mewix

Aw that's mean even if he disagreed that's no way to treat someone calling them names

Maybe part is projecting and seeing that as something completely unthinkable in his mind. I think the whole commitment issues thing is over used anyway sometimes it makes sense as a concept other times I think it is used to shame someone for their choices/wanting to make changes etc. just because it conflicts with theirs. 

I can't say ofc because I don't know them at all but I hope the rant helped you a bit. 

1 hour ago, nonmerci said:

Usually for me, it will be more with tv shows and fandom. I get that it is important for some people, but sometimes, 90% of a fandom is just romance, and some tv shows only relies on ships and not on the plot after a few seasons, or will do unnecessary romance just because romance sells.

I can get it some fandoms are way too much romance like orientated much more than an original show ever was.

Some shipping is fun to me in the occasional sense to see what character matchups or whatever or even friendship groupings. But not the main thing no.

But there are a lot of things about certain different fandoms that are offputting for different reasons.

Too strict about cosplay or analysis (I know some fandoms be like that stripe is very slight the wrong colour xD), toxic etc XD sometimes fandoms ruin a show or media othertimes they can enhance it maybe a bit of both lol 

Not aro but there is the solo podcast by peter mcgraw talks about single living and alternative lifestyles and all that if that is interesting.

Also I googled it and got

https://player.fm/series/sounds-fake-but-okay

https://player.fm/podcasts/Aromantic

https://strugglebuspodcast.com/2018/03/15/episode-135-asshole-breakdown-extravaganza/

https://www.aokpod.com/

I haven't checked them out properly yet so lemme know if they are any good x3

Edit:

Aromance (w/ Ruby Lunt) https://open.spotify.com/episode/0rxH4TcK7SqLmSaIKtfEH5

Oh wow I didn't notice the frog earlier xD

https://aromanticquiz.carrd.co/

Dunno if this was posted before but it gives interesting results.

Too bad I am not in USA, good luck with this research sounds very useful

Wanting to snuggle I suppose? That is something that can be totally nonsexual/nonromantic even if in some cases it can be that too. 

There are certain ppl who im like ew or I find they hug too tight and its like aghh. I used to be quite hug adverse but I realised maybe that's cuz a lot of ppl dun do it very well, or some cases it feel unequal one person wanting to overpower another or the reverse sometimes.

But the ones do well are nice and a hug becomes a snuggle when you sorta chill out and spend a decent amount hugging, open with it usually with someone you know. I don't do it a lot but I know it's nice lol. Mostly I just do short hugs between ppl

And yea holding hands can be nonromantic/nonsexual for some people it helps them relax or feel safe. Or maybe a sign of strong friendship and such. Even a kiss could be, in some cultures that is very common sign of being friendly.

6 hours ago, quarterpast4am said:

I get what you mean, and I usually label this as alterous attraction. To me, alterous attraction is an emotional attraction that isn't necessarily platonic, sensual, sexual, intellectual, etc. It's just something different.

I don't know how to explain it, sorry for my vagueness ?

Ah interesting, I thought that was usually a term applied to something inbetween romantic and platonic or something a bit more than platonic but not romantic. I didn't know it could mean something more different to that. Yeah it's none of those really (platonic, romantic, sexual) though possible in some cases the hint of intellectual. 

(Bumps old thread..)

I watched this video I agree with a lot, but not all of it.

But things like no one is perfect, different people for different things etc are important I think. 

5 hours ago, Leia Williams said:

maybe aesthetic attraction? but it means that you find someone's appearance pleasing. not sure if that's what your looking for.

Hmm yea not really so much based on their appearance like that's a seperate thing for me I think, more how they act or that. 

3 hours ago, Aronaut said:

I think I can relate to this a little. I saw a woman, all clad in black, with colourful tattoos all over her body, she wore coloured sun glasses, has shoulder length red hair that was permed. She wore black leather platoon boots and walked across the street where I stopped my car to let her pass. She cocked her head in my direction and gave me that savvy smile that was less a thanks but her acknowledging the obvious for letting her pass. 

I know nothing about her, but I think I felt a deep attraction towards the confidence she had. It was far from sexual attraction. I thought it would be cool to have such a friend, I also thought it would be cool to be like her, and I also thought it was good I lost sight of her because now she would be forever that confident and suave woman in my memories.

 

Ah yeaaa this sort of thing like a sense of confidence would be one example of something that makes an impression on you of someone. 

