Mark

6 hours ago, ThatDndDragon said:

A lot of people think that you can't know you're aromantic until you're older, but that can't possibly be true since when we were kids everybody always had "crushes" and were romantically interested in others.

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.)
 

6 hours ago, ThatDndDragon said:

I always thought it was a game of playing pretend. Just how like when we were kids we pretended that there were dragons and that we played family. (I much preferred the dragons.)

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.

11 hours ago, DeltaV said:

There sure are many cute things in this world: like kittens. But I never understood why it's applied to adult humans. Those may be pretty, beautiful, handsome, hot. Not cute. At some point I just resigned and used the word in this manner.

I've never understood where the notion of couples being "cute" come from.

An obvious issue is that virtually every article about "attachment theory" assumes an amantonormative like relationship hierarchy.

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.

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)".

On 1/31/2021 at 8:20 PM, DeltaV said:

Speaking about Hollywood... it's not uncommon for actors playing a couple to end up as an actual couple! Playing a pre-written script of "I love you" blah, kissing in front of the camera, .... if that is already enough, I suspect your nightmare of one catching feelings has a high probability of becoming real.

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.

Marriage is a lifestyle which is highly promoted.
With the false premises that everyone wants to do it and it's suitable for everyone.

On 12/3/2020 at 8:11 PM, Queasy_Attention said:

I also agree that aces and aros are often lumped together with no distinction. I can see how this is a problem on both sides: us aroallos (aromantic, allosexual) don't like the assumption that we're ace, and I can only assume alloaces (alloromantic, asexual) don't like the assumptoion that they're aro. I think part of the problem is that media puts so much focus on both relationships and sex that aces and aros alike can get overwhelmed.

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.
 

On 12/3/2020 at 8:11 PM, Queasy_Attention said:

And when we create spaces for ourselves specifically where we can feel free to reject those ideas, it can feel invalidating for someone to come in and say that they like those things. So if an aroace is viewing an aro community and sees a post that mentions sex positively, it might feel invalidating to them.

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.

On 12/3/2020 at 8:11 PM, Queasy_Attention said:

However, it feels invalidating for aroallos and alloaces to see posts condemning sex or relationships in our spaces, if those are things that we have no reason to reject. I see posts in the various aro subreddits that exclusively relate to aces, and I'm sure there are anti-relationship posts in ace spaces that don't necessarily mention sex. 

It's complicated lol!

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.

On 12/3/2020 at 11:27 PM, elmas said:

Umm, I dont know if Guest Eggerson still needs our help since they posted in September, but I wanted to throw in my head in as well. If you are still checking in here, I find the Split Attraction Model a really useful way of thinking. For most people their romantic and sexual attraction is the same and hard to keep apart. And aroace people have that in common with allo people.

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.

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.)

On 11/28/2020 at 11:26 AM, Erederyn said:

I share many similar feelings. I used to think feed into this narrative, that being single and independent made me almost better than dependent/coupled people.

I think the narrative itself is often the false dichotomy of "single and independent" or "coupled and connected".

On 11/28/2020 at 11:26 AM, Erederyn said:

As I've gotten older, I see that this is not true and how much of that mindset was neoliberalistic and like you said, toxic individualism.

Whilst it may have been co-opted by neoliberalism it predates it.

On 11/30/2020 at 9:50 AM, Rolo said:

I feel like I'm even more connected to the place I live as a single person than I would be if i was in a relationship. If I wanted to move and was in a couple then I might be able to persuade my partner to move with me and have that companionship and support in that new place, but as it is I have half a dozen close friends who I can't bare to move away from.

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

On 12/1/2020 at 5:32 AM, Holmbo said:

@cyancat
I feel like there are some aspects of single narrative that are separate from romantic relationship. For example in my experience singles are assumed to live alone. They're assumed to be more career oriented than those with a spouse and kids. They're generally viewed as more comfortable doing things on their own.

Possibly the term "amantonormative narrative" might be more accurate.
Since the assumption here is is only romantic relationships matter at all.
 

On 12/1/2020 at 5:32 AM, Holmbo said:

@cyancat
At least this was the narrative I internalized and sort of strived for myself. And it was not until later I've realized I do want strong committed relationships.

