Coyote

And they've been largely getting away with it, from what I can tell. This would be one thing if they were just some weird anomalous fringe element, but they do seem to be getting listened to, and their posts merely strike me as the most blunt and obvious expression of a framework that other aros have been operating on more implicitly. It sets up a linear hierarchy, doesn't it? "Bottom" can only exist in relation to something else positioned higher.

Standard-bearer. Sidekick. Confidant. Associate. Accomplice.

Asexual privilege? Asexual privilege. Got it. Okay, here's some examples of what I've seen on that front: "Aces hold power over aros!" "allo aros are kind of at the bottom of the barrel in the aspec community" "allaros [are] literally the most poorly treated aspecs" *** Further thoughts on that point. Further thoughts on that point as well.

*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. I don't think that's an aro-specific thing. Or rather -- I get what you're saying in calling aro tumblr a mess, and I'd agree with that assessment -- as in, it's messier than just a baseline "people don't always agree with each other" -- but I'd attribute that (in part) to some additional contributing factors involved. But in any case: okay, then what are the factions?

Yes, but don't let that dissuade you.

I'm glad you said it so that I don't have to. What are we using as criteria, though? Asking because I want to know what other evidence would be relevant to bring in. I've got some links stored, but I want to make sure I'm not wasting anyone's time with anything not salient enough.

Wh.... Okay, I take it I didn't word my question clearly enough, because it sounds like we're not on the same page about what I was trying to ask there. Understandable, since the word "here" is pretty ambiguous and wasn't really emphasized. I will try again. Referring specifically to this Arocalypse thread, I've gotten the impression that (up to that point) the answer to "Are you ready to listen?" has been mostly/disproportionately a "No." If you have a different overall assessment of this thread, or if your impression of it is mostly "Yes," then -- in this thread -- what am I overlooking?

Interesting choice of topic. Since you raised it, I'd like to bring in this question I asked in February: https://theacetheist.wordpress.com/2020/02/23/what-would-anti-ace-problem-aro-community/

And over the past four pages or so, the impression I've gotten here mostly is "No." I think saying no one is ready to have that conversation might be an unfair representation. What I said was "ready to listen," not "ready to have that conversation," but this is certainly one of those areas where I would be glad to learn that my previous impression was wrong. What am I overlooking?

Well, since this thread has built up to a few pages now, and in case there's anyone else who'd rather skip to the end like Spade did, here's a very loose summary of the situation, as it stands. In the post linked at the beginning, I explained the context of QPR misinfo and then said this: And over the past four pages or so, the impression I've gotten here mostly is "No."

Sure. What I'm asking for is some clarification on what criteria the staff, themselves, will use in determining whether something is a personal insult.

Very well. One of the things I'd like to request clarification on is Rule 2b, on Personal Insults. Here's what the rule currently says: I think this is a fine rule, but I think the wording could be more precise, since as it stands, it could be misleading about how the staff actually intends to interpret and apply it in practice. For instance: Just looking at the text alone, since it says "includes, but is not limited to," I would have figured that this rule would also apply to statements like "You're irritating to deal with." Now, I could be mistaken here, but if I could read it that way, I figure it's possible that someone else might read it that way, too -- and while it's no skin off my back, I know other people can be more sensitive than I am about that kind of thing. Just saying, I wouldn't want a sensitive newbie joining the forum and thinking they're safe from those kind of comments if the staff aren't actually going to consider it against the rules.

@Momo so the site rules/terms of service aren't substantially changing, correct? In that case, can I request clarification on one of the rules?

Yeah, that's... badly written. Who knows. The person who wrote that's not really around anymore to ask. That's not necessarily how they'd all describe it, I don't think. For reference, here's some stuff on sex-favorable aces: Reflections on the Use and Boundaries of Sex-Favourable Asexual as a Term Living as a Sex-Favourable Asexual 20 narratives of aces who like sex

Point of clarification -- I think the "I Don’t Mean to Baffle You, But I Do" post was more about the author's own relationships, but before that, in 2011, they posted this, which specifically says "a queerplatonic relationship can be sexual." (I don't know why use the term "platonic" in the term then, but that's what they did.) So technically speaking, that's not a recent development.

@pressAtoQUEER Oh. I'm glad we could parse out what was happening there, then. Thank you.

Okay. That... indicates some preexisting concept of... components to orientation besides sexuality per se. If anybody sets out to argue that that idea was never around pre-2000, we do have that ready as a counterpoint. What it doesn't indicate, to me, is community history, in terms of people actively affiliating with each other on the basis of aro/bi identification. That's sexological history, not bi community history. We don't even know anything about the people who applied those particular models to themselves afaik, or if that was even used by anybody besides theorists and researchers. I can gather what you're saying if you're saying ace history = aro history, and otherwise... I don't gather what you're saying.

Okay. So you're saying that the community history between bi and aro communities is The Golden Orchid Society, a collection of organizations in South China that began during the Qing dynasty and existed from approximately 1644 to 1949, which practiced marriage between women (to women) and nonpartering/solo marriage The concept of sexological orientation models which include "emotional preferences" and "affectional preference" A Tumblr post saying "There was a 2 (or more?) point kinsey-like scale used among me and my queer friends in HS" ? I figure it's perfectly appropriate to say "I don't know" when one doesn't know, which is the thing that @flergalwit did. If anything, I wish people would take that approach more often. If we had a case of someone actively denying something/saying something for sure wasn't the case, then on this topic I'd raise an eyebrow at that too, to say the least, but luckily that's not what we're dealing with.

