Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About running.tally

  • Rank
    Research Nerd With Too Much Motivation And Not Enough Time
  • Birthday 12/26/1995

Personal Information

  • Name
  • Gender
  • Pronouns
    E(y)/Em/Eir Singular or They/Them/Their Plural
  • Location
  • Occupation
    Graduate Student
  • Romanticism
  • Sexuality

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

1,659 profile views
  1. It's a pretty flag. I like that you chose six stripes - it departs from both the aro and ace flags and makes it unique. The greater number of stripes also makes sense for a big community. I think the grey could maybe be a little lighter to better differentiate it from the black (perhaps #999999) but it's otherwise nice in terms of contrast. The green and purple might be a bit too much of a contrast, but for me personally, only the green is a little too bright. One thing I'm worried about is that the inclusion of blue makes it look similar to @Magni's aroace flag. In general, though, there is a longstanding debate about what should be used as a-spec (umbrella) flag colours vs. aroace (specific identity) flag colours. So as far as I'm concerned, you can do whatever you want hahaha. There are a few other a-spec flags out there, yes. I compiled a post of the ones I knew of recently HERE.
  2. Hi Orion. Welcome! Here's some aro ice cream as a welcome gift: I'm really curious about these pin designs.
  3. I'm really angry that this person couldn't take no for an answer. I'm proud of you for sticking your ground and trying your best to make things work. I think you also know inside that none of this was your fault. There are people who just don't understand and I'm sorry you had to deal with that. From interacting with the alloros I know (so, all of my in-person friends), I think he didn't tell you honestly because he took things for granted. A lot of alloros take any sort of intimacy as inherently romantic, even when you say it's not. It's just what they were taught growing up. Being close to someone emotionally means being in love, or something. It takes re-training on their part to get rid of these assumptions. Alternatively, he really was just manipulating you into liking him back, which is a shitty move on his part, but to do that he had to get you to trust him. I think what happened was that you were just being yourself, he took your words and actions as romantic when they weren't, and then he was nice back (i.e., "reciprocated"), and you took it as him being nice/being comfortable around you as a friend. I'm unfortunately a cynical person when it comes to reacting to people having crushes on me. It happens often that they have a crush on me and when I say I'm not interested, they still try to woo me (whether at that moment or just try again in the future). When I talk through things with those people, our relationship usually dies. So I try to be very careful when I interact with people, making sure that I punctuate being "friends" (by saying "You're a good friend" and things like that as often as I can). This seems to be mostly successful, but I don't really get to be my genuine self. I also sometimes run away though. If it really stresses you out, you aren't obligated to stay and try to make it work. You have the right to choose. But also know that I (and some of the people above) have had very successful friendships with people that had crushes. For me, they've been pretty rare, but there do exist people who will respect you when you say no. Ultimately, you're not responsible for anyone else's feelings. I know it can feel like you've done something wrong or that you can do better, but it really isn't up to you. They are the ones experiencing attraction and attraction isn't action. They make the choice whether or not to act on their feelings, knowing full well how you might feel or react, so the responsibility to deal with their feelings is on them. Keep being you, because I think you have been handling situations like these wonderfully, and if they don't respect you, they need to be better.
  4. Hi fellow Trekkie! A huge welcome to you. Have some aro ice cream: What you've said is very very relateable. I never thought about it until now but I think I'm very similar with regards to liking relationship building a lot but not liking established relationships that often. The latter are often portrayed as repetitive and end-goal with no development during the relationship and I find that boring and/or annoying. I'm glad you've found a space (and a word!) that has made you feel more comfortable.
  5. Hi, welcome. Have some aro ice cream as a welcome gift to these lovely forums full of many other hermits like yourself:
  6. @Coyote I am late to reply to this because I was abroad for the past week and a half (I'm also quite tired so apologies if I have a weird tone in this response) but AUREA did implement the RSS feed (as mentioned by @Lokiana in this thread - thanks!). Definitely. And also thank you for the sympathetic ice cream. 💚 As for what I encountered, ^^ this is most often what I started with. It would typically then lead into my trying to explain aromanticism to them and if I started giving too long a nuanced speech, they would shut me down with "OK, don't need to know that much, just give me a quick spiel." This would then either lead into the experiences I described earlier (where aromanticism would be shut down because of my inadequate short definition) or, in the nice instances, someone saying "That sounds complicated and I don't really get it but I'll read up on it later" (which is the ideal response for me - someone genuinely interested in aromanticism but perhaps not having to spoons to explore it at that particular moment). Thing is, even with this latter case, sometimes people just aren't prepared for some reason or other to engage right away in a big discussion. No, I don't. Usually I try to open up dialogue. Problem is, what you lead up to that dialogue with (i.e., the introductory sentence or two) is important. That's why I've been asking the question of this thread. People need a starting point. I, like Loki, like your outreach strategy though. It