bananaslug

Hey all, it's May, which means a new Carnival of Aros topic! This months topic is one that's very close to my heart, the intersection of religion and aromanticism. I did my best to include prompts that non-religious aros could respond to as well, so I hope most people can find something they're able to respond to. 

Prompts: 

• Navigating religious spaces as an aro
• How aromanticism influences your views on religion
• Dealing with romance focused religious ceremonies like weddings
• Aromanticism and secular spirituality
• Your families faith practices and how they have affected your aromantic identity
• Your aromanticism’s influence on your religious practices
• How the dominant religion in your country views romance and how that has affected your life
• How aromanticism influenced your conversion to a new faith
• Religious expectations around romance and how they affect your aromanticism
• Religion and its place in non-romantic community building
• How your aromanticism influenced you leaving a particular faith  

You can find the full details here.

The April carnival round-up isn't out quite yet, but I'll make sure to post a link here when it is. 

Happy May, and I can't wait to see y'alls responses ? 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, DeltaV said:

or is it a question that we have no sufficient understanding of because we do not have elucidated what lesbian means? Do we want to behave like Humpty Dumpty...or not?

I am not suggesting that there is no clear definition of lesbian, or that every person should dictate for themselves what that word mean. What I am suggesting, is that when trying to figure out who does or doesn't "count" as a lesbian we should be curious as to how lesbians define themselves, because only taking into account the ways in which a, most likely straight and cis, dictionary editor defines the word "lesbian" won't give us a complete picture of how that word is used.    

6 hours ago, DeltaV said:

So would you want to tell me what the complex meaning of the word lesbian might be so that we can have a discussion if there can be aroace lesbians?

It's been several years since I identified as part of the lesbian community, so I don't think it's necessarily my place to define this word, but I will happily pull up some alternative definitions of the word "lesbian" from actual LGBTQ+ organizations. 

GLAAD: "A woman whose enduring physical, romantic, and/or emotional attraction is to other women. Some lesbians may prefer to identify as gay (adj.) or as gay women"

National LGBTQ Task Force:  "A woman whose romantic, emotional, and/or sexual attraction is towards other women."

PFLAG: "Refers to a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and/or physically attracted to other women. People who are lesbians need not have had any sexual experience; it is the attraction that helps determine orientation."

It's worth pointing out that while these definitions, are all quite similar to each other, they're distinctly different from the Merriam-webster definition. None of them use the word "homosexual" which is a term most gay and lesbian people consider derogatory, and all of them specify that there are different kinds of attraction that might lead a woman to identify as lesbian. These definitions are also much more inclusive of the groups I listed above, and leave more room for the existence of lesbians who feel attraction in less conventional ways. 

I'm not saying that Merriam-webster is necessarily wrong, but I think it's important to consider how a community describes itself when having these conversations because they're the people who will ultimately be most impacted by who ends up using that label.     

48 minutes ago, DeltaV said:

They describe the predominant meaning of a word for all the speakers of a language.

Yes, I'm aware, and for the general public that works fine, but when getting into community discussions of "who can identify with x" you need a more complex understanding of the term and the community around it or else you're liable to end up gatekeeping. 

57 minutes ago, DeltaV said:

is it unethical to use/push the “aroace lesbian” label?

How are you defining "ethical" because I am honestly very uncomfortable with that question if you're using that word in the traditional sense. It isn't harmful or morally wrong for anyone to feel that a certain queer label fits them, even if it's an unconventional one, and honestly, that shouldn't even be a question.

 I think this is more an issue of respectability politics than anything else and whether or not people will view terms like aroace lesbian as "respectable" is a totally different question then whether on not the term is "ethical" to use. 

2 hours ago, DeltaV said:

Virtually all major encyclopedias and dictionaries define “lesbian” (noun) as a homosexual woman. If we accept that meaning, aroace lesbians are not a thing. Like fish who are mammals are not a thing. Period. Case closed.

 

We can only argue about if we should change the meaning of “lesbian”.

