Tagor

1869

I was in a relationship once and it was ok I guess? In hindsight, I entered it at least in part because of my quest to find out what this thing called "romance" everybody made a fuzz about actually was. I think at the time I thought that it might just develop once you're in a relationship (and for some time tried to convince myself that it was that way). Plus my conversation skills weren't and aren't good enough to turn it down politely so I thought I'd just give it a shot. And my experience wasn't bad enough to deter me from any other romatic relationships in the future, so "tried it and like it" probably applys even though there was also a lot of "relationship - now what?"

On 11/2/2019 at 2:15 PM, Holmbo said:

I think the distinction for people who chose to identify as aromantic is not really the lack of romantic feelings, but rather that it affects our relationship choices. All those three people I mentioned are, or plan to be, in committed romantic relationships. Even though they don't feel romantic attraction.

That's why I kind of struggle with really identifying as aromantic. As a romance neutral heterosexual aromantic my current stance on romantic relationships is that even though I'm not actively seeking them, if the opportunity arises I'm not that opposed to at least trying to get it to work out. (Note that I haven't had that much experience with failing relationships, so this might change with when my sample size gets larger) If I hadn't been curious enough to research the term aromanticism when I stumbled on it by chance I'd probably have been fine in a romantic relationship just occasionally wondering why other people behave so irrational.

Some thoughts regarding heterosexual aromantics:

I think another factor which might foster undiagnosed aromantics is that some people, at least for some time, just don't care. Why should they? Unlike most other orientations your body doesn't force you to figure things out (for example by falling in love with a person of the same gender) and sexual attraction is easy enough to ignore. And at least in my experience societal pressure isn't that high either as because of the sexual attraction you "get" what people are talking about so the perceived distance in experience isn't that high. Later in live, when this pressure might rise, people tend to not have the time any more to read through pages of forums on the Internet just to figure something out they at this point have lived with just fine for half their life.

6 hours ago, LBMango said:

OTOH: I, at least, tend to assume that everyone else is just like me until proven otherwise... So, I think that subconsciously I assume that everyone is aro until evidence shows otherwise... Clearly I'm wrong, but that's just how my brain works... 

Interestingly, my approach is just the opposite. For some reason I always assume two people even just looking at each other funny are in love and then try to prove this. If I can't find additional evidence for it, the assumption is probably wrong. I guess it's just that I'm a pessimist and always prepare for the worst case scenario, and that couples seem to form out of the blue so this is needed to have any chance at spotting them in time.

For me, it very much depends on the context. I'm just fine with talking about something one on one or in groups, but as soon as there isn't really a topic I just don't know how to keep the conversation going if it's a one on one situation and thus prefer small groups. But even in groups I'll just listen most of the time and only rarely make a remark.

But this also depends on my personal state of mind. If I'm tired or something like that even small groups can be overwhelming. Then "as little as possible" applies.

I think in general, my attitude to interactions with other people is in some way like solving difficult math problems: It can be fun, but it's also a lot of work and requires concentration, so it's not something I'd do if I want to relax.

Well, that's why I love british politics. It's a great show if you're not living in the UK ?

1867

This isn't my Tumblr, but as @Zemaddog  isn't that active in the forum any more I'll post it here because it belongs in every thread about aro memes: https://zemathememequeen.tumblr.com/

1865

1863

10 hours ago, LBMango said:

I guess I'm never anxious about other people's responses to me expressed feelings... 

I'm not sure what that says about me... 

Hell, I'd be glad if I could express feelings, but that's another topic entirely ?

I think emotional vulnerability is a concept which is exclusive to romantic relationships. Although there doesn't seem a clear cut definiton, "emotional vulnerability" seems to mean the action of telling someone things he or she could use against you thereby showing your trust that they wont do that. This can be in the context of a romantic relationship as well as a friendship. But I think it is used in a romantic context more often as being emotionally vulnerable seems to be in the "core package" of a romantic relationships whereas it seems to be an "add-on" to friendships.

At the same time, as far as I understand, being in love can seriously cloud your judgement about somebody while at the same time making you more vulnerable to somebody being an asshole. This, together with being forced into telling things about you due to conventions etc. might lead to more damage being done in romantic relationships than friendships, generating more awareness for emotional vulnerability in romantic relationships.

In German it's even worse, as the word "Freund(in)" can be used to mean both romantic partner and friend. The difference can only be expressed through pronouns (you would say "das ist meine Freundin" for "this is my girlfriend" and "das ist eine Freundin" for this is a friend (who happens to be female)). However, this is often confusing.

Adding to what was already said: Even if this was just because you're too young (which I don't think), there's no damage in identifying as aromantic. I've heard that you tend to notice if you've got a crush on somebody, so even if you are wrong you'll notice once it becomes relevant.

