Jump to content

aro_elise

Member
  • Content Count

    282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

About aro_elise

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Name
    Elise
  • Orientation
    aromantic heterosexual
  • Gender
    female
  • Pronouns
    she/her
  • Location
    Toronto
  • Occupation
    fashion design student

Recent Profile Visitors

6386 profile views
  1. πŸ€·β€β™€οΈ i like small bois. easier to manhandle. haha just kidding...kind of
  2. i have a squish on this guy i hooked up with and i have the classic 'what if it's actually a crush tho?' doubt.Β  Disaster Aro vibes

    1. El011

      El011

      im greyro and love helping questioning people so if you want to hmu and i'll try to explain what romantic attraction feels like and you can see if you relate and if this is really a crush

    2. aro_elise

      aro_elise

      oh no, i know it's not, he's just really cute and, you know, amatonormativity gets to me, but then i think about being romantic with him and i'm like, ew no.Β  same thing every time i'm sexually attracted to a guy and i also want to hang out with him.Β  but i'm as aro as they come.

  3. i like pretty guys, you know, delicate features, no facial hair. slim and fit (i love abs 😍) but not muscular. my own waist size of 28", height of 5'10", and age of 22 are practically my upper limits. i often prefer white guys but not necessarily (my fwb is from bangladesh). i like alternative guys and long hair but not important. personality doesn't play much of a part in sexual attraction, i just have to generally like their vibe. although certain talents are attractive. there's this cute guy at my cottage who's a great tennis player (everyone up there plays, i do) and watching his matches is like, wow 😳 also, they have to be comfortable with their masculinity. if they can put on a dress or like, jokingly flirt with a guy (or actually, if they're bi) i'm like πŸ‘€ we love to see it.
  4. i'm a bride for halloween (my mom's dress) and my best friend said i looked beautiful and she would marry meΒ πŸ’•Β i think next time i see her in person i'm going to ask her to friend-marry me (unofficial)

