Jump to content

Lokiana

Member
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

1 Follower

About Lokiana

  • Rank
    Newbie
  • Birthday 04/01/2001

Personal Information

  • Name
    Lokiana
  • Gender
    Female
  • Pronouns
    she/her
  • Occupation
    Student & Waitress
  • Romanticism
    Aromantic
  • Sexuality
    Asexual

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've been excited to help out with AUREA and here's some translations for our "basic terms" in Polish, German, and Russian (with more in progress!). I also know off the top of my head that Spanish aromantic = arromántico. Kind of neat to see variations of different languages!
  2. I'll do my best! Can't promise it'll be perfect but hey. So here's a def I'm stealing from AUREA: and here's a coinage post just for kicks. Really, alterous is not overall specifically defined - the general consensus is that it's an attraction or relationship based on emotional closeness that might not necessarily be romantic or platonic. (Overall, similar to QPR, but not as common or neatly defined, usually? A lil more wiggle room and less connotation, imo.) Possibly sexual, possibly nah, really up to you! Here's a couple opinions on how the two differ: one, two (i'm gonna note since it's toward thread top that i don't agree with the idea that QPRs are always non-sexual before anyone starts coming @me) Hey, you're still normal! Just not straight. I just left a romo relationship and figured out that hey, I don't want that and then hated myself for not feeling more attached - so I get it. But just because it's more complicated in an amatonormative world doesn't mean you won't figure it out.
  3. First and foremost: welcome to the family! We bicker and we hug it out, but we are glad to have you. I'm so happy your coming out went well and that your partner took it well! If you are looking for some nifty relationship terms, queerplatonic and alterous may be useful. (but that could be my inclination to all the niche terms ;p )
  4. today's mood: tired web developer, in need of assistance or coffee. 

    1. running.tally

      running.tally

      Really really awesome and irreplaceable tired web developer who works very hard :aroicecream:

