nonmerci

Thanks you all for your answers, it helps me clarify my head. Yeah same. First, not great for the fellow straight aros (some don't identify with lgbtqia+ and that's fine, but that's not a reason to excluse those who do). Second I've rarely seen a reasoning for this exclusion that doesn't had arophobic arguments. Usually the same people arguing that will be very vocal about how aro gay/bi/pan etc are welcomed, but are unable to see how aromanticism affects their experiences and so.fail to include them as aromantic people. They just fail to see aromanticism as relevant, and so they fail all our community. But I get a bit off topic here, sorry. I think just aro fits well. I'm going to try it for a while as you said, and see if it works. Thanks !

I don't kno, if it qualifies as sexual harrassment but harrassing someone to knoow their sexuality, and in particular in that case I think this guy assumes you must be gay and wanted to harrass you on that, is wrong. Sobyou did bothing wrong by ignoring him, he was being an idiot (to be polite). You should absolutely not apologize. He should.

So I was wonfering if just aro is a good label for me or if aro and ace is better. (I'm not a fan of aroace for me, just realized this night lol, cause even if it is technically the short for "aro and ace", the fact they are put in the same word makes it sounds like they are linked which is not how I experience my identity... aro ace would have sounded better but still weird) I don't really know why I am wondering that now. It's just that I was thinking to something last night, I don't even remember what, and the words "just aro" came to my mind as a description for me instead of aroace and since I'm asking myself questions lol. It's not like I don't fit the description of "asexual". But I connect a lot more to my aro identity and usually, except if it is important to the topic, I would say I'm aro and only add ace in parenthesis if I mention it, aka "aro (and ace)". And usually the reason I do it is because I read it is important to say when you speak from an aroace perspective and not from an alloaro one, so we highlight the fact that our sexuality affects our relationship to aromanticism. It's not like I particularly feel the need to say I'm ace. See what I mean ? I also connect more with the asexual identity. It took me years to enter an ace forum though I subscribe to arocalypse the second I realize I was on the spectrum (thought I was greyro back then). And though I stayed on AVEN, I'm not gonna lie, it is mainly for the meme thread and the people who are in that thread. I can't explain why but I don't really feel the need to talk about my asexuality or to give that much of my time to the acr community (which I'm ashamed to admit cause I do believe the visibility of the ace community is as important as the one of the aro community, I just feel less concerned for some reason I don't get). Finally I tend to connect more easily with other aros and I feel more connected to the "philosophy" of the community (of course I know that aros don't all think the same way, it's just a general tendency about how we present things or whay kind of debates we have). Anyway all of this to say : are there just aros here who would be comfortable to explain why they chose this label ? I know I see some in the past but not sure they are still here. If not, does someone have links to just aro blogs or articles or things like that ? It would help me to see clear. Thanks.

I just realize Ferb has aro's color for his hair and ace's color for his clothes. Unintentional but fun.

I think iel could work in oral but certainly not all the rest of inclusive writing. The adjectives on the other hand... I read a bool where one of the main character is non binary and intersex; they doesn't use iel, but ael, and it is easy to read or to speak about it. However, the author purposely only use epicene adjectives so she didn't have to bother with agreements, cause it is hell to read and to say out loud. French really is a difficult manguage when it comes to gender...

I can't answer the alloaro part but I can say there is a high chance that you can't picture this because of amatonormative representations that society gave us, as you said. Right now I tried to picture a movie, show or book with a "sexual but not romantic" relationship and all I have are : -one night stand -people who fear commitment -relationships that start with "just sex, no romance" but then the people involved "catch feelings" and start dating So it made it hard for people to imagine what sexual relationships are without romance as we never have representation of a sexual relationships that don't follow those criteria. Now of course there are people who just one night stand and that's OK, but not everyone. On the other hand, for romantic but not sexual relationships, movies and books don't always show the sexual part (even if it is implied sometimes), so I suppose it makes it easier to imagine. At least that's my thoughts on why it is easier for you to imagine one of these relationships but not the other.

There is "iel" but no one uses it cause it is seen as a feminist thing. There are a couple of others neopronouns (like ol or ael) but nothing recognizes on a national level and people are unaware of it, and adjectives are just hell.

If I'm not mistaken, gender, romantic and sexual minorities.

I get what you are saying. Sometimes things are shown in such an awesome way that we forgot why we don't want that or it sounds desirable though we know in reality we won't be at ease. It happened to me sometimes, though not with a group of friends I think. I can't really think about one example right now, but I'm sure I thought before that "this kind of friendship would be noce in real life". I wish we had exemples of people alone and happy in shows or movies, and that we really see their experience. Instead they always picture this lifestyle as miserable. That doesn't help. I don't really have advice, sorry. Except maybe to think about all the positive about being alone when you feel like this.

I think the tv shows are good, at least the ones I saw, though I get the valid criticisms (I liked Loki but the selfcest... the selfcest ! I wouldn't mind if it was somehow necessary to the plot but it is just so random and useless). For the movies I only saw Dr Strange who was disapppointing for me, big part because of Wanda being a poor villain, then because it is an insulting to the very good show Wandavision, one of the best thing in the MCU. Seriously why on earth did they make a tv show about Wanda learning she can't get what she wants by hurting people, just to make a movie where she tries to get what she wants by hurting and killing people ? What was the point ? It makes her reason very superficial, which is even more stupid cause if you haven't seen it, everything about her arc is already superficial in the movie... Anyway we were talking about Thor. I haven't see the movie, just photos and maybe some parts. Nothing about what I saw made me want to see it, but to be honest, I never liked Thor anyway and never saw one of his movies cause he is probably my least favorite Avenger.