This turns out to be what many single people (including allos) actually want.

On 12/1/2020 at 1:33 PM, elmas said:

I totally understand the immature thing that is connected to being single. When I was in school and we covered developmental psychology I learned that becoming an adult means to emancipate from your family and learning how to form functioning romantic relationships. That that is just how human life goes. And this narrative influenced me immensely (and probably did huge damage).

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...

On 12/1/2020 at 1:33 PM, elmas said:

I recently listened to a podcast where they talked about romantic relationships and platonic relationships and how they are valued so differently from society. They explained it with an example that I found pretty precise. One of the hosts recounted how she was in accident and her boyfriend told his workplace that he couldnt come in because his gf was in an accident. They pointed out how easily people accept you having to be there for your partner although you might have only dated for a short time. If your friend of several years was in a accident and you wanted to take time of work a lot less people would probably understand.

Similar things can happen with such leave for family members (other than, minor, children) vs romantic partners.

11 hours ago, Holmbo said:

When I was younger I used to feel empowered by the narrative of being single. That you're strong and independent and don't need anyone. That you can focus on your career and move anywhere you like without being tied down by a partner.

This can also have assumptions of introversion or, even, misanthropy.
Possibly because this is least challenging to the idea of amantonormativity

7 hours ago, Erederyn said:

I personally like having my own individuality even though I want to be part of a community. I understand that not everyone wants to be part of a community.

There are several studies showing that single people tend to be more "community minded" than those who are coupled/married.

On 11/20/2018 at 6:11 AM, Holmbo said:

In Sweden a lot of people never marry. The act itself is not expected. But of course living in a romantic monogamous relationship is what most people strive for still.

Is there census data to what proportion of Swedes marry (or follow the cohabiting couple lifestyle)?

5 hours ago, nonmerci said:

True. Right now they start Christmas movies, which are mostly romance Christmas movies, and it's like watching the same movie in different places and different characters.

Maybe even similar characters played by different actors.

11 hours ago, DeltaV said:

Why is Greek mythology and philosophy such a big issue for aromanticism?

Two possible reasons.

• Greek Mythology is a well known example of a pre/aromantic culture.
• The term "platonic" is very much (over) used in aro spaces. Even if not that reflective of Plato's ideas.

19 hours ago, Queasy_Attention said:

Up top! All a siren's gotta do is flash that side shave, D&D enamel pin, maybe do that thing where you put your arms over your head and your shirt rides up-- I'd drown myself in about four seconds.

Sirens arn't in the official D&D source material. Though there are "home brew" stats.
As well as for the rusalka from North Eastern European folklore.Which is in some ways a similar monster.

On 11/5/2020 at 6:22 AM, CharCharChar said:

Ideally I'd like to include alloaros, romance-repulsed, romance-favorable, demi/grayros, alloplatonic, QPR-wanting (is there a better word??) in the collab so that NPCs can more genuinely/accurately represent different aro experiences - but if you happen to ID exactly the same as me I'm sure you'll still have unique and worthwhile ideas (I'm worried that sounds sarcastic; I'm not being sarcastic).

Possibly "QPR favourable", "QPR indifferent" and "QPR repulsed".
Also remember that in a D&D world there might be sexual orientations which do not exist in the real world.. Nor is there any reason such a world need be, universally, amantonormative.

purificatory / cathartic

23 hours ago, Arokitty said:

Siren’s (the mythical evil mermaid creatures) are said to lure people into their clutches with their singing and beauty or something, right? So, technically, would aromantics be immune? 

It might be aesthetic or sexual attraction, but romantic attraction does not exist in The Odyssey.

23 hours ago, roboticanary said:

I swear I remember seeing a discussion on this from somewhere, but generally what they offer is not physical, they offer Odysseus truths. It was only later the story was made more about love and implied sex.

This sounds plausible. What does the original, Homeric Greek, text say?

22 hours ago, senACEay_11 said:

Yeah I think it would really depend on the person and the siren (do sirens come in variations?)

