kernsing

I either want to be a single parent or raise kids with a friend/group of friends, if I can find any willing partners. I think I prefer adoption, but am not very opposed to having biological kids. Very interested in looking into resources the aro community can find on this topic. 

According to this poll, most people are 15–25, although there are a few older folks.

I consider myself lithro, in that I experience what's usually called "romantic attraction," but this does not lead me to want to date or do many things that are considered "romantic," and that doing things that look like what my culture (USA) calls "romance" actually makes me uncomfortable.

I never knew that this was a possible experience while I was young. I tried to fit myself into a shape that wasn't comfortable, just because I never knew that the shape that is comfortable for me existed.

I like being lithro! I like having knowledge about what I do and what I don't like, and being free to say, "No, I don't want this," even when society doesn't acknowledge it as a possibility. I like knowing that how I naturally am is, yes, valid. I like how having an aromantic spectrum label makes me feel like I'm allowed to exist, and that I'm allowed to be happy even though amatonormativity is convinced that I can't be. It thinks that if you're in love and not "together" with the person, it's a categorical tragedy. But that's a lie. I like being friends--I'm so much happier being friends with someone, no matter my "attraction" to them, than I would be if I were dating. It's not sad that "romance" makes me unhappy, just like it isn't sad that someone doesn't like chocolate. It's just how I am, and if I were any different, I wouldn't be myself anymore. I refuse to accept that my existence is unconditionally sad. I'm allowed to own my happiness.

(I don't think anyone shouldn't be unhappy about being lithro or express their frustrations. There should be spaces for that; it's fine to feel whatever about your identity. But I just want to say: it's very possible to be lithro and to be proud of it!

And also: this experience isn't limited to lithromanticism or even aromanticism. People should feel free to dislike dating, romance, whatever, no matter the labels they use for their emotions or identities.)

[I've said basically the same thing in a comment on a post about romantic denial in love songs. It's a pretty good read.]

Thinking about this again and the first thing that actually popped in my head was /ə.ˈɹoʊ.kä.ˌlɪps/ instead of my above reply ? I do generally pronounce the first two syllables of “aromantic” like /eɪ.ɹoʊ/, though. 

TBH I think sticking the “anti” prefix in front of amatonormativity is fine. Like “anti-racism/antiracism” means action against racism, having “anti-amatonormativity” mean action against amatonormative biases & systems (which I think could encompass “things that promotes other relationships as equally valid“). 

I've heard of "anattractional" before. Definitions that come up in Google include "not feeling attraction" (which sounds like it encompasses platonic, alterous, etc. attractions too) and "not feeling attraction on one or more axes" (which is broader than "not feeling romantic AND sexual attraction"). So not sure if this is a word that fits your criteria, but it's there.

/eɪ.ˈɹoʊ.kä.ˌlɪps/

Because there’s some confusion about ‘neurodiversity’ and ‘neurodivergent,’ and also because I was curious: 

• ‘Neurodiversity’ was coined by Judy Singer in her 1998 Honours Thesis (some say 1999, but the description of Singer’s book on Amazon uses the 1998 date). Sources, if you don’t trust Wikipedia, have these popsci articles: Scientific American article (cw: advocates for the medical model, uses rhetoric similar to ‘low vs. high functioning’ concepts; there’s a critical response here), Psychology Today article (cw: says specific labels like ‘autism’ and ‘ADHD’ are stigmatizing, therefore we should use a blanket ‘neurodivergent’ instead of destigmatizing those labels??).
• The paper is either “Odd People In: The Birth of Community Amongst People on the Autism Spectrum: A personal exploration of a New Social Movement based on Neurological Diversity” (1998) or “‘Why can't you be normal for once in your life?’ From a ‘problem with no name’ to the emergence of a new category of difference.” (Amazon book says 1998, Google and elsewhere says 1999) I can’t find any part of the first paper. The Google Books preview doesn’t have the section where ‘neurodiversity’ is introduced and defined, but I found that part in the Amazon link preview: 

Quote

For me, the key significance of the “Autistic Spectrum” lies in its call for and anticipation of a politics of Neurological Diversity, or “Neurodiversity”. The “Neurologically Different” represent a new addition to the familiar political categories of class/gender/race and will augment the insights of the social model of disability.

