letusdeleteouraccounts

A lot of what you guys are saying is not getting through to me, I’m highly confused but I’ll try anyways

6 hours ago, running.tally said:

the broad aromantic concept that is what I'm talking about here

There’s no such thing as a “broad aromantic concept,” it’s literally one thing which is a person who doesn’t experience romantic attraction. Nothing else is relevant in terms of “what makes you aromantic”

2 hours ago, nonmerci said:

How do you come to that? Cupioromantic are aros who want a romantic relationship. Nothing to do with being romance repulsed or not. I am not romance repulsed but surely I am not cupioromantic.

Okay, I admit I really didn’t put much thought into what’s said. It wasn’t so much meant to be a definition but more of to get my point across. I’m mostly pointing out that logically (not all non romance repulsed aros aren’t cupioromantic but) cupioromantics aren’t romance repulsed. Also below

1 hour ago, Mark said:

I'm also not convinced that cupioromantics can't, also, be romance repulsed

Why the heck in any world across a multiverse would somebody want a romantic relationship if they are both unable to experience romantic feelings and even repulsed by the concept of romance itself? You keep comparing them to alloromantics which is making me think that you’re actually trying to describe alloromantics

I’m also trying to figure out, is there truly an aromantic out there who would prefer the option of any romantic partner over any aromantic partner? 

2 hours ago, nonmerci said:

Wait what? You suggest we should use greysexuality to speak about our romantic orientation?

This question is one I’m trying my best to comprehend what you mean and where you got that assumption. I’m saying that micro labels such as graysexual are created to give more of a description to your sexuality or romanticism. A person might just say “bisexual” to some people but “grey-bisexual” to others

@Coyote

Just because you have the right to call yourself something doesn’t mean that it’s true. Romanticism isn’t based off of your politics on a situation, it’s about who you’re attracted to and you have micro labels such as graysexual to be more specific on that attraction. You don’t know your sexuality or the specifics? Identify as “unsure.” You have to balance “feelings” and logic carefully or else everything loses its meaning for existence and it becomes a confusing cluster mess

13 minutes ago, bydontost said:

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

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

@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

Talk to each other about what you’re comfortable and what you’re not. What do you want to have in this relationship (cuddles? kisses? scheduled date nights?) and what personal problems could possibly harm the relationship? You should discuss it all

19 hours ago, Holmbo said:

I didn't use to think that aromanticism needed a more thorough definition than the current but recently I've been thinking that maybe just talking about romantic attraction is too limited. Since attraction is such a hard term to define so perhaps the definition should be more related to love than attraction.

The idea is that it’s a “split attraction model” so talking about attraction is ideal. I will say that I often tell people that “I don’t fall in love” to explain my aromanticism since it’s easier for me and them than getting caught up on the concept of romantic attraction being separate from sexual attraction

Probably should’ve posted what I was talking about but here:

I actually just made a post about this whole situation in the aromantic discussions page half an hour ago before going through the forums ?

You’d have to have a pretty amazing personality for me to have a squish on you and its happened twice so far while I’m 17 currently. The poll was a little confusing for me though because I’ve experienced platonic attraction quite a few times without getting to the point of having a squish on somebody

Hey, Star Lion here. I’m mostly on AVEN since that was where I started and where most of the people are but I figured that I should share what I’ve learned from my time on there with everyone on Arocalypse who isn’t on AVEN, so here’s my perspective.

An aromantic is traditionally defined as a person who doesn’t experience romantic attraction while I sum up romantic attraction as a desire towards someone for romantic partnership. This separates us from romantics by defining them as people who do experience romantic attraction. This is a binary. This binary still leaves room for another group of people, though, called greyromantics. A greyromantic is traditionally defined as a person who experiences romantic attraction rarely and/or only under specific circumstances. I sum this up as a person of abnormal romantic attraction patterns. So where does that fit on the binary of people who don’t experience romantic attraction and people who do? Well the obvious conclusion to me is the romantic side because greyromantics still experience romantic attraction. Where it can get a little weird is where people are trying to figure out who exactly fits into the grey area of romanticism. That depends on if you are of a strict or loose interpretation of the aromanticism definition. Does, for example, one experience of romantic attraction two decades ago make you romantic? My post so far might push you towards the strict definition and to say yes but my advocation is actually towards the loose interpretation. The biggest thing I’ve learned over the past year is that you can’t look at labels from a 100% objective standpoint. The labels are used by living humans who are diverse, ever-changing, and of social lives meaning that you have to also look at these labels with a sense of practicality. The way I see it whether you’ve never experienced romantic attraction, you’ve only experienced romantic attraction like twice in your life, or you were a regular non-grey romantic who suddenly somehow lost the ability to fall in love, right now in the current time period you don’t experience romantic attraction so that would qualify you as aromantic. It wouldn’t make sense to identify otherwise because you’re (more than likely) not going to desire a romantic partnership with anyone. It’s like a woman telling a man she’s bisexual even though she likely will never be sexually attracted to men. With greyromantics, the label should be practical for you too. If you tell someone you’re grey-biromantic, the assumption is going to be that you can romantically love both men and women but it’s rare. That’s the way I see all of this and I’m open to any questions or criticisms

I’m a non denominational Christian