Jump to content
Coyote

What is the "a-spectrum"?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Star Lion said:

I’m giving a perspective in response to what they described.

Yes, but you're also telling someone what they are/how they should label themselves.

 

4 hours ago, Star Lion said:

Greyromantics experience romantic attraction and you don’t. You’ve experienced it before but you don’t anymore which would make you aromantic which would also be more a lot more practical of a label.

There's a difference between saying "if I had those experiences, I would call myself x" and saying "if I had those experiences, I would call myself x, therefore you should call yourself x". The first is fine, because you're the only person who has the agency to decide your own labels. The second isn't fine, for precisely the same reason: you're the only person who has the agency to decide your own labels

 

2 hours ago, Star Lion said:

I’m just saying that you can’t have a grey area of a non-existent attraction.

Why not? How do you know? Did you come to that conclusion after examining every single possible relationship that every single possible person could have with the complicated concept that is attraction, taking into account every single way that every single possible society could influence that relationship and how we think about attraction? I'm guessing that the answer is no, and instead that you simply don't understand how someone could have a particular experience and use a particular label. It's okay if you don't understand, but it's not okay if you try to police someone's identity and experiences. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

 

How can you claim you're not trying to make people feel unwelcome, while simultaneously saying their identities don't exist?

Are you claiming that I’m saying grey identities don’t exist at all? Because that would be false

7 minutes ago, raavenb2619 said:

Why not? How do you know? Did you come to that conclusion after examining every single possible relationship that every single possible person could have with the complicated concept that is attraction, taking into account every single way that every single possible society could influence that relationship and how we think about attraction? I'm guessing that the answer is no, and instead that you simply don't understand how someone could have a particular experience and use a particular label. It's okay if you don't understand, but it's not okay if you try to police someone's identity and experiences. 

I used my reasoning to reach that conclusion. If it doesn’t exist, how could it have a grey area or a spectrum? The grey area is of romanticism, not aromanticism. “Grey-romantic”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Star Lion said:

If it doesn’t exist, how could it have a grey area or a spectrum?

I’m not grayromantic, so I can’t speak from personal experience to answer your question, but if you’d like to understand why a lot of people disagree with you on this and/or you want to support grayromantics, I’d recommend you try listening to grayromantics when they talk about their experiences instead of talking over them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it figures that I'd start a thread on one topic and it'd get completely derailed by another...

 

On 8/31/2019 at 9:24 AM, nonmerci said:

I also see the term analterous, which has the a- prefixe. And I think it shares things in common with aromanticism and asexuality, like being define by an absence.

 

It may be defined by an absence, but I think the relationship between aromanticism & asexuality is more than just being defined by an absence, or else we might as well end up reasoning that atheism is a part of this a-spectrum notion, too. Are there other connections there besides the absence prefix?

 

On 8/31/2019 at 9:42 AM, Star Lion said:

That’s like me saying “nothing makes you mentally disabled except identifying as it.”

 

Bud if you think that identifying as disabled isn't something with ambivalent edge cases and that disability itself hasn't already been studied and scrutinized by scholars and activists alike as a social construct, I have some bad news for you.

 

On 8/31/2019 at 9:42 AM, Star Lion said:

There’s a truth to all these things

 

Is there?

 

5 hours ago, Star Lion said:

My belief is that this makes you more aro than greyro. Greyromantics experience romantic attraction and you don’t.

 

Knock it off with the identity policing, dude. You went and made claims about the rainbow flag without knowing the history of it -- do you know the history of the aromantic spectrum concept either?

 

29 minutes ago, raavenb2619 said:

I’d recommend you try listening to grayromantics when they talk about their experiences instead of talking over them. 

 

Star Lion's grayro himself, so I don't expect he'll take this advice seriously, but ftr, identity policing is still identity policing regardless of whether you yourself identify with the term in question.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Coyote said:

Star Lion's grayro himself

Grayro was an old label which is why I was speaking from experience. I’m aro, just not a gold star aro. I don’t experience romantic attraction and don’t associate my romantic orientation with any gender. I’m just pretty sure I’ve experienced romantic attraction once in the past like 10 years ago

 

4 hours ago, raavenb2619 said:

but if you’d like to understand why a lot of people disagree with you on this and/or you want to support grayromantics, I’d recommend you try listening to grayromantics when they talk about their experiences instead of talking over them. 