The rise of Neurodiversity takes post-modern fragmentation one step further. Just as the the post-modern era sees every once too solid belief melt into air, even our most taken-for granted assumptions: that we all more or less see, feel, touch, hear, smell, and sort information, in more or less the same way, (unless visibly disabled) are being dissolved.

• So as far as I can tell (which isn’t very far), Singer never specifies who exactly counts as “neurologically different,” but ‘neurodiversity’ was coined in the context of autism. 
• I found a few people who want to differentiate ‘neurodiversity’ from the ‘neurodiversity paradigm’ and ‘neurodiversity movement,’ where ‘neurodiversity’ refers to the simple fact that human brains are varied, the ‘neurodiversity paradigm’ states that this variation is natural, and the ‘neurodiversity movement’ promotes the view of the neurodiversity paradigm. I assume that they equate Singer’s “politics of Neurological Diversity” to ‘neurodiversity movement,’ but I really could not access enough material to see if Singer does ever make the distinction. I’m also getting mixed signals from the 1998 Atlantic article by Harvey Blume, which is credited for popularizing the term. 
• (PS, the first two links do not use ‘neurodiverse’ as the plural form of ‘neurodivergent.’ Their usage more parallels ‘diverse’ and ‘of color.’ e.g. A cast that includes white and characters of color is diverse. A cast that includes neurotypical and neurodivergent people is neurodiverse.)
• Singer did not coin ‘neurodivergent.’ I can’t find any good sources on who coined ‘neurodivergent,’ but all of the ones I have found seem to agree that it’s someone named Kassiane (surname: Asasumasu or Sibley?), a biracial autistic advocate whose online presence isn’t all linked together, so I can’t tell if any of them are legitimate. They may run this blog, this Facebook page, this Twitter, and this Tumblr. I generally trust ASAN, and there is an article there by “Kassiane S.,” so I’m assuming there does exist an autistic advocate named Kassiane. As for the other surname, I also generally trust AWN, and they have published a book (All the Weight of Our Dreams) with one of the contributors named “Kassiane A. Asasumasu.”
• Relevant to the ‘who is neurodivergent?’ question: in the linked Tumblr, there’s a post from 2015 with about 100K notes, and the author signs it off as “Neurodivergent K of Radical Neurodivergence Speaking” (Radically Neurodivergence Speaking is the name of the blogspot blog). From skimming the blogspot blog, the writing style seems to match. The post addresses the definition of neurodivergent and who it includes: 

Quote

...

Neurodivergent refers to neurologically divergent from typical. That’s ALL.

I am multiply neurodivergent: I’m Autistic, epileptic, have PTSD, have cluster headaches, have a chiari malformation.

Neurodivergent just means a brain that diverges.

Autistic people. ADHD people. People with learning disabilities. Epileptic people. People with mental illnesses. People with MS or Parkinsons or apraxia or cerebral palsy or dyspraxia or no specific diagnosis but wonky lateralization or something.

That is all it means. It is not another damn tool of exclusion. It is specifically a tool of inclusion. If you don’t want to be associated with Those People, then YOU are the one who needs another word. Neurodivergent is for all of us.

...

• I can’t find anyone contesting this (i.e. I can’t find anyone else claiming to be the coiner and disagreeing with this definition). So it’s very much possible that the coiner of ‘neurodivergent’ uses a very broad definition of the word that includes mental illness. 

***

I struggle with mental illness. I’m pretty sure I have OCD, but I don’t think I have a diagnosis (maybe??? how do you navigate the American mental health system send help). I don’t know if I’m autistic or a cousin; in any case I am probably alexithymic/I find it difficult to identify and express emotions, and this is related to my being grey aromantic. 

@nonmerci I went through your writing and made a couple of grammar/wording edits to your amatonormativity section.

Also wrote some things on singlism but it's incomplete.

