Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by parodace

  1. So I think I've said everything I wanted, really everything. If you wanna continue arguing, just reread all my previous comments (because I see that some people don't do this). 

    The only proper criticism I received (not in easy way) was from nonmercy and I answered all the questions. 

    Guys, who came recently, you are really late. Yes, I know you think your opinion is really important but you just say the same thing as other users.

    Have a nice day and move on. 

  2. 1 minute ago, Scoop said:

    Now I'm even more confused haha, which question? Also I assumed my message would be one and done, which it clearly it hasn't been so now I think I'm just distracting you from answering the v valid criticisms being made. You can tell me which yes or no question the scale is supposed to illustrate and I'll definitely read your response, but I think I've said all I need to. 

    It' s a secret, you have you to do it yourself ;) Look at key words. 

    Well, I said my opinion, people continue to write, I answer to some people. I've never had such a big company, so why don't talk a bit. I just don't like saying the same things again and again. 

  3. 7 hours ago, kernsing said:

    IMO the graphic is perfectly understandable and pretty without the scale. I actually think it's more confusing with it, because I'm not entirely sure how it's supposed to showcase that everyone sees relationships differently when there's only one example.

    Especially since people who see the infographic are unlikely to read every word, it really seems to me that the presence of this scale would enforce harmful ideas about relationship hierarchies--that QPRs are "more" than friendships (untrue), and that romantic relationships are "more" than QPRs (also untrue).


    This logic is flawed. What if I said, "I used a racist concept to explain things to people who live in a racist society"? This seems obviously problematic to me. If you want to be a good ally to POC, you would not use racist concepts to explain things even in situations not directly related to race. If you want to be a good ally to people affected by amatonormativity--aromantics, for example--you would not use amatonormative concepts to explain things even in situations not directly related to aromanticism. The problem is that you are actively enforcing a harmful idea, and you aren't listening to people who have expressed hurt. I'm not saying you are a bad person; nobody's perfect or never harms anyone ever. I would just appreciate it if you removed the scale from the infographic.

    Well, it's your opinion and I have mine. The thing is, again, to explain something to user who never heard about aromanticism and these definitions. 

    Also QPR is really vague, so there's no true definitions. You can Google it and some sources clearly state that it's more than friendship. I just showed why some people think of it as a friendship and some not. This was the main message. 

    Again, guys, you exaggerate, most of users won't even notice it or change their mind. It doesn't work that way. To bring the real message we have to make another infographic where aromanticism will be the main topic. But even that may not help. 

    4 minutes ago, Scoop said:

    Okay yeah, that is a handy infograph and now with context I'm still not sure what the scale is attempting to say. Everything else has a title or a question above it, can I ask how you would title the scale?

    Also I'm sorry lmao I literally said "I think people would generally agree that there's no attraction towards strangers or acquaintances." I'd like to state on the record, your honour, that that's bullshit. People do indeed feel attraction to strangers and acquaintances. I personally feel sexual attraction, but since that doesn't seem to fit on here and I couldn't apply this scale that reads like a Least to Most Important Relationships guide to myself I started thinking real abstract about it lmao. Again I apologise haha

    Read more slowly, you will notice that this scale illustrates one of the questions. 

  4. 12 minutes ago, Scoop said:

    Ironically no matter what I open the infograph on the text is blurred and all I can read is the relationship hierarchy because the standalone relationship titles aren't lost in a mass of text lmao. 

    With no context I am curious what the scale is meant to represent. I can't read anything but the title of the infograph "Types of attraction" and the scale, but I think people would generally agree that there's no attraction towards strangers or acquaintances. And by the logic you've used - which looks like this is supposed to place queerplatonic partners on the ""normal"" relationship hierarchy - then I'd expect to see family on there. So I assume this scale is talking more about types of relationships rather than types of attraction? Except again family isn't on there and that's a ""normal"" relationship most people have. 

    If family were listed on the scale I doubt it would look so much like a build up of Most Importance Relationship from strangers to romantic partners. You could just move romantic partners onto the left side of the scale and put family at the top of the right scale. While I think a hierarchy is inherently flawed as they are subjective, you seem to be committed to it and I imagine that would change the tone. It would still imply that queerplatonic relationships are less than and probably make people wonder why the person on the left doesn't have any family. All of which distracts from your point. That seems to be what people are saying here - the scale distracts from your overall point and, depending on the reader, undermines it. 

