Mark

A problem I see here the lack of allosexual representation. What are your plans to address this issue before anything goes live? TBH I'm a lot more concerned with what will (and won't) be on this site than what it's called.

Putting this here because I'm not sure where else it might fit. Monogamy is typically the expectation is many cultures. With even subcultures which might accept it as not being the only option still, IME, tending to see it as a default. It is also somewhat more complex than it first appears. Having both a 'first person" and 'second person' aspect. first person: "I want to be your one and only". second person: "I want you to be my one and only" It can also be divided into four types Sexual, Emotional, Social and Activity. Sexual first person: "I want to have sex with you and only you". Sexual second person: "I want you to have sex with me and only me". With the caveat that "have sex" may mean different things to different people. Emotional first person: “I will love you and only you.” Emotional second person: "I want you to love me and only me". With the caveat that "love" need not equate to "romantic love". Even though this kind of love lends itself well to such singular notions. Social: This is very much about being seen as a "couple". Activity first person: "I want to do this with you and only you". Activity second person: "I want you to do this with me and only me". This may overlap somewhat with sexual. You could describe someone's feelings towards these of a scale from must have, very favourable, favourable, indifferent, unfavourable, very unfavourable to definitely not. (As a numerical scale 3,2,1,0,-1,-2,-3 or 1000, 100, 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01. 0.001) Socially normative is that everyone is "must have" or "very favourable" to all of these. My own position is, by contrast, "definitely not" for all. I suspect that some people could be quite mixed in their attitudes. Is this kind of model useful?

The terms visibility, awareness, acceptance and inclusion are far from synonymous. Though it's not uncommon, within political advocacy, to assume they are or use the wrong one. It can be more difficult to teach people when they already misunderstand something. Advocating "marriage equality" is far from casual. Without it being recognised as, potentially, indirectly arophobic. There are some very different social attitudes and standards towards sex or romance. Including finding them repulsive.

There's a difference between visability, awareness, acceptance and inclusion. One complication is that aromanticism does already have some visibility from the ace community. Leading to the idea that aro is a subset of ace.

That's a very useful history, since the original definition of quoiromantic (and quoisexual) makes a lot more sense. At least to me. Unfortunately the other definition appears on Urban Dictionary, LGBTA Wiki and Aromantics Wiki. To name a few. It appears that quoiplatonic does not, currently, exist. How's this? quoiplatonic; “what even is 'platonic attraction'? Divide by zero. Error 404 Plato not found” Which seems to fit with the Note on Quoi. Agreed. Considering TAAAP and the wider '& aro'ing, I think it's vital that "Recognition, Education, and Advocacy" comprehensively covers aromanticism. Especially challenging the 'aro as a subset of ace' idea.

It's quite possible to get hierarchies/chains of erasure and oppression.

What you describe is more an active process of denial and erasure. I think it's worth asking if your "social awkwardness" could, in any way, be a consequence of your being aromantic in a highly amantonormative society. That isn't specific to Instragram. You find much the same thing on Facebook, Tumblr, YouTube, etc. This is part the reason I strongly object to asexual organisations adding "and aro" to their names (or events). The current situation isn't entirely down to Alloromantic Asexuals. Since there are certainly Aromantic Asexuals who failed to challenge, even supported, the idea of aro as a subset of ace. Something which I see reflected in "aro language". Parts of the LGBT+ community manage to be biphobic or transphobic, ironic as that may appear. There can also be acephobia, most likely towards heteroromantic asexuals. Similarly with arophobia, especially towards aromantic heterosexuals. Personally I find claims that either of these kinds of people are "straight" to resemble bovine excrement. Something which I think is a factor here is "marriage equality". Which about romantic, rather than sexual, orientation. The problem does have both these attributes. Often even if you can get people to recognise that "love" includes eros, philia, storge, pragma and agape they'll still place romance on a pedestal or at the top of a hierarchy. Thus you'll get this sort of thing.

