Coyote

Hmm. Are you sure? I wouldn't be confident in making the same statement. I'm wondering, for instance, if you meant "this doesn't really happen" or "this happens, but much more rarely," which are two different messages -- because for one of them, a counterexample in the form of (for instance) a nonromantic two-person personal partnership would contradict it, and for the second one, that wouldn't be a counterexample. More specific than that, I think. "Abrahamic religions" includes a lot. In a good chunk of Islam, you don't really see the anti-sex attitude you're talking about. Judaism I'm less sure about, but Jewish people really aren't renowned for anti-sex preaching so I'm gonna tentatively say I don't see why Judaism is being included. And -- fun fact -- even the Puritans believed that a woman had the right to divorce her husband if he wasn't satisfying her in bed. So I wouldn't categorize even the Puritians as anti-sex. Here's a compilation of links to people talking about their experiences re: sexuality in a few different religions, Abrahamic religions included. This sounds like an inverted claim to universalizing, am I reading that correct? In any case, I just suggested a book that goes into this. I'll pull some quotes, if you like. And so then what is "normal in most other contexts"? I mean -- you gave the example of talking about food and then drew a contrast. But we can draw a completely different contrast if we pick a different example. For instance, I could compare how people talk about having sex to how people talk about pooping, and then I could draw some very different conclusions. What I'm getting at though is that I don't think there's just some generic "normal way of talking" regardless of topic or context. It sounds like a part of what you may be getting at -- a part that I'd agree with -- is that sex is sometimes treated as somehow weighty or special, possibly something to have some degree of inhibitions about. Which, frankly, I don't think is inherently a bad thing, depending on how you're defining "inhibitions." To me, the word "inhibitions" is very broad and just means not being completely impulsive -- which I think is good, because I do want people to at the very least have enough inhibitions around sex in order to do some determining of consent. But maybe I'm getting off topic here. What did you intend to get at?

For any aros without a sexual orientation reading this -- I think "Something not listed here" could work in the meantime, but also, are there suggestions of what people would like? Maybe an option like "none" or "I don't have a sexual orientation"? Those parallel what I would say for romantic orientation when quoiro isn't given as an option. True that. For anyone else who's thought about it -- I also would recommend contacting the Ace Census team for guidance in getting the ball rolling. As their guide to the data [pdf] indicates, they've had a lot little of hiccups over the years in survey design that I think an aro census team could learn from.

Whoa, what? I'm not so sure about that. I don't have the same impression of there being such a thing as "online queer culture" with specific agreed-upon norms and values across the board. My first impression would be to wonder if people are talking about a more specific online queer subculture (like, say, their personal social network) and generalizing that as something much broader than it is (maybe because they just aren't aware of the counterexamples?), but I don't know. Just something I would be inclined to suspect as a possibility here -- especially with these examples. While it's fine for people to prefer certain online database/record-keeping setups*, and while it's fine for any given community to have a "off-limits topics" list, I don't agree with characterizing those as aspects of "standard online queer culture." *I'd also question the idea that more record-keeping = more safe, but that may be beside the point.

huh? ....Wait, are you saying that you think pair bonding is inherently romantic? Or that romantic attraction is inherently paired (i.e. "monogamous")? Or that pair bonding and romantic attraction are interchangeable, or...? What? Well, it was probably regarded as an animalistic drive, ...As I said above, no, it is inaccurate to start from the point-blank premise of "people demonized sex." When you say "it was probably regarded as an animalistic drive" -- who? When? In what places? You've gotta be more specific in order to make any sense with that. If you're interested in a history of sexuality, the classic place to start is Foucault's The History of Sexuality, Vol. I, but it hardly conforms to this narrative being put forth here. If normal is rare, I'm very interested in how you're defining normal.