6 hours ago, Aronaut said:

I came upon the word Sapiosexuality (for intellectual attraction), but I don't really know what to think of that one since it's usage seems so willy-nilly sometimes. I can't take it seriously when someone wants to use it as a sexual orientation because I can't tell if they meant it as a joke or not (no offence meant).

I agree, I also know what you mean I seen that too a long time back and thought is this real? I mean yeah for sure it can be a deciding factor. I think at the time this weird scenario popperd up in my head about a clever woman who went to uni to learn and meeting with an equally clever guy and talking geeking stuff. And the a Woman saying I'm only attracted to intelligent people lol. 

Yeah in my case I was thinking of something of the seperate attraction model, so not necessarily sexual attraction following on from it or being related.  I seen intellectual attraction as defined as it's own thing too, but then I felt that there are wider traits and skills that wouldn't necessarily be intellectual.

3 hours ago, aro_elise said:

like a squish?  or different?

Yeah I guess kind of squish ish yeah like wanting to be friends from them can often come into it. 

Tho not necessarily in all cases. That person can feel more like a teacher or a role model or maybe you inspire them a bit too. 

I guess im just talking about deep admiration for someone. I dunno I had these weird admiration "crush" b4. And it is not necessarily sexual or romantic.

Or someone talks a lot about a certain celeb and acts quite involved but not cuz a crush but an deep interest in or a way of life. In that case you don't necessarily want to be friends or maybe in some cases you do? But can't lol. 

I guess "girl crush" (I know some ppl dislike that term but girls and women often use it) describes it to some extent at least in some scenarios as it isn't necessarily romantic or sexual but usually an element of platonic I suppose.

Is there a term for like you just admire someone a lot for their traits in a way that attracts you to them? Not necessarily just intellectual ones.  I'm probs overthinking it lol

Not often but I love trying new stuff and the fresh herbal stuff is great

Yeah it can hurt a lot to be let down by a friend like that particularly one who was very close to you and you did things together. 

10 hours ago, DeltaV said:

This movement seems more a reaction to: making sex something that has to be analyzed in a critical manner, e.g. what socio-cultural forces and power structures influence it – including suggestions of false consciousness (“You think you like it, but actually…”) against people engaging in a certain type of sex. Not that this is wrong. But you don’t want to open that can of worms. Those people are simply nasty.

Yeah for sure, there is that sort of thing around. And demonising what essentially is people's free choice at least from what I seen.

I think as long as its just things like consent and considering wellbeing. And sex isn't compulsory.

But yeah anyways I think being sex positive would be a confusing way to say things even without thinking of the movement.

I don't think being asexual necessarily means you are disgusted by sex like just not having a sexual orientation to people or maybe a lack of sexual libido generally, though I think repulsion is included too as part of lacking sexual attraction.

Not asexual myself so I don't know exactly what is and what isn't counted as asexual. I remember one of the older AVEN definitions included something that might not be now and then there is a defintion drama again I hear. but essentially yeah. 

Play book

Dinosaur

6 hours ago, Aronaut said:

For someone like me who doesn't have all vocabs in place I find this word really confusing... I'm sorry.
To what I have been made believe, having sexual urges or needs are kinda natural to the vast population (althought I am not sure now lol) - should it even be called 'other'? At least I can see why the French call their queer community allo-... they made more sense? 

 

What about using sex-positive? Or is that not possible because of the sex positive movement? (Asking because I've seen this being used often while mingling in the ace community) 

Hmm I don't think sex is a need or an urge though for everyone. It's a want yeah, seen as a way of getting close and in some cases it can be involuntary (that puts kind of dark images in my mind :/) but I think in the cases it feels like a desperate need that is often driven by trauma. I guess its a need in the bio sense that some people need to make babies for there to be a population. But yea most people are not asexual ofc but I guess it is in comparison (and I guess now its stated what sense other is meant)

The thing is your sexuality and being sex positive is not related you can be negative or just neutral to it and it is possible to be celibate completely without being Ace as a lifestyle choice.

But yea sex positive is pretty much to do with the movement at this point and there is some pushback to some unintended aspects e.g. too much acceptance of non consensual/barely consensual violence in sex.

39 minutes ago, Agape said:

. So it's important to those in our system that experience sexual attraction that we can say we're alloaro

Yeah that shorthand is useful for sure and important. 

4 hours ago, DeltaV said:

The “other” of allo here means: towards other* people. So allosexual = someone who is sexually attracted to other people.

