Jump to content

Coyote

Member
  • Content Count

    242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by Coyote

  1. Bumping this thread because I still don't know of anywhere anybody's put together anything like this. @sennkestra In the mean time, here are the things I know so far: 200[?] -- the word "aromantic" used on Haven for the Human Amoeba 2006 -- the word "aromantic" used on the AVEN forums 2011? -- National Coalition for Aromantic Visibility founded, now defunct First flag proposal (green/yellow/orange/black ) 2012 -- "amatonormativity" coined by professor Elizabeth Brake 2014 -- Aromantic Awareness Week suggested on Tumblr (since renamed Aromantic Spectrum Awareness Week) 2014 -- Second flag proposal (green/green/yellow/gray/black) and Third flag proposal (green/green/white/gray/black) 2016-ish? -- Arocalypse created (@Blue Phoenix Ace can you confirm?) 2017 -- Aromantics Wiki was created 2018 -- aromantic and other romantic orientations added to the Oxford English Dictionary 2019 -- Aromantic-Spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy was created See also my timelines on QPR & related concepts (like "squish") and wtf/quoiromanticism. I get the sense that there would also be an interest in this over on aro tumblr. Anyway, somebody else take over for me here.
  2. Also "squad" and "community." Sympathies. And yeah, I think this is an important part of understanding what "amatonormativity" is -- not just the romantic/nonromantic distinction, but also thinking about individual relationships to the exclusion of group relationships. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
  3. +1 to the anti-soulmates resistance. The idea of "soulmates" at this point is basically inextricable from the idea of predestined relationships, which... is just a bad outlook to have on relationships all around, no matter what kind. I'd really like to know how these people define "friendship." There isn't necessarily any difference -- they can be the same. "QPR" is just... more specific, or I guess, a more specific way of indicating how you think about the relationship/how it doesn't fit within societal norms. Different people live in different cultural contexts, so there can't be any hard and fast rules for what exactly that will entail. Oh geez, what?
  4. Admittedly the other reason he wouldn't have said "heterosexual" per se was because he was a German and writing in German. I'm not sure what the exact German words he used were, besides "Uranodioning" etc., which has been translated as "bisexual."
  5. @raavenb2619 Link should be this: https://assignedgothatbirth.home.blog/2019/08/02/call-for-submissions-for-august-carnival-of-aros-relationships/
  6. Well, I don't know how to provide proof of consensus, but I find the "non-aromantic" use of "aro spectrum" to be new and bewildering, and this is how I use it: In this post, Siggy (a grayro) refers to the excluding-aromantic use of "arospec" as "nonstandard usage," and I'm inclined to see it the same way. See that post and the comment section for a further discussion of the consequences of shifting the spectrum framework. ...Also, having been watching the responses come in to the Romantic Ambivalence Survey.... well, to be fair, that's not supposed to be a measure of the whole aro community or opinions on the community, but it is getting a lot of aromantic respondents, and so far, I can tell you that definitely the vast majority of respondents who checked off "aromantic" as their identity did answer "Do you identify on the aromantic spectrum?" with "Yes, I do."
  7. @lonelyace Sorry about your thread getting derailed, but here's a linkspam I put together on tri-label aro aces.
  8. Recently encountered a reblog-chain started by @arokaladin that touches on a few different sites of language/expectations shift:
  9. I had this problem a while ago too. It turned out they were disabled on my account. If you go to your own profile page, clicking on "Edit Profile" (right next to where you change the Cover Photo, top right) will bring up a widget of edit options. Under "Basic Info," one of these options is "Enable status updates?" -- with a toggle button right next to it. Does yours show on or off?
  10. I agree. I think any time these questions come up, we should avoid things like "That makes you X" or "You're probably X." Ideologically, it's important to me that people always affirm identity labeling is always in each person's own hands to decide for themselves, barring other concerns (like if there's a problem with a term itself). FTR, I was thinking it would be convenient if there were an aro or even just romantic-orientation-questioning-in-general version of Queenie's linkspam for people giving advice, particularly Sci's "Am I asexual?" "Who can say?" and @sennkestra's reblog-thread exchange with a prescriptivist, or even Hezekiah's identity prescriptivism linkspam. But I don't know of any equivalents.
