Does romantic attraction/orientation really exist?

There is zero credible evidence that supports the idea that there's a separation between romantic and sexual orientation. Further, virtually nobody credible in the field (clinicians, researchers) supports this idea. This in spite of the fact that relationships, friendships, interpersonal communication and related topics have been studied extensively for decades. If this existed, it would have shown up in the research by now, and it certainly isn't something that just appeared out of thin air in the last 5 or so years (which is about how long this concept has been bandied about.)

As the OP indicates, what a small-but-noisy group of people refer to as "romantic attraction" has another name: emotionally intimate friendship. And emotionally intimate friendship has been around for millenia.

I concur with Quantum Reality that I really don't understand why people feel the need to create artificial terms for things that we already identify. I would expand beyond that to the dozens of other terms for which there's also absolutely no credible evidence to support. It unnecessarily complicates things and, in some cases, interferes with people being able to fully understand and accept themselves.

 

I actually know a number of people who snuggle without any sexual attraction, who have deep, long, close hugs, who have "cuddle puddles" with several others, and lots of other emotionally intimate experiences. None would define their experiences as "romantic attraction."

This is really splitting hairs, as from every definition I've ever seen (and that's a moving target, since the entire thing is 100% evidence- and research-free), there is no difference whatsoever between so-called "romantic attraction" and emotionally intimate friendship.

What's a "romantic relation"? Do you mean that they hang out together, have meaningful feelings for each other, care deeply about each other, but have no sexual interest in each other? That's emotionally intimate friendship.

 

So often (but certainly not always) in these cases, what we see is that one's internalized homophobia is getting in the way of dealing with the authentic sexual attraction. Over the years here at EC, there have been probably hundreds of people who have described exactly what you describe in their early-coming-out stages... and as they get more comfortable with themselves, they realize that the artificial "Well, I feel sexual attraction to a same-sex person, but I can't imagine being in a relationship with them" is, in fact, an unconscious block or protection that goes along with the 'bargaining' stage of the stages of loss (denial-anger-bargaining-depression-acceptance).

I also don't think that the romantic attraction as others have described it would be consistent with what you're describing, because those who describe it say that there is absolutely no sexual attraction/arousal/desire to those to whom they are 'romantically' attracted. You are describing sexual attraction, which, according to the (highly elastic) descriptions of 'romantic attraction' would not be consistent with anything I've seen.

This is a place where masturbation fantasies (without porn) are typically the most reliable indicator. In most cases, people find that they are more aroused by thinking about either men or women, and whichever is the stronger arousal is a pretty reliable indicator of where sexual orientation will end up, as this is coming from the unconscious, relatively unaffected by the judgments of the conscious mind.

And, of course, it's also possible (though probably slightly less likely, given what you've described) that you are totally in the middle of attraction/arousal/orientation spectrum and are 100% bisexual with no preference for men vs. women.

 

Well, the same can be said for sexual orientation, which is certainly very personal, and we most certainly have solid data on that. For that matter, we do have solid data on relationships in general, which show no indication of a separation.

Also, to be clear, what I was saying is a 'moving target' is the entirely unscientific, unsupported, ungrounded, utterly random things that the unrecognized labels are based on. The very fact that you can't pin anything down whatsoever on these labels is in itself the problem. If the rules keep changing depending on whose ridiculous website or article you read... then there's no consistency, and thus, no validity, measurability, or reproducibility.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with 'romantic attraction' as it is described.

Right, that is love that includes a sexual attraction piece.

Which is not inconsistent with sexual attraction.

Again, nothing above supports the idea of a separation between romantic and sexual orientation, nor any difference between so-called 'romantic' orientation and emotionally intimate friendship.

 

I appreciate your taking the time to do the digging into this subject.

So the first and third are from Lisa Diamond. I've run across her stuff before, and she's got a long history of posting stuff that's basically pulled out of her ass; it is my understanding that she is about the only person making claims supporting this separation, and her work isn't considered credible by most as I understand it, in part because it has not been replicated by others. In looking at the details of the first article, rather than just the abstract, she is essentially arguing (without saying it) the same thing I'm saying above... that so-called 'romantic love' is indistinguishable from emotionally intimate friendship; in fact, she cites most of the things one commonly sees in emotionally intimate friendship (closeness, typically over a period of time. One statement from the first article is "sexual arousal is not the “spark” that intensifies the preoccupation, separation distress, and heightened proximity seeking of infatuation"... which is, again, consistent with the idea of emotionally intimate friendship. The citations in her article are mostly relating back to some of the classic works, selectively quoted and interpreted. (One of the reasons I have never had much respect for her work.)

