bydontost

some responses:

1. rewriting history sounds like a conscious effort (especially paired with the title with "revisionism" and "aro reparations"), this all seems to me more like misinformation due to the lack of access to reliable sources. people probably induct that since it's talking about a blurry line of friendship and something else, and not about sex, it came from aros, not aces. even in this 2013 post you cited the person says "oops, i'm sorry, i didn't know". so i'd take this into account

2. i agree with this "A lot of aros have been hurt by amatonormativity in the ace community. In the context of this hurt, they are looking for affirmation of their identities and experiences as legitimate, valuable, and important." and yes, with the lack of information about the origins of qpr, i can see why aro people want to fight for what they perceive as stolen history, want to have some of this history

3. goddamn am i fed up with this constant talk of qprs and where they originated

4. i think we as aros should focus on building our own thing with the help of aces if they want to help of course, but my focus isn't very much on making specifically asexual communities better places for aros  (though there is a huge overlap). im aiming for aro people seeking out aro communities instead of ace ones and making more spaces in general more accepting of aros tbh

nooo, @nonmerci was recently talking about it i think??

Hi, there's definitely more poeple like you, who are aro and allosexual (not asexual), I'm one of them and there are more people like us on the forums It's just that the term aromanticism was first used among asexual people, so it's where all the resources and people started gathering. AUREA is a website for all aromantic people, no matter the sexuality (or lack thereof) and here is a website with information on being an allosexual aromantic person specifically.

 

About telling your family/friends - how open to sex in general are they? People who don't judge others for having sex without a romantic relationship first (so one night stands, friends with benefits) may be more open to the idea that you want to have sex without the relationships. I wouldn't describe it as meaningless either - if it was meaningless to you would you care to have it? You say you love it, so you could try to explain that you just enjoy it, if you want to. As for coming out as aromantic, I know some people just say they don't do relationships, you may do that and may say that there's a word for it - aromantic. You may let people see that you mean it, and they can just get used to it.

 

You say you feel guilty, is that nothing? You just don't have romantic feelings or in this case also lusty feelings for him - that's okay. As long as you're on the same page, you can enjoy the sex and the sweetness, because you both agreed to it!

Here's also a thread on this forum about allosexual aromanticism:

 

8 hours ago, running.tally said:

The aro community as a whole welcomes anyone who fundamentally feels that they belong in this community, because chances are, regardless of how many times someone has felt romantic attraction in their life, if they are feeling alienated from alloromantics or from typical romantic narratives, they feel they belong in the aro community.

Exactly my sentiment. We're never going to have the same feeling or experiences, so we can only say: "oh I'm closer to this group, their experiences resonate with me", whether the group in question is aromantics or alloromantics. If people identify with aromantic experiences, which generally include no romantic attraction, no interest in romantic relationships, etc., then no one should say that they're wrong about how they feel, even if they have in their lives experienced a crush for example.

 

6 hours ago, TripleA said:

why would we let people who just don't experience romantic attraction as often (which is pretty normal) say they're aro?

We wouldn't we?? Again, if they feel that their experiences are closer to aromantic experiences... And people have really various experiences and their own reasons for identifying with aromanticism or greyromanticism. "As often" or "not conforming to cultural norms" are also very subjective.

 

6 hours ago, TripleA said:

I don't relate to people who just don't experience romantic attraction as much as other allos or only under certain circumstances because I am aromantic, whilst they are not.

And I do relate to some of their experiences, so what? I also don't relate to all of other aromantics' experiences that concern their relationship with romance. We're all not the same.

 

6 hours ago, TripleA said:

Also, my definition (aka the actual definition) of aromantic isn't outdated or incomplete, it's perfectly accurate for every aromantic.

Oh boy, what makes you think you're the judge on this, that only you have the correct answer to everything? And it's not perfectly accurate for every aromantic, see for example: me.

 

5 hours ago, TripleA said:

Eventually everyone will be able to say they're aro bc the word would lose its meaning if we keep letting allo people

I have no idea where this fear comes from - (sarcasm) maybe from the aromantics who wish they could feel romantic attraction, bc then they'd be able to fulfill the very rewarding narrative that most of the world believes in..?? (/sarcasm) Aromanticism is not a very attractive narrative in the world that we live in and idk why people who don't see themselves seen, their experiences finally represented by this narrative would suddenly decide "oh yes, this is what I'm gonna call myself now, because...". I just can't see a reason why they'd do that.