According to Plato they are celestial, under Zeus; generative, under Poseidon and purificatory / cathartic under Hades.
With those in The Odyssey, obviously, being generative.

22 hours ago, senACEay_11 said:

Of course, I feel that this isn't the case for most people, and many people would rather want a relationship (or in the case of Odysseus, truth) more than some food. So maybe?

It's unlikely that anyone in the time of Odysseus (or Homer) would want a (romantic) relationship. Classical Greek has no words to describe one.

On 10/23/2020 at 5:18 AM, aro_elise said:

@DeltaV alluded to this, but i'm going to try to expain it as briefly and accurately as possible, checking some sources again--forgive me if i'm not super successful.  the person who coined the (translated) term 'platonic love' was not plato, but marsilio ficino, in the 15th century.  he did base it on a concept by socrates referenced in plato's symposium: forms of love exist in a ladder/hierarchy where love of a particular beautiful person (which we can interpret as an instance of sexual attraction and which i would argue doesn't belong in a classification of love at all, but anyway) is at the bottom and 'love of beauty itself'--heavenly beauty--is at the top.  according to ficino:  "the passion of a lover is not quenched by the mere touch or sight of a body for it does not desire this or that body, but desires the splendour of the divine light shining through bodies, and is amazed and awed by it."  i can't tell whether this vision of love necessarily excludes sexual attraction or activity, or romantic, actually, but i'd guess not.  (also consider that romantic love wasn't as big a thing in society back then.)  it is believed that couples of the time who considered their love an example of ficino's concept prioritized the romantic aspect over the sexual.  in the 17th century the concept was called neoplatonism.  james howell decribed 'platonick love' as "a love abstracted from all corporeal gross impressions and sensual appetite, but consists in contemplations and ideas of mind" (so excluding sexual attraction).  some people found this pretentious, and relationships which included sex more 'natural'.  later, platonic lovers were described as choosing celibacy, not necessarily lacking sexual or romantic attraction to each other.  in 1846, george henry lewes defined 'platonic love' as "the love of a sentimental young gentleman for a woman he cannot or will not marry".  in all of this it's hard to distinguish what we (particularly we aros) currently understand as sexual from romantic, and romantic from platonic.  now, the casual way people use the term 'platonic' is pretty much at the opposite end of the spectrum of importance compared to the original definition.  word detective alluded to this in 2003, saying that the phrase 'platonic relationship' "turned up in english around 1630 and various people have claimed to be in 'just platonic' relationships ever since.  they are, of course, almost always lying."  i myself am not exaggerating when i say i'm in platonic love by the centuries-old definition with my best friend, and i'm going to use the term even if it doesn't communicate what i wish it would.

I've heard it suggested that the correct context for "platonic" meaning "not sexual" is teacher/student relationships. Apparently Plato was against the, then common, practice of teachers having sex with their students.

The term "romantic" has also changed it's meaning substantially.
At least until Renaissance times it described only Latin derived languages.
With the term "romantic story" originally being associated with the adventure genre. What we'd now call a "romantic subplot" being unusual until the 20th century.

1 hour ago, Mils said:

Let me explain, my boyfriend told me he can’t imagine his life without me and doesn’t know what he would do without me.

So what did he do before he met you?
A related question being how do needs in terms of companionship and life direction wind up so highly romantic coded and centred on a single individual.

1 hour ago, Mils said:

I feel like most people would think this is cute,

How come this is considered "cute" rather than "weird", "controlling" or, even "tragic".

On 10/2/2020 at 4:49 AM, treepod said:

That being said, I'm really tired of the ambiguity surrounding what "platonic" actually means. For one thing, I don't even like Plato, and for another, it's a word originally coined to simply describe love without sex/sexual desire (see here, the etymology: [link]). To me, it sounds like regardless of who came up with the idea of a qpr (like I said, not interested in that convo), platonic seems to ultimately describe allo aces in romantic relationships better than it does us.

The notion of "platonic" meaning "not romantic" appears to be a quirk of US English. Given that the only dictionary to mention this is Merriam-Webster. Whilst every other English dictionary goes with "not sexual" or "not physical". Additionally there's the term "zucchini"...
IME allo aces tend to use "romantic", rather than "platonic" or "romoplantonic/platoromantic".

