letusdeleteouraccounts

I don’t believe so. Once people have an understanding of your orientation, they don’t seem to care anymore

@kernsing

If you don’t know, identify with the one that makes the most sense to you at the moment. Discovering your identity is often times a process that needn’t be rushed. You honestly don’t even have to live a life of labels and “discovered identity” if you don’t want to. You can just do what you feel is right for you without worrying about the complications

4 hours ago, Coyote said:

Star Lion's grayro himself

Grayro was an old label which is why I was speaking from experience. I’m aro, just not a gold star aro. I don’t experience romantic attraction and don’t associate my romantic orientation with any gender. I’m just pretty sure I’ve experienced romantic attraction once in the past like 10 years ago

4 hours ago, raavenb2619 said:

but if you’d like to understand why a lot of people disagree with you on this and/or you want to support grayromantics, I’d recommend you try listening to grayromantics when they talk about their experiences instead of talking over them. 

I’ve went through the label and I’ve been listening to people to several people who have kept the label and this stance is my conclusion

4 hours ago, Coyote said:

Bud if you think that identifying as disabled isn't something with ambivalent edge cases and that disability itself hasn't already been studied and scrutinized by scholars and activists alike as a social construct, I have some bad news for you

So you’re trying to say that mental disabilities are a social construct

4 hours ago, Coyote said:

You went and made claims about the rainbow flag without knowing the history of it -- do you know the history of the aromantic spectrum concept either?

The flag was a small thing and either way, gay men don’t seem to have a specific word or flag to represent their entire community. It’s just the rainbow flag but that’s used by other queer folks  and “gay” but other queer folks use that too. Why do I need to know the history of the spectrum idea and what is the history? I’m listening

2 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

 

How can you claim you're not trying to make people feel unwelcome, while simultaneously saying their identities don't exist?

Are you claiming that I’m saying grey identities don’t exist at all? Because that would be false

7 minutes ago, raavenb2619 said:

Why not? How do you know? Did you come to that conclusion after examining every single possible relationship that every single possible person could have with the complicated concept that is attraction, taking into account every single way that every single possible society could influence that relationship and how we think about attraction? I'm guessing that the answer is no, and instead that you simply don't understand how someone could have a particular experience and use a particular label. It's okay if you don't understand, but it's not okay if you try to police someone's identity and experiences. 

I used my reasoning to reach that conclusion. If it doesn’t exist, how could it have a grey area or a spectrum? The grey area is of romanticism, not aromanticism. “Grey-romantic”

4 minutes ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

 

I'll get off your case when you stop trying to define how "allo" or "aro" people are without having been invited to. No one can define their orientations but themselves, and I know that a lot of arospecs actually do not feel welcome in the aro community because of people like you- People who tell them "Oh, actually you're just allo" or "Oh, you're aro now/you've always been aro and just had internalized arophobia". It is our job to make these people feel welcome and to feel accepted for who they are, and make them feel like they can define their own lives, without trying to police their identities and categorize people for them

I’m not trying to make anyone feel unwelcomed, I’m just saying that you can’t have a grey area of a non-existent attraction. The grey area would be of romanticism

25 minutes ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

"I'm speaking from personal experience," you say, as you try to armchair label someone else's personal experience,

I’m giving a perspective in response to what they described. Please hop off my case

On 8/31/2019 at 4:55 PM, nonmerci said:

I thought like this at the begining. But when I start labelling as grey, I saw how I am not allo at all (well, I'm now wondering if I'm greyro or aro, but that's another debate). I had one crush in my entire life. I won't be able to say what's my type

My belief is that this makes you more aro than greyro. Greyromantics experience romantic attraction and you don’t. You’ve experienced it before but you don’t anymore which would make you aromantic which would also be more a lot more practical of a label. I’m speaking from personal experience

On 8/31/2019 at 12:38 PM, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

If arospecs are somehow "allo" for feeling romantic attraction in any capacity, then bisexuals must be "straight" for being sometimes attracted to the "opposite" gender

That statement makes absolutely no sense

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

The rainbow flag designed by Gilbert Baker in 1978 that represents the entire LGBT community?

