Talk:Romantic orientation

Why is a page for "romantic orientation" needed?

Romantic orientation is part of sexual orientation. Having a separate page for "romantic orientation" implies that sexual orientation is only about sex, when that is not the case. Sexual orientation has always been defined as the sex (male, female, or both) that you are attracted to physically, emotionally, and romantically. Why is it necessary to have a separate page for romantic orientation, when it's literally part of sexual orientation?

I see it as a bit homophobic and redundant. Because the word "sex" in sexual orientation is not talking about intercourse or lust, it is literally talking about the sex (in terms of gender) that you are orientated to be attracted to.

Sexual orientation is a term used to refer to a person's pattern of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to people of a particular gender (male or female).

If someone lacks sexual orientation but has an emotional and romantic attraction to the same sex, then they are still, by definition, homosexual. The word "sexual" in homosexual does not mean it is exclusive to sexual intercourse or sexual attraction. It means same-sex attraction. DocZach (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Language evolves and so does our understanding of sexual and romantic and other types of attraction. Some people experience different romantic attraction from their sexual attraction, you can read more about this at Split attraction model.

For many people their sexual and romantic attraction are aligned, but it is not universally true, which is why we have separate article explaining just that.

If someone doesn't have sexual attraction, they may identify as asexual, but they may still have romantic attraction such as being heteroromantic or homoromantic. Raladic (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I do think the article should clarify that "sexual orientation" doesn't mean sexual attraction only though. DocZach (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

If anything more about sexual orientation should be added, it should be in the "Relationship with sexual orientation and asexuality" section, NOT in the opening or anywhere else. Otherwise, I have to agree with Radalic here. There is undoubtedly a justification to have this page. Romantic and sexual orientation, also known as romantic and sexual attraction, are different. Also, WebMD is not a reliable source to disprove an *entire* page. Historyday01 (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the Romantic orientation#Relationship with sexual orientation and asexuality already explain the difference to sexual orientation and sexual attraction. I did add inline links and a see also header to it. Raladic (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if we agree that romantic orientation is part of sexual orientation, by logic we shouldn't have articles for subsets/subtopics (e.g. why do we have an article for lesbian and gay men if we already have homosexuality?). --MikutoH ^talk! 00:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, is it also homophobic to imply homosexual people can be heterosocial? --MikutoH ^talk! 00:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand the misconception, but many people experience a no sexual attraction, but do have romantic attraction(like myself.) I personally think that this page is needed because of people like me, or people that have it the other way around. There is also a difference between sexual attraction, and not wanting to have sex, which can sometimes get confusing. Karl Collins The One Millionth (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

References

"Aromantisch" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Aromantisch has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 23 § Aromantisch until a consensus is reached. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 05:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)