TripleA

On 3/17/2020 at 9:12 PM, Momo said:

 

 

I am a autistic. Even for things like autism there's a pretty heavy dose of self-identification at the moment. Lots of people prefer neurodivergent and lots of people prefer disabled. Some like both! Neurodivergence is about brain structure though. This doesn't mean from birth, though. Things like PTSD end up rewiring the brain over time and often qualify too. Neurodiversity is more about recognising that not everyones brain works in the same way than it is about any specific condition that causes someone to be neurodivergent. For my money, I'm less worried about who is using it and more about the concept underpinning it - acceptance and understanding of people who behave and act differently to myself.

 

 

I am neurodivergent, we are neurodiverse. 'Neurodiverse' is the plural of 'neurodivergent'.

I've heard neurodiverse was created for just those with autism, adhd, etc. and doesn't include those with mental illnesses

The term is very confusing. You can just not feel romantic attraction sometimes and feel it other times and still be alloromantic. Again, most alloromantics don't feel romantic attraction all the time. I don't think there's any way to feel romantic attraction and not feel it at the same exact time. You either do or you don't.

It sounds like "I think maybe I'm aromantic but I also think maybe I'm alloromantic".

On 2/9/2020 at 10:58 AM, DeltaV said:

 

 

Then I went down into the dungeon of my house and consulted my private library. And sure, I did make a find. Schroromanticism was mentioned in a footnote on page 3784 in “The Grand Compendium of Aromantic Knowledge and Lore both Familiar and Arcane” … and I can tell you what was written there exactly fits your own description!

 

Can't seem to find it on google search, do you have a link?

5 hours ago, nonmerci said:

This not your eyes,  this is true! I will chose to believe triple A just unconsciously thought about this flag when doing his own... because otherwise this is wrong.

 

Now, I like your aro flag, but as @Jot-Aro Kujo said, it shouldn't come in replacement for the current one that represents the whole community.

 

I never even thought of the flag design so actually no. I'm not someone who intentionally copies work. Idk why people think I have some ulterior motive against people bc of what I believe. If any designs look like anyone else's, it's usually an accident. 

It just happened to look like the alloaro flag, so I decided to make a revision by bringing out the colours more and making the stripes vertical. 

Here

5 hours ago, nonmerci said:

This not your eyes,  this is true! I will chose to believe triple A just unconsciously thought about this flag when doing his own... because otherwise this is wrong.

 

Now, I like your aro flag, but as @Jot-Aro Kujo said, it shouldn't come in replacement for the current one that represents the whole community.

 

On 12/29/2019 at 3:12 AM, Coyote said:

 

Wh-- Th-- This looks just like @Jot-Aro Kujo's aromantic allosexual flag design. Am I seeing this right? Is there something wrong with my eyes? This is the exact same design except slightly paler.

Also it's green, light blue, white, yellow, orange so not all the colours are the same. It's just the first design didn't bring the blue out enough.

19 minutes ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

Bruh, literally everyone knows at this point that the only reason you want to redesign the aro flag is because you're offended that the current design is inclusive of arospec folks. Give it up. Your subtle exclusionary tactics are not going to fly under anyone's radar.

They're not aro, they're allo, get over it. Including allos in aromanticism is arophobic. I have the right to be offended.

Just thought I'd share these to see what people think of these and maybe give constructive criticism. 

Platonic Partnership flag (quasiplatonic flag)

Polyaffectionate flag

Aromantic flag redesign

13 hours ago, Coyote said:

I'm sure this is well-intentioned, but at this point I'm pretty tired of flag redesigns. Especially on grounds like these.

 

 

Here's what that Wikipedia page says about it:

• "The black triangle was a badge used in Nazi concentration camps to mark prisoners regarded 'anti-social' and 'arbeitsscheu' (work-shy). Those considered anti-social included alcoholics, homeless, beggars, nomads, and prostitutes. Women deemed to be anti-social included prostitution, nonconformists, and lesbians."

So "against lesbians" is accurate but also a pretty big oversimplification.

 

It's also.... not even oriented the same way. It's just a triangle. That's just a basic design element. It's not like it's something as distinct as a swastika or a symbol of Venus.

 

Anyway, I think it's important for the aro community to be aware that people have been attacking aces' use of triangles since at least 2011. This is kind of criticism is nothing new.

It's a valid criticism imo. 