I’ve went through the label and I’ve been listening to people to several people who have kept the label and this stance is my conclusion

 

4 hours ago, Coyote said:

Bud if you think that identifying as disabled isn't something with ambivalent edge cases and that disability itself hasn't already been studied and scrutinized by scholars and activists alike as a social construct, I have some bad news for you

So you’re trying to say that mental disabilities are a social construct

 

4 hours ago, Coyote said:

You went and made claims about the rainbow flag without knowing the history of it -- do you know the history of the aromantic spectrum concept either?

The flag was a small thing and either way, gay men don’t seem to have a specific word or flag to represent their entire community. It’s just the rainbow flag but that’s used by other queer folks  and “gay” but other queer folks use that too. Why do I need to know the history of the spectrum idea and what is the history? I’m listening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Coyote said:

It may be defined by an absence, but I think the relationship between aromanticism & asexuality is more than just being defined by an absence, or else we might as well end up reasoning that atheism is a part of this a-spectrum notion, too. Are there other connections there besides the absence prefix?

It was an example. There is also the valorization for different kinds of relationships, the fight against amatonormativity... And I think non-alterous can have that too. But this is just my opinion, I just started looking this label to see if it can fit me si I don't know a lot yet, maybe you know more and can explain why you think it doesn't fit in an a-spectrum?

And I won't define atheism like this neither. It is some kind of belief too, in science and evidences.

 

 

About the greyro thing : I don't know why it would more fit in alloromanticism than aromanticism. If for you aromantic is strictly define as not feeling romantic attraction, so alloromanticism should be define as feeling it, in a normal way, isn't it? So for you, shouldn't the grey area be his own thing, in particular for greyros who don't define them by the frequency but the itensity of the attraction? Or demiromantics, who have a completely different way of experiencing attraction?

 

Anyway, I think that greyros were included in aromanticism because there experience is one of an aro most of the time. And again, I think it is up to the person to define if there experience is closer than an aro or a allo.

 

About my own label, as I said I am questioning right now, because I am wondering if what I called before "grey crushes" were not some kind of alterous attraction, if that term exist. I know I had only one real crush. But this is another debate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Star Lion said:

I’ve been listening to people to several people who have kept the label and this stance is my conclusion

It’s good that you’ve been listening. (I don’t have any evidence that this is actually true, but it can be hard in general sometimes to prove that a statement like this is true, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.) But that still doesn’t give you the right to identity policing. That’s why everyone is unhappy with you, and I think I speak for everyone when I say that I’d appreciate if you apologized for the policing, and then stopped policing people. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Star Lion said:

So you’re trying to say that mental disabilities are a social construct

 

In fact, in many ways they are! Do a little research into the subject yourself. I say this as someone with at least two mental illnesses, both of which have changed classification several times over the course of my lifetime.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it depends on the need in question. A-spec when speaking generally can actually be inclusive of anyone who touches on the A be it romantically or sexually. In some ways it highlights how other orientations are also both romantic or sexual like biromantic and bisexual, and you can be one or the other or both. But ultimately it depends on the need in question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2019 at 3:43 AM, Star Lion said:

I’m aro, just not a gold star aro.

 

"Gold star" anything is an illegitimate concept anyway.

 

On 9/2/2019 at 3:43 AM, Star Lion said:

So you’re trying to say that mental disabilities are a social construct

 

It's disappointing, I know, when you're hoping to make a point by drawing a comparison to what you think is a shared point of reference, only to find out that the person you're talking to doesn't agree with you on that either. If you really want to have a discussion about this, we can do that, you're welcome to it, but preferably not here on this thread, because I really would like to discuss the actual topic here.

 

On 9/2/2019 at 3:43 AM, Star Lion said:

Why do I need to know the history of the spectrum idea and what is the history?

