Jump to content

Mark

Member
  • Content Count

    686
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

About Mark

  • Rank
    Dragon
  • Birthday October 17

Personal Information

  • Name
    Mark
  • Gender
    Gender Queer
  • Pronouns
    They, Mx
  • Location
    United Kingdom
  • Occupation
    IT
  • Romanticism
    aromantic: couple and romance repulsed.
  • Sexuality
    pansexual, kinky, Relationship Anarchist

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

2,894 profile views
  1. I see a lot of conflation between romance, affection and sex in these articles. it's also unclear if it was kissing or kissing in public which offended the Thonga.
  2. Putting this here because I'm not sure where else it might fit. Monogamy is typically the expectation is many cultures. With even subcultures which might accept it as not being the only option still, IME, tending to see it as a default. It is also somewhat more complex than it first appears. Having both a 'first person" and 'second person' aspect. first person: "I want to be your one and only". second person: "I want you to be my one and only" It can also be divided into four types Sexual, Emotional, Social and Activity. Sexual first person: "I want to have sex with you and only you". Sexual second person: "I want you to have sex with me and only me". With the caveat that "have sex" may mean different things to different people. Emotional first person: “I will love you and only you.” Emotional second person: "I want you to love me and only me". With the caveat that "love" need not equate to "romantic love". Even though this kind of love lends itself well to such singular notions. Social: This is very much about being seen as a "couple". Activity first person: "I want to do this with you and only you". Activity second person: "I want you to do this with me and only me". This may overlap somewhat with sexual. You could describe someone's feelings towards these of a scale from must have, very favourable, favourable, indifferent, unfavourable, very unfavourable to definitely not. (As a numerical scale 3,2,1,0,-1,-2,-3 or 1000, 100, 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01. 0.001) Socially normative is that everyone is "must have" or "very favourable" to all of these. My own position is, by contrast, "definitely not" for all. I suspect that some people could be quite mixed in their attitudes. Is this kind of model useful?
  3. I suspect that for the latter to happen it would need to involve high status people. The likes of Helen of Troy or Romeo and Juliet. Something really odd is that only about a third of single people are desperate to be in a romantic relationship. Even though amantonormative dogma assumes that it would be all of them. Indeed something like 20% are not interested. Which is about an order of magnitude greater than the proportion of aromantic people. Whereas romantic coded behaviours, appear throughout history. Including kissing.
  4. The Classical Greeks also considered mania (μανία) to be a type of love. (obsessive love). ludus is actually a Latin term. With meanings along the lines of play, game, sport, training. It's also the term for a Roman "Primary School". paízō (παίζω) meaning play might be a better term. The word "pragma" in English does derive from prâgma (πρᾶγμα) meaning “a thing done, a fact”. A more common translation in the love context is "long lasting". It's also important to consider that often "arranged marriages" have not been "forced marriages". Whilst parents, other relatives or a "match marker" within a community/village might pick suitors mutual interest and consent would, typically, be required for a marriage to happen. The notion which seems to have been around in medieval times seems to be that of "Courtly Love". Confined to a small portion of the population and not especially linked to sex. Shakespeare was an active playwright between 1585 and 1613 roughly two centuries before Austen. With it being unclear how widely accepted a concept romance actually was. Nor is it clear that the love that was expected to develop in a post martital period was "romantic". Whilst the late 19th century does appear to be the start of amantonormativity it's still taken over a century to spread globally and hasn't reached everywhere. With that spreading still being ongoing in the 21st century. This wasn't (and isn't) an instant process. I think what's significant is when romantic sub plots started to appear in other genres of fiction. Especially where they obviously make no sense. That being said romantic movies (and sub plots) do date from fairly on in movie history. Though that's less than 130 years ago. I think what's happened is that society has changed in order to make it so. In the same way that being a religious believer in a theocratic state might be "essential". Indeed belief in amantonormativity can be just as extreme as that shown by religious fanatics. It's new, though there are many attempts to retcon it into history. It's possible that a few people might have experienced it in the past. However before about a couple of centuries ago it would have been seem as a rare mental illness. I'd suggest that it's closer to 500 than 900 Whilst in may partly involve ludus and have appropriated a lot of erotic iconography I'd suggest that it's major ingredient is mania.
  5. A pity you didn't ask them what relevance that questioning was or, even, ask them inappropriate personal questions. You were doing a favour explaining aromanticism, especially free of charge. Again unprofessional of them to be asking. Though it sounds like you gave a good explanation. That's as inappropriate as suggesting that it would be good for a straight person to be in a gay relationship or a gay person to be in a straight relationship. Have you considered making a complaint about him? That actually does sound like a symptom of depression. TBH a single alloromantic who wasn't desperate to be in a relationship might well get the same attitude. Belief in amantonormativity being pseudo-religious. See this article. It's unlikely they would get it. Since they very much part of the problem here. I think wanting, but being unable to find, meaningful non-romantic sexual relationships can be a problem for many allo aros. Especially those of us who are romance repulsed and unable to tolerate being in a romantic relationship.
