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
  • Location
  • Occupation
    Graduate Student
  • Romanticism
    Aroflux, Demiromantic
  • Sexuality

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

2,088 profile views
  1. This survey has closed. We received 923 responses; thank you to everyone who participated! For those of you who started answering but didn't get to finish, you still have 2 weeks to complete the survey. Analyses will come after that.
  2. We are closing the survey today. Thank you to anyone who participated; we had 357 participants. For those of you who started but didn't finish the survey, your session should be open for the next 2 weeks, so you can finish in that time frame. Analyses to come.
  3. Absolutely. I've seen this done many times. Sometimes people will simplify to one or the other depending on the context (e.g., demisensual, homosensual), but the full story, all the microlabels, I've also seen written out when someone wants to be very specific.
  4. I'm not sure. I think it's a bit complicated. Romance as a concept is rather new (in the past few centuries), and all it does is put a name to a specific kind of intimacy. Something being romantic isn't necessarily amatonormative, since "romantic" just categorizes a type of intimacy. Amatonormativity is about normalizing the idea that everyone feels this attraction in one specific way and must seek out a romantic partner to be valid/healthy. Calling certain relationships "romantic" I think was a way for people who use and understand the term as it is usually defined by society to make sense of intimacy. For them, certain types of intimacy were in the "romantic" box, because that's how they and society categorized and labelled that intimacy. A great modern and personal example of this is the relationship I'm currently in. To me, it's alterous, sometimes platonic, but to my accomplice it often feels traditionally romantic, and probably looks that way at times to others. I categorize certain intimate things differently and it doesn't bother me that my accomplice also categorizes differently. We both know each other's feelings and respect each other's definitions. Where calling friendships "romantic" does become amatonormative is when people are very insistent. Like, "this cannot be just a friendship! It must be something more!" That playing into relationship hierarchies can often trigger amatonormativity, because people can then say "at least X has a romantic friendship with Y so they're basically romantic and romance is something everyone wants, so they're getting it via friendship" or "finally X has a romantic-ish partner; thank God they're normal like the rest of us." It's a subtle difference and it's often all in the tone. I'm not sure that inherently labelling something "romantic" would count as amatonormative, but that's maybe a separate point. Most things! I consider very few things romantic, because I define romantic as a specific kind of performative and hierarchical thing. Things like gift-giving, PDA (public displays of affection), celebrating milestone anniversaries, and generally elevating a romantic partner over every other person in one's life (prioritizing them as the "most important person") are things I consider romantic. Especially if these things are done when in the presence of other non-participants, as if forgetting the non-participants are there (e.g., I've heard some people call this being lovestruck or seeing a person surrounded in a kind of light that erases everyone else around them). Some physical gestures, like kissing (which people often put in the romantic category) are platonic to me until they become very prolonged and backed by a specific intention or feeling. It really is about the intention, the feeling, and end-goals for me. However, what I think society defines as platonic is a different question. It's also complicated, because depending on your community, the answers may be different. Generally, I've seen platonic things be defined by not being too deep or prolonged. For example, a platonic hug would be going in for a squeeze, maybe holding it for a while. A more 'romantic' hug would be going in for a squeeze, maybe holding it for a while, and also adding something like gently caressing. There's a level of gentleness and vulnerability that society seems to reserve only for romantic gestures. Absolutely you can identify as sapphic and aroace at the same time! You can say oriented or angled aroace if you'd like, as @nonmerci described, since describing orientations that are not romantic or sexual attractions is the point of those terms. Or you can just say sapphic aroace, or sapphic and aroace. Personally, I don't use "oriented aroace" or "angled aroace" and just say I'm bialterous (just like someone could say bisexual). I throw the bi- modifier onto the type of attraction I feel. Sapphic as a term seems to be valid to use for any kind of attraction, since it's not a modifier like bi-. It's a standalone concept. All that to say I believe it's fine.
  5. This makes a lot of sense! I'm not sure if there is another word for it, but I like fractionamory. I have definitely felt similarly sometimes, although I'm not sure it'd apply to me now anymore. Relationships are complex but "not being anyone's primary but being a secondary" is certainly nice-sounding. Thanks for sharing this. Maybe someone more in tune with the polyamory community may be able to answer as well.