The second is a lot more interesting. I pulled up the full article, and haven't had time to read the entire piece, but the first thing I get in reading it is that it's basically a theory, not any sort of research; the citations in the article, as described in the discussion section of the article, are more focused on the author's theory about three components of love (which actually seem to make sense, and the article is definitely worth a more in-depth read, which I will do when time permits.) I didn't see anything in the article that supported the idea of a separation in the sense that someone would have physical attraction to one sex but romantic attraction to the other; what I took from it (again, from a brief read, not an in-depth one) was that different people express or feel love in different ways, which is consistent with other work, especially around vulnerability and early childhood factors and their influence on how people attune to and engage with each other. However, given that the work is 34 years old, and more recent reviews and evaluations have had mixed results, the consensus seems to be that the material isn't, by itself, an accurate view. But in any case, it still does not support the idea of separation as it is commonly used (as I described above.)

The third article is pretty short, and is basically talking about the origins of attunement and attachment (which has a strong impact on the development of adult bonds of friendship and the development of emotionally intimate connections, both sexual and non-sexual.)

So all of the above are interesting (if not particularly robust) and two of the three I've seen before. But none of them support the idea that one can have a strong, separated so-called 'romantic' love for one sex and a 'physical' love for the other sex. At best, the articles suggest that the concept of 'romantic' love can and often is (and arguably probably should be) a part of true love, and there are implications that the difficulty in experiencing the emotional intimacy that typically comes with a healthy relationship is a byproduct of early childhood bonding issues, which I would completely agree with. But that's a different argument. Diamond's work also supports the concept that 'romantic love' is really no different than 'emotionally intimate friendship'. Where all of the above falls short is in justifying the idea of disparate "romantic attractions" for one sex over another.

All of the above said... if you have the time and are willing to dig in further, I am more than happy to review other materials (perhaps better over PM than clogging up threads). Neither my views, nor ECCS organizational views (which don't always match up) are carved in stone; both ECCS' viewpoint and my personal viewpoint on many issues has evolved over time as new information has become available. And it is also true that as I have gotten busier, I have had less time to keep current on the latest research, so I tend to skim and rely on digests rather than to dig into materials. And doing that, I haven't seen anything (nor has any of the rest of our staff or admin team) that would warrant changing our perspective on this issue.

The other piece to keep in mind is that it's impossible to prove a negative (as I described a few posts above), so the onus is on those with opposing viewpoints to prove a positive. In other words, there needs to be evidence that the 'romantic orientation' exists separately from 'sexual', and that one can hold disparate orientations, which would necessarily require that the same-sex physical orientation lack any sense of romantic orientation, while the opposite sex 'romantic' attraction lack any physical desire.

The second part is definitely the case, as evidenced by the voluminous literature on the nature of friendships. It is the first part, and specifically the absence of same-sex 'romantic' connection in "physical orientation' relationships, but presence of it in the opposite case (or vice-versa) that would be required to demonstrate the separation. And that's what, to date, I have not seen any literature to support.

So it is an important conversation to have. And at the same time, it's equally important to ensure that the information we disseminate here is as accurate as it can be.

Again, I appreciate your taking the time to look up the above citations, and if you (or anyone else) is inclined to dig further into it, it's a worthwhile topic for discussion.

 

So I'm confused, because I did give some pretty solid reasons why I (and most everyone else that I'm aware of) disregards her work: 1) It hasn't been replicated; 2) It's based almost entirely on conjecture (i.e, pulled out of her ass) 3) Methodology is suspect 4) she's selectively quoting, never an ethical research strategy. Even if you put all of that aside, nothing she says distinguishes between so-called 'romantic orientation' and 'emotionally intimate friendship', and thus effectively reinforces the viewpoint I've previously stated, which is the viewpoint of the majority of people in the field, and for which nobody (including Diamond) has come up with any credible research to support a different perspective.

Except that, as I stated, nothing in the article actually supports the idea of a separation between 'romantic' and sexual orientation in such a way that an individual would have 'romantic' orientation one way, and sexual another.

Because I don't.

Given that my viewpoint on many things has changed over the years as newer research has come along that has challenged current thinking, I'd say the former.

Again, if there were any credible evidence to support that idea, then that would be one thing. But there isn't. And what we do have is a whole lot of anecdotal information (posts here on EC plus the clinical experience of an awful lot of professionals in the field) that anecdotal info points to the idea that the separation people describe usually appears only in people who are recently out, or are coming out, or are somewhat out but not comfortable with themselves, and once they fully accept themselves, the so-called romantic separation generally goes away.

See what I wrote above. And also see what I wrote way above; it's not possible to prove a negative, so thus, one cannot really prove that a given thing doesn't exist. However, if you look at the evidence pointed to above (reading the actual articles rather than the absracts), you'll see that, in fact, they pretty much point to the different aspects of attraction and love among people whose attraction and arousal is concurrent to the same sex or sexual orientation. That's about as close to evidence that the separation doesn't exist as you'll find.

Neither I nor anyone else knows or can tell someone what they're feeling. What we can do is help them by describing where what they're feeling is consistent with an experience they aren't aware of; if you look at the many posts of people who come here in denial, and give clear indications that they're gay, but simply ignore all of the things that point to that, it's really the same thing. You point out the factual information that is inconsistent with the beliefs, in the hope that explaining "this is what the research indicates" or "this is what others with your experience have found" will help move the person out of denial. The same appears to be true in these situations; the so-called split between romantic and sexual orientation is the 2019 version of the way that, in the early 2000s, people described themselves as 'bi' when they were in the bargaining stage of the coming out process. And that's what appears to be going on as well, here.

