Mark

3 hours ago, arorocks said:

When you think kissing is so weird cause like ur pressing ur face holes against each other and its supposed to be pleasant wtf?

I like kissing.
Though  "kiss repulsion" does seem to come up quite frequently in aro forums. Possibly more common amongst aro aces, but there are some aro allo people whoe experience it.
 

1 hour ago, Ice Queen said:

If to you, hearing people call their partners pet names/terms of endearment (baby, sweetheart, honey - the equivalents in my language sound even more awkward), and say "I love you" every 10 minutes in irrelevant contexts is sheer mental torture. 

Especially when doing so without any affectionate behaviour.
Though often the terms themselves make little sense to direct towards another adult. e.g. "baby"...
On the other hand I can find it difficult to say "I love you" to anyone. Because of this over use in romance. Having to find alternative phrases such such as "I care about you"; "I'll be there for you"; etc.

On 04/05/2017 at 3:22 AM, Star Girl said:

I am very skeptical that this is actually true... for one, because I have heard of the "If your ring finger is longer than your index finger, then you are A; if your index is longer than your ring, then B" in another context before that wasn't to do with orientation.  I would like to see a reference to the study, know their sample size, method, and how statistically significant their result was.

The first article I found was trying to relate this to motor neurone disease.
The odd thing is that this study was carried out by psychiatrists, rather than neurologists or endocrinologists.
The whole idea goes by the name Manning hypothesis. An article here questions if this is valid.

On 04/05/2017 at 8:40 PM, Ice Queen said:

-obsessive/possessive/controlling/stalking behaviour (I have a phobia for that already)

Something interesting is that allos tend to find such behaviour desirable if it comes from "the right person". Even in cases where someone they are (romantically) attracted to and someone they are not is behaving identically towards them,
Whereas aros tend to the behaviour universally repulsive.
 

On 04/05/2017 at 8:40 PM, Ice Queen said:

-people who show affection too explicitly when with a group (hand gripping, hugs and pecks in semi-private, like when the two are in a park on their own bench or something, are decent and okay, but making out is not)

My feeling tends to be more one of envy. Since due to being aro (and other reasons) it's very difficult for me to find even one person i can do anything affectionate with

2 hours ago, omitef said:

@Spud Yuuuuuuuup. Apparently, if you experience any same-gender attraction, you MUST experience it both romantically and sexually, otherwise you're just afraid of committing to a same-gender romantic relationship due to the stigma.

I once encountered someone who insisted that all bisexuals must be biromantic. But, curiously, not that all biromantics must be bisexual.
Effectively claiming that sexual attraction must be associated with romantic attraction.

On 02/02/2017 at 10:05 PM, Holmbo said:

Another thing that just popped into my head. Is it possible for someone to be alloromantic and sexual but have no ties between romantic attraction and sexual one? Maybe they would be good at answering this question?

It would also be possible for someone to have corresponding sexual and romantic orientations whilst not experiencing both towards the same person.
Kind of wondering how often it would happen for an alloromantic allosexual to start a romo-sexual relationship in the hope that sexual attraction would develop...

7 minutes ago, Ettina said:

I prefer the Big Five test.

I gave this a try but couldn't get it to produce results due to no suitable gender option.

On 29/01/2017 at 7:18 PM, Navoto said:

Ambivert, no longer introvert grounded in shyness or lack of friends.

I'm an ambivet, something like 60:40 E:I.

Though Myers Briggs tests only ever show me as an I.

I'm also very shy, with shyness being frequently confused with introverstion, including by many so called experts.

On 08/02/2017 at 0:37 AM, DeltaV said:

(Pure) Romantic flirting can be seen in G-rated movies. It's flirting which is not sexually charged but hints at the obsession, the possessiveness, the rose-tinted glasses and the yearning to emotionally merge deeply with the object of desire, which is so peculiar to romantic attraction. You just don't say “I keep getting lost in your eyes” to a friend, right?

 

(Pure) Sexual flirting is about creating sexual innuendo. Needless to say it is the most risky variant of the three. The sledgehammer version of it is making crude sexual jokes (bonus points for being unoriginal and making them at inappropriate situations).

 

Now, for allos, I think, there is only flirting in different strength. Why? Of course, they usually mix 2. + 3. (and 1.), but that's just stating the end result. The explanation lies in the strange connections between sex and romance for allos.