I made a post on the LGBT+ amino as to why the demi flags are problematic here

Here is a Wikipedia page about the black triangle and how it was used in the holocaust against lesbians

I found these great flag alternatives on Tumblr which I'd encourage people to use instead.

My favourite ones are the ones by @ cockyroaches 

@cockyroaches ' alternatives for Demiromantic, Demisexual and Demisexual & Demiromantic

@crimsxnflxwerz 's alternatives for Demiromantic and Demisexual 

My story is a more muddled up, bc I used to be female, so I used to be a Homosexual Aromantic. 

For me, finding what sexuality I was was still difficult for me; it came with a lot of denial, confusion and internalised homophobia. I thought I was asexual due to not experiencing sexual attraction until age 15, and when I experienced it towards women, I basically just left it there. I didn't know being aro or not being both heterosexual and heteroromantic was a thing, and just assumed I was also homoromantic because people usually experience sexual and romantic attraction together, or their romantic and sexual orientations match up nicely. However, that isn't the case most likely, and questioning my romantic orientation has been quite hard. And questioning my gender on top of that also takes a toll on me. I'm also Autistic, so understanding romance is quite hard for me. Basically, I didn't know that romance was more than just the fluff in movies or books, and I always saw sex as the no.1 priority. 

10 hours ago, Mark said:

I think it matters if "straight" means "heterosexual", "heteroromantic" or "heterosexual and heteroromantic".
With only the first one making much sense to aros.

There can be such a big assumption of periorientation that "heterosexual" gets used to mean "heteroromantic"; "homosexual" to mean "homoromantic"; etc.
Which I think can cause complications for any varioriented allosexual.

I mean just heterosexual. 

9 hours ago, nonmerci said:

If saying you're bisexual is wrong then don't.

For what you say, it seems you are sexually attracted to women,  but grey-sexual for men (as you only feel sexually attracted under particular circumstances). So I guess you could be in the grey area of bisexuality (I don't know if this is a concept in this community).

But I think it is up to you to know if the label fit you or not.

So you're also saying I'm bi basically? 

So, I have recently had conflicting thoughts on my sexual orientation again.

To keep it simple:

- I like both female and male genitalia.

- Only sexually attracted to women, regardless of genitals

- Only sexually attracted to men when I see their genitals

- Not attracted to any male secondary sex characteristics

- Only attracted to female secondary sex characteristics

- I'd only have sex with men because of their genitalia, not because I find them sexually attractive in any way. 

I've had some people say I can still be straight, but others say I'm bi because me liking dick means I'm attracted to men, which I don't believe I am. I enjoy flirting sexually with men (no romo), but only because of his genitalia (especially male genitalia).

transgender is not its own gender. I am not a separate gender just because I am a trans guy and not a cis guy. It others us, and it makes me dysphoric. I know english is not your first language, but I wanted to point that out. Nous apprenons encore

To me, gender is the sex of your brain, aka your brain tells you what gender you are based on how your brain is structured - there are biological differences between male and female brains, this is part of what validates transgenderism. One example is the amount of white matter you have vs grey matter. Gender doesn't always match up with your sex (which is pretty rare), but gender is usually very closely linked to your sex. 

Socially constructed things such as clothes, makeup, etc. don't matter when it comes to your gender. 

Also not caring about your gender as much is really being a normal person. 

So I take a pretty factual stance on the matter.

19 minutes ago, Mark said:

These are specifically for platonic, with it's regular meaning, friends.
 

Similarly these are platonic friendships.
Which alloromantics, especially those who are "friends first", may wish to "upgrade" to romantic relationships.

 

Though ir seems to be very much an aro thing to want non-platonic (including Queer Platonic) friendships.
 

Not all aros will be interested in any kind of "Platonic Partnership". 
With FWB having all sorts of issues. Both in respect of the term itself and being interpreted differently by different people.

There is a site called Adult Friend Finder. However it's a swingers site. Thus catering towards alloromantics.

QPRs are platonic though, that's why it says Queer Platonic Relationship. That's why I prefer Platonic Partnership, as well as the fact that I don't think Aces/Aros who are not gay, bi or trans (LGBT) should be using 'queer'at all. 

I understand that there are no specific sites or apps to find PPs specifically, and it's something I'd love to see. However, some people who search for regular friends may want to 'upgrade' to a PP like how alloromantics do with romantic relationships. 

