But I'm not emotionally cold.

[m4rble]

I don't really know what my romantic orientation is but at this point I think it's highly likely I'm (at least) greyromantic. The thing about it is that whenever I think about the aromantic title I worry that people(and I know for a fact people do)take it to mean loveless or emotionally cold. I'm not unfeeling in the least, if anything I'm closer to the opposite end of the scale. Asexuals can also be stereotyped as unloving or emotionally cold, but not quite in the same way, and this can also relate to people equating asexuality with aromanticism. Has anyone else experienced this?

(I know some people genuinely do experience less powerful emotions than average and there's nothing wrong with that, however, I don't want it to be thought of as synonymous with aromanticism) 

[DeMorgan]

     An aromantic is undoubtedly stereotyped as cold by society, but that has nothing to do with the term itself.  Aromantics have essentially no visibility, so people do not know the term.  As soon as one explains it to them, they may take it that way.  But this is not a totally surprising thing; it happens by the same means by which homosexuals are thought to be effeminate and bisexuals to be raunchy.  If people misunderstand the words, it's not their fault.  Try to gently correct them if you can.  If you can't... you may want to reconsider the status of your interpersonal relationships with them.

[Cassiopeia]

Its quite telling that people can only name one emotion, and if you take romantic love out of the picture, they think you have suddenly no feelings left. 

 

Its also funny how others interpret it if we do have feelings.

Platonic affection is so minimal in western society, the majority of people completely misreads it. 

Affection is not necessarily an indication of romantic attraction or something sexual. People think it is, and its frustrating, its almost like you are not allowed to have non-romantic feelings. If two friends hug too much, touch too much or engage in any sorts of physically intimate act, people will talk. 

 

 

[Kojote]

If romantic feelings are the only kinds of feelings you have, you might wanna reconsider this whole "human thing". Maybe it's not right for you.... is something I'd say to someone who'd label me as emotionally cold ;D 

 

Honestly though, apart from internet comments nobody ever said that to my face. Turns out the easiest way to counter that viewpoint is to literally exist and have emotions in front of others

[Holmbo]

4 hours ago, Kojote said:

If romantic feelings are the only kinds of feelings you have, you might wanna reconsider this whole "human thing". Maybe it's not right for you.... is something I'd say to someone who'd label me as emotionally cold ;D 

 

Honestly though, apart from internet comments nobody ever said that to my face. Turns out the easiest way to counter that viewpoint is to literally exist and have emotions in front of others

Agreed.

Maybe it would actually be easier to be aromantic if one is really cold and impersonal. Because then guys would actually believe you

[NullVector]

Romantic love is quite narrow and exclusive, if you think about it (it's often rather jealous and possessive as well)

Compared to a love that embraces all humanity, or even all life on earth (a brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind; a kinship with all forms of life)

There are practices, in traditions like Buddhism, which aim to actively cultivate the latter kinds of love, in preference to the former.

 

So, no, I don't think that aromanticism is synonymous with lack of emotions or loving feelings. Rather, what we understand by love, at a cultural level, needs to be broadened.

 

This is somewhat off topic, but something I've often considered is that perhaps it's rather convenient to a state-capitalist, hierarchical power dynamic (one where wealth is very narrowly concentrated at the top) to have our understanding of "love" kept culturally focused along narrow, conventionally "romantic" lines and away from broader possible interpretations. For instance,  "nuclear families", kept largely isolated from a wider community context, might make for ideal, self-sufficient units of consumption - and therefore merit all the positive cultural reinforcement heaped on them. Whereas other possible social arrangements, ones based on interpretations of love that are "deviant" (in both the literal and pejorative sense!) might constitute a threat. What happens to the Global Economic Order^TM  if people truly understand themselves as a brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind; a kinship with all forms of life? And then start to act upon that understanding. Maybe worth thinking about  

[Holmbo]

24 minutes ago, NullVector said:

This is somewhat off topic, but something I've often considered is that perhaps it's rather convenient to a state-capitalist, hierarchical power dynamic (one where wealth is very narrowly concentrated at the top) to have our understanding of "love" kept culturally focused along narrow, conventionally "romantic" lines and away from broader possible interpretations. For instance,  "nuclear families", kept largely isolated from a wider community context, might make for ideal, self-sufficient units of consumption - and therefore merit all the positive cultural reinforcement heaped on them. Whereas other possible social arrangements, ones based on interpretations of love that are "deviant" (in both the literal and pejorative sense!) might constitute a threat. What happens to the Global Economic Order^TM  if people truly understand themselves as a brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind; a kinship with all forms of life? And then start to act upon that understanding. Maybe worth thinking about  

That's an interesting point. I would broaden it further and say that perhaps in nation states where one is not as dependent on a large family group to ensure ones physical safety there has been a cultural advantage to keep the group of loved ones small. A nuclear family is to small to survive alone in the wild but in a civilization it might make more sense to focus most of your love and care on your genetic offspring.
Of course this would be unnatural for us as a species.
 

[NullVector]

23 hours ago, Holmbo said:

A nuclear family is to small to survive alone in the wild but in a civilization it might make more sense to focus most of your love and care on your genetic offspring.

 

Particularly when doing otherwise (i.e. broadening that love to encompass wider community/humanitarian concerns) can get you killed!

(Jesus and Martin Luther King Jr. are two well-known examples that spring to mind)

 

Remember folks, it's just a ride  

 

[Confirmed Bachelor]

I am emotionally cold. So there's that. 

[Holmbo]

55 minutes ago, Just like Jughead said:

I am emotionally cold. So there's that. 

That can be very useful in many situations.

Do you feel like people are more accepting of your aromanticness because of it?

[NullVector]

1 hour ago, Just like Jughead said:

I am emotionally cold. So there's that. 

 

That's fine too  

Here, have a blog post about that 

[LunarSeas]

I occasionally question my aro-ness at times because I can explode with All The Feels over any goddamn thing. Even attraction to fictional characters. 

 

But the idea of forever coupling with one man forever and ever, in reality, makes me want to climb a tree and scream. 

 

At really great concerts,I generally end up momentarily in love with everyone. 

 

So I think, yes, love should be understood way more broadly than romantic/nuclear familial. Because I don't feel that, but I will fight anyone who says I don't feel love period.