nonmerci

In the thread there were different people, but they are not all asexual. The non-asexual people seemed te be LGBT++ for what I understood from their responses. Saying you are aroace indeed means no romantic or sexual attraction. But saying aro alone doesn't mean you are not ace. Usually I only precise aroace when it is useful to the topic, mainly because I identify more with the aro part of my identity than the ace one. There are also people who uses the "just aro" label because they don't feel the need to label their asexual orientation or don't think it is relevant. So we can't really assume here. Usually, the counterpart to aromantic is alloromantic, but after I saw this discussion I wonder if the alloromantic would not prefer to be just call romantic. I doubt everything right now.

That's one of the problem mentioned by the people who are against it (there are non-asexual in here) : that the word was coined by asexual and not by the people it describes and who get the term forced on themselves even if they don't or don't identify with it.

So on AVEN there is this discussion about the term "allosexual", saying that the term allosexual should not be used and that we should talk about non-asexual or sexual instead. The argument being that "allo" is a stupid prefix, that it creates a problem with the wors "allosexuel" in Franch that means "queer", and that it grouped queer people (bisexual, esbian, gay, etc) with their oppressor (heterosexual), or that the word isn't useful because wan refer to people by their sexual orientation instead. In the discussion it was mentioned some aro "but not asexual" people use that term, to which a person replies somthing like "I'm still waiting for an aro who isn't asexual to tell me the label is important for them", and indeed you are the only one who can tell what you think on the subject so... Here we go. Aro allo, tell me your opinion! Do you use that term and why? Is it important to you? Would you like people to use another term, or even don't use the concept at all?

I don't know. Usually people speak about squishes for platonic attraction, but sometimes they can want a QPR with their squish. I always thought it was confusing and I always wonder if it meant QP attraction didn't exist and that QPR develops from a friendship, or if it actually exists. If some people who wants QPR know the answer, I'll be glad to know.

I didn't even notice I was different from the most part. Almost all my friends were single and we didn't talk about these things; (except with one, we talked a bit about that). I was also searching guys to have a crush on them at this time, which is the reason why I never realized it was different. I never put much thoughts into it, or maybe I would have realized that we are not suppose to chose our crushes. Though it was annoying to have, at some point, my all class who were shipping me with a guy I was friend with (who had a crush on me but, unlike all the other people in my class, were able to understands that "no means no"). I also had some girls pressure me for doing make-up and dress in another way, and I kinda assumed it was because I was consider pretty and that I could have success with boys if I put effort in my appearance. I still remember this girl who forced me to buy make-up, which I did saying I won't wear it, and then she get mad at me for really not wearing it. And the other girl who accept "I'm allergic to make-up) as an answer (it is true, it gave me pimples), but doesn't accept that I didn't feel comfortable with make-up on my face because "make-up give confidence"... Sorry, I get a bit off-topic. All this to say it was a pressure that kinda were linked to romance expectation though it didn't expressed with talking about romance.

Thanksfully I never have that. But I see it a lot in fiction (happy because of romance or sex, it depends) so I am not surprised people assume this kind of stuff in real life too.

That's because feminism fights for more female characters that are not just there so the male hero can date her. So there is more female characters in book and sometimes they even get the lead (though being the main character doesn't prevent from being very romanticize). Even when they are romantic I notice that heroes and villains are not treated the same way. Usually the "good" girl will have a "pure" love based on careness and is there to talk or comfort the male character, and the "bad" girl is more passionate and there for physical contact rather than talking (and sex but that's not romantic). Same for good boys and bad boys. That's probably a way to demonized the physical contacts.

Oh yes, I completely forgot that. But true. I also think they tried to be philosophical but failed. Philosophy is not the easiest thing to talk about in fiction and it is really hard to build a consistent and not cliche world and story around it. When it is done right, it is amazing, but most of the time it fails. Though at least, usually, they don't ended up insulting people, and even if it can be caricatural it is not inconsistent. Alsot the show try to talk about to much things, ad so in the end, everything is very superficial. You know, I began this anime because I saw by hazard the flashback episode that tells how the main couple met and how the kids were raised and used (a guy was watching it with subtitles in the train and how he was sitting and I was on my feet (no seats left), I had a very good view on his phone... Not very correct I guess, but I had 40 minutes to spend in that train and it was no personal content, so don't judge me please). I thought "it seems like an interesting story about a dystopic world that are using children for a reason I don't get yet, it probably talked about how these kids will realize they are being used and try to discover the truth, maybe rebelled". I can tell you, it wasn't as I thought it would be.

Not native English speaker here (though a lot of experience reading things on screen lol, because usually I put the subtitles to help me understand what the people are saying) For me the speed was great except for the last one, I only had the time to read the first half and barely. However the Loveless one fits perfectly for me, the sentences appearing almost when I finished the first phrase. I also really lije how it appears on screen, in particular the little suspension sometimes, it was like miming the voice of the person. Also I know it is too late for a video (and probably too short anyway), but as I see the miraculous clip, I wanted to say it is kinda confirmed Plagg is aro : in season 4, in a scene, it is revealed the kwamis don't fall in love. So they all are aros. I know some people could argue this is representation as they are not humans, but for me they are shown to have all the emotions and to react as human beings, so I do consider it representation and I am very happy (and all the fandom is in denial because their ship was destroyed). Sorry if it felt random but I wanted to celebrate a bit.

