Jump to content

Coyote

Member
  • Content Count

    176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Coyote

  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.
  15. hm. "Disconnected from normative societal expectations" is something that strikes me as maybe overbroad, since arguably that could apply to people who are gay/bi/pan in a romantic way, but I think it's a good start. If it were me, I might put that one up front and then add some subordinate clauses with examples, ex. -- Aromantic: a person whose experience of romance is disconnected from normative societal expectations, for example due to experiencing little to no romantic attraction, feeling repulsed by romance, or being uninterested in romantic relationships. Presumably @running.tally is also interested in non-surface conversations. Part of why this is an issue is because of identity policing, questioning people, and folks who don't exactly fit this one singular narrative -- as James argues, asserting that someone can’t be aromantic (and instead has to identify as something else) because they “experience” any amount/type/frequency of “romantic attraction”... is identity policing. And, granted, no definition can prevent that. But certainly a very narrow and precise definition lends itself to that easier. And... unfortunately, getting hung up on levels of attraction does seem like something that's been going around, if I'm not mistaken. These questions matter for discussions and relationships within any given community, not for just the cursory introduction. Although even the cursory introduction can also shape whether or not someone feels emboldened enough to look further. Anyway, I'm a bit unclear on something else here-- Are y'all talking about the word "aromantic," or are y'all talking about the concept of "the aromantic umbrella"?
  16. I'd never heard of that before either and I can't say I'd go for that either. This is the only overreaction I see in this thread. You really gonna accuse "everyone" of "oversensitivity"? Even Neir/running.tally, who posted solely to call the idea cute and fun? Take it easy.
  17. I always appreciate links. Hard agree. I haven't adopted the labels I have just from staring at the definitions alone. I even wrote a post about that in 2015, although it could really stand to be updated... There's things I'd say differently now. I think that's a bad outlook to have -- where "bad" here means "detrimental to having a community." I've mentioned this elsewhere before, but communities will always, always have people who are different from each other... because people are different from each other, period. I... hate this, to be honest. Whipping up an endless conveyor belt of neologisms to send them off like paper boats on the off chance that someone out there might appreciate it is like spending your days adding tape to paper towels because somebody might want a bandaid. That's not how you make sure this stuff is useful. And that frustrates me, because it means people are pouring energy into things other than (and basically at the expense of) community building. This isn't just some generic commentary about there being "too many" or the terms not being "respectable" enough, to be clear. After all, I'm someone who identifies with a concept that's pretty undignified & that was first named on a whim (wtfromantic). And there have also been... an endless array of gender terms that I've looked at and been like... maybe? Maybe this could work, I guess, but let's see how it's used first/what the community looks like, in order for me to tell if this is an identity that works for me, and then [insert surprised gru meme] there is no community. There's no one posting about what it means to them or hardly using it at all. So it's practically useless to me. What am I supposed to do, start an entire community myself? Around a term somebody else created? Why's there a term at all if you can't find out anything about it besides the name? It feels like a bait & switch and I feel cheated. I don't necessarily want to make things "tidier." I just want to see some actual follow-through. But there won't be, because aro, ace, & nb online communities (as far as I can tell) are majorly based on Tumblr, and Tumblr overall prioritizes images, not text. Consequently: endless autocratic flag generation & moodboards, far surpassing any actual in-depth discussion. There are some terms I can find more flag/moodboard posts about than people identifying with them, let alone talking about it. You want to stem the flow of neolabels generally, you're going to have to form a bigger aro community off Tumblr.
  18. Right, not trying to rush you. Just thought I'd ask where to set my expectations.
  19. Depending on how familiar they are with the term polyamorous, I would think. The term was derived as a spinoff of that one. huh? Nonamory was suggested by anagnori, who is aromantic.
  20. Approximately what should we be expecting in the way of turn-around time for emails?
  21. Uh. I'm seeing some reason for hesitation here. Some of these, I just don't see the need for (we already have words like "alloromantic," "dominant," and "submissive" -- what are these alternatives adding?) but others... "strong aro"? "soft aro"? That sounds kind of value-laden and, more definitely, makes it sound like you're framing romance-repulsed aros as "more" aromantic than other aros. Please don't repeat the ace community's mistakes. There's no need to frame some aros as "softer" or weaker than others -- or "less likely to destroy cupid's spells" than others. This feels like it's setting up a hierarchical scale of aromanticism.
  22. Old enough to talk. Getting told "you're too young to know that" is a common experience to all sorts of people who aren't straight (or cisgender, for that matter). It's a double standard, because those same people probably wouldn't have told you "you're too young to know that, maybe it'll change" if what you had said was "I'm straight." They're just generalizing based off of what's more familiar to them. It's a type of reaction to expect from people -- but not something to take to heart. It's okay to identify as aromantic if that's the term that feels right to you. No matter how old or young you are. I promise.
  23. Is it? That hardly aligns with what I've seen, but alright. I'm plenty familiar with it being explained to me second-hand, actually. The more people talk to me about it, the more I become convinced that referring to the group you're speaking of as "antis" is a strategically unsound choice. "Anti-shippers" is also silly, but that's for the separate reason that, according to one harassment account I've been directed to on this topic, some of these people are shippers themselves -- basically participating in a ship war. I see. In that case -- I don't know of much, but I recently started another PF discussion on this topic ("How does your aro spectrum identity, romance aversion, or romantic ambivalence impact how you engage with fandom?") that's gotten over a dozen comments now. You might also be interested in tumblr user beranyth's old posts on Growing Up Aromantic: The Half-Read Book and also this reblog-chain on dehumanization.
×
×
  • Create New...