  11. Hey folks, maybe y'all can help me out with something. You may have notice that there seem to be a steady stream of questioning threads in this board (no doubt because the board description presents that as one of the main things the board is about -- which is why I think it might be good to split off a separate Personal Questioning board from more of an Issue Discussion board, but I digress). Since people come here for help, I think it would be helpful to have a set of "things to help if you're questioning" resources ready at hand. But also, I think it would be good to standardize some advice for the advice-givers, if that makes sense. So: 1) Do y'all have links to specific things that you think would be helpful to questioning people? 2) What do you think are necessary parts of helping questioning people? What's helpful to say, what's not helpful to say, and what are the ethical stakes and standards?
  12. Both of those sound like what I think they were saying there -- there's different social standards applied to same-gender touching for women vs. men, and I think it may be standard for people to befriend more people of their own gender, while also (if they're straight) only ever getting romantically/sexually involved with men (as women) or women (as men). However, I think there's an additional consideration here, because I was also interested in the part mentioning "both sexes prefer to be touched by women more than by men." That part seems to be attributed to these two citations: Crawford, C. B. (1994). Effects of sex and sex roles on same-sex touch. Perceptual and Motor Skills,78, 391–394. doi:10.2466=pms.1994.78.2.391 Willis, F. N., & Rawdon, V. A. (1994). Gender and national differences in attitudes toward same-gender touch. Perceptual and Motor Skills,78, 1027–1034. doi:10.2466=pms.1994.78.3.1027 I don't have access to these, although it's possible to look up their abstracts. They're probably light on explanation anyway. But if left to guess, I'd figure that in the U.S., even straight women prefer same-gender touch because generally speaking, men don't bother to make themselves seem as safe or approachable. Also who knows how any of these results would look if they bothered to invite or account for nonbinary participants.
  13. @techno-trashcan Ah! An opposition to emotions dogma.
  14. Well, in order to know the answer to that, you first have to take into account that not everyone experiences or uses the terminology of "squishes" at all. See this thread on that. It's a concept that's useful to some, but not everybody. Of the people who do both experience those feelings and label them as something like that -- well, it depend on if you're asking if it's "normal" as in "within the norm" or if you mean "normal" as in "the absolute most common way." If it's the latter, I can't say for sure. I don't think anything like that's been... measured, exactly. But within the norm? Certainly. But if you mean "normal" as in "anything other than this is abnormal"... nah. It seems like it's also pretty well within the norm to have a gender preference in the people you get attached to or hang out with. But in any case -- you don't need to worry about what's normal. There's no stakes to it either way.
  15. You mean in the Flyod article? There's this, as speculation:
  16. +1 but also: can you elaborate?
  17. No, the term "split attraction model" originated just four years ago, as a label for attacking the various concepts it was conflating together and for framing the ace community as homophonbic. The concept of "romantic orientation" is older, originating at least fourteen years ago in the ace community (& arguably older, if you count other ideas as its antecedents, but that's optional, and this is just strictly referring to "romantic orientation" as a term per se). "Split attraction model" was a reaction to romantic orientation terms & attraction subtyping both, treating them as one and the same. Yes, that's because it's relatively new. Although it's a prevalent concept among aces and aros, it's important to understand, the concept of "sexual orientation" is much older, and a lot of people still don't even accept that. This, by the way, is a part of why "split attraction model" was even coined -- people saw others overgeneralizing the romantic orientation model and found that ideologically threatening. This is something I also talked about in the thread on this topic and another post. I don't think "ignore" is exactly right. There's been a lot of discussion about this in the past few months. It hasn't always been productive discussion, or useful discussion, but there certainly has been attention on it. See, that's some of what I mean by not necessarily useful or productive. There's been the creation of oodles of terms and flags and posts saying "you're valid!" but not a whole lot of figuring out how to pinpoint and address the actual problem of compulsory sexual orientation -- which affects more than just aro people, even if it does affect aros in an especially salient way. There are some topics for which "positivity posts on Tumblr, sometimes" is inadequate.
