Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Not necessarily. The wording of the first description was based off of what I've heard from people like Yarrow and Siggy, who do use romantic orientation terminology on themselves (reluctantly, in Siggy's case) but also say that that community norm chafes for them because it "implies a split that isn't really there" and has "too strong a connotation of being different from my sexual orientation." See the links for full context in their original words. I don't want to speak for them on this. Huh, okay... So this would functionally be like: Person A: I'm ace and therefore don't fall in love romantically. Person B: Isn't that an aro thing?? Person A: It generally is, but to me it's part of my aceness. This kind of thing?? Siggy as a greyromantic gray-a, with the way he has described an alienation from the R/S dyad, and me as a quoiromantic gray-a, who feels pinched by the expectation that all aces should ID with a romantic orientation, do not have basically the same relationship to these different norms, no. I am not willing to collapse those. Categorizing people by "number and priority of labels" (ex. preferring to just say "I'm gray-a" and leave it at that) is not what I am after here. What I am after is describing the difference between, for instance, what Siggy wants to index himself as apart from and what I want to index myself as apart from, in terms of relationships to different expectations. The way he has talked about it, he doesn't like connotations/expectations of drawing a line through sex vs. romance and wants words for "people who don’t distinguish the different kinds of attractions, especially romantic and sexual attraction," whereas me, I do prefer excluding any statement on romance from my sexual orientation, and my problem with the romantic orientation norm isn't that it has "too strong a connotation of being different" or "split" but rather that the ace & aro communities keep talking in a way where it's expected that everybody involved uses that idea at all. Hm okay, I think I may get it. I wasn't talking about there being the same relationship with the norms between those two groups at all btw, just asking if those both groups would like to have a way to say "this is all there is to it, stop digging" to a question "So you say you're aromatic/pansensual, so what is your sexual/romantic orientation?". But I see this is not quite the issue. Tbh idk how to bite this, if those attitudes can even be described as groups. Because in group 3, if I'm getting this correctly, could be a person who identifies as pansensual, doesn't have a sexual identity, and wouldn't want someone to assume they do have a sexual identity and a person who identifies as pansensual, doesn't have a romantic identity...?? And a person who identifies aromantic, doesn't have a sexual identity..?? But that doesn't mean all those people don't have other attractions they see as significant, just not the sexual or romantic ones?? And I'm not sure if there's a way to explain which doesn't apply without using the differentiations and upholding the norm 🤔
  3. Today
  4. Hi! Completely fair choice in my book. Forums are for talking, after all. ...Also, you bring up some good points, but. I don't know how to address them lol. Besides just *nods* Oh! Okay. Maybe you didn't read the previous thread or the blogposts I linked (completely fair, it is a Lot and I did want people to be able to just jump in). FTR though, I am Not Of The Opinion that classifying people into "people who use the SAM" vs. "people who don't" "makes things more clear" (and in fact... laughed out loud when I saw that sentence, because this is right on the heels of a huge conversation about it where even within the thread people were defining it at least two different ways -- sometimes even coming from the same person!). For more on that, I recommend reading the Remodeling post where I explain how the reclamation of that term from the anti-ace bloc poses some problems, but you can also take a read through this whole argument, or for instance starting with my replies to Echidna here. Please understand that I've already gone through this with several people, and as a result, may be a little less willing to go through the whole song and dance all over again. If you want to argue with me that classifying people as "people who use the SAM" vs. "people who don't" is a crystal clear classification system that doesn't chop me personally in half, then... all I can say is please refer back to the places where I've already talked about this, so you can understand why I'm avoiding it at least. Better yet: take a look at the five narratives to complicate the SAM/non-SAM binary from my Remodeling post and then tell me which is which. ETA: Sorry, in retrospect this reply was rude of me. I am willing to discuss more and talk through things. I'm just... kinda tired of how some of this has played out before, and feeling like a lot of people are largely uninterested in listening or even finding out what I mean. I think I get you, yeah. I'm thinking about how to reword it all in a way that's more flexible. Caught red-handed. lol don't get too attached to it -- it's still got a ways to go. Still: thank you for saying so. :3 Not necessarily. The wording of the first description was based off of what I've heard from people like Yarrow and Siggy, who do use romantic orientation terminology on themselves (reluctantly, in Siggy's case) but also say that that community norm chafes for them because it "implies a split that isn't really there" and has "too strong a connotation of being different from my sexual orientation." See the links for full context in their