The difficulty for allos is that romantic flirting may well be repulsive. Possibly even more so when it's purely romantic. From either a receiving or giving POV.

On 08/02/2017 at 0:37 AM, DeltaV said:

Naively, one would think that since sexual attraction is more common than romantic attraction (in terms of numbers of “targets”) and so can be experienced “purely,” there should be no confusion. But for the typical allo, sex is a strong crush-inducer, it produces emotions of closeness and intimacy. And because of this, there is a good chance to be able to f*** your way into a relationship (= If you already got that far, the rest should be easy).

It also seems to work the other way around. Since for at least some allos sex can be very romantically coded.
 

On 08/02/2017 at 0:37 AM, DeltaV said:

Romantic attraction, on the other hand, seeks (except for romantic asexuals) its fulfillment in sexual activity. Because for whatever reason (going back to the Bible where sexual activity is described as “knowing someone”), it is seen as completely natural that sex can provide a nigh mystical, deep emotional connection between two persons. 

I'd be very wary about linking this to anything older than around 500 years. Since the concept of romance is very modern. With the idea of it being the basis for sexual relationships only having been around for about a century.
 

On 08/02/2017 at 0:37 AM, DeltaV said:

Sorry to sound so unromantic, but this is an idea which strikes me as nearly obscene. I experience sex as a raw and rather animalistic act. And that's all there is to it. Dirty fun. Really. How on earth should this activity bring me emotionally closer to someone? If I want that, I rather talk about my feelings.

I think it's something best with friends. To have the emotional connection there...

On 08/02/2017 at 0:37 AM, DeltaV said:

I haven't uncovered all the subtleties of this amalgamation, and all this are just very general observations. But somewhere here must also lie the explanation that allos conflate and mix romantic and sexual flirting. And, most people aren't that good with coming up with romantic-deep or clever-sexy responses, so body language, looks, tone of voice and so on become more important*, which are even more ambiguous than language.

Also something which I, being on the autistic spectrum, struggle with especially.  Both because I hate ambiguity and find these forms of "communication" to often be invisible anyway.

8 hours ago, Kickaxe said:

I was wondering if any of you guys wanted to discuss the choices made in writing and directing movies and why it seems so difficult for them to leave romance out, since it is so prevalent and often seems to be put on he back burner until the end of the movie when it seems rushed or pushed in unnecessarily.

This is something I find quite irritating. How it can be put in to tick some random box, rather than for sound reasons of character or plot.

18 hours ago, SoulWolf said:

Until I really thought about it hard, and started to question just what exactly is the difference between a romantic relationship and friendship... in my mind, I couldn't really come up with anything. I started asking people why they would actually want a relationship over friendship, and the answers they gave were all things that I think friendship could give them just as well.

To me romance does seem of have some commonality with friendship. Like a degraded multi-generational copy with strange additions.
With those additions such as exclusivity, escalation and merger weakening any similarity to friendship.

4 hours ago, Kojote said:

How people go romance first even though they literally don't know jackshit about the person in question is mind boggling to me. How could someone possibly know that they'd want that person in their life without anything to base that on apart from looks and first impression? Does not compute o__o

Maybe it's because romantic relationships can be quite standardised. So individuals matter less than being able to follow the script. Certainly the aim of the whole thing appears to be to merge into a couple...

32 minutes ago, Kojote said:

Oh I so feel you guys there. I've got the gray in front of my sexuality, simply because I'm celibate due to the fact that I don't think it's worth the hassle. 
I don't technically want to be. I sometimes dream of a circle of poly friends I'd be attracted to without having to commit to anything. Because there sure is a lot of stuff I want to try but my aro-ness sure won't let me.

I've always felt, very, limited by what others were interested in doing with me. Always wanted what could be described as "network poly", even before the term was coined. Not so much no commitment as different commitment.

36 minutes ago, Kojote said:

I just don't trust them not to try the whole "you're single, I'm single let's hook up and see what happens"-routine. Like at all. Maybe it's just me, but I've begun to really notice that a lot of first time interactions with single people can be about potential romantic partners and not about potential friendships/just getting to know the person on a neutral basis. Like why is that? Why is the first activity you do with a person you just met automatically the "first date" and not just "an activity where you get to know each other, no strings attached"?