Totally agree. This one hits home, because I remember how in my depression, I kept telling myself that there were a lot of people who have it worse than me like people starving in poor countries or people leaving in the streets, and that there must be something really wrong with me for being depressed when I don't have a particuliar hard life, it's "just" that I didn't like it. As you must guess, these thoughts only makes me more depressed. People saying this kind of things doesn't realize all the harm they are causing. We will always find people who suffer more than us. But that doesn't mean the troubles and suffering we face don't exist and do no harm. It is not denying that some people do have it worse, it is just having this thing called "empathy".

I said both birds and felines. Birds because they embody freedom for me (probably cause they can fly). And I think this freedom is great to represent aros. I think aros value all type of relationship and that the freedom to define which are the most important for us and to define their components in own terms (in a QPR for instance) is a huge part of our culture. I don't have a particular birds in mind but I think eagles are pretty cool because they are majestic (is that the word in English?) Felines because they have that reputation of being independent, with a preference for cats because they also embodies singlehood with the old never married lady trope (not that this trope was meant to be nice but I don't care). So I think they are a great symbol for aro that doesn't seek a partnership.

Don't know if they are the "best" answers because they sometimes were irritating on the moment, but looking back they are so ridiculous that I prefer to laugh now. The "aro = repressed homosexual" category : I tried to come out in a fun way to my dad because I knew it would be hard for him to get it. So I say "I am as interested about dating anyone as you are about dating men". And how he was confused I repeated insisted on the "anyone". He thought I was trying to say I was a lesbian. (I still don't know how because he is not at all interested about dating men, he even is homophobic) A coworker was asking if I had a boyfriend, then I came out and above all the things she answered (she won the bingo all by herself), she talked about how I may just haven't find the right girl yet (then she had boy because she realized she forgets them). And then I realized she just assumed I was a repressed lesbian. In a more positive way, it was not really an answer though, but when I first came out as asexual to a friend (because usually I came out when it showed up in conversation, and the ace part showed up, not the aro one). Then I came out later as aro and she just says "ah, so you are aro too?" and end of conversation. No need to explain what it meant or to say it is a real thing. Just immediate acceptation.

For me, 2 and 3 focus too much on romance-repulsed/indifferent/positive, but it is probably because I don't use this distinction for myself. But of course that's personal, I know there are a lot of aros that use this terminology. But even like that, I think it weird to have three things to describe the attitude towards romance, when on the other side you have a very big group that put all the rest together ("aros of all gender, relationship types & sexualities"). Is there a particular reason you focus that much on the repulsed/indifferent/positive part? For the aesthetics part, I think 1 is the coolest and the more original, but if I look at it without knowing anything, I would not associate it to a romantic orientation because I'm so used to the lines in LGBTQUIA+ flags. The 2 is too dark, I wonder if a person that has trouble with seeing colors could easily differentiate them (I don't know). So I would say 3 is the best aesthetic choice.

Oh I knew this anime. The who demonization of asexuality and aromanticism in it is wild. Even without mentioning that the aroace are demonized, I remember the scene when this kid says "of course I look at girls (meaning him being attracted to them), I am a man!" This guy doesn't even know what attraction is, but still consider it normal and a part of any human being. Not forgeting even mention the sexism and homophobia. The kids are also known about what part of their body are considered sexual somehow even if I'm pretty sure nobody told them as it is supposed to not exist. (it could have been interesting, to be honest, a show about people not being told it exists discovering their own romanticism and sexuality, with kids that think it is important to them, other who don't get why suddenly their friends have these kind of feelings... but no of course). The fact that they were all super involved into the main couple thing as a begining, wanting to know what a kiss is, and they acted they knew it was a romantic thing and what romance is, and that there was a romantic relationship goin on, even if they shouldn't have a clue. Just showing the show is unable to think about how a society that doesn't revolve around romance (and sex) would think. And then this scene when the aro (and ace) SWAT team as you called them are interrumpted the romance and say horrible things with shaming them sexual behavior and call them deviant or something I don't remember (it was a while that I watched it), and that it show it is the bad guy because of course, who would be repulsed by romance or sex except bad people who are unable to accept people can have different view on that? I don't remember if the allo girl's answer shame the aroace or not, but the fact that they play the "aroace are villains" card is already enough. Oh and let's not forget, the main couple, that are only able to fight together because of their love... OK, I exagerate, actually it is because the guy licked the blood's girl as a kid (if I remember), but it is played such in a romantic way that it kinda seems to be the message they gave... In particular as, if I remember, they all maried their fighting partner, and one the fighting couple even switch because it didn't worked but then it was better as soon as one of the guy ended up with the girl he was in love with (I'm not sure about this part though, been a while, maybe you know @DeltaV). Sorry for the long post, I think @DeltaVjust reminds me of that anime and how much it infuriated me. When I watched it, I was just discovering the a-spec communities so I didn't have a place to rant. So I'm doing it now. I feel better now lol.