original words. I don't want to speak for them on this. Siggy as a greyromantic gray-a, with the way he has described an alienation from the R/S dyad, and me as a quoiromantic gray-a, who feels pinched by the expectation that all aces should ID with a romantic orientation, do not have basically the same relationship to these different norms, no. I am not willing to collapse those. Categorizing people by "number and priority of labels" (ex. preferring to just say "I'm gray-a" and leave it at that) is not what I am after here. What I am after is describing the difference between, for instance, what Siggy wants to index himself as apart from and what I want to index myself as apart from, in terms of relationships to different expectations. The way he has talked about it, he doesn't like connotations/expectations of drawing a line through sex vs. romance and wants words for "people who don’t distinguish the different kinds of attractions, especially romantic and sexual attraction," whereas me, I do prefer excluding any statement on romance from my sexual orientation, and my problem with the romantic orientation norm isn't that it has "too strong a connotation of being different" or "split" but rather that the ace & aro communities keep talking in a way where it's expected that everybody involved uses that idea at all. That depends. Do they think the multiorientation approach is "splitting hairs," or do they mostly only default to the broader label because they're not in contexts where the multi-axis classification scheme is expected? ...Admittedly, I should probably add some kind of additional description here for people who are comfortable with both norms and switching between them as called for. Welcome. ;D They should give me some kind of recruitment award lol.
  5. thanks for sharing that. To be honnest, i think i will just not think about this anymore and probably see what will happen next. Also, yeah i would be happy with good friends ^^ even if we are not Partner.
  6. Little to no or non-standard romantic attraction. I think those people would probably still land closer to the second group, since they do tell apart those 2-3 orientations themselves, even if it's not always convenient to explain and I'm guessing they use them interchangeably depending on context??
  7. @bydontost What is "aromantic attraction"? Um... I don't know how to answer all this @Coyote. I mean like. What about people who prefer an umbrella term like queer to cover their whole identity in a vague/quick way while also internally thinking that 2 or 3 separate orientations are the accurate "technical" way you should describe them but it's too complicated to explain in most contexts? I knew a gay gray-asexual, maybe-aromantic guy who did this (my former queerplatonic partner) and I have a bisexual demisexual friend who will say she's alloromantic if and when it's relevant to a conversation that she's not aro. Actually... I have two friends with that identity!! I think personally I am not usually bothered by the norm in the communities of everyone has a separate romantic and sexual orientation of some kind, like if someone asks me mine I can answer without qualms and am kinda proud of having finally settled on my labels for my romantic orientation. Although I have a handful of interchangeable ones I might say depending on context. I definitely feel like the labels are an approximation of my actual patterns of attraction but not 100% accurate in the sense that I would need to explain in sentences what my orientation labels "mean to me" if super specifics were necessary in some context. But I also know enough about aces and aros to know that everyone's orientation labels all have some aspect of "what it can actually mean to the individual" that can vary a lot between two people with the exact same label. The norm is clearly a problem that does bother me when I'm thinking of others who are bothered by it though, of course. I do care that it makes things unnecessarily stressful and asks people to name an orientation or two that they sometimes haven't wanted to label or isn't relevant to them. It expects everyone to be able to name the same exact types of orientations and expects the other rarer orientation axes to not matter to anyone, even if they do. I had thought aroace is a fine single word to convey a single cohesive identity and @Magni when you said we probably need a term for: I mean we have a-spec and aspec now apparently which back in 2016 when @Coyote first was blogging about it ( https://theacetheist.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/on-a-homogenization/ ? Or a previous post?) I thought back then I hated the conflation of aromanticism and asexuality onto apparently one "spectrum", they're not the same thing and it's was so weird to me how popular it was getting to use the terms that imply one spectrum. But now we have ask-an-aro writing about how we need "the aspec community": "The aspectrum is wide and should be inclusive of anyone who needs it. Those who do and those who do not use the SAM. Aroaces, asexuals, acespecs, aromantics, arospecs. Those who are just one of those things and those who are more than one at once. Those who are questioning if they’re acespec or arospec, or both." I am leaning towards somewhat agreeing with ask-an-aro at the moment. I don't know?? If someone has no sexual nor romantic orientation at all that they want to name, not none in the ace or aro sense of "no attraction but fine naming it", but none in a more nebulous sense that's not just "not one of them" but truly not either of them, then I think those people need to talk to us and explain what they want and what would work for them. Maybe they just