Yeah, but this doesn't take into account that most major encyclopedias and dictionaries are written by cis straight people who aren't necessarily familiar with queer and lgbt+ language nuances.

Like that definition also leaves out: 

- Homoromantic women who aren't homosexual 

- Women who identify as lesbians due to trauma 

- Women who are sometimes attracted to men, but chose to identify as a lesbian due to a strong preference for women

- Nonbinary lesbians

All of which are groups that *most* LGBTQIA+ people agree are in fact part of the lesbian community. Assuming that standard dictionaries will have accurate and nuanced definitions of lgbt+ terminology ignores the power structures and social disconnects between those who use the identity term and those who write the dictionary itself. That definition isn't all-encompassing to begin with, so I don't think it necessarily needs to be adhered to when figuring out personal identity. 

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

If it feels right, then it's right. Any identity can be real if you make it real. What it sounds like you're asking, though, if there are others who do the same and what that looks like.

@lonelyace if Coyote is right and this is what you're asking I would recommend checking out the tumblr blog aroacelesbians

12 hours ago, DeltaV said:

So that’s a blend, right? Who produces it?

Oh a lot of different companies make it! The blend was created to celebrate Elizabeth II being on the throne for 60 years, so a lot of different tea producers sell it, but most of them are from Commonwealth countries. I usually go up to Canada to buy it when I need more since I'm right by the U.S/Canada border, but you can also get it online in a few places. 

12 hours ago, DeltaV said:

All black? Or also green and white?

Mostly black teas, but some green and white (although most of those are gifts from other people since I don't really drink green and white teas). I also have a lot of berry teas because that's what's most of the local farmers here sell, but I tend to save those for making ice tea in the summer. 

Yeah, I definitely feel similarly. I would technically consider myself to be an enbian aroace because I only feel queerplatonic and aesthetic attraction to other nonbinary people, but even though I'm partnered with another nonbinary person nblnb isn't really an identity I feel I can claim outside of aspec spaces. My qpp is nothing like a typical romance, and I don't want to overshadow enbians who feel romantic or sexual attraction, because that's a whole other set of experiences, and honestly enbian identity is so new and unknown anyways that I don't want to cause a lot of confusion for people who are just learning the term. 

It's difficult because on the one hand it is a label that fits me, but on the other hand, I worry about how my use of that terminology might negatively impact other enbians and that's a hard line to draw 

I drink both tea and coffee but I have a pretty big selection of teas! I'm a big fan of the Dimond Jubilee tea blend.

It really depends on the context for me. Like if the person already has some understanding of queer terminology and I have time to explain things like the SAM then I'll use the term aromantic. Otherwise, I just tell people that I don't get crushes. 

4 hours ago, Mark said:

I'd tend to see 'platonic' as being not physical.

This is....humm, idk how I feel about this. "spiritual and not physical" isn't even a definition that works with my personal understanding spirituality. My physical self is deeply tied to my spiritual self, defining platonic as one but not the other doesn't work for me. I also think of spiritual attraction as it's own thing that, while a type of platonic attraction, is not the only kind of platonic attraction. If I'm spiritually attracted to someone that means I want to work with them in a religious or magickal context (ritual, coven, meditation, etc). While this kind of attraction is, in fact, a deep and intense pull, it's not the only kind of platonic attraction I feel, I tend to just define platonic as not romantic or sexual. Of course, not everyone defines spirituality the same way I do and that's okay, I think spirituality, in particular, is one of those things that people should really define for themselves, but that variation in how people view spirituality does mean that "spiritual, not physical" probably isn't a great blanket definition.  

4 hours ago, Mark said:

Kissing I feel can be motivated by romantic, sexual or sensual feelings. Either singly or in combination.