Also all friendships are platonic, platonic attraction is wanting to be friends with someone. What is a 'non-platonic friend'? 

I prefer a combination of fwb and pps - those are the only 2 non romantic relationships I can think of that aros would want to have outside of familial ones, as well as just regular friendships. What other types are there?

I mean this whole argument of who came up with it first is pointless, it sounds just like a petty argument some 6 year olds have to avoid getting into trouble. 

As was said before, I think we should just focus on making a healthy community for aromantics which isn't full of arophobic allosexuals and asexuals alike. Personally, I think QPRs are only that important in the AroAce community for aces, alloaces have romantic relationships, us aros don't. I believe it's much harder to find someone as an aromantic than as an asexual (especially alloromantic asexuals, not saying dating isn't hard for you guys though).  I tend to always find people who are in this community (especially on tumblr) who shame allosexual aromantics like myself just because we cannot feel this 'pure' romantic attraction they can. I've also had shit from my ex for this too, and it's really isolating. 

I think a lot of AroAce communities are very ace biased, AVEN being the biggest example, but I can understand that bc it's just Asexuality Visibility Education Network. Other aroace communities claim to be inclusive of aces and aros equally but there's so much hyper romanticism in some of them that you have to question if they're really a space where aros who are romance repulsed/romance negative are really thought about. This is why I prefer using Aromantic specific sites and groups like this one. 

Also, reparations isn't the thing aros need imo. Aces and aros don't need reparations; they weren't mass murdered like the jews. I just want to be treated as a human being and to be at least considered when people make ace and aro spaces, like if we were to make a discord server for example, have a pda/romantic/lovey-dovey channel just for alloromantics and romance positive aros to enjoy whilst not making the rest of us uncomfortable. That sort of thing. 

There are 2 apps which are more focused on making friendships and (therefore) PPs (Platonic Partnerships, I know it sounds like peepee XD) which are 

Patook (however it's not very active)

Yubo

I mean there is an option on some dating apps where you can say you're just looking for friends but most people want a romantic relationship eventually from those friends. 

I would love to have a place where you can be confident everyone wants a fwb or pp of some sort

First video: 

Are Aces/Aros LGBT?:

I just wanted to let you know that I've started a new channel dealing with ace and Aro topics, such as discourse, what Asexuality and Aromanticism are, etc. as an Aro. 

A lot of the videos about these topics on YouTube are by people who have the same opinions as each other, and so I wanted to put out my perspective. 

Watch it if you want and leave me suggestions as to what videos to make next if you want to.

https://lgbta.wikia.org/wiki/Aromantic_Allosexual

I understand that this was made to be just an alloaro flag, but I believe it can work to be used by all aromantics, the meanings don't need to be changed. I like the meanings and the design looks better. I mean, from what I know, the aro flag has not been finalised as the ace flag has been, sooo

I don't think it's an issue with my aromanticism, but with my touch aversion, I don't want anyone near me usually. I am between being solo or having one other person (a partner) and having separate beds.

On 8/31/2019 at 9:38 PM, nonmerci said:

Well, if this is two aro allos, this is possible. And for the rest I won't speak, I know that aro allos struggle with this, but maybe someone here will tell me they succeeded to find an alloro Partner who don't catch feeling?

two allo aros? lol I find it hard finding other allo aros 

4 hours ago, Morgenfluss said:

The Ace flag has the following stripes: black, grey, white and purple which are supposed to represent allosexuals, ace-spec, asexuals and community. If the Ace flag can have a stripe for allosexuals, what is the problem with the (unofficial) aro-flag having a stripe for aro-spec folks. There's nothing bad about including them. They're not harming the community or anything. And if this is such a big problem, maybe you should just ignore the meaning of the flag's stripes and use it as the Aro flag it is...

actually saying grey, demi, etc. romantic people are aromantic is harming the community. This over inclusion is harming the community. Eventually everyone will be able to say they're aro bc the word would lose its meaning if we keep letting allo people (or what you guys call aro-spec) just say they're aromantic, this then lets arophobes say that actual aromantics are just less attracted people and that they're lying about having no romantic attraction, which is not true. It's arophobia to let non aro people say they're aro just because they want to be included where they don't belong. Just because there are maybe one or two similarities, doesn't mean we are the same. Like how bi and gay people aren't the same just because they both experience same sex attraction.