  18. Well, this thread didn't get any new posts since I was last here, but an unspecified member(s) of AUREA recently published this post about it. For anyone keeping track: I posted my thoughts about that here (see comment section also). Short version: 1) interpreting "tender" and "affectionate" as equalling "romantic" deserves to be called into question, & 2) as a historical account, this is overly cautious in all the wrong places and not enough in others.
  19. @fae Darn, I missed out on this by just a few days, or else I could have included it as an option in the Romantic Ambivalence Poll.
  20. Yes. "Split attraction model" comes from non-aces criticizing ace community language. It usually went hand in hand with calling us homophobic. Besides that, as a concept, it's a mess and has a bunch of problems, because what "split attraction model" ostensibly is supposed to refer to actually conflates a bunch of different things. Using the term "split attraction model" in the way that it was originally and is currently used is no more fair or justified than using "asexuality" to mean "aromanticism." "Oriented aroace" comes from someone who deliberately designed the term around an attraction-centric anti-gray definition & has tried to police that. "Angled" was proposed solely and exclusively to fill in the gaps that "oriented" deliberately excluded on arbitrary grounds; there's no reason for "angled" to exist outside of "oriented"'s own original problems, which I think deserve to be addressed in their own right.
  21. Oh god, please don't tell me these are already spreading.
  22. Some research articles related to this, if anyone's interested: Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a Hand: Social Regulation of the Neural Response to Threat. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1032–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01832.x Field, T. (2010). Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being: A review. Developmental review, 30(4), 367-383. Light, K. C., Grewen, K. M., & Amico, J. A. (2005). More frequent partner hugs and higher oxytocin levels are linked to lower blood pressure and heart rate in premenopausal women. Biological psychology, 69(1), 5-21. Kory Floyd (2014) Relational and Health Correlates of Affection Deprivation,Western Journal of Communication, 78:4, 383-403, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2014.927071 Field, T. M. (1998). Touch therapy effects on development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22(4), 779-797. Krahe ́C, Drabek MM,Paloyelis Y, Fotopoulou A. 2016 Affective touch and attachment style modulate pain:a laser-evoked potentials study.Phil.Trans. R. Soc. B371: 20160009.http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0009 von Mohr, M., Kirsch, L. P., & Fotopoulou, A. (2017). The soothing function of touch: affective touch reduces feelings of social exclusion. Scientific reports, 7(1), 13516. Liljencrantz, J., Strigo, I., Ellingsen, D. M., Krämer, H. H., Lundblad, L. C., Nagi, S. S., ... & Olausson, H. (2017). Slow brushing reduces heat pain in humans. European Journal of Pain, 21(7), 1173-1185.
  23. Paging @arofrantics. Also, somewhat related -- to add on to the links from last time: you can find a few things under the keyword of "quoisexual" for not having a sexual orientation. Some of it's just jokes or snippets, but there's also a few multi-paragraph short reflection pieces here and there. And some of what you described -- wondering if there's some "true" hidden orientation not yet uncovered, or sensing that people think "ok you're giving me incomplete information" -- feels really strongly like my experience of being quoi, especially with how the a-vs.-allo binary feels like an imposition.
  24. Is there any particular umbrella term for these things? Those are the ones I'm most familiar with, too, but I know there are also those who use these identity terms (like "bi") in a way that's not just about the physical, either. I wouldn't, lol, because I'm miffed both at the choice to call it that* and the way that the particular person spearheading that term has talked about splitting the umbrella. *"Oriented," as if aro and ace aren't themselves orientations. >> Sheesh. But more generally -- yeah, that's exactly the problem I'm getting at. Like for someone like Elizabeth @Prismatangle for example, -- she's a bi ace, but the bi doesn't stand for biromantic. So does "bi" go in the Romanticism line or the Sexuality line? Neither one is right.
  25. Relationships, maybe? I think talking about "it's detrimental that people restrict themselves to doing these things only in romantic contexts" is plenty on-topic.
×
×
  • Create New...