 

Maybe it wouldn't make any difference, but you seem to be treating the attraction-basis-for-orientation model as some inherent natural truth as opposed to kind of a consequence of mere happenstance. In actuality, there's no particular hard "proof" supporting it besides just the fact that a lot of people either use it or talk about it at this point, but it wasn't always that way. There are two main things that I think are relevant here. Well, three, really. The first is that I'm understanding the history of the aromantic spectrum as basically drawing directly on the asexual spectrum, given the parallel terminology (correct me if I'm wrong here, folks). The asexual spectrum is a concept expressed by the AVEN triangle (with its white-to-black gradient), which was itself based on the Storms' model. In direct reference to the triangle, the term gray-a was first proposed in 2006. You'll notice that it isn't explicitly defined in terms of frequency of attraction -- it's introduced as a name for the "fuzziness" around the asexual part of the AVEN logo. And thirdly, "asexuality" itself, the basis of comparison for gray-asexuality, wasn't (and isn't) always defined on the basis of attraction, either. While it's certainly fine to use it for that, there's always been people using it to mean more than one sort of thing, from the beginning and throughout the community's history. Why approach it like this one model is more "right" than any other, when the reason it even gained this level of prominence at all is an artifact of older infighting + bureaucratic inertia?

 

On 9/2/2019 at 4:35 AM, nonmerci said:

But this is just my opinion, I just started looking this label to see if it can fit me si I don't know a lot yet, maybe you know more and can explain why you think it doesn't fit in an a-spectrum?

 

I'm not saying for sure it wouldn't, I just don't see why it would. The term has only been around since 2015, I basically never see it defined in a way that's not amatonormative, and there's nowhere near the widescale cultural weight around it compared to sex and romance, because it's way too niche for that. So what does that leave?

 

On 9/2/2019 at 4:35 AM, nonmerci said:

And I won't define atheism like this neither. It is some kind of belief too, in science and evidences.

 

Not necessarily.

 

2 hours ago, DogObsessedLianne said:

A-spec when speaking generally can actually be inclusive of anyone who touches on the A be it romantically or sexually.

 

So romantically or sexually, specifically? And not including other "a-" stuff?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Coyote said:

I'm not saying for sure it wouldn't, I just don't see why it would. The term has only been around since 2015, I basically never see it defined in a way that's not amatonormative, and there's nowhere near the widescale cultural weight around it compared to sex and romance, because it's way too niche for that. So what does that leave?

Well, the thing is it is sometimes described the same way we describes QPR, who are described in an amatonormative way too.

Personally, I would describe it as "not looking for a special one to one link", as QPR could be; not very satisfying, but it is useful to me.

And about it not being near of the cultural weight of sex and romance... isn't it true for platonic attraction too? Though you don't deny that aplatonism could belong here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 10:27 AM, nonmerci said:

Personally, I would describe it as "not looking for a special one to one link",

 

So "nonpartnering"? Or nonamorous?

 

On 9/4/2019 at 10:27 AM, nonmerci said:

And about it not being near of the cultural weight of sex and romance... isn't it true for platonic attraction too?

 

Correct.

 

On 9/4/2019 at 10:27 AM, nonmerci said:

Though you don't deny that aplatonism could belong here?

 

What do you mean? I neither deny nor agree with it. I'm skeptical and unsure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Coyote said:

What do you mean? I neither deny nor agree with it. I'm skeptical and unsure.

OK.  As you ask if a-spec include aplatonism, I thought you thought it was part of the a-spectrum.

 

About nonamorous, yeah, maybe. I think non alterous is more about QPR I guess, whereas nonamorous is larger (both QPR and romantic relationship).

 

There are so much terms, I got lost sometimes. I think they are useful, but sometimes it's difficult to find the correct word to describe my experience.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2019 at 2:07 AM, Star Lion said:

Still wish we didn’t call this a “spectrum.” Homo oriented people don’t call themselves a spectrum and neither do straight people so it makes sense for us to follow the same trend

I agree

On 9/2/2019 at 6:42 PM, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

 

In fact, in many ways they are! Do a little research into the subject yourself. I say this as someone with at least two mental illnesses, both of which have changed classification several times over the course of my lifetime.