I don't think you are a sociopath. Maybe somewhere on the aro spectrum, I don't know. Polyamory can also be a possibility as you seems to struggle with monogamy, but it also could not be linked if you cheat because the feeling of love have vanished. I don't know, maybe look it up and see if it fits. I have never been in a relationship so I can't help with that. I know that the one and only time I felt a crush, it lasted only a few weeks, maybe less, and then it completely vanished. I wasn't a strong crush though because I didn't think about it a lot when the person wasn't around. Maybe it is possible your crushes are working the same way, except instead of happen only once it is recurring for you. Also I can say that this is the reason why I thought I have crushes, until I realized I was admire some traits or like things about the person, and that decided to have a crush on them was an intellectual decision and not a feeling I had.

I didn't really did this (I always like romance in media though now I can more easily describe the romance that feels forced), but I remember as a teen, when I say to two friends that I'll never want to marry someone who works with me because I would have enough of seeing them. They look at me as if I was an alien because apparently, in a romantic relationship, one is supposed to want to be with their partner all the time.

@mewixthe problem is that as aro are the one who came with that definition, they are expected to define what romantic attraction is, except that it is already very hard to describe a feeling that we feel, so a feeling that we don't feel... impossible lol. For me, even if sure there is a part of social construction in romance (as in any kind of relationship), the feeling in itself is not socially constructed, it does exist. And that's why I prefer a definition that refer to that feeling. Because as you said, anybody can chose to engage or not engage in a romantic relationship, but they can't chose to feel or not to feel the romantic feelings. The simple definition I use with people is "I don't fall in love (and I don't have crushes)". To include grayros we could add "rarely or under specific circumstances". For me it describes what "romantic attraction" means without using a word I would have to define. Sometimes I talk about "attirance amoureuse" (love attraction) because in French "amoureux" only refers to romance so everybody gets it.

That's... weird. I don't even get what she meant by that. Does she thinks aro can't make friends? But she is your friend. Does she also thinks you can't have a sexual relationship? You are aro not asexual. Or maybe she thinks aro can't be upset or sad when we people walk away? She needs to educate herself then. I would also be upset if I were you.

@Ashe.the problem with "if it looks romantic then it is romantic" is that 1) what's look romantic osn't the same for everyone and 2) it doesn't say anything about the feeling involved. For instance you say Doing things together is not at all romantic for me. You can do things together with a lot of people. A friend, a best friend, your family... And there are people we'll see mire than others because we get along more woth them, but it doesn't mean it is romantic. In fact, a lot of things couples do, we can do it with friends too. It is not the actions that makes the relationship romantic but the feelings involved. Which is the problem with the definition you gave. It kept talking about an "emotional response" but never defines the nature of the emotion, as if there were only one type of strong emotion. Of course describing an emotion is very difficult. But that's still a very important point because when we forget it, it leads to a lot of confusion. For instance, it is said that twins have a strong connection, a "meaningful and significant way" to interact to take your words. Are twins romantically attracted to each other? No. To make it more clear I'll use an analogy. Let's take the action of crying. Usually, it is associating with an emotion : sadness. So people will see someone cryong and assume they are sad. Except that sometimes, people don't cry because they are sad. They can cry because they are relieved. They can cry because they laugh too much. They can cry because they hurt their body. A lot of reasons. So even if we usually associated crying with an emotion, it is not necessary this emotion that leads people to cry. That's the same thing with romantic coded things.

The attraction has to be directed towards someone. If this is just a general feeling like wanting romance in general, it is not romantic attraction. To say it another way, some people loves the idea of romance and are open to a romantic relationship, without being romantically attracted to people. Cupioromantic will explain it better.

I would say it is the feeling that gives you the urge to date someone, usually associating with things like butterflies in the stomach. Or I would say that like there is an attraction that makes people desires sex with a person, the same thing exist for romance instead of sex.

Bird

I don't really use the word queer so I don't use it to talk about myself. Now, if I get the definition right, aro seems to fit in.

Speaking as a not oriented aroace. I don't feel this way about the term. I just think some people have a strong connection for the attraction they felt and want this to be reflected in their label and speak about it, and that's fine. I don't think it separates us. But I don't really go in other aro space than arocalypse so I don't know, maybe there is something specific that make you feel it does and I am not aware of it.

I'd say it is the same thing as being gray vs being "completely" aro or ace. Some people in the spectrum will still identify as alloromantic or allosexual, and nobody can say to them "you are wrong, you are aromantic or asexual". But there are still gray people who identify as aro or ace and we can't say to them "no you are not, get out of the community". I think a-spec are in this position because some feel like they belong to the LGBTQUIA+ community, other don't. But I think that regardless of that, the LGBTQUIA+ should work to be more acceptable for these who wants to go in there spaces. And of course that in return, we should not force the label on those who feel the opposite.