Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About Coyote

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Name
  • Orientation
    quoiromantic gray-asexual
  • Location

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

2349 profile views
  1. That's the question though, would an alloromantic allosexual have any reason to want to identify with the ace & aro umbrellas like that? I mean, if someone's like "I don't love my friends," I don't see what that necessarily has to do with me. I'm not preemptively ruling it out, just asking what the rationale is supposed to be. So you're talking about like... questioning-aro and questioning-ace?
  2. I'd probably still just use monogamous or monoamorous for that. If you say platonic, most people will probably figure you mean without sex. Anyway, that's going to depend some on the specifics of each conversation, I think. I doubt there's any one-size-fits-all explanation that's guaranteed to work for everyone, as with any topic. It sounds like one of the objections you've been encountering so far is the idea that nonromantic sex is categorically bad. From what you've described, it's unclear if people are saying this in general or specifically when combined with sexual exclusivity. Regardless, one thing I'd be inclined to highlight, myself, is the matter of compatibility -- i.e., these are preferences that make you compatible (or not) with individual other people, so if someone else's preferences are different, you're choosing not to partner with each other. It's not like you're dragging people into an arrangement that they don't want. You're identifying which arrangements you don't want.
  3. Apology accepted. Thanks for listening. Really? huh. I don't hear that every day. I've been kind of unclear on how aromanticism makes a point of commonality that way. Can you say more?
  4. @LoveIsZaxlebax It sounds like you're talking here both about aro monogamy and about issues/conflict with other people about it. Out of those two, was there one you were more interested in hearing advice/perspectives about? Because I have some different thoughts on each.
  5. This is not the topic I meant to raise by asking about the term "a-spectrum," so I'd like to draw a distinction here between 1) questioning "a-spectrum" (and what it refers to and why) vs. 2) questioning the aromantic and asexual spectrums themselves, as two separate topics. Since you brought it up here, though, I will talk about it. The asexual spectrum is necessary to me. I am gray-asexual. You can't spell gray-asexual without "asexual." This is what makes it useful to me as an identity term and concept: an amended, fuzzier version of/cousin to asexuality. I suppose if you forced me to I could just identify as "gray," but I also identify as "ace," as the short form of "asexual spectrum," because my relationship to the ace community is central and important to me in defining/understanding/conceptualizing my gray-asexuality and where I stand in relation to societal norms. That's for them to say -- and maybe you should try looking up more demiromantic narratives -- but obviously, some of them do. Demi folks can be varied, of course, in how they do or don't relate to aromanticism/asexuality, so I'm not too surprised about your demisexual roommate. At the same time, its origin story lies with the asexual community, which is what set the precedent for it being thought of in terms of that connection. And even before that, asexuality was already understood by a number of folks as an umbrella identity that could hold cover a variety of different experiences, which is a part of what led to the terminology of the "spectrum." There have been various intracommunity fights about this and how exactly to draw the lines, but that's the long story short. It's really not your business to go telling certain aces that they're not really ace. On the aro side of things, if you're unfamiliar with demiromantic narratives and experiences and unsure how demiroms feel connected to you as an aromantic person, one thing you can do is 1) look up demiromantic info for yourself, or 2) ask for help, i.e. "Hi, I'm looking to learn more about demiromanticism and how it's related to aromanticism. Are there any demiromantics here or anyone who can link me to more info?"
  6. Bump/update: It's still relatively common for people to use this term without knowing where it came from/what it entails ideologically, so in the interest of helping with that, I'm updating this post with some more condensed notes The term "split attraction model" is no older than 2015 comes from outside the ace and aro communities comes from the same crowd who thinks "allosexual" is a bad word is linked to anti-ace, anti-aro, and anti-bi ideologies For more detailed info, see here and here and here If you're looking for alternatives, ask yourself what you're actually trying to get at For orientation stuff, consider: aro quoisexual, unit aro, aro neu, varioriented, etc. For attraction stuff, consider: attraction subtyping, differentiating types of attraction, etc. For treating attraction as the same thing as orientation, don't
  7. Hey there Momo. Unfortunately, the original poster of this thread (Alexisaromantic) hasn't been online since February 17, so at this point I have no reason to believe they're still looking for advice here anymore. If what you're saying is that we shouldn't discuss this topic here at all, a person who might need to hear that also is TripleA, the user who just necro'd this thread. If (modding-wise) you're fine with his post, though, then I want to get into my own objections to it.