 

5 hours ago, TripleA said:

Just because there are maybe one or two similarities, doesn't mean we are the same.

Ofc, and you and I aren't the same and no one on this forum is the same! We're all here, bc we feel this bundle of experiences is the most similar to ours.

 

5 hours ago, TripleA said:

People like myself are constantly silenced just because people want to virtue signal and be over-inclusive

Have you considered: we genuinely believe this this is the right way to see things for us, just like the right way according to you is comparing everyone to your own experience of aromanticism and deciding if they're aro or not. We're never gonna be the same and have the same experiences, and I'd rather be more inclusive than play the judge and exclude someone who could use the community with their feelings about romance. I just don't see a point too. Discussions like those take a lot of energy, resources and time that could be better spend imo.

 

5 hours ago, running.tally said:

Worrying about "being invaded by not real aromantics" is not productive and not realistic, because the likelihood of people pretending to be aromantic just for funsies, just for attention, just for resources, is really low. Non-queer people just don't pretend to be queer. Non-aros don't pretend to be aro.

Agreed

 

3 hours ago, TripleA said:

I understand that this was made to be just an alloaro flag, but I believe it can work to be used by all aromantics

It was specifically made for allo aros to have this part of the community represented, and idk how people who aren't allosexual would feel about this flag being used to represent all of the community... I know that if someone suggested we use one of the aroace flags to represent aromanticism as a whole, I'd be very mad

 

edit: I also don't know what you mean by "aro flag hasn't been finalized" - the green, light green, white, grey, black version is widely used, you can see it at prides sometimes, etc.

I'm obligated to throw in my steve rogers is aro headcanon *dusts off a 2017 post* https://ncmadsteve.tumblr.com/post/167061345425

I checked other and there were a few reasons why: 1. idk what my ideal living situation would be, i like to have other people easily accessible, but i have to have my space too... i think living alone wouldn't be a good option for me, 2. three or more people living with me would be way too many; one could be too little, though sounds doable, two could be really nice, 3. bed sharing =/= room sharing and having the option to sleep beside someone is nice sometimes, but sometimes only and i need space that is only mine

a shared apartment with friends sounds nice

you know that this poll lacks the option to check "I tried and like it"...??

On 11/2/2019 at 3:46 PM, Holmbo said:

To me it means that you give another person a means to hurt you, trusting that they wont.

that's what it means to me too, except more with a side of not knowing if they won't hurt me, but hoping they won't

 

On 11/2/2019 at 6:09 PM, eatingcroutons said:

if you're not worried at all about how others see or feel about you, you're probably not going to feel emotionally vulnerable no matter how open and honest you are.

yeah, and it's often talked about in the context of romo relationships, but I'm worried about how my friends see and feel about me, and talking about myself can be a struggle; it's definitely not exclusive to romantic relationships for everyone

On 10/15/2019 at 11:00 PM, bananaslug said:

Some people might only be willing to do that with a romantic partner

maybe for some people the stakes are just higher in romantic relationships, or they learned to be vulnerable with friends who were in their life for a long time, but romantic relationships seem to require sharing a lot and quite quickly too..?? maybe that's the problem for some

8 hours ago, assignedgothatbirth said:

eh idk if that new york one's still around either- i looked into it about a year ago and there was nothing really there. looks like there last event was almost three years ago.

aw sads

2 hours ago, Mark said:

Is this London Group you mean? Which dosn't appear that active and currently unable to offer ace, rather than aspec, events.
 

AUREA lists a group in New Jersey (which may be the New York one). This also does not appear to be especially active either.

 

yeah those are the ones I meant, there are people still in the groups, maybe they'd be still interested if someone sent a nudge or sth??

On 9/10/2019 at 2:32 AM, LBMango said:

3) If this isn't a thing, should it be? (I'm not volunteering...)

it should be, but the truth is that someone has to volunteer for it to exist. groups that are for aros specifically (that I know of at least) are in new york and london only

On 7/31/2019 at 10:46 AM, arotic said:

These are the more extreme responses and the most romantic that I could find

 

Actually, what were the less extreme ones?? I think having the full scope of what people identify as crushes would be helpful 

7 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

This poll doesn't really cover what I want at all... I want "purely platonic friendship", yes, but the views I have on friendship/what I want from a friendship generally are a bit different from how allo society conceptualizes friendships. I would also be interested in a sexual relationship, but I do not consider it "romantic coded" and am not comfortable with checking of an option that implies that I want anything of the sort, given that I'm very romance repulsed.