  5. @DeltaV alluded to this, but i'm going to try to expain it as briefly and accurately as possible, checking some sources again--forgive me if i'm not super successful. the person who coined the (translated) term 'platonic love' was not plato, but marsilio ficino, in the 15th century. he did base it on a concept by socrates referenced in plato's symposium: forms of love exist in a ladder/hierarchy where love of a particular beautiful person (which we can interpret as an instance of sexual attraction and which i would argue doesn't belong in a classification of love at all, but anyway) is at the bottom and 'love of beauty itself'--heavenly beauty--is at the top. according to ficino: "the passion of a lover is not quenched by the mere touch or sight of a body for it does not desire this or that body, but desires the splendour of the divine light shining through bodies, and is amazed and awed by it." i can't tell whether this vision of love necessarily excludes sexual attraction or activity, or romantic, actually, but i'd guess not. (also consider that romantic love wasn't as big a thing in society back then.) it is believed that couples of the time who considered their love an example of ficino's concept prioritized the romantic aspect over the sexual. in the 17th century the concept was called neoplatonism. james howell decribed 'platonick love' as "a love abstracted from all corporeal gross impressions and sensual appetite, but consists in contemplations and ideas of mind" (so excluding sexual attraction). some people found this pretentious, and relationships which included sex more 'natural'. later, platonic lovers were described as choosing celibacy, not necessarily lacking sexual or romantic attraction to each other. in 1846, george henry lewes defined 'platonic love' as "the love of a sentimental young gentleman for a woman he cannot or will not marry". in all of this it's hard to distinguish what we (particularly we aros) currently understand as sexual from romantic, and romantic from platonic. now, the casual way people use the term 'platonic' is pretty much at the opposite end of the spectrum of importance compared to the original definition. word detective alluded to this in 2003, saying that the phrase 'platonic relationship' "turned up in english around 1630 and various people have claimed to be in 'just platonic' relationships ever since. they are, of course, almost always lying." i myself am not exaggerating when i say i'm in platonic love by the centuries-old definition with my best friend, and i'm going to use the term even if it doesn't communicate what i wish it would. i remember this being discussed here before, and i agree. i refuse to call my current sexual partner my fwb because i don't consider him a friend--not that i don't like him as a person, you understand, just that i'm not that emotionally close to him, at least not as of now--i say we're acquaintances with benefits. as i mentioned in another post, my roommate has what i'm sure we'd all agree is an actual friend with benefits. the other day we were wondering whether there was a term we could both use for our partners and i somewhat jokingly suggested 'lovers' (as @Rolo mentioned); my roommate found that hilarious so now that's what we call them (not in front of them πŸ˜†). of course i have to come back to the point that i don't actually think it makes much sense since we don't love our respective lovers, or they, us. it's probably another word whose meaning has changed over time. no kidding, now that's funny. like "j'ai passΓ© hier soir avec mon sex friend"? my study of french has been too academic to cover that one. it sounds awkward in english, but maybe it wouldn't so much if it was commonly used. hmm, would i hypothetically describe a relationship as both platonic and sexual? yeah, because there are cases where i describe my attraction to someone as platonic and sexual (two different types which happen to exist at the same time). would i call it a qpr? man, idk, it's kind of hard to imagine having sex with someone i'd consider a qpp. i guess it's like the idea from so long ago, that pure, heavenly love, incompatible with sexual attraction. summary: language is...hmm. i'm just gonna go on saying whatever, you know? whatever feels right.
  6. only. to be fair i am also cisgender and heterosexual. i have a trans cousin, idk his orientation(s) and his brother is cis and as far as i know, straight. they're my only relatives close to my age--my mom's an only child too.
  7. i agree that you have to be able to look at a specific person and want to have sex with them (or some sexual activity, making out or whatever). and as @CharCharChar suggested, for me at least, that's pretty much as soon as i see them, i don't have to know them or whatever. important note: that's not necessarily to say you would in actuality have sex with a stranger, or even ever with anyone--just that you find them attractive. and if there's a gender you're not attracted to, in my case women, and it sounds like yours, @Robin., the idea of sex with them will surely repulse you. even if they offered me exactly what i want, i wouldn't want it with them. i have a hard time believing people who claim to be heterosexual but express a favourable or neutral attitude toward sex with someone of their gender...but what's it to me, right. and to your other point, considering how many people are not sexually/romantically attracted to their own gender, i hardly think they're all just dealing with internalized misogyny/misandry. those things mean you don't believe men and women should get the same rights, opportunities, and respect. as for the other types of attraction brought up: aesthetic is just thinking someone looks nice, the same way a flower does. like the way i think 'wow, she's so lovely' is quite different from the way i think 'damn, he's so hot'. 'she has a great figure; i'd like to get her in my dresses' (as a model--i design them) vs. 'he has a nice body; i'd like to get his clothes off'. πŸ˜† as for non-sexual physical activity like cuddling, particularly as you said that the same thing in a platonic context is "not the same," i can't speak to that except to say that some people call that sensual attraction. i don't get it at all, to me it's either platonic, romantic, or could be either depending on context, and that decides whether or not i'd want to do it. just as i'd like to go out for a friendly dinner but not a romantic dinner. then there's queerplatonic attraction, the object of which is often called a 'squish,' which i do have--to me it's almost like platonic infatuation, as opposed to the 'regular' platonic attraction/love one would have for a friend. oh, and i don't understand the "need to cuddle"--you know that 5 love languages thing, well when i took it with platonic love in mind, physical touch was last; i hug my friends but other than that it's like, whatever. but that could easily just be an individual thing. (quality time was first, btw.) well, i hope some of that helped.
  8. yeah i'm not sure it'll become a well-known thing in society, or any standard way, just individuals can do whatever they like. i'd like to do something with my best friend, i'll kind of leave it up to her how much weddingy stuff she wants to incorporate--guests, rings, vows, formal dresses, cake, etc.
  9. i'm hooking up/hanging out with this guy and he doesn't seem romantically attracted to me or do anything which makes me uncomfortable.Β  that's all, just yay.