  8. @Artemis's Aro I can't answer all your questions, but FTR, some of the earliest people to use "queerplatonic" were Meloukhia (whose QP partner went on romantic dates with other people) and Sci (whose partner is alloromantic). So a QPR with an alloromantic is something there's already been precedent for from the beginning. Apart from that: What will work for either of you as people is going to depend on the two of you, as people, not the terminology you use.
  9. I'd encourage you to think through this perspective a little more. How precisely forthcoming is she with you about the exact nature of her feelings to you? Does she go into a lot of detail? Does she express an expectation that you respond in exactly the same way? Your concerns aren't based on nothing, and it's understandable to worry about these things -- especially when you've been encouraged to see the distinction between friendship feelings and romantic feelings as a big, important gulf of inherent difference. It's a point of view that I encounter a lot, even (especially?) in the aro community. My current wonder, though, is -- do you feel like you're already being dishonest? Relating to her the way that you do, even if it's different than what she feels, isn't some crime to be confessed. You haven't been lying to her unless you've, well, told any actual lies. You can never completely control what assumptions other people make about you. Plus, more than that: I'd argue there's nothing wrong with partnerships where the partners don't feel the exact same way about each other, because that's a part of what it means to be different people. People have different love langues, different communication preferences, different affection preferences, different ways of processing emotion itself -- there's always going to be some kind of difference at play between any two people. I think trying to precisely mirror each other in everything, right down to the level of exact emotions, can mean putting a detrimental amount of pressure on yourself, and that goes for this or any other relationship in general. One thing that only the two of you can answer: Do you think she's currently unhappy with the relationship? Has she expressed any dissatisfaction with how you talk to her, how you treat her, how you honor your commitments to her? Has she given you any reason to believe you're not already doing enough? It sounds like you're experiencing some insecurities about making sure she's as happy as you are in the relationship. I don't know her and I don't know what the relationship between you is like, but I figure basically one of two things can possibly be true: 1) either there's something different you could be doing, and she can tell you, or 2) there's nothing wrong, and she can tell you. Have you broached that subject with her before?
  10. Oh boy. A mistake, that's what. It's... complicated to explain because the origin story is just... a mess, but I'd boil down the sequence to 1) the ace community has had terms like romantic orientation, romantic attraction, aesthetic attraction, sensual attraction, etc. since the early 2000s, 2) that language started spreading and getting over-universalized, 2) some people were upset because they didn't want that applied to them, and some also felt Threatened by the mere concept of other people using it, 3) in 2015 a band of people on Tumblr started using "split attraction model" for a bunch of different things when modeled as universal, but then 4) people started using it to mean any use of those things at all, not just universalizing it, so then 5) people started to have arguments over whether this-inherently-defined-as-wrong thing is okay actually. And now, because nobody realizes that's where it came from, you've got people using the terms "non-SAM aro" and "non-SAM ace" to mean any of like three or four different things, defining by negation against something that was never properly modeled or created in good faith anyway. Nobody identifies as a "SAM aro" or a "SAM ace." That's not a thing. Anyway I'm an ace who doesn't use the romantic orientation model and I do use the terminology of several attraction types, and that's something this terminology just totally eclipses as a possibility. The term itself is based on this conflation of attraction subtyping (or "split" attraction, eugh) with romantic orientation, like using one necessarily means using the other, and it doesn't. LONG STORY SHORT it's a term that only exists because people are wigged out by aces, aros, and bi people existing. I can't hear the word without thinking about 2015-era Tumblr bloggers screaming about how my community is inherently homophobic, because that's the people who came up with it.
