eatingcroutons

.

I'm really sorry. I can only imagine how difficult it must be to find out that you haven't actually been loved in the way you thought you were loved, for so many years. I think it's a completely understandable emotional reaction to feel devastated by that. I'm also frankly pretty disappointed by the replies from @NullVector and @Jot-Aro Kujo here. It's pretty tone deaf to tell someone who's obviously hurting that they should be celebrating instead of feeling the way they do. Nothing @Inez said came close to implying she thinks her relationship "never meant anything"; the very fact that she cares enough to come and seek advice about understanding aromanticism, and working through this situation with her husband, shows that she does value their relationship. Does it seem irrational to me, as an aromantic person, to be bothered by whether someone loves me romantically or platonically? Sure. But that's because romantic attraction doesn't matter to me. It clearly does to @Inez , and simply telling her it shouldn't isn't helpful. Emotions aren't rational. Calling someone "narrow-minded" for seeking help with a completely understandable emotional reaction is significantly less than helpful. Again, I'm sorry that this has caused so much difficulty in your relationship, and that it's taken so long to figure out the cause of the disconnect between how you and your husband have experienced your marriage. It sounds like you've done a fantastic job at trying to make things work as well as you can, and hopefully now that you have the context and language to discuss what the disconnect between the two of you is, you can work on better understanding how you relate to each other. I think it's a great sign that your husband has started "reacting in a romantic way" by sending hearts and kisses - it sounds like he's willing to put in the effort to meet you halfway on this. It might be worth trying to figure out what specific aspects of romance would help you to feel more fulfilled in your relationship, and then have a talk with your husband about where the two of you might be able to compromise on those. That said, it sounds like the biggest difficulty for you is that you have a need to feel romantically loved. And that could be a tricky one to work out, because it also sounds like that's not something your husband is able to give you. But the fact that he isn't in love with you doesn't mean he doesn't love you deeply. Think about the love you have for your children: you're not in love with them, but I'm sure the love you have for them is still incredibly powerful and important. Maybe talking to your husband about ways that he can express his genuine love for you - even if that love is more like the love of an old friend than romantic love - might help to fulfil your needs?

You can add me to the list of people who used to think this way - it seems it's a pretty common aro experience to think that "romance" just means "good friends who have sex"! I also started to see the flaws in that definition when I learned about asexuality and the fact that many aces have romantic relationships. My understanding now is that what people call "romantic attraction" is (probably) part physiological phenomena, part subjective conscious experience of physiology, and part social framing of subjective conscious experience.

My understanding is that that's exactly how many polyamorous relationships work

The thread definitely felt to me like it went from "you don't have to be in a relationship to take advantage of the institution of marriage!" to "marriage is a way to ensure continuation of typically amatonormative aspects of a non-romantic relationship!". I get where the people in it are coming from but they list a whole heap of things that I don't want to share with another person in my life, because I don't want a partnership that involves sharing that much of my life with someone.

Your family needs to chill. I know multiple people who have met their spouses through online dating sites (match.com, okcupid, etc.) and even one person who met their long-term partner through Tinder. Back in the 90s my parents used to freak out about me meeting up with people I knew online. Now, some of my closest friends are people I first met online. Yes, there are risks involved with meeting people on the internet. But again, there's plenty you can do to mitigate those risks: https://www.safety.com/10-online-dating-safety-tips/ (I personally don't go as far as carrying pepper spray, but the tips about meeting in public, being in control of your own transport, and letting someone know where you are, are really important.)

I'm sorry, it sucks that you're struggling with this. I will say, the situation isn't entirely hopeless. There are plenty of nice people out there who are interested in having sex outside of romantic relationships. The difficulty is in finding them, and in staying safe while doing so. Ultimately? That's a numbers game. Apps are one way to increase the number of people you connect with, but it can be risky to trust a relative stranger you've met through an app. Your best bet otherwise is to keep as wide a social circle as you can. Spend time with friends, and meet their friends, and their friends. It's still not 100% safe, but it's a better bet than hooking up with randos on Tinder. Make an active effort to go to social events and meet people whenever you can, try chatting and flirting, and don't worry if it doesn't work with the first person, or the first twenty people. It's a numbers game. Don't stress about making people want to have sex with you; just keep going until you find someone who does. That's what I do, anyway. (Edited to add: If you take sensible precautions Tinder and other apps can be totally fine to use. I know plenty of people who regularly use them. Just, you know, make sure you meet in a public place, make sure someone knows where you are, keep an eye on your drinks, etc.)