Thinking about this again and why I'm attached to the term "aspec"/a way to refer to the aro & ace communities simultaneously, and--maybe as a way to signal a connection to the ace community without necessarily having to be part of it? I'm (probably) not ace, but it sounds weird to say that I have no connection whatsoever to the ace umbrella when I sometimes use labels like "demisexual" and "aegosexual." "Aspec" as a term encompassing that experience.

25 minutes ago, Coyote said:

This is something that strategicgoat, warriorsdebt, and whes did specifically because anti-ace & anti-aro bloggers on Tumblr kept conflating the two concepts. So their response... was to create a word for both concepts? ...And now we have the problem of that term, itself, inspiring a lot of conflation of the two concepts (where people will use "aspec" when what they actually mean is just "ace"). Great going, everyone. 

While I'm not against having a word to describe communities of people who are distinct entities but grouped together by outsiders (cf. the aromantic:Chinese::aspec:Asian thing mentioned near the end of my previous comment on this thread), the continued conflation is bad. I don't think that's mostly the word's fault; more of the sexuality & romanticism conflation thing society has going on in general, but I can see how "aspec" could feed into it. I think most of this is best combatted by outreach/acceptance/education about the ace & aro communities.

37 minutes ago, Coyote said:

  Quote

“It means we don’t have to teach people that ‘ace’ includes the whole asexual spectrum and 'aro’ includes the whole aromantic spectrum” is a TERRIBLE reason to use aspec. In fact, I’d argue that if people are thinking that, then that’s a reason why we shouldn’t use aspec.

Yeah, uh, what even? I can't even completely parse what “It means we don’t have to teach people that ‘ace’ includes the whole asexual spectrum and 'aro’ includes the whole aromantic spectrum” means & how that's connected to "aspec" but yeesh, talk about alarm bells. That's a problem if people are using "aspec" in that way, to avoid teaching people about important aspects of the aro & ace communities.

And wow, I'm part of A-SpecUsers on PF and I never noticed that. Huh. Is the comm creator agender?? (I don't know how to find out who a comm creator is on PF? Is that SquirrelStone?)

11 minutes ago, Momo said:

1 hour ago, Lokiana said:

Just a question for y'all, and this is slightly off topic so pardon me: do you consider agender people to be on the a-spec? I've heard conflicting answers and am curious what y'all's thoughts are.

I am also curious about this. I hadn't heard of this as a thing before this thread.

There’s been a thread on this (EDIT: that got really off topic and contains some identity policing). Personally I’ve never really heard of it incorporating agender and use to it encompass the aro and ace umbrellas.

Yes, I have felt this way for some people, and have questioned whether I was alloromantic as a result. But I realized that I prefer to be friends with those people rather than anything else, so have opted to go with (grey) aromantic as a label.

4 hours ago, BuffOreo said:

So when I think of these two people it's more like wow I feel love for them but not like I am in love with them. Friendship is highly prized to me and I do not take it lightly so the line between what others think is romantic vs platonic is often blurred to me.

The “love for them” vs. “in love with them” is a wonderful way to phrase it.

Personally I have also adopted the quoiromantic label for this (to say that “romantic attraction” is not a personally useful concept, considering the flushing, heart palpitations, etc. combined with no desire to actually do romance; I cannot reply yes or no to the question “do you experience romantic attraction?”), and say that I have felt alterous attraction (attraction that is neither wholly platonic or romantic, attraction outside the romantic/platonic binary). Of course the labels are not necessary, and such an experience is compatible with the view of such an attraction as wholly platonic/does not require a rejection of the concept of romantic attraction, but this is just how I have navigated naming my romantic orientation & related attractions.

I feel very similarly, even though I am just beginning college. I have no idea how I will ever settle down when my ideal life would involve some sort of platonic communal living situation (also I think I do want kids and I have no idea how the script to a "would you want to ever raise kids with a group of friends" conversation would go). I would love to find an in-person aromantic group or other organizations that interest me, but I currently live in a small town. Hopefully the prospects will get better when I move to a larger city next year.