    Wish I could read the rest of it haha


    You could find link to a better version and my explanation why didn't I include family in my post and comments. 

    7 hours ago, Atlamillia Pixie said:

    But that reinforces why aromantic awareness important. That not everyone abides by an amatonormative frame work and those who don't are able to have complete and fulfilling lives without romance/ romantic attraction/ romantic relationships. The fact that we can have meaningful relationships people without romance entering the equation is an important concept that people outside the community do not understand easily. Like @Mark said, wouldn't showing a lack of hierarchy in relationship types help establish this idea in non-aspec people?

    I understand that you have a concept that you tried to demonstrate and not everyone (myself included) has agreed with how it is represented in your graphic. But I have to ask and I apologize if my question comes off as callous, when you uploaded your graphic did you want input/ feedback on how well your message was received and how to present the best version (or at least a better version) of that message or did you not want that? Most everyone above has explained their take on the spectrum of relationship types and some have offered up an idea on how the variety of relationships types could be better represented.

    Ultimately, it is your graphic and if you choose to leave it as is, then any critiques it invokes are something you can consider or ignore. As a creator and a member of the community, wouldn't you rather make a graphic that furthers awareness and tries to facilitate understanding rather than misrepresent how aromantics see the relationships they have with other people and how people outside the community should understand aromantics?

    Again aromanticism isn't the main topic in the guide. The scale is just a tool, not a message itself. 

    People on reddit liked it, I met only one comment about scale, I explained and they didn't answer. Also some people asked what can be considered romantic (this is kinda vague too as definition just uses word love). Other users explained based on their experience. 

    It's not about aromantics, everyone can be in QPR. There are no mentions of aromantics but just aspec community. 

  5. 2 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

    I read what to say. If I didn"t, how could I have response to it? I may not remember everything you said, but I did read it and explain why I think your arguments don't work. Then you aswered me with the same arguments you used before, as if I didn't get it the first time.

    And yes, I did said you don't take criticism because basically, all you do is to justify yourself. I'm sorry but this is true. I don't see anywhere in your post somewhere that shows that you take criticism into account and try to understand why people are hurt by what you are saying. You get angry about and said we didn't answer your argument after @eatingcroutons did respond to your argument. Excuse me, but yes, that part made me think that you don't want to hear what we have to say and just ignore our arguments. In other words,that you don't take into account the criticism we are making.I have experience in beta-reading, and what you say remind me of some people I see that were not reading to admit they may have done something wrong and refuse to listen yet because they need time to accept whatwas said. Sorry if this was not the case.


    Also, I want to point how pointless the discussion is right now. We are talking about how the message can be hurtful, but you answer by talking about infographic technics. Basically, it seems like you say that yes, the message is amatonormative, but you don't care because it serves your infographic purposes. Maybe that's not what you mean, but that's why I get from your message. Do you confirm?

    I was just trying to prove my point and stand myself. You ask me the same questions, I answer with the same answers. 

    I explained couple of times why it wasn't such a bad thing and said how it helps for people to understand things. Because as you said art is hard. 

    Well, yes it's pointless. I again just keep saying the same things. The scale isn't the main thing of the guide and people outside aspec community don't care about amatonormative it is or not because they already live in amatonormative society. 

  6. 4 minutes ago, nonmerci said:


    Provavocative? I think people here were polite. They praised your infography and then express what disturb them in a polite way. Some people were less polite after seeing their arguments ignored, but that's part of discussion.


    Now, I con't answer everything because I already explain it clearly in the previous post. But here's some thoughts.

    That didn't really answer my first point, which was about how your decision leads your scale to misses it point.

    But I didn't say you had to add any new words so I don't realy get it.

    Nobody said that. But two things here.

    The person who will read your infography probably will be introduced to the concept of queerplatonic relationship for the first time. You are not changing their view, you are creating them. So yeah, if you present it as something between friend and romantic partner, using the ladder from stranger to lover and the traditional hierarchy so they can understand... Then yes, they'll learn that it is between romantic and platonic in the hierarchy. Though for what I saw people say about QPP, it is not the case.

    You won't change their view but you will confort it and add to it.


    Please, just don't say things like this. It leads to the idea that if people are hurt, it is because there are too sensible, and not because something hurtful was made.

