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

909 profile views
  1. "Split attraction model" as a term is a whole other can of worms, and it originated a decade after (not before) the term aromantic. Anyway. Back to the aromantic vs. aromantic spectrum question, for those interested: Siggy recently wrote a post he titled "Aromantic" should not refer to the spectrum.
  2. Looks pretty sincere to me. If you want, I guess we could ask. hmmm. Do you think the answer would be improved if those things were added onto the list?
  3. Hey Janeisy. I'm not sure what kind of advice you're looking for right now, but you might find some similar experiences among lithromantic narratives -- here are just a few links to get you started: Arocalypse thread - Lonely Lithromantic AVEN thread - Lithromantic Definition About the origins of "lithromantic" As for advice, are you able to identify what feels wrong to you about dating? Is it certain forms of touch? Is it certain expectations or behavior? Is it certain ways of addressing or referring to each other? Or is it the whole relationship type altogether? Either way, there's nothing wrong with setting boundaries or deciding that there are some things you just don't want. You don't owe romance or romantic-coded behavior to anyone.
  4. hmm. I thought about this again recently while looking at the AUREA website -- the very first section of their FAQ page, the "General Information" section, has 2 questions on queerplatonic relationships (out of 9 in that section total, mostly about aromanticism in general). I don't know about y'all, but I feel like this foregrounds queerplatonic as a very central/general aromantic concept, moreso than other kinds of relationship preferences and types.
  5. How do you figure? If anything, I'd say there's an opposite problem. On the contrary: about how many new flag designs have come out of Arocalypse? Sure, but I don't think "the aro community is mostly digital" is why people are feeling alienated over not wanting partnerships or not having sexual orientations, and while expanding in-person could have benefits, that doesn't really address the specific thing I was asking about. Agreed. ...I think you may have this backwards. Certainly Simon's (ridiculously amatonormative) terminology suggestions (that delineate between more distant friendlike qprs and closer romancelike qprs, wtf) relate back to some real emotional experiences that resonate with people -- otherwise there wouldn't be people thanking him and saying things in the notes like " Aaaa I really like this a lot. ... And this. Actually makes me feel a lot better. Because I felt left out of even the aro community bc I don’t rlly want a QPR at all." My question is: why are people feeling left out in the first place? What's creating this impression of QPRs as some Master Narrative of How To Be Aro? Where is that coming from? Out of all the aromantics in this thread, how many of y'all even have a queerplatonic partner?
  6. Platonic is a hot mess of a word. We've talked about this before, but aside from the fact that I'm annoyed at the word etymologically (I hate Plato), it's also tangled up in the fact that a lot of people don't make a distinction between romance & sexuality, so, consequently, you'll have people using it both to mean nonromantic and/or to mean nonsexual and/or both. *shrug* Yet another reason why I just avoid it. I mean I get why people want a word for this stuff that doesn't have the word "non" in it, and people like a more established word over a neologism, but this is a problem with that word that's never going to go away. Yet another reason why I can't rightly answer the poll the way the answers are given. What does? Anyway, if y'all are interested in origins/uses of aplatonic, platonic attraction, and alterous, there's more links on that here.
  7. Okay, something it sounds like is coming up here, then: Does it make sense to use "aromantic"* as an umbrella term that includes people who do not call themselves specifically "aromantic"? *itself, as contrasted with "aromantic spectrum" or "aromantic umbrella" -- or in other words, to treat "aromantic" and "aromantic umbrella" as synonymous
  8. Well, how I... wish to proceed, I guess, would start off by ruling out either of those options. I don't support a definition of aromanticism that tells some aromantics they're not actually aromantic, and I also don't support an overzealously-extensive definition of aromanticism that tells people they're aromantic even if they don't want to be called that. @sennkestra recently made a related blogpost about "positive" identity policing, telling questioning people what they "actually" are in a way that's clearly well-meaning but still prescriptivist -- you can read the post and the comment section below for how people feel about that. The way around that dilemma, from my POV, involves making a generalization that borders on tautology and then listing some examples of the different reasons that people identify with the label, without implying any one-to-one formula. So uh, this would be an example of saying the thing I just said I think it's detrimental when people say. o.O
  9. It's not. which would be more aro-specific, I guess...(although I'm personally not sure about the term 'QPR' - do these imply an aro-ace only dynamic, or can they be sexual? (the 'P' might suggest not)) Not at all. Queerplatonic as a term was originally intended as something open to anyone. To quote the person who first suggested the word, S.E. Smith: "Anyone, sexual or asexual, romantic or aromantic, straight, gay, queer, bi, lesbian, poly, cis, trans, etc etc can be in a queerplatonic relationship."