I admit, I’m uneducated on the flag topic

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

Nothing "makes" you bi besides identifying as bi

That’s like me saying “nothing makes you mentally disabled except identifying as it.” There’s a truth to all these things and we often go through many labels to get closer to that truth

19 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

Then where do you place greyromanticism, demiromanticism, and everything in the gray are? Do you think gray is alloromantic?

Yes, I see all of those as alloromantic. They just experience their romantic attraction differently from the majority of alloromantics. This is why it makes sense for these people to have labels such as “demi-biromantic” or “gray-heteromantic” because it says that you experience romantic attraction to these people but in an irregular fashion. I also believe that these irregularities can most definitely be very isolating so it makes sense to include them as members of the aro community

I like this survey right here, it’s very easy to understand and receive useful results from

On 8/29/2019 at 4:46 PM, Coyote said:

I have never in my life encountered anyone referring to themselves as a "homo oriented person." But regardless: why would it necessarily make sense for us to talk like straight people?

I did that to be specific because everyone is calling themselves gay these days and it’s like they’re having gay men be the representation of the entire queer community. Even their flag is being used to represent everyone. And it’s not about that, it’s that it’s an example. Monoromantic isn’t a spectrum because if you like more than one gender romantically at all, that would make you biromantic. Aromantic isn’t a spectrum because if you like any gender romantically at all, that would make you non-aromantic or “alloromamtic”

On 8/29/2019 at 5:40 PM, nonmerci said:

Maybe they are on a spectrum too and don't notice? They certainly do in fact, I suppose that some allos feel crushes more often than other for instance. In fact I think there is a whole spectrum from aro to allo, and that there is even a fluid line where people calling themselves aro or allo is totally up to them, in the sense that it is at the frontier between the two. See what I mean?

Yes, I’ve been saying that “alloromantic” is the spectrum. And yeah, everybody is on some type of spectrum but you can’t say “straight is a spectrum because each one of them experiences a different frequeny of attraction from another.” That’s a spectrum everyone is on from the aromantic on the nonexistent romantic attraction dot of the spectrum to the biromantic on the very frequent romantic attraction area on the spectrum. And yes, the label is up for you yourself to decide whether it’s accurate or not. People grow to find their more accurate label. There’s also the situation of what’s a more practical label for your everyday life in which I’m in full support of being practical. Practicality, I’ve found, actually makes the most sense in determining what’s aromantic and what isn’t

Still wish we didn’t call this a “spectrum.” Homo oriented people don’t call themselves a spectrum and neither do straight people so it makes sense for us to follow the same trend

I’m just like, yeah I’m technically single but it’s not like I want a romantic partner anyways so like

6 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

Ok, but when you want a QPR, is it always with your squish, or can it be with someone else?

Squish and QPR’s are unrelated. It’d just be nice if your QPP was also your squish. So yes it can definitely be with someone else. Some people do say they have desires towards specific people to be in a platonic partnership with them but it doesn’t make the person their squish. Having a squish also doesn’t mean you desire to pursue a platonic partnership with them

1. Commitment and vulnerability

2. You’d be a lucky son of a gun if you got into a platonic partnership with your squish

3. I haven’t. I just wanted me and my squish to be best friends who hang out often

4. I want a platonic partnership of physical intimacy, emotional closeness, and a cure to boredom/loneliness. I also wanna show off my partner to people I know, especially my parents

I found the thought of aro sexuals not existing to be quite funny. I’ve heard a good amount of songs where the rappers talk about screwing a bunch of women but never been love before. Then there’s this whole hookup culture America has going on where a great percent of the population does not want to commit, they’ll just want to have sex often and never be bound to one person. There’s got to be a good amount of aromantic sexuals in there that just think they’re heteronormal because of their sexual desires

[Fixed the typos in my original post if there was any confusion]

1 minute ago, Coyote said:

Okay, now I'm the confused one. Are you saying "platonic attraction" isn't a kind of emotional attraction?