I'm autistic and I take offense to that. Autism is not a social construct; it may cause issues in social interaction, but it's a condition you are born with. Neither are other mental or physical disabilities. Also mental illness and mental disability are not the same thing. 

On 8/31/2019 at 3:24 PM, nonmerci said:

Then where do you place greyromanticism, demiromanticism, and everything in the gray are? Do you think gray is alloromantic?

 

 

I also see the term analterous, which has the a- prefixe. And I think it shares things in common with aromanticism and asexuality, like being define by an absence.

grey and demi are still alloromantic because grey and demi romantics still experience romantic attraction just like alloromantics

On 9/2/2019 at 1:52 AM, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

 

How can you claim you're not trying to make people feel unwelcome, while simultaneously saying their identities don't exist?

no one is saying that greyromanticism or demiromanticism don't exist; they're valid. All we're saying is that demi and greyromantics are still alloromantic - that's not the same as saying they don't exist. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2019 at 1:35 AM, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

 

I'll get off your case when you stop trying to define how "allo" or "aro" people are without having been invited to. No one can define their orientations but themselves, and I know that a lot of arospecs actually do not feel welcome in the aro community because of people like you- People who tell them "Oh, actually you're just allo" or "Oh, you're aro now/you've always been aro and just had internalized arophobia". It is our job to make these people feel welcome and to feel accepted for who they are, and make them feel like they can define their own lives, without trying to police their identities and categorize people for them. Knock. It. Off.

ever heard of free speech? 

On 9/2/2019 at 1:52 AM, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

 

How can you claim you're not trying to make people feel unwelcome, while simultaneously saying their identities don't exist?

I think you need to read what he said again, I haven't seen any point where he invalidates being grey or demi romantic - hell he has labelled himself as greyromantic before. I'll use an example to help explain:

 

It's like when I say depression (as in the mental illness) is not a disability, it's obviously still valid and one of the most common mental illnesses, but it is not the same as a disability. 

On 9/2/2019 at 12:48 PM, raavenb2619 said:

It’s good that you’ve been listening. (I don’t have any evidence that this is actually true, but it can be hard in general sometimes to prove that a statement like this is true, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.) But that still doesn’t give you the right to identity policing. That’s why everyone is unhappy with you, and I think I speak for everyone when I say that I’d appreciate if you apologized for the policing, and then stopped policing people. 

Actually I think he is completely within his right to state his opinion on the matter, to me he has not been disrespectful. Policing someone and sharing an opinion are not the same thing.

 

To answer the question at hand, I don't use the term a-spec or aro-spec because I don't subscribe to the idea that aromanticism is on a spectrum, same with asexuality. I've most often seen a-spec being used, however, for asexuals and aromantics, and both of those "spectrums". I just say aromantics (or aros) and asexuals (or aces). Using a term to refer to asexuality and aromanticism may confuse people, and they should be separated to "ace-spec" and "aro-spec" if you believe they are on "spectrums"

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TripleA said:

ever heard of free speech? 

 

Image result for free speech protects you from the government not from the justin

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, TripleA said:

grey and demi are still alloromantic because grey and demi romantics still experience romantic attraction just like alloromantics

I think I said it before, but follow in this logic, the grey area should be it's own thing because the way they feel romantic attraction is very different from alloromantics. And if they were not, there would not be a word.

Also, if romantic attraction is on a spectrum, the spectrum goes from aro to allo; and when we use arospec, we talk about the people who are at the extremity or near to the extremity of this spectrum. See what I mean? Aromantic are not apart,  they are on the spectrum as well. And arospec may not be the best word, but it describes our community as a while : aro and grey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

I think I said it before, but follow in this logic, the grey area should be it's own thing because the way they feel romantic attraction is very different from alloromantics. And if they were not, there would not be a word.

