Aromance

There's no credible support I'm aware of in the psychology or sexology literature for the idea of a separation between sexual and romantic orientation.

When we talk about orientation (such as heterosexuality or homsexuality), we're speaking of something that, from all the credible evidence we have, is fixed before birth or eariy in life. So by the correct use of the term "asexual", it is a hardwired, unchangable orientation. It is also exceptionally rare. Unfortunately, a small group of people have hijacked the term and really confused the discussion. Any consideration of "aromantic" has to be considered in that context.

So when you're speaking about not having an interest in a long term relationship, from everything we currently understand, that's an issue that is psychological rather than biological in origin. And usually it arises from family-of-origin issues and is often (but not always) tied in with depression or anxiety.

Particularly if you currently define yourself as questioning, I think it's quite possible that your current uncertainty may tie in with your desire (or lack thereof) to think about being in a relationship in the long term. Additionally, there are an awful lot of people who figured they'd always be single until they met someone they felt a deep connection with and decided they wanted to be with.

So it might make sense to first work on the issue of better understanding your attractions and sexual connection/orientation, and then look at what's going on with the desire (or lack thereof) for having a long-term relationship.

That may not be the answer you're looking for, in that it lacks certainty, but it might be difficult to get a clear, certain answer right now.

 

I haven't read it fully, but I have seen prior references to it and read it at the time. The book is definitely an outlier, cites outdated, flawed, biased, or otherwise methodologically flawed research, and often takes small bits out of context. Additionally, since the conclusions drawn are pretty out of step with most credible research in the field, I would not consider it a credible source. The fact that the author has a pretty strong Christian anti-gay bias certainly doesn't help things; a number of the cited studies are widely discredited studies promoted by Christian crazies... so the methodological problems and flawed arguments pretty much fall in the same category as the many other Christian "there's no proof that homosexuality is fixed" sources.

If you want more specifics, check out the negative Amazon reviews, several of the reviewers have given very detailed analyses of the specific methodological problems with the book. Oh... and the fact that NARTH, a fundy Christian psuedo-science, anti-gay organization likes it... ought to be enough to firmly discredit it by itself.

Sources like this are why, when I'm speaking about research, I generally use the term "no credible professionals or credible research shows..." There's always agenda-driven bullshit we can find on almost any topic, the trick is sorting out the BS from the methodologically sound research that's out there.