Not always. Most of the time when I’m platonically attracted to someone personally, it’s based off of aesthetic attraction

Romantic attraction is a desire to express your love for a person through intimacy under a partnership. Platonic attraction is a desire towards a person to be someone important in their life. Platonic attraction is a whole lot weaker than romantic attraction and is more along the lines of either “I should talk to this person because they look like someone I could be friends with” or “I should get to know this person better and be closer in their life.” Emotional attraction is a pull towards a person because of your appreciation for their personality. A squish is basically platonic and emotional attraction together plus an obsession for the person it’s towards. To me, your situation seems like a confusion of sole platonic attraction for squishes and that you just have a squish on your partners. It’s up for you to analyze and decide though

I don’t really describe myself as any as I don’t particularly care about that label anyways. I just don’t think I’d be able to function in a relationship with someone who’s in love with me because I wouldn’t be able to give them what they want or live up to their expectations. It’d be one of those situations of like an asexual & sexual relationship where the sexual is dwelling in sadness because their partner being asexual makes them feel unwanted. I couldn’t keep up and a relationship with a romantic would likely ware me out to the point where I need to escape

This poll seems really difficult to receive meaningful results from

What I want is a partner that’s more like a best friend than anything but that I can lean and lay on, feel comfortable hugging, and cuddle to sleep really (I’m homosensual and aro ace). We do everything together and possibly adopt kids together. I also want someone healthy looking that I’ll feel proud of to introduce to my family so it would also be nice if he isn’t the introverted type who makes every social situation awkward

42 minutes ago, Holmbo said:

I don't date

I always say that and then people respond with telling me that I’m smart for not doing so ? but I think the easiest way to come out in terms of aromanticism is to say “I don’t fall in love” because it leaves no room for interpretation

15 hours ago, Coyote said:

my post that was directed at Neir 

Lol my bad, I jump the gun a lot

15 hours ago, Coyote said:

Do you believe that everyone has a "true" romantic orientation, which is separable from how they do or don't identify?

It’s hard to say considering that labels are complicated as we have all different confusing circumstances such as people only attracted to cars, people only attracted to androgyny, etc. What I will say though, is that some people identify in ways that really don’t match what their actual experiences are and there might be a better (non-micro) label that would work better than what they’re using. Whether this is out of ignorance, a different perspective, or an attention seeking mindset

On 6/25/2019 at 12:00 AM, aro_elise said:

 

i'd say platonic attraction can just be wanting to be friends with someone

 

I’ve experienced platonic atrraction a few times and I hate that the OP is confusing it for squishes (which I’ve had twice). They’re very distinct feelings even thought I think a squish is platonic attraction plus a large emotional attraction. Platonic attraction for me was looking at a person who was pretty interesting/attractive looking and the first thought to mind is ‘I should walk up and get to know them.’ That’s pretty much it. I suppose in a case where I’m already friends with them, it would be ‘I need to hangout with you more.’ But in both cases, it’s an instinct rather than a want. My squishes are literally friend obsessions. They make me clingy and I’m thinking about them a lot to the point where I start dreaming about them on a consistent basis (I don’t desire to have romantic relations with my squish though). I can’t say I have or haven’t experienced “queerplatonic attraction” but I would love to have a relationship like that one day to express my sensuality

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

Imagine that there will be people who only look at that front page definition on AUREA, take it as gospel, and look no further

Then you have people such as myself looking to understand everything there is to know about the subject so they spend about 6 hours a day trying to piece everything together questioning anything that doesn’t make sense in relations to other pieces of information. Eventually they put their knowledge to the test resulting in conversations about questions they couldn’t answer themselves and the help of having conversations with people who have been on the site for over a decade as well as people of all different unique experiences eventually answering all questions they’ve had and fallacies they’ve noticed. They continue to work with the site helping several other people make sense of it all themselves and are open to any person who can give them a new perspective that actually makes sense

40 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

hat confused me is that you use "graysexuality" to speak about both sexuality and romanticism. For romanticism, we talk about grayromanticism. People can be gray for sexuality and not for romanticism, and vice versa.

Ohhhh yeah, I know this. I have a really bad habit on here of wanting to say “sexual” because of making so many post on AVEN. I was also just saying “such as” meaning that I’m talking about any micro label related to sexuality or romanticism