Jump to content

bydontost

Member
  • Content Count

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

3 Followers

About bydontost

  • Rank
    Member

Personal Information

  • Name
    Tost
  • Romanticism
    aro

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. aw sads yeah those are the ones I meant, there are people still in the groups, maybe they'd be still interested if someone sent a nudge or sth??
  2. it should be, but the truth is that someone has to volunteer for it to exist. groups that are for aros specifically (that I know of at least) are in new york and london only
  3. Actually, what were the less extreme ones?? I think having the full scope of what people identify as crushes would be helpful
  4. I checked a few, including that "romance coded" option tho the wording doesn't sit right with me either
  5. 100% a real problem - I'd say that it'd be good to be able to choose someone you trust to be your uhh proxy/plenipotentiary for situations like medical decisions, having access to your medical records. Marriage is also simplifying the issues of inheritance, but I guess this mostly would be an issue for people who do have partners, but don't get married. In terms of both of those, allying with poly and queer partnering people (where they don't have the option to get married) would be beneficial - it's harder to ignore a bigger group of people With adoption I'll just say +1. This is a big issue for aromantics and singles in general, so especially single aromantics. Discrimination can have many faces, like someone noticed it doesn't have to be firing someone for being aro. It can also being overlooked in promoting, having a lower salary (someone who's single doesn't need the money anyway am I right??* *note: yes, this is right, but in the current climate "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" isn't working out anyway, right?? right), being forced to work at hours/on days no one wants to work, being excluded socially, etc. Here alignment with singles that aren't aro and childless people and women who have families, but earn less than men who have families would make us a bigger group Talked some about medical stuff in marriage too, so won't repeat that addition. But here I believe a change of mentality is needed - singles receive worse treatment, because their lives are perceived as being less worth saving *shrug*. It's a real problem that should be brought to attention of more people, but probably not something that can be solved by legislation. Activist groups would be great too hehe. But yes, some solutions for people who don't have that familial/spousal support network is needed and should be talked about. If we can't provide a kid with 100% responsible, stable, mature, conventional hetero couple, it's better for them to rot in orphanages where they have oh so great adult oversight and opportunities aplenty, clearly. Cool cool. Yeah, but it's still for couples, leaving poly and other non-duo friend constellations with no options. Yes! All the more likely those problems will find solutions The only thing I'd be wary of would be the amatonormative mentality of "well, but I'll get a partner eventually and it won't affect me anymore" of some of those people. The society generally holds the belief that giving greater advantage to marrieds with children is 100% right. Contact sports 😜 Good old sex work 😜 New career opportunities for professional cuddlers 😜 But for real now - maybe there will appear some ways to fulfill those needs that aren't here today. Meanwhile we can focus on mentality in which toching friends could happen more often. Mmm, great point. I, uh, thought that this is what we were discussion here, reforms that would legitimize lifestyles other than hetero couple marriage. I don't think anything that's been said here called for a revolution. It can be a fantasy only, but at least sometimes the kids can pay for the nursing homes. To have more extra money, it'd be cool to have the same salary that people who have children and/or families do And people can be minimalist and not think about some far-away prospects of "having money for retirement", sigh, especially if they're working tiring but underpaid jobs. So here I'd focus on first allowing people to have the money they can leave for later (or invest) and then encouraging them to do so. This can always be changed This would be the best option lbr. Realistically?? The kind of society that no longer tells the elderly to get their stuff and leave the household when they can't work anymore and the family can't spare the freeloaders. I'm gonna... take a wild guess and... assume that most people here don't live in either of those countries. And if they do... they can probably recognize what their priorities are... And as a person not living in NK or SA, I always I think I can aim higher than "not fearing for my life 24/7", for example aiming for "the best standard of life and equality for all in the place where I live" This is my view too - this doesn't have to fly under the banner of "making the world a better place for aromantics, but aromantics only, if you want to benefit from this, you have to show your aro card". In my understanding those are issues that also impact aros and as a group we could be working on allying with other impacted groups to make the changes that are benefiting all...?? I’m always surprised how many people regard laws as good instruments to change attitudes and for reeducation. Oh boy, who said anything about reeducation by law..?? And what kind of reeducation would that be...?? Because the line "away from pair-bonding" makes me think someone was suggesting abolishing options of legal pair-bonding here.............?? I thought I read a thread about changing and adjusting policies that currently don't include people who aren't pair-bonded. Great point!