  5. I'm not sure that the use of nonamorous is going to help ( as evidenced by like, our entire community ), and the implication that personal narratives have little value or aren't useful is somewhat annoying. As for the question of how it's happening... It's relatively easy to figure out. On one hand, many aromantic people enjoy sexual relationships, committed or nah. Many others are involved in romantic relationships, and still more are involved in queerplatonic relationships. These relationships, per societal norms, are considered "beyond" or "more complex" than typical friendship, and thus, merit a lot of discussion on how to approach and deal with them within our community. And we do! We talk a lot about how to function in relationships, how to approach our partners, etc etc so on and so forth until the end of time. What I've found is that we don't talk as much about how to deal with friendships, or touch starvation due to no relationships/friends reading it as romo, how to do life when you're not going on dates and don't necessarily have a partner and that kind of thing. When we do, we don't talk about it as much - I've seen a couple glancing posts that touch on it, but in comparison to the vast amount of content available on QPRs alone, it can feel kind of overwhelming. I don't necessarily have an excellent solution, but the problem isn't a lack of language or even a single narrative being promoted. Imo, it's a matter of having a vast amount of content to discuss and people to discuss it with, vs. a smaller section of the community with different needs that aren't being addressed on an equal level.
  6.  Can you elaborate? Sure thing! So, I found this label as I was doing flag cleanup for a glossary I worked on, and it just...fit. I had that moment of "oh my god that's me". And for a brief period there, I was able to use some of the language from the definition ("aplatonic", for example) to find communties of aplatonic people, if not necessarily omniaromantic people. I found people who were in a similar experience vein to mine, if not my "exact" experience, because the language used in the definition pointed me to further inquiry and helped me understand who I was relative to....everyone else. It also helped me because I tend to be the person who likes to hyperspecifically label myself, and to be able to broadly categorize "nope", was a nice experience, especially in a community that so specifically discusses QPRs and partnering relationships without romance. It helped lead me to a place of "hey, the aro community discusses qprs a lot but it's okay if that's not relevant to my experience, some people may experience other attraction or love than romantic that I don't and that's fine too". So it helped me contextualize myself into the aromantic community. It also helped describe a sitch that wasn't quiiiiite romance repulsion, but also not quite neutral....rather, somewhere in the middle. this drives me up a wall. Honestly. I understand the intent sometimes, but coining terms for other people is just....argh. I'm a fan of marking old terms with identifiers, and that's how I've traditionally found the best way to include them but also inform people that they may not be as frequently used. How does everyone feel about doing the same thing with relatively new terminology, after it gets some use? Including in glossaries with a note like **this is a developing term coined recently, and change is based on current community discussion or some such? But I do see the problem here with people who don't like microlabels spamming. Unfortunately, tends to be a problem no matter what you do.
  7. An interesting perspective....but I'm not sure I entirely agree with it. (Although the notes on Rabger's model are very true.) Personal bias playing in, but I've always been fond of hyperspecific labels, regardless of how used or unused they are. A good personal anecdote is the time when I identified as omniaromantic. It's by and far an underused label and is probably one of the ones categorized by this article as a label we should let die - but it certainly helped me through a time where I was questioning /a lot/ of things. I didn't expect to find community with a microlabel, especially not one I dug out of a glossary, but it was useful to me nonetheless. I do also question the idea that we shouldn't necessarily keep our labels around. Even in the case of Rabger's model, the documentation was not removed - simply moved and re-categorized. I'd be curious as to suggestions: how do we keep a record of terms used previously, so we can understand previous posts and conversations, but still indicate, respectfully, that the terminology in question is dated? Further, when do we decide that a term is "dated" or "not used" enough to be categorized as such? I know the system I use, when sorting the glossaries I work on, but I'm curious to hear further thoughts on how to resolve these conflicts.
  8. I've been a Methodist for my entire life - not entirely forced, mind you, my parents taught me to ask a lot of questions and to never blindly trust authority - and honestly, the process of finding out I'm aromantic has strengthened my faith. It was the starting point to me questioning a lot of harmful beliefs I had, and forced me to actually read my Bible and develop my own conclusions regarding science and God, as well as questions like "what about my bi friends" and so on and so forth. My assistant youth pastor and I hold down the "question everything" fort at my church and we discuss theology a lot. It also led to me actually acting on my inability to trust blindly, and to call out the teachers when I noticed inaccuracies to scripture or science. Basically, aromanticism was a big part of strengthening my faith. Although I will say I'm uncomfortable with the concept of blindly cross-applying the label "asexual" to Jesus or any other deity I believe in.
  9. I did this until very recently...because I ended up in a relationship. But definitely avoids a lot of the terminology mish-mash.
  10. I don't think that "Ace and Aro" implies both, as it is. I think the logo definitely needs work, but, as you said, that takes know-how and time, so doing your best to make it as obvious as possible that it's both is good. I'm in agreement that "Liverpool Area Ace and Aro Group" is pretty generally a good and used format in many areas. The biggest thing is the language change - changing the group name to "Ace and Aro", changing the language used in discussions to "a-spec"...these are all things that need to be done that don't require as much effort, but are important to overall inclusiveness. As much as this suggestion is well intentioned, this isn't practical or...what they were asking? No offense at all, @Mark, but this comes across super unfriendly to the concept of allowing a group to grow to be inclusive, even if it wasn't originally. The group is currently alienating even to me if the group is called "Liverpool Aces Meetup" or something along those, because I identify more with my aro-ness. However, that suggestion is not helpful or practical, unless you're in the Liverpool area and want to start a group yourself.
  11. I'm happy to tell you that they do now! Just implemented it, actually - it applies to the entire News Feed. 😊 On a more personal perspective, I really like this as an outreach strategy. I don't necessarily think it's 100% foolproof, but I think it certainly helps to find common ground with other queer people to help transition the conversation. I do wonder though, how this might impact later discussions on amatonormativity in queer communities, because I don't find that I entirely agree with the perspective that it's a part of heternormativity. If we frame it that way in our original approach and then attempt to discuss amatonormativity in, for example, the focus on gay marriage as one of the major tenements of LGBTQ+ rights, that we as a community may get the reaction of having to re-educate after introducing it in that manner, because the thought will be "I'm [x-identity], there's no way I can be amatonormative! That's a part of heternormativity, and I'm not a part of that!". (Although, I suppose that is somewhat inevitable.)
  12. I've always had trouble with this. I've fluctuated between labeling my sexuality as "N/A", quoisexual, not a thing, asexual, and such for years. I tend to stick to using ace for a couple reasons: one, because it makes explaining things easier sometimes, and two, because the ace community has impacted me so much it almost feels like I'm leaving a part of me behind if I don't use that label anymore.
  13. The first time I came out, I came out to one of my friends who was a gay aroace. I was literally shaking the whole time I was trying to tell them who I was - they're a couple years older than me, and had helped me a lot with identity stuff, but I was still terrified af. Nowadays I've come out several times - to my conservative classmates, to a couple of my teachers, etc. Not to my parents yet. I'm lucky to have a best friend who really, truly gets it, even if she's straight. Point is, it got easier as I went.
  14. I have some experience in web design and development (my tools of choice are hard code or Wix) and I'm always happy to help!
×
×
  • Create New...