  6. The terms visibility, awareness, acceptance and inclusion are far from synonymous. Though it's not uncommon, within political advocacy, to assume they are or use the wrong one. It can be more difficult to teach people when they already misunderstand something. Advocating "marriage equality" is far from casual. Without it being recognised as, potentially, indirectly arophobic. There are some very different social attitudes and standards towards sex or romance. Including finding them repulsive.
  7. There's a difference between visability, awareness, acceptance and inclusion. One complication is that aromanticism does already have some visibility from the ace community. Leading to the idea that aro is a subset of ace.
  8. The reason I suggested quoiplatonic is that the concept of "platonic attraction" dosn't work for me. Nor does squish, alterous, queerplatonic, etc. I found some posts by Queer As Cat which also question the notion of “romantic” vs “platonic” as a dichotomy. However the term "platonic friend(ship)" does make sense to me as describing a kind of relationship which is sexual, sensual or physical. (Non romantic by implication of the friend part rather than the platonic part. With it being possible for relationships to be both friendship and romantic. Including something called "romantic friendship".) An alternative adjective being "vanilla". Maybe this is different from the way others define "platonic friend". I don't really have a good terms to describe attractions I experience which are not sexual, sensual or aesthetic.
  9. This is a really great idea. Something many organisations should consider. I'd suggest name and pronouns. Even if everyone currently attending is cis. It dosn't hurt anyone and gives trans people a reason to recommend your events.
  10. That's a very useful history, since the original definition of quoiromantic (and quoisexual) makes a lot more sense. At least to me. Unfortunately the other definition appears on Urban Dictionary, LGBTA Wiki and Aromantics Wiki. To name a few. It appears that quoiplatonic does not, currently, exist. How's this? quoiplatonic; “what even is 'platonic attraction'? Divide by zero. Error 404 Plato not found” Which seems to fit with the Note on Quoi. Agreed. Considering TAAAP and the wider '& aro'ing, I think it's vital that "Recognition, Education, and Advocacy" comprehensively covers aromanticism. Especially challenging the 'aro as a subset of ace' idea.
  11. It's quite possible to get hierarchies/chains of erasure and oppression.
  12. I found a follow up in the same paper. Which could be what happened in the second case. It seems to be acceptable, even expected, for alloromantics to behave in these ways. Especially straight men. Whereas outside of romance neither of these stunts would be that acceptable. At least not without requiring permits and, in the latter case, complying with applicable health and safety laws.
  13. There do appear to be some very different standards when it comes to unwanted romantic vs sexual attention. An obvious example being shown in this news story. Whilst half of the people surveyed think his behaviour is "creepy" there's a fifth who see it as "romantic". He was stopped by a member of the public after several hours. I'm sure had his actions been sexual he'd have been stopped by the police a lot sooner. (A possible factor here is the "sex is private" whereas "romance is public" situation.) There would also be the situation of a welcome sexual advance combined with an unwelcome romantic advance. There are very different standards when it comes to consent, content warnings, classification and restrictions between sexual and romantic. The likes of motion picture content rating systems being rather useless to many romance repulsed aros. If anything romance which is clearly non-sexual may be more likely to be considered acceptable by mainstream society
  14. What you describe is more an active process of denial and erasure. I think it's worth asking if your "social awkwardness" could, in any way, be a consequence of your being aromantic in a highly amantonormative society. That isn't specific to Instragram. You find much the same thing on Facebook, Tumblr, YouTube, etc. This is part the reason I strongly object to asexual organisations adding "and aro" to their names (or events). The current situation isn't entirely down to Alloromantic Asexuals. Since there are certainly Aromantic Asexuals who failed to challenge, even supported, the idea of aro as a subset of ace. Something which I see reflected in "aro language". Parts of the LGBT+ community manage to be biphobic or transphobic, ironic as that may appear. There can also be acephobia, most likely towards heteroromantic asexuals. Similarly with arophobia, especially towards aromantic heterosexuals. Personally I find claims that either of these kinds of people are "straight" to resemble bovine excrement. Something which I think is a factor here is "marriage equality". Which about romantic, rather than sexual, orientation. The problem does have both these attributes. Often even if you can get people to recognise that "love" includes eros, philia, storge, pragma and agape they'll still place romance on a pedestal or at the top of a hierarchy. Thus you'll get this sort of thing.
  15. There's the apparent paradox something being the norm can mean it is undefined. e.g. heterosexual being coined after homosexual. Amantonormativity describing a social meme which existed for up to a century before it was coined.
×
×
  • Create New...