VoidArcana

All I was looking for is an acknowledgement that what you said was poorly worded? And that wording specifically has caused issues for people. Every response I've seen so far has honestly seemed rather dismissive. A general attitude of 'I didn't mean it that way, so why is there an issue?'. You seem so surprised that people have interpreted it different then you intended, you keep asking for clarification rather then just, accepting that it didn't come across the way you intended? If you step on my foot, are you going to apologise for stepping on my foot, or are you going to argue that you didn't mean to step on my foot so obviously my foot shouldn't be hurt?. Establishing the intent behind the example doesn't change the fact that the example didn't come across as intended, multiple people have expressed issue with that, and Coyote has not acknowledged that. I'm not looking for an apology, I'm looking for the feelings, of both myself and others, not to be brushed aside just because 'it wasn't meant that way'. I will not be responding to this anymore. I have nothing more to say.

You're really not listening to my problem here are you? I've said multiple times your example came across as 'this is the only kind of aplatonic' (aka erasing other kinds). I know it probably wasn't meant that way, but that's how it sounded. At this point I think I'm also going to take a step back from this conversation, because I honestly can't explain myself any differently then I have, and I don't think I can state things any clearer, so if you're not getting my point by now, I doubt I can change that.

TBF, your initial response to Magni didn't exactly invite open discussion. I don't blame zem for stepping away from the discussion. I know there are many ways people use the word. My point was it didn't seem like that from your example. My problem was the narrow scope of your example combined with how it seemed to judge all aplatonics based on that scope. I will stress again, this is just how it came across to me (but also I didn't seem to be alone in that regard). I really can't make that part any clearer. Whatever your original intent with the post, it's come across poorly explained at best, and hurt some aplatonic people. As to your questions Yes, it can, depending on how its used. There was at least one aplatonic who didn't like the description and spoke up about it (aka Magni). The problem ze had was apparently similar to myself, in that it seemed you were defining all aplatonics by the singular description. However you meant it, it came across differently, and therefore became a problem. In this case? I'm going with erasure. In general? You'd have to ask aplatonics who don't use that description, because, as I mentioned, that's how I describe myself, and also I'm not involved in any kind of wider aplatonic community or discussion. I can hardly talk about how that definition hurts me if I use it, and I won't presume to speak for other kinds of aplatonics. The problem arises not from the definition itself, but when that is used as the only definition. Or seems to be used as the only definition. I mean, my problem was never the hypothetical allo allo aplatonic person. Any such person who chooses to use the label and feels it's important enough to want to try find a community based on that, I'm more then happy to welcome. It was the implication from Coyote's example that by default that just means someone who doesn't love their friends (I know I use that definition, but it's fair from the only one and from what I've seen there's lots of people who use more nuance then that), and that this hypothetical person had nothing to do with any form of aspec community unless they were some kind of aro and/or ace aplatonic, erasing the importance of the aplatonic label for some people. (and this is also where I get the 'mirroring exclusionist argument' problem, aka 'your ace and/aro identity doesn't count unless you're some kind of actual LGBT as well') Like I've said multiple times, this may not be what Coyote meant, but it's kind of how it came across, at least to myself. TBH it seems like we're in agreement here, at least when it comes to aplatonic people.

For the first point, I was less asking the same, and more providing my viewpoint in response to Sennkestra's comment to Magni. As one of the people who fit the given description, aka 'doesn't feel love for their friends', I read Magni's response not as an attempt to throw people like myself under the bus, but a request to consider aplatonic people who either don't use or don't fit the given definition. The other two are fairly on point however. Like I said above, I wasn't really asking anything with my comment. While I do use aplatonic for myself occasionally, I'm aware that not every aplatonic will agree with or use my personal definition (fairly well described with 'doesn't feel love for my friends'). I also rarely participate in discussions or keep up to date with conversations about aplatonicism, so if you're looking for a more in depth response, you'd be better off finding someone who is more up to date then I am. My personal view would be similar to how the definition of aromanticism has evolved since I became involved with the community. My personal definition is just that, my definition. I know there are other people who ID as aplatonic who see things differently, as evidenced by Magni's response. Your comment, at least to me, implied a singular way to define aplatonic, or at least that single definition warranted the exclusion of all aplatonics. (I'm very aware that the inclusion/exclusion is hypothetical, and I'm not here to debate it. Simply offering how your comment came across to me.) I mentioned being new simply because I don't have the broader context you're talking about. I came into this with a kind of outsiders perspective, so to speak. Like I said, I have little reason to assume either the best OR worst of people here, because I don't know them very well at all.

It might end up saying the same things I already have with different words, but sure, I don't mind answering some clarifying questions, as long as you're aware there's only so many ways I can explain my feelings. I also recognise that just because your pace isn't matching mine doesn't mean you're ignoring what I said, so for that I'll apologise as myself being over hasty.

