Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About Coyote

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Name
  • Location
  • Romanticism
  • Sexuality

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

799 profile views
  1. hm, that just might work. I like that idea. Also interested in hearing people's thoughts on the TMI thread idea -- I'll add that one into the top post as another suggestion.
  2. It's you \o/ haha, hi. I knew you had an Arocalypse account but was too shy to tag you. I didn't want to be presumptuous. 2) The Sexuality and Gender board stays the same, but a new Sexuality board is created. Aight, so there is some interest in a new board altogether... We'd have to think of some board name to make it sufficiently distinct from the "Sexuality and Gender" board, and also I'm thinking the description should maybe have specific words like sexual attraction, sexual desire, sexual relationships, etc. to make the purpose clear. Another thing, too: Would it also go under the Miscellaneous category? That seems to fit technically well enough, but I wonder if that'd risk letting it go overlooked.
  3. I wrote this up expecting it to be short and then it wasn't, so I've broken it up into sections: the Problem, the Catch, and a few suggestions for a Solution. The Problem Lately, what I've been happening to come across from aro tumblr suggests a dire need for moderated spaces. For example: Tumblr users generally use "tags" as kind of makeshift community spaces, but tags are unmoderated, so when there's a problem with off-topic content in the tags, there's no way for anyone else to remove it. Here are some posts that talk about this in relation to aro tumblr: example, example, example. More generally, I've also come across some posts from aro allos (specifically) talking about feeling like they're not allowed to talk about sexuality in the aromantic community. Here are some posts that talk about this: example, example. To me, as much as we can try to hold the problem people accountable, this also points toward a structural need for more private and/or more moderated spaces. Arocalypse may not offer more privacy (for that, I'd recommend Dreamwidth or Pillowfort), but it does have more moderation than the Tumblr aro tags. So, from seeing these conversations, I'm wondering about how Arocalypse can create more of the space that these folks are expressing a need for -- aro spaces for talking about sexuality. I came here to this board, the Site Comments board, to suggest the creation of a Sexuality* board to begin to address this. *Note: in this particular case, I am using "sexuality" and not "allosexuality." That's because I'm trying to refer something a little more detached from specific identity labels. I don't want people to feel stuck or unsure whether they should use the board on account of not having a sexual orientation label, as is the case for some aros. The Catch But then I noticed that there already was a Sexuality board. The current title for it is Sexuality and Gender. It's currently in the Miscellaneous category (after the Aromanticism category), and its description is this: From that description ("various sexual orientations") and from looking at the most recently-bumped threads, it sounds like this is for "sexuality" in a very general sense that includes "asexuality." Currently the front page of threads in that board includes titles like "Is it possible to be aromantic, but NOT asexual?" "Aromanticism + A/sexual Identity - How does everyone here identify?" "Demisexuality, sex drive and the emotional bond" and "The Asexual Thread." So this is a board both intended for and being used for ace umbrella conversations. That's all well and good on its own, but my concern is that's not as useful for addressing the aro allosexual silencing issue. The Solution? I don't know if any changes would make sense here or, if so, what changes would make aro allosexuals feel more welcome to speak. The goal would be to provide a moderated space where aro-umbrella folks of all kinds can have conversations about sexuality -- not "sexual orientation" generally, not celibacy, not nonlibidoism, but sexuality, as in sexual attraction, sexual desire, sexual relationships, and sexual activity. This is what I'm hearing a need for, so this is what I'm suggesting changes be made in order to accommodate. But like I said, I don't know what changes would make the most sense here. I'm going to toss out just a few possibilities as examples: 1) Everything stays the same, because this issue should be addressed a different way. 2) The Sexuality and Gender board stays the same, but a new Sexuality board is created. Insert your name/description suggestions here. 3) The Sexuality and Gender board changes its name and/or its description to be more sexually-oriented. Insert your name/description suggestions here. 4) The Sexuality and Gender board changes its name and/or description to be more reflective of its current content (ex. "Orientation" instead of "Sexuality"), and also, a new Sexuality board is created. Insert your name/description suggestions here. 5) A new Sexuality subboard is created. It's located within the Sexuality and Gender board. Insert your name/description suggestions here. *) Bonus idea from Sennkestra: a TMI ("too much information") thread is created, for those topics that you might want to put a "TMI" warning on before you bring them up. What do y'all think?
