mirithepuppy

I met this guy at my college who's pretty cool and easy to talk to, and we hang out a lot, and recently he's expressed an interest in dating me. Since I'm still trying to make sure the aromantic label fits me, and I'm not romance repulsed, I'm open to experimenting with romance to see if I do experience any level of romantic attraction. And if I had to pick any guy to try dating, it would probably be this guy because I feel pretty comfortable around him. So I'm not against the idea of dating him. But I'm wondering if it's unfair to "pretend" to be straight to try dating this guy when I'm not actually sure I even like guys. Should I come out to him as aro just as a disclaimer before we start going on dates? I don't want to just use him to figure myself out, but I'm also worried that if I come out as aro, he wouldn't be willing to go on dates with me. I really would like to try dating him, but if I date him and figure out I'm definitely aro, then that could easily hurt his feelings. Also, saying something like "I don't know if I'm even attracted to boys, so I'll just see how this relationship is goes" could put a lot of pressure on him to try and make the relationship perfect so he's not the one who makes me realize I don't like boys, and I don't want that either. Do you think it would be a good idea to tell him up front that I ID as aro, or should I date him for a while first to see, and then tell him later if I still ID as aro? If I wait, is that ethical, or is it playing him?

I also have dreams about being in happy relationships, and these have caused me to question my orientation many times, but I've come to the conclusion that I'm still aro. I don't know what your dreams are like, but for me, these dreams include lots of cuddling and deep conversations, but nothing that is definitively "romantic." I also tend to dream more about the cuddling when I'm especially touch-starved. I think my dreams have helped me realize what I want in a relationship, which is close friendship with lots of physical affection. That being said, even if you are doing romantic things in these dreams, that doesn't necessarily mean you're not aromantic. Remember that they're just dreams. I've had dreams about eating asparagus before, even though in reality, I hate eating asparagus. I've had dreams about being married off to some stranger before, but that doesn't mean I want to get married in real life. Also, it's hard to differentiate sometimes, since society likes to call any close relationship romantic. Something that has helped me is to kind of ignore the labels of "platonic" versus "romantic," and instead of trying to push what I'm feeling into a box, just accepting it for what it is.

sixteen candles. they spend the whole movie just getting to the point where they meet each other, and then they kiss after talking for like 30 seconds. how is that romantic? also definitely maybe. he's a complete idiot and douchebag, and she forgives him after he shows up years later and gives a halfhearted apology.

usually I have the opposite problem, where I constantly have to remind my friends that I'm aro, and I come out over and over and over again to the same people. I wish my friends were a little more aware of my identity, but it sounds like your friends are hyperaware. I think a lot of times people walk on eggshells around people they don't want to offend because they don't understand them. Maybe just try to explain to them a little bit about what being aro is like, and give them some specific examples of what makes you uncomfortable and what you're fine with?

@bydontost Thank you so much for clarifying some things!! I'm glad you actually know about this. I just did some brief google searches lol.

So I'm always really confused about what the hell romance even is, so I decided to try to find out the history behind it. And the thing is, romantic love didn’t even exist as a concept for most of history? Ancient Greeks defined seven different types of love, none of which were romantic: eros (sexual love), philia (friendship), storge (familial love), agape (universal love aka altruism or charity), ludus (casual love, flirtation and no-strings-attached), pragma (practical love, like arranged marriages), and philautia (self-love). (x) The concept of romance was first introduced only 900 years ago (x), which is pretty recent, considering marriage had been around for about 3500 years before that. (x) Obviously, by Shakespeare’s time, romance was a widely accepted concept. However, marrying “for love” like Shakespeare shows wasn’t very common until the late eighteenth century. Before the late 1700′s, love was seen as something that happens after the marriage, not before it. But as the first romance novel was written by Samuel Richardson in 1740(x), and Jane Austen normalized romance novels from 1795 to 1817 (x), romance quickly became a prerequisite for marriage by the mid-1800s. And when romance was necessary for marriage, it was suddenly deemed necessary for life. The need for romance overpowered the needs for all other types of love as more books about romance were published, and then songs about romance, and then movies about romance. I think romance became an "essential" thing as life got easier, the same way plumbing and indoor heating are now "essential." But, the thing is, it's not actually necessary, and, in my opinion, sometimes life is a lot simpler without it. What are your thoughts about this? Do you think romantic attraction has always been around, or is it a new thing? Do you think life is simpler without romance? Is romantic attraction even a real thing, or is it just a manmade concept? Disclaimer: I am white, and I’m not a historian or anything, and I only really know Western history and the Bible and whatever some quick Google searches will tell me. A lot of this is just my personal informed opinion. Please let me know if I’ve gotten anything wrong, and add any non-Western viewpoints!! tl;dr: the concept of romance didn’t exist until 900 years ago, and after people in the mid- to late 1700s started writing about it, people thought it was necessary in order to get married, and then it was "necessary" for just life in general, and it complicated things.

Jo March was, in fact, canonically aromantic. Louisa May Alcott was planning not to have her marry anyone, but, since her work came out in installments, her readers were furious with Alcott when Jo didn't marry Laurie, and they pressured Alcott into creating Professor Bhaer so Jo would be married "happily ever after." this article talks about it a little bit: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiewire.com/2018/05/little-women-jo-laurie-bhaer-changes-1201966711/amp/

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (you may have heard people refer to it as the Mormon church, but we would like to keep the name Jesus Christ in the title when refering to it). My religion is very family-oriented, and it very much encourages dating and marriage. However, while the people of the church can be judgmental, I have never felt like the teachings of the Church in any way exclude or condemn me for being aromantic. I know that God made me the way I am, and his plan for me just doesn't include romance. The Lord has spoken to me a lot through prayer and revelation about my ability to influence friends and roommates and family, etc. and to strengthen relationships with them. He has not told me to date or get married, and I think his plan for me takes into account the fact that I'm aro. The best way I can influence the world is through platonic love, familial love, and Christ's love.