The term "aroace lesbian" is for me related to the oriented aroaces, aka aroaces who feel one or more other attraction, strongly enough to label it. So if you tell me you are an aroace lesbian, that's what I would think about, which would be confusing as it seems to not be what you mean. I don't think orchidromantic or monoromantic fits as it is about feeling romantic attraction, but you don't seem to feel it from what you say. There is fictoromantic for people attracted to fictional character but again, you don't seem to be attracted to them from what you say. Just a suggestion, but can "lesbian romance favorable aroace" work ?

Oh thanks you are making me blush. I just think aromantic people are all in this together you know, and we can't be a community if we push some of the people aside. So it is normal for me. Also as I myself see my aromanticism and my asexuality as different, I think it is easier for me to support the idea that aro and ace are different, even if it is not as necessary for me than it is for alloaros. And I like to understand people who are different than me, I think the world would be better if everybody could understand that different people have different needs.

Lately I've been reading a few articles about allo aro erasure in aro spaces (in particular, the articles linked by Storm_leopardcat). Naturally, it makes me question how the allo aro feel on arocalypse. Do you think that aroaces overshadow yout voices here ? What can we do to reassure alloaros that they are part of the community and can open thread that specifically adress their unique issues ? What are the things we should avoid, as aroaces, to prevent the erasure ?

Yeah, this is sadly true. Sometimes if there are things we can do to make arocalypse more allo aro friendly, as well as other aro places.

I think they can. The way I see it, platonic labels are about the attraction, not the love. At least that's how I understand it. In particular now that there is the "loveless aro" label for aro who don't love.

Well, in my case, I think I felt platonic attraction once, so it makes it easier to notice that it was only once and that except for this exception, I don't feel it... so aplatonic. Platonic attractrion was that I saw this random stranger I've never talked to and immediately thought it would be good to befriend her, for no reason except that I feel a push for it. It was not rational, I didn't even know this person, never talked to her, but everytime I saw her I thought we could be great friends and fantacize about it. It only happen once though, which is wvy I consider it insignificant and identify as aplatonic. For the rest, I do have friends and enjoy their company. But there is no attraction to it, which is probably why I won't feel like I miss something if I don't pursue friendships or things like that. A lot of aromantics will talk about how they love their friends and family; and though I think I probably love them too, it is not in these termes that I conceptualize our relationships and it is not what is important to me. I like them, I enjoy their company, I care about them, I laugh with them, talk to them, etc, that's what is important to me; love is not the relevant part for me and not what I'm looking for, if that makes sense. But also, and that's the most important for me, I don't look for QPR. It is not the type of relationship I want. What I'm looking for is more familial relationships (including found family relationship), which is probably still a platonic relationship, but I guess the focus is so much on QPRs, that I don't think what I want is what people think about when they talk about their squishes, aka platonic crushes. It also means that I don't relate to some aromantic on the subject, and I think "aplatonic" permits me to say it. Sorry if I am not explaining that very well.

I can still appreciate it if it is well written, and if I love the rythm, the voice of the singer, etc. For instance, recentlt I surprised myself in loving the French singer Hoshi, even if I am usually not a fan of French modern music. And it makes me even more happy cause she is a lesbian artist and it is great to see LGBT people succeed. I just like her voice and I think she has great texts. It is true that a reason why i came to love Broadway is because I can find there more variety in themes, but it doesn't mean I can't love a good romantic song !

All I can think is this

Hi ! I just read this article and agree woth everything, so, I thought I'll share it. It is about how we should not use love as a concept that humanizes people because : -some humans don't love -love can hurt people deeply (something that people forget too much if you ask me)

In French, a nickname for the Eiffel Tower is "the iron lady", so... feminine. Also in French a tower is "feminine" (grammatically speaking). Why ? Honestly I don't know, there is not really a logic in how our words are feminine or masculine. (Well, historically speaking there's a reason, most of the words that came from the first latine declension are feminine, from the second they are masculine... but then it means we have to find a logic in latin so... still a mystery). I know English doesn't have gendered for object so they use it, but it sounded weird to my ears, i don't know why. Oh yeah, that makes sense now that you say it.

Well that's a good question. You know I respect the Eiffel Tower. She was criticized everyday, people did not want her, and not only she made it but she is now a beloved symbol of Paris. Though when you think about it, it is a weird symbol of love because, for real, what is romantic in a giant iron scaffolding ? I'm not criticizing it, but that's weird.

I feel those ones. (I still don't get why people think we are more romantic than other countries)

It reminds me how in English, celibate means "don't have sex" but in French célibataire means "single". I think it is interesting cause it means that in etymology, the idea of not having sex and of being single were connected. (i also think it is ironic cause of the stereotype of the single person who has a lot of one night stands, but that's another thing lol) Now I don't think in French, we have terms that describe aromantic and asexuality (except now, aromantique and asexuel). We do have terms to describe people who never get married and presumely never have sex (cause you know, no sex if you are not married) : vieille fille (old girl) and vieux garçon (old boy). I think it is more pejorative for women (you know, the stereotype of the very strict woman who never has fun once in her life, and is of course this way because not being married frustrates her so much that she is mean with everyone...), but the origin of both terms is derogatory. Apparently there is no official origin of these terms but here's what I think I can't see how it can be otherwise : basically, you only become a man or a woman after marriage and/or have sex. So if you don't, you stay a boy or a girl even if you are old. So, vieille fille and vieux garçon. At least that's how I read it.