A+ analogy!

.

Depends whom you ask. Plenty of sects of Christianity are big on being good Christian spouses and raising good Christian children. (Especially for women.)

.

.

First question: Fuck canon, that's what fandom is for and they can still be aro in my AU Second question: Only in the same way I get disappointed when I ship something different to a fandom juggernaut. I'd always like to have more content that caters to my personal interests, but I won't begrudge other fans their fun. (Obligatory "shipping is not activism" mention) I'm 100% here for critically discussing professional shows with poorly-executed "representation" though.

Broadly-defined a-spec communities and identities are clearly useful and important to some people, and I see no problem with that. I personally stick mainly to aro communities because I don't feel any connection with ace experiences, and have no interest in being part of ace communities.

lol, I've got you beat on that one: Care 67% Loyalty 19% Fairness 64% Authority 11% Purity 3% Liberty 44% Your strongest moral foundation is Care. Your morality is closest to that of a Left-Liberal. Given that they say purity "fuels the commitment to live in a manner that abstains from indulgence in sensory desires" I'm not surprised.

I completely agree! Group relationships are a massively important part of my life, and I think it's helpful to lay out the distinction between binary and group relationships in this way. I spend a lot of effort actively maintaining connections to groups, and while I've never had a binary relationship I'm certainly not alone or lonely.

Oh for fuck's sake. The entire point is that a QPR is a label chosen by the people involved for a relationship that they feel, as Coyote said, "doesn't fit within societal norms". It's a label used by people who feel their relationship isn't adequately described by any other term available within their social and cultural environment. That is, there's no specific feeling or behaviour or commitment that makes a relationship a QPR; the idea that someone else can define your relationship as "queerplatonic" based on the nature of the relationship is perpetuating the exact amatonormative relationship hierarchy bullshit that the term was coined in opposition to!

Yeah, this is why I don't bother using the word, and describe my experience instead. ...I don't tend to put up with people who treat me that way for very long.

In my experience this actually does work pretty well. I just say, "I don't do relationships," and I find people take that at face value.

There are other opt-in channels for sexual content, since there are a bunch of people who want to avoid that, too.

I know I've said this a bunch of times before, but the only definition of "queerplatonic relationship" I've been able to articulate that actually fits the varied and sometimes contradictory explanations people give of QPRs is, "A platonic relationship that in some way crosses boundaries of what is broadly considered acceptable/normal in platonic relationships, and which the people involve consider non-romantic."

.

Only in the sense that having a partner would make things like buying a house easier (with the extra salary).

.

Thread title: What can we do besides wordsmith? Thread content: intense wordsmithing "Queerplatonicnormativity" is exactly what the Tumblr posts you linked to at the start of this thread were complaining about, and fighting that norm within our communities is exactly what they were suggesting. When arotaro says, "That 'default' is so overpowering that those of us who do not fit into this description often feel excluded from the aro community," they're talking about the 'default' assumption that all aros want a QPR, or some kind of committed partnership. An example: an old friend of mine was in a really, really bad mental space and I told him "I love you" because I knew he needed to hear it. I then hopped onto Discord to vent about how saying "I love you" had made me really uncomfortable, and got a response along the lines of, "Baby steps are fine! You do you, as long as he's fine with taking it slow too." And I had to explain that we weren't "taking it" anywhere, that I was not remotely interested in a relationship with this guy (or anyone else). In my experience the extent to which this "default" exists varies among community spaces, but in every aro and aspec space I've been in, at least once people have assumed I want or would be interested in a QPR. I tend to spend less time in the spaces where that assumption is more prevalent, largely because I find discussion of QPRs and seeking and maintaining them equally as off-putting as discussion of romantic relationships. So I guess that's a manifestation of what arotaro was complaining about: I feel somewhat excluded by those community spaces. I don't think that having an agreed-upon label for those of us who really aren't interested in any kind of partnership or committed relationship, seriously is the best way to solve that problem. Not least because of the issues the links in the OP describe about coming up with such a term. An example of something that has been helpful is the Arocalypse Discord explicitly segregating off channels for "Romo-talk" (discussions of romance-coded things) and "Nonromo-love" (discussions of queerplatonic and other non-romantic relationships), to minimise the prevalence of those topics in general channels. Other things that would help of course include more visibility and discussion of the experiences of those of us who are very, very happy to be single and stay that way forever.