want to opt out of the communities that discuss orientation altogether anyway and it's not hurting them that an inside the community norm is to name at least one of those two prioritized ones. Maybe they want a different orientation axis community (a different community) because they don't fit in one of the existing ones anyway. Maybe something else totally different. Also @Coyote, I think part of the problem with models of orientation delineation thing is that a lot of people use multiple ones? Maybe these ones you listed need to be separated out more and more need to be added, but then each individual real person might mix and match from any number of the models. A small number of people might stick with just one model but it's probably not the norm. I'm reminded of when you wrote about models of friendship recently. I literally have used all 5 models. I don't just think of my friends using one model and another person defines friends using another model. A lot of us use multiple intersecting models there and i think the same ends up being true for orientation models, especially since for many of us orientation is very tied into orientation labeling. Now I'm going to go off on a tangent but I mean even in terms of a friendship conversation, there is a difference between who I openly label a friend and who I internally think of a friend i guess. Like the difference between internal orientation and external orientation labeling. There is a ton of overlap so a lot of times they are basically the same thing, my friends and the people I claim as friends when using language with other humans in my life lol. But also. There are differences too. *sigh* I don't know. I just feel like I'm getting more and more confused maybe. Lol. Sorry. Hopefully this reply (my first ever comment here on Arocalypse! You've brought me into it all @Coyote! I couldn't resist!) is at least kinda coherent.
  8. This is my first time hearing the term "nonamorous" but that sits with me well just like the term "nonsexual" because upon first learning about asexuality/aromanticism my mind was equating those to nonsexual/nonamorous by mistake but that's just the type of words I was looking for. You say you want to be close to someone but I don't typically think "partner" when thinking about the people I'm close to. I have a friend who I've known for over 20 years. Sure we don't talk daily or even weekly. She's out there gracing the world with her talents. I admire and respect her as she does me. We have the same level of ambition, we have a similar world view so naturally if I'm facing a difficult decision or am facing a problem I might ask her for advice. It's not like it was when we were kids of course. For me friendship in childhood is like climbing every hill together and celebrating at every peak. In adulthood it is like climbing a mountain alone and seeing a familiar face only when you've descended to sturdy ground on the other side. We've all faced our own unique challenges since graduating from high school seven years ago, but outside of my family I feel like I know her the most intimately out of anyone else. I'm happy just knowing she exists and my insecurities about the sturdiness of our relationship since we began living in different cities has faded as I've matured. Of course in addition to my friend, for me when something exciting happens in my day or when I develop an interest in something I like to talk to people about it. As a kid I fell in love with Star Wars but no one else in my school knew anything about it so I found a message board online where people would talk about Star Wars. The rest of my life has gone very much the same way and with the increase in technology and online communities I can always find someone to talk to about any of my specific interests. Am I really close with these online people? No. Typically our conversations don't stray too far past our common interest but if we keep in touch for years and years and perhaps I add them on Twitter or something then naturally we might hear about each other's various non-fandom related struggles and offer advice but this is pretty rare. There are also some people I met in college on the basis of these common interests. College exposed me to a variety of different people who simply didn't exist where I'm from. I'll chat with them pretty much daily as well. I also feel comfortable asking for input about difficult decisions I'm thinking about making. Between these two types of friendship I find that my social needs are met. Adding a partner into the mix seems unnatural.
  9. Those groups make sense to me personally, but hmm yeah, as @Magni mentioned, it can be a bit more complicated when we're not just talking about some internal feelings about identity and all, but when we're talking in a specific context and for example want to highlight some aspect of our experience without necessarily bringing in all the internal feelings into it and not have people make assumptions based on the limited info we give them. So, loose thoughts, would a distinction like "I id as aromantic" vs "I have aromantic attraction" when one or the other is more relevant be useful..?? As for the groups @Coyote suggested, now I need one clarification: group 1 would be people who say they're "[something]-sexual" only and other orientations don't apply?? and group 3 would be people who for example only identify as "[something]-romantic", [something]-sensual", "[something]-[other preference term]", etc. and other orientations don't apply?? Because if yes, then I don't really see a need to have them be separate groups, they'd both just need a way to say that "this is my only orientation" if I'm reading this correctly..??