    I already explain why "some aros can think that's OK" is not a proper argument. I've got a lot of things to say here, but I don't have the time to do it right now, and not really the energy. But at least, I'll say that being hurt is not an opinion.

    Also, why we have this discussion is because we thought you are unintentionally hurt the aro community and add to amatonormativity with your scale. And personnaly, if I do that, I will be glad to have other aros point it to me. Then of course, I could decide with my own consciousness if what they are pointing is valid or not. Sometimes people are just misreading.

    Really, it reminds me a discussion I had in the writing forum I am, about sensitivity reader and hurtful novels. One thing that comes out of this discussion is that it is really hard to discuss this calmly lol. But also to accept criticism on this subject. Because I'm pretty sure you are aware of how amatonormativity is hurtful, and that's normal that your first reaction is anger and denial if someone comes and says "hey, you are spreading amatonormative ideas". But one thing also we say in the importance of acknowledging why people are hurt, so we won't hurt them again. I don't have experience in infography, but I have a lot in beta-reading, and I can tell you : usually, if a lot of people interpret something one way or are hurt by something, then the way you did it could have been improved. I'm sure you think a lot about what your choice and work a lot on your infography (we can see it in the result), but it doesn't mean that you necessarily achieve your goal, and that's what this thread is trying to say. You explained very well your intentions as an infographer, but as the people we are receiving it, we don't get it. That's why art is difficult.

    I was talking about your comment. Because your part about not taking criticism came out of nowhere after I tried to explain the same thing three times. Even your questions show that you didn't really read that I've answered you the first time. 

    Again, I explain vague term with something that people know because even resources I used couldn't give a clear image of it  and why it's not considered just friendship. Everyone experience is different as it was shown. 

    I used everything I could to bringing information to people. You keep saying about some other ways but I don't see any. 

    Well, that's why I tried to keep the scale that way: for people to understand that. That's the point of infographic.

    1 minute ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

    No, but one scale can reinforce that idea. Especially when you're presenting something that is supposed to teach them about relationships.

    Anyway, since you're so concerned about presentation, I figured I'd put my graphic design degree to good use. Here you go.



    First of all, it's 4:57 PM where I am, I'm not going to go to sleep. Secondly, you keep saying you're done with this discussion, yet you keep responding- If you're so tired of it, why don't YOU go to sleep? Nobody's holding you at gunpoint forcing you to read our replies.

    I'm really talkative tonight, also I just care about your sleep. 

  7. Guys, go to sleep. I already have said that I'm not going to change it and all my explanations go to how art, infographics and bringing information to people work (it can be earned only with experience) or you just ask me questions which I've answered before and "it's wrong because some people don't think so". 

  8. About the fifth argument. I've already tried to make you pay attention in the first messages that there are no other types of relationship because it's oversimplifies. Most people know what romantic love is (even kids). Again it's how infographic supposed to be: concise and clear. 

    On 8/21/2020 at 7:47 AM, parodace said:

    Notice that there aren't any other kinds of  relationships on the scale. In my opinion they can be over romantic partner on the scale but again this wasn't the point I was trying to make.


  9. 6 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

    Well, as I said, I DID have something to say but I didn't because I had the feeling that you will react badly, so instead I shut up. But as you asked so politely, here's my answer.

    1. Principal argument, your scale is subjective.  And yes, the point you want to make is that people see relationship differently. And you show it by putting friends, queerplatonic and acquaitances at different place according to the characters. But, you position stranger and romantic partner at the sale level for both, as if for these two values it is not subjective. And ok, maybe for romantic partner people usually discussed it, but still, it seems that romance (and stranger) are somehow outside the subjective part.

    2. You could have put something else. Ok, but at the end of the day, you still put this, and the person who'll watch it are not in your head.

    3. You didn't know where to put it. You could have put it on the side of a character, as for the other. Or just don't put it at all. Why do you need something at the end of the end of the scale, after all? And the same thing for both characters?

    4. You decided to put this one on top because people share this representation, and you don't want them to be confused by words they don't know. But you explained what queerplatonic meant. You didn't need to put romantic in the balance. In fact, I was even confused about why you include it at all, I just don't understand how it helps your explanation.