Except at least 2 other people chimed in to say that they also had problems with how the statement was worded. If it was just the one then yeah, maybe it was a tone misread on their part, but when multiple people are like 'hey I have an issue with this', that might mean that, at the very least, the statement was poorly thought out. Instead of thinking 'hey, actual people who identify as this label I'm talking about were offended, maybe I should apologise and think things through more next time', @Coyote has been dismissive of @Magni, and ignored my comments. Not exactly something that makes me want to assume good faith. Whatever Coyote's personal beef with Magni, ze is an aplatonic person who took issue with the comment. That was never really addressed. I am someone who doesn't love my friends. I, as one of these people, think the post was worded in a way that says that's a bad thing. The way I read that post basically amounted to 'why should those people count? They've got nothing to do with me, so why should we include them?'. I've already explained why that bothers me, so I won't go over that again. I'm just wondering why people are so focused on defending what Coyote said, and ignoring that people were hurt by Coyote's statement. I'm newer here. I don't always keep up on topics. I don't have that much history with people, and I don't know Coyote very well. I have no reason to assume that Coyote's post was made with positive intent. Coyote's reaction to Magni really doesn't scream positive intent either. I commented on how the post read to me, and I was apparently not alone in my interpretation. I don't think it's too much to ask for an apology, instead of devolving the conversation into a debate about why we shouldn't be hurt. This literally could have been solved in a single post saying 'oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise it could be taken that way. I'll reconsider how to word it next time'. Instead it turned into a debate, and derailed this topic even more.

That's actually kinda why it rubbed me the wrong way. Saying 'I don't see what that necessarily has to do with me' when talking about 1) including a label in general and 2) including a certain combination of identities (in this case alloallo aplatonic) reminds me of both my experiences with exclusionists denying my queer identity because it stems from being aromantic, and conversations I've had where aces have refused to acknowledge my aro identity separate of (and having nothing to do with) asexuality. The example used felt a little more like saying 'well these people have nothing to do with me, so all aplatonic people can be excluded'. I can't speak as to the intent behind the comment, just talk about how it comes across, which, at best, seems thoughtless.

I'm going to chime in here as someone who does use description, 'doesn't feel love for their friends' (or anyone in particular tbh). I didn't see @Magni's comment as throwing me/people like me under the bus, but rather a request, from someone who identifies as aplatonic, to think more carefully about how that definition might affect those who identify that way, especially when coupled with the example of the alloallo person. In the same vein of not throwing people like myself under the bus when discussing this topic, lets try not to throw other people under to protect us, especially other aplatonic people. I'm going to be honest, @Coyote's example rubbed me the wrong way a little. It hits a little too close to the fictional examples exclusionists pulled out of nowhere to try and prove some gotcha about why aro and ace people couldn't be part of any iteration of the wider LGBT/queer community. Which, I thought, was Magni's point.

So much this. At some point when talking about the history of ANY community under the umbrella, you have to realise that eventually it leads back into similar, if not the same places. No label sprang fully into existence with its own fully fleshed out, completely seperate history. Instead it's a tangled web of overlaping groups, some of which may or may not have grown from others. It's messy and confusing, as much of life is, and you can't always draw those distinct lines of 'this is the history of group a' and 'this is the history of group b'. If you're asking for sources on aro history, you have to accept that some of it isn't specifically gonna be about aros, because of how new aromantic is as a seperate label, comparatively speaking. It's not clear cut straight up 'this is aro history 100% certified', but rather 'this is where some people who may or may not have identified as aromantic in modern times could be found in the past, and today's aromantics can find parallels between their stories and ours that make their experiences relatable to us.' (ie Golden Orchid Society or Boston Marriages) It's a little easier to find ourselves in the early stages of the bi community, because we HAVE queer elders who tell us that this is where everyone not gay or lesbian tended to end up. There's plenty of personal first hand accounts talking about it, as referenced by Tost above me. Queer history is nebulous and very difficult to categorize as purely falling under a single label, even with relatively recent history. Sometimes you have to extrapolate the information.

Not sure I can give you any particular ones off the top of my head. What I can give is mostly my own personal experiences and the stories I've heard from countless other aros, but IDing as bi first is both a common ace and aro narrative. I still use a bi label, despite not having a sexuality and not being arospec, because of my close connection to the community and my 15 or so years IDing as bi. From what I've heard from other aros, this is a common feeling. On that note, 'I feel the same amount of attraction to all' can be easily mistaken for bi, even tho really the amount of attraction is none. According to the discussions I've seen previously, it's pretty well accepted that people who would have been aces, before the ace label and community was really a thing, kinda just bundled themselves under bi, if they bundled at all, because that was the label if you weren't gay/lesbian. Is it so hard to imagine aros doing the same thing?

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? Yea the ace and aro communities have been very connected in the past, to the point where we SHARE the connection with the bi community you're talking about. The bi community housed aros when we didnt have a name, just like it did aces, and many aros (like myself) thought they were bi before realising what aromanticism was. You really gonna try and claim our shared history while ignoring it one post later?

I'm glad AVEN has been good to you. It hasn't always been to aros, and we're allowed to be wary of AVEN because of that. Our wariness of AVEN isn't a comment on you either, but you have to realise not everyone has the same experience with AVEN or the ace community as large as you do. I personally, as a aromantic who is not asexual, am uncomfortable with being associated with an asexual organisation, publicized or not, because of the experiences I have had with the ace community. This apparently is not an uncommon experience. Obviously I don't want Arocalypse shut down, but as people have said, this is a LAST DITCH option to us, because literally anything else would be better.

(Not going to lie, I finally made an account just to respond to this. Been planning for ages, never got around to it). I'm gonna say it outright, I'm not comfortable with AVEN running this site. I've been fighting for ages to try and stop people assuming my aromanticism means I'm asexual, and I don't think associating a major aromantic space with a well known asexual organisation is gonna help that. I don't want these forums to go down, but I think there is almost definitely a better way then letting AVEN take over.