I hadn't got around to it. Nor had I decided if the best option was to link to the other thread, cut and paste or write something similar. Short version: I dislike both the term and the thinking behind it. IMHO describing it as a model is a positive. Though the model presented is obviously incomplete, missing 13 rows. (Even if it only addressed 'attraction' it would need at additional row.) Adding the concept of 'desire' complicates the whole thing. Ironically someone who only has sex because it's romantic coded without identifying as 'asexual' would fit the definition in that model well. There are situations, such as sex work, where desire without attraction can be a good thing. Not sure if there's a good example of 'romance work' since 'escorting' is typically sexual as well. Possibly aro authors who write romance genre or aro actors who play romantic characters. A sign that it's old is the use of 'sexual' rather than 'allosexual'. Whilst I can work out if the sexual (, sensual, aesthetic, etc) attraction I'm feeling is 'primary', 'secondary' or both it's a purely intellectual exercise without practical application.

Terms like "just friends" and "more than friends" imply some kind of hierarchy in terms terms of relationship types. Which is very much an integral part of amantonormativity and romantic culture. I can be tempted to use likes of "just romance" at times In the case of this definition of queerplatonic. There is the same notion of hierarchy. Why not call it "queerromantic", "quasiromantic" or "pseudoromantic". Moreover "commitment level" is an attribute which can apply to any type of relationship, independent of type. Those with low (or unbalanced) commitment levels tend not to last long, even romantic ones.

I've never really liked terms like 'squish', 'platonic attraction' or 'queer platonic'. As well as wondering if they were terms which made more sense to asexuals. Especially considering that the common colloquial meaning of the term is "without sex". The term 'lush' makes far more sense, to me, as a 'crush analog'. With terms like 'philia' and 'ludus' being a far better ways to describe attractions I have which are not sexual, sensual or aesthetic.

My point remains that to describe 'queerplatonic' as an 'aro term' is misleading and inaccurate. Though 'ace term' wouldn't be accurate either. If not 'aro ace term' then what? Did ANY of those involved identify as '(definitely) not asexual', 'allosexual', 'heterosexual', 'homosexual', 'lesbian', 'gay', 'bisexual', 'pansexual', 'polysexual'. etc? This whole thing looks like, yet another, example of aro treated as a subset of ace? Do similar issues apply to the likes of 'squish' and 'platonic attraction'? Mutually exclusive issues between alloromantic asexuals and aromantic allosexuals are highly likely to occur with the relationship escalator. With the former being concerned about sexual flirting and contact. Whilst wanting romantic flirting and rituals. Compared with the latter being concerned about romantic flirting and rituals. Whilst wanting sexual flirting and contact. Whilst parts of the aro ace section of the article might translate to aros this is not the case for all of it. Intersectionality means aro aces (however they identify) can have a (very) different experience of 'aromanticism' compared with aro allos.

My own feeling is that being aromantic whilst enjoying various romantic coded things is a difficult situation. Thus it would be easier if I were alloromantic (or possibly also asexual). Where do I fit with this 'separation'?

I've looked through your "A Genealogy of Queerplatonic". Within it I see many mentions of asexual/ace Including "Carnival of Aces", AVEN forums, asexual flags, aces of spades. Though a few of the people, such as Aromantic Aardvark, have their sexual orientation unmentioned. The first time you get any clearly non ace comment is in 2016. With this arocalypse thread, where it's contrasted with the term "Friends With Benefits". Certainly my opinion at the time was both of these are are poor terms to describe sexual relationships which are non-romantic. With the issue of if the term is somehow amantonormative having been brought up several times on Arocalypse. The Aromantic Wiki entry specifically claims that it's aro ace in origin. Ditto for A New Relationship Dictionary. This tumblr thread also says "aro ace". Even going further to say "often asexual first and aro second". Together with extremely hostile towards allo aros. Even without any malice involved an environment made up mostly "asexual first, aromantic second" would be unlikely to attractive to "aromantic first, asexual second", "aromantic and asexual not separable" or "aromantic and allosexual". This would definitely look like a subset of the "ace community"... The more recent Tumblr stuff seems to be primarily about alloromantics (especially asexual ones) using the term. Interesting, considering the term "homosexual" dates from the late 19th century. At least two centuries later. This is an ace narrative. Different issues would tend to arise for aros. The description of "relationship escalator" appears to have been altered. Most obviously 6 rather than 7 steps. The article covers sex and physical touch quite extensively. Interestingly it does bring up non monogamy in an aro ace specific section. Are aros less attached to monogamy? Be it sexual, emotional, social or activity. Also interesting is: The article, then, fails to mention what these relationships tend to exclude in terms 'romantic coded behaviours and activities'. Even those which are non sexual.