I've been reading the Terra Ignota series where the default family unit is a sort of communal/found family thing and I have such mixed feelings about it because that's what I want and it's lovely seeing that but also--sometimes it makes me feel like I have no real future because the future I want is limited to social sci-fi series set in the 25th century. There are just ... barely any narratives for people like us, models for us to follow.

1 hour ago, Lokiana said:

On 3/26/2020 at 12:39 PM, Coyote said:

*squints* ......I wish I could understand how you're coming to these conclusions. If I turned to one of my friends, linked to this thread, and said, "So as you can see, people listened and were cooperative," they'd think I was being sarcastic.

 

Was this part really necessary? Like truly, really necessary? All you did was discourage me from continuing the conversation.

I think this part was just to point out that people seem to have very different impressions of how the conversations in this thread went down. While I don't think I see the reception as negatively as Coyote does (many people just seemed to be tired of the topic, which I wouldn't call a hard yes or no to the "were people mostly willing to listen" question; and I do agree that one thread is not a good heuristic for how this conversation might go down in the wider aromantic community anyway), I also don't seem to have as negative of an impression of Coyote either, e.g. while I understand being wary of callouts and such, I do think there's a difference between that and saying "there's a worrying trend going on, here are some examples to show you what I'm talking about/establish that I'm not just making things up." It's a fine line, to be sure, but I do think the article & thread were more of the second situation. Mostly I got the impression that a lot of miscommunication went around.

As for the factions on aro tumblr, yeah, I think you have it right ('you' as in Lokiana). I'm not exactly sure which of those would be more prone to misinformation, though, if we're asking about where we should spread a post about the origins of QPRs.

I'd be interested in helping, although I'm not sure how much I'll be able to do. I can proofread/edit and possibly write.

Is Psychology Today an acceptable source? Bella DePaulo (who has a PhD, which is good, right?) has an article up about aromanticism, some parts of which I'm dissatisfied with but it does mention aro allos & aro aces as distinct groups and amatonormativity. She's written better articles about singlism/discrimination against single people, which we could mention if we want to talk about amatonormativity: here's one about housing discrimination and one about workplace benefits (this one on WaPo). She's also written a book and some scholarly articles on single people, but I don't really know what those are like.

Are we organizing this on Arocalypse (like on this thread?), will we have a Google Doc, something else?

EDIT: Looking at the Wikipedia talk pages, it may be more effective if we first expand the aromanticism section under the romantic orientation page and then argue that it should be its own page once it's bigger.

I chose maybe for marriage, but I honestly think it's unlikely to happen. Perhaps to a friend or QPP. Even if I get crush-like/romantic-attraction-like feelings for someone (like I have in the past), I vastly prefer to negotiate my relationships as platonic or at least not romantic. So if I did get married, it would be unconventional. 

I'm much more interested in raising children, though. Not much preference between biological or adopted/foster (in the poll I chose adopted). I'd very much like to do this with other people, which is a little frustrating to think about since you rarely hear about dedicated platonic child rearing outside of divorces. 

I’m wondering why we cut out the “is not an appropriate proxy for aro reparations” part? I think it packs in a lot of information about what the essay is trying to say that “misinformation on QPRs hinders conversations about ace and aro community relations” doesn’t include, i.e., that the whole QPR conversation is a poor substitute for the ace community actually addressing aro grievances. It’s more specific than hindering relations. 

Like, if we’re fine with using “misinformation” (even though its definition has ‘deliberate deception’ in it [EDIT: in the Google/Cambridge/Collins definition at least, it’s less negative in definitions from other places on the web like Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com], I guess it’s still less negative sounding in general than “revisionism” or “denialism”), Coyote could just replace the instances of “revisionism” with “misinformation” in the essay and revise the title to “QPR Misinformation is Not An Appropriate Proxy for Aro Reparations.” 

Quote

oh my god yes, the language that you use coyote is always implying bad intent!! it's like you agree that the root of the problem is misinformation and then say things like "revisionism" or "denialism" that imply bad intent and assign it to particular people too "aphobephobe had a friend repost" without giving them the benefit of the doubt... it's just hard to have a constructive discussion when you first have to defend the lack of bad intent again and again and again

I don’t think OP means to imply bad intent? It’s just that the words available to us in English (that aren’t clunky like prefacing “unintentional” onto “QPR revisionism/denialism/misinformation/what-have-you”) ALL have negative connotations.

