Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Phoenixflame

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Name
  • Occupation
  • Romanticism
  • Sexuality

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I feel like it might be just because its easier for women to identify as something that's not heteronormative. Men aren't as immediately marginalized by the systems trying to keep heteronormativity in place so it might not be as easy for them to admit. I read somewhere that woman are more likely to be bisexual than men, I think the likely culprit is the fact that women already have to deal with an oppressive institution so what's the harm, while men usually aren't allowed to be extra emotional and therefore won't take a step back and examine their own sexuality. There's just more at stake for men and less introspection culturally acceptable.
  2. I think that's interesting because most of my straight friends that do have friends with benefits are like that, it is only about the sex with them and there usually isn't much friendship involved. They also never really end up developing romantic feelings for their fwb because its a different kind of relationship than a romantic one. But I also think that is more acceptable socially for straight people to have those kinds of relationships because its only temporary. They will eventually settle down they just don't have time to go on dates until their careers are settled but they still want sex. I also think that most alloromantic aces have it easier than both aroaces and aro allosexuals. That's the whole reason I hate AVEN, my aromanticism is much more important to my long term life and adult relationships than my asexuality. In a healthy relationship not having sex should not be the first thing about it, I know a heteroromantic asexual girl who got married and moved across state lines to be with the first straight man who told her that he didn't need to have sex. He ended up cheating on her and pressuring her into sex anyway. If someone is in a healthy celibate romantic relationship then most people won't actually know how much sex they are having. Any relationship in the media where they don't have sex and don't mention them having sex explicitly could be an asexual relationship because it's mostly normal. Aromantic people, on the other hand, don't have the implied settling down later that's expected. We are seen as immature and told well want it later. It's more complex for aro allos because sex in the long term is socially connected to romance, especially after you reach a certain age. Casual sex and casual sexual partners are fine in college but people are demonized if they don't also have a romantic relationship to go along with it. Sex after college is often seen as a result of romance, where sex without romance is considered exploitative, and people who are not in romantic relationships pitied or infantilized.
  3. I don't know, I feel like marriage is an important cultural practice, at least for many people in the US, and I think abolishing it would require a large cultural shift before anything could be done legally. I'm not saying people wouldn't continue their ceremonies for a long term commitment of a couple, but it's been paired with the legal recognition of the partnership for a long time, its what gives the partnering legitimacy, you can see what happened when same-sex couples got the right to be married. It also is very important in other matters legally speaking such as child rearing. I think a better idea than abolition would be changing the definition of marriage. Since marriages have been important for raising children, we could change the meaning to mean the partnership of the primary caregivers of a child (or children). It would create the conditions for individuals to pool resources to make it easier to raise a kid. People could still use it for today's meaning of marriage, but it might water down the meaning and allow more acceptance of people who don't want to get married. It would also change the meaning of a married couple from a romantic partnership to a parenting unit. So if you're aromantic and want to have kids but don't want the implied romance, you could still have the pooled resources without the expectation of being in a romantic partnership. If this meaning of marriage got enough support from the general public there could be a push to allow polygamous parenting units (I think allowing plural marriages as they stand today could be dangerous, polygamy is inherently misogynistic and tends to treat women as property. I know poly relationships are different but allowing plural marriage still legalizes polygamy too). Either way, it's a cultural change we need before a legal one. It's important to remember that even though people like us might not want to get married, it's really important to a lot of people. You can't change the law on a whim, you need public support and marriage abolition wouldn't have that.
  4. Hi, my name is Nix I'm a college student who decided to check out AVEN for the first time in a few years and found it was just full of heteroromantic asexuals and their partners posting about things that I can't relate to whatsoever. I got fed up and did some research until I found this place, I don't really know what to expect, I haven't been on a forum in a long time.
  • Create New...