  10. No, that doesn't bother me. For all I know, there's a lively and close-knit icecreamgender community out there -- I'm only annoyed when it seems like people are churning out words before/without communities instead of letting that be a co-constituative process. I'd rather this thread not turn into taking shots at unfamiliar terms just because they seem odd conceptually.
  11. Please don't do this. No one experience is the determiner of what someone is -- it's one thing to point out options someone might not have been aware of, but it's another thing to tell somebody what they "seem."
  12. I voted "something else" because my answer would have been "I don't use the word 'squish.'" Nothing against other people talking that way, to be clear. Just saying that for myself, it's... not the way I talk. I don't use platonic orientation labels, either, for that matter. I honestly hope that that never becomes an expected/demanded/subculturally compulsory thing the way romantic orientation has become for aces. My relationship to the concept of "platonic orientation" isn't the same as how I feel about "romantic orientation," though -- it's more just... I don't see why I'd describe any of that stuff using the "orientation" framework, personally. Also I hate the word platonic. Doesn't sound any different at all to me. Here's the original thread where it was suggested, for reference (which isn't to say that other people don't or shouldn't use it differently). Speaking just for myself again: I definitely have known people I've wanted to become friends with, and what I call that is "wanting to become friends." What?
  13. Well, color me confused then. I wouldn't have expected that. When someone talks about "defining aromantic," I'd always assume that they mean defining aromantic itself, as in for people whose primary identity label is "aromantic" point blank. If what they mean is the aromantic umbrella/spectrum, then I expect them to say "aromantic umbrella" or "aromantic spectrum" (or "arospec," if they're from Tumblr and/or on a mobile device). I also know that I'm not the only one who finds using "aromantic" and "arospec" interchangeably to be confusing. I also suspect that using specific terms as umbrella terms may be a part of the reason for the rise of the (icky) term "endcase aros," which is... unfortunately linear in its implications. Especially given that I've only ever seen it defined purely in terms of the zero attraction thing. This would be a type of that "pushing into grayness" issue that James mentioned. And jury's out on my relationship to the aro umbrella, but if somebody were to refer to me personally as "aromantic," I would be annoyed. (But anyway: thank you for clarifying.) If the task is for defining the whole aromantic umbrella as a concept, not aromantic-just-aromantic, then I would not have suggested quite the same wording. For that, I think it would make sense to take a page from the Carnival of Aros FAQ written by @sennkestra -- wording like a) "anyone who personally relates to some aspect of aromanticism," or b) aromantics + "those who may identify with identities sometimes considered 'adjacent' to aromanticism." Either of those seems like a decent starting point to me, if only just because of their breadth/comprehensiveness while also sticking to the specific topic of aromanticism.
  14. Hi Bri. Looks like this is your first post here? Welcome to the forum. My tip is this: Remember that only you can really determine what it feels right to call yourself. It's no one else's place to tell you what you are or aren't. With that said, if you're looking for people with experiences and outlooks similar to yours -- not seeing what all the fuss is about, not experiencing much in the way of romantic feelings, not seeking out romantic relationships -- then these are certainly things that you will find among many members of the aro community. There's no one single way to be under the aromantic umbrella, of course, so not every aro will look just like you. That's just to say, if you're looking for that resonance, then I think you've come to the right place. Any of those reasons you named are plenty normal reasons that some people have for identifying with the aromantic spectrum.
  • Create New...