Mark

I'm unsure if this thread is intended for "Aromantic problems", "Aromantic intersectional with agender problems". "Aromantic intersectional with asexual problems" or "Aromantic intersectional with agender and asexua problems". Is this for aros of all genders and sexual orientations or just for agender aces?

This is interesting especially how it contrasts with some later versions which do use the term 'platonic'. It also touches on the situation of a word, in this case 'date', which have different meanings. In this context 'date' could mean either going on a date with someone or being in a (romantic) relationship with someone. This looks to be challenging the notion of relationship (type) hierarchy. It's somewhat inconsistent in that the text on the left says "Like on a scale of platonic to romantic it would be somewhere in the middle". Whilst the description on the right says "neither romantic nor platonic attraction is accurate". More the latter.

I agree, the notion of platonic attraction makes little sense to me. Even though it seems to be used fairly often in aro spaces. It also appears to be somewhat important to the squish and QPR concepts. IIRC the term alterous can mean either "different from either 'romantic' and 'platonic'" or "between 'romantic' and 'platonic'". With the latter seeming like a variation on the argumentum ad temperantiam logical fallacy from my POV. I find romantic, sexual, sensual and aesthetic useful as concepts 'attraction'. Both individually and in combination. Even without experiencing the first. It makes so little sense to me that a coined the term "quoiplatonic". The best i can come up with is that the former is conscious whereas the latter is unconscious.

I'm assuming you mean the definition of "Iodic". (They appear to have missed out Ganymede from the model. Also no huge volcanic eruptions visible on the Iodic flag...) Hierarchical language is present in the AVENWiki and Aromantics Wiki in the definition of "Queer Platonic Relationship". The "Europic" definition appears to conflate romantic coded behaviours with "Nesting Behaviour". The whole thing gives me a very much amantonormative and Relationship Escalator type vibe. There's also a conflation between QPR and "life defining friendship" (singular).

With large proportion of what does exist either portraying it as a subset of ace or entirely conflating them. It's in some ways surprising that allo aros (especially hetero aros) manage to work out they are aro given this situation.

Often you find that a group of people who do not share something can be rather more diverse than a group who do share that.same thing. NOT(X) does not always equate to Y. In the case attractions and relationships things are not remotely binary. With the likes "crush or squish", "romantic relationship or QPR", "romantic or platonic", etc. being examples of false dichotomy. I do wonder about genericisation of terms like "squish" and "QPR" within, parts of, the aro community. Or assuming that they are "aro-normative" things.

I think that question does not always have a simple answer. Including factors such as aromantics being 'dumped' by friends getting into romantic relationships or societies which are highly alloromantic/amantonormative thus providing few opportunities for non-romantic social interaction.

Perioriented is in the glossary. Varioriented is not in the glossary. This makes little sense. Aplatonic is in the glossary, Quoiplationic is not. The definition of Monogamy repulsion appears to have been abbreviated, to the point where it dosn't make much sense. It's intended to be allegorical to romance repulsion. Whilst addressing that "monogamy" describes, at least, four different things within relationships. Panaromantic and Omniaromantic probably shouldn't be considered any more synonymous than pansexual and omnisexual. I've only encountered Lush used as a contraction of Lust crush. Which would be sexual, rather than sensual. What is the origin of Swish?

I'm unsure what answer to give. Do I go with when I first found the social obsession with couples to be odd (about 7); when I was prepared to give the idea a try, without much enthusiasm (teens); when I was absolutely sure I didn't want be married/be in a couple/etc.(early 20's); when I came up with the term 'non couple oriented' (early 40's) or when I found out the term 'aromantic' (late 40's)?

I've encountered alloromantics who use terms like "complete package" to describe the kind of relationships they seek. Related appears to be the idea that such relationships should have a specific character, form and 'escalation'. I've always found the notion of "soul mates", "the one", etc. to be utterly bizarre. Even in forms which arn't romantic, such as many QPR definitions. Whereas the notion of different connections with different people. Issues surrounding emotional (and activity) monogamy have been showing up on polyamoury forums for a long time. Even before terms such as 'emotional monogamy' were coined.

Maybe call it a "Three Day Fling". It is considered one of Shakespeare's tragedies. Thus an example of poor behaviour (or mental illness) on the part of the title characters. Another useful link is https://elizabethbrake.com/amatonormativity/

Plenty of aros, including aro aces, are not at all sex repulsed. If things are excluded on the basis that some aros don't like them there's likely to be very little left to consider at all. Excluding graphic violence could equate to excluding the horror genre, which can be light on romantic subplots. The Bechdel test is subject to quite a lot of critique. Not convinced of the latter. It can be hard for someone who's not from North America to get US cultural context. Similarly for someone not from the UK or Eire to get British cultural context and someone not from Australasia to get Australian cultural context.

My thinking is that a site on a new dedicated domain is more likely to attract the attention of search engines (and similar) than one on an obscure sub domain. Given the size of the project errors are virtually certain. Best not make that beta period too short, especially if it would overlap with a holiday period. Fixing problems can also take time. Also definitely NOT on the same domain, even have no domain and purely an IP address. I think it's important to avoid being too selective, since this can lead to confirmation bias.