I didn't say anything about Tumblr. And my impression is the same, actually. Don't look to me for advice on how to use that place for discussion, because I don't try. Anyway, nbd, was just a thought. This... makes it sound like you think aces are more untrustworthy, somehow. For frame of reference, I could take what you're saying about aces and make basically the same argument about the treatment of quoiros and grayros by aromantics. I'm not interested in actually making that argument here, to be clear, but I think the same kinds of evidence is there. A lot of it's even recent, too. For instance: There's the recent ace of spades accusations reifying the great divide -- and what that means for people who don't use romantic orientation. There's been multiple recent claims that queerplatonic is "an aro term" exclusively for aros and/or definitively-nonromantic relationships (example, example). This neglects the fact that not everyone involved with the term's earliest history was aromantic or wanted to map their relationships to the romantic/nonromantic binary. There's been the (now pervasive, apparently) reclamation of "split attraction model" for the categorization of people according to whether they "use the SAM" (example, example)... in a way that assumes you can split everybody between divergent rosol identities and convergent non-rosol identities. This has involved more generally treating differentiating-subtypes-of-attraction & identifying-with-multiple-orientations as the same thing -- which is a problem for me, a divergent & non-rosol quoiromantic who does differentiate between subtypes of attraction. There's even been this bizarre trend of splitting "the aromantic spectrum" apart into something that does not include aromanticism (example), isolating the "spectrum" as something that applies to grayros and other not-specifically-aromantic folks -- as if it's important to have some kind of hard line boundary there. The push for this kind of talk and the more general hard-dividing-line approach behind it has negative consequences for grayros. And now we've got this "oriented" vs "angled" kerfuffle, thanks to an aromantic introducing a specific term for non-axial identities & presenting that as something exclusively for core aro aces, unavailable for gray-aces or grayros, in a way that crunches what grayness even is. This is a case of an aromantic talking over gray folks about our own identities (which -- surprise -- can involve haziness and many other factors, not just clearcut "infrequent attraction"). Plus, as you noted, the wrong definition of quoi/wtfromantic is the one that is featured in most glossaries, including, until recently, here. ...and although that's a similar litany of offenses and widespread misunderstandings, I'm not coming to the same conclusion about it. It wouldn't have even occurred to me to ask how many people on the team are quoiro or grayro, let alone ask that the majority be quoiro or grayro. I'm more interested in reviewing what specific work they put out and checking it for fairness. But even if we were going to ask these kinds of questions/express these kinds of evaluations of what identities/what majority would make the best team, I think an even better question would be something like "How many people on the team are people of color," for instance. And even then, I'm not sure about that. I don't want to put anyone in a position of having to play the token aro of color who has to be the poc spokesperson, like Queenie has talked about being asked of her on panels. So like I said, I'm really unsure about and wary of looking at the team composition in this way. It's not totally off-base, I guess, but I don't think any given identity comp is going to please everybody, and what matters most is the results they produce. As far as addressing grievances is concerned, I think even the "best," most ideal team comp would be wise to solicit feedback before going live with anything. That's really the best thing any team could do.

...Dunno to what extent you're interested in suggestions, but if there's a topic that you'd like to see more people talking about and writing on -- which could be a useful step there, towards getting an even broader sense of what could go into a resource or guide -- then that topic could be a good theme choice for a Carnival of Aros. 'Course, there's plenty of room for any newly-launching project to be generative in its own right. Not trying to talk anybody down from that. Just saying, that's an option too. For what it's worth.

Can't be sure, but diametric sounds like it might get mixed up with diamoric.

Oh I'd hardly say that. I can think of some things that you might be describing, but I don't think it makes sense to describe them that way.

Mark has some good suggestions above -- but I was just thinking of requesting a different definition for wtfromantic, since the one on the lexicon page-- "WTFromantic: a person on the aromantic spectrum who doesn’t see the lines between romance and friendship. Any of the following may also apply: cannot define romantic attraction and therefore do not know whether they experience it, have emotions between platonic and romantic attraction, or want to be in a queerplatonic relationship " --looks like a copy of this one-- "Quoiromantic is a romantic orientation on the aromantic spectrum that describes people who cannot differentiate between platonic and romantic attraction, cannot define romantic attraction and therefore are not sure if they experience it, experience attraction somewhere between romantic and platonic, or want to be in a queerplatonic relationship. It’s also known as WTFromantic." --which Cor, the coiner, has disputed (in the above linked post). Here's one of cos posts about it and here's a compilation of links of the subject. This, for instance, is something I'd consider a good updated definition. I'm actually less sure about that summary of aromantic as a basis of contrast though, since I know aromanticism hasn't always been so rooted in the "no romantic attraction" definition specifically -- but @sennkestra might be better able to speak to that.