  10. @hemogoblin has a point. i don't intend to speak for all heterosexuals, but i believe i'm as heterosexual as you can get, and i'm not attracted to guys because of their genitals. i wouldn't have sex with anyone with biologically female body part(s) like a vagina (or watch porn featuring any such person) because that's off-putting for me--i imagine it's similar to how sex-repulsed asexuals feel about all people/bodies, and i hope that's not wildly off-base. but i could absolutely be attracted to a trans guy with his pants on. and i wouldn't be attracted to anyone, including cis guys, whose presentation and demeanor were more feminine than not. for the record, i have seen naked women and men in illustration class, and that's different because i'm focused on drawing them; it's like drawing anything. certainly i can find women very aesthetically attractive. if in my fashion design career i ever have models, i'll choose them based on that, both their face and (clothed) figure. and again, i certainly cannot have sex with someone without being sexually attracted to them. i understand this statement was about people in general, and that it is of course physically possible, but i don't get how it could be enjoyable. yeah, that doesn't sound straight. when i came across your post the first time i did say bisexual. but idk man, as others have said, it's up to you.
  11. i suppose you could say i care, i mean i definitely identify as a woman. i can't tell you what makes me feel that way, besides my biological sex and upbringing--i don't think my parents imposed too many gender norms on me (they didn't know until i was born, so my room and first clothes and toys were gender-neutral), and they let me pick pretty much everything as soon as i was able to. i chose girly clothes, lip gloss, dance classes, books about fairies, dolls/fashion stuff (partly because i've always known i want to be a designer). some gender-neutral stuff too, of course. and obviously boys can dance and wear pink and all that, you know what i mean. and now, even though the life i want could hardly be further from the kind of life women were supposed to want/have back in the day, that just means i'm not conforming to traditional gender roles, not that i'm not a woman. now, the purpose of the following exercise is actually to differentiate individualist cultures from collectivist, but i thought it would serve to illustrate my point about gender identity too. the task is to complete the sentence "i am (a)..." with the first thing which comes to mind. someone from a collectivist culture would most likely identify themselves in terms of a relation to someone else, ex. "i am the daughter/wife/mother of so-and-so," while someone from an individualist one (like mine, canada) would name their gender, occupation, nationality, main personality trait, etc. when i did the exercise, the first thing which came to mind was "i am a woman." so i think that proves not only that i view myself on an individual level (as expected) but that my gender is a prominent part of my identity. *note: that doesn't mean it's the most important, just the most immediately obvious.* actually, i have to wonder whether those of us in individualist cultures give more thought/value to our gender and orientations overall, like how familiar are collectivists with aromanticism? well, that's a whole other thing.
  12. sometimes, like if it's relevant, like if we're talking about dating and i contribute my attitude or experience, i might follow it up with "'cause, you know." the implied end of the sentence being "i'm aro, so πŸ€·β€β™€οΈ". like my roommate was talking about the concept of eventually getting bored with a partner and i said "i'd get bored with them in like a month, but, you know." and if i say something like that around someone who doesn't know, i might tell them. occasionally with my best friend i'll talk about deeper stuff like my fear of my friends not having time/love for me when they get married or whatever. sometimes people will ask me questions, like my best friend asked me to help her understand demisexuality because she thought my understanding of sexual and romantic orientation would make for a good answer, and i kind of explained the ace and aro spectrums. but you know, there's only so much of the topic you can really talk about with allos and understand each other, especially without some preliminary lesson. like a lot of our discussions here, i wouldn't have with anyone else.
  13. absolutely, i did that as a kid. my friend and i even used to 'plan' weddings in a notebook, the season, venue, food, decor, like we were wedding planners. as for mine, it never crossed my mind to give any thought to my future husband (i knew i liked boys). i didn't think about the ceremony at all. and now that i know i don't want to get married, i still think about the other stuff--especially the dress, since i'm a designer--just idly, for fun.
  14. i'm always glad to talk about my experiences and feelings, tbh i could just answer questions like an interview. or like a narcissist πŸ˜† i'll make a post of my own if something inspires the idea. if you guys have ideas, by all means, post away.
×
×
  • Create New...