  6. What others have said really gets to the point, I think, but I can reiterate it again: attraction labels are, by definition, never going to be objective. There are definitely societally-agreed upon definitions of things like romantic attraction very very broadly, but every time I have asked alloromantics about their definition, each individual has said something slightly different. I can't remember if I've shared those definitions, but I could share what I've heard if it would help to illustrate with examples. If you're interested, there's a thread on Arocalypse HERE (link also below) that talks about defining romantic attraction, and there are many definitions there you can find. There's also an old thread that mentions defining romantic experiences HERE (link also below) you could check out. Ultimately, though, it is impossible to define romantic attraction objectively, although it is true that what we see portrayed in media seems to have patterns. I also second Mark's suggestion to look at quoi, because some of the questions you're asking ring with that experience.
  7. AUREA has a list of ones we know about you could check out: https://www.aromanticism.org/en/resources-1#offline-resources
  8. You've articulated this perfectly. Exactly my sentiments.
  9. Coyote, you've beat me to it! I was just about to make this forum topic. I personally like "a-spec" as a term I can use for my aro and ace-ness simultaneously. I also think, though, that this is entirely personal preference for highly specific terminology. It may come back to that question - what are people's preferences on labels in terms of broadness vs. specificity? There are people who, for example, have a gender identity that often is considered part of the non-binary umbrella, but they don't identify with the non-binary umbrella label. We may have a similar thing going on. We probably can't ever define a-spec's broadness prescriptively, because the use of labels is always up to a specific person (i.e., if someone feels like a-spec captures their experience, they can modify the definition as they wish and claim the label). But I am curious about demographics: how far does the a-spec label stretch, like you've said. We may never know where it will 'stop' but it would still be interesting to know where it continues. For me personally, when I think of a-spec, I think of any identity - an orientation - that can have an "a" prefix. Asexual, aromantic, aplatonic, asensual, etc. But it may include other identities that are defined by "a" (absence/queer) and "spectrum."
  10. Beta testing sureys is difficult because the only way we'll be able to foresee everything is if we open beta to everyone. Not many people have that time. It may help to know that this survey was looked at by more than just me and Magni. I suspect that aro and aro-related surveys are having a lot of growing pains right now because there aren't many out there yet. This is very common in the beginnings of research. As for comments, some of these we may be aware of but haven't had the means to respond to yet (I've been away the whole weekend with only limited mobile access). Go right ahead and PM me though, Coyote, and I would definitely encourage individuals to PM or contact me via email if they want to as well. Ultimately there is no way a survey will be perfect, no matter the number of iterations/replications, beta testers, years of forethought, or makeup of the research team. But there is always room for improvement and things we can learn that will be useful for future work (even if not on the exact same topic). Thanks everyone for your interest in this current research and in helping us understand our communities better.
  11. @Coyote Yes! The aro and ace mentions were examples. Though, full disclosure, I hadn't thought about the possibility of someone being a-spec and not aro or ace (e.g., aplatonic but not aro or ace). There is a write-in possibility and commenting as an option in the general a-spec category but you make a good point about explicit inclusion we had missed when planning. Thanks for the comment - I like running surveys precisely because I can get feedback like this.
  12. @Mark Thanks for the feedback! The problem with the second question is that are non-aros to whom that question could apply. Or, feelings that an aro might have had that are different from their aro experience that would fit into those words. E.g., People who vow to be single regardless of their attraction (bachelors, spinsters, etc.). I fit that example before and after identifying as aro, and it's not an aro-specific experience for me. Using the identity-centered question is a way we could be explicit that this was about aro-ness. The reason we have the years go back so far is for between-question consistency (ace and a-spec questions have the years go back that far). It's entirely arbitrary.
  13. Here is the second survey @Magni and I are running. This is a broad a-spec survey, so it’s not just for aros - it’s for aros, aces, a-specs, and all grey or questioning folks on any of those spectra. If you are aro only, ace only, or a-spec only, you are just as welcome to participate as aroaces - there will be questions about your other identities as well. The survey will ask you about your experiences learning about your identity. The purpose of this survey is to understand how a-spec people came to learn about their identities and how they define them for themselves. We want to collect data and narratives so that we can understand how best to engage each demographic in things like outreach and discussions. It is entirely optional to participate. There are a few questions in this survey that require you to write in your own words - feel free to be as brief or as lengthy as you’d like, using whatever kind of register you’re most comfortable with. It does not have to be a formal essay or in complete sentences - just your thoughts. You may also stop participating at any time, for any reason. If you are interested in participating, CLICK HERE. Feel free to boost this survey on other channels. If you do, please include the blurb above. Thank you.
  • Create New...