I know this isn't exactly helpful, but you'll have to decide for yourself. I get something kind of like this sometimes, but the question mark next to my romantic orientation is there for a reason. And as always, aromanticism is a spectrum, it might just be that we experience romantic attraction sometimes with it being too weak to notice (or separate it from platonic/aesthetic attraction) it most of the time.

1859

Well, I don't think there are many people left still counting who were here when this game was started, so the individual attention span doesn't need to be high

On 9/5/2019 at 2:50 AM, Arypter said:

I feel that in a weird, counter-intuitive way, my aromanticism makes me enjoy those things more because never experiencing romantic attraction myself causes me to be more curious about what it feels like, if that makes sense. Seems like that's just me though lol.

That's what I do too. Even if I can't experience romance first hand, I still want to (try to) understand it. The only way to do this is through second hand experience.

1856

Technically, I'm out to all my WhatsApp contacts as I once encoded an aomantic flag in Base64, represented it in Binary and sent a picture of this as a WhatsApp status. But I don't think anyone bothered to decode this. Effectively, I'm out to most of my friends as I tend to mention it if the topic comes up. I haven't come out to my family, as I wouldn't know when and how to approach the topic and it doesn't really matter as I'm young enough that being single isn't uncommon.

I've had the similar experiences. I used to pick a girl I thought I would get along with and then decide that I had a crush on them (I didn't know what I did this back then).

But due to being completely socially inept I never did anything about it.

1852

On 8/15/2019 at 4:10 AM, nebulosity said:

- Now recently after coming across the term aromantic, I've started thinking back at all this, trying to pick out clues if I fit into the spectrum. All the 'crushes' I had might have all been 'squishes' with a bit of sexual attraction squeezed in, probably exaggerated by my feelings of isolation. It certainly doesn't help that I usually 'think more than feel' emotions (Schizoid personality? Don't quote me on that). Then if I imagine myself in future relationships, I always wanted one where there is a natural progression from friend, to best friend then lovers, kind of like in the Sims I guess. The boundary between best friends and lovers just seem so blurred for me. There are times when I think that I can empathize with emotions of fictional characters better than my own feelings, especially regarding video games like Life Is Strange or VA 11 Hall-A. Incidentally both those games feature relationships that kinda progress from friends to lovers.

Just wanted to say that I can really relate to this

I generally agree that romantic love neurologically has a lot of things in comon with drugs - that's why drugs work: they use the same reward systems also used by romantic love.

1 hour ago, TripleA said:

Maybe this is/will be the case in other countries such as Germany, where the birth rate is also low. Developed countries as a whole usually have lower birth rates than undeveloped countries, therefore may also not see the point in marriage or relationships.

I think the main reason for the lower birth rates in developed countries is that people see that children hurt their career and decide against them instead of children being a major insurance in undeveoped countries. People are still in relationships/mariages, they just don't get kids anymore.

1 hour ago, TripleA said:

Yes, romantic love can be seen as necessary on a biological standpoint, but if someone does not want to have children, is romance and marriage really necessary?

In my opinion, romantic love was biologically necessary in early human evolution, as it was nearly impossible to raise a child alone. It also prevented STDs from spreading.

1 hour ago, TripleA said:

If someone does want to have children, does raising children with friends or non-romantic partners seem more logical than risking their mental health by pursuing romance?

As said above, being obsessed with each other until the child is somehow autonomous wasn't that bad. Unfortunately, most friendships don't have that kind of commitment.

Another question is if it is really

better for your mental health to ignore your romantic attraction than to act on it.

1 hour ago, TripleA said:

Are those who are Aromantic less susceptible to mental illness because they don't need/want to pursue romantic relationships, therefore won't suffer the pain of rejection, the friendzone or a breakup?

As in my experience, there are more aros with mental illnesses such as depression than in the general public, this doesn't seem to be the case (but I don't have any numbers on that).

1 hour ago, TripleA said:

Maybe we should look into alternatives to romantic relationships to satisfy our needs instead of putting ourselves up for failure a lot of the time?

I think many alloromantics would say that romantic relationships ARE a need, but as I'm aro I don't know.

I'd describe myself as not romance repulsed/romance indifferent or favourable and ticked the "open for romance" option. If somebody I knew and thought I was compatible with wanted to have a romantic relationship with me, I'd say that I'm aromantic as a disclaimer but at least try it if they're ok with that. However, I don't have much experience with somebody having a crush on me, so this might just be a lack of experience.

There are more things wrong with aromanticism on wikipedia, and they have been a topic here, but I donÄt think anybody has changed anything yet

In my opinion, the rarely used terms do have a reason to exist as they can be useful when discussion inside one community/on one site. I for example identify broadly as aromantic, but if I talked about it with someone I would specify it to be romance indifferent aro/cupioromatic. In order to prevent keeping old labels alive I think the best option would be to make it standard to include (often used synonymous to .... ) and (rarely used) in the discription. I'm not a fan of an asterisk as this seems to be quite black and white and depends on the glossary being up to date all the time.