  10. These descriptions are much much clearer for me than the ones detailing convergent pieces and multiple orientations. So much clearer. I must say I love the wording you have ended up using, it really puts the emphasis on the way people present themselves to others. I'll probably say more later, but I don't have time now
  11. for sure, i think for me it's that now that i've experienced romance for myself (in a relationship) i know i don't like it, so seeing it kind of gives me, like, secondhand discomfort, whereas before it was all hypothetical and i didn't really feel one way or another about it. or even if you haven't been in a relationship or whatever, just identifying as aro means you're more aware of it. when i read fanfic (or read/watch basically any fiction), i'm constantly (mostly subconsciously) analyzing characters' actions and words, deciding whether i consider them romantic, sexual, or platonic, what the author likely intended them to be, where it could be leading, etc. and elements of romance usually do decrease my enjoyment if not put me off altogether, although i will say that my favourite fic ever had a fairly prominent romantic storyline; the whole thing was just excellent. rare exception. but yeah, i do consider myself romance-repulsed, which wouldn't necessarily have been the case 5 years ago, before i'd even heard the word 'aromantic'.
  12. aro_elise

    confused

    that can be frustrating. i talked about my strong platonic love for my best friend and one of my friends said "i think you love her romantically." no. you know your own feelings and you decide how you want to identify. btw, are you familiar with the concept of a 'squish'? sometimes described as a platonic crush, it's a desire for a platonic relationship/friendship with someone. like, i wouldn't use this in reference to just anyone i'd like to be friends with--that would be a lot of people--it's a more significant attraction, i guess. when i have a squish, i often look forward to seeing or talking to them, and i tend to admire something about them, like their personality. i have just a few squishes a year, but some aros may have far more, and some may not experience them at all. i also personally use the term 'aro crush' when i have a squish on someone to whom i'm also sexually attracted. that's not in use in the community or anything, just something i like to use. 😊
  13. running.tally

    confused

    I think that if you know you don't like her romantically, then you probably don't! Whatever your friends say, they can never feel your feelings. Only you can. Only you are the expert on your feelings. There could be many reasons why you feel the way you do. I think one could be that if your friend decides to pursue this girl romantically, you might be left behind. Often, people in romantic relationships get caught up with one another and see their friends less. So you might feel a bit afraid that that will happen and that you won't get to hang out with her. You seem to like hanging out with her and losing time with a friend can be really saddening. There could be other reasons as well, but this is the one I thought of first!
  14. wow, there's a lot of discussion around stuff i haven't really thought about. i'd say i'm the second one, where i like to specify my romantic and sexual orientation... like, if someone asked my orientation, a lot of the time i'd say "aromantic heterosexual". aro comes first because i identify more strongly with it, as in, i'm very straight as well as very aro but aromanticism is more significant to me. both labels are perfectly accurate, and both are important but especially aro. (i have no problem with 'heterosexual aromantic' but since i have to say one word before the other, i might as well make a strategic choice. 😄) if we were specifically talking about a certain type of attraction, though, i wouldn't bother to mention my other one, like on here if the question was just where am i on the aro spectrum, i'd say aro, or if an acquaintance asked my sexual orientation i'd probably just say straight. i realize many people use 'sexual orientation' to mean 'orientation as a whole' because for them that's what it is (i may not have phrased that the best way but you know what i mean). and sometimes i just couldn't be bothered to come out, you know, like i don't try to hide anything; it just doesn't always seem important to mention. but if someone knows i'm aro and chooses to call me straight, i will correct them. only one person besides me has my express permission to call me straight. so yeah, it can be a bit less certain in terms of communicating my orientation, but as for how i personally identify, 'aromantic heterosexual' is perfect. i'm not sure i actually answered your question...ok yeah, i think you've basically covered how different people may feel about labeling their orientation, but even within one 'group' not everyone will have the same experience, of course, so i kind of don't think it matters...like you said: to me it's just interesting to hear various people's experiences, which we are doing.
