nonmerci

Yes I discover that today, it was international Single Day. Didn't know that it was from China. I like it, thought immediately about us.

I feel that for a lot of people, asexual still means ace AND aro, and so the only representation we get is for aro ace, when we have representation. Maybe because it is easier for people to represent it : no need to explain the attraction model, it matches people expectations. But it would be so cool to have an aro allo representation! A real representation, not just people we could headcanon as aro because fear of commitment end or one-night-stand. Not that I have anything about one-night-stand but when I see aro allos speak they are rarely engaged in such things, on the contrary they talk about the difficulty to find sexual relationships that matter for their partner without it being romantic.

What? How does liking a part of yourself is discrimination? Are we not allowed to have self-esteem our to love ourselves for what we are?

It's more secrets about life, history universe and things like that I think, than truth. I think the sirens capture you with the secrets you want the more to hear. At least that what I think. This and their singing is very good.

I love how I can focus on other things in life. Alloromantics seem to put to much effort in finding a partner, then keep their partner, having their relationship works... It seems like a lot of energy is give for that. But as I am aro, I can put this energy in other projects and I have more time for myself. I love to not go crazy about shipping and enjoy shows for their plot, not for the couples. I also like how I can look to romantic relationships in a more analytic and logical way.

Oh my so true @RoboticHumanoid.

1957

You should speak to someone. People may listen to you. If you feel like it there is also social association I guess (don't know how it works where you live, where I live there is a free number to call child protection and they send someone to investigate). If things are linked to you being demiboy there is also LGBT shelters I guess.

False! I like to eat, a lot, but I don't cook. I would enjoy try to Cook, though. TPBM spent too much time en Netflix.

I'm not suprised if that's sound akward in English. French specialty : create English expression that makes no sense in English. But I think it says a lot about our country. The French are direct, they name what they name, no shame. But with friends with benefits, the nature of the benefits is hidden, as something taboo that needs periphrases to be named. I always felt like countries like the USA are less at-ease than us when it comes to sex, and it's funny to see even the language shows that.

Yes you can do whatever you want. The concept of QPR is that you define your own terms. Probably not platonic if we think about the strict definition but who cares?

Warm.

I think it depends on the context. In general, aro will mean "aro spectrum", but in a conversation about umbrella terms for example, it could mean aro specifically. When I identified as grayro (not anymore, just aro now), I used "arospec" to specifically say that I am on the grey are of the spectrum when it was relevant, but I think it was just me ha ha. I do think the aro community wants to be inlusive though, which can explain the common used of arospec maybe.

I understand where you're coming from but I don't think it's a good idea. First it would be used by exclusionist to say that people are not queer enough. Also, I think it would lead to very complicated questions, to know who is more queer than the other. Like, I saw people say that aro heterosexual are more priviledged (or even not queer at all) because of heteronormativity. But I consider myself more priviledged than an aro hetero because I think that I have it easier than people who has a split attraction. I'm pretty sure some people would argue that with me and really, I don't want to see that kind of debate... Also where would fit people who don't label their sexual or romantic orientation? So no, sorry but I think it would create problems instead of solving them. EDIT : in fact the main reason I think why it can't be seen as a scale, is because there are so many variables. The spectrum works for a-spec people because it is about one thing, and because we don't use it as a scale (no one wil wonder who is more aro between an demiro or a lithro, or I'm thinkful that I never encounter this debate). But with qeerness, there is sexuality, romanticism, gender... a lot of factors here, with an infinity of combinaisons, with all specific problems. A scale is too simple to embrace such a diversity.

I'm like that too. Though a lot of aros are romance repulsed, some aros are not. My friends didn't talk a lot about crushes. Except some game we play as teen, I was asked only once who my crush once. My friends didn't talk about crushes and didn't date. It changes now that I'm older but most people I know now are already in couple so we don't talk about attraction. Also even if discovering my aro identity changed it a bit, I don't mind romance in fiction, if it's not amatonormative. I can ship people too even if I'm not crazy about it. I even write romance in my fiction. I like that. I didn't realize I was different from people around me too. That's more linked to my ace side but it could have been the same with aro : I was very surprised to discover that people actually feel sexual attraction frequently. I thought I was in the norm. Though I didn't think about it for romantic attraction because we talk less about it (or at least on these terms), it never occurs to me that I was not in the norm. That's why I discover my identity when I discovered the words I think. Because before I didn't realize most of people were different. There is a lot of was to experience aromanticism. What unites us is the lack of attraction (in multiple forme for the grey area), but then, our relationship to this lack and the consequences differ for everyone. So don't doubt your identity because you can't relate to everything you heard.