My experience is that just about everyone will straight away consider me as exclusively (neo) platonic. With the rare exceptions being "let's have a (romantic) relationship right now!". From my POV something like a "hook up" or "first date" looks like a vast improvement. Especially if it were to happen reasonably often.
 

44 minutes ago, Kojote said:

I'm not a ONS person either. I'd actually like to trust my partner,

It's something I'd still consider if the offer was there. But it never has been...

46 minutes ago, Kojote said:

As for women and NBs, I haven't made the effort of joining LGBT spaces, yet. I'm a bit afraid to, but I might try soon. As far as I've heard, they can be really romance-coded as well, which makes me a bit nervous.

IME It can be just as bad as the het scene when it comes wanting non romantic relationships.
 

12 hours ago, NullVector said:

What I think I find more awkward is the trying to 'escalate' anything beyond that baseline of casual friendliness.

This seems a very aro way to want to go about relationships. I also suspect that it is incomprehensible to most allos (even those who say they want "friends first"). It's also virtually impossible to find any sort of "role model" within popular culture.
 

12 hours ago, NullVector said:

I have problems with social interactions where there are a lot of unspoken rules operating.

IME social situations where this is not the case are few and far between.

12 hours ago, NullVector said:

II don't really get how something like flirting is supposed to work. I'm paranoid about coming across as inappropriate, or pushy, or harassing someone.

When people don't understand the rules, can't see where the lines and boundries are they tend to either be very cautious or very reckless. (Sometimes a mixture of the two depending on if they feel in a safe environment or not.) You sound very much the former, including being frightened of being seen as the latter.

12 hours ago, NullVector said:

I don't like eye contact (especially with people I don't know really well) as I find it too intense. Stuff like that could all contribute to making it awkward.

It undoubtedly does make a huge contribution.

12 hours ago, NullVector said:

I figured none of that surrounding awkwardness would really matter, if I met somebody I 'clicked' with enough, so I was pretty relaxed about a lack of relationships/sex throughout my 20s. Now, I don't know. I feel like I may need to do things more actively outside my comfort zone to make something happen...

I'm guessing that without support it's difficult to have any idea of what things you could do. Especially given that support and advice aimed at allos is likely to be inappropriate for you, even repulsive.

13 hours ago, NullVector said:

(but, as I said earlier, that's never something I felt forced to do by societal pressures, so I'd kinda have to force myself...)

Personally I often find "low pressure" (as well as "informal" and "casual") social situations to be intrinsically anxiety inducing. Even though the majority of people appear to be the opposite.

14 hours ago, SoulWolf said:

I suppose it's easier to explain the aro/ace combo than seperating them? I'd imagine that talking about a lack of romantic attraction is OK with most people, but explaining sexual attraction to strangers just seems kind of TMI and none of their business...

It does appear that there are socially acceptable ways to be uninterested in sexual relationships which do not have romantic equivalents.
IME talking about lack of romantic attraction is not at all OK with most people. There are also plenty of ways in which the world is specifically set up with the assumption that everyone is (or wants to be) in a couple.

12 minutes ago, DeltaV said:

Some people think like this and by asking “why?” they attempt being an amateur therapist to cure you.

The most obvious problem with this person's argument is the idea that romance is somehow "turbocharged friendship".
Whereas I'd say it is a different kind of relationship from friendship. It would make more sense to claim that QP friendships are "more than", "further than" (neo) platonic friendships.
Many allos could even be considered "handicapped" when it comes to relationships. Not only do they typically appear only capable of one romantic relationship at once when they are "in a relationship" they can struggle to maintain friendships. Sometimes even family relationships.
You could even look at it as some allos being incapable of non platonic friendships, so they have to do the romantic thing in order to be able to have sensual and sexual interactions

On 09/01/2017 at 8:19 AM, Kojote said:

I don't think it's intrinsically a bad thing if people ask "why". I actually like that, since it means that people are curious and want to learn. I mean, there's a huge difference between curiosity and devaluation and I always like to welcome the former =D

It can rather depend on their reactions to how you answer "Why?".
As well as what happens if you ask them why they are alloromantic or what their, personal, motivations for wanting romance are.

6 hours ago, DeltaV said:

And even if cishet men don't fall madly in love, they nearly always get a strong urge like “I must, must monopolize this female!”. In this sense even Conan the Barbarian engages in complex bonding behavior. Sure, it's not the romanticism of flowers of candlelight dinners, but of not being content with just having NSA sex.

