Mark

On 10/6/2019 at 11:45 PM, TripleA said:

So I was doing a couple surveys and saw the word, 'Polyaffectionate' come up, after seeing 'Polyamourous' - obviously I wouldn't be Polyamourous because I don't want a romantic relationship,

It's very much a recent  thing to define "polyamourous" as being specific to "romantic relationships".
The person who coined the term is on record as saying they intended "amorous" to have it's regular meaning of "sexual".

With this FAQ, from 1997 not mentioning romance at all. (If it's anywhere it would be as a subset of "emotional".)

On 10/8/2019 at 12:22 AM, TripleA said:

So, I've made a few 'memes' that have helped me and thought could help you guys figure out your orientation. There are three links, which take you to my posts on the AroAce United Amino.

 

Attraction Scales: https://aminoapps.com/c/aroaceunited/page/blog/attraction-scales/lq4e_l6UQu8V0R4VJGEbqj3pW3zo35Vno

 

Attraction Scales 2: https://aminoapps.com/c/aroaceunited/page/blog/attraction-scales-2/4EKB_k7iYuboemwJ5bZbeLPKGE1KNZkqJr

 

TLDR - All you have to do is mark on the scale how often you experience 5 types of attraction: sexual, romantic, aesthetic, sensual and alterous. The 2nd Attraction Scales further breaks it down into how often you experience these attractions between men and women. 

This appears to use yet another definition of "alterous". Not sure how well these would apply to people who are demi, quoi or disagree with the definitions given.

The definitions appear to be somewhere "asymmetric".
Sexual Attraction: The desire to have sex/perform sexual acts with someone. Rather than desire for a sexual relationship.
Romantic Attraction: The desire to have a romantic relationship/to do romantic things with someone. What are "romantic things"?
Sensual Attraction. The desire to give or receive touch. e.g. cuddling. kissing, holding hands, etc. All of those being romantic coded.

Aesthetic Attraction: When you are attracted to someone's appearance.

Alterous Attraction: To desire a deep, emotional bond with someone but not in a romantic way. 

There's also a rather obvious flaw with the second part.

The term dysphoria is actually rather general.
Most references are about gender, often also physical rather than social.

Personally I don't see that much difference between trying to fit into an amantonormative society or a cisnormative one. In both cases there's the mismatch of "social paradigms". Even though the details differ.

17 hours ago, YXSHINN said:

Romantic friendship (n.)

 

The term romantic friendship refers to a very close but non-sexual relationship between friends, often involving a degree of physical closeness beyond that which is common in the contemporary Western societies, and may include for example holding hands, hugging, kissing, and sharing a bed. The term was coined in the later 20th century in order to retrospectively describe a type of relationship which until the mid 19th century had been considered unremarkable but since the second half of the 19th century had become more rare as physical intimacy between non-sexual partners came to be regarded with anxiety.

 

Sounds like what I want (maybe minus the kissing), however the only issue I have with this is literally the term itself. Is that just me?

 

Like, "romantic friendship," huh?

 

In that sense, I could see why people would prefer QPR over romantic friendships, because I'd do that too. I'd just call it a intimate/close friendship. It is something more, but nothing less.

This kind of relationship may or may not be "platonic". Depending on if the term is being used to mean "non physical" or "non sexual". With the additional complication being that kissing may or may not be sexual. IMHO how "romantic" it might be depends more on how much the people involved identify as a couple. Which isn't stated.
It's not something I would especially want. Maybe without the bed sharing.

TBH I'm quite ambivalent about if this is called a "romantic friendship" or "QPR". 

15 hours ago, DogObsessedLianne said:

I totally agree with the couple-based cogs in the capitalist machine idea, the whole of society (at least here in the UK and similar places) is based on couplings.

I find couple culture quite intimidating and alienating.
Whilst also pervasive, even far beyond (romantic) relationships. e.g. the "split into pairs" meme which commonly appears in education and training.

12 hours ago, eatingcroutons said:

You can add me to the list of people who used to think this way - it seems it's a pretty common aro experience to think that "romance" just means "good friends who have sex"!

I wonder if this is especially common in English speaking countries where terms like boyfriend and girlfriend are common euphemisms for romantic partner.

6 hours ago, Coyote said:

There's a problem with relying on those dictionaries or other conventional approaches though because a lot of English-speakers typically don't recognize adult nonsexual romantic relationships as a concept.

I'd have though if there were a need for a term to describe such relationships it would be expressed by allo aces. AFAIK they use "romantic", to describe such relationships.