I checked a few, including that "romance coded" option tho the wording doesn't sit right with me either

On 7/11/2019 at 8:44 AM, Magni said:

Marriage: The legal benefits of marriage and lack of alternate options….having some way to declare someone as “family” for purposes of medical leave and such without requiring marriage/romance. Also, partnering with the polyamory community on this because they also face issues with the current system of marriage.

 

100% a real problem  - I'd say that it'd be good to be able to choose someone you trust to be your uhh proxy/plenipotentiary for situations like medical decisions, having access to your medical records. Marriage is also simplifying the issues of inheritance, but I guess this mostly would be an issue for people who do have partners, but don't get married. In terms of both of those, allying with poly and queer partnering people (where they don't have the option to get married) would be beneficial - it's harder to ignore a bigger group of people

 

With adoption I'll just say +1.

 

On 7/11/2019 at 8:44 AM, Magni said:

Workplace Protections: the queer community in general still needs protections against discrimination, but it does affect us too, and it would be important to include not only that they can’t discriminate against people for their sexual orientation, but also their romantic orientation. (This is the issue I personally would be most concerned about tbh)

 

This is a big issue for aromantics and singles in general, so especially single aromantics. Discrimination can have many faces, like someone noticed it doesn't have to be firing someone for being aro. It can also being overlooked in promoting, having a lower salary (someone who's single doesn't need the money anyway am I right??* *note: yes, this is right, but in the current climate "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" isn't working out anyway, right?? right), being forced to work at hours/on days no one wants to work, being excluded socially, etc. Here alignment with singles that aren't aro and childless people and women who have families, but earn less than men who have families would make us a bigger group  

 

On 7/11/2019 at 8:44 AM, Magni said:

Healthcare: this has some overlap with my first point about “spousal” benefits, but generally making sure aro people aren’t discriminated against in healthcare. This includes mental health, and making sure we could seek therapy without having to educate them about our identities or have our identity medicalized. Additionally, I believe there is something about single people receiving less aggressive treatment options and therefore having worse outcomes, so preventing that kinda thing too.

 

Talked some about medical stuff in marriage too, so won't repeat that addition. But here I believe a change of mentality is needed - singles receive worse treatment, because their lives are perceived as being less worth saving *shrug*. It's a real problem that should be brought to attention of more people, but probably not something that can be solved by legislation.

 

On 7/11/2019 at 8:44 AM, Magni said:

Support Networks: most adults seem to get their social needs met via their romantic partnerships, or find community via religious groups. There’s generally a need for non-denominational groups to provide support and community, because people generally need that sort of thing, and feeling isolated can be detrimental to people’s health. One form of this might be lgbtqa+ community centers in general, ones that are alcohol-free community resource centers (which other parts of the queer community want too).

 

Activist groups would be great too hehe. But yes, some solutions for people who don't have that familial/spousal support network is needed and should be talked about.

 

On 7/11/2019 at 10:10 AM, Spacenik86 said:

Adoption should above all give the child a responsible, stable and mature environment, and in most cases this means the conventional family.

If we can't provide a kid with 100% responsible, stable, mature, conventional hetero couple, it's better for them to rot in orphanages where they have oh so great adult oversight and opportunities aplenty, clearly.

 

On 7/11/2019 at 6:54 PM, Coyote said:

You've mentioned the polyamorous community and "the queer community" as communities with overlapping goals and aims here, and to that I'd also add decolonialists and anticapitalists.

 

Cool cool.

 

On 7/11/2019 at 8:26 PM, nonmerci said:

the PACS. But it's for couples too I think (it was create mostly for couple of the same sex, when marriage wasn't allowed for them, but any couple coud use it

 

Yeah, but it's still for couples, leaving poly and other non-duo friend constellations with no options.

 

On 7/12/2019 at 11:18 AM, Mark said:

These issues are becoming more obvious as marriage declines.

 

Yes! All the more likely those problems will find solutions The only thing I'd be wary of would be the amatonormative mentality of "well, but I'll get a partner eventually and it won't affect me anymore" of some of those people. The society generally holds the belief that giving greater advantage to marrieds with children is 100% right.

