an identity or as a stable sexual attraction in the OP. You could at least acknowledge that argument.

 

[ShieldWife]

I showed how sexual orientation is an incoherent concept whether you define it as an identity or as a stable sexual attraction in the OP. You could at least acknowledge that argument.

I’m not sure how you argued that it is an incoherent concept when you say that sexual orientation can accurately describe, as you say, a stable sexual attraction.

 

[The Name of Love]

I’m not sure how you argued that it is an incoherent concept when you say that sexual orientation can accurately describe, as you say, a stable sexual attraction.

there are also some people with opposite-sex desires who don't have much in the way of sexual desire at all. These people are generally indifferent to sex, but if you were to put them in a sexual situation, they'd be down for opposite-sex activity, but not same-sex activity. They are "heterosexuals" that lack a "sexual orientation."

Again, why aren't you addressing this?

 

[ShieldWife]

Again, why aren't you addressing this?

I can address it. If someone had no sexual desires at all, it is likely inaccurate to call that person heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. Just calling them asexual might suffice. If someone just has a very low sexual drive and sexual desires, but still has a little bit, I don’t see why that person couldn’t be categorized by sexual orientation. It would be like saying you can have positive numbers, negative numbers, or zero. A negative number is still negative, regardless of how large or small that negative number may be.

 

[The Name of Love]

I can address it. If someone had no sexual desires at all, it is likely inaccurate to call that person heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. Just calling them asexual might suffice. If someone just has a very low sexual drive and sexual desires, but still has a little bit, I don’t see why that person couldn’t be categorized by sexual orientation. It would be like saying you can have positive numbers, negative numbers, or zero. A negative number is still negative, regardless of how large or small that negative number may be.

But then, what is a sexual orientation then. The person who I presented isn't a "asexual" because, if sex was in the offing, they'd choose opposite-sex over same-sex every time. But they aren't "heterosexual" because their low sex drive means that there's not a stable attraction to any one sex over time.