I don't think so. We don't chose who attracts us or not. So not being attracted to women is not mysogyny, that's just how attraction works for you. Now, I can't really help you to know what sexual attraction is. But if the perspective of a sex-indifferent asexual can help you to determine if you are an asexual who isn't sex-repulsed or an allosexual, I can say this. In theory, I am not repulsed by the idea of having sex. In theory, I woulld be open to tru someday. However, I am not like @Jot-Aro Kujo : I don't look at someone and think I want to have sex with that person. It never happens to me. For me, it's just a general idea, you see? An experience I would do for curiosity if I have enough trust in someone, to know what sex is like. But that's not provoked by someone in particular. I'm not even sure that I would want it if some day I have the possibility to try. Like, I don't know, parachuting or climbing a mountain. Sounds like a fun thing to try, but maybe when the situation comes to me, I won't find the idea fun anymore. That's why I consider myself asexual, but not repulsed by sec. Hope this helps.

I remember that when I discover that Ô am aro, my relationship to romance on fiction changed a bit. I still don't mind or appreciate it, but when it's bad written I become more repulsed, or when a character who has never got an interest before gets one I become annoyed. I think it goes with my understandment of amatonormativity : I'm more aware of it and it changed how I view romance.

Don't the teacher ended up falling for the mother of one of the boys? I don't remember the romance part (it was very minor and barely there I think), but I kinda remind the boy being upset with the relationship. Oh, I should just watch that masterpiece again to be sure.

I don't have that feel neither. If we realy I feel alone I still have my brother.

I think the problem is : a lot of aces want to point out that asexual doesn't mean aromantic, but they don't necessary realize that aromantic doesn't mean asexual. There is a flawed in that logic and it leads to them not realizing that you can be aromantic but not asexual.

I saw allo people feel bother by that too. I guess the idea that some of them did is consistent, in particular as they loved difficult things together. But both Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione, in particular Harry/Ginny with their relationship who was never built properly? Come on. Also I saw people in real life who married their teenage love. Sometimes it works well and sometimes... not at all.

Younger child, only an older brother. I said no for LGBT family members because as far as I know no one is (and I have a big family, my mother have 6 brothers and sisters). However my brother (who is 30) never dated anyone. He apparantly thinks it doesn't worth it but... who knows.

Interesting question. It kinda echoes to something I was thinking about yesterday (I was thinking how not practical are the words platonic and queerplatonic because they are very close but talk about different things, which create confusion, and I see it here as you talk about both of these terms). Personally, I don't really care about etymology. Words evolve and what matters is how they are used now. If we use it to mean not romantic instead of not sexual, that's the meaning now. And to be honest, even I discovers aromanticism and asexuality, I used it to mean "sexual but not romantic" and was very confused when I learned it means the contrary. That being said, I understand why people are disturbed by that. In particular aro allos. Some people can use the etymology to dismiss the right to use the term for sexual QPR, o sexual friendship. Or people can be not at ease to use these words due to their history. But if we get rid of the word platonic, what word can replace it? In French, we used English words to talk about friends with benefits, but... not these ones. We say "sex friends". And I was very confused to learn "sex friends" is not the Engish terms. French people must be more direct in their language and say things clearly instead of periphrases I suppose. ?

For what you say it is possible that you are on the aro spectrum, and only have squishes for men. But I can't say it for you. You say that your fictional crushes are romantic for sure. Maybe you can think about what differ from your irl crushes/ssquishes. It can help you to see if what you feel for real people are romantic or platonic.

Ant Man. The don't even try to built their relationship. Harry and Ginny in Harry Potter. In the books, Harry never see her in the romance zone but all of a sudden, when stops to be interested in him and dates someone else, he became jalousie and "realizes" he lives her back. That's super unhealthy and badly written. But at least there is some development, compared to the movie where he just starts to love her at the begining of the 6th without any explanation. That was so unecessary. Also, just the idea that they all stayed with the person they dated as teenagers.