IME this kind of behaviour is rather more general amongst alloromantics than just from heteroromantic men. Rather that women and homoromantic men may be able to use a little more subtlety.
The other side of the coin is that allos seem to also like being on the receiving end of this kind of thing. From my PoV it seems rather the opposite of friendship even borderline abusive. Honestly this kind of behaviour seems more appropriate with a puppy than a fellow human being. Isn't the whole point of friendship to accept someone as they are and respect their autonomy?

6 hours ago, DeltaV said:

So, it's really Conan the Romantic and he would be very irritated by a free-roaming sex kitten.

Teenage me might well have found (if you pardon the pun) some "free-roaming sex kittens" to be close to the perfect kind of partner. If I'd actually encountered any such people...

6 hours ago, DeltaV said:

Probably human mate-bonding behavior is part of the higher cognitive functions and so it feels completely natural to allos, like it's just a fundamental part of their personality.

Personally I find it hard to separate romance and monogamy as alien and repulsive concepts.
However there are aros who desire some sort exclusivity (including sexual) in relationships. As well as a couple structure and dynamic. Even concepts such as (queer) platonic marriage...

6 hours ago, DeltaV said:

And also because of that, romantic love can swiftly disable rationality. And in this state they believe that reading “please send the money with Western Union” and “you're my love, my life, my heart” in the same email is totes normal and not at all suspicious.

Sometimes I'm not sure if I should feel sorry for or laugh at an allo who's been scammed in such a way. A random stranger on the other side of the world asking for money is hardly likely to be anything other than a crook!
 

4 hours ago, LunarSeas said:

OMGGGGG, the "must monopolize female!" thing is so real and such bullshit. I had a guy pull that on me hard in college, always telling me he didn't want a relationship, which I was more than fine with, but the SECOND I bone someone besides him at a party he's fucking drunk abusive oxnard.

Instead of being glad about his friend having an enjoyable time at a party.

7 hours ago, omitef said:

@James YO, I TOTALLY FEEL YOU ON THAT? I'm pan, and I feel like my aromanticism makes me act as if I'm fraysexual at first. I become anxious when I notice myself feeling sexual attraction towards friends, especially squishes, because I fear that any sexual advances will be interpreted as romantic. However, once I've established a clearly platonic bond with someone, then I don't feel any anxiety over sexual attraction to them, although I wouldn't act on the attraction because it's socially frowned upon to have consistent sexual relations with someone you aren't dating.

There also appears to be no obvious way to actually go about it.
Both looking for sexual friendships or transitioning existing platonic friendships to allow for also being sexual seem very taboo. IME this can be difficult to even discuss without hostility or assumptions about really wanting romo-sexual stuff.
 

8 hours ago, omitef said:

The idea of a one-night stand also doesn't appeal to me, for two major reasons:

• I'm worried that my potential partner would act transphobically towards me/assault me for "tricking" them into believing I'm a man
• The main way of getting one-night stands I know of is through apps like Tinder, and based on the conversations I've seen there, it seems like there's still an expectation for romantic gestures (e.g. kissing, pick-up lines, sweet talk) even if there's no serious romantic intention

I've even heard of people role playing being in a romantic relationship as part of a ONS.
A difficulty I have, including for ONS, is that I'm often misgendered as "male" and thus expected to follow a asker/chaser/seducer type role. Even if there was some way to get rid of all of the romantic language/gestures/etc (which I find rather revolting and even vomit inducing) that kind of role just isn't me.

16 hours ago, Dodgypotato said:

Moffat is obsessed with entering romance into everything because it's what he thinks will sell. And sadly, he's right. The majority of fans for that kind of stuff go crazy for someone turning someone who seemingly hates romance into a romantic soppy git. I hate it as well. We can't just have one non-romantic character. Ever. Those fans make me so mad. You don't need romance IN EVERYTHING. If it's not a romance genre, don't insist on putting it in everywhere!!! It's unnecessary!

The people making the decisions in the entertainments industry, not just Moffat, believe that shoehorning romance into everything is the right thing to do.
There's a question of how would you find out if this is what fans actually want. Unless we were to have non-romantic characters (and plotlines) as common and varied as romantic ones you can't really compare.

On 15/01/2017 at 9:04 AM, Ace of Amethysts said:

I confess that I wish more people were aro.