may be better to not mention the "aro" word outright, but lead up to it with some major themes instead. Or at least start with other common ground that isn't terminology-related. Honestly, I already do that with a lot of people. Though, always having to lead up to "aro" without being able to just say "I'm aro" and instead having to explain its intricacies is not feasible for a lot of us who simply don't have the spoons. I should also mention I'm in no way an expert on this topic. I haven't mentioned aros to queer organizations that often, simply because being out isn't always something I want to be in every context. I typically test the waters in the organizations first, to see if I can be safe. Unfortunately, I don't always get it right and it leads to the awkward situations I've described earlier in the thread. A lot of what everyone's said makes a lot of sense in theory and will work for a lot of people. But what I'm asking in this thread is one way to go about it - starting from a definition that we can all agree is 'good enough.' If I say "I'm aromantic" and someone says "What does that mean?," I'm not always going to launch into a discussion. Sometimes (often) I am constrained by time and need to give a brief. At the moment, the definitions we have up on the AUREA site are what we have as 'good enough' definitions. If anyone has suggestions for these, that's what I'm looking for in this thread (for AUREA but also for my own personal understanding of how people define "aromantic"). Other discussions about how AUREA or how aromantics in general should approach queer organizations to include aros are separate from this topic (though I find these equally interesting ). Thank you, though.
  7. @SnowWolffy If you click the emoji icon while typing, you can scroll down to see the Arocalypse-specific emojis.
  8. You both have an excellent point. If AUREA sets a precedent for defining aromantic as something necessarily vague or variable from person to person and complex (hard to use language to define), and we as a community fight for acceptance of this kind of rhetoric as inherently queer, we could do a whole lot of good. I like this idea. I wonder how to implement it so that there are still terms for those who like to have specifiers/definitions as starting points. Perhaps we can say somewhere that our definitions are just that - simplifications and starting points that stand in for more nuanced discussion that interested persons are encouraged to become involved in. I think y'all can tell that it's been my own personal experiences that have made me wary of this kind of thing. Such a shift in defining a queer community will definitely be met with resistance by someone or other and my own experiences with conflict regarding these things is why I've appeared so hesitant in this thread. @Coyote, believe me, I would love to show you evidence because I know that taking things at face value online is dangerous (especially with people who, like you've said, are just looking to rile me up), but some of my experiences have been in person. I've heard very well-meaning individuals who are genuinely afraid that aros will take away resources from everyone else "just because they don't feel romantic attraction," saying that queer people need resources for "having queer experiences, not for lacking them." (This is a misunderstanding of the "not feeling romantic attraction" definition, i.e., that not having romantic feelings is not in and of itself a queer experience, but the 'lacking' narrative is pretty common in my spheres.) It's difficult to explain to these people that, no, aromanticism is inherently queer and aros face oppression, and aros won't steal everyone's resources (especially since the resources we need are probably different from those other queer folks need, but that is a fact conveniently forgotten by many of these people I encounter). Anyway, that was a tangent, but I think that I'll be all right personally if enough of us defend where we want to go as a community in terms of self-definition. I just want to be able to have a coherent response to these types of people when they do inevitably come along and go "Uh, but that's confusing and doesn't make sense! So it can't be queer!" As for perspectives (essays, articles, etc.), 100% yes. We plan to have our News Feed be dedicated to that. Right now, what you see in the feed is general and has been curated by the AUREA group because we just started. We have a general monthly What's Going On post we plan to do, to talk about what is being discussed or debated in the community. Apart from that monthly AUREA-curated summary article, we also plan to have posts on specific issues, definitions, discussions, and et cetera. We have a few lot of ideas for these but we also would like volunteer contributors to approach us with their own ideas (as guest writers - individuals or teams). I also like the idea of having specific stories. We want to include interviews with people (or have those people guest-write themselves) about the nuances of their experiences. Whether that's commentary about debates going on in the community or how they define a particular term that may have its definition disputed/confusing or anything else. For some people, definitions are helpful because they're grounding, and for others, the narratives are what really illuminate things. It's good to have a mix of both so we definitely will have both.
  9. Generally, the test got my political leaning as left-liberal, yeah; I'm left libertarian. The middle of the bottom left square in that four-square intersecting-line political leaning chart [whose name I have evidently forgotten].
  10. Very much agreed that this test would have benefitted from more context. I was surprised at my results considering how many questions I put a Neutral answer for. Your scores: Care 97% Loyalty 39% Fairness 69% Authority 28% Purity 44% Liberty 64% Your strongest moral foundation is Care. Your morality is closest to that of a Left-Liberal. My Care and Authority scores I expected but my Loyalty score I did not.