What I think is more lacking is recognition (and terms to describe) non-romantic sexual relationships.
 

1 hour ago, nonmerci said:

To be simple, for me platonic is to friendship what romantic is to romance. But I guess this is not how everybody use it. I have not your knowledge of history of the words and common use of terms. I am just influence by the fact that "squish" is define by "platonic attraction" which is defined by "the desire of be friend with someone".

The adjective form of "friend" is "friendly".
With platonic lacking an obvious noun form.
I don't understand how these words have become linked.

23 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

I agree about romantic and platonic, but I don't see platonic and sexual as antonyms. Probably because I don't use it as Platon would have done, but I associate it with friendship. And in theory, there is no reason one can't be sexually attracted to friends. This is the whole concept of "friend with benefits".

The definition "platonic" meaning either "non sexual" or "non physical" is what you typically find in English language dictionaries.

The usual way it's associated with friendship is the term "platonic friend".
The notion of "platonic" meaning "friendship" appears to have originated within the ace community.
 

Plato never made use of the term. TBH it has about as much to do with him as "romantic" has to do with the Romans

46 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

but I see a problem use a word with "platonic" in it for something like alterous, that is supposed to be neither romantic nor platonic. But this is just my point of view of course.

Thanks for the links, this is interesting.

It can be used for both "in between A and B" and "neither A nor B" which are somewhat different.

11 hours ago, bydontost said:

it should be, but the truth is that someone has to volunteer for it to exist. groups that are for aros specifically (that I know of at least) are in new york and london only

Is this London Group you mean? Which dosn't appear that active and currently unable to offer ace, rather than aspec, events.
 

AUREA lists a group in New Jersey (which may be the New York one). This also does not appear to be especially active either.

 

On 9/9/2019 at 2:35 PM, Whistle said:

My speculation on this is that asexuality would have more of a genetic component- sexual attraction seems like it ought to be a more cut-and-dry one from a genetic perspective? But I wouldn't be surprised if there are cultural factors that can influence them as well. Aromanticism is a tricky one though, because "what romance is" (and the level of emphasis around it) is itself so culturally/socially defined. So "what romantic attraction is" seems to me like it would be subjective too.

I'm not sure that there are any genetic factors involved in romance at all.
Even allowing for the possibility of horizontal gene transfer it dosn't seem plausible that something could come into being and spread so rapidly.
Whereas cultural imperialism does seem a plausible explanation for near global amantonormativity which currently exists,.

On 9/10/2019 at 2:09 AM, LBMango said:

 Although, as has been described elsewhere aromantic polyamory is ... linguistically fraught if nothing else...  

Linguistically speaking there is no issue.
Nor is there with the original definition.

Quote

Polyamory means "loving more than one".  This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any combination thereof, according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved, but you needn't wear yourself out trying to figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or filial piety, or a passion for the Saint Paul Saints baseball club into it. "Polyamorous" is also used as a descriptive term by people who are open to more than one relationship even if they are not currently involved in more than one. (Heck, some are involved in less than one.)  Some people think the definition is a bit loose, but it's got to be fairly roomy to fit the wide range of poly arrangements out there.

Where the issues occur is that many polyamory groups are highly couple and romance centric.

On 9/10/2019 at 6:00 AM, aro_elise said:

i do have a problem with the association of sex with romance and i feel like i'll pretty much always be apprehensive about sexual relations because of it--you know, the possibility of them being romantically attracted to me or whatever.  that's the only thing i'm worried about "dealing with".

I think how to navigate societies where conflation of sex and romance is normative.
It's, ironically, something I think the ace community can do better....

This sounds rather like quoiromantic.
Though do be aware that there are mis-definitions of the term are to be found on the likes of Urban Dictionary.

23 hours ago, DogObsessedLianne said:

Don't know of any specifically aro groups. Sometimes social events can be A-spec generally a bit like LGBTQIA groups are across the board and not just for one area like gay men, though there can be a need for specific groups though.

Ironically groups for gay men are fairly common.
The issue I have with many "A-spec" groups is they are, defacto, ace groups. All of them appear to have started off as ace groups which have attempted to diversity. These are the same kind of issues which would arise with a gay or gay & lesbian group trying to become and LGBT+  group involved.

23 hours ago, DogObsessedLianne said:

Unfortunally you have to start broad and then if there's enough in one area perhaps then a specific aro meet and build it up from there.

