= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielFilan comments on 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey - Call For Critiques/Questions - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (269)
A question on romantic orientation would be good.
I'm unclear on the distinction between "sexual orientation" and "romantic orientation". I can understand the distinction between "sex" and "romance", but the two are strongly connected to each other. Are there people who want sex with one gender, but romance (whatever that means without sex) with the other? The Wikipedia article, um, isn't helping me.
My impression is that a person's romantic orientation is almost always a sub- or superset of their sexual orientation. At any rate I don't recall hearing of anyone who identified otherwise. But the inclusion can go either way (e.g. asexual but homororomantic, or bisexual but heteroromantic). They're strongly correlated but distinct.
There are also non-asexual people who are a- or demi-romantic.
What do you mean with "romantic orientation" as opposed to sexual orientation? I don't think the term is well known and we already have enough questions about that domain
What gender/s you are romantically attracted to, and also how strongly you feel that attraction, see the Wikipedia page. It is mainly useful for asexuals (and also, I imagine, people who answer 'other'), but it's certainly possible to have a romantic orientation that doesn't match your sexual orientation. Maybe it could be included as an optional write-in box, or at the end?
Could you provide a source for that claim that there is a sufficient number of people for which that distinction is useful?
In the last survey, there were 47 asexuals and 39 'other's. It is a useful distinction for asexuals and I imagine it would be useful for many 'other's. Furthermore, as per philh's reply to RichardKennaway's comment, the distinction is probably useful for some non-asexual people.
Whether this is a sufficient number of people to add an extra question is a bit of a more thorny question. For comparison, there were 25 trans people in the last survey, fewer than the number of asexuals, and there are options for them in the gender question. Even if it's too onerous to add to the main sex/gender/relationship section is too onerous, I think that it could find a happy home in an extra credit section.
Okay, 86 people seems like enough to be able to separate them into smaller chunks.