My position is more that I wish more people understood being aro.
Or at least that romance isn't the only possible motivation for seeking human companionship and interaction.

On 04/11/2016 at 5:13 PM, Cassiopeia said:

Some aro people who date perhaps like the physical affection, perhaps the attention, the sex, the emotional intimacy, etc. An aromantic person is fully capable of performing to the standards of romance (I have done so myself), but perhaps has to remind themselves how to act around their person.

I'd consider a cupioromantic person still aro (or greyro), the same way as for example lesbian who does full service sex work and has male clients is still a lesbian.

Since the definition of cupioromantic is someone who is aromantic and wants a romantic relationship.
I'd make a distinction between them and someone who is seeking to do things which are romance like/coded.
 

On 04/11/2016 at 5:13 PM, Cassiopeia said:

If you are not romance repulsed, it does not distess you in any way, and your partner is cool with you not having romantic feelings for them, then why not?

IME these can very big "ifs"

9 hours ago, Cassiopeia said:

They aren't saying f.ck the individual people who are happy with the gender they were assigned at birth. They are saying f.ck the concept of being cis, this pressure to live your life a certain way, and the consequences you have to face when you do not conform to the norm. Also the mindless, oblivious herd that maintains amatonormativity, allonormativity, transphobia, racism, etc. without even questioning it.

It seems that supporting (even passively) the status quo is always likely to be easier than challenging or questioning it.
Even in a fairly specific way, never mind the meta concept of there being "one twue way".

9 hours ago, Ace of Amethysts said:

Allonormativity?! Ugh...

Typically used in the context of sexual attraction being normative. Equally applicable to the idea of romantic attraction being normative.

On 24/12/2016 at 8:59 PM, Dodgypotato said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that 'allo' actually has a meaning ('other') whereas the prefix 'zed' was just picked because it's the opposite end of the alphabet compared to a.

I'm guessing that 'allo' was originally chosen because 'sinsexual' would confuse too many people.

On 05/07/2016 at 0:43 PM, MiniChelonia said:

I didn't realise most people visualised their weddings as a kid, or imagined being married in their future. In primary school some girls had made a poll for which guys were most date able, to which my contribution was "no one"    "you can't choose no one or the world will end" "fine, the world ends"

When was the world due to end?

2 hours ago, Ace of Amethysts said:

I confess that I`m not a fan of the allo prefix myself, but if you wanna use it then go ahead, I`m not picky. Here, have ice cream.

What about the z/zed/zee alternative?

On 17/12/2016 at 10:28 AM, Cassiopeia said:

In my opinion that particular subforum is dead because aromanticism works differently than asexuality. 

 

Its sibling forum is needed and it works well on AVEN because romantic aces are dating sexual people who have no idea how to handle that situation.

I agree that they do work rather differently.
Romantic relationships without sex are not an unknown concept (especially amongst "no sex before marriage" subcultures). There's also the way in which many things in society assume that people are in couples.

Many aromantic people are interested in taking part in social events, but can find it difficult if there's an assumption of people being coupled. Possibly many alloromantic people don't know how to handle someone who isn't interested in being coupled.

On 17/12/2016 at 10:28 AM, Cassiopeia said:

Aros in general aren't too keen on getting into any relationships with romantic people, or to have exclusivity with them.  

Nothing stops aros becoming sexually, sensually, aesthetically, etc. to alloromantic people. Especially if these are the only people they ever meet.
Not seeking exclusivity is also to be a problem. Due to it being expected in all sorts of ways (not just sexually).
 

On 17/12/2016 at 10:28 AM, Cassiopeia said:

Or if we do, sexual friendships aren't such a new concept

Which are often looked down on or considered quite disposable.
 

On 17/12/2016 at 10:28 AM, Cassiopeia said:

they are not going to come to this forum to ask about why they are being "friendzoned"...

Seems more likely that they'd want to know "WTF is a QPR?"; "Why does someone want to do only part of a relationship?"; etc.

On 17/12/2016 at 10:28 AM, Cassiopeia said:

Basically the way we feel or don't feel is not as obviously performative like sexuality, and we are a lot less likely to get into a situation where we are expected to romance someone.

Whilst not as obvious it's certainly present.
I've certainly felt pressure to be interested in romance or be assumed to be asexual.
Also things like "plus one" invites. Not being invited at all if you are "single". The concept of "two's company three's a crowd".