Oh, gotcha. And thanks! It does look all neat and official. :3 Do you mind us suggesting some updates to the glossary?

Oh, and that reminds me -- ideas about what behaviors are romantic-coded are, themselves, culturally variable. It's hard to find a source on this that's not racist though (to say nothing of how a lot of people writing on this subject seem to treat romance and sexuality as interchangeable) -- even this article, one of the relatively better I found, makes reference to categorizing some societies as more "complex" than others... A relevant quote, though: "But clearly not everyone kisses. In fact, in our recent study, published in July 2015, less than half of the cultures we sampled engage in the romantic kiss. We looked at 168 cultures and found couples kissing in only 46 percent of them."

lol, according to the Foucauldians, yes. Anyway, for charting a history of "romantic," I think it's worth noting that "romantic" (as a word) previously used to mean/has sometimes still meant something different than it does now -- more generally the sense of being dramatized, imaginary, highly symbolic, idealized, etc. and not just specifically about... kissy couple behavior, for lack of a better term.

Cool beans. Is there a reason why it's select-one-only, instead of checkboxes? Hence my concern. =( Which is also why I'm relieved to hear that @running.tally @bydontost and whoever else are soliciting input and dialogue along the way in the formation stages, as opposed to just self-appointing to call all the shots (-- and run the risks that come of trying to speak for an entire community without bothering with so much as a drafting phase).

Are you able to add to the navigation tabs up top? --those things that say "Forums," "Leaderboard," and "Chatbox"? ...Actually, on that note, it might also make sense to make the Discord server link more prominent or easier to get to, as well.

Cool beans. Since it sounds like some of your pages will involve definitions of terms -- I have a request to make. Will you please, please, please make sure not to define quoiromantic as "can't tell the difference between platonic and romantic feelings"? The linked post has some detailed information on its history and some suggestions for better phrasing. And more generally, I would like it if glossary makers at large would more regularly take umbrella crunching into account.

+1 to "Advocacy" being a good word and umbrella term to cover the rest. If you don't mind me asking -- is this something you've announced already? Do you have specific plans for what your website will do? Like -- is it a place for FAQs and introductory pamphlets, analogous to stuff like this and this, or something else?

I went and put some thoughts together yesterday, but it's probably a bit much for a forum post. Short version: looking back at what's happened to the ace community as it's gotten more visibility should be instructive to the aro community that "more visibility" does not make for a good community goal -- because "visibility" is not the same thing as "acceptance." I think the (in)visibility paradigm is like being prisoners in a shadowy dungeon and deciding, "well, the problem here is that we need to turn on the lights and be seen" instead of "the problem here is that we're behind bars."

Ohh dear. Um... no? Not necessarily for that purpose, no. I don't think coming out should ever be discussed in terms of "should"s. But I also think "visibility" isn't necessarily what any given community should be shooting for, either. I've been working on writing some reflections on the word "visibility" lately, but I've been hesitating a bit because I wasn't sure if dissecting "visibility" would feel relevant enough to anyone -- but maybe, looking at this thread title, maybe it is. If I said "visibility isn't a good goal to have," would anybody be interested in those thoughts?