I wonder if these terms might be better described as "aro ace vocabulary" since they appear to have been coined prior to there being a separate "aro community" without any obvious input from allosexual aros. Certainly terms such as "sexual friendship" and "Friends With Benefits" which describe sexual non-romantic relationships appear absent from the original list. Though the latter is often understood very differently by aros and allos. I wonder how aces, allo or aro interpret the term. The term 'queerplatonic' appears to have ended up with multiple meanings. Around the same time period 'platonic' has also acquired multiple meanings. Some of them, potentially, mutually exclusive. There's this definition: Which describes 'more that friendship' somewhat indirectly. (It also might not have been such a good idea to use a fruit which has at least three different names in English as term for a QPP.) I'm wondering if there are factors such as trying to explain things in terms alloromantics understand or 'respectability politics'. IME alloromantics seem unable to understand that others can have different worldview from this, rather strict, hierarchy. Though an aro could see non-romantic relationships more desirable than romantic. Hence you see the likes of "Where romantic people have an emotional need to be with another person in a romantic relationship, aromantics are often satisfied with friendships and other non-romantic relationships.". Rather than "Aromantic people tend to seek a wide variety of non-romantic relationships. Which can include those which are sexual, sensual, affectionate or platonic, depending on the individual. Where as alloromantics tend to seek either romantic relationships, often monogamous and following the 'relationship escalator' or platonic friendships." One way I've observed this is the idea of "friends first" where there's an expectation of friendship, be it platonic or sexual, is expected to be a step (on the escalator) towards a romantic relation ship. Which can get very messy where such an allo encounters an aro who actually wants this long term.

I'd tend to see 'platonic' as being not physical. Different cultures may be an issue here. Though I find the notion of 'romantic or platonic' to be a false dichotomy with sensual and sexual falling into the category of 'neither'. I see sensual attraction as distinct from, but not unrelated to, sexual attraction. In that it's uncommon that I won't also be sensual attracted to people I'm sexually attracted to. With the complication that I'm AMAB with attitudes, feelings and fears towards relationships and 'dating' which align more to 'girl' than 'boy' norms. Kissing I feel can be motivated by romantic, sexual or sensual feelings. Either singly or in combination.

I'm somewhat wondering if these definitions of 'aromantic' and 'Queerplatonic', both of which are on the AVEN Wiki, are intended to be 'friendly' towards allo aces. e.g. by not challenging the notion of romance being 'more than' friendship. Ironically this is also an issue with 'aromantic' and 'asexual'. Which likely contributes to aro allos and allo aces embracing the SAM as providing useful identity. Which it dosn't do for aro aces.

