Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Mark

  1. Maybe you should have asked them what makes them so sure being alloromantic isn't the result of some trauma....
  2. Possibly it depends on the cost of the gift. Even if it's small, it can still feel uncomfortable subsidising privileged people's lifestyles.
  3. Someone of any sexual orientation, including asexual, can be sex-positive. Thus it makes little sense to attempt to use it as an antonym of asexual.
  4. Maybe this bunch of bigots should be called "non-allosexual" :) Moreover it was the asexual community, i.e.AVEN, who coined "allosexual" as an antonym of "asexual".
  5. An effect of intersectionality is that privileges and disprivilegees do not "stack" in any simple way. Aro aces having perioriented privilege doesn't really count for much. Ditto for hetero aces having heteroromantic privilege or hetero-aros having heterosexual privilege.
  6. I'd define it was wanting to be in a romantic (or similar) relationship with someone. With romantic relationships being those where ideas like being "in a relationship" or "in a couple" are very important. Possibly even more important than what happens within that relationship.
  7. Perioriented people tend to conflate romantic and sexual. Even though many of them, with the obvious exception of aro aces, can experience only romantic or only sexual attraction. Thus you find "sexual" used where "romosexual", even, "romantic" would be more accurate.
  8. I wonder if there might be something within mental health training which bolsters faith in amantonormativity. Considering some the behaviour of allos, when, in romantic relationships it might more sense to see them as a sign of immaturity.
  9. AVEN is a resource for asexuals primarily those who are also alloromantic. At best the definition of aromanticism is from the limited perspective of aro-aces. (Likely excluding any who are romance repulsed.) An issue with the first definition is that a large minority of allos are uninterested in romantic relationships. There are a couple of issues with the second definition: Absence of "romantic attraction" is a much more abstract concept than lack of desire for a romantic relation. The term "crush" is highly subjective. It's also unclear how a "crush" could reliably be distinguished from a "squish"; intense sexual, sensual, aesthetic or other type of non-romantic attraction. Especially be someone who's never encountered the idea of attraction having,, at least, five flavours.
  10. Just out of interest how did the PC ad NPC compare in terms of stats? Also was that a plot-critical NPC or one you could afford to lose in a combat encounter? This sounds like some troublesome PvP behaviour. PCs can behave in all sorts of inappropriate ways towards NPCs. However NPCs can either run away or attack PCs as they see fit. It's also perfectly within the rules for a harmless appearing NPC to be a high level monk/sorcerer/druid/etc or a (polymorphed) dragon.
  11. It would be nice if allos would stop using "friend" as a euphemism for "romantic partner".
  12. Many chromosomal duplications are lethal to the cell in question. The Y chromosome is small so it being duplicated or omitted makes little difference. Whilst X is a large chromosome only one is typically fully expressed in a cell. Where there are multiple X chromosomes present all except one are Barr bodies, with the majority of the genes inactivated.
  13. Its notable that there are RPG systems, such as 7th Sea, which specifically support aromantic characters. For those unfamiliar the Game is set in a fictionalised version of 17th century Europe with page 89 of the Player's Guide stating "On the other side of the fence, the romantics sing about a new kind of love, a love between two people no other can experience, share or understand It is a fire that flares up without reason and burns forever." With one of the character creation questions being "Is your Hero in love? Is he married or betrothed?" (The guide does poorly when it comes to gender inclusive language.)
  14. Even if they don't mention they are also ace having only aroaces gives a very limited perspective on aromanticsm. Including that, like other perioriented people, aroaces can more easily confuse and conflate romantic and sexual.
  15. Notably such children are unlikely to be told they are "too young to know" or "might change their mind". (Ditto for children who identify as cis and/or hetero.) Rarely does anyone ask children what they consider "playing pretend". An interesting irony is that "romance" used to mean "adventure story", in some contexts it still does. Dragons are a good fit in that genre.
  16. I've never understood where the notion of couples being "cute" come from.
  17. An obvious issue is that virtually every article about "attachment theory" assumes an amantonormative like relationship hierarchy.
  18. A combination of couple and romo privilege. Most likely with associated privilege blindness. Would the business be as keen to offer discounts to white people, straight people, Christians, rich people, (cis) men or any other privileged group? Having any kind of "couple's discount' means that other customers are subsidising the coupled lifestyle.
  19. I'd define "romantic" as wanting to be "in a relationship". Wanting to have (at least one) and be "girlfriend", "boyfriend" or similar. Wanting to merge identities with "partner(s)".
  20. This really should be recognised as a problem. At least lack of professionalism or, possible, mental illness. Which would probably be the case were actors playing enemies were to then turn into actual enemies off set.
  21. Marriage is a lifestyle which is highly promoted. With the false premises that everyone wants to do it and it's suitable for everyone.
  22. Society, including the media, treats romance and sex quite differently. Romance being considered appropriate for all ages, "child friendly", "safe for work", etc. Even outside of the ace community non-sexual romantic relationships are understood and acceptable. Whilst non-romantic sexual relationships are taboo. Sex, along with many other things, are romantic coded. But romance is not sex coded. What may be more common is aro spaces assuming ace as a default. Which means that aro allos can find a lot of the content unrelatable and/or invalidating. All too common are pieces of writing with a "not all aros are also ace" right at the end. Also problematic are posts (and memes) condemning kissing,physical affection, dating. Which overlook that there are plenty of aros who like these(and other romantic coded things). Though likely only outside of romantic relationships. Additionally squishes, platonic attraction, QPRs, etc are not universal aro experiences. There's an assumption that everyone is perioriented. Even though varioriented are a fairly sizable, around 11%, minority. In this respect allo aros have more in common with allo aces (along with homo heteros and hetero homos) than aro aces.
  23. I put up a survey a couple of years ago about this. The somewhat surprising result was that only a minority of aros experience "squishes" at all. Most articles on the subject either gloss ever this or imply that "aplatonic" is the exception rather than the rule. (Additionally there's quoplatonic erasure.)
  24. I think the narrative itself is often the false dichotomy of "single and independent" or "coupled and connected". Whilst it may have been co-opted by neoliberalism it predates it. This is an obvious way the narrative fails. With "isolated singles" tending towards having many significant relationships which connect to community/communities. Whilst "connected coupled" tending towards having a a singular relationship with each other. With fewer and weaker relationships with anyone else. Possibly this represents a recent change in the behaviour of coupled people Possibly the term "amantonormative narrative" might be more accurate. Since the assumption here is is only romantic relationships matter at all. This turns out to be what many single people (including allos) actually want. TBH amantomormativity has likely been hugely damaged the field of psychology. With many people who claim to "study relationships" whilst in practice only studying romantic relationships. (Even just those which are hetero, monogamous and marital.) The whole concept of "attachment theory" assumes a singular "primary" relationship. Even in respect of children in societies which are vitriolic about single parent families... Similar things can happen with such leave for family members (other than, minor, children) vs romantic partners.
  25. This can also have assumptions of introversion or, even, misanthropy. Possibly because this is least challenging to the idea of amantonormativity There are several studies showing that single people tend to be more "community minded" than those who are coupled/married.
  • Create New...