Here’s the definition of “misinformation” that Googling pulls up: 

Quote

false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.

(emphasis mine)

So using the word “misinformation” doesn’t solve that aspect. OP has already said earlier in this thread, “It was not my intention to discuss intentions (or rather, whether or not people are doing this deliberately).” It’s not Coyote’s fault that there’s no concise word for “false information that was spread” + no connotation of it being intentional. If there is one, I’m sure someone will bring it up sooner or later and then we can put the matter of the title being negative to rest. If there isn’t, all we can do is choose a tradeoff between “be very clunky with our wording” and “have negative connotations in the title.” As you say, we should give people benefit of the doubt. 

So: anyone have any wording suggestions that haven’t been written off already? Wait, actually, “misconception” is okay-ish. It doesn’t really have to do with the spread of ideas though—how to word the thing? “Spreading Misconceptions About QPRs is Not An Appropriate Proxy for Aro Reparations”? Does that still sound accusatory? Hm. Maybe “Spreading Misconceptions (Intentionally or Not) About QPRs is Not An Appropriate Proxy for Aro Reparations”? Ugh. That gets wordy. More suggestions would be nice. 

Anyway. Onto the unintentional-spread-of-false-info about QPRs problem and the actual amatonormativity in ace spaces problem. 

Quote

I think the best course of action there is to create a competing post (that's equally pretty, since I think that's a factor in why it spread)

I think Laura’s idea about the QPR thing is a good one to try. 

Quote

I'm not even sure what I'd want from explicitly ace spaces that i don't want from the rest of the world..?? it's not their responsibility to talk about aros or be especially good to aros any more than it's on the rest of the world is how I see it

I agree with this 100%. I think part of the problem is just amatonormativity and ignorance of aro issues in general. This probably can only be solved with more in-person activism and time. Like, the online world is good for finding other aromantic people in the first place if you’re aro & looking for it, but we as a community should probably look into getting out there more. (Online world may still play a part in this solution: more publications about aromanticism on more general sites?) It’s just...difficult to know where to start. I think a lot of us are frustrated by how big and nebulous and intractable the problem seems to be. 

Although, maybe the ace community is a good place to start with aro activism since they’re more likely to be aware of aromanticism existing in the first place. But then that gets into the problem where we want to be separate from and not always tied up with the ace community. Anyone got thoughts on that? 

Quote

for aroaces in those spaces would be not to overdo it with "romance is best, romance is pure" and be aware that it's possible to be aro while not being ace (and don't say it's somehow morally wrong) 

I think you mean “alloaces” for the “romance is best/pure” thing? I don’t see why aroaces would be saying that. 

Oh, yeah, big agree on the second things. I’m not that active in ace spaces, but the stuff Laura said about ace community self-policing sex-negativity (as opposed to individual sex-aversion/repulsion) seems good for the “it’s not morally wrong” thing, although that doesn’t seem to be alloaro specific. 

The thread on the word “a-spectrum” eventually devolved into fighting the border war set between the definitions of aromantic and alloromantic, but at least I got to ramble about what people mean when they say “romantic attraction.” Thought it might be nice to put it here.

Quote

I feel like the term [romantic attraction] usually(?) refers to a whole host of emotions/desires that apparently most people [read: alloromantic people] experience as a conglomerate: (1) limerence (i.e. being obsessed with someone, thinking about them all day), (2) emotions such as “having butterflies in the stomach”/physical responses to the other person, (3) desire for emotional closeness, (4) desire to do conventionally romantic activities (e.g. going on dates, calling each other pet names), (5) desire to be sensual (e.g. kissing, hand-holding), (6) having an aspiration for a long-term relationship, (7) desire for reciprocation, (8) all these emotions and desires are perceived as involuntary/you aren’t able to stop of your own free will, (9) these emotions and desires are directed at a specific person.

May have missed some other aspects that most people think of when talking about romantic attraction. YMMV. My philosophy attempts to be descriptive, not prescriptive. In the end I’ll say something is romantic if the person experiencing it says it is.