    5. What you want was to explain attraction, not "aromantic culture" as you word it. You wanted to explain what it queerplatonic, platonic, etc. But if the point is to 

    6. It is easier to explain. Maybe. But then, what are you explaining? That queerplatonic is between romantic and platonic. Not something different, but something less. And also that friendship naturally leads to romance. Maybe that's not what you mean, but at the end of the day, that's why alloromantic will think when they see you scale.

    7. You don't explain aromantic culture but attraction. Then again, I don't see why you included a scale about subjectivity of relationship, and most of all romantic partner, something people are familiar with.

    8. This is your topic and your infography, if we don't like it we should write our own. Believe me, I won't use it; but yes, I am concerned by the fact that with it you can unwillingly spread amatonormative idea, just like I am concerned when I see a homophobic movie. If you don't want people to tell you when they are hurt by your work, keep it for yourself. Instead you present it as something to show people to explain attraction. Well, I am explaining to you why I won't do that, because I think it wil be hurtful.

    9. You talk to aro who don't see any problem with it, so no problem. Well of course, if you only talk to people who agree with you. And th fact that some aros agree don't mean it is ok. My mother say sexist things about girls dressing sexy. Does that means this is not sexist, because she is a woman? I don't think so. That's the same here.


    Now, as I said in my previous comment, that's your infography, you do what you want about it. I

    Well, you didn't have to acknowledge me about it and make provocative comments. I just thought when people shut up, they don't say anything. 

    1. I didn't prolong the scale because it takes place on image and explanation wasn't targeted on it. 

    2. I've already explained option with putting something else and removing completely. 

    3. If I put something next to the scale, it would have look completely out of place and fail composition (I know what I'm doing). Also again, infographic should give clear information, so I do it. I see it as the best option. 

    4. If I included more unknown words to explain my point it would confuse users reading this and they just will lose interest reading it. So I kept to explaining it through words and terms most people already know. 

    5. I think it just cut off, so I can't read the whole argument. 

    6. If I can change the whole person's opinion on relationship with one scale (that's not even the main topic of the guide) then it's something wrong with them, not the guide itself. 

    7. I included it because it's infographic, people understand things better with pictures and it's easier, so you don't have to write paragraphs (people don't like to read big texts too). Originally it was inspired by meme about colors. 

    8. People now can be insulted by everything, so I'm not surprised. I was irritated by the fact that we couldn't have a some kind of dialogue. 

    9. We're talking about subjective things. Some aros can think that's OK or just really don't mind it. Just accept that different opinions exist and move on. 

    Guys, really just move on because I'm getting bored from it. 

    24 minutes ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

    I agree with @nonmerci. And frankly, the fact that this infographic is intended to educate alloromantics on aromanticism is exactly what makes it so dangerous that the infographic does include amatonormative- And, if I’m being completely honest, arophobic- concepts.

    You’ve explained your viewpoint, yes, and we’ve explained why it’s not a good one. If you want to educate people about aromanticism, don’t get all butthurt when aros try to educate you. 

    Don't start with all that arophobic stuff because I'm sure aros are better than that. It's not about aromanticism, I said it four times already. You said that amatonormativity is bad, I explained that I used oversimplified amatonormative scale to explain things to people who live in amatonormative society. I think you just exaggerate things: people don't change their opinions because one scale showed them so. I think it has something to do with the fact that they lived all their life in amatonormative society. 

  10. Guys, this talk is going nowhere. Yeah, I know that amatonormativity is not a good thing but explained why I chose this scale. I'm not going to change it because nobody has answered my arguments. I've talked to other people (including aromantics), they understood my point of view and they're okay with that. Move on. 

  11. 15 minutes ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

    If you're getting the same criticism multiple times- From people who have been perfectly polite to you, I may add- Maybe that's a sign that your point of view isn't as correct as you think it is. The point of critiques is to help people improve and see problems they might not have noticed themselves.

    Well, I answered three times and you all still don't understand what I was trying to tell, I try to have a dialogue but it's useless. There can't be any discussion if you all just keep ignoring my arguments. "It's bad. Fix it" is not criticism, I explained why it's not bad and what purpose it serves.


  12. 3 hours ago, nonmerci said:

    Listen, that is your infography and you do what you want.

    But what we point out is not about aromantic culture. It is about amatonormativity. That the problem we have with the scale. Now if you don't see it as a problem, fine, but please don't call that "aromantic culture" because this way you are avoiding the real issue we are pointing out. Also, don't tell me you can't explain attraction without being amatonormative. I thought about it and find a way to do it. I wanted to write a long message about how you could improve your scale, and why it was problematic in the first place. But you don't seem to accept criticism nor be willing to listen. So I'LL stay with this message.

