DeMorgan

What exactly is that set of letters supposed to mean?

Sure, but that doesn't make my point less relevant. I was pointing to an absurd conclusion of the "things don't need to be defined if everyone gets it" logic.

GUYS HELP HOW DO I CONVINCE MYSELF TO NOT PROCRASTINATE ON EVERYTHING?

That's silly; what if science said the same thing about gravity? We'd never be able to have GPS satellites!

Sorry to contribute to that, but I'm 16.

Ah, sorry. I missed it. I'd much prefer to eat poo-flavored chocolate.

WHOOT!!!

No black at all. My grey clothes are too important to me. Dark grey is almost black, anyway. Would you rather be Ted Cruz or a sloth in a zoo?

I would agree. No, because people tend to assume that. People would say "I'm [sexuality]" or "I want to have sex with [gender(s)]", but that doesn't help much as far as a definition goes. Consider a definition of "light": the natural agent that simulates sight and makes things visible. Does anyone talk like that?

I think that Rey has a thing for ball-shaped droids and that Disney will use the next few movies to give the droidsexual community some exposure. But in all seriousness, Rey's character is totally aro-ace. That said, the Finn/Rey arc is inevitable, they'll get slammed PR-wise if they don't do it.

So how do we get around this? We need some sort of explanation. Are we only identifying as people who don't understand the concept of romantic attraction? Surely we can't say we don't experience it if we can't even say for certain what it is.

Baruk Khazâd! Khazâd ai-mênu!

This may end up being bloody, but it has to be done at some point. We, as a forum dedicated to aromanticism, need to settle on a definition of romantic attraction. Soon we'll be designing pages for the main site; such a definition will undoubtedly be needed. The concept is intuitive enough, but defining it concisely in a way that the majority of the aromantic community can agree on has proven an unreasonably difficult task in the past, and has led to the existence of many similar but nonetheless contradictory definitions existing. I'd venture to speculate that this stems from the difference in perspective between asexual and allosexual aromantics, but I won't go any further without evidence. We should avoid circular definitions such as those that define romanticism in terms of "love", "infatuation", or any other terms that are generally themselves defined in terms of romantic attraction. Now one can see why this description's formation is such a behemoth task. The best definition I've seen so far comes from AVENwiki, which defines romantic attraction as "an emotional response that most people often feel that results in a desire for a romantic relationship with the person that the attraction is felt towards". I think that the use of "romantic relationship" is fully justified in its usage for the sake of brevity, but I would consider editing parts of the sentence so as to obtain the following: Romantic attraction is an emotional response that results in a desire for a romantic relationship with others. Given this, we can define aromantics similarly to the AVEN definition of asexuals: An aromantic person is a person who does not experience romantic attraction. This is wonderful and all, but it misses an important point: just what is a "romantic relationship" and how does it differ from a platonic one? I've never seen a satisfying definition, only people listing the traits that such a relationship has. Any ideas?

I'd much rather eat a snake whole. It'd be an interesting experience at the least, and is obviously preferable to being eaten whole by a snake. Would you rather be the letter H or the letter J? Explain your answer in a well-developed composition, using relevant and specific details from the excerpt to support your claims.

BEING ONLINE = AROCALYPSE. SO IT IS CLEAR THAT (SLEEP/AROCALYPSE)=1 BY TRANSITIVITY OF EQUALITY!

My favorite artistic impression of ice cream:

I'm listening to an old classic:

CHIPMUNKS!!!

GAH

FAIR ENOUGH

[REDACTED]

ONCE AGAIN, YOU SCREWED UP.

I FIXED THAT FOR YOU! BUT WHERE DID THE "FONTS" MENU GO? I MISS MY LUCIDA SANS UNICODE...

WHOOT!!!

Hit my funny bone; it's far less painful. Chocolate or vanilla cake?