I think a conversation that also needs to be had here is that of physical affection without the motivation of attraction. I kiss my little sister forehead when I tuck her into bed, but I am certainly not attracted to her in any of these ways, it's simply an indication of familial affection. The same goes for my found family, they all kiss each other on the cheek from time, but it's not due to any kind of attraction, it's just a way of communicating that they're important to one another. This is what I mean when I say that I consider a lot of the actions associated with "sensual traction" to be platonic. These acts are so frequently used simply as a form of comfort or communication between people who feel no attraction towards each other whatsoever, how can they possibly be anything else? Definitely, when attraction is involved they can stop being platonic in nature, and that grey area is I think what we're really trying to discuss here, but I think it's also important to mention that physical affection often has nothing to do with sensual attraction or any other kind of attraction for that matter.

That discussion about kissing is here btw , although it looks like you were also involved in it.

1 hour ago, assignedgothatbirth said:

just from a quick Google and digging around on my Tumblr for the definition I used, I was able to find four distinct definitions- who knows how many more there really are!

Oh interesting! This is something I've seen happening a lot lately. I feel like we all got scattered somewhere along the lines and now that everyone is getting back together and talking everyone has 10 different definitions for every term. Which is... confusing and difficult, but also pretty neat I guess.

1 hour ago, Mark said:

I'd definitely consider sensual to be non platonic.

Sensual attraction is generally defined as the "desire to interact with others in a tactile, non-sexual way such as hugging, kissing, cuddling, or hand holding"

While I understand that different people and cultures have different views on whether these actions are romantic or platonic, and that's okay, the cultural values I was raised with say that those actions are platonic, or at least can be done in a platonic way. 

Hugging, cuddling, and hand holding are not, in my mind, even a little bit sexual or romantic. These are just things that friends do with eachother and that's normal and expected. I think my view on this is probably colored by gender roles sense I'm feminine presenting and afab and I know most masculine presenting people are discouraged from being physically affectionate with their friends, but it is still my exsperiance. I'm never assumed to be romantically attached simply because I was holding hands with friends in public or hugging someone I haven't seen in a long time, these are just things that friends do.

Kissing is, I think where this gets a little complicated because whether or not a kiss is considered platonic is deeply dependent on intention and where its placed in the body. There was a thread on here a few months ago about what the diffrent placements of kisses signify which gets more in depth with this (I'll try to find it for you once I'm off my phone). So like there's an argument to be made there, but even then there are platonic forms of kissing such as on the cheek or forehead so this is a grey area.

3 hours ago, Coyote said:

Can you say more about distinguishing between different types of platonic attraction? That sounds like that might relate to some other concepts I've been looking at lately, but I don't know whether you would use the same words.

Definitely! like I feel queer platonic attraction mostly towards other nonbinary people, but then I'm almost entirely sensually attracted to men, and I mostly feel aesthetic attraction to women and enbys. All of these kinds of attraction are platonic in nature, but I still have preferences, so when I do use the SAM it's usually in relation to these kinds of attraction, not in relation to romance or sexuality.  

4 hours ago, eatingcroutons said:

I don't generally assume aroace people use SAM unless they specifically say they do.

I think it's important to recognize that whether the use of SAM is assumed by individuals or not, the language and structure of aspec spaces still enforces the use of SAM on aroace who would otherwise not use it. Even just the term "aro-ace" implies two separate romantic and sexual identities. It's not so much about how individuals do things as it is about how the use of language and split in resources forces aroaces to view their aspec identity as two parts instead of one whole. 

23 minutes ago, Coyote said:

Are you one of the mods on the server, or do you just know from talking to them that that's what the rule is meant to mean?

Oh no, sorry for the confusion, I wasn't referring to that server in particular, I was just expressing how most people define that term as well as how I was using it. It's possible that server has a different definition, but I suspect that they use a similar one, because at least within aspec spaces I've found that that's pretty consistently what "ace discourse" means. I guess some people also use it to mean "aphobia generally" but 9 times out of 10 when I see it it's being used in relation to ace exclusion. 

29 minutes ago, Coyote said:

conflating the two causes problems for me as someone who doesn't have a romantic orientation yet does differentiate between types of attraction. Like I said to Siggy -- I don't want to be classified as Schrödinger’s SAM user. So this is not just a historical reflection to me. It's about (as I linked as an example, in the post) actual cases of people speaking over my words and my identity in ways that directly eclipse and invalidate my ways of describing myself.