Doesn't look like Mark's comment made it over here to the relevant thread, so I'm quoting it here: Although technically the "primary and secondary attraction" model* is kinda dated and I'm not interested in reviving/endorsing it as a way of looking at things, it's worth knowing that that's one of the associations that "tertiary attraction" might invoke for people. *sidenote: hey look, it's an oldschool "model" actually theorized and named as such as an intentional effort at modeling. A couple of thoughts on this. "Blur" would, I think strike me as too similar to some of what's being described in this post on greyromanticism and this post on graysexuality: "knowing you’re feeling something but you can’t be more specific than that," "vague and fuzzy experiences," "confusing," etc. I don't know if that's dissuasive to anyone or not, but more generally I would think of "blur" as best suited to describing ambiguity of experience, not... things going culturally unrecognized, even when clear to the individual. Oblique, I'm... not as sure about? Curious to see what others say. But also what I want to know is: What context are people looking to use this for? Like what kinds of sentences or conversations, where it would be easier to talk if you had this umbrella term instead of having to write out the list? I've got a situation right now where I guess I could use this concept, but I'm wondering about what other situations people are/have been in where they've felt this as a lexical gap. I'm not so sure of that. I mean... maybe? But I don't know. I certainly had a completely different impression of what the reason was.

Aight. Some of it's what I said above to Mark, but to elaborate: One of the writings by Plato I've read is called the Phaedrus dialogue, and it's written in script format as a conversation between the character of Socrates and the character of Phaedrus. First off, the tone of the whole piece is very uhhhh... flirty, between the two dudes (complete with a "is that a scroll under your toga, or are you....?" type of joke). In context this is pretty normal, since pederasty between teachers and students was the expected thing and that's basically the dynamic here. The actual content of their conversation is mainly on the topic of love and, abstractly, who it makes sense to get with (or "extend favors to," that is, bang): the person who's in love with you or the person who's not. They kinda go back and forth on this, but Socrates ends up giving this long poetic speech about how love (eros -- so, romantic-sexual passionate love) is "divine madness," caused by catching a glimpse of True Beauty (where, in context, this is also framed as basically a religious revelation), and that divine insight inspires people to bond and enrich each other and to pursue philosophy together and to soar closer to the Truth and... It is not an aro- or ace-friendly piece. So yeah, on a personal basis I don't like the word "platonic relationship" for friendships or companionate partnerships at all.

well the only reason people hang around in online communities is when they feel accepted, if they feel it is toxic they will leave. This seems to me like a false dichotomy, if I am understanding you correctly. I wouldn't have thought that responding to "I feel bad about myself" with support and reassurance in the form of "it's okay, you don't need to feel bad about yourself" would necessarily amount to "making them feel the community is toxic." I think it's an overall tricky situation, probably with no one-size-fits-all solution. I wouldn't expect every single person in that kind of situation to respond to a single message all in the exact same way. ...The one thing I'll stick by, though, is that I don't think a total absence of reassurance is necessarily the "softer" route to take, speaking from experience on the hurting side of things. I could all too easily see myself having gotten hurt all the worse, personally, if that had been the unanimous Community Response during times when I've spoken up about feeling broken. The response that I actually did get -- and that I can pull quotes from, for those interested, because it happened online -- was much more of what I needed. [edit: new thread for talking about orientation modeling]

I don't have much to contribute on this, but I think it's worth linking this post by James on that topic. That... sounds ideological. If it were me, and someone came to me distraught saying "I don't feel sexual attraction but I don't want to be this way," my response wouldn't be to just... recommend some kind of a "asexual but is unhappy with that" label. I think there's beliefs and ideas about worth and regard that need to be addressed there with far more than a label. Those people need reassurance and community support, no matter what they identify as. I see that as the ethical duty of both the aromantic & asexual communities -- to reassure people on issues like exactly that. I see. That's kinda what I'd intended for the convergent group, then. Is there a way I could change the wording for that one to better suit you (i.e. make it broader/more identifiable)? Note that I've gone and made edits to the main post for that section recently, although can't say whether that will have made a significant difference yet. Lol I meant in a figurative sense, like drawing lines in the sand, but I could eventually work up toward a diagram too, sure, once I'm more confident in the wording to go with it.