 

On 7/12/2019 at 11:18 AM, Mark said:

Something which can be an issue here is Skin Hunger which I'm not sure that highly platonic "community/resource centres" are going to be able to address.
For many aros their social needs can include romantic coded activities. Thus there needs to be inclusion in respect of these.

 

Contact sports ? Good old sex work ? New career opportunities for professional cuddlers ? But for real now - maybe there will appear some ways to fulfill those needs that aren't here today. Meanwhile we can focus on mentality in which toching friends could happen more often.

 

On 7/12/2019 at 11:30 PM, NullVector said:

it would be nice if conceps like "romantic harrasment" and "romantic consent" were anywhere near as universally acknowledged as the analagous concepts of "sexual harrasment" and "sexual consent".

 

Mmm, great point.

 

On 7/12/2019 at 11:30 PM, NullVector said:

You can make the case that existing legal frameworks privilege marriage and aren't good at legitimising other relationship archetypes, sure. Like Elizabeth Brake did in Minimizing Marriage. But she wasn't exactly calling for revolution on all fronts in that book! More like liberal reforms/tweaks to an existing contract law framework that already grants people the core political freedoms, but is currenly a bit inflexible in the inter-personal space.

 

I, uh, thought that this is what we were discussion here, reforms that would legitimize lifestyles other than hetero couple marriage. I don't think anything that's been said here called for a revolution.

 

On 7/13/2019 at 9:45 AM, NullVector said:

Having kids for elderly care strikes me as less of an issue to be honest. I think in practice (at least in 'the West') it's often somewhat of a romantic fantasy parents have. In practice, the children are often so busy with their own families and financial troubles that the duty of care is passed on to institutions (e.g. nursing homes). Using the (probably significant) extra money you save from not having kids to afford a better standard of elderly care would strike me as, 9 times out of 10, the more reliable plan for old age.

 

It can be a fantasy only, but at least sometimes the kids can pay for the nursing homes. To have more extra money, it'd be cool to have the same salary that people who have children and/or families do And people can be minimalist and not think about some far-away prospects of "having money for retirement", sigh, especially if they're working tiring but underpaid jobs. So here I'd focus on first allowing people to have the money they can leave for later (or invest) and then encouraging them to do so.

 

On 7/13/2019 at 3:16 PM, Mark said:

There seem be very few of these...

 

This can always be changed

 

On 7/14/2019 at 6:15 AM, Coyote said:

communally-interwoven living

 

This would be the best option lbr.

 

On 7/14/2019 at 6:15 AM, Coyote said:

I mean, in the history of human society, we haven't *always* had nursing homes. What kind of a society makes nursing homes relevant?

 

Realistically?? The kind of society that no longer tells the elderly to get their stuff and leave the household when they can't work anymore and the family can't spare the freeloaders.

 

Quote

from: https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft096n99tf&chunk.id=d0e35564&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e35564&brand=ucpress       p.364

The history of old age has tended to swing wildly between two extremes in this history-as-policy debate. A romantic view of the past has produced images of a time when the old were treated with respect, when they occupied positions of power by virtue of their control over family holdings, and when they were surrounded and supported by married children and grandchildren. In this view, the history of industrialization and "modernization" has been a tragic one for the lives of the old: they have become the victims of "progress." In making this argument, scholars have seized not only on temporal distance but on spatial and cultural distance as well, pointing to the non-Western, less industrialized societies as still today maintaining much of the "traditional" concern for the welfare of the elderly that presumably marked Western societies in the past.

On the other side, especially notable among European historians, we find a revisionist view, one that sees a far grimmer story of old age, in which old people crowded meager public charitable facilities in search of a miserable lodging, or a piece of bread, to allow them to survive in a society that gave no quarter to those lacking the brawn or the health to earn their daily living. In this view, old people have never been as well off as they are today, when government programs and social legislation protect them and transfer payments force the young to support them.

The chapters in this book demonstrate that neither of these two scenarios provides an adequate understanding of aging in the past.

 

On 7/14/2019 at 11:00 AM, Spacenik86 said:

Citizens of Western democracies. In places like North Korea or Saudi Arabia things are completely different. If I was living in such a society, my priority would be to bring down the tyranny.