Maybe people should just be ok with what they actually are. if you're greyromantic, great, if you're demiromantic, great. It's not bad to be alloromantic. I don't want people who aren't aromantic speaking for me when they don't understand what it's like to be aromantic themselves. I wouldn't speak for greyromantics bc I don't know what it's like to be greyromantic, because that's...I think greyphobic would be the word? People like myself are constantly silenced just because people want to virtue signal and be over-inclusive, and it's erasing aros who do not subscribe to the "aromantic spectrum" idea. Why are we favouring people who aren't actually aro over actual aros with a different opinion? It sounds like aro erasure to me. 

Like maybe accept that, yes, grey, demi, lith, etc. romantics can go and be in aro/ace spaces (unless it's a specific ace and aro only place) and talk about the things they relate to them on (aka not having a conventional way of feeling romantic attraction), but they aren't aro themselves. I still go to aro/ace spaces or more ace biased  "aro/ace spaces" (like AVEN) even though I'm not ace, but I understand that I am not ace. You could also just be an aro ally which is cool as well. I'd refer to myself as an ace ally. 

2 hours ago, running.tally said:

Hi @TripleA. I will say this bluntly because I'm not sure you've understood where others who have said this are coming from.

 

You've formed your opinion based on information that is outdated, incomplete, and/or not representative of the community.

 

The aro community has discussed this many times. It is fact that within the aro community, the word "aromantic" has two meanings:

1. Experiencing no romantic attraction ever, at all, zero times (the definition you're familiar with)
2. An umbrella term for people who do not experience romance or romantic attraction in the ways conventionally put forth by society, whether this is in terms of how often the attraction is felt, the circumstances behind the feeling, or the behaviours connected with the feeling

 

Identities are never fixed because human beings are fluid. Identity terminology, especially orientation terminology, is descriptive and not prescriptive. X-sexual or X-romantic indicate tendencies toward whatever fills the X slot. They do not indicate a rule that, upon being broken, can no longer be used as an identifier. A person who is heterosexual that had one crush on someone of their same gender but had 20+ crushes on people of their opposite are not necessarily bisexual because of one experience. For some people, the exception does change the rule, because the person and their identity have changed. For others, the exception does not change the rule; it's an exception because human beings aren't robots bound to identifiers and If/Then statements. 

 

If someone says they are aromantic and they have experienced romantic attraction before, you have no right to be saying "Yeah, but if that was me, I wouldn't use the label aromantic." Perhaps that's how you define aromanticism for yourself, and that is fine, but you cannot say "Oh everyone is valid" and then proceed to tell those people that they are wrong. You draw the line between aro and alloro for yourself in a particular way. You should not say that this line is the correct line or should be the correct line. 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. We as a community don't believe that we should define a line for everyone. At least that's what I've noticed about inclusive queer communities in general. We don't define the line. What we do is provide examples of others' experiences with drawing the line so that questioning folks can decide where their line is and whether they identify with our community.

 

It is true that some grey and demi folks, for example, don't view themselves as being part of the aro community. Sometimes they feel they fit better in the alloro community, sometimes in neither or in-between. Ultimately, identity is relative and completely personal. Words and categories of identity never have hard lines and boxes. It's impossible. Even in sciences where we think lines and categories are very clear, you'll find that nature is not that easy to put in a box. Language is always approximation. And when feelings are involved, there is no aromantic experience that is shared by everyone in the exact same way, even for the aros who fit definition 1. Fact is, drawing a line between aro and alloro, and placing greyros, on an expansive scale is prescriptive and will never be correct. It's impossible. Lines and categories for things are always arbitrary, because nature is not and never will be black and white.

 

TL;DR: Labels are not for other people to categorize someone, they are for someone to sit themselves in relation to others. People are getting frustrated with you because you seem like you are trying to pass your opinion off as more correct than others', since, to you, it is. You can't be correct because no one can be correct, because the aro community is not trying to define an aro/alloro line on a large scale. Having conversations about this is unproductive and only serves to make some people feel excluded.

people who feel excluded from what I say are probably not actually aromantic. Not everything is about inclusion. Like we wouldn't let bi people say they're gay (seriously) just because they experience same sex attraction like gay people do, so why would we let people who just don't experience romantic attraction as often (which is pretty normal) say they're aro? Also, you could consider gay as an umbrella term in a sense too. 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. Also, my definition (aka the actual definition) of aromantic isn't outdated or incomplete, it's perfectly accurate for every aromantic. Some definitions are best kept simple, like this one. Also, it isn't just me who believes this, I know others that do. Just because a lot of people want to be over-inclusive, doesn't mean that the whole aro community is for that, that's just arophobic in itself. 