I missed this earlier. The problem is at this point there is no technical approach you can take to ensure errors won't be propagated and replicated. Two obvious ways to improve accuracy would be having a beta version of the website specifically for feedback, which will be deleted once the main site goes live and posting the information to a forum such as arocalypse. Seconded!

I have heard alloromantics using the term "(complete) package" to describe kind of relationships they want. I've also observed alloromantics who identify as Relationship Anarchists conflating romantic and sexual, It's possible for aromantics to be desexualised or slut shamed. Sometimes both at the same time. which is utterly weird. There isn't actually anything wrong with "sex without commitment", assuming that it is consensual. In many cases it can be treated as though it isn't OK.even for alloromantics, thus justified by claims that they are actually seeking "the one(tm) alternatively excused using youth or intoxication. The irony here is that many aromantics are into commitment and relationships. However not those of the romantic kind. Even without romance repulsion an aromantic person might find a romantic relationships offers them little or is inferior to something non-romantic.

My critique of Chapman is that in addition the above he ignores any form of love other than romantic. Thus omitting the possibility of different languages for different types of love as well as the idea that everyone prefers to give in the same way they receive may not be universally the case. IIRC he has written books aimed at children and teens. Which, hopefully, are about storge. I found this list critiquing "marriage equality". Also this newspaper article from a feminist and lesbian perspective. The links come from the US Census Bureau. I suspect the information may be present for most of the developed world. But not always in the most usable of formats. There's also this on marriage decline from the UK. With this newspaper report possibly based on the same data.

The term "nuclear family" as well as "conjugal family" is recent. Though such family structures appear to have been common enough to be noticed in the 17th (even 13th) century. According to Wikipedia. With the idea of a connection between this kind of family and the (18th century) industrial revolution being an example of correlation vs causation. Amantonormativity seems to rely on several several other things being normative. Amongst those are monogamy (sexual, emotional, social and activity), marriage, romance, conflation of romantic and sexual attraction and the nuclear family. Though possibly not heterosexuality, even though Brake specifically references heteronormativity. Interesting is that nuclear families are normative whilst actually being in the minority. In most Western societies married adults are about half, with about a third never married. It's surprisingly hard to good data on how marital status has varied over time. The best I could find is this and this. Which only goes back to 1950;. This median age of first marriage shows a trend which changed around the mid 20th century. It would certainly be useful to see such graphs for 1850-present.

Like romance and romantic marriages nuclear families are a fairly recent thing.

Giving feedback can be hard. Taking, and acting on, it can be harder.

What thoughts do people have about this article? https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/living-single/201905/why-are-romantic-relationships-privileged-above-others

However if you don't voice those concerns then it's impossible for them to be listened to. Though that's understandable if you expect them to be ignored, dismissed out of hand or described as "being negative".

I can see what the team members have posted on Arocalypse, quite easily. I can also what one team member has posted on tumblr, since that's listed. Possibly also some other team members with some investigation. What they have written on other platforms I have no idea of. The kind of things I'd look for would be challenging the notion of aro being a subset of ace; understanding that experiences of people who are ace(spec) and aro(spec) can be quite different from the experiences of people who are aro(spec) and allo(sexual); being good allies to aro-allos. I do have a concern that someone who's ace(spec) might not recognise how an "aro resource" is ace(spec) specific (or how to change it to be more generally applicable). This, rather long, tumblr post is certainly worth a read.

Given the current chronic lack of allo aro representation, anywhere other than arocalypse (here), along with the widespread misunderstanding of aro as a subset of ace I don't think an ace spec majority group is the best course of action. I don't know much about these people. What are you defining as the "aromantic community"? I don't know much about the blogging thing. The likes of Tumblr appear very poor for quotation. How do you use them for discussion? (Even forums like Arocalypse can't do multi level quotes as easily as usenet could thirty odd years ago.)

I seem to have ended up effectively coining the term monogamy repulsion as a "cousin" of romance repulsion. Whilst I've brought up monogamy, be it of the sexual, social or activity variety as something I don't want do at all in several places. I've only found people agreeing with me that they feel similarly on an allosexual aromantic Facebook group. My experience with polyamory forums is there tends to be a consensus of monogamy as desirable/non-monogamy as hard. As shown in this article. I think that romance repulsion and monogamy repulsion things experienced far more often by aromantics than alloromantics. Which makes them important on a site intended to educate, and inform about aromaticism. Similarly Amatonormativity is not aro specific, whilst possibly of more importance to aros than aces. There are articles like this one which critique the Relationship Escalator from allo ace and aro ace points of view. With, of course, any aro allo perspective missing.

I would be rather more comfortable with this project had a majority aro allo leadership. Will you ask such groups what they do to specifically include aro allo people before deciding how to list them? Especially if they have a history of being ace groups. In the case of many written resources a better option than linking might be a rewrite and reference. This applies even to aromantic terms. Be they the fairly obscure quoiromantic to aromantic itself. Given that there are some rather poor definitions around which are easy to find. An ideal medium to long term plan would be to get the likes of AVEN to link to an aro resource site for all matters aro. There's also a huge need for resources about romantic coded behaviour, romance repulsion, monogamy repulsion, how to communicate with alloromantics about aromanticism in ways which are easy for them to understand.