Also, if romantic attraction is on a spectrum, the spectrum goes from aro to allo; and when we use arospec, we talk about the people who are at the extremity or near to the extremity of this spectrum. See what I mean? Aromantic are not apart,  they are on the spectrum as well. And arospec may not be the best word, but it describes our community as a while : aro and grey.

saying that aromantics can experience romantic attraction at all is contradictory to the definition of the word. You either have romantic attraction or you don't have any. And not every alloromantic falls in love all the time, that's unrealistic. Many allos can relate to being grey or demi romantic, because they also experience romantic attraction less frequently.

 

If you experience any romantic attraction, no matter now often or under what circumstances you experience it, you're alloromantic, whether that's just homoromantic, biromantic, etc. or you are demi heteroromantic or grey biromantic, etc. Why would grey and demi romantics have to add an alloromantic orientation beside their grey or demi label so it makes sense? Because they're still alloromantic. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TripleA said:

you are demi heteroromantic or grey biromantic, etc. Why would grey and demi romantics have to add an alloromantic orientation beside their grey or demi label so it makes sense? Because they're still alloromantic. 

Honestly I don't think that all grey and demi are able to determine if they are hetero or bi or whatever, or that it would make sense to all of them.

 

3 hours ago, TripleA said:

And not every alloromantic falls in love all the time, that's unrealistic

Unrealistic and untrue to the definition. Being allo is about crushes, which is not the same as falling in love (that's why saying "I love you" is such a big deal in a relationship).

Of course we would have to ask to allo to know how frequent they feel romantic attraction. But honestly, I think it is a common experience for them.

 

By they way, the grey area can be about intensity too, not frequency only.

 

Again, I really think it is useless to say things are black and White,  aro or allo; or then you have to denier the whole concept of the grey area.

 

I believe the word arospec is for everybody who don't fit in the alloromantic norm. And people in the grey area don't fit,  because the way they experience romantic attraction has not a lot in common with how alloromantic people do.

 

The thing is, saying grey are allo is a way to kick out grey from the aro community to include them into a group where they don't recognition themselves and by whom they feel oppressed.

 

And I think this définition of alloromantic is bad. People always say they alloromantics are the ones who feel romantic attraction, but they should say "the ones who feel it in a normal way" (normal meaning they are in the norm).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2019 at 12:41 PM, TripleA said:

You either have romantic attraction or you don't have any.

 

What about people who aren’t sure if they experience romantic attraction? For one, how are you defining romantic attraction? I feel like the term usually(?) refers to a whole host of emotions/desires that apparently most people experience as a conglomerate [EDIT: “conglomerate” is not the right word since it means “different things that are grouped together but remain distinct.” I meant “most people experience [these emotions/desires] as one single entity termed romantic attraction,” not as distinct emotions simply grouped together.]: (1) limerence (i.e. being obsessed with someone, thinking about them all day), (2) emotions such as “having butterflies in the stomach”/physical responses to the other person, (3) desire for emotional closeness, (4) desire to do conventionally romantic activities (e.g. going on dates, calling each other pet names), (5) desire to be sensual (e.g. kissing, hand-holding), (6) having an aspiration for a long-term relationship, (7) desire for reciprocation, (8) all these emotions and desires are perceived as involuntary/you aren’t able to stop of your own free will, (9) these emotions and desires are directed at a specific person. I’m curious about which one of these you see as the real definition of romantic attraction (or if it’s a factor I have not listed), or whether you do consider romantic attraction to be a combination of factors that are apparently never experienced separately by anyone ever despite there being seven billion people on the planet (and therefore the pronunciation: you either have romantic attraction or you don’t have any. Because if romantic attraction refers to a combination of things, and some people only experience some of those things, how is that an either-or situation?). 

 

(Hypothetical situation: do you think your definition of romantic attraction is the definition most people will agree on? If we surveyed people about how they define romantic attraction, and we found that people disagreed on it, would you say that clearly, there is a right answer and a wrong answer—some of these people are wrong and some of these people are right? Maybe you would, but I wouldn’t; I would say words are what people make them as, that these series of letters aren’t magically tied to some real-world object or platonic ideal forever, or else language wouldn’t be able to change over time, and “romantic attraction” would mean something like “a pull towards stories about knights,” considering the original meaning of romance.)