If we are going to use these 2 definitions, when why not have a specific flag for the first definition for actual aromantic people to use? 

2 hours ago, Blue Phoenix Ace said:

First of all, I'd like to point out that while I administer this site, I have no oversight over the Discord server. (I don't even have the address to go chat on it, so there's that)

 

This post has been reported, but it breaks none of the rules. The closest one it might come to breaking is:

 

But, since Triple A didn't call anyone out specifically, he didn't break this rule. I'd say all he did here was post an opinion that might be unpopular to many of the members of this site.

 

In my personal opinion, I find the term "aro-spec" a bit... misleading. Imagine a scale between someone who experiences zero romantic attraction, and someone hyper-romantic, just can't get enough. Aromanticism is one end of that scale. It's a single point along a continuous line. Grey-romantic, on the other hand, defines a broad range of experiences. It's hard to say where you would draw the line between grey-romantic and allo-romantic. It's not like we can assign a numerical score to our romantic attraction intensity and say anything below 73 is grey, and 0 is aro. 74 and up is allo. So, we have to use a more subjective judgement here. In my opinion, if someone feels that their peers are much different than them, and/or are struggling because of the difference in how they experience romantic attraction, then they are grey-romantic. I'd prefer to see the term "Grey-ro spec", but I won't lose any sleep over it.

 

From there, you can go into more specific buckets, like lithromantic, demiromantic, etc. Imagine this as just a smaller and smaller subset of individuals (the next smaller set something like homo-lithromantic, etc.)

 

Again, in my personal opinion, I think defining aromantic as "never or sometimes feels romantic attraction" is also misleading. The Latin/Greek (not sure) root a- means without or not. If we start to include "sometimes" folks into that term, then what term do we use for folks who are "without"? While Jot-Aro's "one of the most stereotypical no-romance-ever aromantics" makes it more clear, it's also a bit of a mouthful. Once upon a time, I called myself aromantic because I was denying that my handful of crushes made me grey-romantic. Notice that my label is now "Grey-romantic", even though I experience almost no romantic attraction. One label isn't somehow superior to another, and if we use clear definitions, then we can discard "no-romance-ever" from the aromantic label, and just start saying "aromantic". This is a site for aromantic and grey-romantic people, so nobody has to jump ship if they switch labels.

 

As for the flag, I can see Triple A's point, but immediately counter with "well the asexual flag does it too". In fact, the ace flag includes everyone who isn't actively opposed to asexuality since purple is for "allies" or "community". So in that analogy, the aromantic flag works similarly. If folks want to wave a demi-romantic flag to show that they are in that smaller bucket, that's fine, but they could also be waving the more general aromantic flag too. I'm honestly surprised that any consensus has been made over the aromantic flag. I thought that was still up in the air, so to speak.

I clearly said that I think greyromantics, demiromantics, frayromantics etc. are valid so I don't understand how I would break that rule anyway. There's a difference between saying that a term outright doesn't exist and saying that these terms are valid but they aren't the same as something else aka, me saying grey, demi, etc. aren't aro doesn't invalidate them being grey or demi, etc. itself, but it does mean that it invalidates them being aromantic, since they don't fit the definition of what it means or what it represents. 

3 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

Oh also hey OP, aren't you the person who got banned from the Arocalypse discord server in record time for joining and immediately proclaiming how you don't think arospecs belong in the community, right in front of all our lovely arospec members? ?

Well I said my opinion fairly respectively from what I remember, so idk. Also I get confused whether it was that server or another server where I got banned just because I said I don't like social justice in a political channel, whilst social justice was the actual topic of discussion, whilst everyone else were allowed to say they were for it.

4 hours ago, bananaslug said:

I... don't get what the problem is? Most queer flags include more specific identity groups in this same way. The trans flag has a stripe for nonbinary people even though enbys have their own flag. The ace flag has a stripe for acespec people even though most aspec identities have their own flag. And similarly, the aro flag has a stripe for arospec folks.