  15. Sorry, I'm not understanding you here. Why is there a need to group these attractions in the first place? Is it just to say "attractions that aren't romantic/sexual"? That is the only thing I'm seeing that they share in common and that's... not much. If that's why you are referring to them as a group, then why not just say "non-romantic/sexual attractions"? I mean yes, it is a bit more of a mouthful, sure, but if it became commonplace enough you could shorten it to "non-R/S attractions" at least, and that's shorter than "tertiary attractions" by one character. I just don't see the need to adopt a term like that which implies that they are somehow lesser than R/S attractions, and that sensual and queerplatonic/alterous somehow go together. Is it ever, haha. Yeah, I think you're right about that. Yeah, there really are a lot of different ideas in there. I think I have so much trouble trying to place it into this new model you're working on because... it isn't and probably shouldn't be addressed by this model. Each one of these ideas could be expanded into its own separate blog post, really. I'm not going to go so far as to separate them all into different posts, though, just saying. I think having more of an idea of a continuum could help, but honestly I have trouble placing these narratives on a continuum. I feel like they're just a bunch of different ways of relating or not-relating to labels, different ways of experiencing things, and while they may share some important things in common (the bolded variables at the end), the experiences are still different enough to not be easily comparable. I would imagine visualizing it would be easier if it was more like a mind map diagram rather than a graph. Does that make sense? In other words, these narratives feel more like the ones in Queenie's Greyromanticism 301 post, I think? I guess the way that you have these categories set up right now, it's feeling a bit too boolean to me? Like on/off, either/or. ...Wait, did you already edit the draft in the OP at some point while I was typing this out (and then getting distracted and then coming back to type some more)? lol For the record, I thiiiiink? that I was having trouble deciding where I fit between 2 and 3? (I mix up numbers a lot though, so I'm having a hard time keeping track of which is which, but I guess it definitely wasn't 4.) And then also at the same time feeling like this attraction cluster experience I was talking about made it harder for me to tell, because in some respects I'm also like the first group, since if I did experience romantic/sexual attraction they'd all be mixed in with that same cluster, I'm pretty sure.
  16. oh, I was thinking it might be swapped to singular to avoid the plural use of They. None of your examples in the table specifically made that clear, so thanks for telling me!
  17. agusia

    confused

    i identify myself as a bisexual aromantic. yes, i can be sexually attracted to people but not romantically... there is a girl in my class that i have just recently started talking to. we got closer with each other, despite being in numerous group works together, through my friend. that friend likes her and when i found out about it i kind of just felt weird. i don't know how to explain it. i don't like her or anything, i just like being with her. i think she's very cute but my heart does not race when i'm with her. i'd like to be closer the people around me tell me that i like her romantically but in my heart i know that i don't.
  18. Are you referring to difference between singular and plural verbs? Generally, even when used as a singular pronoun, the verbs for they conjugate as if it is plural, similar to how you works. The only change I know of when used singularly is that people use "themself" instead of "themselves"....even though spellcheck objects to it.
  19. I actually haven't ever seen that variant before with the 'h', but I have seen many using the 'i' like in Zir. The Ze is probably becoming more popular (well at least the pile of content using it is growing quicker) because the letter makes sense to many people. Your chart certainly makes it clear, and as a singular it would bypass the only failing I think 'They' has which is its need to change more than one word in most sentences to keep it grammatical....but it is not like I use find & replace regularly to swap out She/He with They. also I just noticed this That comes into regional grammatical slang. Have you seen the movie 'Brother where art thou?' ? it is used there, and is representative of the speaking quirks of the region and time but I doubt it has fully dropped out of use. There is a great quote that starts "Is you is, or is you ain't...". It is like the English/British(?) use of 'I was stood' rather than 'I was standing'
  20. There's lots of variations for pronoun sets which start with "Ze". Common ones include: Ze/Zir/Zerself, Ze/hir/hirself, and many others. I know there was at least one of the "ze" pronoun sets floating around before I made mine; it's a logical letter to start a pronoun set with. I personally didn't like any of the existing ones especially because they used the "i" spelling, which isn't consistent with any of the other pronouns? Also they uses the same pronoun for both the possessive and the objective pronoun. My thought process for my pronouns: Ze: he & she both just end with -e Zem: both him and them end with -m; (also I took latin and this noun form ended with "m" in latin) Zer: both their and her end with -r Also, by keeping the only vowel as "e", it made it simpler? plus overall it's similar to they/them pronouns except replaces the "th" with "z"...and then uses different subject pronoun which is more similar to the other singular pronouns. I think I might've seen something listing my specific pronouns or ones very similar once? But I haven't seen it elsewhere. The unfortunate side effect of this is I can't easily buy pronoun buttons, instead I had to make my own
  21. "Tertiary" is the only term I've seen for succinctly referring to this group of attractions; I think tertiary is because the most widely acknowledged types of attraction are romantic and sexual and the others tend to be invisible. I'm not saying it is necessarily a good term, but unless another term has been established it's the only one I know of for communicating this group of attractions. I've also noticed people tend to have different interpretations of these and/or they're often hard to separate, so I think it's useful to have terms describing them as a group. (tbh maybe my brain isn't processing well rn but I'm kinda confused by this whole paragraph) I get wanting distance from old terms, but also...it's useful to have succinct ways to mention things? It makes things more clear.... Yeah I've been referring to the things based on the number of the description on the original list because it's the easiest way to refer to things. And yeah...I tend to get turned around in metaphors such that loose clarity, this time especially because I had to rewrite that section after it deleted.