 

I'm gonna... take a wild guess and... assume that most people here don't live in either of those countries. And if they do... they can probably recognize what their priorities are... And as a person not living in NK or SA, I always I think I can aim higher than "not fearing for my life 24/7", for example aiming for "the best standard of life and equality for all in the place where I live"

 

22 hours ago, NullVector said:

I think I'd prefer the political discussions to happen at a lower level of resolution e.g. focusing on social issues that impact all single or all childless people, rather than just aromantic ones. Or, going even lower level, social issues that impact all people lacking in informal support networks, for example.

 

This is my view too - this doesn't have to fly under the banner of "making the world a better place for aromantics, but aromantics only, if you want to benefit from this, you have to show your aro card". In my understanding those are issues that also impact aros and as a group we could be working on allying with other impacted groups to make the changes that are benefiting all...??

21 hours ago, DeltaV said:

On 7/11/2019 at 10:10 AM, Spacenik86 said:

Aromantics shouldn't forcibly re-educate people by pushing for law changes, if there has to be a cultural change away from pair-bonding let's it happen naturally.

I’m always surprised how many people regard laws as good instruments to change attitudes and for reeducation.

 

Oh boy, who said anything about reeducation by law..?? And what kind of reeducation would that be...?? Because the line "away from pair-bonding" makes me think someone was suggesting abolishing options of legal pair-bonding here.............?? I thought I read a thread about changing and adjusting policies that currently don't include people who aren't pair-bonded.

16 hours ago, bananaslug said:

I think what will really allow us to change and work on that problem is coalition building.

 

Great point!

10 minutes ago, Star Lion said:

Cupioromantics are just aromantics who aren’t romance repulsed. If you don’t experience romantic attraction, you’re not greyro. If you experience romantic attraction, you’re not aromantic. People id as labels that just don’t make any sense for them to have in real world use because it either doesn’t fit definition or it isn’t practical. Calling grey an umbrella really does the opposite considering you’re saying there’s labels that just fall under it, no linear lines mentioned or inferred. I think despite what people believe on this situation, we need to look for what makes more sense and what’s going to be more practical in social situations as well as scientific ones

This is how it's often defined, so you'd think that's how it is, but reality isn't as neat and sorted as that. I don't fully understand the middle of the post And as for how we should proceed - personal identity labels usually mean something, but sometimes aromantic can mean "I don't feel attraction, but want a romantic relationship and I want to communicate that I'm aromantic in my attraction" and sometimes aromantic can mean "I may feel attraction, but I for sure don't want romo relationships, and I want to communicate that I'm aromantic in my lack of desire for romo relationships", so. I'm sure it feels practical for both those people from the example. I wouldn't worry about scientists, because they generally know that self-description is not great for measuring different concepts. But I'm kinda worried about common people who come across aromanticism 

2 hours ago, Star Lion said:

@running.tally

My thing is that it can’t be easily defined because it isn’t a spectrum. Greyromantics aren’t aromantics due to the simple fact that they acknowledge that they experience romantic attraction. Another thing is that greyromanticism is generally an umbrella term for all the extreme micro labeling the community does. Some micro labels do fall under aromanticism but why is it so much trouble to identify as aromantic and be done with it? All in all, the reason we identify as aromantic is to convey to people that we don’t have desires for romantic partnership and it likely isn’t going to change

There are aromantics who id as aro and feel romantic attraction and greyros who possibly don't and still id as greyro, and where do you sort identities like "cupioromantic" - 0 attraction, but would like a romo relationship. There were people complaining that grey is an umbrella term they disidentify with, because they feel it makes the romanticism spectrum linear and despite identifying with a microlabel they also identity with aromanticism. And it feels insensitive to say "why someone can't just id as aro" - I'm assuming they have their reasons. And there also exist people who id as aro and desire romo relationships, it's just... there's a lot of conflicting interests there

@Cristal Gris definitely relevant, thanks!!

Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy (AUREA) is happy to announce the website - aromanticism.org - we've been working on has been launched! We assemble general information and community updates. The website includes FAQ, vocabulary, research, news feed, online resources, links to in-person groups, and printable educational materials. Our aim is also to be a contact point for researchers and media looking to explore the aromantic experiences.

To be all that, we’re also looking for volunteers! You may (and please do, that’d be great) also contact us to inform us about an aromantic-themed event, an article mentioning aromanticism, new group, new research (or old one that we missed), anything that is relevant to aromanticism and that we, in our nonomnipotence may miss otherwise!