EDIT: “conglomerate” is not the right word since it means “different things that are grouped together but remain distinct.” I meant “most people experience [these emotions/desires] as one single entity termed romantic attraction,” not as distinct emotions simply grouped together

On 10/2/2019 at 12:41 PM, TripleA said:

You either have romantic attraction or you don't have any.

What about people who aren’t sure if they experience romantic attraction? For one, how are you defining romantic attraction? I feel like the term usually(?) refers to a whole host of emotions/desires that apparently most people experience as a conglomerate [EDIT: “conglomerate” is not the right word since it means “different things that are grouped together but remain distinct.” I meant “most people experience [these emotions/desires] as one single entity termed romantic attraction,” not as distinct emotions simply grouped together.]: (1) limerence (i.e. being obsessed with someone, thinking about them all day), (2) emotions such as “having butterflies in the stomach”/physical responses to the other person, (3) desire for emotional closeness, (4) desire to do conventionally romantic activities (e.g. going on dates, calling each other pet names), (5) desire to be sensual (e.g. kissing, hand-holding), (6) having an aspiration for a long-term relationship, (7) desire for reciprocation, (8) all these emotions and desires are perceived as involuntary/you aren’t able to stop of your own free will, (9) these emotions and desires are directed at a specific person. I’m curious about which one of these you see as the real definition of romantic attraction (or if it’s a factor I have not listed), or whether you do consider romantic attraction to be a combination of factors that are apparently never experienced separately by anyone ever despite there being seven billion people on the planet (and therefore the pronunciation: you either have romantic attraction or you don’t have any. Because if romantic attraction refers to a combination of things, and some people only experience some of those things, how is that an either-or situation?). 

(Hypothetical situation: do you think your definition of romantic attraction is the definition most people will agree on? If we surveyed people about how they define romantic attraction, and we found that people disagreed on it, would you say that clearly, there is a right answer and a wrong answer—some of these people are wrong and some of these people are right? Maybe you would, but I wouldn’t; I would say words are what people make them as, that these series of letters aren’t magically tied to some real-world object or platonic ideal forever, or else language wouldn’t be able to change over time, and “romantic attraction” would mean something like “a pull towards stories about knights,” considering the original meaning of romance.)

Secondly, I am sometimes not very good at identifying/processing my own emotions. So if I say, “I really don’t know if I want to kiss this person, or date them, or hold hands, or if this feeling of anxiousness is apparently something everyone feels around their crushes or my usual romance and touch aversion,” are you really going to tell me, “Look, kernsing, you either experience romantic attraction or you don’t, so even if you can’t tell, you’re still either experiencing romantic attraction or not, you’re still either alloromantic or aromantic, no in between”? Except I’m never going to be able to tell which one I am. Sorry, but that classification system is pretty useless to me. I consider myself aro by virtue of my usual varies-neutral-to-strong disinterest/aversion to romance. It ties me to a significant portion of the community (a community that gives me so many words and shared experiences that have cleared up a lot of heretofore confusing aspects in my life—I feel connected to it, deeply grateful for it), and has the added bonus of being actually applicable to my experience. 

{EDIT:

(IMO there are definitely many, many more ways to be grey, but these were the ones I could think up that might challenge your notion of “either attraction or no attraction”)

[deleted response to Star Lion because I don’t want to clutter this thread up too much, especially with responses to stuff posted a month ago. Anyway.]