 

We design flags that way so that they're more inclusive. Some arospecs prefer to simply identify as aro because more people know that term. Some people are questioning and don't know where they fall on the aro spectrum. Some people know they're somewhere on the aro spectrum but don't like using really specific labels. If we exclude arospec folks from the term "aromantic" and any flag associated with that term then we end up excluding all of the people above from having a community. So to answer your question, that's why there's no "aro specific" flag. That kind of thing would lead to gatekeeping and exclusion and nobody wants that.

 

Aromantic is an identity but it's also an umbrella term for everyone on the aro spectrum. That's been true for as long as I've been part of the aro community, and I hope it continues to be true for a long time. If that confuses some people then so be it, but I think what's most important is that we make sure all of our community members feel included.

Well sometimes there is a line between being inclusive of every trans person for example (nb people are trans and so it makes sense they're included on the flag since they have gender dysphoria like binary trans people) and using a flag that includes aromantics and non aromantics - the latter, to me, is just being way too inclusive. Like gay is also both an umbrella term sometimes and a specific label, but the gay flag is only supposed to be gay people or just lgbt as a whole, not for gay and bisexuals, etc. So how come Aromantics only get a flag that encompasses many terms that aren't aro (having no romantic attraction) but demi, lith, fray, grey, etc. have their own specific flags that are perfectly fine to use? Also, I wouldn't call aromantic an umbrella term. 

2 hours ago, Blue Phoenix Ace said:

First of all, I'd like to point out that while I administer this site, I have no oversight over the Discord server. (I don't even have the address to go chat on it, so there's that)

 

This post has been reported, but it breaks none of the rules. The closest one it might come to breaking is:

 

But, since Triple A didn't call anyone out specifically, he didn't break this rule. I'd say all he did here was post an opinion that might be unpopular to many of the members of this site.

 

In my personal opinion, I find the term "aro-spec" a bit... misleading. Imagine a scale between someone who experiences zero romantic attraction, and someone hyper-romantic, just can't get enough. Aromanticism is one end of that scale. It's a single point along a continuous line. Grey-romantic, on the other hand, defines a broad range of experiences. It's hard to say where you would draw the line between grey-romantic and allo-romantic. It's not like we can assign a numerical score to our romantic attraction intensity and say anything below 73 is grey, and 0 is aro. 74 and up is allo. So, we have to use a more subjective judgement here. In my opinion, if someone feels that their peers are much different than them, and/or are struggling because of the difference in how they experience romantic attraction, then they are grey-romantic. I'd prefer to see the term "Grey-ro spec", but I won't lose any sleep over it.

 

From there, you can go into more specific buckets, like lithromantic, demiromantic, etc. Imagine this as just a smaller and smaller subset of individuals (the next smaller set something like homo-lithromantic, etc.)

 

Again, in my personal opinion, I think defining aromantic as "never or sometimes feels romantic attraction" is also misleading. The Latin/Greek (not sure) root a- means without or not. If we start to include "sometimes" folks into that term, then what term do we use for folks who are "without"? While Jot-Aro's "one of the most stereotypical no-romance-ever aromantics" makes it more clear, it's also a bit of a mouthful. Once upon a time, I called myself aromantic because I was denying that my handful of crushes made me grey-romantic. Notice that my label is now "Grey-romantic", even though I experience almost no romantic attraction. One label isn't somehow superior to another, and if we use clear definitions, then we can discard "no-romance-ever" from the aromantic label, and just start saying "aromantic". This is a site for aromantic and grey-romantic people, so nobody has to jump ship if they switch labels.

 

As for the flag, I can see Triple A's point, but immediately counter with "well the asexual flag does it too". In fact, the ace flag includes everyone who isn't actively opposed to asexuality since purple is for "allies" or "community". So in that analogy, the aromantic flag works similarly. If folks want to wave a demi-romantic flag to show that they are in that smaller bucket, that's fine, but they could also be waving the more general aromantic flag too. I'm honestly surprised that any consensus has been made over the aromantic flag. I thought that was still up in the air, so to speak.

Oh yeah, I actually forgot that was the case for the ace flag. However, I've never seen anywhere where it says that one of the stripes on the aro flag meant similarly.