14 hours ago, Coyote said:

When someone talks about "defining aromantic," I'd always assume that they mean defining aromantic itself, as in for people whose primary identity label is "aromantic" point blank.

Oh, this is what @running.tally meant. Or rather, defining the word "aromantic"...?? Which can be used to say "I'm aromantic" - about identity, "aromantic community" - which is strictly speaking "aromantic spectrum community" (unless there's a lot of communities that don't include anyone who doesn't identify as only aromantic..??), "i'm aromantic (because it's easier to say, i identify with both aromanticism and cupiormanticism, but am romance repulsed and they asked how come my qpp isn't my romantic partner)".

 

18 hours ago, Coyote said:

I also suspect that using specific terms as umbrella terms may be a part of the reason for the rise of the (icky) term "endcase aros," which is... unfortunately linear in its implications.

Yeah it definitely is the reason for the fact a term "endcase aro" came into existence, but how do you wish to proceed...?? People hear "aromantic" and think a person is not interested in romance, doesn't feel attraction, assumptions are made; this person chafes at the assumptions, says they feel unwelcome in the community. We have either the option to expand the definition of what aromanticism can be, so that people who may feel attraction and/or have a nonnormative experience of romance, in which case it does become synonymous to aromantic spectrum definition or we can say "aromantic is 0 attraction" but this would be untrue...??

 

12 hours ago, nonmerci said:

I think I'm not the only one who says I'm aro even if I'm arospec, to simplify,  in particular when I speak to allo, or when it is not useful to be more specific. As people insist that aromanticism is a spectrum, I always assume that we speak of the whole spectrum, except if there is a reason to not believe so. 

And like @nonmerci said, sometimes the words are being used because they're convenient, not because they capture the essence of the being of a person. My goal would be to provide a definition of aromanticism that leaves room for interpretation too, so that it's harder to make assumptions.

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

Aromantic: a person whose experience of romance is disconnected from normative societal expectations, for example due to experiencing little to no romantic attraction, feeling repulsed by romance, or being uninterested in romantic relationships.

cool, I like this mostly, maybe just note that still the part about attraction is most common - "commonly due to experiencing little to no romantic attraction, but also due to ..."

 

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

identity policing. And, granted, no definition can prevent that. But certainly a very narrow and precise definition lends itself to that easier

yep

 

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

Are y'all talking about the word "aromantic," or are y'all talking about the concept of "the aromantic umbrella

we're talking about the use that is interchangeable with the word arospec, as used in for example "aromantic community" 

 

25 minutes ago, Spacenik86 said:

People "whose experience of romance is disconnected from normative societal expectations of romantic intimacy" need another term.

theyre already here; and what purpose would that serve besides 

1 hour ago, nonmerci said:

I don't really understand what's wrong with the actual definition ? I'm not familiar with all this debates, and except maybe lithroromantic, I don't see what arospec term don't fit into it? Can you elaborate, please? 

examples where attraction isn't the defining part include: acoromantic (person whose negative experiences with romance have alienated them from their alloromanticism), antiromantic (person who would prefer not to develop romantic feelings for people, but does), apathromantic (person who may or may not experience romantic attraction, but is indifferent to receiving it or acting on it)

 

@Coyote did this survey on their pillowfort that shows ~64% of arospecs marked attraction as the factor for labelling their romo orientation, ~44% also said ambiguity is a factor, and frequency was marked by ~38%. Non-zero people also marked "I don't label it", "Gender", "Desire", "Preference", "Community" and "Other" (eta: forgot the link https://www.pillowfort.social/posts/702982)

 

there isn't necessary anything wrong with the "little to no attraction" definition, it just doesn't reflect the whole picture

back on track...?? what can we do other than wordsmith?? I'm really interested in suggestions

6 hours ago, Mark said:

I put up a poll about this.
Which is showing some interesting results.

number of respondents = 9 tho ?

I'll be at pride on july 6th in poznań...??

13 hours ago, Coyote said:

21 hours ago, Mark said:

With these being concepts which came from outside of the aro (or aroace) community...

 

huh? Nonamory was suggested by anagnori, who is aromantic.

I think mark meant concepts "relationship escalator" and "nesting behaviours"