Ahh, that's fair, thank you for the explanation. I get that to a certain extent because I do distinguish between different kind s of platonic attraction even when I don't distinguish between sexual and romantic attraction, so I guess it does make sense to distinguish between the two in that way.

33 minutes ago, Coyote said:

Oof, in "non discourse" ways... You'll have to forgive me, but in my field "discourse" just means "talking," so in a lot of cases, jsyk, I'm not super clear on what exactly other people mean by it. In this case I'll assume you were referring to my bullet point/summary of its origins, with the anti-ace hostility. I just want to note here that not everyone uses the word that way (it seems to be a pretty niche Tumblr thing?), and a lot of the times, even with an awareness that people have tried to redefine it over there, in specific cases it's still really confusing to me what exactly people are trying to get at

The "aro/ace discourse" refers specifically to the 'debate' around whether of or ace's/aro's should be considered part of the lgbtqia+ community. This includes both pro ace inclusion and anti ace inclusion sentiment, and while this so-called "discourse" did happen mostly on Tumblr it also happened on other social media platforms like Twitter, Reddit and even Facebook to a lesser extent. When people talk about "ace discourse" this is generally what they're referring to. When I say that I was seeing SAM used in a "non discourse way" I mean I was seeing it used outside of debates around who was an wasn't "really lgbt+". 

41 minutes ago, Coyote said:

Since I only watch small parts of Tumblr, I had no idea that was happening. Sorry to hear that. :C It does seem like Tumblr is an especially unworkable environment for hosting these kinds of discussions...

I think I should make it more clear that these issues (SAM being used a default, non-SAM aspecs being ignored, etc) were not just happening on Tumblr. They were also prevalent on AVEN and at in-person aspec groups, I attended. While exclusionists shutting down new terms was an issue specific to tumblr, the overall apathy of the aspec community towards non-SAM aros was not. I remember seeing other aroaces try to bring up this issue even before I realized SAM didn't work for me and the concerns were consistently brushed aside, or, at best, given lip service and then forgotten. While Tumblr isn't a great format for these discussions formatting was certainly not the only issue. 

49 minutes ago, Coyote said:

A couple of thoughts... One, in your workshops, have you been introducing it under that name, specifically? ("the split attraction model")

Yes, that's how the concept of split romantic, sexual (and other) kinds of attraction were first presented to me within aspec spaces, so that tends to be the terminology I use. I also use that term because it makes it easier for students to look it up later if they're interested.  

56 minutes ago, Coyote said:

And also... I don't think it's that "model" that did that, because wtfromantic was coined in 2011 -- in reaction to the overdetermined assumption that all aces had a romantic orientation -- four whole years before the term "split attraction model" had even surfaced. I do think that there's a prevalent assumption that all aces have "two orientations" (a romantic one and a sexual one), but that's not necessarily a given of just separating types of attraction at all, so to me those are two different things going on.

This is a good point. I tend to associate these problems with SAM because that's the vocabulary I've had available to me, but it's an issue with people assuming separate romantic orientation generally. However, it's still a lot easier for me to just say "SAM doesn't work for me" than it is for me to give a long explanation of my feelings on romantic orientations so I tens to conflate the two.  The idea that SAM is somehow separate from discussions of sexual and romantic attraction being different things is maybe important when discussing history, but I think in a practice it just works to give us vocabulary around concepts that already existed, so trying to distinguish them as two separate things doesn't really take into account the way in which people discuss attraction currently. The two are still deeply connected even if they don't have the same history.  

I entered the aspec community in late 2015 and by that point the term was already being used among aspecs in non discourse ways. And most people found it to be very useful? They liked having a term for that model, it made them feel more legitimate, but I have to say I never felt that way.

I've always viewed SAM as, at best, a frustrating nuisance. I'm aroace so SAM is something I have to navigate around even though it almost never fits my exsperiances and that is uh... not great.