  11. @Coyote Thank you for those resources! Our definition on AUREA is something we're open to changing as discussions happen, which is a big reason I asked this question. I also ask this question out of personal curiosity. So the big/powerful allies I'm thinking of are not AUREA-related (though AUREA will be thinking of partnerships with others too). I'm still thinking big/powerful but not quite on national or international scales. More local. When I come up against locally powerful queer organizations where I live or outspoken LGBTQ+ leaders/groups in my area, me as an individual having to sit down for a several-hour conversation on the intricacies of aromanticism hasn't been feasible. Like @nonmerci was saying, it would have been useful to have something broad or at least understandable in a short version to give before gradually introducing the rest, in order to take me seriously as a queer person (and not just "an attention seeker" or "queer wannabe"). I also know that this issue on a small scale is likely to replicate on a larger scale, and so as I've been working in AUREA and examining our definitions, this issue has magnified. Also, off topic, but in the future it will probably be useful to indicate whether I and other AUREA team members are posting as individuals or AUREA reps. We may open a new account for that or at least say something regarding it.
  12. Hey @Star Lion I think you may be confusing the aromantic that is an identity (the identity that means experiencing no romantic attraction) and the broad aromantic concept that is what I'm talking about here. @Coyote YES this is exactly why I am so conflicted. I don't want to get into respectability politics (in fact, challenging the powerful and default definitions of romance are what we're all about anyway), but what I mean more is that very broad definitions have, in my experience with non-aros, been very confusing. Many non-aros who I want to understand aromanticism, who have big voices and are big allies, regard aromanticism as less legit when given too much right away. I want to get to a broad definition that is just simple enough that it can be a stepping stone for introducing people to the community without condensing it to the point that all we're doing is pleasing the authority (at the cost of our own erasure). In the end, I agree that it's their problem if they can't understand nuance. Anyway, I think we're on the same page here. We want to capture the community's diversity. Yeah, something like this! It's just deciding on what goes into [of some kind] that I was stuck on. Edit: Actually, I don't even know there needs to be something there, apart from common examples like those you listed and those I mentioned from AUREA's definition. Perhaps just common examples are the best middle ground we can have for now.
  13. That post by Siggy you linked, @Coyote, is an excellent post. If I understand it right, Siggy is suggesting we drop "aromantic" as an umbrella for the spectrum in favor of other terms that have developed? I guess that even though I said I didn't want to talk about umbrella terms in this thread, the issue of defining "aromantic" does seem to greatly hinge on how we define the aro umbrella and where/whether we include grayros and demiros and other aros who do experience romantic attraction (or who are quoiro, like yourself!). Some grayros I know, for example, don't identify with the aro spectrum while others greatly identify with it. I think Siggy also made this point. The spectrum (and points on it) isn't easily defined and can't be generalized. It's hard to draw a line and have a definition of aromantic that won't confuse people, simply because different people define it differently. People are aromantic if they feel like aromantic experiences [of some kind] describe them somehow. That's why I was thinking about this and made this thread. People identify (or don't identify) with terms for a number of personal reasons and I want to be able to capture the definition diversity, at least in a "good enough" way. Sometimes drawing a prescriptive line can be extremely alienating. But on the other hand, being too inclusive of anything and everything can be argued against for being too wobbly a definition that escapes understanding at all. The balance is hard to reach but some generalization is needed at this point in aro activism to just get non-aros to somewhat understand our experiences and support us. It's umbrella-crunching, as you've referred to it before, for sure. But many powerful allies simply won't care to hear about experience diversity - they can't be convinced that a simple generalizable definition isn't adequate, at least not right at the beginning when they are first learning of the term. I think further conversations about the aro umbrella (and related terminology) is going on in this thread, in addition to other platforms like Pillowfort and other blogging avenues. I'm not sure about bringing that conversation to this thread (unless it specifically addresses the aromantic definition(s)), but if others are interested in talking about these things, those are places to go. Either way, I'll be keeping an eye on those conversations.
  14. You don't have to understand or empathize with people to respect them, so as long as you respect how others feel, you're not at all transphobic/transmisic. I have a friend (also a cis woman) who has said almost exactly the same thing as you. She doesn't really view her gender as something that defines her at all. She's content with the gender she was assigned at birth and she doesn't think about being a woman explicitly, really, ever. I think it's also worth mentioning that some trans and non-binary folks feel that way too - that gender just isn't a concept they really care about or that affects them (I've heard some agender people and quoigender people say these kinds of things, for example, as well as binary trans folks and others under the big umbrella). Really, the best thing you can do is just nod and accept people's experiences, even if you don't understand them. Maybe you'll understand in the future, maybe not ever, but just because you don't doesn't mean you're doing us harm.
  15. Aha here it is! For others, this conversation is continuing here:
  • Create New...