  4. Here's some more links on how people have used the term queerplatonic. Hmm, that's... a questionable response, yeah. A lot of people don't need to "try it" before they figure out sex is for them, so I don't know where so many people are getting that idea (it's something that gets directed at asexuals a lot). If I were in your shoes and considering bringing it up to her, I might try some trial balloon questions first, just to get a sense of what kind of reaction to expect. It shouldn't? ...I mean, not that it necessarily should be, but I wouldn't tell anybody they did something wrong if they called it quits after that. Getting a response like that can be a pretty heavy blow, and for a lot of people, being able to trust their therapist is pretty important to making sure therapy is at all productive or worthwhile. So it's understandable that for some people that could be a breaking point.
  5. I guess I did the quote tree wrong, because that comment was directed more at Angel than at you. Oh well. Still, re: can you categorized those two as distinct things, in media, unless it is named? ...Eh. I don't think I'd want people to try. A possible alternative that I think would work better: if someone did make a list, there could be an asterisk-type symbol to denote if a character also has an explicitly-stated sexual orientation, if a character is involved with/pursues sexual relationships, if a character self-describes as "aro" specifically vs. just strongly implied, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there'd be so many entries as to warrant a set of completely separate lists. Or maybe there would be, but it would easier to... build up to that. ...We are talking mostly fictional storytelling here, right?
  6. So how would you break down 'allosexual aro' and 'ace aro' into categories or criteria? This seems overly reliant on the idea that all aros are either aro allo or aro ace. Some aros aren't. Anyway, can we just put together a list of some aromantic media in the first place before figuring out how to numerically rank it?
  7. Enzi just said why they feel weird about using the term demiromantic. ...I mean, to be clear, I'm all for using whatever labels work for you, whether that means using something in spite of other people using it slightly differently (as will always be the case) or not using something that "should" fit, because it would feel weird. More importantly, I don't think anyone can really tell anybody else what they are. That's something that everyone has to figure out on their own. I agree, it's both a pro and a con, at the same time. And I can understand that making it a little daunting. To me it's also important to remember that figuring out what particular label to use doesn't even need to be important. The bigger questions are -- What communities do you want to be a part of? To what extent, and what ways? And what is this self-knowledge helping you to do -- or how to conduct your relationships in life? But in any case, personally the best way for me to figure out labels has always been to read a bunch of writing by different people about their experiences and what they use those labels to mean, so here's a blogpost by a greyromantic about greyromanticism, as a starting point.
  8. If I may hazard a guess... I figure they mean "official" colloquially, in the sense of "credible, serious, and polished-looking, with an air of authority."
  9. I'm happy to hear this. It makes sense to me, even though it's arguable. Although I'm not interested in pushing for them to go one way or the other on how to handle this (and am just sharing some thoughts here), the way I see it is like this: if they were to do a lot of disclaimers and personalization of the site, framing everything in terms of "this is just our own way of seeing it, from the POV of the team here," then there wouldn't be a lot to differentiate it from a lot of existing aro blogs and glossaries that are already out there. It'd just be basically the same thing, except with a different domain. My understanding of the goal here is to create something that looks more "official," and -- for better or for worse -- to a lot of anglophones, more "official" presentation is more impersonal, absolute, unified presentation. You could argue that that association/perception is bad, of course, but I can understand not wanting to fight two battles at once, if that makes sense.
  10. Hello Tost. Thank you. My question pertains to something that's already been said about the team's plans: What I understand this to mean is that the team is intending to not invite any outside beta readers/not release any part of the web copy before publishing the site. Why?