There is no good alternative for aroaces who don't use SAM. I am not going to pick one identity or the other to identify as because one is not less than the other, "Aroace" is what I have settled for  but it still implies a split that isn't really there, and everytime I or someone else tries to coin a new term for aroaces who don't want to use SAM the aro and ace communities give it no support while anti mogai discoursers attack it, and you end up deleting the post for the sake of your own sanity.

I started leaning towards the aro community because I could identify as aro and typically people would assume the ace was a part of that. It was like a nice little recognition that maybe these two identities aren't as split as people say they are. Now as we have these discussions about making aro spaces more alloaro inclusive it's becoming clear that that's not a functional mindset, and that it makes a lot of alloaros feel excluded from their own spaces. And I don't want alloaros to feel alienated from aro spaces, they're my community members and I want them to feel safe and included so clearly this needs to change... but no alternative has been offered. Being aro and assumed ace was a half baked and imperfect solution to begin with, now I need to find another one, and I don't even know where to look. Everytime someone tries to make a term for non SAM aroaces it gets shut down or ignored and having to constantly talk about my identities like my romantic and sex orientations are separate makes it very difficult to actually dig into the complexities of my exsperiance with attraction.

So I don't think SAM is neccessarily bad, by any means, I know it's really helpful for some people, and everytime I teach a workshop on queer terminology I bring up SAM incase someone will find it useful. But having this model has made having separate  romantic and sexual  identities almost mandatory in aspec spaces and that maybe isn't great? I would love to have another option, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that. For me the SAM means trying to navigate tensions between two aspects of myself that I never really viewed as separate to begin with and that's a very difficult place to be.

I think including the coming out of aro celebrates like Moses Sumney might also be good

Red

technically the gender-neutral form of "boy" or "girl" is "kid" but I'm not sure that "kid" really fills the lexical gap you're looking at. I guess "Pal", "Buddy" or, "Friendo" could be used in a similar way, but you'll sound like a TV dad from the 1950's so pick your poison I guess.

First I thought I was straight, then in middle school I thought I was a lesbian, and then in high school I thought I was pan, and then pan ace, before figuring out I was aroace. 

Huh, I'm aroace and also kiss averse, but I guess I've always found that the placement of said kiss is what determans what it means. 

I guess my kiss code is: 

- Forehead kiss >> strictly platonic, usually familial 

- Cheek kiss >> romantic or very close friends,  occasionally familial (I'm American so we don't do Europe cheek kisses here) 

- Mouth kiss >> romantic or sexual 

-Kiss on neck or other part of the body >> entirely sexual

This will of course vary by region or country, but based on where I live this is what I've picked up on. 

I was 15 when I realized I was aroace and I'm almost 20 now and things haven't changed. That doesn't mean they won't change for you, but I also don't think you're too young to realize that about yourself. 

Remember it's okay to try on a label for a little bit and then decide it doesn't work for you. People and experiences change and it's not wrong to go through multiple labels in your lifetime  

Oh, I totally get this! like even a lot of alloro people dislike new years when they have no one to kiss, I never understood why there wasn't a more inclusive tradition. 

This year I convinced all my friends to do fistbumps at midnight instead of kisses and tbh, it was much better. I did have one friend who went around giving everyone cheek smooches, but they know I'm touch averse so they bopped me on the cheek with the end of a party blower instead. We also did a lot of group dancing and partner switching so that everyone was included in dancing if they wanted to be.  So like, I think you can do a less romance oriented New years, but it takes some effort and you have to get all your friends onboard first. 

I'm an eclectic Pagan. My parents run a nondenominational Pagan church so I've always been very involved with that community, and honestly church is the only place I've ever met other aro spec people (which is surprising cus you wouldn't think aspec and pagan would be a huge vendiagram). And the really cool thing is, it's not just younger folks. One of the clergy members who helped found the organization recently came out as a bi aro, and it's very neat to have an older aro as one of my religious community leaders. Having her around always helps the rest of us feel less worried about not incorporating romance into our lives and it's really nice to have someone like that to look up to.

I don't think I'd have any of the aro friends or mentorship I have today without the Pagan community, so I think my aroness and my Paganism interact in some really positive ways.