This isn't how things happened with ace meetups.
AFAIK these happened from having a good and extensive  online community. This is something which is, IMHO, very much lacking for aros.

On 9/10/2019 at 2:15 AM, LBMango said:

Wow, as if to prove my point. My google kung fu is so bad i didn't even notice that this site has a meetups section... D'oh.

Guessing you mean the Visibility, Articles, and Meetups forum. Which dosn't have that many posts about meetups, TBH.

On 9/10/2019 at 1:32 AM, LBMango said:

When I search for aro meetup groups or similar, all I find are ace meetups. I'm not ace. In particular, part of what i want from an aro meetup is to understand how to navigate being aro but not ace in a culture that sees sex and romance tied in the ways it does... So, are there such groups?

If you look for aro meetups using meetup.com there are very few which are actually ace groups or subgroups of ace groups.
Similar with aces & aros with additionally their "world map" only really covering two countries.

On 9/5/2019 at 9:02 AM, nonmerci said:

Hi everyone!

So, after seeing this term on this forum I start wondering if I can be non-alterous somehow. But it's hard to find information about it.

So, it seems the term is recent. For the definitions I find, an alterous relationship or attraction would be somewhere between platonic and romantic; a definition that I don't like because it would place romantic and platonic on the same scale when I see them as different. But it seems to describe QPR. So I would describe alterous as being attracted or desire a relationship that is not conventional. And being non-alterous or analterous would be the contrary.

I also saw once a definition that I like of non alterous : no desire for a special relationship or connection with one person.

 

I personally find this term useful, because I can say that I am not interesting in a QPR, or a special one-to-one relationship that would be different from friendship. But I am the only one? Is there other person here who identify with this label? Do I understand it correctly? 

 

I think I saw @Mark talk about it here, so I'm interesed to hear him on this subject.

Who's him?

I would understand "platonic" to mean either "non physical" or "non sexual".(The former including the latter.)
Thus "platonic attraction" does not make much sense to me. Hence "quoiplatonic".
Whilst I do find "platonic relationship" to be a useful term.

I see "platonic" and "romantic" as different concepts which are not at all antonyms.
Effectively "between platonic and romantic" being about as meaningful as "between temperature and colour".
Nor do I see any reason a relationship cannot be both "platonic" and "romantic".

I do see "platonic" and "sexual" as antonyms. With terms like "platonicish", "partly platonic", "mostly platonic" being descriptive of a between.

On 8/26/2019 at 10:03 PM, aro-fae said:

I would also recommend providing some formal resources because discussion groups tend to be very chill and it's easy to get off topic, so if you could provide something like an emailing list or a facebook group where you can link them to websites, make book/reading recommendations, provide socializing that isn't in-person, etc, that would be very helpful to your members. I would recommend email over facebook as its considerably more anonymous. 

And the more welcoming you can make it for allo aros the better. I don't have the best tips for this as it's something my campus group is currently working on and struggling with, as almost all of us are ace or aroace. ?

One possibility would be to give aro allo members priority in terms of facilitating/leading discussions. 

18 hours ago, nolovejustlust said:

Perhaps it's early or I lack imagination, but doesn't sharing a bed with one person suggest a romantic relationship? 

It's certainly a romantic coded idea. But for some people in may be a sexual or other physical intimacy thing. Similarly for wanting to share a bed with two or more people.

29 minutes ago, Holmbo said:

My ideal living situation would be communal, preferably with people who share a common purpose. I think if I was born in another time and place a monastery life could appeal to me. I would love if there were "atheist monestaries" maybe run by humanist organizations. Or some green sustainable living ones.

 

I also see the appeal of living on my own though. Currently I have two lodgers living with me. We're not really friends, cause we have very different lives and interests, but we get along well. There are advantages to not living alone but some disadvantages too

 

Which option did you pick @Mark
?

I was thinking that this would come under "group". Though plausibly a large group.
Which of the group options would depend on if this were separate rooms or some kind of dormitory.

What would be your idea situation?
Assuming there were no practical concerns or limitations.

How would you ideally like to live?
Assuming that there were no practical issues constraining your choice.

On 8/29/2019 at 11:35 AM, Philotes said:

Same here

I tried the app Hinge but it just freaked me out bc the people I matched with were looking for a romantic relationship and I obviously am not. I am now hoping that I will become friends with someone who is open to a friends with benefits kinda thing but so far that hasnt really worked out either...

Reading a review of the Hinge app your experience makes sense. Unfortunately allos tend to equate and conflate "serious" with "romantic".
Though IME Tinder also has many people seeking romantic relationships.