  6. This is how it's often defined, so you'd think that's how it is, but reality isn't as neat and sorted as that. I don't fully understand the middle of the post And as for how we should proceed - personal identity labels usually mean something, but sometimes aromantic can mean "I don't feel attraction, but want a romantic relationship and I want to communicate that I'm aromantic in my attraction" and sometimes aromantic can mean "I may feel attraction, but I for sure don't want romo relationships, and I want to communicate that I'm aromantic in my lack of desire for romo relationships", so. I'm sure it feels practical for both those people from the example. I wouldn't worry about scientists, because they generally know that self-description is not great for measuring different concepts. But I'm kinda worried about common people who come across aromanticism
  7. There are aromantics who id as aro and feel romantic attraction and greyros who possibly don't and still id as greyro, and where do you sort identities like "cupioromantic" - 0 attraction, but would like a romo relationship. There were people complaining that grey is an umbrella term they disidentify with, because they feel it makes the romanticism spectrum linear and despite identifying with a microlabel they also identity with aromanticism. And it feels insensitive to say "why someone can't just id as aro" - I'm assuming they have their reasons. And there also exist people who id as aro and desire romo relationships, it's just... there's a lot of conflicting interests there
  8. @Cristal Gris definitely relevant, thanks!!
  9. Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy (AUREA) is happy to announce the website - aromanticism.org - we've been working on has been launched! We assemble general information and community updates. The website includes FAQ, vocabulary, research, news feed, online resources, links to in-person groups, and printable educational materials. Our aim is also to be a contact point for researchers and media looking to explore the aromantic experiences. To be all that, we’re also looking for volunteers! You may (and please do, that’d be great) also contact us to inform us about an aromantic-themed event, an article mentioning aromanticism, new group, new research (or old one that we missed), anything that is relevant to aromanticism and that we, in our nonomnipotence may miss otherwise!
  10. Oh, this is what @running.tally meant. Or rather, defining the word "aromantic"...?? Which can be used to say "I'm aromantic" - about identity, "aromantic community" - which is strictly speaking "aromantic spectrum community" (unless there's a lot of communities that don't include anyone who doesn't identify as only aromantic..??), "i'm aromantic (because it's easier to say, i identify with both aromanticism and cupiormanticism, but am romance repulsed and they asked how come my qpp isn't my romantic partner)". Yeah it definitely is the reason for the fact a term "endcase aro" came into existence, but how do you wish to proceed...?? People hear "aromantic" and think a person is not interested in romance, doesn't feel attraction, assumptions are made; this person chafes at the assumptions, says they feel unwelcome in the community. We have either the option to expand the definition of what aromanticism can be, so that people who may feel attraction and/or have a nonnormative experience of romance, in which case it does become synonymous to aromantic spectrum definition or we can say "aromantic is 0 attraction" but this would be untrue...?? And like @nonmerci said, sometimes the words are being used because they're convenient, not because they capture the essence of the being of a person. My goal would be to provide a definition of aromanticism that leaves room for interpretation too, so that it's harder to make assumptions.
  11. cool, I like this mostly, maybe just note that still the part about attraction is most common - "commonly due to experiencing little to no romantic attraction, but also due to ..." yep we're talking about the use that is interchangeable with the word arospec, as used in for example "aromantic community" theyre already here; and what purpose would that serve besides
  12. examples where attraction isn't the defining part include: acoromantic (person whose negative experiences with romance have alienated them from their alloromanticism), antiromantic (person who would prefer not to develop romantic feelings for people, but does), apathromantic (person who may or may not experience romantic attraction, but is indifferent to receiving it or acting on it) @Coyote did this survey on their pillowfort that shows ~64% of arospecs marked attraction as the factor for labelling their romo orientation, ~44% also said ambiguity is a factor, and frequency was marked by ~38%. Non-zero people also marked "I don't label it", "Gender", "Desire", "Preference", "Community" and "Other" (eta: forgot the link https://www.pillowfort.social/posts/702982) there isn't necessary anything wrong with the "little to no attraction" definition, it just doesn't reflect the whole picture
  13. back on track...?? what can we do other than wordsmith?? I'm really interested in suggestions
×
×
  • Create New...