It wouldn't surprise me if that's a common experience amongst perioriented people. Who, it must be remembered, comprise the vast majority of people. The obvious complication is 'heterosexual', 'homosexual', 'bisexual', 'pansexual' on their own tend to be assumed to be perioriented. Whereas 'asexual' on it's own tends to be assumed varioriented. Maybe this is something which needs an aroace specific space to work out. I'm wondering if the "split attraction model" became normative within the asexual community in the fairly early days of AVEN. With normative assumptions having the strange quaility of often being unnamed. Something can be normative for a long time before someone names it. In the case of amantonormativity maybe even as much as a century. I find "platonic" to be used in some ambiguious and generic ways in parts of the aro community. Including using 'platonic' as a noun rather than an adjective and conflation with 'friendship'. I'd definitely consider sensual to be non platonic. I've only recently encountered the idea of 'platonic' including physical forms of attraction. With the most common understanding of the term being about the emotional, intellectual and spiritual whilst excluding the physical, sexual and sensual. Some of consequences, notably the idea that something can be both 'platonic' and 'sexual' seem quite oxymoronic. There is this article which addresses some of the problems associated with using the term "platonic love" in a broad way. The author appears to assume the SAM or something like it. I'm not sure how this follows. Elizabeth Brake says: "Amatonormativity is a word I coined to describe the widespread assumption that everyone is better off in an exclusive, romantic, long-term coupled relationship, and that everyone is seeking such a relationship." That the SAM includes aromantic people falsifies this assumption. Some things which can seem somewhat like amantonormativity are (Queer) Platonic Life Partners, Aro Soulmates and some Queer Platonic Relationship definitions. Whilst these may not be romantic they could describe exclusive, long-term coupled relationships. Which some people may want whilst others would find repulsive.

I can't see a date on either the LGBT Wiki or the tumblr, so it's unclear which might be the original and which the derived. Note that Ulrichs could not possibly have used terms like 'heterosexual', 'homosexual' or 'bisexual' since those words didn't exist until the 20th century. With the term "split attraction model' probably being a neologism, even if the concept is older, It's also possible that amantonormativity is a requirement to develop such a concept.

I think it would be important to distinguish between aro and aro ace with these. The split attraction model itself appears to be considerably older than any of these,

I've always preferred dances with partner changing...

My feeling is that AVEN was specifically set up by and for allo aces. It also also seems that TAAAP along with aces & aros are asexual organisations attempting to look aro inclusive. In the process being quite arophobic, especially towards aro allos. IME aro aces seem somewhat split around if they regard aro or ace as being more important. Even in a romantic and sexual relationship the romantic part is quite public whereas the sexual part is generally private. The concept of a romantic relationship without sex is not unknown. e.g. Waiting until after marriage before having sex.

I'm not sure that this, since they are still separating the children by Gender Assigned At Birth. A simpler option would be to have all of the children use hammers, do manicures, etc together.

With "monogamy" meaning all of "sexual monogamy", "emotional monogamy", "social monogamy" and "activity monogamy". Together with cohabitation and financial entanglement/merger. As described by the "relationship escalator" model. Wanting sex within the context of a substantially different relationship stricture is "more wrong" than not wanting it at all. Ditto for wanting it without a meaningful, loving or emotionally connected relationship. An analogy would be that it may be easier to be an atheist in a highly monotheistic society than following a different god/gods whilst considering the socially approved god to be part of a pantheon.

It might be better described as "tolerated". I suspect the actual demographic is narrower, excluding many "straight young men". If anything being interested in non-romantic sexual connections and relationships is seen as worst than "no strings". Do you mean "feminists" or "TERFs"? It's also often the case that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" turns out to be quite untrue. Similarly many allo allos do want casual sex, hook ups, fuck buddies, etc. I'm sure that for, at least some of, these people a sexual non-romantic relationship is as as difficult to handle as a romantic relationship is for many aros. Even a lot of non-monogamous sub cultures can be highly couple and romance centric, at least IME. I'd agree very much about the language issue.

It's a tragedy. With the most immediate source material being "The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Iuliet" from 1562, some 30 years before Shakespeare wrote the play. Though the story appears to have been around since at least 1476. Does anyone know when this first became a common interpretation? This makes even less sense. Since the "love" here is very much one sided. With the result being an abusive relationship. I wonder what the Classical Hebrew of Judges 16.4 actually says.