To me QPRs tend to look quite romance like.

On 10/2/2020 at 4:49 AM, treepod said:

 While it's true that colloquially platonic often = friendship, I think that might just be a result of a false dichotomy society created (if you're not having sex, you're "just friends").

The term "platonic friends" also exists, implying that other forms of friendship are possible.
Something which makes platonic/romantic a false dichotomy is that the concept of "soulmates". Strongly associated with romantic relationships whilst being taken from Plato's work.
 

On 10/2/2020 at 4:49 AM, treepod said:

Lol, I kinda wish "friends with benefits" didn't just refer to sex, but also like, domesticity, commitment, closeness, etc. The "benefit" is my need for constancy is satisfied ?

Additionally allos tend to interpret the "friends" part of it as a euphemism.

10 hours ago, Alexrobinmc said:

Yes omg I think going on badass adventures with would be cool! Definitely doesn't have to involve romance like it always does in books/movies smh.

Ironically this may be fairly close to original meaning of "romance" when it first emerged as a distinct fiction genre.

26 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

Also, I think it would lead to very complicated questions, to know who is more queer than the other. Like, I saw people say that aro heterosexual are more priviledged  (or even not queer at all) because of heteronormativity. But I consider myself more priviledged than an aro hetero because I think that I have it easier than people who has a split attraction. I'm pretty sure some people would argue that with me and really, I don't want to see that  kind of debate...

Perioriented vs varioriented (as well as overlapping vs mutually exclusive varioriention) tends to only be seriously addressed within the ace community.
Given that periorientation is a normative assumption and that, at least, 11% of people appear to be varioriented this is an "elephant in the room" type of issue. Rarely does it get mentioned that even perioriented allo allos can experience only sexual or only romantic attraction either.

46 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

EDIT : in fact the main reason I think why it can't be seen as a scale, is because there are so many variables. The spectrum works for a-spec people because it is about one thing, and because we don't use it as a scale (no one wil wonder who is more aro between an demiro or a lithro, or I'm thinkful that I never encounter this debate). But with qeerness, there is sexuality, romanticism, gender... a lot of factors here, with an infinity of combinaisons, with all specific problems. A scale is too simple to embrace such a diversity.

It can sort of work. Where "a-spec" means either "ace-spec" or "aro-spec". Though both at once would require vectors or complex numbers.
Even then you have quoi orientations which are Not a Number

3 hours ago, Holmbo said:

I just had this idea about seeing queerness as a scale rather than saying "that's queer, that's straight"

In general attempting to apply linear scales to multi-dimensional qualities is both complex and of little use.
 

3 hours ago, Holmbo said:

In that case someone who's aro heterosexual cis might be closer to the straight end of the scale.

You'd also need to consider the likes of married monogamous cis heteroromantic homosexuals.

3 hours ago, Holmbo said:

 While someone who's for example polyamorous panromantic asexual non binary could be considered to be farther out on the scale.

An additional complication here is that monogamy repulsion appears to be very rare with alloromantics but fairly common with aromantics. Whilst polyamory spaces tend to assume monogamy favourable.
 

3 hours ago, Holmbo said:

I was thinking that could help fascilitate discussions about priveledge without excluding anyone cause they're not "queer enough".

Privilege is intersectional, attempting to apply a one dimension scale easily leading to false equivalences.

I don't want the likes of romance, coupledom or marriage with my characters. Not even as a backstory and certainly not as any kind of plot requirement.
Nor would I be comfortable with a party who were mostly coupled.
Anything sexual I'm fine with.
 

On 9/18/2020 at 3:41 PM, Tylore said:

Anyone else ever experienced dismissal of their orientation based off of trauma, depression, attachment avoidance issues, etc.?

I wonder if it's more likely that minority stress is a factor here. Especially given that aros are, typically, an invisible/unrecognised minority group.
A big flaw in attachment theory is the assumption of a "dyadic model" which isn't always applicable even to children. When it comes to adults the majority of "relationship research" is about romantic relationships. The typical attachment style test assumes some kind of "primary relationship".