1 hour ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

Bruh. I’m probably one of the most stereotypical no-romance-ever aromantics, and honestly, I think this is pretty rude. Why shouldn’t arospec folks be included in our flag? They’re aro too. It’s called aro-spec, not some-attraction-sometimes-spec. Why are you so determined to separate yourself from them? Why does being inclusive of our arospec siblings upset you so much? If you feel so threatened by the thought of one single stripe out of five on the flag having something to do with arospecs, that’s a you problem. Now sit down and stop being exclusionary, because that attitude is NOT what this community is about. 

they aren't aromantic. if you have romantic attraction, you're allo. I don't want people searching up Aromanticism and being confused bc they found out some "aros" can have romantic attraction, it confuses me and everyone else. It just seems like they want to be special - you can be grey, or demi, etc. but that doesn't make you any less allo. 

Aromantic: no romantic attraction

greyromantic (for example): little romantic attraction 

How is that not contradictory...

It's not a spectrum. Not everything is a spectrum. Stop saying alloromantics can be aro just because they may not experience romantic attraction as often - guess what? loads of alloromantics are greyromantic or demiromantic - in fact, my best friend is demiromantic (demihomoromantic specifically), but she's still allo and she knows that, and she's fine with not being included with people who are actually aromantic. Demiromantic, Frayromantic and Greyromantic people are normal, alloromantic people. It's like when lesbians get rightfully mad when a straight man starts calling himself a lesbian, when he is clearly not. If we lump in all of this other stuff Aromanticism will lose its meaning altogether eventually. It's rude to say people are aro when they're not just to feel special or to seem different. 

Also, greyromantics, demiromantics, lithromantics, etc. all have their own flags for their own labels and there are many others like themselves to talk to. Aromantics don't have a flag that is just for them specifically, but these others do? I think it's fair for aros to have their own flag which is just for actual aromantics, like demiromantics have their own flag for actual demiromantics, etc. I support equality, after all.

On 10/20/2019 at 9:28 AM, a_confused_human said:

Hello! 

 

I think I might be aromantic, I've been in one relationship in the past and I'm currently in one. The first one ended badly because I completely shut down at the end and didn't want to see or be intimate with the person (hug/hand holding). Obviously the relationship itself had some issues and we weren't that compatible. I remember her telling me how in love she was with me and how she felt breathless every time I walked into a room and in my mind all I could think was "how can someone feel that way, thats so strong and like weird?". I never had a "crush" on her and when she asked me out I said yes because I just did. I guess its was because i hadn't been in a relationship before and all my friends were in one and we got along well as friends so why not? I was happy as friends but i said yes. I once had a nightmare about this girl where she repeatedly tried to force me into doing romantic things (it was literally only hugging) and i woke up scared and terrified.

 

 

Throughout my childhood I never had crushes and would makeup crushes when my friends always asked. I would pick a random boy and say I liked him. I thought this was because I was a lesbian and had girl crushes I thought were friend crushes and that was why I didn't have any boy crushes. But I never really had any girl crushes even after I came out. I can recognise when a girl is like aesthetically and psychically attractive and men I guess. I think I feel sexual attraction to women. (?)

 

 

So as I mentioned I'm currently dating someone. I'm pretty sure I liked her beforehand, but looking back it may have just been intense platonic feelings. I daydreamed about moving in together and having an apartment. When she said she liked me I was happy and I asked her out. We've been together for 5 months now but soon after to 2nd month or so when we started to get more psychical I felt my stress and anxiety rising. Shes started hinting at I love you and I don't think I can say that because I just don't feel that way, what is love?? How can people be in love like those couples and in movies. I don't understand it. I've started hating psychical affection with her like my past relationship, not wanting to hangout with her because I don't want her to kiss me or try romantic things like hand holding. It makes me uncomfortable. We used to hug and hold hands when we were just friends and I was mostly okay with that and really didn't mind. Its reached the point where ive started turning down hangout sessions and stuff. 

 

 

When I watch movies and see couples that are "in love" I wonder how they can be so happy and perfect and love each other? Disney movies or movies filled mainly by romance mostly seem unimportant to me and all of my boy obsessed friends seem crazy and weird to me. Love at first sight seems outrageous and confusing how can... just what? 

 

 

Im starting to think I might be aromantic, I'm scared for my future. Everyone excepts me to fall in love and live with a partner. I think I would just prefer this in a platonic way, I do want kids and would be willing to adopt and coparent with a platonic partner but I don't think I want to be romantically with someone. 