    Yes, it is and you make remarks on MY topic, I explain it. If you have nothing to say, don't write me about it, I don't force you to keep commenting. I explained my point of view THREE times why it's most likely the best option. But you all just ignore my arguments writing the same thing again and again. I don't remember when such thing became criticism. I would write how criticism etiquette works but you all will ignore it anyway. 

  13. 3 hours ago, eatingcroutons said:

    When you put relationship types on an axis that lists "stranger" and "romantic partner" as opposite ends of a spectrum, that carries a strong implication that "romantic partner" is the polar opposite of "stranger", and therefore the closest possible kind of interpersonal relationship. That implication is actively harmful to aromantic people.

    I think it's misleading and extremely unhelpful to rank relationship types in the way that you have, as though "Queerplatonic" is closer than "Friend", and as though "Romantic partner" is closer than anything else. You've done great work on the rest of the infographic but I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with that panel.

    I'm really tired repeating the same thoughts again and again. It's NOT about aromantic culture and its view on relationship scale. It's an image explaining queerplatonic and platonic relationships to everyone including people OUTSIDE aspec community. They don't wanna know what every aromantic think about relationship scale and make researches to understand the whole aromantic culture and its philosophy. It just explains attraction types in the most simple way, so more people could understand the point, since misunderstanding can be harmful too. The purpose of infographic  is to present information clearly and quickly. If I would choose another scale it will be subjective and misleading too and it just won't be the most common point of view. Every option is subjective and based on own experience, there's NO "true" options. The thing is that this implication already exists in society and I use this to explain things to people who live in this society. They don't wanna discuss their views, look at other options, they wanna know more about attraction types, the main topic of this guide and that's all.

    Again, this guide is NOT about arguing position of romantic relationship, if you wanna show world your point of view then create your own infographic.

  14. 5 hours ago, nonmerci said:

    Isn't it precisely why it is important to not put romantic partner at the top, to fight this idea?


    Anyway I am also amazed by your work. This infography is beautiful!

    Okay, let me explain my point of view in another way. 

    I don't put this as the fact, the image itself tells that position of relationships is subjective. But it's not about romantic relationship, it's about queerplatonic and friendship relationships. Notice that there aren't any other kinds of  relationships on the scale. In my opinion they can be over romantic partner on the scale but again this wasn't the point I was trying to make. 

    My priority was to make it clear for everybody (like this is what infographic is supposed to do). So if I remove these or put something else, some people would be confused, considering that they deal with unknown, vague term. Like I could put family on the top but all people have different experience living in a family. 

    Also as you and stoneandglass mentioned that aros would argue with that. But:

    1. Arguments can long forever.

    2. It still would be subjective.

    3. The guide isn't about this, it's not about aromantic culture. 

    And you know what all people reading this guide on the internet have in common? They all live in the society, so even true relationship anarchist aros would be familiar with society's standard view on relationship scale. 

    So again, if you wanna argue, do this but the guide isn't about this. If you all really want it and have something to tell, we can create another infographic about all this stuff. 


  15. 2 minutes ago, Stoneandglass said:

    I hate to do this when it's such a well designed informative infographic. But it seems like you've made the scale go from stranger to romantic partner, which positions romantic partners as the closest possible relationship between two people. A lot of aros want to fight this perception. It might be better if stranger/romantic partner were removed from the ends. I also noticed some typos but that's probably just nitpicking.

    I just want to stress that I'm amazed that you made this. I was impressed by your ability for design in the original posts but this is something else. What do you use to make things like this if you don't mind me asking?

    I couldn't find a proper place to put in what this scale is measured, therefore I decided to put these ones so people could understand what I'm trying to tell. I actually see scale of relationship differently with more axes but this wasn't the point I was trying make. Also you should remember that this infographic is more for people outside of a-spec community who isn't really familiar with aromantic culture, so it's just oversimplified for better understanding.

    I like creating things and aspec culture is really inspiring, like I've completely changed my worldview on some things. 