2 hours ago, simplyaro said:

I'm posting again cause I'm depressed and have nowhere else to turn. My family are big time freaking out about me going on dating sites to try and meet people online. There's really potential danger everywhere, yes. But I'd really like to hope that these sites aren't as dangerous as they are making them out to be. 

How do your family suggest you meet people?
In practice in person meetings are likely to be the most dangerous.

On 8/26/2019 at 2:48 PM, running.tally said:

@Coyote Yes! The aro and ace mentions were examples.

Though, full disclosure, I hadn't thought about the possibility of someone being a-spec and not aro or ace (e.g., aplatonic but not aro or ace). There is a write-in possibility and commenting as an option in the general a-spec category but you make a good point about explicit inclusion we had missed when planning. Thanks for the comment - I like running surveys precisely because I can get feedback like this.

I wonder if there is a way to "beta test" surveys.
Since these kind of issues are not uncommon. I've encountered those which are impossible to complete, due to logical fallacies, but are unfixable because of "sunk costs".

10 hours ago, aspecofstardust said:

 

@Naegleria fowleri yeah that sounds like so much fun just to be able to hang out with people in an inclusive environment.

There's a meme which goes: “Diversity is having a seat at the table. Inclusion is having a voice. And belonging is having that voice be heard.”

10 hours ago, aspecofstardust said:

I'm going to make the group centered around aromanticism and asexuality (and be careful to not conflate the two for sure @Mark)

How will that help allo aros with inclusion or belonging?
 

10 hours ago, aspecofstardust said:

but I don't want anyone to have to come out if they aren't comfortable

This tumblr covers some of the reasons why aro allos might be uncomfortable in aspec spaces.

10 hours ago, aspecofstardust said:

I want to encourage attendance so we won't be picky with who participates

That would only address diversity, rather than inclusion and belonging. 

On 8/23/2019 at 4:25 AM, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

First of all, not all aros feel squishes, nor do most friendships start out that way.

I was surprised when I put up this poll how uncommon squishes appear to be amongst aros. When most aro related articles imply that they apply to the majority of aros.

On 8/23/2019 at 4:25 AM, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

 It's also possible to have a squish on someone and be an absolute fuckwad to them or others, so there's really no correlation between squishes and moral purity. Same with sexual attraction- sexual attraction without other types of attraction isn't inherently evil, it's just something that exists.

It's similarly possible for someone to have a non-sexual crush on someone else and threat them poorly. Which might even be seen as more morally pure than a crush with concurrent sexual attraction. Which could be a possible complication with romantic harassment.
The difficulty here is that purely sexual attraction, along with interest in non-romantic sexual relationships, can be highly pathologised. Including self pathologisation.

On 8/23/2019 at 4:46 AM, Throwaway 12 said:

I guess I felt weird about it because I constantly hear that being only sexually attracted to others is bad and if you are like that you a douche a fuckboy or a sociopath for my friend like you mentioned it's actually more that I treat friendship like an exchange of services I get something they get something or i do something for them thank you for responding

If you are constantly exposed to toxic ideas it can be difficult to avoid internalising them.

On 8/23/2019 at 10:07 AM, nonmerci said:

For squishes, as it is talks a lot it may seems most aros feel it but not really, we made a poll here that shows that it is not that common.

I'm left wondering why squishes are talked about so much when they just arn't that common.

On 8/23/2019 at 10:07 AM, nonmerci said:

More seriously it can be hard when you only feel sexual attraction because of all these movies that tell you it is (yeah, I've seen a lot of romantic movies where the guy is supposed to have a bad behavior because his relationships are only sexual until he met the one girl who changes that... I hate the message in it, it is completely wrong, there is nothing wrong with sexual relationships). But believe me, there is nothing wrong with being only sexually attracted to people.

It's not just movies. This trope appears throughout drama and fiction.
As well as being pushed through peer pressure.

20 hours ago, Chibi Sam Winchester said:

A douche or a fuckboy is someone who pretends to want romantic relationships to get what they want sexually and continuously hurts and disrespects people along the way to get that.

The deception aspect would also apply to the "nice guy" trope.

"When did you first start identifying as aromantic?" with the option of "before 1970" does not really make sense.
Possibly if there was a question like "When did you first realise your attitudes towards relationships and romance differed from those of most people?"

Something important to me would be avoiding conflating aro with ace.
Also something which wasn't just for students.