  11. I really wish the term "SAM" and all its variants would just go away actually, but that's a different topic. Aces who don't use the romantic orientation model have been around well before anti-ace/anti-bi bloggers decided to overwrite our language and a bunch of other people just went with that. That's something I would still object to for basically the same reason: by making it into a list where "aro," "aro allo" & "aro ace" / "ace" "allo ace" & "aro ace" are all listed as separate groups, that's still making it sound like not all aros are covered under "aro" and not all aces are covered under "ace," which I disagree with. Anyway, not aro-specific, but arguably relevant to intracommunity issues: How do you talk about sexual norms in an ace-competent way? I'm raising this question here because 1) it's complicated, 2) I'm interested in getting more input on the question from others, since I can only contribute on the aspects I'm most familiar with, and 3) when describing the sexual norms they're affected by, I'd like aros to do that in ways that... are accurate to the real issues, instead of sliding into anti-ace thought patterns. Or in other words (to put this more bluntly): to find ways of articulating those issues that don't involve outright saying things like (for instance) "our culture is anti-sex" or "society wants me to be ace." See more in-depth thoughts at the link.
  12. I'm late to this thread but I wanted to add some thoughts here as another quoiromantic, in case it makes any difference for @Finn or anyone else passing through: Is there something about the relationship that you're hoping to change? What are you hoping to get out of telling her? I think this is an important consideration here because, as you figured, there's a risk of "I don't have romantic feelings for you" being interpreted as "I want to break up" or something along those lines. If you do want to maintain your relationship with her as it is, and if you do want to foreground that/assure her of that, then she might be confused by what you're trying to get at by telling her this. I recommend trying to approach the issue in practical terms: Are there currently any things you've been doing together, things she says, etc. that haven't been working for you? It should be possible to bring up some of those and discuss what your honest preferences are while assuring her that you still want to be together. And if you don't want to change absolutely anything about the relationship, then... you might ask yourself what you're hoping to accomplish with the conversation.
  13. Asexual Privilege: Revival of an Anti-Ace Idea Summary: There was a debate about "asexual privilege" that started in 2011 "Asexual privilege" is an anti-ace idea because it argues that aces are better off/safer for being ace which means ignoring or writing off the ways in which that's not true Now, today, people are saying some similar things in the aro communtiy Sometimes this is explicitly "aces hold power"/are "oppressors" Sometimes this is more implicit/indirectly said I am asking the aro community to nip this in the bud before this idea becomes any more entrenched
  14. ..."Back"? =/ ...That frames it like there was some prior tradition of using A for asexual/aromantic/agender and then suddenly people switched to using it for ally, but isn't the A-for-ally use the older one of the two?
  15. I tried looking up uses of "aspec" and "agender" together and found this post, which defines "A-Spectrum identities" as "Asexual, Aromantic, and Agender." This post was made in the year 2015, so... that alternate usage has been around basically for as long as the term has existed. Wait, hold on a second... That post was made on March 5th of 2015, and yet warriorsdebt claims that xe and the others coined it "sometime in November-December 2015"? What? Yeah I'm just snarking about this time-tested pattern of like-- "Here we have a problem. Let's create a new word to address that problem." *makes new term* "Strange, that doesn't seem to have fixed anything." From my perspective all that's changed is that now people in the Tumblr cultural sphere have a whole new word they can foist on me and neglect to consider that not all aces might identify with. I tried to take an amateur "mogai" survey the other day, and the orientation question didn't give me any option to self-describe as ace, asexual spectrum, or even just asexual -- there was only "aspec" and a bunch of other things that don't apply. It's just a really weird situation when someone is evidently aware of the asexual umbrella and yet... still manages not to make it possible for me to answer the orientation question. It's not just stuff like that, though. I've also seen multiple posts criticizing "the aspec community" and "aspec spaces" and so on and I'm like. What do you mean by that? In literal, actual terms, what do you mean? Like -- is it only the stuff specifically headlined as "aspec"? So -- what, some Tumblr blogs with "aspec" in the url and a few Discord servers? Or do you mean that as short form for "the asexual and/or aromantic communities," in which case... why are you conscripting me into this concept? If I run an ace blog or an ace PF comm, is that now an "aspec space," now beholden to what you're saying about what "aspec spaces"? Both interpretations seem so patently flawed that I figure I must be missing something, but the problem is people keep talking like everybody else is already on the same page about what "the aspec community" refers to in the first place instead of ever bothering to explain. It's SquirrelStone, yeah. If she is, she didn't mention it.
  • Create New...