    • Like 2
  16. Reading and creating fanfiction give me some distraction and stress release. I had a problem with writing romance fanfiction because everything I did was awkward and I didn't feel comfortable writing it (so most of my fanfiction had some  romantic relationship on background or just none). As a fanfiction reader I'm basically "came for a pairing, stayed for plot" because even if characters are to ooc (out-of-character) but I wonder what will happen next, I'll continue reading. I don't mind reading really trashy fanfictions out of curiosity and to be honest, they sometimes give more emotions. Now with aromantic culture I found out about other types of relationships and it gives me completely different picture of shipping options. 

    About shipping real people. I have some celebrities that I like seeing together, not in romantic relationship but just doing some interactions or being dorks together. 

    The thing I definitely don't tolerate is when some shippers bully others because in their opinion these characters can be only with each other. 

  17. Hello! It's me again with another post. If you missed the first post, it's here. It seems that most of you liked new symbols and I added some more to satisfy needs of all aro-spectrum and aroace-spectrum. I hope I didn't mess up with flags (I'll remind again that flags may not make sense together, it's just a preview). If you would like to see these symbols with your own flag then feel free to dm me, I'll post it on my tumblr blog.

    As it was defined that romantic will be added, I decided that heart shape will match this one more than platonic. My next goal is to create some kind of map or infographic for people to navigate around these terms. Btw I'm still open for any suggestion or thoughts about the symbols. Thank you for reading my post!


    • Like 2
  18. 2 minutes ago, Stoneandglass said:

    I like the symbols. I like pride flag colors in the symbols to represent where the other types of attraction direct to. So is the idea that you put these symbols on top of one main flag? In that case I think it might be a good idea to also have a symbol for sexual attraction. Aces have the heart over the ace flag but aros don't really have a way to show romantic and sexual attraction at once.

    The other symbols look great. I can see them all being very useful to a lot of people.


    Thanks, I'm glad that you like it. The main idea was giving more attention to other types of attraction by creating and using own terminology and symbols to remove any confusion. Actually idea with flags just the first thing that I came up with. Yes, I think I'll add romantic (it will be useful for greyromantics, demiromantics, etc.) and sexual attraction symbols.

  19. Hello, a reddit user gave me advice to visit this forum, so here I am (yes, this is two posts connected together, so it's kinda a little retrospective). I came up with one idea and decided to share it with aromantic and aromantic asexual community.  I hope that you will find it interesting or useful.

    So I’ve been in aspec community for a while and noticed some things:

    1. People are often confused about aro/aroace community feeling attraction. Vocabulary just doesn’t reflect the true meaning of feelings behind simple and vague word “love”.

    2. Card theme of aspec community is awesome but only spades are basically used for aces.

    3. Fact that new aroace flag is literally Vriska palette made me to remember how card suits were used to represent different romance types of troll society. I also know that some people use its terminology in real life.

    So I thought why not create something similar for aro/aroace community. I don’t say that everyone has to use it but I thought that it can be useful for some members. I chose five main attraction types according to wiki (besides romantic and sexual ones) but if more is needed, I'll make some. I designed the first version of symbols and published it on tumblr (I'm not going to attach it here). One user said that aros probably would like to have their own symbols, I agreed and decided to come up with another version, with arrows as it belongs to aromantic community. 

    Why did I choose these symbols:

    Platonic: The arrows are circulating to show how people in this relationship care and support each other. The second version is heart and the third one is inspired by Moirallegiance symbol.

    Queerplatonic: It's three arrows (like >>>) in shape of heart as QPR is a strong bond and emotional commitment.

    Sensual: it's inspired by Mercury symbol (☿) because in medicine it represents the sense organs. (Also it looks like holding two hands together with finger crossed but it's all upside-down).

    Alterous: I've done more research and discussed it with some people. I came to conclusion that this is basically when you don't care in which relationship you would like to be with that person, you just want to be closer with them. So the symbol is two double-sided arrows crossed that looks like X and represents other four attractions (and I decided to give it meaning of a variable in math, like in some equations you can put different numbers and still get a right result, so here you come up with different relationships and get the satisfying result - being with that person together).

    Aesthetic: it's inspired by Neptune symbol (♆) because this planet is associated with dreams/fantasy and artistry.

    Don't pay attention to meaning of flags, I just want to show how it would look like. I personally don't suggest creating another flags, it's only a way to represent attraction. That's all for now, I would be glad to read your thoughts or suggestions, especially about terminology because I'm bad at this. Thank you for reading my post!


    • Like 1
  • Create New...