 

Secondly, I am sometimes not very good at identifying/processing my own emotions. So if I say, “I really don’t know if I want to kiss this person, or date them, or hold hands, or if this feeling of anxiousness is apparently something everyone feels around their crushes or my usual romance and touch aversion,” are you really going to tell me, “Look, kernsing, you either experience romantic attraction or you don’t, so even if you can’t tell, you’re still either experiencing romantic attraction or not, you’re still either alloromantic or aromantic, no in between”? Except I’m never going to be able to tell which one I am. Sorry, but that classification system is pretty useless to me. I consider myself aro by virtue of my usual varies-neutral-to-strong disinterest/aversion to romance. It ties me to a significant portion of the community (a community that gives me so many words and shared experiences that have cleared up a lot of heretofore confusing aspects in my life—I feel connected to it, deeply grateful for it), and has the added bonus of being actually applicable to my experience. 

 

{EDIT:

(IMO there are definitely many, many more ways to be grey, but these were the ones I could think up that might challenge your notion of “either attraction or no attraction”)

 

[deleted response to Star Lion because I don’t want to clutter this thread up too much, especially with responses to stuff posted a month ago. Anyway.]

}

 

 

OKAY. I write nothing for over a month, then this. The wonders of internet arguments—I think reading this thread was frustrating (interoception, I’m telling you, I can’t believe emotional literacy is a Thing people Have)? Anyway, long rambling about grey identities out of the way. Topic of discussion: the word “aspec” and ace & aro people unified under one community? I think we do benefit from having a single ace+aro community (in addition to our separate aro & ace communities; more “community”, less “partnership/coalition”; I think the aro/polyam solidarity thing that’s sometimes talked about might be a good basis for a partnership/coalition and not community, if we’re drawing distinctions) considering our shared history and experiences, which are thus shared because of how society has traditionally perceived romanticism and sexuality as one amorphous blob thing (sometimes I can do words, sometimes I can’t.) Convergent? Not SAM? However we are referring to it nowadays? So we’ve been lumped together by the majority of society, it makes for shared experiences, e.g. being perceived as cold/distant, mentally or physically ill, inhuman; having to do relationships differently and all the joys of navigating that, etc. We have shared interest in improving our shared experiences, through visibility/awareness and acceptance efforts. I’m pretty sure I found out about aromanticism through asexuality resources (although aromantic-focused resources may make that obsolete). I consider myself aspec, same way I consider myself Asian-American—I’m Chinese, “Asian” as a group doesn’t really make sense until we’re a minority in the US (and other places too? But I’m just American, I don’t know) and people lump us together. 

 

Beyond ace & aro—I’ve never actually heard of including agender in aspec until this thread, but I’m not necessarily against that. I guess I don’t see too many shared commonalities though? People nowadays generally consider gender and sexuality to be separate things, I think. We do have some shared experiences, though—looking through the voidpunk tag on tumblr. People telling us that we’re missing out on some cornerstone human experience. Bleh. 

 

EDIT: I also don’t think I’ve heard of aplatonic or like, anything other than aro & ace referred to as aspec. Still no opinion, would like to hear from people who do consider those other identities aspec. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow kernsing, I love how you define romantic attraction, it makes a lot of sense.

And to complete your excellent post, I add that "either feel romantic attraction or don't feel it" don't apply to aroflux  neither, as by definition their expérience of romantic attraction is fluid.

 

On 10/3/2019 at 9:34 AM, kernsing said:

I also don’t think I’ve heard of aplatonic or like, anything other than aro & ace referred to as aspec. Still no opinion, would like to hear from people who do consider those other identities aspec. 

I never think about it before this thread too, but I think aplatonic has a lot in common with aro and ace : they are define by an absence of attraction too and can feel alienated for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kernsing

If you don’t know, identify with the one that makes the most sense to you at the moment. Discovering your identity is often times a process that needn’t be rushed. You honestly don’t even have to live a life of labels and “discovered identity” if you don’t want to. You can just do what you feel is right for you without worrying about the complications

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...