The last taxon of sexualist manifestations that we shall examine here contains those exclusivisms which can be classified as "orientational". Even if we confine ourselves to defining sexual orientation in terms of gender, its definition can be either absolute or relative. In an absolute sense someone feels, or can be, sexually attracted to male human beings, to female human beings, to both or to neither. A human being that feels attracted to men or boys will enjoy meeting and being with a nice, lovable man or boy; a human being that feels attracted to women or girls will enjoy meeting and being with a nice, lovable woman or girl; a human being that feels attracted to other human beings will enjoy meeting and being with another, nice, lovable human being; a human being that does not feel attracted to male, female or human beings, will not experience the pleasure of meeting or being with a nice, lovable male, female or human being as far as the joy of erotic interchange is concerned (but 'e may enjoy such a meeting for purely social, or other, reasons). These are the four fundamental theses of love in a sincere sense, whatever mess the lovers of venomous sexualism make of it.

Yet, this picture of sexual orientation and satisfaction is often overshadowed by another conception of sexual orientation. It is the relative one, according to which someone's orientation is not defined in terms of females, males and humans but in terms of members of 'er own sex, the opposite sex, or both sexes. For example, when describing someone as "heterosexual" it is suggested that this person would love (or be sexually attracted to) somebody else as somebody of the opposite sex. A 'heterosexual' boy or man, for instance, would not love girls or women as females, but only as specimens of the opposite sex. (Traditional ideologies which are exclusively truth-conditional cannot comprehend the difference between these two aspects.) Relevantly described, the boy or man in question is 'gynophile' and not 'heterosexual', if he loves females because of their feminine qualities and/or capacities. (It is then only a later, truth-conditional inference that he is also heterosexual, since he is both male and 'gynophile'.) The relative description of the state of love affairs may be germane to special cases, like those of people who have only become hetero- or homosexual because the great majority of their neighbors were heterosexual; and it may be germane to special circumstances, like those of monosexual people looking for a partner or wanting children of their own, but it is a rather odd conception to stick with thru thick and thin, regardless of the context. Not surprisingly the exclusion and exclusivity of people and characteristics on the basis of their propensity usually rests on taking love in this relative way. It is, then, manifested in all sorts of relative orientational sexualism (X.4671).

What has been said of other forms of interfactorial sexualism does hold for the relative orientational type of it as well. Thus, the aggrandizemental component of it involves an exclusive or disproportionately great emphasis upon discrimination on the basis of homo- or bisexuality or sexual propensity in general, whereas the abnegational component of it involves a complete disregard, or disproportionately little attention, for the same discrimination on the basis of sexual propensity, particularly in comparison with the attention paid to other forms of discrimination.

The dimensional manifestations of infrafactorial orientational sexualism follow a pattern similar to that of writing-related, handedness-based exism. For "single-handedness" must then be read "monosexuality", for "ambidexterity" "bisexuality", for "left-handedness" "homosexuality" and for "right-handedness" "heterosexuality". Historically there certainly is much more resemblance between the attitude towards, and treatment of, left-handedness and ambidexterity on the one hand, and homo- and bisexuality on the other than just the fact that their formal positions in the two dimensional cladograms are the same. Abnegational components or operations of homo-, hetero- and bisexual exclusivism are, for example:

1. the belief or feeling that homosexuals are, or that homosexuality is, inferior to heterosexuals or heterosexuality;
2. uneasiness (possibly hatred, fear, distrust or ignorance) of a heterosexual with respect to homo- or bisexuals, or homosexuality (possibly also with respect to his or her own homoerotic by-feelings);
3. uneasiness (possible hatred, fear, distrust or ignorance) of a homosexual with respect to hetero- or bisexuals, or heterosexuality (possibly also with respect to her or his own heteroerotic by-feelings); and
4. the use of pejoratives in colloquial language and of ignorant or stereotypical descriptions in exclusivist dictionaries to denote homo- or bisexuals.

Since homosexual females and males, and perhaps also bisexual ones, have always been a minority in larger societies, it is they who have been victimized most by discrimination on the basis of relative sexual orientation (particularly when the object of the supernatural hatred of orthodox monotheists or of the 'objective' hatred of biological materialists). In this respect they can be compared to discriminated-against ethnical, denominational and political minorities which also used to lack the power to enforce their equality as persons. They can also be compared to other classes of human beings exploited, molested or bothered because of particular sexual characteristics or activities. In the past the attitude of certain parents vis-à-vis the masturbation of their children, for instance, has definitely not been more enlightened when it concerned their sexual relationships with others, for example, when one of their partners turned out to be 'of the wrong race'. The measures taken have often only been much worse when one of their partners turned out to be 'of the wrong sex'.

It was quite predictable that after an era of abnegational homosexual exclusivism (or antihomosexualism) a reaction would follow, that is, an attitude of aggrandizemental homosexual exclusivism as popularized in slogans like Glad or Proud to be gay. It is this kind of slogan which demonstrates how exclusivist prohomosexualism, too, fell straight into the trap of the relative conception of sexual orientation. No-one is glad or 'gay' because 'e is homosexual or, for that matter, nonhomosexual, and no-one should have the arrogance of being proud of 'er homosexuality or other sexual propensity. This merely provokes a reaction in turn. A homo- or bisexual female can be made happy when meeting and being with a nice, lovable woman or girl, and so can a hetero- or bisexual male. Similarly, a homo- or bisexual male can be made happy when meeting and being with a nice, lovable man or boy, and so can a hetero- or bisexual female. (And all of them can be made unhappy when meeting, or being confronted with, a sexual totalitarian.) Whether the people concerned are then of the same or of a different gender is irrelevant from the inclusivistic standpoint.