  22. It make sense ! I think this is the case for me too.
  23. (hey, it's odannygirl7, from your blog post. I guess I sort of ranted here instead of making my own post like a reasonable person) Part of, I think, some of the huge-ish problems is even beginning to untangle the knotted up mess that the tumblr discourse caused to a lot of this identity/attraction/whathaveyou model work. (like attraction and orientation being conflated in "Split Attraction Model" ... pre-discourse there was talk about mixed/match orientations and separated attractions, but because tumblr is one big game of telephone, where half of it is just hatefully not listening and subbing in your own words, instead of a nuanced discussion about how this is one way to describe divergent orientational directions which can happen if someone feels separate attractions (and how the aspec community talks about this model a lot because many in the community experience it) we get, I don't even know, the aspec community forces everyone to feel attraction separately, I guess?) It's the same reason why sexual and romantic attraction is heavily prioritized and why there's almost no discussion about orientation language around the other attractions (if they're even brought up). There was little chance to reinforce the idea that this was a model and that there was a model for those with "one" orientation (or whose attractions either lined up where there was just "attraction" that could not be, or didn't want to be, separated out) it was just unnamed because it was what everyone was already generally working with. Varioriented and perioriented was a step to work that into being named, but, well. Like, obviously, now mixed and matched isn't enough, or doesn't capture the full picture, but I think we'd be a lot further along with things like... "oriented" aroaces. But it's hard to basically... dismiss? ignore? all of that. Like, massive debugging of what everyone thinks. ...I don't know if it's about going back to, like, attraction/s as a thing, orientation as a thing, and, idk, something like (I don't want to say relationship goals, lol), but relationship preferences? ?? as a thing? (this is a thing I see where it's, like, whether an "attraction" is there or not, an idea of a preferred relationship. like, I, personally, am not attracted to anyone, but I could see myself, would I be in a position for a relationship, to open that opportunity to anyone of any gender, whereas someone else might only ever want to be open to only one gender. ...like, I've played around with the term pan affectionate, for myself, not as an attraction based orientation, but as a prospective relationship sorta-orientation. This might also account for people who are, say, "technically" bi (to use a tired trope, lol) but "choose" to be gay.) None of this helps those who want to nope out of all or it tho.
  24. @Magni I am seeing the Ze form much more now and I think they are a cool set of alternatives to use! Are you saying you coined them? if so, super cool! (Though a little while ago I read a short (very short) work of fiction which had two characters (un-named characters I might add) that used Ze and it's other forms. It was the most confusing thing I have read recently. The author had taken it all a bit too far. The same exact problem would have come up using two 'she', 'he' or 'they' characters. The author just really needed to give at least one character a name!)
  25. Definitely. I wouldn't say it is a unanimous community reaction, I just find for answering those initial questioning topics that run less along 'I feel bad about my self' and more like 'I am scared I am this thing I have preconceived notions about' with a 'you don't have to be that thing' is more welcoming/encouraging(?) than debating why they are wrong, when the perception change must come from inside which is best done by hearing others experiences and opinions which never really seem to make their way onto those questioning posts. I guess this is all my reaction to those posts elsewhere where questioning people ask about terms they are interested in and get answers along the lines of 'that's not really a recognised/legit term #toomanylabels' and then the questioning person abandons their account. Some people have a drive to quantify themselves with labels even if they later decide to stop using them. (Those other 'I feel bad about my self' topics don't tend to focus on labels like questioning topics do so it is much easier to discuss and reassure using personal contexts, generally they also get much more activity, more different users and more comments) This thread is monster length 😎 and it goes off topic a few times (with very long posts). Sorry!
  26. Feeling simultaneously very loved by the aro community and very socially isolated by my IRL friends. I hope everyone here is doing all right, and if anyone else is feeling lonely, I invite you to my virtual corner!

  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...