The research problem of this study stems from the complex and multifaceted nature of sexual orientation. Current sexual orientation categories are contingent upon rigid criteria such as gender attraction congruence, presumed fixedness of sexual and gender identities, and neglect of asexuality and aromanticism. This traditional framing leads to inaccuracies, especially when nonheterosexual, transgender, and nonbinary people are often misclassified. The study addresses this by examining the discrepancies between self-perceived orientation and actual attractions and the understanding orientation from an asexual perspective. This approach seeks to clarify sexual and romantic orientation beyond the allosexual bias and to include asexual perspectives in sexual orientation research.

 

Moreover, the rise in individuals identifying as asexual, particularly among millennials, highlights the need for more inclusive research. Investigating asexuality as a distinct sexual orientation, separate from medical or psychological conditions, offers a new perspective in this field. This study also addresses the homogenization of sexual and romantic orientations in the current survey tools, underscoring the need for instruments that distinguish between these orientations and include transgender and nonbinary identities. By aligning with the split attraction model, the research aims to depict a more nuanced understanding of orientation, both sexual and romantic, contributing to bridging gaps in academic literature and ensuring the representation of diverse sexual, romantic, and gender identities. This study explored how four selected influences of sexual orientation (FSISO; romantic attraction, sexual attraction, sexual behavior, and sexual fantasies) play a role in shaping an individual’s sexual orientation and whether these influences are rated differently based on an individual’s self-reported sexual orientation and romantic orientation.

 

The following research questions guided the study: Are there significant differences in how the FSISO are rated by individuals based on their self-reported sexual orientation? Are there significant differences in how the FSISO are rated by individuals based on their self-reported romantic orientation? How are the FSISO interrelated in shaping an individual’s sexual orientation? and Is there an association between participants’ Asexual Identification Scale classified orientation and romantic orientation?

 

Using a cross-sectional survey distributed to a convenience sample of Reddit users, targeting allosexual and asexual adults in the United States, the study received 1,656 responses.

 

Results indicated that the participant demographics did not mirror the 2020 U.S. Census findings, suggesting a sample bias skewed toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, nonbinary, queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual populations.

 

For the first research question, significant differences were found in FSISO ratings across sexual orientation groups, except for bicurious individuals. Significant differences in FSISO ratings were observed across romantic orientation groups, highlighting variations in how different romantic orientations perceive the influence of FSISO. 

 

The third research question revealed strong correlations between sexual attraction, behavior, and fantasies but a weaker link with romantic attraction, indicating divergent paths of sexuality and romanticism.

 

The fourth research question assessed the association between asexual orientation and romantic orientation, finding an association between romantic orientation and whether the participant was classified as asexual or allosexual, as measured by the AIS-12.

 

This study supports sexual configurations theory, emphasizing the nuanced and dynamic nature of sexuality, influenced by a spectrum of individual characteristics and experiences. The findings underscore the diverse and fluid nature of sexual and romantic orientations, challenging conventional models of sexuality and highlighting the complex interplay of difference influences in shaping individual sexual orientations.