}

—

OKAY. I write nothing for over a month, then this. The wonders of internet arguments—I think reading this thread was frustrating (interoception, I’m telling you, I can’t believe emotional literacy is a Thing people Have)? Anyway, long rambling about grey identities out of the way. Topic of discussion: the word “aspec” and ace & aro people unified under one community? I think we do benefit from having a single ace+aro community (in addition to our separate aro & ace communities; more “community”, less “partnership/coalition”; I think the aro/polyam solidarity thing that’s sometimes talked about might be a good basis for a partnership/coalition and not community, if we’re drawing distinctions) considering our shared history and experiences, which are thus shared because of how society has traditionally perceived romanticism and sexuality as one amorphous blob thing (sometimes I can do words, sometimes I can’t.) Convergent? Not SAM? However we are referring to it nowadays? So we’ve been lumped together by the majority of society, it makes for shared experiences, e.g. being perceived as cold/distant, mentally or physically ill, inhuman; having to do relationships differently and all the joys of navigating that, etc. We have shared interest in improving our shared experiences, through visibility/awareness and acceptance efforts. I’m pretty sure I found out about aromanticism through asexuality resources (although aromantic-focused resources may make that obsolete). I consider myself aspec, same way I consider myself Asian-American—I’m Chinese, “Asian” as a group doesn’t really make sense until we’re a minority in the US (and other places too? But I’m just American, I don’t know) and people lump us together. 

Beyond ace & aro—I’ve never actually heard of including agender in aspec until this thread, but I’m not necessarily against that. I guess I don’t see too many shared commonalities though? People nowadays generally consider gender and sexuality to be separate things, I think. We do have some shared experiences, though—looking through the voidpunk tag on tumblr. People telling us that we’re missing out on some cornerstone human experience. Bleh. 

EDIT: I also don’t think I’ve heard of aplatonic or like, anything other than aro & ace referred to as aspec. Still no opinion, would like to hear from people who do consider those other identities aspec. 

Personally it depends? I haven't ever kissed anyone except in a platonic/familial context, but if I think about it: kissing in a romantic context -> meh or no, probably; kissing in a sensual and/or sexual context -> that sounds more interesting? maybe?? So, I think of kissing as platonic and/or sensual and/or romantic and/or sexual (and/or alterous?? we have many words), depending on context, as in, what the participants think of the act. Usually, if it's not platonic, I think of kissing as sensual or sexual, not really romantic (for reference I'm uhhh acespec? aegosexual fits but aegoromantic doesn't, which feels relevant) 

Grey because: I've experienced limerence and some sort of attraction in the past, but only maybe a handful of times, and never to strangers. But also--and I consider the following just as salient to my greyness as scarcity of attraction--since I hadn't been too familiar with aromanticism at those points I had always thought that attraction both sexual and romantic, but thinking back on it I'm not entirely sure about the "romantic" part; I don't think I ever really strongly wanted to date any of my 'crushes'; the one time it got close to dating, I became uncomfortable and we decided to stick with friendship and there was so much relief--and it was good, I cherish that friendship; I almost never feel any particular general desire for a romantic partner; I think 'romance aversion' is a more personally familiar thing than any desire to date, but really, emotions in general are confusing to me. And yet.... I've had 'crushes'? Butterflies? Limerence, the 'can't get them out of my head' feeling? And yet again: I've always had a sort of control over those feelings; if e.g. the person started dating someone else, I could always consciously just.... decide to stop having a crush on them; not preference or goal or action like 'oh I won't pursue them anymore' (I'm not sure if I ever had that in mind even?) but literally 'stop having those sorts of feelings about them.' 

Still waiting for the next crush to see if I can gather more data on this, but I started questioning arospec some two years ago and have not had a crush since. Maybe it'll never come. I'm fine with that; even if I had a crush I think my preferred partnered relationship is either 'QPR' or 'none.' I'd just miss the opportunity to have more information on how I personally interact with 'attraction' & its relationship to 'desire' & how much control I really have over it. It's probably relevant to the topic that the part I'm looking forward to most if I ever have a crush again is 'I wonder how that experience will affect how I view the social constructs of romantic & sexual orientations and attractions.'

So, personally, greyness is: yes infrequent, yes never to strangers, but also--it's confusion, the difficulties I have with emotional interoception in general, the comfiness of big vague umbrella terms because of that confusion; it's toeing the line of categories, the fuzziness of definition boundaries, living the 'attraction is a social construct' since my relationship to 'attraction' does not mesh well with the most widespread models; it's an outlook on life, not one that feels like a view I choose but more like an innate quality of how I perceive the world, how I do not value 'romance' as it is valued by society, how I act on 'attraction' differently than people think we should.