Okay. That makes sense to me then. I mean... I don't see anything wrong with this..?? Is that a yes? I can't tell if you're saying "Yes, that is the community history between the bi and aro communities" or if you're asking "What would be the problem with it if that's what I were saying?" ....And I don't want to respond to one if what you meant was the other. If asexual was a category used in research some years ago, then it can be compared with concepts that also appeared in around that time, but aro is a new concept and doesn't really have a 1:1 translation to a concept that existed. For reference -- and this is just talking generally about where I'm coming from on this -- here's an example of intersecting-LGBT-and-asexual-history that is arguably not relevant for "aro history" per se (and also more sexological than communal, but anyway): Bell and Weinberg's Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men & Women has some sections on an "asexual" subgroup within their "homosexual" research participants. This "asexual" label is one assigned by the researchers, and their criteria for it are pretty sex-specific, in a way that necessarily would have excluded people with higher/moderate levels of "sexual interest" or sexual activity, who would have been sorted into a different group. If somebody then extrapolated from there to say that this example demonstrates shared conceptual history for aromanticism & gayness, I'd say that jump wouldn't make sense -- and, if anything, that would be actively doing a disservice to the idea that aromanticism isn't inherently an ace thing.

That's certainly... personal testimonial. Which counts for something, sure. Does this mean that people exclusively sexually interested in one gender could get grouped as bi if that sexual interest didn't extend to wanting to get married? That's what this would imply. Do we have any personal testimonial from those people themselves? So are we equating "affectional" to "romantic" here? If.... you think these links should be added to my timeline compilation, I can do that. Is that what you're linking them for? Asking because I draw a distinction between "history" in general and "community history," and the reason I necro'd this thread in the first place is that Ax responded to "I don't know [anything] about [a long intertwined history between the aro and bi communities]" with "Are you seriously gonna sit there and say 'there is no denying that the history of the two movements (asexuality and aromanticism) is highly interconnected' and then turn around and talk about the connection between the bi and ace communities while claiming you don't know of any such connection between the bi and aro communities? [...] The bi community housed aros when we didnt have a name, just like it did aces." The idea being, I guess, setting aside the "if something's true of aces then it's true of aros" idea, that there's a particular history there that someone deserves to be scolded for not knowing. Is this... that? Is this the community history between the bi and aro communities? Do you have more?

From the thread-- ...huh. Well, this is being relayed by someone who didn't like that, so at least there's not total consensus on it. o.o?! People are telling people their relationships aren't romantic enough for them to call them romantic? You mean actively trying to police people out of using that category, too? Good grief. From the second link-- hm. I think the "and" there is ambiguous. If Sherronda Brown had meant that QPR = relationship w/o sex, there wouldn't even need to be the two phrases there, though it's also unclear if this means "[queerplatonic friendships] and [queerplatonic relationships] [which do not center or rely on sex]" or "[queerplatonic friendships] plus [relationships that do not center or rely on sex]" or "[queerplatonic friendships and other relationships] [of the kind that do not center or rely on sex]." For the third link-- Oh! haha, um, this-- @Ace_of_Spades7 I'm not sure if you know this, but Meloukhia is the coiner of queerplatonic. Here's the first usage that appears on the internet, in their Dreamwidth comment from 2010. I mean, that doesn't mean they're totally above criticism in how they write about it, of course, but uh, well, I don't think you can position this as a pollution of the original meaning when the original meaning came from this person themselves.

I don't see that as a problem -- which is something I wrote more about here, in defense of beginnings. Well let me know if any others cross your path. What I've already been able to compile on my own is here.

hm. Well, if you find any, let me know. I also keep a list of reference links offsite (based off the bullet points above), and I'd like to know about anything to make it more comprehensive. I appreciate that. The being honest, I mean. Take care over there. Well that seems... questionably applicable, then. I mean, I hear what you're saying there, but just because aromanticism as we know it here traces back to early ace communities doesn't mean that... all ace history is de facto aro history. That seems like just making the same ace-and-aro-inherently-go-together mistake that Alex (Jot-Aro Kujo) was just talking about. It looks like the only one that talks romance specifically is this part-- --which links to a Patreon post, which in turn cites this site (that I can't access because my browser gave me a malicious browsing advisory, not sure what that's about) and this blogpost, which in turn cites.... Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China by Bret Hinsch? ...Looks like my academic library has a copy of it, but due to circumstances I most likely won't be able to access it until the fall. Anyway, back to that Patreon post for now: I... 'm not convinced it makes sense to describe this as "aromanticism as a part of bisexual community history" per se. Or vice versa. What it does establish is that women who preferred not to marry anyone participated in the same collection of organizations(?) as women who partnered with women, and that's about as far as I can extrapolate from what I have in front of me. Although being nonpartnering may be relevant to aro narratives, and partnering with women may be relevant to bi narratives, this doesn't... I mean it's not like this is a 1990s bisexual org talking about how "bisexual" includes "people who don't experience romantic feelings," or something. There's more levels of extrapolation happening here than I'm comfortable with based on what I have in front of me.

...Well, I asked a question and then before anyone could answer the thread got locked, so-- @VoidArcana @Jot-Aro Kujo Same question: Sidenote, since I'm not familiar with what y'all are talking about, can I get a source where I can read up on this?

Sidenote, since I'm not familiar with what y'all are talking about, can I get a source where I can read up on this? I see. In that case, since ze's volunteering for the responsibility of moderation, I think now's an especially pressing time for Magni to demonstrate that ze can resolve the conflicts of zer own.