That's a really interesting question. And it is actually one that has been discussed in some circles among trans individuals, especially since there's data that up to 40% of body dysmorphia spontaneously resolves without the individual transitioning. (We don't really understand why, though that data isn't as solid as much of the other data surrounding trans folks. ) So I would think that, in a theoretical situation where there was a drug that somehow altered fundamental brain chemistry that altered sexual orientation or, for that matter, feelings of body dysmorphia, and the drug was well documented to reliably have the intended result... it would be ridiculous to deny that the drug existed and worked. Now... dealing with the ethics around whether it's appropriate to use such a drug is a completely different issue, and one that I would not feel qualified to really comment on. But if the question is simply validating research, if the research is robust and stands the test of time, it would be ridiculous not to validate it; otherwise we're simply denying reality.

 

(For the record, you can always PM staff members, even if you are not a full member.)

For about the fourth time, Lisa Diamond is pretty much the only person I am aware of who is making this claim. Credible research is always replicated by others. Reread what I wrote in the paragraph above. All you did is post a bunch of stuff about how she's tenured, published, etc. Unfortunately, that's no guarantee of the credibility of her work. And even if you do accept her work as credible... nothing in her research that I've seen supports the idea that so-called 'romantic' orientation and sexual orientations can be opposite.

Here's a comparision: Peter Duesberg is a highly respected molecular biologist at UC Berkeley and has written hundreds of credible journal articles in his field. But then he started spouting nonsense about the HIV virus not actually causing AIDS. His claims weren't repeated or replicated by anyone else credible, and nobody credible in the field paid any attention to him. But that didn't stop a bunch of crackpots from using Duesberg's work to cast a shadow on the cause of AIDS and try and create controversy, and spin it into a conspiracy theory.

We've got much the same thing here. Almost nobody who works in the field other than Diamond is making these sorts of claims, except for the same evidence-free folks that make all sorts of other ridiculous claims grounded in absolutely nothing.

Now... Duesberg is quite respected in his area of research (outside of HIV). I'm sure Lisa Diamond is as well (though I don't know what her actual area of specialty is... it certainly isn't the subject under discussion.) But almost nobody else that I'm aware of is replicating or corroborating her work. And that's a red flag in pretty much any area of research.

One of the problems with the psychology field is that the standard of scholarship is unfortunately rather low, much more so than in the harder science fields (biology, medicine, physics, chemistry, etc.) And thus, peer review is a lot less rigorous, methodological review is often lacking, and an awful lot of studies that get published in peer reviewed journals are fatally flawed methodologically.

Here's another point: Compare Lisa Diamond's writings on this issue with, say, Gabor Maté's work on the origins of addiction. He also makes some pretty out-there claims. The difference is, there are probably a dozen people (Bessel Van der Kolk, Peter Levine, Stephen Porges, others) whose work match up with and support his, hundreds of journal articles supporting various aspects of his work, and a large number of credible professionals who acknowledge, both theoretically and clinically, that his work, and the scientific underpinnings of it, are sound.

Or let's look at Brené Brown's work on shame, authenticity, vulnerabilty, courage, and connection. Most of the work isn't actually hers; it draws significantly on research by Ronda Dearing, June Price Tangney, researchers at the Smith Center, Karen Horney's work, and a number of other credible professionals. So she's not just pulling some ideas out of her ass and trying to justify them; it's based on the decades of solid work by other researchers.

You simply don't see this with the claimed research in this area. And, again, what you do see, from the other folks quoted, as well as Lisa Diamond's work, supports the idea that, in fact, so-called "romantic attraction" has the same factors as emotionally intimate friendship, and none of that work shows credible indication that these opposite sexual and "romantic" attractions actually exist.

If you want to make the argument that somebody with tenure and peer reviewed publications is automatically credible, there are a handful of tenured professors out there who are nonetheless crackpots claiming that sexual orientation can be changed, with peer reviewed articles making this claim. There are tenured, published professors who are holocaust deniers. There are also individuals claiming that sexual abuse causes sexual orientation change (these idiots don't get the difference between causation and correlation.) And again, the pattern is basically one or two people making a case that almost nobody else deems credible.

So I really don't know much else to tell you here.

I'm always interested in credible, replicated evidence that has at least some consistency with what's happening "in the trenches" among those who work with these populations. So when there's adequate evidence to the contrary, I'm totally open to exploring it and seeing how it changes my own perspective; I'm attached to accuracy of information, not to any particular viewpoint. For now, though, absent anything credible that changes anything, I'm more inclined to rely on current information that comes from multiple credible sources that are methodologically sound, and is widely accepted and acknowledged by the professionals who work in the field. None of that applies to Lisa Diamond's work.