* It can’t be only directed at oneself. If someone solely feels such an auto sexual attraction, it would also be a type of asexuality. So allosexuality is a quite precise term

Yea in that sense it makes sense if it only means other people although the word is not quite so clear sometimes if you take the defintion of Allo on it's own. If it was defined that way more often it would help. 

I do still sometimes think of metal alloys and thinking so which two or more metals have been combined.. xP yeah makes sense. That does put another question in my mind if some "allos" do not have a sexuality directed towards themselves and only exclusively externally. 

28 minutes ago, Aronaut said:

I had men not believing me when I said I wasn’t into sex. Or relationship. They assumed I was playing coy. Or they straight asked me if I had bad experience with other men - as if that’s their problem to solve. That’s why I made that comparison. Not all men are like that.

Oh yeah tru I know some guys like that who won't take no for an answer (i mean not to the point of actually forcing you just like still continue to push) regardless of your sexuality such as asexual or lesbian (or I heard sometimes that one works I know some people pretended with it). Or even if you are just not interested in them or that kind of thing. They think if they do the right thing they can solve this problem or yeah treat you like you are shy. Stuff like "but sex is fun, don't you wanna try it?" For me it's complicated exactly what, I am questioning (I am not ace tho) but yeah pushing anyone to sex is not acceptable I think and especially if you know someone is asexual surely that is a boundary to respect.

28 minutes ago, Aronaut said:

And some people don’t even think there is another way of life other than their own.

Yea that's often the case for some people it's hard for them to look out and see how others live.

I think people can choose to use either allosexual or sexual whichever they want so long as people aren't forced into it and in many contexts outside we talk about the other sexualities separately so lumping them all doesnt make sense. Yeah at first I found allo a bit redundant but I can see the advantages in using it in comparison as long as it makes sense otherwise I would drop the Allo bit. It's weird I guess normally we don't refer to people as sexuals to begin with either but I think non-asexual sounds even weirder, though I use "not asexual". I can see allosexual being a problem in the french context though. 

On AVEN I noticed that there were assumptions made about "sexuals" that sexuals "need" sex which is not true or maybe this was from people who are sexual themselves ? I think thats generalisation, and I guess sexual can imply stuff like that, even someone with a low sex drive if they aren't asexual technically a "sexual". Maybe another way to say this is "having sexual attraction" but that's a bit of a mouthful lol. Like there was a sort of generalised vibe of this is what "sexuals" are like vs "asexuals".  But then again I guess still sexual makes more sense than allosexual in describing someone. Allosexual just sounds like "im not asexual". 

Sexuality can go up and down or depend on the person or gender of such someone and is not a need as such imo. And some asexuals seem to have sexuality but only to themselves or to fantasy, are they not "sexuals" too?  I guess the sexual concept does not apply in that sense.

I don't go on AVEN a lot not being asexual I only been on it vaguely a few times to ask some questions I had and browse (though im sure at one point I thought I could be). Still if it weren't for me looking into Asexuality I probs wouldnt have looked into Aromanticism.

1 hour ago, Aronaut said:

Back to my question: if the person or group who do not want the usage of allo is the allo group itself, it reminds me a little of the ‘white people’ premise where the obvious does not want to be called out. It’s like they have been in their bubble for too long to acknowledge that they too belongs to some sort of group instead of reigning supreme and being the norm. 

I think that's unfair. Homosexuals have been suppressed in many societies and still are. Like for sure I find it unfair that forms do not include an asexual box or such and the lack of sexuality or over the top saturation in society. But I think if people do not want a label it shouldnt be forced on them.

And gays/lesbians face a lot more problems like getting kicked out the house especially if their household is strongly religious this still happens. Meanwhile if you are celibate (regardless of asexuality) that is seen as better than being gay by far such as just being dedicated to faith etc. 

Allo is literally putting asexual as the comparison operator. As allo means other. So that puts asexual as the default. 

I have nothing against the term itself but I don't think that comparison to white people makes a lot of sense. And even people with sexual attraction are fighting against the fact that sexual culture has gotten over the top these days. 

Well been playing a story of seasons game a bit on switch. Also played a few things on steam overcooked 2 and a few adventure games and that ^^

Also if any of u got steam and wanna feel free to message me l to add me i'm happy to play somethin or jus to compare games or whatever lol 

(Old thread but yea)

I guess I don't fancy bringing more ppl into the world especially myself there are enough ppl anyway plus it's a lot of work and dedication. There are other ways to help the community or look after kids and ofc if u wanna care for something there are always pets.

Purple

I wondered what this was too