  11. No. Or more specifically: I don't think it makes sense to pull up a hypothetical scenario of a hypothetical person and decide, on the basis of the gender direction of a sensual orientation, that they "could be considered queer," because I don't like the idea of establishing "rules" like this about how people are supposed to identify or how people are supposed to parse their experiences. Especially when it comes to a word like "queer." That's a pretty complicated topic and (as with most labels, but this one especially) ties in with a lot more than just the barebones of their sensuality. This additionally ties in to part of some more general thoughts I have about unorthodox axes of orientation, too, but I'll try not to get sidetracked here. Suffice to say that I think "your sensual attraction is bisensual, so you're queer" is an oversimplification & doesn't acknowledge enough autonomy in the identification process. With that said, I've asked something similar about sensual attraction before (specifically wrt ace issues), and... the way I wrote that post then isn't how I would have written it now, but it might be interesting to anyone who's interested in further responses on the subject. General disclaimer that I'm putting this thought forward as someone who does itself experience sensual attraction to multiple genders but does not use orientation language for that, and personally, that barely registers as a part of my own relationship to (not using) that term.
  12. It sounds like we are still not on the same page, because I disagree with some of what you've said here -- or rather, I just have a different understanding of how to parse it all. On the one hand, I think it's fine and would make sense for the team to include something on the site about how the team came about -- some kind of "origin story," so to speak, on the website, whose idea it was, and how the other people were picked, plus a note that these people were not voted into the position or whatever. That would be fine. It's not something I'm pushing for, but it'd be fine. On the other hand, I would draw a distinction between them doing that and them saying "we are not representatives" or "this website is not representing the aromantic community." Because it is. And I'm not even saying that's a bad thing! I'm just saying, "representing others," necessarily, is something that this initiative entails, by definition. I cannot stress enough that representing others is not (itself) something that I object to. I just don't know why you're talking like that can be avoided in a project like this. It's actually little different than, say, the grad representative from my department, who represents the graduate students at faculty meetings -- by showing up to those meetings and acting as a liaison between us and them. In that role, they are representing others. Representing others is not a bad thing to be avoided. It's the point of the whole website. So it's because they are aiming to represent others in this particular way that I have questions I think it's not unreasonable to want answers to. At the moment I have one question in particular that I think is pretty good & that I would appreciate some support in getting the team to answer.
  13. I think they're all intertwined forces -- sometimes identifiable separably, but often running as a pack and reinforcing each other. Heteronormativity and amatonormativity do tend to go hand-in-hand (Luvtheheaven discusses an example of that in a recent post). And another reason to make the connection to heteronormativity, tbh, is that this is something you'll see tackled in academic queer theory sometimes, although not always by the name of amatonormativity as such. I wouldn't know who to cite off the top of my head but they definitely make the case that the "respectability" of marriage is inflected with a heteronormative ideal -- and paint trying to incorporate LGBTQ people into that mold as assimilationist. huh. Interesting. Thanks for collecting those pdf pages. Is there a main source page where you found them?
  14. I think it's okay to take it slow in figuring out what words you want to use. The aro community is for the entire aromantic spectrum, which means that people can relate to the concept of aromanticism in lots of different ways, so whether or not you belong isn't going to hinge on any one specific label or fitting any one specific narrative. Also, welcome. Have some ice cream. You mentioned cupioromantic, but I'll also add here that you can find some narratives of only-being-interested-in-unavailable-people in association with some labels like lithromantic. Unfortunately I don't know of a lot of examples that I can link you to, but here are some: one, two, three. Also, here's a post by the coiner on where the term comes from. Not suggesting you have to fit yourself into that narrative either, just another example of the breadth of possibilities. This is also why I think it's important to have umbrella terms like grayromantic, which are a lot more vague and nonspecific. Here's an example of a grayro talking about being grayro -- and how "??? is this romantic?" can be a part of that. Basically, identifying on the aro spectrum doesn't have to mean pinning anything down in exact terms more specific than that. I don't even consider that to be "slowly," lol. It sounds like you've been dealing with some clingy people. Everyone's free to have different preferences about that sort of thing, of course, but even for people who are deeply romantic, I can see that being a bit much for some. It's not totally off the wall to say "I need you to stop expecting me to be available at a moment's notice. This isn't the relationship communication style that works for me. If that's not okay with you, then it could be that we're just not compatible."
  15. Baby Outlaw -- Elle King: Well I ain't nobody's baby Baby, I'm an outlaw
  • Create New...