 

 

Thinking about being with someone and kissing them, holding hands. PDA and that makes me feel weird and not in a good way. I'm not sure and I'm highly confused. Maybe im just saying it as a reason as to why my relationship isnt working. But ive noticed a trend in my relationships where at first its just like being friends then being more intense friends and then it enters romance and thats when i start to get uncomfortable. In my head can think about romance and the possibility but as soon as it happens to me i hate it and completely 'nope out' of the situation.

 

 

1.So here comes my question am I aromantic or just have a fear of intimacy? 

 

2. How can I go about explaining this to my girlfriend and breaking it off with her in a polite way while maintaining our friendship? 

 

 

I'm so scared and confused right now and would really appreciate your response. Thanks for reading this I hope it makes sense, it was written in a semi panic.

Not wanting sensual stuff like hand holding or hugging doesn't mean you're aromantic btw, it would make you asensual. But I think you could be Aromantic.

Disclaimer: It looks like I have to point this out (bc otherwise people will just twist my words), but I don't think greyromantic and demiromantic people, etc. don't exist, their experiences are valid, I just think they should stick to using their own flags instead of trying to use a flag that doesn't represent them. I'm glad that there are demi and grey and lith flags for those people to use for their own labels, instead of needing to use the Aromantic flag when it doesn't represent them. Also, I don't care if demiromantics, greyromantics, etc. want to use these forums to help them learn about Aromanticism or to help support an Aromantic friend or family or whatever. This site is clearly for everyone who doesn't experience romantic attraction as conventionally as Alloromantics do, including Alloromantics in the grey area of Alloromanticism like greyromantics, demiromantics, lithromantics, etc. I also don't believe Aromanticism is on a spectrum, you either have romantic attraction (aka you're Alloromantic) or you don't.

At least read what I have to say and discuss this civilly. 

Why do Greyromantics, demiromantics, etc. Get their own flag while Aromantics have a flag in which the grey and demi romantics are just squished in when they aren't Aromantic?

Here is the Demiromantic flag, used only by those who only experience romantic attraction when they form a close, emotional bond with someone:

Here is the Greyromantic flag, used only by those who experience romantic attraction rarely:

This is the Lithromantic/Akoiromantic flag, used only by those who have romantic attraction but don't want to actually have a romantic relationship or have their feelings reciprocated:

And this is the Aromantic flag, which is supposed to be used by only those who experienced no romantic attraction at all:

...oh wait, no it's not, it has the grey stripes to represent greyromantic people, who have romantic attraction and already have their own flag...

This doesn't make any sense.

Why do people who have romantic attraction have to be lumped into a flag that should only be for those with no romantic attraction, if they have their own flags which are just for them that people already know about and use?

I don't mind Idemromantics, cupioromantics using the Aro flag because they are actually Aromantic, they have no romantic attraction at all, unlike grey and demiromantic people, who are Alloromantic. Those are just Aromantics with microlabels, and that's fine.

I just find it a bit unfair.

Why can't Aromantics get their own flag to represent no sexual or romantic attraction like how greyromantic people can get their own specific flag to represent how they only experience romantic attraction rarely?

It's like if a bisexual woman used the lesbian flag - it just doesn't make sense, since the lesbian flag is only for women who are exclusively sexually attracted to other women. Bisexual women are attracted to both genders, and they already have their own flag representing that.

You get what I mean?

By the way I have, in fact, designed a new Aromantic flag just for Aromantic people to use, like how demi, grey, etc, romantics have their own flags for them to use, which I will link here: http://aminoapps.com/p/fr5dgh

7 hours ago, Mark said:

This appears to use yet another definition of "alterous". Not sure how well these would apply to people who are demi, quoi or disagree with the definitions given.

The definitions appear to be somewhere "asymmetric".
Sexual Attraction: The desire to have sex/perform sexual acts with someone. Rather than desire for a sexual relationship.
Romantic Attraction: The desire to have a romantic relationship/to do romantic things with someone. What are "romantic things"?
Sensual Attraction. The desire to give or receive touch. e.g. cuddling. kissing, holding hands, etc. All of those being romantic coded.

Aesthetic Attraction: When you are attracted to someone's appearance.

Alterous Attraction: To desire a deep, emotional bond with someone but not in a romantic way. 

 

There's also a rather obvious flaw with the second part.

Well what do you believe would be the best definition of alterous attraction then?

Also what is the 'obvious flaw' with part 2?