Huh? I agree with you on that. I would never call it that. Does it need to be labeled with a personal identity label? I'd rather use a full sentence, like "This term was coined and popularized by aces, some aro and some not, to be used by anyone who finds use in it." Why would it be? Sciatrix is wtfromantic and Kaz has a romantic orientation of "divide by cucumber." I am insistent on not treating them as simply "aro" when that doesn't completely reflect their self-stated relationship to (a)romanticism.

Seconding what @Prismatangle said about [concept]-adjective stuff uhh opening its own can of worms, I'm afraid. Also gonna throw in "relationship =/= romance," but yeah. That post she linked there mostly gets at the main things I would say about it, I think. Not that the aro community has to or is necessarily going to go down the same paths as the ace community in terms of how to talk about things, but to the extent that aros borrow from our language/formats, I think it's worth learning the lessons from our mistakes and intracommunity conflicts, too. Here's two posts from some of the more recent iterations of that tension, for the curious... although those posts are different in that they're not as focused on the sex-adjective terminology itself. I mean, to the extent that people want to have shorter words for longer-to-describe-fully ideas, I'm good with that. I'm a fan of words, just to make that perfectly clear, here. My reservations have to do with seeing the past results of similar classification schemes (which all too quickly turned into "everybody fits into one of these three categories" and boxing people into overly specific narratives that a lot of people couldn't fit themselves into) and also maybe a hint of generic Foucauldian "visibility is a trap" wariness here. (Come to think of it, that could be a good premise for another post, couldn't it... Certainly disputes the, uh, received wisdom, in some of the convos about community activism). Anyway! By now this thread is, I think, getting relatively long (ish?), to the point where it could be hard to follow or folks are too intimidated to join in because of how much reading there would be to do just to catch up and make sense of all the back-and-forth, but I'm still interested in assessing these four/five circles I'm drawing, with others' help. Would it be too soon/unwarranted to go and make another new thread?

There's also, for instance, cupioromantic folks, right? Who want to express an openness to certain relationships, despite no specific attraction? I personally didn't get putting that in your orientation label itself, but people do it, and it's not something I'm going to fight them on. And more generally, there are some people on the border line who choose between the labels gay vs. bi vs. queer depending on who/what they want to prioritize, I think, right? Although the ace and aro comms talk a lot about "attraction," it seems like there are a lot of other closely related factors, like desire and intention and cultural perception, that influence people's choice of description. See also that whole recent thread on a not-specifically-aro umbrella term, where it was mentioned that folks have been shying away from "greyromantic" because of unwanted associations (as was also mentioned on this post over here). I thought about the idea of an alternative suffix, yeah. Although it's not really my place to have a say on which one. ...Could be that people might not like the double vowels, though. Others' thoughts? Good question. I even thought about adding another circle for people who draw on both convergent and divergent concepts for multiple orientations -- ex. aromantisexual demisensual, for instance -- but I haven't heard from anyone talking about a relationship to these concepts quite like that, so I don't know if that would be useful to anyone or just theorizing for the sake of theorizing. Anyway, back to your case: That depends. I don't think there has to be a hard boundary between these things -- and also, I didn't mean to imply that people with a convergent singular orientation necessarily can't "tell the difference," nor that people with a divergent orientation(s) aren't whole people who can necessarily parcel out their intersections in practice -- ex. being a quoiro gray-a doesn't mean I'm quoiro some of the time and gray-a some of the rest of the time; I'm both at once, of course, even though I like to conceptualize them with separate names. But to get back on track -- I was thinking of it in terms of this: Are you more "at home" with the more common composite use of "sexual orientation" you see basically everywhere else, or are you more "at home" with the ace & aro communities' typical way of talking about sexuality vs. romance as separate, or do you not really care and go with either one? With this way of drawing the circles, I'm thinking less about pinning down an exact experience itself and more about just... what chafes, if that makes sense. Note: I don't want to presume exactly what you mean here, but in case you mean "SAM" to mean "differentiating types of attraction," as in looking at "attraction" as something that can have multiple kinds (and not necessarily a specific number set in stone), then, just as a note, the thing that I'm going to be calling that is "differentiating types of attraction."